Blackboard Enhancement Study Project - Miami University€¦ · Blackboard Enhancement Study...

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project March 2005 Submitted by: Gail Johnson, Manager, Advanced Learning Technologies Academic Technology Services

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project of 2

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................................................. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................................... 3

PROJECT OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 DRIVING FORCE & BENEFITS .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 PROJECT PROCESS....................................................................................................................................................................... 4

CRITICAL ISSUES.............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 BLACKBOARD VISIT & WEBINAR ................................................................................................................................................... 5 BLACKBOARD & PORTAL PROJECTS............................................................................................................................................... 5 OHIO LEARNING NETWORK GRANT................................................................................................................................................ 5 COMPREHENSIVE FACULTY SURVEY .............................................................................................................................................. 5

THE BLACKBOARD ACADEMIC SUITE................................................................................................................................. 6 THE LEARNING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 THE CONTENT SYSTEM, AND UPGRADES TO THE LEARNING SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 6 THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM (PORTAL) ............................................................................................................................................. 7

RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................................................. 8 PURCHASE BLACKBOARD ACADEMIC SUITE.................................................................................................................................. 8 TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

SPRING 2005 E-PORTFOLIO PILOT ....................................................................................................................................... 11 SUPPORT PLAN RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................................. 12

ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 SUPPORT PLAN FOR SPRING 2005 PILOT ...................................................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX A: SCOPE DOCUMENT......................................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX B: BLACKBOARD STATISTICS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2004-2005 ....................................................... 16 APPENDIX C: COMBINED FACULTY SURVEY RESULTS FROM 2002 AND 2004 ................................................... 17 APPENDIX D: ACADEMIC SUITE BROCHURE................................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX E: BLACKBOARD HARDWARE ARCHITECTURE RECOMMENDATION .......................................... 27 APPENDIX F: COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COMPARISON ............................................................................... 31 APPENDIX G: BLACKBOARD CONTRACT 12/2004........................................................................................................... 32


Executive Summary The Blackboard on-line course management system was implemented at Miami University in 1999. The goal of the Blackboard Enhancement Study project was to explore improvements needed in the current system and to explore improved features as well as new features to meet the growing demands of on-line course management. The scope of this project included both the end-user software component and the underlying infrastructure structure and support.

Project Objective As outlined in the Scope Document (Appendix A), the primary objective of this study was to develop a recommendation to purchase and run all three components of Blackboard (learning system, content system, and portal) on a robust infrastructure that provides 24/7 availability for clients and operates as a mission critical enterprise system.

Recommendation Recently, Blackboard, Inc. has enhanced its basic system to include a full suite of software solutions. This new system, called the Academic Suite, includes an enhanced Learning System (our current system), a Content Management System, and Community (Portal) Systems. The Blackboard Enhancement Study project recommends that Miami University implement the full Academic Suite offered by Blackboard which will result in the combining of disparate systems into one integrated and efficient system.

Driving Force & Benefits The driving force for implementing the Blackboard Academic Suite is the potential positive impact on teaching and learning at Miami. The suite of Blackboard solutions will:

Facilitate easier implementation of mixed and completely online courses. Provide faculty with the ability to create more learner-centered activities using the

communication and collaboration tools in a single, relatively easy-to-use system. Encourage faculty to develop more learner-centered curricula. Develop more technology-proficient students. Add new opportunities for student evaluation by integrating an e-portfolio

component. Make course management easier for faculty by providing file management within the

content system. In addition, the Community (Portal) component will allow students immediate access with a single sign-on to most areas of their student life. This includes direct access to the Blackboard Transaction System at Miami, MUlaa. MUlaa is a debit account available to all current students, faculty, and staff. It can be used for a wide variety of purchases. All students, faculty, and staff have MUlaa accounts in which they can deposit money into their accounts and use their Miami ID for access.


Introduction This document addresses the main deliverables outlined for the Blackboard Enhancement Study Project. This project began in June 30, 2004 with the following deliverables:

Needs assessment and recommendation for the purchase of the remaining components of Blackboard to include the content system and portal.

Technical recommendation and costs to run all three components of Blackboard (learning system, content system, and portal) on a robust infrastructure that provides 24/7 availability for clients and operates as a mission critical enterprise system.

Plan for implementation of a pilot in 2005. This will include the following components: o Technical Plan – implement the hardware and software necessary to

accomplish the goal. o Training Plan – train the instructors and support personnel involved in the

pilot. o Support Plan – develop a support plan to support the instructors involved in

the pilot. Recommendations for the faculty and student support needs including resource

requirements for the spring 2005 pilot. Background Miami University chose the Blackboard Course Management System in 1999 after reviewing many course management systems. In 2004, 40% of the courses being taught at Miami used Blackboard; 86% of students took a least one course using Blackboard; and the average student took 2.4 courses using Blackboard. (Appendix B) As a result of this reliance on Blackboard in teaching and learning, Blackboard has become a mission critical application that requires 24 hour and 7 days-a-week support. For this reason, the Miami University IT Strategic Plan Goal 1.1.2 states:

Online Course Management: Collaborate with students, faculty, and researchers to develop online learning materials and media to enhance the mission critical online course management system and a robust web-based learning infrastructure to support courses at the university.

