Child pages
  • WCET Concall May 18th at 1pm
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Participants:

  • UMO: Pat, Ken, Jen
  • WCET/EduTools: Molly McGill, Russ Poulin (original creator of edutools), Ellen Wagner (executive director)

Background:

Discussion re: Developing digital repository / library of user stories (from UMO)

Pat provided background of edutools:

Edutools were consistently cited in LMS evals and tapered off in 2007-2008. Now with UMO review, came to conclusion (anedoctally) that a lot of LMS have similar functionality. Feature comparison isn’t at useful for subset of functions. Discussion forums, can you sort by name, date, thread, # responses. Can it search? Etc. fine grained functionality not dictating decision making (but possibly should impact). Goal was to get away from feature to feature comparisons as they are becoming less valuable. Descriptions of uses, technology independent. Agile methods of functional requirements. How users are using the system (functionality vs. system).

User stories provided to vendors? Yes, submitted as part of RFP and vendors required to provide user acceptance. 7 campuses plus UMO (all done independently) developed. Rank as to expectations (meets, beats, etc.) that can then be ranked. Testing script.

Example:

https://confluence.umassonline.net/display/LPR/Welcome+-+glad+you+joined+us!

How many user stories do you have in your collection? Approx 300.

Vendor response: they responded to all 300 user stories.

Vendors replied: Canvas, Desire2Learn, Learn, Blackboard, etc

Didn’t give vendors features list. Russ, things that may be implied in short descriptions within user stories.

User story doesn’t replace everything of the left. On left is what you would see in a typical RFP. All those things don’t necessarily apply to that user story.

Molly: 1. UMO interest in having this great work continue, expand and utilized by other HE institutions. 2. Vendor responses and their interest was interesting and would like to know more about.

PM: Better process for matching teaching and learning styles to capture and assess in their evaluation. Instructions and how to’s for assistance with training, documentation, help desk. Work already pre-populated. Helps with instructional design and functional requirements.

Contribute back to the community and provide service to others. Technology independent. User stories outlive the technology.

Community colleges, state 2-4 year institutions plus medical school/center.

Fully and blended, web-enhanced

Pretty good representation of how folks are teaching online

Vendor response: very positive, looked at it as a real way to highlight the functionality of their systems.

Ken: Open BRR (M. Feldstein, writing report for borderless education, proprietary education). Support company like rSmart, Moodlerooms, would step up and do this and didn’t. Information that led to securing more contracts, you’d think they’d want to be a part of that.

Biz Model: really centered around hosting/support. Investment was too great a risk because we hadn’t picked a platform. Real testament to them being party and working with a community. Testing scripts is no different than contributing code.

Ellen: asking them to be transparent shares competitive information. Resistance is less about sharing, but they still compete and want to be mindful of that too. Funding to develop edutools carried through to 2007, then took a focus outside of this direction. Looking to bring it back. Important enough to do well. Sounds like you are looking for someone to buy it off you.

PM: would like to develop a community of practice. Not to be bought, but shared, extended and built and share…build more community. Library that reflects current teaching and learning activities. Looking for edutools concept of a repository / location for this type of assessment. Methodology should change. Recommending, offering up our approach…using the work done by 15 campus consortium. Hapy to contribute. If no one else is interested, we’ll make available anyway. JISC is also interested in contributing on our level of resources. Collaboration effort. EduTools has brand recognition not what it once was. Using this approach, we’d be happy to support.

Ellen: great news.

Ken: we have been at this for extended period of time, and realize the benefits of the work sloan, wcet has done. Way for practitioner (value in assets), authentic. Interested in sharing.

Ellen: EduTools was crown jewel, renewed focus, cooperative services pointing back in this direction.

Molly: would be terrific collaboration. New design of edutools, feature to feature passé. Essential questions categorized by logical groupings. Info from about 8-10 vendors in this arena. Website is not live. LMS, Student ID tools, remote proctoring tools. Unfunded project. Our attempt to breathe life in some modest way back into edutools. Don’t have dedicated staff to manage edutools. Bringing in-house to drupal platform. Wanted simple, straightforward design to enable commenting. No ideas how to pull the content into edutools.

Ellen: point of mutual and shared interest to see what it might take. Community based national resource.

PM: National profile, recognizing as respected and authority. Not just lms evaluation tool.

Funding to identify functional requirements, focus groups material? Self-supporting, cost recovery? Possibilities. Exposure.

Co-branding? Partnerships? New site? Who manages? Operations support?

  • No labels