0 Contents 2011 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Accomplishments for 2011 ....................................................................................................................... 1 Areas Needing Improvement .................................................................................................................... 2 Mission ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 What Do We Do? ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Who do we do it for? ................................................................................................................................ 4 Why do we do it? ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Trends and Forces ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Technology adoption ................................................................................................................................ 6 Technology trends..................................................................................................................................... 6 Pedagogical trends .................................................................................................................................... 7 Social and political trends ......................................................................................................................... 7 Faculty and staff trends ............................................................................................................................ 8 Student trends .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Vision ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Characteristics of a Successful Center for Teaching and Learning ........................................................... 9 Characteristics of Our Work ...................................................................................................................... 9 Goals and Sub‐goals for 2012 and Beyond.......................................................................................... 11 A. Establish strong partnerships with faculty, students, and larger communities ............................. 11 B. Become a Center of Excellence/Place of authority......................................................................... 11 C. Demonstrate seamless integration of instruction and technology ................................................ 11 D. Increase efficiency of resources ..................................................................................................... 12 Appendices................................................................................................................................................ 13 2011 CTL Retreat Report Submitted by the Writing Team: Pam Becker, Caryl Gordon, Jaesoon An, Mike Algozzine, Nancy Cooke, & J. Garvey Pyke 3/15/2011
What Do We Do? ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Who do we do it for? ................................................................................................................................ 4
Why do we do it? ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Trends and Forces ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Social and political trends ......................................................................................................................... 7
Faculty and staff trends ............................................................................................................................ 8
2011 CTL Retreat Report Submitted by the Writing Team: Pam Becker, Caryl Gordon, Jaesoon An, Mike Algozzine, Nancy Cooke, & J. Garvey Pyke 3/15/2011
1
2011 Overview
The overall climate at the university has been a year of cutbacks, increased student enrollment, and larger class sizes. In light of these developments, the Center for Teaching and Learning has done extremely well in rising to the occasion to support faculty in their teaching while being good stewards of resources, and we look to improve upon other areas.
Accomplishments for 2011
Collaborative Work with Faculty, Departments, and Colleges
• Collaborative projects with faculty including Large Course Redesign, Online Course Design with Distance Education, Technology Showcases, Bank of America Award Finalists series, eTextbook Symposium, et al.
• Successful administration of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) grants program. • College/department outreach by giving customized workshops and meeting with them (Appendix A). • Collaborating with the ITS Help Desk to continuously update new workarounds/solutions for current issues and
information posted on our web site. • Working with FITSAC and the Faculty Evaluation Committee to implement online course evaluations.
Effective support for Faculty, Staff, and Students
• High number of help tickets: 1499 tickets and 93 work orders (Appendix E). • Fast response to help tickets: One day or less on turnaround for Tier 2 supports issues. • High number of individualized consultations: 298 one‐on‐one consultations. • Steady signups for Moodle workshops and Open Swim (Appendix A). • Providing DIY support materials such as Moodle how‐to guides, podcasts, Webinars, blogs, and videos. • Strategically‐aligned, diverse offerings: e.g., large course redesign, online course design, and DIY materials. • Successful roll out of major faculty development programs such as the eTextbook Symposium, Summer Institute
and New Faculty Intensive Week.
Effective Technology Administration
• Moodle adoption rate is up (Appendix C). • Moodle stability/reliability; low system downtime compared to previous years. • Working effectively with cloud partners such as Remote Learning and Wimba. • Moodle enhancements including Team Assignments, customized themes, Turnitin integration, et al. (Appendix
B).
Innovation/Advocacy
• Leading campus‐wide technology adoption initiatives: Electronic course evaluations, Wimba replacement. • Investigating new technology: Mobile, Saba Centra, Moodle 2.x. • Promoting integration of technology with instruction: supporting course design projects that adopt technology
and providing pedagogy examples in technology workshops. • Student outreach: Teaching Program for Doctoral Students (TPDS) program; training student help staff. • Adjunct faculty outreach: two, multiday online workshops on “Using Moodle to Enhance Your Teaching.” • International faculty outreach: ESL Clinic, brownbag session, and Moodle community site.
2
• Ensuring accessibility of technology tools and materials we provide.
