According to the press release [link],

The platform integrates seamlessly with an institution’s learning management system and can also be used independently to enable a wide range of informal interactions across the institution including office hours, school services, student-to-student interaction, and more. The enhanced platform can also support administrative interactions, staff meetings and professional development sessions as well as larger events. The platform’s versatility allows for engagement across the academic community and drives outcomes by promoting a deeper level of interaction…

While the new release includes many features that will be familiar to current Elluminate and Wimba customers, improvements include a simpler user interface, enhanced video conferencing capabilities, and support for learning that evolves from ad-hoc to formal to on-demand.

It’s the end of two known brands in education and the solidification of a new brand name product in Collaborate.

Read more at

• blackboard.com/Moodle
• prnewswire.com/blackboard-launches-new-real-time-collaboration-platform-built-for-education

New short form post format: just a quick note that if you’re an institution seeking Single Sign-on from another authentication system then a great place to start is the Integration FAQs at Moodle.org.  Visit http://docs.moodle.org/en/Integration_FAQ for tons of great information and links to discussions and sites that can help you and your organization achieve a much more integrated learning environment.

What are the eligibility requirements, system requirements and terms of use for Project ROME for Education?
For institutions that are interested in piloting the application, Project ROME for Education requires the institution to have Google Apps for Education and/or Moodle learning management system previously installed. [link]

To apply to be a pilot institution using Moodle use this Google form.

For more information visit: http://org.wiziq.com/moodle/

In the meantime their support will enable us to continue providing information, news and resources for the worlds leading LMS.

In this installment of “How we implemented Moodle” I will talk about a “Blended Learning Model of instruction“, “equipment” and touch on the word “sustainability” as it pertains to equipment.

As I mentioned in my preview post this Moodle implementation was guided by a grant which contained specific objectives, goals, budget outline, timeline, etc. Having a well thought out plan was tremendously helpful and allowed us to assess the implementation at the end.

The first thing done was choosing the right program to create a Blended Learning Model of instruction. Moodle was compared with other LMS and was found to be the best fit. I won’t go into deeper discussion about this decision because this type of implementation plan will work for most other LMS, with maybe a few differences in specifics. In later posts I will touch more on the Blended Learning Model of instruction but let’s move onto how we went from an idea to reality with hardware and equipment.

We decided that purchasing our own hardware (server) and housing it in our district was the best way to go. I was in charge of researching hosting options for Moodle. I looked into several types of off-site hosting options like Moodle Partners and another local company we use for our information systems. There are definitely benefits of those options like the ease of having someone else setup and maintain the physical server, software and dealing with any future problems.

The drawbacks were that we wouldn’t have full control over Moodle or the server. It would be more difficult (or not even possible) to customize and tweak Moodle how we wanted. The second drawback was that we would have to pay each year for hosting until we decided not to use Moodle anymore and not using Moodle anymore was obviously not in our plan! Sure, purchasing the hardware for a server is a lot of money up front, but after years of paying an off-site hosting company it will eventually even out and when that time comes you don’t even own the server, you will still have to pay the hosting company! Also, in our situation the funds for the grant were gone in 2 years and it would be difficult to sustain that type of model. As I mentioned before sustainability was part (a very important part at that) of our goal.

I highly suggest a district to purchase their own server. Of course, each district is in their unique situation and has to weigh their options. Our district, being pretty large (20,000+ students), having sustainability an important goal in the grant and having the funds at the time made our decision easy to purchase a server. We purchased a fairly robust server knowing that we will need this server to handle continued growth. I know purchasing a server for Moodle will not always be an easy option for districts but keep in mind the long term implications before making any quick decisions based on up front costs.

Key Points

• Having a well thought out plan with objectives and goals gives you a nice guide along the way and allows you to assess the implementation.
• Make “sustainability” key. One thing I have learned is that staff hate having a tool and then it be taken away after they spent a lot of time and energy on it. In every training we told staff “Moodle will NOT go away. The software is free and we have already purchased a server for it to run on. The only way Moodle will ‘go away’ is if no one uses it.” This will reassure staff that they are not wasting their time creating something that could be taken away and Moodle does take a lot of up front time.
• When deciding to purchase a server verse off-site hosting think long term.

Related

“How we implemented Moodle” Preview

Next on “How we implemented Moodle” -  Installation and Modules

Our Moodle implementation was funded and guided by a 2-year grant we were awarded. The grant stated: “This grant will provide training, installation, tech support, and equipment, to implement and sustain a Blended Learning Model of instruction for students.”

My co-worker and I were the two main people in charge of the implementation. My co-worker, Ryan Semans, helped write the grant and was the Moodle trainer. I worked with more of the “back-end” and technical tasks.

Over the next few weeks I will be breaking down our implementation experience into main parts. Of course, every district is different and is in a unique situation. We were fortunate enough to have funds provided by a grant. This is in no way the best and only way to implement Moodle but it worked well for us and I hope you are able to take something away from our experience!

Disclosure: These are my personal thoughts and opinions and they in no way represent those of Osseo Area Schools.

Next time on “How we implemented Moodle” – Idea to Reality (a blended learning model, equipment and sustainability)

The articles are titled, respectively, My LMS debacle and Solving my LMS debacle (for now).

• My LMS debacle
• Solving my LMS debacle (for now)

The articles do well to highlight the various pushing and pulling that affect the LMS adoption process.  There are various features, integration plug-ins and legacy systems which must be considered by any school when choosing new software.  Moodle’s community is a huge asset in terms of evaluating possible compatibility with all of the tools a school/district may already be familiar with.

From the ZDnet article by Chris Dawson:

Moodle isn’t going anywhere and it just keeps getting better from what I’ve seen in the online demos and at other schools; it will be waiting for me this summer and hopefully for teachers in the fall.

Here’s another handy resource for any Technology Directors that are thinking of “jumping on the Moodle train“, it was written by @Kristian Still and has a great account of his own Moodle selection process.

NOTE: MoodleMonthly is off for the weekend, back on Monday!