Report to the Provost

From the

Learning Management System Evaluation Committee

Co-Chaired by Dr. Marvin Croy and Dr. Ron Smelser

In Consultation with Dr. Valorie McAlpin

May 15, 2009

1
 Page
I. Executive Summary 3

II. Context 3

III. Details of the Comparison Project 3

A. Committee charge 3
B. Comparing Blackboard Vista and Moodle 4
Pedagogical Results
Disability Compliance
Financial Results
C. Opportunities and Obligations of Open Source 5
D. Projected Transition Timeline 5
E. Other Considerations 6

IV. Conclusion 6

V. Appendices 7

2
I. Executive Summary
This report:

• Describes the results of an evaluative comparison of the Moodle Learning Management

System with the University’s current Blackboard system (Vista);

• Recommends, on the basis of that evaluation, that the University adopt Moodle as its sole
Learning Management System; and

• Outlines the consequences of doing so in conjunction with a plan for making the
transition from Blackboard to Moodle.

II. Context
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte is committed to providing a learning environment that
promotes intellectual and personal growth for both students and faculty. The challenges of the
present economic crisis shall not alter this commitment or the efforts that animate it. Since learning
management systems (LMS) play a key role in the instructional enterprise, the choice of an LMS
appropriate to the University’s mission and populace is crucial.

Like all electronic technologies, LMSs are constantly evolving. This evolution imposes the need for
continuous evaluation, consideration of alternatives, and appraisal of the resources and opportunities
currently available. Intelligent transitioning has become a staple of the efficient use of instructional
technology, and much depends upon flexibility and control over the timing and direction of such
choices. Avoiding change is not an option. Initiating change provides the best option for moving in a
direction that we own.

The UNC Tomorrow initiative predicts rapid enrollment growth at UNC Charlotte and other
campuses. It is clear that in meeting our particular instructional mission, hybrid plus on-line courses
will play an increasingly important role. That role demands a learning management system that is
quick to learn, easy to use, reliable, and able to accommodate our evolving needs, particularly in
respect to increasing class size.

All of these considerations entail careful consideration of alternative learning management systems.
As detailed below, this Committee has endeavored to supply ample evidence relative to the strengths
and weaknesses of Blackboard versus Moodle and recommends in favor of a change to Moodle.

III. Details of the Comparison Project

A. Committee Charge
This Committee was initiated in January of 2008 on the authority of the Provost. Its initial charge
was to document the level of satisfaction with the Blackboard Vista (BbV) learning management
system and to evaluate the need for exploring alternatives, particularly open-source systems. This

3
charge was executed during the Spring, 2008 semester, and culminated in a recommendation to pilot
and evaluate the Moodle LMS during the 2008-2009 academic years. This recommendation was
accepted by the Provost, and the Committee was charged with its implementation.

B. Comparing Blackboard and Moodle

Pedagogical Results:

With support from the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), faculty created and taught courses
using Moodle during the 2008-2009 academic year. During the Fall semester, this effort involved 10
faculty teaching 23 courses to 674 students. The Spring 2009 pilot involved 39 faculty teaching 117
courses to 2,639 students (approximately 12% of all students enrolled and 19% of all students in an
LMS-supported course). Almost all of the pilot faculty had prior experience using BbV. Evaluation
measures involved surveys of both the faculty and students and included systematic feedback from
focus group meetings of faculty and CTL staff. Rubrics for these evaluations were developed during
the initial Spring 2008 study and the early phases of the Fall 2008 pilot. These rubrics emerged from
identifying the needs of faculty and students and ultimately assessed the degree to which BbV and
Moodle satisfied those needs.

Fall 2008 Details: Moodle courses taught during this semester included those that were hybrid (60%)
and on-line (40%). The faculty and students involved rated Moodle very highly on key factors of
ease of use, flexibility, facilitation of teaching/learning goals, and correspondence to one’s
teaching/learning style. Tools and functions crucial for designing and implementing Moodle courses
(Assignments, Discussions, Learning Modules, Assessments, etc.) were rated as being preferable to
those available in BbV by both faculty and students. While there were a few cases in which a basic
function (web links, etc.) were rated by students as being “about the same as Blackboard,” there were
no cases in which a Moodle function or tool of any kind was rated by either faculty or students as
being “worse than Blackboard.” (See Appendix A, page 8, and Appendix B, page 10)

Spring 2009 Details: Data from this larger group of students and faculty confirmed the findings from
the Fall semester. Data were collected from 35 faculty and 313 students. On all tools and functions
evaluated, a large majority of faculty expressed a preference (either pro-Moodle or pro-BbV), and as
in the Fall, these preferences consistently favored Moodle by wide margins. Once again, ease of use
and learning, adaptability, and sufficiency of Moodle tools were important factors for these faculty.
When asked to indicate an overall preference, 81% of faculty surveyed preferred Moodle. (See
Appendix C, page 12, and Appendix D, page 26).