Leadership/Communication
• Effective leadership from Valorie, Garvey, and Lee. • Excellent internal communication among teams and administrative staff. • Crossover of personnel between the Technical Systems and Instructional Programs teams helping out with
workshops and consultations. • Aligning our programs with the University’s mission. • Promoting CTL’s services and programs: Faculty know where they and their students can find relevant help such
as the CTL web site, workshops, and help desk. • Successful Faculty Fellow program: expanded it to include up to four fellows at one time.
Areas Needing Improvement
Although we have excelled in many areas, there is still room for improvement in both those we have exceeded and those we have not.
Faculty Outreach
• Work more with Adjunct faculty: Although we did have 50 adjunct faculty take part in the online workshops created specifically for them, there are still many who will not come to campus to attend workshops or even online offerings due to their full time employment.
• Outreach to established faculty: How to get repeat customers. • Explore new opportunities for instructional support. • Attract faculty to pedagogy workshops. • Organize/attract faculty learning communities. • Outreach to departments or co‐sponsor events. • Department‐based workshops connecting with departments using experts.
Student Outreach
• Work with graduate school on MA and Ph.D. student teaching. • Work with student support services: Training was held in Fall and Spring 2011 for the student help staff, but
there are many students employed who do not have a set schedule and instead have information relayed via Fritz Hjardemaal .
• How to handle beginning/end of semester support spikes.
3
• Partner with Tier 1 support to create a timely workflow. • Expedite escalation of tier 2 support tickets from the University help desk. Sometimes it takes a few days for a
ticket to reach us. • Training for tier 1 help desk issues. • Problems/issues must be user‐tracked via the Helpdesk Online system.
Keeping Abreast of New Technology/Change
• Self‐paced faculty and student training materials. • Mobile strategy support: Students (and some faculty) would like to have access on their cell phones, etc. • Moodle version upgrades: Version 2.x is released, we are still using 1.9.8.
Organizational Development Issues Within CTL
• Personal professional development. • Collaboration between Technical Systems team and Instructional Programs team. • Data‐driven decision making. • Cross training. • Team building. • Increase feedback and recognition of good work by all department members.
Marketing/Self‐Promotion across Campus
• Share evidence of our work to promote programs we offer: e.g., usage of DIY materials. • Advertise consultation numbers. • Report impacts of our work on student learning. • Highlight faculty success/testimonies: Regularly spotlight faculty members who have successfully implemented
something we have suggested. • Advertise web resources: e.g., Teaching with Moodle, Wimba, or Clickers online “courses.” • Publish CTL mission to faculty. • Compare ourselves to other CTLs at other universities.
External Collaboration
• Participate in national associations or professional development groups (e.g.,. American Society for Technical Communicators, or ASTD).
• Work with other teaching centers in the UNC system. • Secure external funding.
4
Mission
To understand the mission of our center, we brainstormed on the kind of work we do, for whom we do the work, and why we do it.
What Do We Do?
Professional Development: We strive to improve teaching and learning practices and change behaviors of our clients for better practices.
• Offer workshops and individual consultations on the use of technology tools and pedagogy. • Organize major events: Summer Institute, symposiums, and technology showcases. • Support course design: Large course redesign, online course design, and DE course design. • Promote SOTL. • Observe teaching when requested. • Be evangelistic about tech tools.
Instructional Technology Support
• Administer Moodle. • Make enhancements to Moodle. • Troubleshoot technical issues. • Create self‐help documentation. • Explore new technologies. • Promote best practices of Web design including accessibility.
Collaboration/Advocacy
• Collaborate with faculty. • Advocate faculty interests. • Collaborate with students. • Enable collaboration among our clients.
Who do we do it for?
Instructors
• Faculty including adjuncts and Distance Education (DE) faculty. • Teaching Assistants (TAs) including TPDS doctoral students. • Instructional staff.
Students
• We serve students ultimately by helping instructors teach students better.
Larger Community
• Professional community at conferences.
5
• Regional: Charlotte metro area & the state of NC. • National & International.
• To help faculty improve teaching and facilitate student learning. • To help faculty cope with different learning styles. • To make lectures more understandable. • To make teaching satisfactory for faculty. • To empower faculty.
For Students
• To improve student learning. • To increase student success, retention, and progression. • To improve the student experience. • To address different learning styles.
For the Institution
• To advance the university or elevate the institution. • To fulfill the mission of the university.