Project Process The following events outline the process the project followed to meet its deliverables.

Critical Issues On June 30, 2004, representatives from the Oxford and regional campuses participated in a session to identify the critical issues surrounding the use and the non-use of the current Blackboard system. These issues served as the basis for the overall recommendations to implement the entire Academic Suite.


Blackboard Visit & Webinar On July 21, 2004 representatives from Blackboard, Inc. visited the Oxford campus and met with a group of interested users. They conducted an all-day session and provided an overview of the Academic Suite and discussed issues posed by Miami Blackboard users. More than 50 users and support staff attended the session and represented the Oxford, Hamilton, and Middletown campuses. A webinar of the Academic Suite was conducted September 15, 2004. More than 20 people attended the webinar in 362 Gaskill; however, people could watch from their desktops, so the actual count is unavailable.

Blackboard & Portal Projects As the Blackboard Enhancement Study project progressed, so did another project focusing on the Miami portal, in which a team were to make recommendations on a portal product, Luminis. The results of that study revealed that Blackboard had a product that would better serve Miami’s portal needs. An attractive feature of the Blackboard portal was that it would tie the portal to the academic mission of the university, since Miami was already using the Learning System. A familiarity with the site would already be in place since 86% of the Miami students have at least one course using Blackboard. By choosing to purchase Blackboard’s Academic Suite, Miami was able to acquire one single solution that especially benefits the students in a myriad of ways. The students will now be able to access their Blackboard classes, the university’s information and offices, and have customization capabilities by campus, college, role, major, department, and organizations, etc. Ultimately, it will enable them to access and manage their funds in their MUlaa accounts, which are also tied to the Blackboard system. In the fall of 2004, the Blackboard and portal projects were re-scoped to include a combined portal and course management study. There is now a unified implementation project for all aspects of the Blackboard Academic Suite.

Ohio Learning Network Grant Also in the fall of 2004, Miami received an Ohio Learning Network grant to form a faculty learning community on e-portfolios. This learning community is comprised of faculty who are interested in learning about and piloting the e-portfolio process in a course they are or will be teaching. Several e-portfolio applications were investigated. The Blackboard e-portfolio part of the Academic Suite was chosen to be piloted in the spring semester because the portfolio builder was easy to use, students were already familiar with the Blackboard system, and there were no per-user fees.

Comprehensive Faculty Survey In December 2004, a university-wide faculty survey was conducted and more than 200 faculty responded. This survey was generated to compare with the results of the 2002 survey, and to poll faculty on their interest in using the enhanced tools in the Blackboard Academic Suite. (Appendix C)


The Blackboard Academic Suite Following is an overview of the Blackboard Academic Suite. For the current Blackboard user, many aspects of Blackboard will remain the same. (Appendix D)

The Learning System Gives faculty the ability to:

Manage courses View grades Author Content Create assignments Create surveys and tests Incorporate online textbook content Foster collaboration through

- Discussion boards - Group project capabilities - Virtual classrooms

New advantages of implementation are: Architecture More robust architecture Fully redundant Part of the disaster recovery plan Should be able to provide continuous operations 24/7 with the move to the new

“blade” architecture (Appendix E)

The Content System, and upgrades to the Learning System Provides document management capabilities including versioning, tracking and

workflow. Faculty can display a learning object in several sites and update it in a single instance.

Virtual hard drive space: users can be given varied amounts of storage based on their role in the institution. (Similar to Miami’s current Universal Disk Space )

The e-portfolio tool enables students and faculty to easily assemble, present, and share their online portfolios.

Supports the integration of third party extensions and applications like Respondus and Question Mark.

Can have storage of individual, course, organization or institutional content, like the University Secretary’s office, etc.

The Learning Object Catalog provides a searchable catalog of learning objects. e-Reserve folders can be enabled for every course so students don’t have to leave

the Blackboard site and login into a separate library account. Most languages are supported, so a professor could actually have his or her

Blackboard site for a French class displayed in French. Workflow activities provide the ability to route content to others for review or

approval.


The Community System (Portal) Allows integration with the Blackboard transaction system currently in use at Miami.

(http://www.muohio.edu/mulaa) o Could develop an “Online Card Office”

Check MUlaa balances Transaction History Deposit Funds Account Statements, etc.

o Could develop an “Marketplace/Shopping Cart” Pay with credit card or MUlaa Overlap with informed decisions

o Customizable areas by Miami “Yellow Pages” integrated with Quick Links Jobs Athletics

Role-based information delivery allows for targeted delivery of content /information. All campuses of Miami University will be able to have their own look and feel all on

the same Blackboard server. Note: The above features are available in the Blackboard suite. However, Miami University’s final implementation may or may not include these features.


