We at Case Western Reserve University just started a small Moodle Pilot Experiment with 13 classes this spring. Blackboard is our current LMS, and we are exploring potentials that Moodle may offer to our campus.
We would like to know if any other colleges and universities have conducted similar effort in the past or have developed some sort of white paper/report on using Moodle as a Learning Management System solution.
Moodle was piloted at my university some five years ago for replacing WebCT. It was selected over Sakai and WebCT 6.0 (Blackboard). It serves over 40,000 students in thousands of courses. I don't think you need any sort of white paper/report to go into a pilot. The system works and it can do more than what most of your instructors will use it for. The only important consideration is the cost of the system and ongoing maintenance. Unlike Blackboard Moodle is free. But like Blackboard, maintenance costs, whether you do it in-house or by a consultant. I don't have any figures but I'm inclined to think that overall Moodle should cost less than Blackboard. The pilot should give you a good idea what it takes. hth
P.S. You should probably use 1.9 latest for the pilot rather than 2.0 which is an exciting version but not yet stable enough.
I would have to second Itamar's comments as well. I would suggest that you may well need 1.5 to 2.0 FTE Moodle admin for the first year, which could scale down for a small installation. Additionally, if you were to actually make use of the instruction features of Moodle, like lessons, you will likely need training in instructional design with Moodle tools (though more often than not LMS are not employed for direct instruction but only as information clearning houses.) Backups, failovers, etc are critical and nothing sours staff or students to any LMS than unstable connections while trying to work online.
I think yo will find that there are a number of modules that you will want to install ASAP and that will drag you into the wild and wooly world of deviating from core. I suggest you install a broad range of math tools, a checklist, activity locking, face2face, nanogong, pdf assignment, jabber/wildfire, flashmeeting, MRBS etc to get a feel for what Moodle can do.
i sit on JHU's CMS support committee, and when we went through finding an exit from WebCT, we found way more Moodle/Bb/WebCT comparisons than we could use.
Word of warning, the comparisons are/were often done by people very familiar with only one CMS and barely able to manage the other CMSes. So, comparisons are highly suspect. If you find a claim that Moodle can't do/doesn't have such-and-such, ask here before assuming the claim is true.
I'd go to http://moodle.org/sites/ and find some uni's that are equivalent to CWRU, write them for their justifications.
Here at JHU, my center went with Moodle. Medicine stuck with Bb. Arts & Sciences went with Sakai.
Well, you could review what these two guys from NCSU have to say - lol....
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~n51ls801/MoodleTwoNCSUCoursesFall2010Web.pdf
Granted that a good deal of their grief might have been avoided, but it is at least as fair a comment on Moodle as some of the more evangelical stuff you might see hither and yon.
I would really recommend looking at what CLAMP have done, especially vis-a-vis getting into Moodle at this juncture.
Somewhat interesting reading, although the individual opinion of two academics, who clearly have an axe to grind with their university administration.
The main lesson to learn from it is that any major change has to be given proper resources. If you are changing from one LMS to another, you have to think long an hard about how your are going to support your teachers (and, to a lesser extent, your students. Using these systems are a teacher is normally more involved than using the as a student) in making the transition.
There is an irritating lack of detail about some of the specific problems (from my point of view, wanting to re-construct what happened). For example, I would love to learn what "other known problems" lead their IT support to recommend using 'Secure mode' for quizzes. Seems like bad advice to me.
Similarly, what happened leading up to the situation where they thought some questions had disappeared from the question bank? The questions were still in the quiz, so they must still have been somewhere in the question bank, but where were they hiding, and how did they get there?
Some of it is just plain crazy: Take for example, the second point in the section Details of Fall 2010 Problems Encountered. In the email exchange. Teacher says I need to be able to download quiz responses. IT support say it is impossible. Teacher points them to exactly the plugin they need to install from the Modules and Plugins database. IT support still say the requested functionality does not exist!
Yes, Tim,the opinion of two hard working and literate educators who describe in detail their experience with Moodle. Funny how your take on that rings dismissively..... Kind of like describing Moodle developers as iconoclasts who have been unable to deliver fully functional production quality software, not that anyone would suggest such a cruel nd inaccurate description.