For the Field
• To advance and improve pedagogy or teaching practice. • To give faculty options to improve teaching or bring flexibility to teaching. • To improve the field of teaching and learning or increase the knowledge base.
6
Trends and Forces
Trends and forces are external factors that can influence CTL’s progress, either positively or negatively, toward reaching its goals. Trends and forces could also be referred to as opportunities and threats. In a traditional SWOT analysis, opportunities and threats represent environmental factors that are outside the organization’s control. Opportunities are positive factors that could enable the organization to improve its performance or make additional progress toward specific goals. Threats are negative factors that could create problems for the organization or cause roadblocks for specific projects. Trends and forces contrast with strengths and weaknesses, which are internal characteristics of the organization that provide a competitive advantage or disadvantage. Trends and forces essentially represent the external equivalent of internal strengths and weaknesses.
The trends and forces described in this section are not identified as distinctly positive or distinctly negative. In many cases, a trend or force can provide both positive and negative influences. Furthermore, CTL may be able to take a negative influence or threat and turn it into a positive influence or opportunity.
Technology adoption
• Moodle adoption is increasing among faculty and students, not only at UNC Charlotte, but also at other institutions.
• Mobile device usage is increasing among faculty and students. As a result, faculty and students expect instructional technologies to become more portable. This may be driving faculty and students away from the library, computer labs, and other communal learning spaces or away from campus altogether. In addition to the pedagogical implications, this has technology implications related to the infrastructure that is required to support these devices. Campus networks must be designed to support increased mobile usage. In addition, when faculty and students connect from off‐campus, their experience is largely dependent on connection quality and other factors that are outside our control.
• Social networking usage is increasing among faculty and students. In particular, Facebook and Twitter usage is increasing. For many people, especially students, social networking has become the predominate form of personal interaction. Faculty members that are not proficient in social networking may have trouble interacting with these students.
• E‐mail and other forms of electronic communication have become the social norm. First and foremost, students expect to receive course announcements and other important information electronically. Similarly, faculty and students expect to receive timely electronic updates regarding the availability of Moodle. In general, faculty and students may be more accessible electronically, but less accessible face‐to‐face.
• More faculty members are expressing a desire to integrate multimedia technologies and other forms of technology into their teaching. Faculty members are recognizing the increasing role of technology, which is resulting in new ways of learning that must be accommodated in the classroom. While some are still apprehensive, most faculty members are becoming more comfortable with the technology, which is driving their desire to use it.
Technology trends
• Technology is becoming more ubiquitous. • Technology is becoming cheaper.
7
• Technology is becoming more complex, which presents challenges for some faculty and students. Students are generally tech‐savvy, but some older faculty members struggle with the technology.
• More data are available, leading to the rise of learning analytics, which may present new opportunities for data‐driven approaches to teaching and learning. To make the data actionable, we need better ways to refine available information into manageable groupings. We also need to make sure privacy concerns are addressed.
• Market competition is increasing, particularly for learning management systems. • Cloud technology has given us more flexibility and greatly increased the diversity of technology solutions that
are available. • Moodle Releases and Moodle Roadmap
Pedagogical trends
• Online learning, blended learning, and distance education are all becoming more common. In many cases, student demand for these types of courses is driving an increase in offerings. In addition, social acceptance of these programs is increasing. On the other hand, the increase in online offerings may simply be driven by a lack of physical classroom space.
• Various forms of “open” education are becoming more common, including Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) and OpenCourseWare (OCW), which was first introduced at MIT, but has also been adopted at other institutions.
• More electronic resources are available to supplement textbooks and other traditional course materials. Students are learning more from external sources in a self‐directed manner. This is natural to most students, but in some cases, they may be relying too much on external experts and disregarding faculty instruction.
• Emphasis on student learning outcomes is increasing. • Emphasis on student engagement is increasing. • The trend toward collaborative learning spaces is increasing. • Less concern about traditional pedagogy vs. research and scholarship production.
Social and political trends
• Budget constraints are requiring departments to do more with less. Faculty members are stretched thin, so they have less time available. Even though technology may help them in the long run, they may not be willing to make the initial resource investment to get started. Furthermore, when they do engage the technology, they’re often rushed, which reduces the technology’s effectiveness.
