Richard, you asked, "I am somewhat familiar with moodle, and have installed a demo version
on my own server, but seeing it here makes me think that sfu will
support it and I am interested in having it for my own course - in
place of webCT. Can I do that?"
I see no reason to stop you, especially you have Moodle installed on your own server. SFU right now has no formal policy to support Moodle. However, we just started the development of a pilot course in Moodle at Surrey campus. This is part of the BCcampus's Moodle trial project SFU surrey is participating. With the gradual retirement of the home-grown CMS it's currently using, SFU surrey campus is at the cross-road where to head next. WebCT is an obvious choice, since it's supported university wide; however, faculty members want to explore alternatives. Moodle is one option.
I know individual people are using Moodle at SFU. It is the typical grass-root approach that has made Moodle so successful among its users. If there are enough people using Moodle at SFU, who knows, maybe the university will support it one day. In any case, if you are a user, you will get a lot of support from the Moodle community.
Cindy Xin
Posts made by Cindy Xin
Dan says, "From the analyses that I have read, if you want a complete integrated
system, Open Source is no cheaper than commercial packages."
I have to say that I agree with Richard's response. It probably won't be cheaper, but the money you spend on an open source system is generally an investment that goes back to the community. People will be able to share that knowledge. Besides, for an open source system, there would be no annual license fee. That money can be spent to develop a better tool, for example, and share your innovation with other members in the community, and vice versa.
I have to say that I agree with Richard's response. It probably won't be cheaper, but the money you spend on an open source system is generally an investment that goes back to the community. People will be able to share that knowledge. Besides, for an open source system, there would be no annual license fee. That money can be spent to develop a better tool, for example, and share your innovation with other members in the community, and vice versa.
My first reaction was that ?is it a reaction of the commercial CMS/LMS world to the open source movement?? The combined force of BB and WebCT will at least eliminate the competition between them, therefore they have better concentrated energy to fight against the open source world. But what does it mean for existing webct users? What does it mean for the CMS users and higher ed in general?
For the existing WebCT users, both Heather and Dan raised their concerns. These are very representative feelings and logical reactions. This is why right after the announcement was made, I, and am sure many other WebCT users, received a message from WebCT assuring me that I would continue receiving the level of service I always had and my use of WebCT would not be effect. I believe it, but for how long? First, we should be clear that it was not a merger; it was BB acquired WebCT. Let's face it, no company in BB's position will maintain two code bases forever. Why would it fight with itself? Eventually, BB and WebCT will become one and only one product. How is it going to handle the transition - evolution or revolution? I suppose we'll learn eventually. SFU as a current WebCT user has made the decision to upgrade to CE 6. I don't know how long we'll be using CE 6 before we have to face yet another major change.
What does it mean for CMS users in general? Many concern that without the competition this will kill innovation and eventually harm the end users and higher ed. Also institutions who are customers of BB and WebCT will be further locked in. It will make any change (i.e. moving away from them) in the future ever harder.
Personally, I'm not too worried about innovation. After all, we still have a very vibrant open source community. It's been providing most of the innovations anyway and it'll continue doing so. It'll force BB to keep competing, although some think that BB probably considers neither Sakai (http://sakaiproject.org) nor Moodle a threat, with Sakai being elitist and overly ambitious; and Moodle, perhaps too amateurish, or beneath competition. Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell.
As for the vender lock in concern, I see it is a real issue. The longer you stay with a closed system, the harder it is to move away from it. It is not just because you've invested a lot money and time on it but also because the content/data are formatted in a particular way and it would be a hell of job to strip them out and then port into a different system. That's why standards and standard-compliant are so important. I'm not sure to what extent BB and WebCT data are standard-compliant. Now they are two in one, they'd have less incentive to go by standards but more motivation to keep their customers locked in.
For the existing WebCT users, both Heather and Dan raised their concerns. These are very representative feelings and logical reactions. This is why right after the announcement was made, I, and am sure many other WebCT users, received a message from WebCT assuring me that I would continue receiving the level of service I always had and my use of WebCT would not be effect. I believe it, but for how long? First, we should be clear that it was not a merger; it was BB acquired WebCT. Let's face it, no company in BB's position will maintain two code bases forever. Why would it fight with itself? Eventually, BB and WebCT will become one and only one product. How is it going to handle the transition - evolution or revolution? I suppose we'll learn eventually. SFU as a current WebCT user has made the decision to upgrade to CE 6. I don't know how long we'll be using CE 6 before we have to face yet another major change.
What does it mean for CMS users in general? Many concern that without the competition this will kill innovation and eventually harm the end users and higher ed. Also institutions who are customers of BB and WebCT will be further locked in. It will make any change (i.e. moving away from them) in the future ever harder.
Personally, I'm not too worried about innovation. After all, we still have a very vibrant open source community. It's been providing most of the innovations anyway and it'll continue doing so. It'll force BB to keep competing, although some think that BB probably considers neither Sakai (http://sakaiproject.org) nor Moodle a threat, with Sakai being elitist and overly ambitious; and Moodle, perhaps too amateurish, or beneath competition. Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell.
As for the vender lock in concern, I see it is a real issue. The longer you stay with a closed system, the harder it is to move away from it. It is not just because you've invested a lot money and time on it but also because the content/data are formatted in a particular way and it would be a hell of job to strip them out and then port into a different system. That's why standards and standard-compliant are so important. I'm not sure to what extent BB and WebCT data are standard-compliant. Now they are two in one, they'd have less incentive to go by standards but more motivation to keep their customers locked in.
I'd like to add one more thing on top of change management and buidling of common ground; that is capability development. I think it is something every ID should concern himself or herself with. Empower the people you are helping and look for ways to be empowered by them too. That shows you have built successful relationships.
Barb, I think you have put your finger right on the pulse here by identifying the importance of change process and building of common ground. I think one of the central tasks for an instructional designer is to facilitate and manage the change process. It is much easier to see what input and output are; it is a harder task to explore, understand, and manage the process of getting us (i.e. we and our team) from where we are (i.e. input) to where we want to be (i.e. output). Between A and Z is about gradual change and change ultimately is about people. To make the change happen, people must start with identifying their common ground and then continuously strive to enlarge that common ground through dialogue and negotiation. In my view, this is what building relationships is about.