Thursday, November 5, 2009 Moodle Knowledgebase Workgroup
We met to restructure and assess where we go from here…
In attendance:
Lauranne Bailey
Catherine Stephens
Rebecca Vonesh
Sue Weier
Invited, notified of interest, unable to attend:
Paul Oliphant
Michael Enyart, Librarian
Lillian Tong
Invited, no reply:
Paul Gunther
Linda Endlich
Billy Kardasz
After much discussion, it's been seen we need to better assess audience and how much of KB should be links to specific help for specific instances.
Action items:
Members might benefit to review KB user guide
We like the idea of troubleshooting documents: KB type stuff, with pointers to campus and other resources to design Working on Matrix of site support resources: Access to business site (Catherine to email Billy); TEL site (COE, CALS, Biology, Chemistry, Physics); Math/Law/Pharmacy (Sue will contact); DCS (Lauranne to contact Nancy); Education (Catherine); EPD's is not public (can it be?)
Rebecca will look into server (moodle.wisc.edu) and ask Paul about the Tel grant.
this is a quote from the U of Georgia, perhaps a defininton of the Classroom of the future?
"We envision a physical and virtual place where all are invited to experiment, discover, create, commercialize and shape the future of digital media,” Kulkarni said. “We want to create an open innovation ecosystem that will make Georgia a global pioneer in this field and provide a model not only for what we do in future digital media, but also in how we do it.”
Speaking as a unit in the position of "needs Moodle but doesn't have a server" I can share how the issue is currently framed from our perspective. In the end it comes down to two options:
1) Rent a Silver-level server from DoIT Webhosting for $45/month and assume the responsibility of updating/maintaining the Moodle software ourselves.
2) Sweet talk our way into another unit's good graces to let us horn in on their Moodle instance or perhaps run a parallel instance for us, and they assume responsibility for updates/maintenance.
One way to make this current choice more "federated" would be to establish a more formal, measured SLA (service-level agreement) for option 2. That is, to standardize expectations when one unit hosts Moodle for another unit. Possibly X dollars would be transferred from the "customer" to the "provider" as part of that?
-- Hope this helps
(speaking for Division of Continuing Studies, which will probably go with option 1 next month assuming an option 2 doesn't magically happen)
Interestingly, the Hacker Within has actually already conducted feedback surveys about the usefulness of the bootcamps we've conducted. We can provide the IT Strategic Plan with that data at any point.
In the Anticipated Resources section, I would liket o suggest some numbers based on the Hacker Within experience, as well as our hopes in terms of future funding of our activities. I would suggest that this section read:
Anticipated Resources: This project will primarily require staff time dedicated to getting the pilot up and going, but not necessarily new staff. There may be some costs associated with developing and offering a formal training curriculum. It is difficult to estimate those costs, but assuming 30 learning students and 4 teaching students and participate in the program, taking 8 hours of class time, a ballpark figure would be $1000 - $2000 per bootcamp.
I wonder about the years stated in the Timeline section. It says July 2009. Since July 2009 has already passed, perhaps we mean July 2010?
Finally, I want to suggest that there exist a framework for clubs like our own and those that are created in response to this Strategic Plan Charter to be able to request student teaching resources from the funds made available by the charter. This way, a group may be able to identify IT research computing needs within their academic department or division, apply for funding, and organize a bootcamp program to address those needs.
I can see lumping the Digital Media Center under Strategy Item 3, but this may not be the best since we do not directly teach courses. Perhaps,we could make a separate item for support mechanisms on campus. Maybe something like:
5. Identify support mechanisms on campus to provide on-going support for graduate students.
To provide a little more insight into point 2.2 of the notes, the deeper we get into the RedDot / Drupal comparison discussion, the more I feel a framework similar to the one devised for the Learn@UW / Moodle Comparison may be of benefit to this discussion. The result was a rather high level 1.5 - 2 page doc with the following headings:
Introduction
Why two course management systems?
Why would an instructor choose Learn@UW?
Why would an instructor choose Moodle?
Where to go next?
