home

= =

= Montclair State University = = Provost's Working Group = = Learning / Content / Course Management System = NOTE - in order to edit this wiki, you need to click the JOIN button to the left. Please be sure to use your MSU email account so I know who is requesting.

Also, in order to know when someone makes changes to this page, once you have joined, click the NOTIFY ME tab about and get a notice when updates are made to the page via either email or RSS. upgrades ; not predictable and not easy to quantify per AY because Bb is allowed contractually to raise license costs up to 10% per contract cycle || √ Cost-saving (less predictable out of the gate, but also less likely to balloon later on); simply not paying a license fee makes the software much less expensive; current Bb license fee is about $160K || Nota bene: current browsers only supported on current (recent) release. Support for current browsers not always verified or guaranteed as development and QA testing is only with current release of LMS. × Programmers work in something of a black box. Feature/function requests are given priority driven by the bottom line. If you don't like their prioritization you have to lump it, as happened to us with the BB9 rollout × Mandated patches/updates × Locked into one support vendor || √ Upgrade autonomy (although if open source “standard” version is upgraded, institution may have to also re-upgrade locally) √ Choice of support vendors whose bottom line is keeping you from selecting another vendor × Requires 3rd-party support, either for tech support alone or tech support with hosting √ Does not require additional IT personnel (programmers, Web- developers) × Hidden costs??? (temporarily supporting two systems) × Migration of courses may be more complicated (depends on the course) || √ Documentation/training = System upgrades require training (in-house training requirements should not differ appreciably) || × Fear of change/instability × May need to develop support documentation, but existing resources could be used = New system requires training (in-house training requirements should not differ appreciably) √ Adaptable system may require less training (can be simplified to meet faculty's needs) || library services, e-portfolio) × Teacher-centric and hierarchical  × Lack of customization  × Proprietary, non-transferable pedagogical content once contract terminated  = Support for Section 508 (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards for designing accessible courses || √ Student-centric and flat/networked √ Transparent and customizable ( development and solutions shared by a network of active, global users) √ Faster integration of new technologies and applications  √ Interfaces better with Web 2.0 environment  √ Used in more settings (educational, corporate, governmental) √ Users can take work with them  × Modifications and adaptations cannot be infinite and must still be prioritized  √ Provides for other system integration into LMS (e.g. library services, e-portfolio)  = Support for Section 508 (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards for designing accessible courses ||
 * ** PROS & CONS OF PROPRIETARY & OPEN SOURCE LMSs ** ||
 * **// Proprietary //** || **// Open Source //** ||
 * **// A. Cost //** ||
 * × Prohibitive cost that rises with number of users and
 * **// B. Maintenance //** ||
 * √ Supported and relatively stable
 * **// C. Training //** ||
 * √ Perception of safety/stability
 * **// D. Adaptability/Flexibility //** ||
 * √ Provides for other system integration into LMS (e.g.