• Attitude toward innovation is inconsistent. Clearly, innovation is hindered by budget constraints, which could be viewed as an overall lack of support for innovative instructional strategies such as online course development. Furthermore, some faculty members seem to have an innate distrust of instructional innovation. At the same time, the Provost seems willing to spend money on new intellectual endeavors and administrators generally seem to embrace technology as a viable means for helping students learn.
• Legislative attitudes toward higher education are changing, although the implications are not entirely known. The entire UNC system is struggling with cutbacks, not just UNC Charlotte. At UNC Charlotte, there is some fear that football may be detracting attention from more pressing academic needs. There is also a greater demand for accountability, as evidenced by the focus on SACS and QEP.
• People are generally more focused on themselves and less focused on their role in society, but some faculty, staff, and students are making a concerted effort to reach out to the community. In particular, the Democratic National Convention has provided opportunities for community involvement. Also, businesses complain that
8
recent graduates don’t know how to be effective employees, so the University may be able to partner with local businesses to address these issues.
• Global competition is increasing. This includes competition for grants, competition for jobs, competition for students, etc.
• Focus on green technology is increasing, which could present opportunities if the University can position itself properly.
Faculty and staff trends
• Our faculty is becoming more diverse. There is a hiring freeze on full‐time positions, so graduate teaching assistants and adjunct faculty are becoming more common. Graduate teaching assistants are often underprepared and adjunct faculty often feel disconnected from the campus environment.
• The economic downturn is having a broad impact on faculty and staff. People may retire or leave for higher‐paying jobs elsewhere, resulting in high turnover. Some try to leave, but can’t because the job market is so bad. For those that remain, morale is low.
• Larger class sizes often result in faculty burnout. • Many faculty members feel disempowered by changes that are being made. They feel like reforms are being
forced on them with little or no benefit. There is a growing concern that the University is more worried about saving money than providing a high‐quality education.
Student trends
• Our student body is becoming more diverse. More people are going back to school with other commitments, such as full‐time jobs, families, and aging parents. More people are going back to school after a job loss, often with a career change in mind. More people are arriving at school from impoverished backgrounds.
• The economic downturn is having a broad impact on students. Many people are unable to afford college or they can only afford it by taking out huge student loans. Others are forced to work full‐time or nearly full‐time, which impacts their academic performance. Increases in tuition and textbook costs only make matters worse.
• K‐12 systems are not preparing students for college. Students are less focused and lack discipline. Many lack clear academic goals. Some suffer because of the emphasis on standardized testing. The nature of literacy appears to be transitioning from depth of literacy to breadth. This results in compartmentalized knowledge rather than cross‐disciplinary knowledge.
• Students feel more pressure to succeed, which increases stress and may result in more cheating. • Students view higher education as a job requirement, not a personal choice. As a result, many students lack
true creativity and are unwilling to take risks.
9
Vision
We considered characteristics of what we believe to be ideal for a successful Center for Teaching and Learning. These characteristics focused on facilities, human capacity, collaborative relationships, and resources. In order to achieve this vision, we considered how we would need to operate, the important characteristics of our leaders, and the necessary communication.
Characteristics of a Successful Center for Teaching and Learning
Facilities
• The facilities would be welcoming and have natural light. • The space would be flexible and allow for collaboration.
Human Capacity
• Work would maximize the strengths of each person. • We would have regular professional development. • Our characteristics would include being analytical, scholarly, skilled, and tech savvy. In addition, we would be
professional, collaborative, innovative, and creative. We would also be passionate, inquisitive, honest, and funny.
• Center staffing would be sufficient and supported with staff embedded in colleges, R& D staff, and graduate assistants.
• Staff would feel rewarded by being empowered, trusted, and well paid.
Relationships/Partnerships
• Collaboration would be clearly evident within CTL, within the University (e.g., student focused groups, Graduate School, University functions), and through collaborations and partnerships with various state and local IHEs.
• Collaboration would be characterized as creative, forward thinking, solution‐based problem solving, and open. • Collaboration would also make use of the diverse knowledge and skills of CTL staff.
Resources/Funding
• Dedicated staff and CTL would be rewarded for performance, for creative work that achieves results, accountability, good stewardship, efficient use of funding, and the opportunity to work at home to save resources.
• Value to the University would be demonstrated through sustainable funding that matches output without having to beg, provision of infrastructure that allows for experimentation, research and development, and for support of faculty through mini‐grant funding and funding for faculty to explore innovations.