Recommendations Purchase Blackboard Academic Suite The Blackboard Enhancement Project recommends that Miami University purchase the remaining components of Blackboard. Currently, the primary mission-critical systems at Miami have previously been related to the business processes of the university. The Blackboard Academic Suite provides Miami with an unusual opportunity to add an academic element that will touch most faculty and students. Blackboard has seen overwhelming growth in its use since implementation in 1999.

Currently more than 40% of the total courses being taught are using some component of the Blackboard Learning System. (Appendix B)

In 2004, 86% of all students had a least one course using Blackboard, and the average student has 2.4 courses using Blackboard. (Appendix B)

In 2002, 15% of the faculty surveyed had used Blackboard less than 6 months. In 2004, the number of new users jumped to 27%. The number of users using Blackboard for more than 3 years jumped from 10% to 30%, indicating that faculty are continuing to use Blackboard. (Appendix C)

Benefits of the Academic Suite In considering options to better serve faculty and students, the Blackboard Academic Suite was presented to a core group of Blackboard users. The Blackboard Academic Suite is clearly the product with the greatest feature set (Appendix F) and has the advantage of being compatible with a system already in use at Miami, the Blackboard Transaction System. This, coupled with the recommendation by the Portal study to use the Blackboard Portal System, will enable users to benefit in many ways. The main advantage of purchasing the Academic Suite is that users are already comfortable using the Blackboard system. Users know how to navigate through the system, a support system is already in place, and additional training will be minimal. The Academic Suite provides faculty with the ability to create more learner-centered activities using the communication and collaboration tools in a single, relatively easy-to-use system. The features will encourage faculty to develop more learner-centered curricula, and will develop more technology-proficient students. Another advantage for using Blackboard is that they are diligently working to maintain ADA compliance and Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act implementation. Blackboard has developed Screen Reader Tutorials for the Learning System to aid faculty and students in using the system. Blackboard also provides assistance in creating accessible Blackboard courses. They are also working on projects with others, like the National Center for Accessible Media and the IMS Global Consortium, to develop and promote open access specifications for accessible learning technologies.


Technical Recommendation The new infrastructure is being designed as a mission critical enterprise system that must effectively run all three components of the Blackboard Academic Suite. At least six application servers will be installed, so if one server becomes inoperable, it will not affect the entire infrastructure. The other five servers will continue to work until the malfunctioning server is replaced. As the diagram below indicates, every aspect of the configuration is redundant. This configuration is based on the recommendation of Blackboard, Inc. (Appendix E) and will enable easy expansion in the coming years as the service grows. Current Blackboard Recommended Blackboard Architecture Architecture


Below is the estimated cost to support the Blackboard system in the new configuration. IT Services was able to save a large portion of this cost by using servers that had already been purchased but not configured. For actual application costs see Appendix G, the Blackboard contract that was signed in December 2004.

Original: Dell servers (new); All purchased in FY05

Production Date: May 2005

1st Year, 20051 2006 2007 2008+ years

Software (Portal) 14,750.00 29,500.00 29,500.00 29,500.00

Software (Content System) 26,250.00 52,500.00 52,500.00 52,500.00

Software (Learning System - $59500/yr) no new costs no new costs no new costs no new costs

Software Discount (10% for first 2.5 years) -4,100.00 -8,200.00 -8,200.00 0.00

Training & Services 145,344.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Servers (Dell; 6 2-way web app servers & 2 4-way Db servers & 2 2-way test/dev servers) 105,450.72 0.00 0.00 0.00

SAN (.5 TB un-mirrored disk for Hughes SAN) 8,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sub-Total without RAC 295,694.72 73,800.00 73,800.00 82,000.00

Oracle 9i RAC Software (Blackboard price, 8 cpus) 110,862.00 15,630.00 15,630.00 15,630.00

Oracle 9i RAC Software (based on state contract, site license) 363,701.00 65,585.00 65,585.00 65,585.00

Total (Oracle per CPU) $406,556.72 $89,430.00 $89,430.00 $97,630.00 $683,046.72

Or Total (Oracle site license) 659,395.72 139,385.00 139,385.00 147,585.00 $1,085,750.72

Notes:

1) This has been funded out of the VP for IT funds for the 2004/2005 year.

1) Yearly software costs do not include any inflationary pricing increases


Spring 2005 e-portfolio Pilot The e-portfolio learning community at Miami University was assembled in August, 2004, to:

Develop alternatives for student assessment by providing alternatives stressing student reflection, integration of learned concepts and assessment of their own learning.