The document attempts to provide just enough context, some of the major reasons the audience might decide to choose one system over the other, and resources for where to go next-- i.e. contact a consultant for more info or to get started. Part of the rationale for using a high level format like this is that it is less likely to become out-of-date as soon as it is posted while still providing important information for decision-making.
But I still need some convincing that this would have to be two sites. It seems likely we could meet all of the requirements you list above in a carefully created OG infrastructure. We're going to be learning a lot about what OG can and can't do in the next two months, so I think our sense of what is and isn't possible is going to shift significantly.
In terms of recognizability to the faculty - I perceive ComETS as a very strong "brand" on campus. It is not widely known outside of learning technology circles, but anyone that takes the time to get to know ComETS can quickly identify with what it is as an organization.
Perhaps most importantly, there's a layer behind all of this that needs some steering committee discussion. In addition to concerns about fragmenting the conversation and the user experience, I'd like to get the committee's thoughts on how moving in this direction shifts the scope and core mission of ComETS.
I can see advantages to both directions--primarily, It would be nice to have one central place for members to edit both working and public docs. Yet, there are a number of issues I can see with having all of the activity here on ComETS--mostly relating to audience.
Technically, giving each group a different look and feel is more difficult than it would seem. You can use a different theme, but it's a bit more difficult to change the "comets" header, and impossible to have the address be something other than comets. ComETS is an important group, but I'm not sure if it's identifiable enough with faculty.
Some of our ComETS groups are tied to a specific technology, but that's not always the case. We have a "media shops" group, but might need a technology site for iTunesU.
There are different "publics" that a group might want to post to. I can see that the clickers group might want to post something to geeks around the world, but would want to have a different message to UW faculty.
Most importantly: I think we would need two different points of entry. We need a site "about" and for ComETS, yet it seems that some of our SIGs have already demonstrated a need to provide information about and in support of a technology.
One option might be to put this sort of information in TLE (since it has the faculty audience), but I worry a bit that it would water down the site's clear focus on teaching. Some of the questions of integration might be taken care of by a cross-site searching mechanism I'm working on.
Let's keep the discussion going! It might be technically easier than I think.
Thanks for continuing the conversation about improving the ComETS site.
I really like the line of thinking you've got going here. I think that much if not all of what you propose could be done in a single installation. The public/private toggle for content is already in place and is a good start in this direction. A different front page design for non-authenticated users would take this a step farther. More sophisticated might be different front page views based on roles.
I like having a central place for ComETS members to generate ideas, resources, and conversations. Then the next step is to provide different lenses into that collection of information.
Actually, it was me who found the original comet (now attached). I should note that it's copyright status is sort of questionable. It was found on a site that offered images 'free for instructional use,' but the logo is now no longer online and newer materials on that site are copyright restricted.
Check out the new article about FERPA compliance with using CRIS data in Moodle. There are some new things with Moodle 1.9.4 that should be added to this article in the near future. See the article at http://kb.wisc.edu/moodle/
-Updated notifications/messaging to 2.0 as 1.x were no longer supported (There are new options, but the old settings seem to have stuck. May be some new opportunities here). -Uninstalled subscriptions -Added a nice button for subscriptions and floated right (had to add a custom div in the module) -Changed the pink (#F9EEF40) to #F5F5E9 & tried to make other color/layout tweaks in line w/ Josh's suggestions
I think the first step is just keeping the Wisconsin Idea in mind when speaking with fac/staff. First figure out how to help fac/staff reach their goals and if their content seems appropriate, I like to take that extra step and introduce the idea of iTunesU. A good example is a client at the DMC who is doing some interviews with some big names in her line of work. She is planning on doing them on a monthly/bi-monthly basis. The first goal is to post them on the department website, but this type of recurring interview is perfect for the iTunesU format. I have started to refer people to http://itunes.wisc.edu/ not only for the exposure but also because it offers something a lot of departments don't have—storage and an online distribution hub.
I also think the key is getting more knowledge about the iTunesU process. I want to be able to give a solid answer to a fac/staff client that comes into the DMC and say, "I want to podcast on iTunesU." So hopefully I can get info and distribute it.
