03022007

Notes from the CMS Transition Meeting

March 2, 2007

Elluminate Recordings: Morning Session ;  Afternoon Session

Roles & Security –

• Admin + DOME (superadmin)
• How many superadmin accounts are anticipated in each org across the state?  Answers include:
• Most orgs indicated 1-5;
• 5 until initial setup and conversion complete, then 0;
• DOME Admin to be limited to 3 Admin with Role Switch to + DOME and a locked away password for a superadmin account
• Instructor
• For the RODP org, only the Instructional Designer role has access to navbar, homepage, etc.
• Suggestion was made of using an Instructor-Limited Access type account for grad students/grad assistants.
• For the Southwest org, Instructor roles very limited; they are not authorized to make changes to quizzes, assignments (though they can change conditional release, dates, etc) – all content changes must go through course developer
• The question was raised as to the potential benefit of a limited helpdesk account?  Please note further discussion of helpdesk suggestions.
• Student
• The University of Memphis org includes roles for Student Assistant and Sample Student
• A question was raised regarding the necessity of a fake student account so that Instructors can role switch in order to take quiz
• Several noted that the Role Switch function is deceptive in some of its implementations
• Some participants indicated a preference for an actual faux student account over the use of role switch for evaluating courses from a student perspective
• Question – is the documentation provided by the University of Arizona based on D2Lv7?
• The University of Memphis org includes 13 different roles.  Specialized roles include:
• Department Aid – for example, in the psychology department, a student or other departmental assistant with rights to view all courses in department
• Faculty Guest – an outside subject matter expert who cannot see gradebook, can make no changes to content or design, but can participate (as a guest lecturer/presented)
• Student-Inactive – in order to conduct grade appeals, finish incompletes
• Sample Student – as in WebCT
• Helpdesk – can’t edit course info, but can log in to see what is happening
• Question – If a currently enrolled student is simultaneously finishing Incomplete, what role would be assigned?  Or would this be a function of the role switch?
• Likely plan would be to change the student’s designation to the Student – Incomplete role in this situation.  The only difference between the SI and standard Student roles is the ability to view previous semesters.  Once the incomplete is resolved, the student’s designation can be reset to Student.
• Question – What are the future plans for Role Switch?  Will Student accounts be created for each instructor in the meantime?
• It is probable that the Role Switch function will be mostly satisfactory in its application.  However, while migrating and testing, a faux student may be worth effort. Even if the Role Switch is not fully functional now, it probably will be soon.
• Question – What if we set up too many or too few roles during this summer semester wihile testing and modifying?  If we later change or modify the roles when we already have hundreds of students and scores of faculty in the system, how much of a mess will this make?
• It was agreed that tests should be conducted to determine if any data is left over after modifying the role settings on an active account.
• One report indicated that, after modifying role settings, there was only the (desired) loss of privileges; no data artifacts or glitches were discovered.
• Question – Have all the orgs fully thought their role hierarchy in D2L, specifically considering the effects of such features as “cascading” or “in classlist,” etc?
• In D2L, there are only 3 fundamental roles – student, instructor, and administrator.  Variation on these can be created, but the roles are fundamentally the same.
• When setting up role switch, we must be careful.  For example, if you allow a lateral role switch between administrator roles, and one administrator role has DOME access, even the most restricted administrator can switch into DOME access.
• The ETSU org is configured such that only sysadmin can role switch to other admin; lower admin are restricted from switching laterally.
• Question – Why not cascade at dean/dept chair level?
• Since courses are taught primarily by one institution, deans from across the state would have access to courses of other institutions.
• Question – How can we troubleshoot the cascading setup if it is still not functioning properly?  Some roles should have read-only access, but are still being denied.
• You can go to the enrollment icon to see the enrollment at every level.
• Also, an additional org (tbrtraining) will be set up with departmental access by school for training purposes.  This setup should cascade for trainers at each campus.  This org is still in being configured.
• Question – How did we end up with an extra org for training?
• This was not done at TBR.  D2L initially set up tbrtraining.desire2learn.com; when all the other orgs were created, this original org was copied to make the others.  We currently have 23 orgs + this one (which is not part of contract, and there is no guarantee we will always have it; but it is a good place to experiment).  The current contract gives us access to one test server with one org.  While not the best platform for development, it is useful.

 

There was a presentation of the best practices of documentation for DOME settings.   Currently, there is an implementation hard copy of those settings, but soon an electronic copy will be available.  Documentation is required for accreditation purposes and also to justify any decision made when setting up the D2L orgs.