Characteristics of Our Work
As an outcome of our work, we would be seen as central to the mission of the University. Our center would be competitive with any of the top tier schools. Our faculty would be eager to access our services as demonstrated through well attended events. To achieve this status we would respond to the articulated needs of all of our stakeholders with a variety of services. Our leadership would be strong and our communications positive, skillful, and accessible.
10
Who We Would Serve
• The faculty with services that respond to their present needs, anticipate future needs, and are deemed highly useful
• A variety of stakeholders such as adjunct faculty and students who teach. • All of the tech communities including faculty and students. • Faculty who need individual consultations (e.g., classroom observations)
What Our Services Would Look Like
• Our topics would be well rounded, highly relevant, and cutting edge, exploring new directions. • Our services would respond to stakeholder needs: focused, just‐in‐time, self‐paced, flexible, strategic, and
diverse.
Our Leadership Would Be Strong
• Supportive of new venture, recognize staff, be responsive to needs, collaborative, serve as a powerful advocate, and loyal to colleagues while attending to larger unit goals
• Analytical, data‐driven, solution focused, and pragmatic • Work to increase the diversity of faculty and students • Communication would lead the group forward, provide direction and guidance • Our leader would be transparent, vulnerable, confident, and personable • Our leader would be empowering, a good model and mentor
Communications
• Every department or instructional group would have someone linking them to CTL • CTL would serve as both a vocal and silent partner in instructional problem solving • Our stakeholders would find us to be open, respectful, and accessible • Our communication would be informative, responsive, and only require meetings that are needed and timely • Our media would use communication that is multi‐channel, two way, professionally crafted, visually appealing,
creative, and inescapable by faculty
11
Goals and Sub‐goals for 2012 and Beyond
Considering our mission, vision, and trends and forces, we brainstormed on broad goals we want to achieve as an organization and sub‐goals for each of the organizational goals. While goals may be achieved in a longer term, sub‐goals are desired to be achieved in the year 2012.
A. Establish strong partnerships with faculty, students, and larger communities
a. Establish faculty development presence in every college. 1. Identify all centers, departments, and workgroups with whom CTL could collaborate and establish liaison
contact for each of these groups. 2. Establish a formal partnership with CGL and graduate coordinators. 3. Conduct a needs‐assessment survey to identify the needs of adjuncts and develop and implement programs
based on the survey. 4. Increase presence of new faculty in CTL activities. 5. Establish professional learning communities in Moodle or elsewhere (i.g., ADVANCE, mentoring, classroom
observation, socials, etc.) b. Provide reward/recognition for CTL involvement.
1. Establish a sustainable reward program for best Moodle site. 2. Reward TAs/GAs, students, and adjuncts for CTL involvement.
c. Accurately identify the audience for our programs from term‐to‐term. d. Establish partnerships/collaboration outside the university connecting staff, faculty, and students to external
resources. 1. Provide leadership for a state‐wide (regional) alliance of the centers of learning.
B. Become a Center of Excellence/Place of authority
a. Establish CTL as a Center of Excellence. 1. Fund 1.5 million to academic course redesign/innovation. Brand high quality online/blended leadership to
ensure excellence. 2. Identify opportunities for external funding and market niches and then update monthly afterwards. 3. Facilitate scholarly output and its broader communications to promote faculty and the
institution in teaching and learning. 4. Complete and publish five SOTL‐funded research projects. 5. Brand CTL as a research center on our website.
b. Train all members of CTL in multiple areas of expertise to provide constant presence. c. Utilize strength of team members to provide effective support on technology and instruction.
C. Demonstrate seamless integration of instruction and technology
a. PLC/Focus Group meeting to examine/discuss strategies for enhancing integration of instruction and technology. b. Lead effort to develop mobile strategy for teaching and learning.
1. Meet with 3 institutions to conduct R&D on mobility strategies.
12
D. Increase efficiency of resources to save money and improve student success through the use of data‐driven decision making
a. Examine existing CTL programs and workshops to create model for pedagogy. Ask why, not how. b. Measure the impact of our work and feed the results into the process: Begin a SOTL project focusing on how CTL
assistance is impacting student learning and obtaining ROI.