Thanks, John. This document is intended to help inform faculty, staff, students about Second Life, and point to UW-Madison resources for teaching with SL. Fac/staff/students are welcome to visit the island. In other words, it is not required that you sign this document before paying a visit. Let us know if we can help.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Moodle Knowledgebase Workgroup
We met to restructure and assess where we go from here…
In attendance:
Invited, notified of interest, unable to attend:
Invited, no reply:
After much discussion, it's been seen we need to better assess audience and how much of KB should be links to specific help for specific instances.
Action items:
Working on Matrix of site support resources: Access to business site (Catherine to email Billy); TEL site (COE, CALS, Biology, Chemistry, Physics); Math/Law/Pharmacy (Sue will contact); DCS (Lauranne to contact Nancy); Education (Catherine); EPD's is not public (can it be?)
this is a quote from the U of Georgia, perhaps a defininton of the Classroom of the future?
"We envision a physical and virtual place where all are invited to experiment, discover, create, commercialize and shape the future of digital media,” Kulkarni said. “We want to create an open innovation ecosystem that will make Georgia a global pioneer in this field and provide a model not only for what we do in future digital media, but also in how we do it.”
Speaking as a unit in the position of "needs Moodle but doesn't have a server" I can share how the issue is currently framed from our perspective. In the end it comes down to two options:
1) Rent a Silver-level server from DoIT Webhosting for $45/month and assume the responsibility of updating/maintaining the Moodle software ourselves.
2) Sweet talk our way into another unit's good graces to let us horn in on their Moodle instance or perhaps run a parallel instance for us, and they assume responsibility for updates/maintenance.
One way to make this current choice more "federated" would be to establish a more formal, measured SLA (service-level agreement) for option 2. That is, to standardize expectations when one unit hosts Moodle for another unit. Possibly X dollars would be transferred from the "customer" to the "provider" as part of that?
-- Hope this helps
(speaking for Division of Continuing Studies, which will probably go with option 1 next month assuming an option 2 doesn't magically happen)
Alan Ng
Thanks for this good start to the report.
Catherine
Anticipated Resources:
This project will primarily require staff time dedicated to getting the pilot up and going, but not necessarily new staff. There may be some costs associated with developing and offering a formal training curriculum. It is difficult to estimate those costs, but assuming 30 learning students and 4 teaching students and participate in the program, taking 8 hours of class time, a ballpark figure would be $1000 - $2000 per bootcamp.
I can see lumping the Digital Media Center under Strategy Item 3, but this may not be the best since we do not directly teach courses. Perhaps,we could make a separate item for support mechanisms on campus. Maybe something like:
5. Identify support mechanisms on campus to provide on-going support for graduate students.
--
Josh Harder
Thanks for putting together this screencast, John.
Looking forward to seeing how people put meetings and sign-up to use on the site!
Hopefully we'll have login for all NetID users soon, but for now, do we want to consider http://drupal.org/project/ucreate ?
To provide a little more insight into point 2.2 of the notes, the deeper we get into the RedDot / Drupal comparison discussion, the more I feel a framework similar to the one devised for the Learn@UW / Moodle Comparison may be of benefit to this discussion. The result was a rather high level 1.5 - 2 page doc with the following headings:
Introduction
Why two course management systems?
Why would an instructor choose Learn@UW?
Why would an instructor choose Moodle?
Where to go next?
The document attempts to provide just enough context, some of the major reasons the audience might decide to choose one system over the other, and resources for where to go next-- i.e. contact a consultant for more info or to get started. Part of the rationale for using a high level format like this is that it is less likely to become out-of-date as soon as it is posted while still providing important information for decision-making.
interesting thinking.
But I still need some convincing that this would have to be two sites. It seems likely we could meet all of the requirements you list above in a carefully created OG infrastructure. We're going to be learning a lot about what OG can and can't do in the next two months, so I think our sense of what is and isn't possible is going to shift significantly.