• Additionally, the RODP org DOME settings (fully expanded) will be added to the wiki.  If there are some settings that infringe on privacy settings regarding RODP org, they will not be shown.

 

A demonstration of the creation of multiple colleges and departments within the ETSU org –

• Question – How do you define the parent-child relationship between colleges and departments?
• Each college (D2L org unit type – other) contains all the standard departments in the same hierarchical arrangement of the on-ground school. Other schools can create a division rather than a college; this can be conform your D2L structure to your campus hierarchy.
• One report of no success upon attempting to configure the org settings so that courses are divided by department on the “My Home” page.
• This is a special request item for D2L.  You must submit this in a ticket to D2L.  This can also be configured by semester (though currently broken in 8.1.2m3).

 

Question – Has there been a determination on metadata standards and/or the view for SCORE?

• The RODP org has taken the SCORE standard (D2L president John Baker was involved in creation of this standard) to D2L.  It is currently online at tbronline.org org.  We asked D2L if we are able to copy these standards out and migrate them to other orgs; D2L is currently investigating (eventual implementation may resemble a widget).
• The LOM standard for SCORE may be the same.  We can demonstrate it, but it must be reconstructed in other orgs.  It is recommended that orgs discuss setup with chairs and libraries in order to create a working group to discuss repository issues and how to set up state-wide repository requirements (i.e., objects must have SCORE metadata prior to addition to state repositories). 

Question – There are 4 or 5 metadata standards available in D2L by default; will we eliminate all except SCORE?  If down road decide need IEEE standard for something else?

• It would be possible to create a departmental administrator role in tbronline.org for training + access to view SCORE metadata.  The RODP org has the LOM turned off until procedures have been decided by committee.

• Question – Is there an LOR TBR-wide launch date?
• Not yet; originally, were going to tie all LORs together through Cordra server, but that will not be available for 12-24 months.  Florida has offered to host a state-wide SCORE LOR.  The Florida Learning Consort received FIPSE grant to evaluate the process they used to create LOR.  We have shown interest in participating as pilot state; Florida will act as consultant
• Question – Regarding the repository, is it possible to create early-on a simple set of metadata tags that would be foundational and could assume that those few not change so we can begin to experiment with LOR under conditions that wouldn’t change?
• The SCORE metadata is the basic data we need to be using; if get any items using different standard, they must be updated to SCORE LOM later on; these can be made available for each org, but that process can be time consuming.
• Question – Is it possible to have a sandbox LOR of multiple LORs that can first can be experimental for mechanics to facilitate discussion?
• It may be possible, but we should put SCORE data on it.

 

 

