Page links
Site links
Remote links
Best viewed with
or 
(see the curves ...)
Best viewed with
or (see the curves ...)
IS proposes to implement Moodle course management software version 1.2 and later, on a local server and have it available for use by early summer. The installation will be the “out of the box version”.
An IS team will be convened to plan for development of Moodle. This development will be subject to the priorities of Administrative Computing Projects List and will need to be accommodated in the workload of Computer Services Systems staff and Instructional Technology and Media staff. It is our intent to install and maintain an effective implementation of Moodle within the staff constraints and modify the system to customize the Earlham look and add features that will make the system more productive.
In this implementation we will provide training and support for faculty who wish to experiment with and uses Moodle.
In addition we will continue to facilitate the use of CHEF by working with the Midwest Instructional Technology Center to maintain access to their implementation. We will continue to be involved with MITC's development of course management software services for GLCA/ACM colleges. ITPC will continue to monitor the course management software scene.
For the past two to three years isolated faculty and members of IS have been discussing the implementation of a course management system for Earlham College. Because of the needs of Plowshares and requests from faculty IS has been examining the issue systematically since August 2003.
We are aware that the Earlham School of Religion had implemented Blackboard several years ago when they started their distance education program. However the cost is prohibitive if we are to get a version scalable to size of Earlham College's course offerings. Similarly WebCT, a competitive commercial CMS, seemed prohibitively expensive. As a result we limited our exploration to open source software. While open source software does not require payment of a license fee or purchase price there are costs associated with maintenance and development therefore another consideration in choosing a CMS is the level and nature of the impact on IS staff of implementing a new system.
Examination of the status of CMS implementation beyond Earlham during 2002-03 showed that such systems were not widely implemented by GLCA/ACM colleges but that many were looking to implement a system in the near future. As a result of discussions between MITC and the University of Michigan, MITC installed and made available to its members the use of CHEF, a course management system developed at UM. A few faculty and IS have been experimenting with CHEF since August 2003.
In the meantime Moodle was identified as a widely used open source CMS. Furthermore positive reviews appeared in the literature. In the fall of 2003 Tom Kirk attended a meeting of those interested in CMS sponsored by MITC. At that meeting he heard first-hand testimony to the usefulness of Moodle from faculty member at Hope College. As a result IS staff loaded Moodle on a local server and a couple faculty are using it this spring semester.
Over the course of the first half of spring semester 2004, Wes Miller, Mark Pearson, Janet Russell and other faculty have discussed requirements of a course management system. In addition Computing Services has been exploring the technical requirements of supporting CHEF and Moodle.
In an “industry” development the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation made a grant in January 2004, to a consortium of the University of Michigan, Indiana University, M.I.T., Stanford University, the uPortal Consortium, and the Open Knowledge Initiative. The consortium's purpose is to “integrate and synchronize their considerable educational software into a modular, pre-integrated collection of open source tools.” In other words the development would make it possible for modules to be compatible with other systems. The Mellon grant to the four schools is to test that concept and to develop a hybrid CMS that uses the best features of the four universities. “The core universities are also committed to implementing these tools at their own institutions starting in Fall 2004 through the duration of the project.”
Our decision to move forward with the local implementation of Moodle is based on the following points:
The CHEF remote access presents a series of security and support issues that make effective implementation for full-scale use problematic The uncertainties of the CHEF/SAKAI development suggest we should take a wait and see approach toward its fuller implementation. The demands of Plowshares and the requests of many faculty for a mechanism for controlled access to documents (i.e., electronic reserves) makes a choice critical at this point.
We acknowledge that making a decision now is difficult because the future of CHEF/SAKAI and Moodle is so uncertain. Furthermore if we are to bring CHEF/SAKAI in-house will require additional resources that will need to be obtained. We believe the proposal allows us to move forward as needs dictate while keeping alternatives open. We encourage frank and open discussion of the financial, technical and pedagogical issues that touch on choices.
