Course Management Scope Meeting

July 20, 2006

Agenda

• Meeting Goal• Define “Course Management”• Frame the Problem• Design Goals• Review Requirements• Scope• Solution Options• Decision Considerations• Next Steps

Meeting Goal =

• Decide scope of CM project from the tool side.

Define “course management”

• More than data integration

• User-based understanding– Expressed in goals

Who are the users?(personas/archetype users)

• Instructors (tenure-track faculty, language instructor)

• TAs

• Support Staff (tier-1, tier-2/instructional designer, local admins)

Persona - Sara

Sara McCloud, Tenured Professor

“Publish or Perish”

• Sara has been with UC, Berkeley for the past 15 years after a 5 year stint as an instructor at a community college back east in her home town. Even though it seems she is working 24/7, she loves her job. When she is not preparing for, administering and teaching in the classroom, she spends as much time as possible on her research. She co-authored the book, “A Human Perspective on Microbiology” and is currently working on the 2nd edition. Besides her teaching and research, Sara is involved in several campus-wide initiatives that also take up quite a bit of her time

off and on….. Goals:• Leverage previous semester course materials• Not to have to ask for help• Spend as much time as possible focusing on her research -- spend as little time as possible doing administrative work; she’ll delegate to her TA’s• Distribute course materials efficiently• Communicate more efficiently with students and TA’s (focused communication to relevant recipients)

Instructor’s idea of “course management”

• Course “administration” (people, sections, grades, etc.)

• Reuse/organize/distribute course content

• Enable communication• Delegate work• Improve teaching

Persona - Akmal

Akmal Taheer, Tier-1 Support

“LMS Problem Solver”

• Akmal has been working in the support and training group at the University of Arizona for the past 3 years. For Akmal, although this is “just a job”, he is proud of the efficiency he is been able to bring to his duties in supporting faculty and TAs in their LMS use. He appreciates

that his job allows him spend as much time as possible with his family in evenings and on weekends. Akmal is married and has a son, 4 yrs old and daughter who is 6. He does not have a shortage of family activities to attend since his extended family also lives in Tucson... Goals:

• “Clean” his desk by end of each day

• Answer incoming questions as quickly as possible

• Be known as the “go to” person for questions about the LMS

• Spend as much time with his family as possible

• Take care of problems before they arise to minimize incoming requests

Support staff’s idea of “course management”

• Setting-up sites

• Populating sites with people

• Setting permissions

• Modifying information

• Fixing problems

Frame the Problem (UI-centric)

1. Arbitrary duplication of functionality (e.g. rosters in various tools, worksite set-up/site info/membership)

2. Not all user-needed data is surfaced (e.g. student ID, enrollment status, course structure relationships)

Frame the Problem (cont’)

3. Workflows require hopping between tools (e.g. worksite set-up/membership, site info/section info)

4. Workflows don’t mirror the users’ mental models for completing activities (e.g. fragmented work patterns, course structures, delegation of site set-up work difficult (e.g. TAs))

Arbitrary duplication of functionality -Membership & WS

Arbitrary duplication of functionality -Membership & WS

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Multiple tool workflows -Section setup & assign TA

Design Goals

• Create streamlined, cohesive workflows

• Improve course staff collaboration

• March users’ mental models

• Expose and utilize existing SIS data

Initial Scope

• Current Sakai CM functionality

• Show “Oliver” document

Context Scenarios(User Research Requirements)

• Based on the environment/contrains of persona

• “Goal-directed” version of interaction

• Show Context Scenarios doc

Review Requirements

• The whole enchilada

• Show Merged Document

We made a persona-based scope decision for design

• Focused on Sara/Instructor persona– Minus Content!!!

• Some consideration for Support– Support gets indirect benefit (easier site

creation for instructors, no request & approve)– Potential narrow-focus admin tool– Not tackling Users, Aliases, Sites, Realms,

On-Line, Memory, Site Archive, Enter-as-user

User-Centered Design Process

• Where are we?