Pilot the implementation of e-portfolios on Miami’s campus. The learning community reviewed e-Portaro, iWebFolio, and a presentation by Jeff Rutenbeck, University of Denver, who had created an open source tool. The learning community began a dialog with Michael Lee, at the University of New Hampshire to compare our individual investigations of e-portfolios. In October 2004 the learning community wrote a letter to Reid Christenberry, Vice President for Information Technology, notifying him of their decision to use Blackboard’s e-Portfolio system, and asked him for his support in providing the staff and servers to accomplish a pilot for spring 2005 semester. The following faculty and schools chose to pilot e-portfolios in their courses: Sumit Sircar, Management Information Systems Jerry Sarquis, Chemistry Lizz Howard, CIT, developing for Fall 2005

Ron Fetzer, 3 Communication courses Dianne Fellows, Architecture David Marado, English

The following divisions are developing e-portfolio prototypes School of Education and Applied Sciences,

Develop a prototype for NCATE certification School of Business, Develop a prototype for

admission to the undergraduate business program Technical Plan for e-portfolio Pilot Upgrade the current development server to include the App Pac 2, which had the ability to fix some issues in using the current Blackboard system and was necessary in order to move to the Academic Suite. This was completed in November 2004. The Academic Suite contract with Blackboard was signed December 2004 and was installed on the development server over winter break, December 2004. Practice sites were created and made available for use in January 2005. Training Plan for e-portfolio Pilot

Several training sessions for instructors were conducted: o Jan. 14, 2005 training for e-Portfolio o Jan. 14, 2005 Blackboard Basics (Blackboard overview) o Feb. 2, 2005 additional training in EPFLC (Electronic Portfolio Learning

Community) meeting Training manuals were developed for instructors and students. Advanced Learning Technologies staff was also available for scheduling one-on one

meetings, which two instructors attended. Training was provided for the manager, Center for Information Management in King

Library, where many students go to complete their electronic assignments. Several training sessions for students were also conducted:

o Feb. 10, 2005 2 different class sessions o Feb. 15, 2005 one class session o March 3, 2005 one class session scheduled


Support Plan Recommendation Additional Personnel To support not only this project but the anticipated growth in moving to the Blackboard Academic Suite, additional support staff are needed, and additional staff were hired within IT Services during FY05. One position was added in the Web Applications Group to assist with the application itself: a Portal Systems Analyst. Advanced Learning Technologies hired an instructional designer/Blackboard support person.

Support Plan for Spring 2005 Pilot The support plan for the pilot study is to have the students work first with the faculty member so the instructor can become familiar with the types of issues students are experiencing. The instructor can then contact Advanced Learning Technologies staff or put the student in direct contact with the staff. Advanced Learning Technologies staff will then work with the Blackboard Applications Analyst, if necessary, or notify Blackboard, Inc. of the issue if it is an issue with the application itself. Each of the instructors in the learning community has the necessary equipment to create all elements of the e-portfolio, such as video and still photos. The learning community will handle the loaning of equipment during the pilot. In the future, this activity will be provided through the Learning Technologies Center in Gaskill and the Center for Information Management in King Library. One recommendation for future support is to follow several examples of the Pennsylvania State model of student support of e-portfolio development1:

A link on the Portal page to an easy access site, like: http://www.muohio.edu/portfolio

A gallery best practices in student e-portfolios. Online tutorials and self-assessments on:

o How to create an effective resume o File management o Privacy and free speech o How to capture evidence in digital formats o Compatible with Web browsers

Many recommendations will come from the e-Portfolio community pilot. Below is a list of additional recommendations to be considered.

A Blackboard Institute that is conducted every year for faculty to specifically learn about pedagogically sounds ways of designing courses.

Using student technicians to train students on various tools in the Academic Suite A process for systemic evaluation of the Blackboard Academic Suite and its

infrastructure is developed. 1 Johnson, Glenn and DiBiase, David “Keeping the Horse Before the Cart: Penn State’s E-Portfolio Initiative,” EDUCAUSE

Quarterly, Volume 27, No.4, 2004, pp 18-26. http://www.educause.edu/eq/eqm04/eqm0443.asp


Below is a support structure being used by The University of British Columbia. This provides a visual view of the types of support needed and recommended.2

2 Lamberson, Michelle. “Governance of E-Learning Applications: Networks for Communication” EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Volume 2004, Issue No.15, July 20, 2004, pg. 8.

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project – Appendix A of 14

Scope Document Miami University

http://www.muohio.edu/projectoffice

Appendix A: Scope Document Project Information

Project Name: Blackboard Enhancement Study Project

Date: December 17, 2004

Project Sponsor: Carolyn Gard Senior Director of Academic Technology Services

Project Steering Team:

Carolyn Gard John Goerke

Nate Johnson

Project Managers: Gail Johnson, Kent Covert

Project Consultants: Kay Roman Cornelius & Associates

Document History Document Version

Document Version Date

Revised By

Requestor Approved By

Description(s) of Change

#1 9/1/04 Kay Roman Carolyn Gard

• Incorporated initial scope document • Revised based on resource and timing

issue

#2 9/8/04 Kay Roman Carolyn Gard

• Incorporate revised scope and time frames

#3 9/15/04 Kay Roman Carolyn

Gard Carolyn Gard

• Revisions to include scope refinement to focus on developing an implementation plan for the three core components of Blackboard

#4 12/17/04 Kay Roman Carolyn

Gard Steering Team

• Focus scope of project on study and recommendation to set the stage for the implementation project.

