Web Based Course Management Tools 
-- Pilot Study Project Summary


 
REPORTS:
    Summary Report

    Technical Question Responses
       WebCT
       BlackBoard

 Information on WebCT pilot implementation.
 

 
 


BACKGROUND:
Course Management Systems are integrated software packages for creating, managing, updating, and archiving course web pages, class records and databases.  They typically provide testing and grading functions, and support student communication and collaboration.

The LEAD project (1999-March 2000, http://lead.ucdavis.edu) made the following findings:
· Faculty survey results indicated that faculty would value web-based tools for placing course materials on-line.
· LEAD courseware team found that the top two mature, viable, and commercially available course management systems were CourseInfo and WebCT.
· A pilot project should be implemented to determine whether either of these software options would fit the campus needs.

OVERALL QUESTIONS FOR PILOT:
1. Should UC Davis implement a course management system (CMS)?

· What is required in terms of faculty time, to develop a course using a course management system?
· What are the resources and support structures needed for publishing information into a course management system, and for using the system?
· What are the benefits of using a course management system?
· What are the trade-offs in supporting do-it-yourself course web sites vs web-based CMS?
2. If a course management system is demonstrated to be of benefit, how should such a system be implemented?
· Installed on a central server with support from Information Technology, and integrated with other campus systems (Banner, MyUCDavis)?
· Individual departmental or unit installations?
· Hybrid?
· What support structures are necessary to support each of these implementations?
· What would the cost to the campus be to implement each of these alternatives?
3. If a course management system is developed or obtained, should it be an integrated solution or a component-based system (individual tools either developed or purchased, and integrated with middleware)?

4. If an integrated course management system were purchased, which one should it be? Evaluation criteria include:

· Functionality
· Ease of publishing and use (student, faculty, and system/site administrator tool sets)
· Reliability, Flexibility, Scalability, Extensibility
· Distributed architecture
· [e.g., server to server integration, campus-wide (student) viewpoint, interoperability (IMS conformance), integration/leveraging of existing campus infrastructure (authentication. Authorization, SIS, MyUCDavis), file import/export; database structure and ODBC compliance)
· Effect on pedagogy (teaching and learning)
· Company characteristics (market strength, size, age, etc.)
COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PILOT PROJECT STATUS:
A 1-quarter pilot project to put the software options into the hands of a small number of faculty, students and support staff was originally planned (and funded) as part of the LEAD project, was further developed in Fall-Winter 2000 by Faust Gorham of the Center for Advanced Information Technology and Victoria Cross of the Teaching Resources Center; however initiation of the pilot was delayed until Spring quarter due to CAIT personnel turnover.

PURPOSES OF PILOT PROJECT:
1) Determine which course management system (WebCT or CourseInfo) would provide the most appropriate support for UC Davis courses.
2) Determine which course management system (WebCT or CourseInfo) is preferred by UC Davis faculty, students and technical support staff.
3) Determine the support and infrastructures necessary to use these course management systems.
4) Closely evaluate the underlying architectures of the course management systems.
3) Investigate the feasibility of implementing course management systems at the UCDavis campus, and interfacing these systems with other campus systems (e.g., Banner).

PILOT PROJECT ISSUES/ROLES
· Victoria Cross’ roles: Project coordinator, vendor liaison, coordinate end user support and training with participating TSC’s, plan and conduct evaluation
· Memoranda of understanding from pilot participants (roles and expectations for each participant, vendor communications, no 24x7 support, evaluation plan, support arrangements–faculty, students, and technical support staff; functions to be tested, functions not to be tested (e.g., absent 24x7 support, time-specific quizzes, gradebook not dependable)
· Outstanding:
· Account management (generation of class rosters from Banner/SIS database)
 

OTHER INFORMATION AND MATERIALS::
Faculty and Support Staff Participants Team Members and Responsibilities
Calendar and Events Evaluation Plan

CHECK OUT THE PRODUCTS:
WebCT see screen shots http://about.webct.com
CourseInfo see screen shots http://company.blackboard.com/Bb/index.html
(choose demo)

COMPARISONS AND OTHER USERS:
See comparisions done elsewhere
Other campuses we know and like

PILOT PROJECT DELIVERABLES:
Report findings of software evaluation 6/9/00 to AC4, Vice Provost for Information and Educational Technology and, if assigned at time of report, Faculty Director of the Instructional Technology and Digital Media Center.  Make recommendations based on faculty, student and support staff opinions and feasibility of implementation as to the appropriateness of the available courseware. Make recommendations as to implementation of service.


For more information, please contact Victoria Cross - VLCross@ucdavis.edu  -  (530) 752-6050
last updated: 6/2/00