Our group was tasked with creating a rubric to evaluate LMSs for BCcampus. Our group spanned 2 provinces and one territory. We completed our task through a shared document in Google. A link to our completed work is here.

The specifics of the scenario we were given were these:

BCcampus is a publicly-funded agency that offers “teaching, learning, and educational technology support“ to the 25 post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and one in the Yukon.  As part of its shared services, BCcampus has been running two LMS platforms; one open-sourced (Moodle) and the other vendor based (D2L) whose contract will expire shortly.  With current restructuring, BCcampus will be losing half of its tech support team in three months, and therefore the possibility of running two separate LMS platforms is no longer an option.  BCcampus will need to decide which LMS they wish to proceed with across the board.  However, as BCcampus is known for its leadership in innovation, they are open to the idea of selecting an entirely new platform. As employees at BCcampus, we have been asked to create an evaluation rubric to help the BCcampus leadership team in the decision making process.  We have designed the rubric to help select a LMS that will fit with the needs, the vision and the mandate of BCcampus: “to connect, collaborate and innovate“. The selection process must also recognize the LMS’ ability to conform and adapt to the geographically and culturally diverse needs of BCcampus’ partner institutions and the thousands of post-secondary students across the country.

The detailed rubric we developed looks like this:

The reasoned articulation of our choices are in this researched-supported rationale:

Our LMS evaluation rubric is based on elements of the Bates SECTIONS model as well as Chickering and Ehrmann’s seven principles of good practice. As Coates points out, “decisions about university teaching and learning should not be restricted to checklist evaluations of technical and organizational factors” (2005). With that in mind, we did not limit our rubric to standard evaluation criteria, rather we designed the rubric around the specific needs of BCcampus; developing six high-level criteria encompassing the primary concerns of the agency: Access, Support, Functionality, Cost, Customization, and Organizational Requirements.

With 25 affiliates, the importance of versatility without restrictions is paramount. A system that can be accessed by every institution, device and end user, without compromise to functionality, will keep BCcampus at the forefront of innovation. Further, the BCcampus IT support will be reduced in three months making system compatibility an important requirement.

Secondly, it is important that the selected LMS provides support to all users. IT support must be available for BCcampus, the institutions, and the individual users, as these stakeholders might require different assistance at various times. If teachers and learners are not well supported then there is a high risk that the LMS may not be used at all (Bates, 2014).

The functionality of the LMS is an integral criteria for BCcampus to maintain their leadership in innovation by empowering the current and future learners through intuitive user interfaces.  Furthermore, the functionality should not compromise the security and privacy of its users in order for open discussions to occur without consequences (Bates, 2014).

BCcampus uses an innovative collaborative model that allows various post-secondary institutions to share resources and costs (BCcampus, 2013). Participating institutions can access the resources and technologies they would not be able to individually. BCcampus must have information about the initial implementation, and future LMS maintenance costs in order to budget effectively. This in turn, will affect the participating institutions and their budgeting.

As Spiro mentioned, students are increasingly taking charge of their own learning; gone are the days of one-size-fits-all courses (2014). This mentality calls for a LMS platform that is customizable – allowing students and teachers alike, the opportunity to curate their own learning path. Further, BCcampus is looking for a long term LMS, meaning it has to be adaptable and able to integrate with new technologies in order to meet the needs of its diverse student population.

Lastly, BCcampus provides a leading-edge collaborative interface.  As such, the LMS it uses must have strong cognitive design in its structural components, align with the mandates of its partners, and provide exceptional modalities for communication. We understand this will not be the only tool an evaluation team uses, but believe that the six areas covered will provide a well-rounded summary to the committee.

We used this relevant literature to support our decisions:

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/ (Chapter 8 on SECTIONS framework)

BCcampus. (September 2013). Annual Report 2012-2013, Strategic Plan 2013-2016,  Retrieved from: http://bccampus.ca/files/2013/10/2013-ar-stratplan.pdf

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S., C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of Learning Management Systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11,(1), 19-36. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9

Spiro, K. (2014). 5 elearning trends leading to the end of the Learning Management Systems. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/5-elearning-trends-leading-to-the-end-of-the-learning-management-system

My reflection upon your experience completing this assignment

The learning objectives for this module were centred on understanding the role of delivery platforms, and to think about the challenges and opportunities that come with those platforms. Our group work, toward these ends, afforded me a unique learning experience.

My first realization was that evaluative work, such as creating a rubric to select an LMS interface for BCcampus, cannot be a one-person task. The sheer enormity of facets to be aware of needs to be tackled by a team. That team needs be one that have members who know their facts, the implication of those facts, and be thorough.

My second realization was two-part. I did not know/understand what LMS are/were. And further to that, it was a stretch to comprehend the ubiquitous role they play. To add to what I wrote in the first point, many and varied are the things that the LMS interface must provide and perform, and many more are the things that we still wished they could do. The best ones seem to be “invisibly there.’

My third and final realization for this purpose, is that the work that goes on “behind the scenes” often goes under-appreciated by those that use these systems. We know when we don’t like something (how it looks, how it functions, getting help), but sadly it is rare to acknowledge all of the thinking and planning and coding and envisioning and testing and modifying and . . . that several layers of hard work that have resulted in what we see before us.

Keri