An important aspect of this paper is not so much what it says about Moodle itself but what it says about supporting Moodle, and the results of being ill-prepared or incompetent to take on that responsibility (as we saw with the porno profile spam on the English public school sites that were administered by a Moodle Partner.) Of course, there is no published response from the NCSU support team available, though I would expect none, but the documentation provided by the authors is so comprehensive that one has difficulty imagining a response (other than Tim's- lol).
Unfortunately, I think the paradigm explored by the "two academics" is all too common. There are thousands of Education Technology "experts" in this country with advanced degrees who are cluelessly running in circles, as well as IT departments spending millions on broken software and incoherent (or nonexistent) IT plans. When I first began posting to these forums, the standing argument was that installing, managing and using Moodle was so easy even a monkey can do it. Thankfully, the overall tenor has been moderated a bit, in no small part because of the mounting documentation to the contrary, though there are still evangelistas beating this horse.)
In the end, this is a tale of two members of a class of users targeted by the software in question (if Moodle does not target as a user the educator, that is news to me) who did invest countless hours in trying to work with Moodle. It provides a well-documented history, and from the this class of users perspective, an insightful analysis. It is instructive for the EdTech elite as it is a searing indictment of so much that is wrong with EdTech today. Moreover, while many of the issues discussed could have been more appropriately addressed, the writers have documented quite a few Moodle deficits, and I have to argue that not all Moodle changes cure or improve on Moodle 1.9
I have read and reviewed any number of Moodle books and can without any doubt suggest that this paper is probably the most important document addressing the use of Moodle published to date.
Could you summarise what you were trying to say in your last post Marc?
Sorry, Marcus, but that was the abbreviated version
1. The authors are in fact members of a class of users specifically targeted by the software.
2. The authors applied themselves to making "extensive" use of the software.
3. In pursuit of their use and knowledge of the software they relied on the resources identified to them (LearnTech)
4. The material collected by the authors is extensive, comprehensive and indisputable.
5. Based on the above, the record of their misadventures can neither be dismissed nor excused and portrays LearnTech as well as Moodle in a poor light (the latter largely as a result of support failure though the authors do document Moodle issues as well.)
6. As a result the paper provides invaluable insight into the pitfalls one might encounter in rolling Moodle out.
I also found it amusing that both Educhalk fn1 and MoodleNews fn2 covered CLAMP-IT's response to Moodle 2.
I have been impressed with CLAMP-IT's efforts as I have noted elsewhere and have been considering adopting their model and recommending that others do the same. Of course Tim could also dismiss CLAMP as just a bunch of disaffected liberal elitist faculties, and Joe T has already suggested that their analysis is flawed,lol. But their (CLAMPS) report is just as accurate as a functional analysis as the NCSU paper was as an historical analysis. To dismiss either smacks of the hubris and religious zeal that has too often clouded the judgment of some, at least IMHO.
I DO NOT have an axe to grind in this (thank you Colin for your kind observations - at least I thought they were kind - lol, though I think your comments can be read to do injustice to others, but that is another matter altogether....) and if anyone was really wondering whether there was some subtext to my comments, I have to argue that I thought I was pretty clear in what I did say.
However, to round this discussion out a bit Auusie-style (and I am afraid everytime I think of the phrase, Aussie-style, I chuckle a bit, for all the wrong reasons... sorry, Colin...) I am and have been concerned that Moodle HQ is driving its train off the rails. As it is Moodle HQ's train to engineer (as they have regularly noted), they are free so to do. Reminds me, however, of the Dead's diagnosis fn3 :
"Trouble with you is
The trouble with me
Got two good eyes
but we still don't see
Come round the bend
You know it's the end
The fireman screams and
The engine just gleams"
"Drivin' that train
High on cocaine
Casey Jones you better
watch your speed
Trouble ahead
Trouble behind
and you know that notion
just crossed my mind"
__________________
1 http://educhalk.org/blog/2011/02/moodle-2-0-not-production-ready-conclusion-of-14-independent-colleges/
2 http://www.moodlenews.com/2011/clamp-concludes-moodle-2-0-1-not-production-ready/
CLAMP's analysis seemed very reasoned to me. Exactly the kind of diligence that any major user of software should show when planning a major upgrade.