UI Framework Solution Options

• Descending order of quality of user experience

• Ascending order of changes to current

• Can mix and match, but these are our recommendations...

The “Lexus”• My Sites (new, replaces Worksite-Set-Up in My

Workspace)– Shows list of sites– New site creation workflow– Join/Un-join Sites (was Membership)

• Home (new, in site)– Supports “checklist” for site organization and

population– Displays course data in structured way (was Gap 42,

“structured homepage”)

The “Lexus” (cont’)

• Site Manager (new, replaces Site & Section Info in site)– Edit site– Edit people and manual section set-up

• Roster (new or reworked, in site)– Support new SIS data (ID, enrollment

status, etc.)

The “Lexus” (cont’)

• Support Admin Tool (new or reworked, in Admin Workspace)– Site navigator/search (by school/dept.,

instructor, term, etc.)– Edit Site– Edit People – Can scope level of admin (Local

Admin/Dept. Admin)

Creating a Course SiteNew Workflow

Lexus• Pros

– Meets all Goals– Improves 1st impression of Sakai – Checklist allows

• Better collaboration• Self-paced guide for site setup (vs wizard)• Setup to be done in chunks of time

– Integrates join & unjoin functionality into user’s list of sites– 1 tool for all instructor administration

• Cons– More time & resource intensive over other alternatives

The “Accord”

• Worksite-Set-Up (reworked, My Workspace)– New site creation workflow

• Home (new, in site)– Supports “checklist” for site organization

and population– Displays course data in structured way

(was Gap 42, “structured homepage”)

The “Accord” (cont’)

• Site & Section Info (reworked, no A/C)– Site Info stays the same– Add TAs to Section Info

• Site & Section Info (reworked, with A/C)– Site Info becomes Site Manager

• (-) Add Participants• (-) Manage Groups• (-) Edit Class Rosters

The “Accord” (cont’)

– Section Info becomes User Manager• (+) Add Participants• (+) Manage Groups• (+) Edit Class Rosters (including sections & x-

listings)

• Roster (new or reworked, in site)– Support new SIS data (ID, enrollment

status, etc.)

• Pros – Meets 4 1/2 of 5 goals

• Site structures represented • Only 1 tool required for assigning TAs to sections• Allows TAs to bulk of site setup• Checklist leads users into section management• More streamlined and cohesive than current

– Checklist allows• Better collaboration• Self-paced guide for site setup (vs wizard)• Setup to be done in chunks of time

– w/ AC option better chunks like-functionality

• Cons– Fairly resource intensive– Site creation process implemented in velocity tool– User and site management a bit fuzzy for completely different tools

Accord

The “Pinto”

• Worksite-Set-Up (reworked, My Workspace)– Insert course structures (sections & cross-

listings) in current workflow

• Section Info (reworked)– Add TAs

Creating a Course SiteCurrent Workflow

+ course structures (sections & x-listings)

• Pros – Meets 2 of 5 goals

• Site structures represented • Only 1 tool required for assigning TAs to sections

– Minimal implementation complexity & political repercussions• Limited development in velocity tool (WS)• Development in Section Info (“owned” by UCB)

• Cons– Duplication of “adding TA” functionality – Doesn’t help faculty and TAs collaborate on site setup (TAs do bulk

of work)– Many steps to set up site (work for faculty before delegating to TA)– Disconnect between creating site and creating sections

Pinto

Let’s make a decision!

Decision Considerations

• SU & UCB priorities

• Time and resources

• Velocity vs JSF tools

• Usability of existing tools/Design Goals

• Politics

Stanford and UC-Berkeley Priorities (new functionality)

Stanford• Course structures

(sections, x-listing)• Dept./Local Admin• Auto-populate (now

instructor self-serve) sites

UC-Berkeley• Course structures

(sections, x-listing)• ID, enrollment

status, pictures

Where do we go from here?

• Duffy says:– What about staging? Not monolith– It’s community source...it should be hard– Need short-term results

• For SU & UCB• Also for community buy-in