Templating, Tools, NavBars, etc –

• Question – What is the primary reason for Student Services & Virtual Library links?
• These are related to accreditation.  We must be sensitive to providing same level of access to services as on-ground.  These links are placed in the bookmark widget, but always available at the top of the page.
• The RODP org would like to encourage all to consider Student Services links in navbars.
• Question – Is it encouraged for faculty to list an external email in course?
• Yes, in any event that emergency contact is necessary (server shutdown, etc.)
• Question – What is the procedure if content sent to external gets lost?
• We are training faculty to conduct all business within the CMS; the external email is provided only for emergencies.  Faculty must understand all the basic guidelines.
• Suggestion for basic building blocks: course home; course content; discussions; assessments; dropbox; grades; glossary; classlist.
•  Please note the changes from the D2L default nomenclature – accreditation bodies shifting to “assessment” (rather than “quizzes”) for matching of learning outcomes to assessment of LO, in parallel.
• Question – Does the changing of the tool nomenclature risk confusion  (i.e., regarding tools borrowed from Arizona that use the standard D2L nomenclature)?
• This was carefully considered and could pose a definite drawback.  Current thinking focuses on the advantages of aligning with accrediting bodies and known best practices in distance education, which outweigh the disadvantages.
• No journal, LiveRoom, checklist, blog, rubric
• Question – Can those instructors who want to use the rubric tool request its addition?
•  Yes; there will be many faculty who can use tools.  The RODP org will take special requests for non-standard toolset.  However, the learning curve is steep enough without including the advanced tools, but power users can successfully implement them.
• Question – Can anyone use more than one navbar (department, college, etc)?
• Yes, the RODP org will move toward that to accommodate faculty requests for larger toolset.  There are specialized needs across the state (e.g., Allied Heath).  Much of this will be determined as need arises, but certain instances are already known.
• Question – Will all other course offerings look just like that?
•  Yes, but there are a couple of relevant considerations:
• The D2L term “Template” and our version are different; also,
• Existing courses versus new courses (in both, the presented version is default homepage and navbar for the RODP org unless special request)
• Question – Is there any way to change navbars in a template without affecting courses underneath?
• At present, we do not have an answer, but can research it.
• It is possible to assign a specific navbar to specific course offerings; we could associate navbar2 (rather than the default navbar) with a related course offering when necessary.
• Note that the navbar on a user’s D2L homepage is totally separate from what D2L calls the template.  Since creating a course from the template will pick up default navbar, the change must be affected at course level after creation.
•  Special requests may require the creation of additional navbars that could then be imported into other courses.
• Widgets currently included in the RODP org include:
• How To Get Started
•  This was the result of focus groups of WebCT students and new students.
• How To Read News
• This was the result of focus groups of WebCT students and new students.
• Tech Support
• Students
• Faculty
• 4 news items must be posted by default
• Course & Instructor Contact Information
• Welcome Message
• Course Description
• How This Course Works
• Question – Have there been any reports about readability/accessibility of navbars (font size, etc)? This may also apply to course content outlines.
• The RODP org does have a meeting scheduled with an accessibility expert to discuss this.
• One report of running the navbars through JAWS:
• Some problems were experienced;
• The basic content was no problem, but not sure about navbar font size.
• Question – What about the effects of screen resolution?
• Yes, would affect the display.
• Question – Could it be a possible future request for D2L to make those items in navbar available in a widget (note, we still can’t quicklink to discussion page, only to particular discussion within a widget)
• Course Content
•  There are reports that some courses already cloned have hiccups on course content.  Further discussion on course conversion follows.
• The course content template for the RODP org has worked to integrate the Quality Matters standards.
• Question – What about implementing an academic integrity statement and ADA statement in each course?
• There was general agreement that this would be a good idea.
• There is an integrity statement recommendation coming from the appropriate committee.
• Question – Would these be found on every homepage?
• Note: A library wants to create a library D2L site that would contain all students for each semester.
• Question – Would this be a course in D2L with all students having access?  In the RODP org, an attempt is being made to disaggregate the students by college so that can be easily emailed.
• A presentation of a special widget with the location for all campus labs (html file at root level, linked to in widget)
• Question – Where will this widget be located?
• On the Portal (My Courses) page with links to lab locations, hours, other support services for students on campus and online.  It is not linked to external website, but to an html file at the org root level.
• Question – Are there any permission problems associated with this location of the html file at the root directory rather than the shared directory?
• It may only be clutter at the root level.
• There may be the potential of a hack to root directory, but the shared directory has established security protocols.  Additionally, we can send links to students in a Word document as well
• A presentation of an RSS widget that combines a training calendar generated using RSSCalendar.com and feed2js.org.  It is the javascript that is actually embedded in the widget.
• Question – Is there a way to limit the height of the widget or to limit RSS feed to certain size?
• These should be configured through feed2js.org.
• Various specialty widgets are available for review on the TBR eLearning wiki (http://elearning-wiki.tbr.edu)
• An incident reported in which one trainee changed the colors of navbar and can’t change them back.
• Using the “Manage Nav Bars” (or “Edit Course” if inside offering) may solve the problem.
• Question – How can we manipulate the font color within navbar?
• Some research will need to be done on this.

 

Quality Matters & D2L –

• The RODP org is trying to integrate standards into templates.
• These standards utilize the students’ perspective (“advocates” for students on design issues); for example, navigation must be easy to understand – if it is not intuitive, then explicit directions are essential (it is advised that recommendations are collected from students);
• Introduction – a welcome letter serves to inform the student of the expectations of the course; informs a student of where to start; self-introductions of instructor and students creates a sense of community (suggested by best practices in distance education & Quality Matters);
• Grading Scale – 90% of grading scales are incorrect since they don’t match actual values after sectional faculty have modified the assignment structure for their individual courses;
• Objectives Alignment – makes sure that the course learning objectives/outcomes align with the course assessments;
• Self Assessments – practice assignments should be provided for quick learner feedback:
• Ungraded quizzes;
• Games; and/or
• Simulation;
• Modules – course must be well structured and easy to understand;
• Copyright Issue – imbedded hyperlinks in HTML modules from WebCT open up in the same window, creating copyright issues.  The suggested mitigation strategy: must go into hyperlink settings and change to open in new window.