Note that they are planning to re-evaluate their findings in March, having done their initial assessment in January. That shows a reasonable appreciation for the speed at which things are changing in the Moodle 2.0 world, although I was a little surprised they said March. That seem quite soon now.
Note also that some of that reports contributors have been actively participating in the tracker, contributing bug reports and even fixes (e.g. this quiz bug fix that Charles Fulton sent me http://tracker.moodle.org/browse/MDL-26299?focusedCommentId=103474&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-103474). That kind of constructive, helpful attitude is what is Moodle needs. Not whining.
Hey, the link at http://www4.ncsu.edu/~n51ls801/MoodleTwoNCSUCoursesFall2010Web.pdf doesn't seem to be working. Any chancd this is available elsewhere?
LOL, Tim, it is unfortunate that you contaminate an otherwise intelligent response with a final ad hominem. Who ARE you suggesting is a whiner? In fact the two gentlemen who wrote the report spent countless hours doing exactly what they were asked to do, work through their tech support staff to address the situations they encountered. Or are you whining about me, Tim.....
Find yourself a mirror.......
You are right. My previous post would have been much better without the last two words. They are exactly the kind of un-constructive, and un-helpful behaviour that I was lamenting. It's terribly easy to do, isn't it?
I am aware that my behaviour in relation to Moodle is not entirely rational. I have not studied or read very much psychology, pop or the real thing, so far in my life, so I don't really know why I behave like that. My obsession with Moodle and membership of the Moodle cult (if you want to refer to it like that ) does, however, bring me a lot of pleasure, and does (I hope) make a positive contribution to at least one small corner of the world. Therefore, I see no harm in continuing.
Good reference Marc. It shows how "real people" just want to do their jobs, or possible just want to do their jobs a bit better than at the moment than get excited about technology. And those chaps seem to actually be quite interested in technology!
There is a telling comment in that document that says "there are other ways in which Moodle is regrettably different from Vista".
There's stuff in that NCSU report that is just plain wrong. Learntech tells one guy he can't create groups with a csv. Well, we do it all the time. Problem is, the academic doesn't have the passwords.
When you get into the details, Learntech is often providing DIShelp. And the academics are having the usual experience of separation anxiety from the thing they knew (for 7 years).
On a personal note, when our cms support group made initial contact with a Moodle partner, we came away totally unimpressed with Moodle. All of our questions were coming from a WebCT 4.1 mindset. The Moodle reps were both poorly informed about what Moodle can do and incapable of speaking WebCT. Sounds like the NCSU experience, doesn't it?
As someone who works at NC State I feel a need to put the report in a little perspective. The report referenced above is the opinion of 2 faculty members at our our institution and is reflective of their personal experiences with our system. We currently support approximately 2500 sections for over 1000 faculty and 65000 enrollments. The vast majority of our users are either happy or satisfied with our Moodle installation and the support that LearnTech provides them.
Every institutions experiences, resources available to support Moodle, and culture are different so it's not always easy to make comparisons. Because of the size of the enterprise that we support, we have had to move fairly slowly in terms of providing a wide range of features to our faculty and students to ensure reliability and dependability. I understand the frustration of the 2 faculty members who wrote the report, they are trying to make very extensive use of the LMS in their courses and we are working towards making our Moodle installation responsive to their needs but it does take time. With all that said I personally feel that the staff of LearnTech have done an exemplary job supporting the students, faculty and staff at our institution.
Feel free to refer to reports and studies that we have done which can be found at: http://wikis.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/LMS_Strategy
I for one would appreciate seeing the data from the other 1000 faculty. Where is it available, Martin? I went through the website you cited and although I found a pilot survey of ten faculty I could find no comprehensive data on the issues the two authors riased (nor a cite to their paper for that matter-lol....)
It sounds like you'e suggesting that the problems experienced by the faculty who wrote the paper stem from their "extensive" efforts to actually make use of resources that NCSU said were available but were unprepared to support, and that by virtue of that artifice you discount the testimony of those trying to actually make full use of Moodle while at the same time allowing you the opportunity to congratulate LearnTech for their hard work. Sorry, but that sounds like someone has been hiking the Appalachian Trail.
How would you reconcile the rather horrendous correspondence that was documented with your suggestion that LearnTech performed in an exemplary manner? You do not seem to be disputing the letter, context, breadth or other aspect of the correspondence which seems to suggest that LearnTech had no business trying to support the authors.
