Proposal

Switching from Blackboard to Moodle

To: Barbara Pearce, Curriculum Development Manager

From: Christie Robertson, Instructional Designer

Subject: Switching from Blackboard to Moodle

Introduction

Currently the college uses the learning management system (LMS) Blackboard, which is a proprietary system.  In 2013 we will be faced with the choice to upgrade to a newer Blackboard version or move to another LMS. “Statistical studies show open source web server software is again found mostly preferred and widely used in learning content” (Aydin & Tirkes, 2010, p. 175).  I propose we move to Moodle, a reliable, open-source LMS.  To frame my discussion I have considered the SECTIONS model, as outlined by Bates and Poole (2003): students, ease of use, cost, teaching and learning, interactivity, novelty and speed.

Why Moodle?

Students are the main users of an LMS; therefore their perspective is essential.   According to Elias (2010), Moodle meets 79% of the universal instructional design principles (p 114-115).  This includes equitable and flexible use as well as the promotion of community and collaboration.  The student population is diverse and it must supply an LMS that accommodates a variety of learning styles.  Moodle provides a plethora of resources, such as chat, forum, wikis and even problem-based workshops.  The wide range of options may appear daunting; however, as Aydin and Tirkes (2010) point out, “the fact that it has a wider range of options does not make its use more complicated” (183). This leads to the next area of consideration: ease of use.

Beatty and Ulasewicz (2006) found most students preferred Moodle to Blackboard (p 42).  This research included both students who had used Blackboard and moved to Moodle and students whose introduction to an LMS was Moodle.  Not only do students herald its usability, instructors, administrators and tech support have voiced similar opinions (Aydin & Tirkes, 2010, 175; Barr, Gower & Clayton, 2007, 132).  For example, instructors find editing content easier because they see the site as it appears to students.  This is unlike Blackboard, in which the editing page looks nothing like the actual page.  Furthermore, topics/units are listed sequentially making the activity completion order clear.  Finally, the open source code is examined and debugged by a collective group of users, which can lead to faster fixes (Aydin & Tirkes, 2010).  The college technical support team can refer to the community of Moodle users to find innovative solutions in a timely manner.  Overall, Moodle is easy to use by all stakeholders in the college.

Moodle also allows for a learner-centered approach, an identified college goal.  Other LMSs accommodate this as well, however what Moodle offers over others is diversity and creativity due to various developers (Aydin & Tirkes, 2010, p175).  As mentioned earlier, Moodle accounts for many learning styles, which is integral to a learner-centered approach.  Moreover, Barr, et. al (2007) found Moodle encourages and enhances participatory learning.  In their study it was difficult to quantitatively assess if Moodle enhanced learning; however, teachers felt it helped students increase critical thinking and made it easy to facilitate activities, if approached with a social-constructivist framework.

The learner-centered approach is made possible by the varied interactivities available in Moodle.  Since Moodle incorporates the resources found in most LMSs (e.g. forum, chat) I will highlight two of the more novel interactivities: wiki and workshop.  In a wiki, students collaborate to build a repository of knowledge on a certain topic or concept.  All students can add and edit material, which includes text and media.  This fluid model allows for the learning process to grow and evolve, creating a community of learners.  The workshop similarly allows students to collaborate on a project; however, it also provides the opportunity for students to increase their understanding by assessing an exemplar and their peers’ work, and comparing their final assessment to their peers (Rice & Smith Nash, 2010).

Resources Needed

Implementing a new LMS requires resources.  In a survey of 52 colleges and university “pricing and scalability were the most important factors when buying course management systems” (Pan & Bonk, 2007, 6).  In this regard, the main advantage of Moodle is readily apparent: Moodle is maintained and developed for free by the community of users.  With a licenced LMS there is always a risk of increased maintenance or development fees (Aydin & Tirkes, 2010).  Furthermore, Moodle will work with the current college hardware, so only regularly scheduled maintenance and replacement will be needed. Finally, from a system administration perspective, “Data is stored in a single database: MySQL and PostgreSQL are best supported, but it can also be used with Access, Interbase, ODBC, and Oracle ( Moodle, 2005b; Wikipedia, 2005)” (Pan & Bonk, 2007, 9).  Our college uses an Oracle product, suggesting Moodle will complement our current software.

Costs will mostly be incurred by Moodle support.  The current technical support staff will need to receive training in Moodle. The college might also consider hiring an employee with a specialty in Moodle to ease the transition.  Other costs in time or personnel will include: training and supporting faculty’s use of Moodle and converting the current Blackboard courses.  To mitigate some of these costs Beatty and Ulasewicz (2006) suggest the following: “since Moodle installations have direct control over their local system source code, any extra funding that becomes available could be directed to local development efforts.  It is even possible to enlist the support of students with programming skills to push development forward without substantial resource commitment” (p 45).  Furthermore, Barr et. al (2007) discovered teachers developed a sense of ownership with the courses they developed in Moodle due to its ease of use.  An increase of faculty course development may lessen the need for specialized development support, but increase the need for general technical support.

Conclusion

Moodle is a viable, open-source alternative to Blackboard.  Its framework of social-constructivism and its novel approaches to e-learning makes it ideal for teachers and students.  Furthermore, despite the training of staff and faculty it is a cost effective choice.  The choice to move to Moodle will be beneficial for all stakeholders.

References

Aydin, C., & Tirkes, G. (2010). OPEN SOURCE LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN DISTANCE LEARNING. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 175-184. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: a Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. (pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Barr, H., Gower, B., & Clayton, J. (2007). Faculty Response to the Implementation of an Open Source Learning Management System in Three Tertiary Systems in New Zealand. Computers in the Schools. Vol 24(3/4). 125-137.

Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty Perspectives on Moving from Blackboard to the Moodle Learning Management System. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(4), 36-45. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Elias, T. (2010). Universal Instructional Design Principles for Moodle. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 110-124. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Pan, G., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). The Emergence of Open-Source Software in North America. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3), 1-17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Rice, W., & Smith Nash, S. (2010). Moodle 1.9 teaching techniques. Olton, Birmingham: Packt Publishing.