13
Appendices
• Appendix A: Summary of Instructional Programs • Appendix B: Technical Projects and Enhancements • Appendix C: Moodle Usage Statistics • Appendix D: Other Technologies’ Usage Statistics • Appendix E: Help Desk Report
• Public Health – Teaching With Clickers • Communication Across the Curriculum – Google Apps • Mechanical Engineering – TA Bootcamp • Graduate School ‐ 10 Things Successful Instructors Do; Fundamentals in College Teaching (Multi‐week)
• English – Teaching With Clickers • Housing & Residence Life – Teaching With Clickers • UCAE/SAFE – Moodle for Students • UColl/Freshman Seminar Leaders – The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education
• Mac Users – Turning Point Anywhere • International Programs – Teaching in English
Summer Institute Blended Learning (24 attended) Major Events • E‐Textbook Symposium (January)
• Faculty Technology Showcase (April) • Blended Learning Keynote (May) • Large Course Redesign Showcase (September) • Testing With Clickers Faculty Showcase (October) • Service Learning Showcase (November)
Other Innovative Formats of Professional Development/Outreach
• 8 Webinars – 30‐minute, “How Do I?” • 5 BOFA Roundtables • 17 Podcasts – Teaching and Learning Matters • 40 Blog Posts • 33 Videos – Learning MDs Program
SOTL Grants Program • 18 proposals submitted, requesting $207K • 10 projects funded for $75,000 (granted by Provost)
• Chemistry 1251 • Spanish 1201, 1202 • LBST 2214 • Distance Ed (New Program) – all newly funded courses in DE will meet with CTL Instructional Designers a minimum of two times
Conference Presentations • Educause Learning Initiative Annual Meeting o A Story of Openness: The Transition From Blackboard Vista to Moodle (Pyke, J. G., Harris, J. N., & McAlpin, V. F.)
• ELI Spring Focus Session o Putting Evidence in the Open: The Transition from Blackboard Vista to Moodle (Pyke, J. G. & Harris, J. N.)
• MoodleMoot 2011 o How Faculty Partnerships Drive the LMS (Harris, J. N. & Gordon, C. L.)
• Drupal Meetup/Charlotte Drupal User Group o Views Theming (Mowry, D. E.)
• Free‐learning Conference at App State o How Faculty Partnerships Drive the LMS (Gordon, C. L. & Harris, J. N.)
• Software and Information Industry of America o Paradigmatic Change in Schools (Richter, K. B.)
• International Conference for Language Learning o An Examination of How Instructors Manage Their Time in a Foreign Language Blended Class (Godev, C.)
• Sloan Consortium International Conference on Online Learning
o How to Select a Campus LMS (Pyke, J. G. & McAlpin, V. F.)
o Teaching Blended Learning Pedagogy Through a Blended Learning Faculty Development Program (Pyke, J. G., An, J., & Eneman, S.)
o Reaching Faculty in a Busy World (Eneman, S. & Pyke, J. G.)
o User‐Centered Approach to Establishing Strategically‐Aligned Course Design Programs (An, J., Pyke, J. G., and McAlpin, V. F.)