Disability Compliance:
Both BlackBoard and Moodle provide support for meeting Section 508 standards (Americans with
Disabilities Act) for designing accessible courses, and as software products themselves, each of these
LMSs are subject to these standards. Staff from CTL examined both BbV and Moodle for
compliance and for support for compliance by course designers. On each of the sixteen Section 508
standards, a judgment was made as to whether BbV and Moodle fulfilled the requirement. Overall,
compliance to standards by both BbV and Moodle was good, and no distinct advantage of one over
the other was noted.

Financial Results:
Based on Total Cost of Operation (TCO) data compiled from existing contracts with Blackboard ASP
Hosting and Remote Learner (external host for Moodle), the University would realize a cost savings

4
of 52% in year 2011-2012 by switching to Moodle as the standard University Learning Management
System. Currently, UNC Charlotte is part of a Blackboard Vista consortium which includes Western
Carolina University and UNC Wilmington. Contractual agreements brokered by UNC-General
Administration require consortia members to retain Blackboard Vista as our LMS through 2011. Our
2008-2009 cost for Blackboard Vista is $274,603.00 with an annual projected increased of 10%
through 2011.

ITS and CTL project an annual cost of $173,500 (for 2009-2010) to implement Moodle as opposed to
$307,100 for Blackboard Vista. The challenge lies in providing the cost for Moodle in addition to the
costs for Blackboard Vista through 2011. This represents a total cost for both systems at $480,600
for this fiscal year alone. ITS and CTL further predict that it will take 2 years to fully migrate all
faculty, staff, and students to the new system by the end of the Blackboard Vista contract which
expires June 30, 2011. However, replacing Blackboard Vista with Moodle in 2011 will save the
University approximately $193,900 or 52% of the projected cost for Blackboard Vista in 2011. (See
Appendix E, page 29)

If the University does not replace Blackboard Vista in 2011, we must renew and/or renegotiate with
Blackboard as our LMS provider and should anticipate a significant increase in cost based on a non
consortia contract. The Vista product itself is being replaced by Blackboard. So, some transition will
be occurring whether or not we move to Moodle. As evident in the previous sections, Moodle is user
friendly and will provide comparable functionality for faculty, staff, and students while providing the
added benefits of flexibility, customization, and product control and cost savings.

C. Opportunities and Obligations of Open Source

One attractive feature of Moodle is its open source architecture, which promises flexibility
and adaptability to our faculty and student needs. This feature also encourages participation
in a nationwide, indeed international, community of teachers and course designers who
constantly explore and implement new features within the Moodle LMS. Realistically, there
are some limitations to taking full advantage of this opportunity. First, there is obviously a
limitation to the number of adaptations that can be made given that the required
programming support is itself limited. Moreover, some process for evaluating and
prioritizing faculty and/or student requests for modifications must be in place. CTL staff
have devised a plan for addressing this issue (See Appendix F, page 28). The Committee did
discuss some high priority improvements, and CTL is committed to addressing these.
Another issue concerns the fact that if Moodle system upgrades are periodically adopted
from the “standard” version, local adaptations must be re-implemented. (We currently do
this in a limited way for the Banner system when upgrading to the latest version after having
made local modifications.) All in all, many universities find the virtues of Moodle’s open
source nature worth this effort. The Louisiana State University, for instance, is a national
leader in this enterprise, and within our system, Appalachian State University provides a
companion institution for discussing and managing these issues. (CTL staff traveled to ASU
for this purpose in the Fall of 2008.)

D. Projected Transition Timeline

The transition strategy for migrating from Bb Vista to Moodle as the University’s enterprise Learning
Management System (LMS) provides faculty with an open adoption path spanning from the start of
the Fall 2009 term to the conclusion of the Spring 2011 term. The goal would be to deploy the
production-level hosting infrastructure no later than July 1 in order to support faculty training

5
initiatives and course development efforts in preparation for the Fall 2009 semester. The CTL team
would work closely with each of the academic units across campus over the six semesters that follow
to ensure complete migration and support for the 450+ campus faculty leading 1,500+ courses
currently using the Bb Vista platform. Appendix G, page 31, provides an overview of projected
activities.