I can certainly sympathize with these guys, and their experience with this product is totally unacceptable.......
Thank you Martin for putting that into some perspective. After reading their commentary, I see a version of myself that is a little uncomfortable for me. Yes, I am somewhat "evangelical" about Moodle, not because is is Open Source or anything, but because I have found it far more suitable for my need than any other LMS I have used. Hopefully, I am not shooting the messenger if anyone makes a negative comment about Moodle, but I fear I may have done so, something for me to look out for.
As a general observation, I know that Marc has long history of being critical about many aspects of Moodle, but unlike others he has, I believe, the best interests of Users and the product in mind. I suspect he has been a somewhat progressive influence in some areas, even while being descried by some of the developers he has been harsh on. Marc also has skills and knowledge that many other critics do not, and has brought a helpful technical expertise to many discussions. Bringing this article to our attention has certainly made me review some of the perceptions I have had and while I sense there is a very stong dummy spit inherent in the article, it is still a worthwhile read.
I tend to agree with Marc about the often inappropriate decisions made around LMSs and technical policies by people who are woefully inadequate to the task. Thsi is, however, mostly first generation issues, people with little experience at any level, making important decisions and getting them wrong. this sorts itself out over time and things do get better. 450 years for the printing press, how long for the computer?
At this point I am going to display that typically Australian, although not unique, disregard for ivory towered academics and other rarefied technicians who mumble a lot and complain when people do not listen to them. Austin and Merril have spent how long writing a paper that is about 10 times the length it really needs be. Why use 6 words when 60 will do? Austin's comment "Using Moodle has cost me about 300 hours to date" seems to be a source of resentment, rather than a progressive learning experience. (You cannot seriously expect to learn anything without putting any effort into it, but that is a side issue.) Their document also seems to be the usual rant made by people who are forced to change something in their lives, but in a more academic format, a paper no less. For an uneducated, lower working class peasant their response would be far less wordy, far more succinct and far more honest than this hysterical hyperbole.
I think we all know Moodle is not perfect, and for Austin and Merrill to whine about its flaws but then overlook some fundamental benefits is really unforgivable. Austin claims to had done a lot of research, and realistically, you cannot get that far without doing a lot of reading, yet miss the uploading of cvs in the way they did is a little disturbing. Does this mean the documentation is couched in terms they just did not get or is not readily available or they were just careless? Or any combination thereof? I have had my own words on the structure of Moodle Docs and the language used in them, so I thinka mixture is most likely. It could be better, certainly, but where is their contribution to making it so?
All:
I'm not sure that the NC State administration really wants to become involved in a public discussion of the details here, but I will leave that to Martin and his management. It is, however, difficult to deflect specific and detailed empirical reports of problems, bugs, and design flaws with vague statistical reports concerning responses to surveys.
I should not like to be characterized as an "academic" in this context. I have only recently returned to academia part-time after close to thirty years in commercial software development, product deveopment, and scientific computing. If you care for the details, check my CV on the NC State site. The report should stand on its own merits and not on speculation about any axes that I or David Austin may have to grind. Since I am not a regular faculty member, have no concern for promotion or tenure, and was concerned only to provide the best possible instructional environment to my class, I would very much like David's report (and particularly any contributions my experience may have made to it) to be taken as objective empirical reporting. I have also never used Blackboard or any other learning management system. But I know a poor one when I see it -- and the details are indisputable, despite a variety of excuses that may be offered. Leave your ideology aside and deal with the facts please.
Finally, LearnTech has not been the problem. They are doing their best. The evidence is that Moodle is the problem.
Gary, I read your report and would not characterize it as anything less than a genuine observation and expressed opinion of Moodle. It made me feel uncomfortable about some things, but that is my story and in that sense, your report is a valuable read. You raise a number of issues that are of concern to you, and realistically, are of concern to the Moodle community as well.
I disagreed with some of the statements as they seemed to be born of frustration at not achieving a desired goal quickly and felt more like a venting. I disagreed with other of your statements when comparing functionalities to other products, but for a reason. Some functionality in many programs, and a lot of functionality in a lot more programs has been placed there, not for the User's benefit, but because the developer could do that. I could name a lot of programs, but the generic term of "bloatware" is appropriate here. I agree, some functionality that could be there is either not there at all, or hampered by internal security issues. In short, some of what was in the report was, to me, useful, some was not.