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project – Appendix A of 15

1. Objective:

1.1. Develop a recommendation to purchase and run all three components of Blackboard (learning system, content system, and portal) on a robust infrastructure that provides 24/7 availability for clients and operates as a mission critical enterprise system.

• This recommendation should include a pilot with at least 10 courses to be in place for the spring of 2005, limited production during the summer of 2005, and production in the fall of 2005.

1.2. Develop recommendations for the pilot infrastructure and faculty support needs including resource requirements.

1.3. Develop resource and requirement recommendations for inclusion in the FY2006 budget. 2. Background & Narrative:

2.1. Based on the internal environmental analysis, the current online course management system has significant shortcomings for students and faculty in the area of access, service, support, and capabilities.

2.2. Initial discussions involved exploring alternatives to the Blackboard system. However, following Blackboard Day at Miami, July 21, 2004, where Blackboard brought in specialists to share information on the capabilities of the three components of the system, the desire for potential migration to another course management system no longer existed. This session was heavily attended by faculty.

3. References:

3.1. IT Strategic Plan Goal 1.1.2: Online Course Management: Collaborate with students, faculty, and researchers to develop online learning materials and media to enhance the learning experience for all students. Ensure continuous improvement in the mission critical online course management system and a robust web-based learning infrastructure to support courses at the university.

4. Deliverables:

4.1. Needs assessment and recommendation for the purchase of the remaining components of Blackboard to include the content system and portal.

4.2. Technical recommendation and costs to run all three components of Blackboard (learning system, content system, and portal) on a robust infrastructure that provides 24/7 availability for clients and operates as a mission critical enterprise system.

4.3. Plan for implementation of a pilot in spring 2005. This will include the following components: Technical Plan – implement the hardware and software necessary to accomplish the goal Training Plan – train the instructors and support personnel involved in the pilot Support Plan – develop a support plan to support the instructors involved in the pilot

4.4. Recommendations for the faculty and student support needs including resource requirements for the spring 2005 pilot.

5. Boundaries:

5.1. This project that will develop requirements recommendations and implementation plans for enhancements to the current Blackboard system for approval by the Core Team.

5.2. The focus teams will also manage the implementation of the pilot with oversight by the core team.

6. Assumptions: 6.1. The current course management system, Blackboard, will be enhanced. We will not migrate to an

alternative course management system.

7. Risks: 7.1. Expectations by faculty and students may not be met as quickly as they would like. 7.2. The team may not complete a thorough enough assessment of the needs and alternatives to ensure

buy-in for the final recommendations. 7.3. University-wide resources will be unavailable or unwilling to participate in the execution of the project.

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project – Appendix B of 16

Appendix B: Blackboard Statistics for Academic Year 2004-2005

Blackboard Statistics Fall 2004 Sections Instructors

College/School Total with enrollment using Bb Total using Bb

Arts & Science 4663 3095 1265 (41%) 1130 495 (44%)

Business 804 541 283 (52%) 226 116 (51%)

Education & Allied Professions 1252 918 558 (61%) 339 149 (44%)

Engineering & Applied Science 376 289 114 (39%) 131 57 (44%)

Fine Arts 1104 663 84 (13%) 196 48 (24%)

Graduate School 56 26 8 (31%) 24 4 (17%)

Provost 25 22 13 (59%) 17 8 (47%)

Western 111 78 34 (44%) 27 9 (33%)

Total 8391 5632 2359 (42%) 1999 866 (43%)

Spring 2005 Sections Instructors

College/School Total with enrollment using Bb Total using Bb

Arts & Science 4815 3066 1426 (47%) 1113 540 (49%)

Business 779 528 340 (64%) 224 134 (60%)

Education & Allied Professions 1216 838 494 (59%) 326 157 (48%)

Engineering & Applied Science 412 293 137 (47%) 136 68 (50%)

Fine Arts 1291 671 94 (14%) 213 47 (22%)

Graduate School 52 21 7 (33%) 22 4 (18%)

Provost 27 18 6 (33%) 17 5 (29%)

Western 121 54 31 (57%) 28 15 (54%)

Total 8714 5489 2535 (46%) 1994 950 (48%)

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project – Appendix C of 17

Appendix C: Combined Faculty Survey Results from 2002 and 2004 Blackboard Enhancement Requirements Faculty Survey Results April 2002 and December 2004 Using an on-line survey tool and mailed communications to all faculty, we conducted a survey to help determine the requirements for the Blackboard Course Management System. Following is a breakdown of the respondents. 2004 information only, n/a in 2002 2004 information only, not available in 2002

Visiting Professor 32 17% Professor 30 16%

Assistant Professor 29 16% Grad Assistant 29 16%

Adjunct Instructor 25 14% Staff 20 11%

Associate Professor 19 10% 184 100%

Education and Allied Professions 24 14% Business 27 15% Fine Arts 8 5%

Engineering & Applied Science 17 10% Arts & Science 98 55%

Interdisciplinary Studies 3 2% 177 100%

Did you have any prior experience creating web-based course material before using Blackboard?

