To: Brian Kuhn, Manager of Information Services, Coquitlam School District 43 Technology Department.
Subject: Proposal to incorporate the learning management system (LMS) Moodle into our district technology plan.
New technologies are constantly changing our society, requiring schools to reform the learning and teaching process to prepare students for this new reality (Jerald, 2009). In accordance with these changes, the International Society for Technology in Education (2011) lists its top ten educational priorities. The first on the ISTE list is to “establish technology in education as the backbone of school improvement “(ISTE 2011). In accomplishing this task, schools must be provided with a viable LMS that can build 21st century skills while at the same time enhance knowledge of core concepts such as literacy and math (Jerald, 2009). The decision to implement a district LMS is not one to take lightly. Panettieri (2007) states that about 24% of schools regret their choice of LMS and would change systems if funding allowed. For this reason, I have carefully evaluated the LMS Moodle based on the Bates and Poole (2003) SECTIONS framework. I propose that SD43 incorporate Moodle into our district because it is the most comprehensive program that meets the goals of our online technology plan. In my evaluation, I chose to focus my attention on the (E)ase of use, (I)nteractivity, (o)rganization, and (C)ost parts of the SECTIONS framework because these are issues that require direct district consideration. Teachers would need to determine how to adapt the program to fit their individual (S)tudent and (T)eaching and learning needs.
(E)ase of use, (O)rganization, and (I)nteractivity:
Perkins and Pfaffman (2006 p.34) point out that Moodle has features that are comparable to its more expensive competitors and it is often more user friendly. Because Moodle is open source, the code is accessible and the program is completely customizable. The district can create its own code or use third party code to enhance the functionality of Moodle. Even without customization, its existing features meet the needs of both distributed learning and F2F classrooms.
The EduTools (2011) website discusses the following Moodle features:
- An intuitive organizational structure that makes sense and is easy to navigate.
- The ability to upload a wide variety of documents, including text, image and multimedia files.
- Support for MathML editor to include mathematical formulas into the course.
- The availability of both asynchronous and synchronous collaborative tools such as discussion forms, chats, and private group sections within a course.
- Built in email, blogs, online course calendar, and RSS feeds.
- Secure access with guest login controlled by the administrator.
- Wide variety of built in assessment tools including multiple choice, fill in the blank, short answer and essay. The system can provide feedback on student performance.
Aside from the ability for customization due to its open source format, the features available in Moodle are comparable to other LMS’s on the market. The most obvious and important difference is cost.
(C)ost:
Moodle is an open source solution and, as such has a lower cost associated with it than other LMS options. Moodle’s licensing agreement (2011) allows for use and installation of its source code for free. This represents a great deal of savings for the district since the licensing for other comparable products such as Vista can run into the “six figures” depending on type of license, amount of courses and enrolment numbers (Morningstar, Schubert, &Thibeault, 2004; Panettieri, 2007)).
Even though the license is free, other costs and considerations involved in running Moodle include modifications to the source code, implementing and hosting the Moodle program, and staff training.
The ability to make modifications to Moodle’s source code is a strong incentive for using Moodle. However, if changes are required (they generally won’t be necessary because Moodle comes fully equipped for use), the district would need to hire a programmer (Whitfield, 2011). One consideration is that if the district did choose to adapt the code, they could then sell the new product to others provided they follow the licensing restrictions put in place by Moodle (Moodle licensing agreement, 2011). This would provide an avenue to recoup the costs associated with creating the new code.
A second cost to consider is hosting and maintaining the Moodle program. It is possible to host Moodle on either a district server or with a third party, off-site host. In looking at these choices, I suggest that onsite hosting may be the more viable option because it is less costly. If a district server is used, there would be the initial purchase price for the server but the cost for maintenance would be minimal since it involves only a short daily check in and occasional troubleshooting of the server. This can be done by the existing district IT department (Whitfield, 2011) so no additional staff need to be hired. In contrast, using a third party to host and maintain Moodle means that there would not be the initial server purchase but there would be a consistent monthly charge associated with Moodle.
Implementing a new system in the district is only useful if employees agree to use it. Getting teachers to try a new system involves making them comfortable by offering them training time in a professional development situation. This can be accomplished by training the computer contact teacher at each school. These experienced computer teachers can then be given release time to provide Moodle sessions to the staff at their school during regular Pro-D time. Training in this manner will allow teachers to learn from someone on their own staff who they are comfortable working with and it will involve only a small amount of release time for the computer teachers to learn, keeping the costs low for the District.
After reviewing several options for a new LMS in SD43, I feel that the Moodle system is the most efficient and cost effective means of meeting our needs and recommend implementation as soon as possible.
References:
Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). A framework for selecting and using technology. In A.W. Bates & G. Poole. Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education (pp.75-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
EduTools. (2011). CMS: Product List. Retrieved June 05, 2011 from http://www.edutools.info/item_list.jsp?pj=4
International Society for Technology in Education (2011) Top Ten in’10: ISTE’s Education Technology Priorities for 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2011 from http://www.iste.org/about-iste/advocacy/top-ten-in-10.aspx
Jerald, C. (2009) Defining a 21st Centurary Education. The Center for Publicic Education. Retrieved June 4, 2011 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Learn-About/gm-node/270.aspx
Kent Whitfield, Tech Support Analyst (2011) Personal Communication.
Moodle License(2011) Copyright License for Moodle. Retrieved June 4, 2011 from http://docs.moodle.org/20/en/License
Morningstar, B., Schubert, J., Thibeault, K. (2004). Technical Evaluation Report 41. WebCT: a major shift of emphasis. The international review of research in open and distance learning. 5(3). Retrieved June 5, 2011 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/194/276
Panettieri, J. (2007). Addition by subtraction. University Business, August, 58-62. Accessed online 1 February 2010 from http://www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=845
Perkins, M. & Pfaffman, J. (2006). Using a Course Management System to Improve Classroom Communication. Science Teacher, 73(7), 33-37.
School District 43 (N.D.) Retrieved on June 4 from http://www.sd43.bc.ca/District/Departments/Technology/Pages/default.aspx