It has been my experience that Moodle is far more stable, that is it does what I want it to do without frequent break downs. It is flexible, that is, it provides me with a mechanism of delivering classroom materials and eliciting responses from even unwilling students. In my view, the interface is not pretty, the markbook is, I think, unnecessarily complex as is the quiz module, the wiki is not that good a reinvention of another wheel, and other flaws, that is true. I also suggest the resources menu is broad enough to allow almost anything. The file handling capabilities of Moodle allow me to deliver, text, PDFs, Word Docs, HTML, images and video in an eclectic mix of ideas and materials that the majority of my students engage with. (I am not holding out for 100% participation, a pipe dream.) If Moodle is "poor" then what does it say for the other LMS' out there? I have used Blackboard, and WebCT and a couple of others, and Moodle is a far better than those, overall. Some things in Moodle need to catch up to some in Blackboard, WebCT was rigid, but it was easier to create, edit and present quizzes in and I have not seen the latest iterations since Blackboard acquired it. (I doubt they would have inmproved it btw, but for other reasons.)
Moodle, unlike Blackboard and other commercial products, was developed and maintained on a shoestring and it does show. But, while a weakness, it is also a strength. It is accessible, it is provided at no cost, even if the costs of installing it and running it etc are the same as commerical packages, it is updated with security and bug fixes at a reasonaby rapid rate compared to commercial products and some issues are remedied almost as fast as the issue is posted. Not too shabby considering the amount of volunteer labour used. Certainly commercial products do not meet, across the board, the abilities of Moodle, so I have seen and experienced. All this, however, does not even get close to what is for me, the main issue.
For me, you see things I do not, your need is different than mine, but I could benefit from that by an improved system, if you were to devote some time to the Moodle Project and provide some contribution to Moodle. If you were to develop some documentation for users, some design for new interface, some additional resource type or activities. A simplification of the markbook would be really handy. It would not matter what, but as long as you did something that dealt with one of the issues you raise. I agree handling of multiple files could be better in Moodle, but I do not know how to fix it, can you design something that a talented coder could produce if you do not know PHP? That is all I ask, to contribute something, anything, not complain and disappear. Cheers..
"That is all I ask, to contribute something, anything, not complain and disappear."
I'm afraid that I'm quite weary of the attitude that a critical evaluation of something is either unfair or without value unless the critic is prepared to contribute to the improvement of what is being evaluated. Certainly in the past I have made such contributions to open source systems and products, having used them to develop some significant projects and applications. In this case I am not remotely inclined to do so -- because in this case my experience indicates that the system in question has been poorly designed, implemented, tested, and modified from the start. There is an old engineering saying about "brown hands". If you're unfamiliar with it, then you lack a certain degree of experience. If you are familiar with it, then you know exactly what the situation is. But in any event, I am not inclined to devote time to attempts at fixing someone else's poor fundamental design and implementation that has resulted in what is demonstrably a house of cards.
It is not my goal -- which would be follly in this venue -- to convince you of anything regarding Moodle. In point of fact, I simply don't care who uses Moodle and who does not. Those who are happy with it should continue to use it. Those who want to improve it should continue in their attempts to do so. If I were faced with needing a good LMS on a continuing basis, I would very likely sit down and write one -- using contemporary design principles and implementation technology. But I do not face that need, and life is too short. None of that, however, is relevant to the observation of facts and the objective reporting of experience -- neither of which induce an obligation to repair or replace someone else's mistakes.
Megan,
Mea culpa time, I think, in that I am afraid we may have scared you off ;=}
I think Ben, Colin, Marcus, Itamar, well even Tim - lol- have offered you some rather invaluable insight into Moodledom, especially in as much as the most critical aspect of adopting open software identified by most consulting firms is the availability of a robust community involved and invested in the application. I think having the option of speaking with CLAMP-IT is an excellent option that warrant your attention. I hope you have enjoyed the lively discussion (as well as the Greatful Dead), and I for one look forward to hearing further from you on your journey.