2002 2004 Yes 30% 32% No 70% 68%

How would you characterize your use of computers and the internet?

2002 2004 Never used 5% n/a

Novice 33% 4% Intermediate 52% 27%

Proficient 10% 50% Expert n/a 19%

I access my Blackboard site: 2004 2004

Daily 25% 29% 2 or more times per week 68% 47%

1 time per week 7% 22% Never 2% How long have you been using Blackboard?

2002 2004 Less than 6 Months 15% 27%

1 Year 24% 13% 2 Years 25% 17% 3 Years 26% 13%

More than 3 Years 10% 30% 100% 100%


Approximately how long did it take you to learn the Blackboard software well enough to begin using it?

2002 2004 0-3 Hours 73% 78% 4-6 Hours 21% 16% 7-9 Hours 2% 2%

More than 10 Hours 4% 4%

Which of the following types of Web courses best describes your most active Blackboard course?

2002 2004 No Web Presence 17% 17%

Web-presence (1-24% on the Web) 60% 54% Web-enhanced (25% to 49% on the Web) 17% 17%

Web-centric (50% to 74% on the Web) 3% 8% Web Course (75% to 100% on the Web) 3% 3%

Do you have another Web site for this course in addition to your Blackboard site? 2002 2004

Yes 20% 12% No 80% 88%

If yes, which statement best describes how you use Blackboard with another course Web site?

2002 2004 I do not provide navigation between the two sites. 20% 9%

I provide navigation between the two but use Blackboard less. 2% 5% I provide navigation between the two and use them equally. 2% 3%

I provide navigation between the two, but use Blackboard more. 7% 6%


How did you learn Blackboard? 2002 2004

Training Workshop 49% 25% On Your Own 34% 58%

Tutorial 1% 1% One-on-one Training 7% 6%

Other 9% 11% 177 100%

I will use my Blackboard in subsequent semesters.

2002 2004 Strongly agree 64% 72%

Agree 25% 20% Neutral 7% 5%

Disagree 2% 2% Strongly disagree 2% 1%

Why did you begin using Blackboard? 2002 2004

Colleague Driven 14% 20% Student Driven 7% 10%

Personally Driven 69% 63% Other 10% 8%

Blackboard is easy to use. 2002 2004

Strongly agree 47% 41% Agree 40% 34%

Neutral 8% 18% Disagree 1% 6%

Strongly disagree 4% 1%

I would recommend Blackboard to others.

2002 2004 Strongly Agree 57% 60%



Support for Blackboard provided by IT Services is adequate.

2002 2004 Strongly agree 33% 27%



I anticipate the impact on the end-of-semester course-instructor survey as a result of my using Blackboard to be a:

2002 2004 Strong positive impact 4% 7%

Positive impact 44% 45% No impact 45% 45%

Negative impact 6% 2% Strong negative impact 1% 1%

The technology is reliable. 2002 2004

Strongly agree 28% 29% Agree 43% 50%

Neutral 19% 14% Disagree 8% 5%

Strongly disagree 2% 2%


Because of the way I used Blackboard,

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly disagree

2004 13% 35% 42% 7% 3% 1. I believe my students are

better able to understand the ideas and concepts taught in this course.

2002 6% 36% 44% 13% 1%

2004 10% 27% 44% 17% 2% 2. I believe my students spent more time on course-related work.

2002 6% 27% 47% 17% 3%

2004

22% 44% 27% 4% 2%

3. I believe my students had access to a greater variety of learning materials.

2002 14% 48% 31% 6% 1%

2004

17% 54% 23% 5% 2%

4. I have better met my instructional goals.

2002 14% 44% 34% 7% 1%

2004

18% 27% 45% 8% 2%

5. I believe my students are acquiring skills that will be useful in their chosen profession.

2002 8% 38% 38% 14% 2%

For each of the following forms of support that IT Services has provided, please indicate your

level of participation.

