Next steps:

1. Create a list of missing features and functionality. Get granular. There is a starter doc that already includes the requirements from the ASU proposal, the Spanish proposal. Please add your own additions, filling in columns A, B and C. Everyone will fill in their own ideas asynchronously and we will use the doc at the next meeting to begin a conversation on a prioritization framework.

On Campus, Matriculated Learner - Feature Gaps

2. Jenna to start a draft Product Concept Doc to circulate prior to the next meeting. This doc intended to guide/inform feature prioritization, etc.

3. We agreed to meet again at the end of July. This meeting will be open to anyone who is interested in advancing work on this particular use case. Meeting details will be circulated on the forums and here.

Meeting Notes:

Context from Anant:

• Open edX started from the use case of learning at scale

• Now we have an opportunity to create a platform that is viable for campus use AND learning at scale and that is open source

• The delta between where we are today for on campus use and where we need to be isn’t that large

Idea for this focus group inspired by two similar projects currently underway:

•  Project at ASU - Mastercard funded initiative with the Ethiopian Ministry of Education to use Open edX as an campuswide LMS solution for 50 universities

• Project with the Spanish Consortium - a grant from the EU to enhance Open edX for use as an on-campus LMS solution

Goals for the Focus Group:

• Inform a Product Concept Note that outlines the strategy/vision/goals for Open edX in response to this use case

• Create a shared list of features and functionality required to make Open edX a viable solution for on-campus/blended use cases

• Enable tCRL to identify and mitigate situations where partners are undertaking the same or similar projects in silos, or duplicating work unnecessarily

• Prioritize work to solve for this particular use case

• Identify opportunities to co-create or agree on common interfaces/approaches

• Function as a podium to generate funding for projects

• Open question: How does this focus group work/support/align with the Community Product Working Group?

Deliverables:

1. A Product Concept Document that outlines the vision, the “why”, and the strategy for Open edX to function as a viable solution for on-campus use. The document should balance:

   1. Short-term goals: How we achieve parity with other LMS providers and meet immediate needs, such as the Ethiopian project. How we enable easier integration for sites that use multiple LMS solutions.

   2. Medium-term goals: How we leapfrog other LMS providers in areas where Open edX is already strong

   3. Long-term goals: How we innovate and push the envelope in meaningful and mission-aligned ways, exploring areas where other LMS providers will not venture

2. A Roadmap with features and initiatives prioritize accordingly, and in alignment/guided by the Concept Doc

General meeting notes and input:

What are the key areas we need to focus on to reduce the gap with other LMS providers:

• One challenge an LMS must overcome is SIS integration

  • This is a missing piece and requires discovery work - where are the current hurdles

  • One approach would be to choose one “blessed” SIS integration that we start working closely with, nail, then have a series of endpoints to adapt to others over time

• Need more tools for admin - admin dashboard improvements, permissions improvements

  • Need hierarchical permissions, more granular permissions

• Studio improvements - Studio is not oriented to being used by teachers. Teachers want to work on learning sequences outside of course structure, etc

• File sharing and file management: F2F teaching often just requires teachers to share single files, lecture notes, they need a system of delivery that doesn’t force them into a pre-structured learning path or full course

  • Canvas is very modular, don’t get locked into full course design

  • Flexible and controlled file sharing - file systems can be solely managed by instructors who control the links, the sharing, who see what and when

• Analytics - need common set of statistics, for admins, for teachers, opportunity to integrate automated personalized feedback

• Easy LTI integration and catalog

Another important angle to consider

• The reality for many universities is that they use Open edX as one LMS solution among many. For example, SUNY Buffalo uses Open edx to deliver continuing adult education, MITx similar. The needs here are around better integration with other LMS solutions. 

Questions and answers (maybe this should be separate document)

• Are there currently any educational institutions (college or university), that are using Open edX and their only LMS?

  • This document sounds like Open edX wants to compete with the major players like Canvas, D2L and Blackboard. Not sure If I get that right from the objective or mission statement