Bill Randall Jonathon SweetinDiane Steinbeiser

NC3ADL Conference - November 15, 2010

Learning Technology SystemsLibrary resources

Integrated Library System/Consortium of 46 college librariesCataloging services for 58 colleges

Distance Learning - Virtual Learning CommunityTechnology centerProfessional development centerQuality/assessment centerCourse & learning object development center

North Carolina Learning Object Repository LMS promotion & supportBroadband Data Network – 100Mbps base service$10.25 million budget & 10 staff members

OverviewOSC Moodle Assessment Report Part II: A

Feasibility StudyFeasibility Study results & recommendationsDistance learning enrollments: past, present,

and (a projected) disruptive futureFunding support for two LMSs

OSC Moodle Assessment Rpt. Part IIThe study focused on six components that

collectively defines "What is the best LMS solution for NC Community Colleges?" Interoperability and flexibility Cost effectivenessSupport and trainingEase of use Scalability, and   Sustainability 

OSC Moodle Assessment Rpt. Part IIA three-part research methodology was used to

measure and evaluate these six components.1.LMS Compatibility and Interoperability Survey used

to gather information about the general benchmarking statistics of the LMSs in the system, the interoperability of the LMSs with 3rd party applications and services, and a short open-ended LMS needs assessment.

2.Migration/Upgrade Case Study Survey to gather information regarding NCCCS colleges' (a) migration from Blackboard to Moodle and (b) upgrade by Blackboard clients to ver.9.x.

3.Total LMS Vendor Cost Analysis to review the total cost of LMS ownership by the NCCCS and the individual colleges in regard to vendor LMS license fees, hosting fees and any other additional costs. 

Interoperability and FlexibilityInteroperability was defined as the ability of the

LMS to integrate with related peripheral applications and services. Integration with SIS (Datatel) most importantMost commonly installed third party LMS plug-ins

were anti-plagiarism, communication and assessment development tools. 

Flexibility was defined as the ability to (1) easily move learning content in and out of the LMS and the ability to (2) customize applications to meet specific needs of the colleges or the System.Moodle is a more flexible LMS appearing to better

facilitate movement of learning content in and out of the LMS and more customizable than Blackboard.

Cost EffectivenessCost effectiveness was defined as the total value

of return on investment of the LMS. Cost Included: License Fees, Vendor Hosting Fees, Additional Fees

Support and TrainingSupport and training was defined as the ability of

the colleges and the System Office to be responsive to emerging technologies which enhance LMS utilization.The research revealed that 45 (77.5%) of NCCCS

colleges have fewer than three staff members to directly support their distance learning departments.

Ease of UseEase of use was adequately addressed in the

OSC Moodle Assessment Report.  Moodle and Blackboard were found to be

comparable. The real difference, however, was found in students' perception of their teachers’ comfort level with the application.  There existed a significant correlation between student rankings of both Blackboard and Moodle with the perceived comfort level of instructors when using either LMS.  Thus, student perceptions were influenced by instructor experience, training, and skills, regardless of LMS.

ScalabilityScalability was defined as the ability of the

LMS to efficiently serve both large and small institutions with agile hardware/software solutions at the macro and micro levels.  Findings revealed a trend for increased course

sizeNeed for massive increase in storage capacity

in next 3 yearsBoth Moodle and Blackboard are suited for

large and small installations.

Storage Capacity questions revealed a

massive growth in the next three years.

Average sized LMS-based courses was 20 to

60 MB but revealed growing trend of

increased course size.

SustainabilitySustainability was defined as the ability to

maintain a consistent level of learning infrastructure and support required to (1) meet the growing enrollment demands of students, (2) meet growing infrastructure needs, and (3) address limitations of funding, faculty needs, and support staff now and into the future.While researching the need to meet the

growing enrollment demands of students a startling discovery was made regarding enrollment growth.

Current LMS capacity across NCCCS38,000 active courses on combined

Blackboard and Moodle serversOver 300,000 active students on combined

LMS servers2009 curriculum enrollments delivered via

LMS technology are 37.8% of total (DL + traditional enrollments). 2010 enrollment figures expected to increase 14%.

Enrollment growth projections are mathematically disruptive & suggest needed changes in support and decision making.

Growth and ExpansionEnrollments, course size, numbers of courses, and use of LMS-related applications are growing

Interest in alternative or secondary LMS(s) is expanding

LMS status

LMS status…continued

Vendor hosting

Study RecommendationsRecommendation One: If the decision was only

based on cost, functionality, and ease of use, Moodle would be the best LMS for NCCCS. However, given the current funding and support situation across the System, and prevailing Blackboard culture at many institutions, a two-LMS Solution is recommended.

Recommendation Two: An individual or advisory team function to integrate cross-disciplinary interests to better plan, support, promote, and coordinate learning technology solutions for each college .

Recommendation Three: Adoption of Operational and Business Requirements by all NCCCS Institutions.

Recommendation Four: Continued Development and integration of cross-platform learning resources.

Disruptive Enrollment WaveEfforts to identify capacities of LMS-related

resources and utilization leads to analysis of 12 years of distance learning curriculum enrollments available from NCCCS data warehouse annual reports

Extraordinary 12 year growth curve discovered

New question: How can we project future growth of LMS-centric enrollments?