In terms of recognizability to the faculty - I perceive ComETS as a very strong "brand" on campus. It is not widely known outside of learning technology circles, but anyone that takes the time to get to know ComETS can quickly identify with what it is as an organization.
Perhaps most importantly, there's a layer behind all of this that needs some steering committee discussion. In addition to concerns about fragmenting the conversation and the user experience, I'd like to get the committee's thoughts on how moving in this direction shifts the scope and core mission of ComETS.
I can see advantages to both directions--primarily, It would be nice to have one central place for members to edit both working and public docs. Yet, there are a number of issues I can see with having all of the activity here on ComETS--mostly relating to audience.
One option might be to put this sort of information in TLE (since it has the faculty audience), but I worry a bit that it would water down the site's clear focus on teaching. Some of the questions of integration might be taken care of by a cross-site searching mechanism I'm working on.
Let's keep the discussion going! It might be technically easier than I think.
-jt
John,
Thanks for continuing the conversation about improving the ComETS site.
I really like the line of thinking you've got going here. I think that much if not all of what you propose could be done in a single installation. The public/private toggle for content is already in place and is a good start in this direction. A different front page design for non-authenticated users would take this a step farther. More sophisticated might be different front page views based on roles.
I like having a central place for ComETS members to generate ideas, resources, and conversations. Then the next step is to provide different lenses into that collection of information.
Thanks John.
See Josh's updated post. I thas the new CBS number with tasks that are in agreement with what NMS is using.
Actually, it was me who found the original comet (now attached). I should note that it's copyright status is sort of questionable. It was found on a site that offered images 'free for instructional use,' but the logo is now no longer online and newer materials on that site are copyright restricted.
Based on our conversation last week, would the following structure suit our needs? Comments and feedback welcome.
001 Planning and Coordination
002 Technical Support
003 Customer Support
004 System Administration
005 Infrastructure
006 Software
007 Hardware
Irene Golombiewski probably has all of the original artwork.
A working version of this comparison will be presented at the upcoming Moodle Update.
Check out the new article about FERPA compliance with using CRIS data in Moodle. There are some new things with Moodle 1.9.4 that should be added to this article in the near future. See the article at http://kb.wisc.edu/moodle/
-Updated notifications/messaging to 2.0 as 1.x were no longer supported (There are new options, but the old settings seem to have stuck. May be some new opportunities here).
-Uninstalled subscriptions
-Added a nice button for subscriptions and floated right (had to add a custom div in the module)
-Changed the pink (#F9EEF40) to #F5F5E9 & tried to make other color/layout tweaks in line w/ Josh's suggestions
Hi, This is a great overview, thanks, ! I look forward to when we can make public posts as I have information to share. Catherine
I think the first step is just keeping the Wisconsin Idea in mind when speaking with fac/staff. First figure out how to help fac/staff reach their goals and if their content seems appropriate, I like to take that extra step and introduce the idea of iTunesU. A good example is a client at the DMC who is doing some interviews with some big names in her line of work. She is planning on doing them on a monthly/bi-monthly basis. The first goal is to post them on the department website, but this type of recurring interview is perfect for the iTunesU format. I have started to refer people to http://itunes.wisc.edu/ not only for the exposure but also because it offers something a lot of departments don't have—storage and an online distribution hub.
I also think the key is getting more knowledge about the iTunesU process. I want to be able to give a solid answer to a fac/staff client that comes into the DMC and say, "I want to podcast on iTunesU." So hopefully I can get info and distribute it.
Thanks, John. This document is intended to help inform faculty, staff, students about Second Life, and point to UW-Madison resources for teaching with SL. Fac/staff/students are welcome to visit the island. In other words, it is not required that you sign this document before paying a visit. Let us know if we can help.
http://comets.wisc.edu/sims_games/virtualworld/index.html
Catherine
iTunesU is super cool. I'm really looking forward to seeing the iTunesU catalog expand.
One thing I'm wondering - how can we, as consultants, re-invigorate the conversation about podcasting and the Wisconsin Idea?
I just wanted to say thank you to everyone that was able to participate. Please feel free to post any comments that you may have here.