Sakai as a Service for
Colleges and Consortia
|
|
|
Scott Siddall |
|
Denison University |
|
The Longsight Group |
|
siddall@longsight.com |
What is SaaS?
|
|
|
Project planning |
|
Hardware and software
configuration |
|
Customization and branding |
|
Installation and client testing
(one week) |
|
Train local staff for tier 1
support |
|
Online training materials |
|
24/7 tier 2 support |
|
Monitoring performance;
capacity planning |
|
Regular backup and restoration
services |
Why Sakai as a Service?
|
|
|
Providing a CLE is strategic |
|
Running it yourself is not |
|
|
|
It is cost-effective to hire
specialists |
|
Quicker startup, no capital
investments |
|
More predictable costs (human
and capital) |
|
Lower costs of ownership or
access |
|
Greater reliability |
|
|
Why Sakai as a Service?
|
|
|
Campus can reallocate staff
resources |
|
Focus resources on outcomes,
not technology |
|
Focus staff on
training/engaging faculty |
|
|
|
Technical staff gain experience
with open source |
|
Gradually take ownership of
the project |
|
Not a proprietary instance of
Sakai |
|
No vendor lock-in assures
choices |
|
|
Our focus is on
colleges, consortia
http://longsight.com
Slide 6
Why SaaS for Colleges?
|
|
|
|
Smaller colleges are less
likely to have expertise |
|
Java, Tomcat, Subversion, Ant,
Maven… |
|
SaaS lowers threshold for use |
|
Train and access within a week
at a low cost |
|
Teaching and learning are
paramount |
|
Sakai is providing pedagogical
flexibility |
|
Good argument for Sakai in
general |
|
Achieve this innovation at
lower risk without long term commitment through SaaS |
Pilot versus Production
|
|
|
|
The Authentic Pilot |
|
Limited only in scale |
|
Mission critical – full support |
|
Live courses for credit |
|
Fully engaged faculty,
students, staff |
|
Evaluation rubric |
|
McGill University EDUCAUSE 2005
presentation |
|
(unacceptable – could live with
it – recommended) |
Walsh University
|
|
|
CourseWork and CHEF pilots in
2004 |
|
Sakai in production since
August, 2005 |
|
2,300 students |
|
Campus community has developed
a techno-realistic outlook on open source |
Sakai Usage Survey
Slide 11
Walsh University survey
results
|
|
|
25% used Sakai for
collaboration |
|
6.5% placed notes into My
Workspace |
|
Those without prior CLE
experience wanted more training |
Different opinions for
faculty and students
|
|
|
Changed your teaching/learning
style? |
|
64% of faculty but only 36% of
students |
|
(significant difference,
p=0.02) |
|
Overall impression? |
|
83% ++ faculty and 66% ++ for
students |
|
(significant difference,
p=0.01) |
|
Use Sakai again? |
|
88% of faculty would but only
62% of students |
|
(significant difference,
p=0.02) |
Slide 14
Slide 15
Tool assessments
|
|
|
87% ++ rating for resources |
|
75% ++ rating for announcements
and assignments |
|
67% ++ rating for drop box |
|
62% ++ rating for discussion |
|
59% ++ rating for tests &
quizzes |
Split opinions!
|
|
|
“It was hard for me to find the
information I needed…” |
|
“Easy to log on and find the
necessary information” |
|
|
|
“Taking a paper and pencil test
was easier” |
|
“Taking tests on Sakai was
easier than take a test in pencil and paper” |
|
|
|
“The drop box was a little
confusing…” |
|
“The drop box was the best for
assignments..” |
|
|
|
What features did you most
appreciate? “All of it!” |
|
What features of Sakai did you
find most negative? “All of it!” |
What improvements would
you suggest?
|
|
|
“Just keep listening to us as we get used
to using it, and continue solving problems and discovering ways to make it
even more user friendly…” |
Why SaaS for Consortia?
|
|
|
Single shared instance of Sakai
extends the tradition of collaboration |
|
Project sites shared among
disciplines |
|
Resources shared through WebDAV |
|
Potentially reveals courses for
cross-registration |
|
Creates new connections among
support staff and faculty |
Ohio Learning Network
Pilot
|
|
|
|
42 participating institutions |
|
Statewide program for shared
CMS |
|
Blackboard, WebCT and open
source |
|
Open source |
|
Sakai, OSP, Moodle and uPortal |
|
Face-to-face and online
training, monthly sessions |
|
Sandbox for testing new tools |
Slide 21
Appalachian College
Association
|
|
|
11 institutions |
|
Pilot and production uses |
|
Moved from WebCT |
|
Face-to-face and online
training of support staff |
|
Week-long faculty development
workshops |
|
Strong leadership (consortium
and campuses) |
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Longsight’s open source
model
|
|
|
Strict adherence to pure open
source model |
|
Branding and look & feel
customizations but nothing that breaks upgrade pathway |
|
Bug fixes submitted to Sakai
Jira site |
|
Rights to contract work are
shared |
|
Contracted code is open sourced |
|
No lock-in to a proprietary
version of Sakai |
|
Knowledge transfer if/when
client takes over |
|
Clients retain all content
rights |
Benefits
Total Cost of
Access
(not ownership)
Sakai as a Service
|
|
|
Focus on what’s strategic |
|
Cost-effective access to
innovation and pedagogical flexibility |
|
Reallocate human and capital
resources |
|
Increase local staff expertise
in open source |
|
Foster greater collaboration
within and among institutions |
Return to home