Distance Learning vs. Traditional Curriculum Enrollments 1998 - 2009

DL% of all enrollments

Traditional enrollments

Distance learning enrollments

Total Course enrollments

Year

1998 1.63 1,009,561 16,740 1,026,3011999 2.41 1,080,584 26,695 1,107,2792000 3.58 1,008,153 40,392 1,048,5452001 4.99 1,116,669 58,592 1,175,2612002 6.78 1,200,070 87,299 1,287,3692003 8.57 1,250,449 117,229 1,367,6782004 10.02 1,295,407 144,217 1,439,6242005 16.26 1,201,360 233,230 1,434,5902006 21.76 1,106,142 307,639 1,413,7812007 27.62 1,013,607 386,738 1,400,3452008 29.35 1,027,842 427,018 1,454,8602009 36.86 1,008,762 588,787 1,597,549

Note on Enrollment Growth in “DL”Enrollment in the NCCCS is categorized in

eight instructional delivery methods - SREB & SACS compliant: Internet courses 100% onlineHybrid (online is primary delivery method – 51% online)Web-supported TelecourseTelewebTwo-way Video Digital media (catch all)Traditional (Face-to-Face)

Distance learning is the overall general term used in referring to any enrollment other than Traditional.

Methods by LMS-centricity LMS-centric

Internet courses Hybrid Web-supported

Possibly LMS-centric Telecourse Teleweb Two-way Video  Digital media

Non-LMS-centric Traditional Face-to-Face

Telecourse, teleweb, two-way video and digital media methods are include in the following data and may not be LMS centric. However, these delivery methodologies only account for 3% of total DL enrollment delivery.  Thus, at least 97% of the following DL figures are LMS-centric and important to this study.

Distance Learning Curriculum Enrollments 1998-2009 by Delivery MethodDelivery Method 1997-8 1998-9 1999-0 2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9

Internet 8,039 18,330 33,901 59,316 90,326 119,096 138,565 166,197 200,746 245,642 310,058

Telecourse 15,047 16,234 16,928 18,685 16,718 15,133 13,595 8,663 6,192 5,186 4,571

Teleweb - 372 926 978 834 1,071 1,741 2,211 2,157 2,055 1,915

Two-way Video 3,609 5,456 6,837 8,320 9,351 8,917 8,681 7,476 8,516 8,300 10,058

Hybrid - - - - - - 16,221 30,116 46,404 67,409 94,239

Web-supported - - - - - - 54,327 92,689 122,208 98,028 167,501

Digital Media - - - - - - 100 287 515 398 445

All DL Methods 16,740 26,695 40,392 58,592 87,299 117,229 144,217 233,230 307,639 386,738 427,018 588,787

% Growth n/a 59.5% 51.3% 45.1% 49.0% 34.3% 23.0% 61.7% 31.9% 25.7% 10.4% 37.9%

Traditional 1,009,561 1,080,584 1,008,153 1,116,669 1,200,070 1,250,449 1,295,407 1,201,360 1,106,142 1,013,607 1,027,842 1,008,762

Total Distance Learning &Traditional Course Enrollments by Reporting Year

Exponential growth curve

Will DL replace TR Enrollments?Clayton, Horn, and Johnson, in their 2008

book Disrupting Class, describe a mathematical expression that sets conditions in which a new technology/innovation can eventually replace an older technology/innovation. 

These conditions form what is termed a “disruptive innovation.”  One qualifying condition stipulates that when ratios of the new-technology-compared-with-the-old are plotted on a logarithmic scale (vertical axis), a straight line is created where the first four to five data points lie on the trend line.

Figure 4.2 from Disrupting Class, p.99

Pace of Substitution of DL to TR Enrollments

(Logarithmic Scale)

Pace of Substitution of DL to TR Enrollments (Exponential Trend Line)

Disruptive Innovation in NCCCS!The percentage ratio of DL to traditional course

enrollments plotted over 12 years establishes a growth curve that is compliant with disruptive innovation mathematical constructs identified in Disrupting Class by Christensen, Horn, and Johnston, McGraw Hill, 2008, p. 96 – 102.

The 2009 ratio of DL or LMS-based enrollments to total course (DL and traditional) enrollments was .6:1.  However, enrollment projections based on the replacement curve indicate a 1:1 ratio of DL to total course enrollments forecast for 2010-2011, a 3:1 ratio forecast for 2014 and a 6:1 ratio for 2016.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Traditional Enrollment

Distance Learning (LMS) Enrollment

1:1 ratio in 2010.52:1 ratio in 2012.53:1 ratio in 20144:1 ratio in 20155:1 ratio in 2015.56:1 ratio in 2016

How do you know the predictions are accurate?It is all about the Math!These predictions have a .9918 R-Squared

value (correlation coefficient) - 1.0 being a prefect correlation.

Or 99.18 % chance that the correlation between

TR enrollments and DL enrollments is correct.

What does this disruption mean?This projection of LMS-based instructional

delivery represents a formidable challenge to sustainability of LMS resources facing NC Community Colleges in the next 6.5 years.

Areas impacted: Instructional programs Professional development & staff support Student services IT & network administration Budget & procurement Strategic planning & decision-making Leadership

The Next Big QuestionsDisruption is coming…and is likely to change

most everything we do!!Disruption will bring challenges in areas of

professional development, IT and DL support positions, funding, administration, planning, coordination, etc.

Can we manage this disruption?If so, how?

Funding Two-LMSsDecision to financially support two-LMSs announced

at NCACCP Fall Retreat and ACCBO ConferenceOngoing discussions with OSBM & IT ProcurementLevel of financial support to be equalFTE-based support structure not yet determinedFuture Blackboard contract will be negotiated –

likely a multi-yearColleges will be surveyed to determine preferenceMoodle contract situation under advisement

Discussion/Questions?Copy of the OCS Moodle Assessment Report

Parts I & II, the Feasibility Study are available here: http://oscmoodlereport.wordpress.com/

Bill Randallrandallb@nccommunitycolleges.edu