16
Appendix B: Technical Projects and Enhancements
Completed (Highlights) Active (Highlights)Projects: • Library Block • Team Assignments Module • Moodle Infrastructure Redesign • Role Assignments Module • Migration of CTL Web Site • Course Evaluations Pilot • Blackboard Sunset • CTL Instructional Lab Redesign and Implementation Enhancements: • Administrators show up in Scheduler • Allow self‐enrollment in project and training courses • Change Quickmail separator from comma to semicolon • Gradebook category confusion • Microsoft Office Add‐in • Quiz timer obscures questions • Remove assign roles link from participants list in combined courses
• Send for marking disrupts assignment grading • Video assignments
Projects: • Course Evaluations Roll‐Out • Wimba Replacement Implementation • Additions to the Library Block • Moodle 2.x (Special Caution on Schedule for Roll‐Out) Enhancements: • Add icon for links that open in a new window • Allow decimals during assignment grading • Allow instructors to change course names • Allow instructors to manage combined courses • Assignment log links are incorrect • Disable auto‐linking for glossary, activity names, and resource names
• Faster file uploads • Google Apps integration • Group import/export • HTML editor extensions • Include individual course in student roster of combined courses
• Kaltura 508 player for closed captioning • Language drop‐down list for text boxes • Less‐than sign truncates quiz response • Linking to end of lesson branch puts Moodle into endless loop
• Marginalia Web annotation • New version of Choice activity module • New version of Progress Bar block • New version of Quickmail block • Reformat user profile course list • Remove some aggregation types • Restrict access to assignment rubrics from other courses • Users with special characters in their name can't create a Wimba room
• VoiceThread embedding for Moodle • Weighted rubrics • YouTube link filter
17
Appendix C: Moodle Usage Statistics
Number of Faculty and Courses in Moodle Fall 2011
Statistic Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011
Total University Courses (all University courses are created in Moodle)
5,620 6,065 4,294 4,529
Courses available to students (52% of created courses are active)
1071 2272 2270 2961
Total instructors (All instructors are enrolled automatically in Moodle)
1,474 1,605 1,584 1,665
Active Instructors or instructors in courses available to students (80.1% of all instructors are now active in Moodle)
586 1035 1142 1334
Total students 23,396 24,790 23,627 25,189
Students in courses available to students (94.1% of all students are now active in Moodle)
17004 22,048 21,572 23,704
Unique Users and Peak Usage in Moodle As of Fall 2011
Statistic Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011
College of Arts and Architecture 104 (21.6%) 191 (48.4%)
College of Business 106 (35.3%) 163 (62.7%)
College of Computing and Informatics 64 (19.2%) 166 (52.4%)
College of Education 177 (39.4%) 296 (73.4%)
College of Engineering 167 (22.0%) 306 (60.4%)
College of Health and Human Services 151 (46.7%) 231 (79.1%)
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences 785 (29.6%) 1527 (68.4%)
Counseling and Health Services 2 (7.1%) 8 (40%)
Graduate School 1 (33.3%) 4 (100)
University College 33 (54.1%) 50 (69.4%)
Fall 2010 Fall 2011
Unplanned Moodle Downtime* 35 1.5
*NOTE: Fall 2011 reflects major infrastructure changes completed in July 2011. The 1.5 hours reflects two outages as follows: 1 hour from a power problem in Remote Learner racks at MCNC, and 1/2 hour resulting from a CRON job problem. The CRON job placed some courses in the wrong folder, but Moodle was not actually down.
19
Appendix D: Other Technologies’ Usage Statistics
Usage Stats (Non‐Moodle) Survey Share Accounts Total Accounts Available 602 Total Assigned Accounts 485 Accounts Available to Assign 117 Total Surveys (Lifetime) 4624 Wimba Total Active Rooms 1,796 Rooms Generated from Moodle 1,499 Rooms Created Directly in Wimba 297 % of Rooms Generated from Moodle 83% Peak Concurrent Users (by Hour) 187 Peak Number of Users Per Day 797 Peak Day 8/22/2011 Opscan Number of Sheets Run 582,000 Course Evals 221,000 Kaltura Video Clips 1,675 Audio Only Clips 18 Max Bandwidth Usage in Month (MB) 220 TurnItIn Courses using TurnItIn 72 Total TurnItIn Assignments 176 Total TurnItIn Submissions 3702
Respondus Lockdown Browser Total Quizzes 198 Unique Users 1443 Clickers (Moodle Only) Courses Using Clickers 80 Instructors Using Clickers 75 Clickers Registered 5657 Clicker Grades Posted 59,934 Google Apps Visits to Google Apps sites this Year 45,882 Unique Google Sites Visitors 11,938 Avg. Number Pages Visited per User 7.63 Avg. Time Spent per user, per visit (in min) 9 Peak usage in one day‐12/6 (day before last day of class) 643
20
CTL Web Site Overview from December 2011***
Visits: Operating Systems:
Total Visits 9,612 Windows 75.36%
Pages Viewed 19,418 Macintosh 15.73%
Pages Per Visit 2 iPhone 2.67%
New Visitors 74% Android 1.56%
iPad 1.42%
Most Visited Areas:
/articles‐books/best‐practice
/moodle and /moodle/how‐to Browsers:
Internet Explorer 38.54%
Source of Hits to Site: Firefox 26.69%
Search Engines 53% Chrome 16.20%
Direct Traffic 34% Safari 14.23%
Referring Sites 13% Android Browser 1.53%
***Only December 2011 data available at time of report.