 

 

Bulk Course Creation –

• Several intentional deviations from the standard csv files for uploading have been tested; results can be viewed at: http://www.columbiastate.edu/fitt/bcc_test/this_is_what_happened.htm.  There have been some issues reported with the content following the course, though this may be related to a WebCT incomplete export issue rather than D2L import problem.
• Question – Is it more effective to do work in WebCT prior to conversion (make conversion easier), or clean up after import to D2L?
• Some report that they would rather clean up WebCT by deleting course menu, as this facilitates a much cleaner import.  Additionally, any icons on homepage must be removed (or the course import process will result in incorrectly replicated materials).
• It  will likely require 2-3 hours minimum to clean up each course.
• Some suggest that it is more efficient to move files only and then assemble the course in D2L.
• Resulting discussion pointed to three options:
• Clean up WebCT course first;
• Clean up after import to D2L; or
• Only move files, then rebuild table of contents in D2L.
• Question – What happens to quizzes and homework assignments during the import/export process?
• If we move files, we can export quiz structure; but, if we move the whole course, we not only get quizzes and content, but also the dropbox and discussions after the import.
• Some BlackBoard specific issues have arisen as well:
• Course links must be correct, or the archive will send an error report.
• Moving files and then recreating structure might be best solution
• Question – For campuses that have already gone through WebCT to D2L migration, what did they say as best strategy?
• There are several reports that the best solution is to recreate the courses.
• Also, 90% of their faculty decided to delete the Table of Contents prior to export and recreate the course from file structure following the import.
• Question – Many faculty will want to copy components between courses. When copying components, if you just copy content modules, files don’t move; so, what is the recommended method to structure files on the back end?  How is it possible to make copying between course offerings easier?
• Some orgs started with file structure early to make transfer easier.
• Question – We only have 6 months to complete this transition.  Will it be to time-consuming to rebuild everything from the files?
• Course Conversion Feedback Cycle form is posted on wiki;
• Under the current D2L contract, the system has 200 tickets per month (about 10/campus).  However, during the conversion period we are not charged for certain things; under this grace period we can get as much from helpdesk as possible to resolve issues.  If system personnel can complete the course conversion form (http://elearning-wiki.tbr.edu/feedbackform; note, requires log-in), we can identify system-wide issues and the services needed.
• If we’re having conversion problems associated with moving a course out of WebCT or BlackBoard, that’s not a ticketable issue. Normal helpdesk assistance won’t do much but list the specifications supported; however the D2L team is dedicated to finding the answer for whatever is necessary.
• If system personnel could summarize issues, we’ll collate and pass along to D2L support/Sylvie’s team to run down those issues, but a list is needed (which course, where come from, what method of import, etc – on form, some will be N/A)

·      Question – Do we need one form per course, or can group similar issues?

o      Please group any similar issues.

·      Question – Is there a problem with semesters?

o      They must be created in the org unit editor in the hierarchy, added as a child unit, then changed to semester.

o      Note, once created, the new unit will not be visible until you leave and reenter DOME administration.

 

Question – Can faculty have control over the template and course offering under template?

• Yes, by editing the course settings.

 

Question – Has anybody constructed a departmental homepage in D2L?

• Not yet.

 

Question – Since email is not grouped in the default view, is there a way to have email from student identified by what course student is in?

• In the email view, there is a dropdown for “filter by”.  You will see each section listed separately.  You can view all messages or just those from one course, so there is no need to put code letters in the subject line; the system can filter the messages.

 

Question – Is there something new with the discussion board?

• In the next D2L release (8.2) will be gradable discussion board.  This release is due in April or May.
• We need to figure out a test server, get it up and running, then test 8.l.2 with defined characteristics that we may want to implement.  However, it will probably be a while before that goes into production (Fall, 2007).

 

Report – Users have created assignments, viewed them as a student & submitted them, then graded the submissions as an instructor.  However, the assignment was still shown as unchecked.  The D2L documentation listed this as a known bug with a fix.

• We will contact D2L to get the fix.

 

Question – Is it possible to run BCC more often?

• This question has already been posed to Sylvie, and we will follow up.
• While there are no students in system, it would be beneficial to run the BCC 2-3 times per day.

 

Report – If users are not enrolled correctly, things get weird for that user.  When the user is assigned an initial role (S/I/A), then enrolled in a course through manage users, if the assignments are not same, the user will not see exactly what they want to see.

• Question – Are there any known examples? Is it possible to enroll Vice President So Andso as a student at one level and admin at the organizational level?
• If the user is assigned as an Instructor in the org and enrolled as a Student, they may not see the course properly; This may be even more confusing when roles begin to cascade.

