Minutes: October 31, 2006
Organizational Meeting.
Action Items
Schedule: By Friday, Nov. 2, send James any suggestions for changes to the schedule.
System Investigation:
By Friday, Nov. 3, post initial research on the assigned system to the blog
By FRiday, Nov. 10, post any additional research on the system
Discussion included the schedule, stakeholders, roles for committee members and possible systems.
The next meeting will by on November 14th at 11 am. Place TBA
Present: James, Susan, Matt, Linda, Helen
Action Items
Schedule: By Friday, Nov. 2, send James any suggestions for changes to the schedule.
System Investigation:
By Friday, Nov. 3, post initial research on the assigned system to the blog
By Friday, Nov. 10, post any additional research on the system
1. Schedule. We reviewed the schedule. James asked that comments be sent to him.
WebCT will be available until February 2009, so we have time for investigation and testing.
In a detailed discussion we will work with issues of the effect on users, budget, etc. Susan mentioned
that we should be able to do a small pilot using a remote system.
2. Stakeholders. Faculty and students are major stakeholders. Some existing groups that could be involved
are the current WebCT users group and the student technology group. We will want to reach out to faculty who
do not use WebCT as well. As we develop the selection and testing methodology, we will put consultation points in
where they are appropriate.
Other suggestions: Involve/invite LITC faculty members to any meeting with faculty for input and keep LITC informed generally on progress. Survey students who have particpated in a WebCT course.
Linda reported that at the last LITC meeting the faculty members said they would prefer to be presented with
clear options that have been developed by experts rather than be involved in the whole process.
Tim Hunter and TNS are important players. We should consult them frequently.
3. Roles for Committee Members.
James brings experience with WebCT, with faculty users, and with social software. And leadership.
Susan has experience with WebCT and other systems, experience with faculty needs and frustrations, more technical background.
Matt has experience with the Computet Science Department's use of a Wiki as a course managment tool.
Helen brings the student/user prespective, experience with using the web for course support, and knowledge of
intellectual property issues.
Linda has knowledge of library tools and services, such as ERes, RefWorks, Luna,etc., that might be made
available and should, if the faculty want, be part of a course environment.
Helen mentioned a concern about copyright in LMS systems as opposed to ERes; she and Linda will bring that
issue back to the group at an appropriate time.
4. Communications. We will be using this blog for communications. When we work on documents the blog will
not be a good tool. Instead, people can send comments and ideas to James who will be the Editor-in-Chief. He will
post offical drafts,final documents, etc. to the blog.
The blog has been set up so that people can get RSS feeds either directly or through email.
5. Systems to Investigate.
Blackboard/WebCT will not be a cohesive, settled system during our time frame. It will not be considered because we won't know what it is.
It will be valuable to pick a system which a significant number of other Liberal Arts Colleges are using so we have
colleagues and can form a lobbying group for enhancements and support.
Open Source systems seem like feasible options, Tim should be consulted on this early in the process.
We decided to investigate four systems, two open source and two proprietary:
Sakai (Linda)
Angel (Helen)
Moodle (Susan)
Desire 2 Learn (James)
We will each investigate post information about our assigned system. Brief information by Friday, Nov. 3; more by Friday Nov. 10.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, November 14, 11am