Good luck
Marc,
I think Tim is making the same point I am, but he is English and... well enough said.. You stick around and contribute, and looking at the resumes of these two, they too could contribute, but they have not...at least in any seriously meaningful way. I certainly do not have their background or their skills, but in my own thumb fingered way, I try to make some sort of pay-it-forward, if you like, to Moodle for the hours of grief fun it has given me!!!! Pity others don't...
Hi Megan, there are a number of whitepapers and other reports of transitions from other systems to Moodle located here:http://moodle.org/mod/data/view.php?d=19
In my own case, I had a WebCT server at Humboldt State University from 1998-2002, when we switched to Blackboard 4, and then ran Blackboard 5,6, and 7 (6 and 7 in paralell with Moodle 1.1-1.6). When I was at Cal State, I helped several other campuses with decisions at CSU and elsewhere - you may find staff at universities who have transitioned to Moodle who can similarly assist.
There are many great people at institutions around the world who can help, San Fransciso State University, CIty University of San Franscisco, CSU Monterey Bay, UCLA, Athabasca University, and University of Idaho are some examples of places to ask about transitions and multiyear success in running Moodle (SFSU closing on a decade. SFSU and Athabasca each have about 30,000 students using Moodle.
Our team at Remote-Learner have helped many campuses transition from another LMS (WebCT CE and Vista, BB, eCollege, etc.) to Moodle, and offer a range of support and course conversion options for a transition, if you are interested in commericial suport.
Best, Michael
Michael,
While Tim (who is to be commended for an amazing bit of candor posted earlier in this thread*) referred Megan (in her parallel posting to the lounge) to Moodle Buzz at http://moodle.org/mod/data/view.php?d=19 AND TO Documents Useful for Decision Makers at http://docs.moodle.org/en/Documents_useful_for_decision_makers, it is intriguing that the NCSU paper, though added to the Buzz db some days ago, still does not appear there. I am wondering whether this is because it has yet to be approved (yes, posting to Moodle Buzz is carefully screened, while posting to the Docs isn't), or for other reasons........ If Moodle Buzz is limited to propaganda, then it is arguably of limited use to anyone....
Megan, Michael's comment raises another matter. I am advised that Remote-Learner still has clients at 1.9.5+, which they indicate is fully secure using their in-house security mechanisms, and that clients are still at 1.9.5+ because they choose to remain there. I would suggest that what amounts to advertising that you are using a version of Moodle that is not secure, whatever the truth of the matter is, is not best practice (who needs hooligans knocking at your door) and it also raises questions as to how one would be able to confirm current versioning. On the other hand, on more than one occasion a version of Moodle released to fix one set of problems has introduced other problems.....
Colin, I have to disagree with you in that the two guys from NCSU were told to address their issues to LearnTech. In fact I am very failiar myself with what can happen when you take it upon yourself to address software questions to to sources outside the "chain of command", lol, and it is not pretty. I think the fault lies not with Austin and Merrill but with LearnTech (which, as Ben suggested, clearly did not perform in an exemplary manner) and to try to fault the gentlemen in question for documenting their interaction with the mandated support personnel is inappropriate. On the other hand, it might make an interesting project for a grad student to track the issues raised by Austin and Merill (perhaps NCSU already has that and would be willign to share?) to determine whether LearnTech pursued the issues presented by Austin and Merrill with Moodle.org or a Moodle Partner. The lack of such pursuit by LearnTech WOULD BE the basis of some some admonition regarding appropriate involvement in open software communities when using open software (and the basis for a second caution to Megan.). On the other hand, if LearnTech did pursue the matters with appropriate "up stream" sources, one is left to ponder the documented interaction that Austin and Merrill painstakingly documented.
* Tim, I don't think anyone wants to see you stop contributing to Moodle, and I for one would hate to see any discussion here drive you to reading pop-psych drivel, lol. But a significant element of religious fervor is obssession with certitude. It is why fundamentalists are called fundamentalists. It is a pernicious infection that often manifests itself in the most outrageous examples of intolerance and violence. While it is difficult to listen to people who are just plain wrong (the bane of my existence, rofl) and won't open their eyes, those certain of the path they are on risk much in dismissing others, as among the chaff there will like be some wheat..... It is tragically difficult to have a vision of where you are going that is questioned, ridiculed, attacked etc. (though as Kazantzakis, Rushdie and Hesse have demonstrated, it makes for great reading - lol.) Perhaps Lao Tsu offers the most pragmatic advice in advancing wu-wei (Tao Te Ching ch76 See, e.g., http://www.edepot.com/tao8.html):
"Thus it is that firmness and strength are the concomitants of
death; softness and weakness, the concomitants of life.."
though there are Greek versions of similar advice ;=} See, e.g. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11339/11339-h/11339-h.htm#THE_OAK_AND_THE_REEDS.