 

Question – Has anybody played with student, email address book seeing everybody?

• In the RODP org, we have turned off the address book for everybody
• User can go to classlist (enable see email address for fellow students) and can click link for “email all”.  We turned off ability to send to people not in address book

 

Question – Now that we are familiar with D2L, the system still needs input regarding the helpdesk.  The recommendation is for a Tier 1 at institution. However, from 7 pm till the next morning & weekends, the system had proposed a Tier 2 helpdesk.  We need to know what the system needs from a Tier 2 helpdesk:

• Some have requested no ability to change passwords except at the campus level.
• Some have requested no access to institutional classes but at the institution itself.
• With the current setup of the STCC helpdesk, there is no access to anything past log-in screen.  Policy is that we don’t want them to go into the courses; one reason is security related – they would need the student’s username and password.  Also, with WebCT, this type of access has messed up student tracking.
• VSCC reported that the committee looked at the helpdesk role and either gave permission or took it away.  They allowed helpdesk personnel to look at content, but they could change nothing.
• NSCC helpdesk personnel have read-only access to everything and can walk through procedures, but not change anything
• There may be a problem with LDAP integration and password resets from a FERPA standpoint.
• Question – So the primary suggestion is for read-only access?
• Majority agreement.
• At several campuses, the majority of helpdesk calls come in at the beginning of the semester (primarily regarding how to log in).  The number of calls that come in after that regard uploading assignments, password resets, going to the wrong website (campus v. RODP), or slow server response time, but the volume of call is noticeably reduced from the beginning of the semester.
• At the RODP administrative helpdesk, most calls are program problems.  Campus survey indicated that certain concerns (student-teacher disagreement) should be handled by the program office rather than at the campus level.
• Report that the Luminous password system uses a generic password (original default).  The system may want D2L to reset password to the default (and only the default) after hours.
• ETSU has a webpage (Account Activation Page) that students/faculty can use to reset their password independently.  Users supply SSN, birth date, and user name & then they can reset their password to whatever they want.  This system is currently not integrated with Luminous.
• The system is set up to create active directory accounts as disabled; faculty and students must visit the reset page to activate the account for first time.  It may be possible to add a script to reset a users Banner account based on the active directory LDAP (password set there).
• If luminous is working with D2L, there will be no need for D2L to reset password because Luminous can handle everything behind the scenes.
• The system may need to wait till the entire system has converted to Banner.
• Question – When Luminous and D2L work together, will users ever be going to the D2L log-in page?
• That is the understanding after the campus portals are in place.
• However, we should maintain alternative log-in options, so that if the Luminous server is down users can still get into courses
• A survey was recently sent to the Distance Education Deans (with a copy to the D2L trainers) asking for helpdesk information.  The system needs to know which institutions have a dedicated password reset page.

 

Question – Is it possible to agree on what the course migration path and set of best practices would look like?  We’ve heard agreement that moving files is good, but the time constraints have been indicated as a potential problem.  Would the guideline document be narrative, outline, flowchart, or even useful at all?

• If any institution has a problem with conversion or needs help with training, the central staff and colleagues will send someone out to assist. If there are large training sessions scheduled, the central staff will come out in person to help train.
• It may be that there is not lack of support or ability to train, but rather it is the number of faculty and scheduling them in time.
• Question – What are the next steps? Are the volunteers who can work together to create a document on how to convert courses?
• There are documents available online that suggest what institutions should do before conversion and after cross-over.  For example, the Michigan State site has a useful checklist for before and after.
• Question – Is it possible to have anyone who has conducted testing to create a flowchart starting with WebCT on the admin side through where course is imported to the D2L environment to when faculty or Instructional Designers take over?  Could it include what are the best practices for getting the course ready for instruction?
• There is a conversion chart checklist (from eScholar to d2l) available at http://www.uwstout.edu/lts/webid/tutorials/Conversion1-2-3Process_Final_compressed.pdf
• RODP central office will put up a gliffy shared flowchart and invite everyone to join in as a collaborative document.
• Other future activities include:
• During conversion, figure out the integration of Respondus and Wimba (CLSCC will be conducting training on 16 March).  There is some concern regarding third-party tools.
• Thompson Learning just signed contract with D2L and will make all their modules D2L compliant.  They will let us know when the process is complete.
• Regarding the use of ePacks, if those faculty who use them could assemble certain publication information (publisher, contact, edition, etc.), the system can contact the publisher with a whole group.  The goal would be to convince publishers of the need to convert their materials by January.