Never

attended or used

Attended or used

once

Attended or used

more than once

Would like to

attend or use

2004 58% 27% 9% 6% 1. Blackboard Training Workshops 2002 47% 37% 13% 3%

2004 69% 15% 8% 8% 2. Blackboard Tips & Tricks 2002 83% 3% 5% 9%

2004 95% 0% 1% 4% 3. Blackboard Group Therapy 2002 95% 1% 0 4%

2004 82% 9% 4% 5% 4. One-on-one Tutoring 2002 88% 9% 3% 0

2004 61% 23% 13% 2% 5. Phone Support - Support Desk 2002 62% 19% 19% n/a

2004 72% 14% 12% 2% 6. Phone Support - AREA 351 2002 82% 10% 8% n/a

2004 79% 8% 9% 4% 7. Listserv 2002 76% 7% 15% 2%


% of Respondents who Indicated they Were Likely or Somewhat Likely to Use this Feature in Priority Order of Most Likely to Use 2004 Only 1. GRADEBOOK 80% 2. COURSE CALENDAR 70% 3. CONTENT AUTHORING 68% 4. SYLLABUS BUILDER 64% 5. TIMED RELEASE 63% 6. REPORTING AND PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD 61% 7. ASSESSMENTS AND SURVEYS 60% 8. DISCUSSION BOARD 59% 9. CONTENT AND FILE SHARING 59% 10. COMMUNITY BUILDING TOOLS 52% 11. VERSIONING 51% 12. WIRELESS/PDA 46% 13. COLLABORATIVE WEB-ENABLED FILE STORAGE 44% 14. COURSE CARTRIDGES 43% 15. E-PORTFOLIOS 43% 16. CHAT ROOMS 40% 17. VIRTUAL CLASSROOM 39% 18. WORKFLOW 37% 19. LEARNING OBJECT CATALOG 32% 20. ROLE-BASED INFORMATION DELIVERY 29%


Blackboard Features Complete Data

Please indicate how likely you would be to use the following existing and new Blackboard features.

Likely

Somewhat likely

Neutral Somewhat unlikely

Unlikely

39% 29% 16% 4% 12% 1. CONTENT AUTHORING features includes WYSIWYG (What

You See is What You Get) editing tool that provides rich text editing interface similar to a word processor. 63 46 26 6 19

29% 34% 17% 7% 13% 2. TIMED RELEASE means instructors can create custom learning paths by determining when students can access content items, discussions, assessments, assignments, or other learning activities. 47 55 27 11 20

31% 33% 18% 8% 11% 3. SYLLABUS BUILDER enables instructors to upload an existing syllabus or use the built-in creation functionality to easily design and develop their own syllabus and lesson plans. 49 52 29 13 17

20% 23% 23% 17% 18% 4. COURSE CARTRIDGES are created by all major education publishers with pre-packaged content and course materials in the Blackboard format. 32 36 36 27 29

34% 25% 20% 12% 9% 5. DISCUSSION BOARD enables threaded, asynchronous

discussions. Instructors can use multiple forums around different topics and embed these into appropriate content areas. 54 39 32 19 15

16% 24% 24% 22% 14% 6. CHAT ROOMS enable synchronous discussions between students and faculty (ex. virtual office hours). 25 38 39 35 23

30% 30% 23% 8% 9% 7. ASSESSMENTS AND SURVEYS allow instructors to deliver online, automatically-scored assessment and surveys. 48 47 36 13 14

61% 19% 7% 6% 7% 8. GRADEBOOK stores student performance results, including support for custom grading scales, grade weighting, item analysis and multiple grade book views. 97 31 11 10 11

23% 29% 25% 11% 11% 9. COMMUNITY BUILDING TOOLS enable users to collaborate and communicate more effectively. 37 47 40 18 18

18% 28% 21% 18% 16% 10. WIRELESS/PDA access to course and community information such as announcements, calendar items and grades. 29 44 33 28 26

12% 17% 36% 18% 17% 11. ROLE-BASED INFORMATION DELIVERY lets you customize the content received through tabs, modules, channels, tools, courses and organizations based on roles like graders and course developers. 19 27 57 29 27

30% 40% 16% 9% 5% 12. COURSE CALENDAR allows items (ex. assignment schedule, homework) to be available to students through their personalized portal. 48 63 26 14 8

25% 36% 21% 9% 10% 13. REPORTING AND PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD provides a view of student progress and indicates whether students have reviewed specific content items. 39 57 33 14 16

32% 27% 19% 11% 11% 14. CONTENT AND FILE SHARING allows content and files to

be managed and shared across course sections, departments, institutions, etc. without the need for duplication. 51 43 31 18 17

20% 31% 28% 9% 11% 15. VERSIONING allows users to automatically archive and track previous versions of their files. 32 49 45 15 18

14% 23% 38% 12% 13% 16. WORKFLOW activities provide users with the ability to route content to others for review or approval, designating settings such as priority, deadline, and permissions. 22 37 60 19 21

16% 27% 28% 14% 14% 17. E-PORTFOLIOS enable students and faculty members to

assemble and share information online for documenting academic growth, career progression and course preparation. 26 43 45 23 23

16% 28% 23% 19% 13% 18. COLLABORATIVE WEB-ENABLED FILE STORAGE includes dedicated file and content storage areas for individual users, courses, organizations, the library, and constituent groups within the institution. 26 45 37 30 20

8% 24% 31% 18% 18% 19. LEARNING OBJECT CATALOG enables a searchable, hierarchical taxonomy to catalog learning objects and resources accessible by individuals inside and outside the institution. 13 38 49 29 28