Yes, I know, I read too much.......
Marc, OK, I can accept that Merril and Austin were frustated by their perceptions of a lack of flexibility, a flawed recording system, and so on, I do not dismiss their complaint,s concerns whatever you want to call them. I also agree about the "evangelical" nature of Open source, and I did actually read the posts in forums concerning the zealots who take over an aspect of a project and are unwilling to bend to meet someone else's needs and so on. I am particularly impressed by the argument concening the development of user interfaces being hodgepodge of ideas that are compromises and usually suit no one. (While my father would have denied it,) I grew up in a very heavily Irish/Catholic influenced family of social support, interaction and mutual obligation. I really do not understand the people who raise issues that are of concern then sit back and contribute nothing further to the resolution of what they see as an issue. No doubt these are busy guys, but so am I. I cannot spend a lot of time here, but I "help" where I can, when I can. The only reason I became involved was that someone asked a question and no-one responded to it. I was annoyed at the appalling language used in many, most, Moodle Docs, read worse than a Microsoft help file so, hopefully, I have done something about that. I cannot code, otherwise I would "fix" a few issues I see with Moodle 2.0.. These two, obviously have such skills, or ideas, they are educated men, experienced and knowledgeable. They do not have to take over, but a small contribution to the benefit of Moodle would help the community a lot. This is the difference between you and them. You contribute, you argue and complain, but you earn the right to be contrary and you should never be afraid of being so. I do not always agree, but you raise interesting issues. Merril and Austin do too, which is why I said it is an interesting read, but where do they earn their privelege not to contribute in other, more positive ways? OK, I may be imposing my value set on them, but that still does not negate their responsibilities.
Hi Megan (and esteemed members of the Moodle community):
If you've not already read it, I'd like to recommend a particularly immortal account of one institution's transition from Blackboard (the WebCT version) to another CMS-that-is-not-Moodle:
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=150533
Probably the best advice I can give anyone going through this process is this: Know Thine Own Organization. As I read the account of the two gents at NC State, I couldn't help thinking about organizations like mine where the CMS is viewed as a utility - like water or electricity or natural gas. No one wants to think about where a utility is coming from; you just want to turn/flip/turn on the tap/switch/thermostat and get water/light/heat. Many institutions feel this way about their CMS. They want a service that Just Works, the same way every time; they're not interested in tinkering, adding features, knowing how anything works, or having a stake in making things better. (I'm not trying to imply that Moodle is unreliable - it is, but not in the airtight way that a commercial CMS purports to be.)
I firmly believe that the really nice thing about using a commercial course mgt system is you always have someone else to blame when things go wrong ("We apologize that the system is currently down but we just filed a work ticket with Our Really Big Commercial Provider and hope to have service restored soon"). So, as the truly immortal Bill Murray said in one of the Caddyshack movies, "You got that goin' for ya." But it's also important to think about what you lose by going with a commercial CMS.
A "friend of mine" has been in mourning since last year, when his institution picked a commercial CMS over Moodle. Gone is the sense of having a stake in the creation, maintenance, and well-being of the system - you are now a "client." You are invited to attend "virtual unveilings" of the company's newest product (Oooh! A mobile app!). Is there something you'd like the system to do that it currently doesn't do? Sure, there is - lots of things, actually. But you'd better get in line. Is anyone at corporate HQ listening? Probably not. They are probably doing just enough to keep your business. And they'd like you to attend their Annual Big Commercial CMS-Fest, held in A Major U.S. City, where you might be lucky to pay thousands of dollars to attend presentations about interesting ways people are pressing the buttons on the thermostat - and maybe even a "focus group" where your good ideas will be ignored. Interested in what's going on with the code - looking under the hood, as it were? Too bad. You can't know and will never know (proprietary trade secrets, you know). Would you like to get your hands dirty and make the product better? Let us have you talk with our sales department - let's see if we can make that feeling go away by getting you to feel inadequate and want to upgrade and pay more for more products.
(The foregoing may sound hyperbolic, but it really does reflect the experience many people had, and have, with commercial CMSs and their supporting organizations.)
So think about your organization and the people in it. If some little thing goes wrong with the CMS, will they yowl and howl and maybe even write a 93-page paper about it? Or is your organization more forgiving of application issues (sometimes called "bugs" or even "features")? Does your organization have a "blame first" mentality, or when things go wrong do people come together, roll up their sleeves, and work together to fix the problem? Seems to me that the Moodle community includes more of the latter than the former. I hesitate to use too broad of a brush, but they themselves seem comfortable "tinkering" with Moodle, and they have a lot of confidence in their ability to fix things when they go wrong. If your organization lacks that spirit, maybe it's better to find a commercial CMS to blame - I mean buy. (By the way, when things do go wrong with your commercial CMS - and they will, inevitably - you will have absolutely no idea what went wrong or how to fix it; you'll be absolutely, completely, 100% beholden to The Company to fix things.)
Of course you already know these things b/c you've had lots of experience with commercial CMSs, but I think it's useful when considering a new system to step away from the situation you've lived in and question some of its assumptions. I see people doing so many wonderful and courageous things to develop and serve up Moodle. As Moodle continues to mature, we're seeing a tug-of-war between a "critical-to-the-enterprise" application and a home-grown tool for learning that everyone can have a stake in. My heart is still with Moodle - I feel no sense of belonging to and ownership of some CEO's annual bonus plan. But I think it's important to know your own organization and how it would fit with Moodle and the Moodle culture. In this very discussion you see the tension between Enterprise Utility and Our Baby Which We Made. Seems like the Moodle community is still working out the answer, but it's a really healthy discussion to have, and one you'll never see a commercial provider have in public, lest it distract you from the shiny sales presentation ("Our system has 99.999% up time!" "Did we mention that we have a new mobile app?"). Thanks. - Peter
hahahahaaaa!!!!! What a great analysis Peter, congratulations on your perspicacity. (Always wanted to use that word in a sentence!!!) I must admit, I am too close to Moodle to see it, but what you have said rings pretty close to the mark.
And Gary,
"I'm afraid that I'm quite weary of the attitude that a critical evaluation of something is either unfair or without value unless the critic is prepared to contribute to the improvement of what is being evaluated. "
I guess that tells me doesn't it. Obviously though I did not make myself clear, or perhaps what I was thinking was not what I posted. We each contribute to Moodle as we can. Many people do not contribute anything at all, for whatever their reason. Moodle does not ask, but it is in my heritage, my culture, my social perceptions, to do so - not on behalf of Moodle, obviously not, but for the people who use it now, will use it, or even for the product that may come at some time to replace Moodle. Not contributing does not invalidate your views in any way, but, to me, it means that you may be depriving someone of some ineffable quality in their learning that you could have brought them by applying the nature of your criticism to a remedy.
There is another issue too, which you touched on. Moodle is much too like too many other "friendly family of users" Open source projects. Playful puppies, all playing nicely together, but you ever seen the puppies turn on one they see as "weak" or "different". Their true heritage comes out, and it is obvious they are descendents of wolves. There are not enough Marcs here, daring to be different and strong enough to rebuff his assailants. I do not have the technical expertise to be a Marc, but you may. (Oh, Marc's contrariness, I suggest, may be making him one of the more important people to the future of Moodle, perhaps. Want to be a part of that?) If all you do is post remarks that make people think about what they are doing, then that too is a contribution, and far more valuable than anything I may have to offer.
From your comments though, Gary, you do not seem to have a lot of experience with an LMS, commercial or otherwise. Some products do some things well, and others things not. Some products are rubbish and go nowhere. Yet other products are rubbish and sell incredibly well. (Marc might quote the Grateful Dead, but I am a 60's kind of guy, try The Hollies, "Look through any window, yeah, what do you see?") No product I have ever used has ever been "perfect" and if you think Moodle is poor, I look forward to your review of a comercial package. Moodle has many good features and the evolution of Moodle over the next couple of years will, I believe, bring about beneficial changes to all those areas you mention. You can be a part of that or not, suit yourself.