16% 23% 25% 20% 16% 20. VIRTUAL CLASSROOM allows synchronous sharing of materials and applications with others' computers. 25 36 39 31 25

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project – Appendix D of 23

Appendix D: Academic Suite Brochure

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project – Appendix E of 27

Appendix E: Blackboard Hardware Architecture Recommendation

Blackboard Hardware Architecture for Miami University Developed by Blackboard Global Services, 09/7/2004

Miami University’s on-line education objective is to implement a single instance of Blackboard Learning System TM on a robust hardware infrastructure that is capable of supporting its current needs, can scale to meet future growth, and provides a highly available infrastructure. One advantage of Blackboard enterprise edition is the ability to configure Blackboard in a load-balanced environment. This insures high availability, performance, and reliability of the Blackboard application as it becomes increasingly mission critical to improvement of student achievement and the overall delivery of quality instruction.

Our recommended hardware configuration typically consists of three layers: a load management layer, a web and application server layer, and a database server layer. The load management layer will utilize a hardware load balancer that will be configured to distribute the processing load across multiple web and application servers. The web and application servers will share a separate storage device for their file system. It is recommended that this be a separate physical storage device (NAS, SAN, or file server). This storage device will house all of the course content.

The database layer will be delivered by a robust machine with a minimum of two CPUs and four GB of physical RAM. As Miami University has a stated objective of providing constituents with a highly available system, this document specifies Oracle 9i RAC as the recommended database application. Oracle 9i RAC

This proposal includes the hardware required to implement this infrastructure. Within the next couple of days, Blackboard will provide a document of the professional services recommended for implementation.

There are a number of hardware configuration options to consider based upon your institution’s depth of Blackboard usage and maturity along the Academic Technology Framework.


Blackboard measures depth of usage based on active users. An active Blackboard user is someone who is currently enrolled in one or more courses. As the number of active users grows due to increased adoption, you can often leverage your existing investment by adding additional hardware to your initial configuration.

Based on your teaching model, Blackboard requests per minute by active user can vary dramatically. Initially, Blackboard may be used to compliment a typical class outside of normal school hours. As adoption increases, Blackboard usage is often expanded to be an active class participant during school hours. Distance learning, virtual classes, and other teaching methods involving Blackboard can significantly increase the number of requests per minute by active user.

Recommended Configuration The recommended configuration is similar to what Blackboard ASP Solutions provides to our hosted customers. The pros of this configuration are more redundancy, performance, and scalability. The con is the total cost of ownership to implement and maintain this configuration over time.

Exploratory

Time

Depth of U

sage

Academic Technology Framework Supported Strategic Transformative Mission Critical

Transition 1

Phase I Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Transition 2 Transition 3

Transition 4


Pros Redundancy Performance Scalability Cons Total Cost of Ownership


A general rule of thumb in this configuration is that each Dell 2650 web/application server (or equivalent) can support 3,000 active users (depends on the number of requests generated by each active user, driven by your Blackboard teaching model).

6,000 active users require 2 web/application servers

12,000 active users require 4 web/application server

24,000 active users require 8 web/application servers

The above design allows for scalability, high performance, minimized single points of failure, and the stream-lining of backup and recovery operations. Blackboard offers an on-site load balanced installation and configuration service as well as a high-availability design and implementation service. With these services, Blackboard Global Services will produce a solution tailored to Miami University’s individual availability needs, budget, staffing and technical expertise.

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project – Appendix F of 31

Appendix F: Course Management System Comparison Following is a competitive comparison of Learning Content Management Vendors.

Blackboard Harvest Road Concord Faculty File Space X X X Student File Space X X File re-use in Learning System X X X Public / Private File Access X X X File sharing - by folder X X File sharing - by individual file X X X File sharing - with groups X X File sharing - with individual users X X WebDAV including Drag-and-Drop File Access

X

Versioning X X X Passes for external user access X X Content Bookmarking X Full Text Searching X X Workflow X X X ePortfolios X X Library Digital Asset Management X X Bandwidth controls X Flexible disk quotas X Runs on Windows and Unix X

Blackboard WebCT Vista eCollege D2L Faculty and Student File Space X X X X File re-use in Learning System X X X X Public / Private File Access X X X File sharing - by folder X File sharing - by individual file X X File sharing - with groups X X File sharing - with individual users X Drag-and-Drop File Access X X WebDAV - through Windows X X WebDAV - One-click through Web Page X Versioning X Passes for external user access X Content Bookmarking X Full Text Searching X Workflow X ePortfolios X Library Digital Asset Management X

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project – Appendix G of 32

Appendix G: Blackboard Contract 12/2004

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project – Appendix G of 33

Blackboard Enhancement Study Project - Miami University€¦ · Blackboard Enhancement Study...

Documents

Transcript of Blackboard Enhancement Study Project - Miami University€¦ · Blackboard Enhancement Study...