E. Other Considerations
The Committee also discussed the fact that currently there are no tools for transitioning from BbV to
Moodle. That is, entire courses cannot be automatically translated from one LMS to the other.
However, quizzes and individual components can often be transferred with no difficulty. This
suggests that CTL should build a small number of template courses for faculty use in recreating their
courses. It should also be noted that this course recreation was accomplished by all Moodle pilot
faculty, and this was done with much less effort than that required for initially building their BbV
courses. Nevertheless, this condition reinforces the fact that the transition period should begin as
soon as feasible.

IV. Conclusion
Our alternatives are clear. We can transition to Moodle, or we can negotiate a new contract with
Blackboard and migrate to the product they offer. The evidence gathered by this committee strongly
favors a transition to Moodle on both pedagogical and financial grounds. Moodle provides better or
comparable functionality with the benefit of increased relevance and control for what in the long run
will be lower cost. The committee understands that transitions of this nature are burdensome, but its
18-month reflection upon a wide variety of factors culminated in a renewed appreciation for the
University’s instructional mission and the challenges that lie ahead. It is the Committee’s firm belief
that, of the options open to us, Moodle provides the best choice for meeting those challenges.

6
 APPENDICES

Page
Appendix A – Fall 2008 Faculty Survey Results 8
Appendix B – Fall 2008 Student Survey Results 11
Appendix C – Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results 14
Appendix D – Student Evaluation of Moodle, Spring 2009 28
Appendix E – Total Cost of Operation 30
Appendix F – Outline of Moodle Change Request Process 31
Appendix G – Projected Transition Timeline 33
Appendix H – About the Committee and its Activities 34
Appendix I – List of Faculty Involved in the Moodle Evaluation Pilot 35

7
Appendix A. Fall 2008 Faculty Survey Results

8
Appendix A. Fall 2008 Faculty Survey Results

9
Appendix A. Fall 2008 Faculty Survey Results

10
Appendix B. Fall 2008 Student Survey Results

11
Appendix B. Fall 2008 Student Survey Results

12
Appendix B. Fall 2008 Student Survey Results

13
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

LMS Evaluation:
Moodle Pilot Faculty Response

Spring Semester 2009

Facts and Figures

` 39 pilot faculty total in Spring 2009 semester
` 30 with prior Blackboard (BB) experience, 9 without
` All 30 with prior BB experience completed the evaluation
rubric (100% response rate)
` 5 of 9 without prior BB experience (56% response rate)
` Overall response rate, 35/39, was 90%
` Prior BB users were asked to compare systems; non-
users were asked about satisfaction
` Open-ended responses were compiled for both groups

14
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q1: Assessment and Grading Tools

Data: Assessment and Grading Tools

Gradebook Syllabus Assignments Assessments Grade Tools
(Student)
# Prefer
Moodle
19 14 18 12 16
# Prefer
Blackboard
6 4 5 4 2
# Neutral 2 5 1 0 3
# Did Not
Use
3 5 5 13 7

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer
Moodle
76% 78% 78% 75% 89%
% Prefer
Blackboard
24% 22% 22% 25% 11%

15
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q2: Communications Tools

Data: Communications Tools

Mail Groups News Discus- White- Web Calendar
sions board Links
# Prefer
Moodle
10 11 20 17 1 14 20
# Prefer
Blackboard
2 7 2 2 0 3 4
# Neutral 8 1 5 0 0 10 1
# Did Not
Use
9 11 3 11 29 3 5

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer
Moodle
83% 61% 91% 89% 100% 82% 83%
% Prefer
Blackboard
17% 39% 9% 11% 0% 18% 17%

16
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q3: Organizational Tools

Data: Organizational Tools

Units/Modules/ Roster/Participant Tracking and
Topics List Reports
# Prefer Moodle 22 20 17
# Prefer Blackboard 6 3 2
# Neutral 2 7 5
# Did Not Use 0 0 6

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer Moodle 79% 87% 89%
% Prefer Blackboard 21% 13% 11%

17
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q4: Available Abilities

Data: Available Abilities

TA Role Abilities Instructor/Designer Demo Student Role
Role Abilities Abiliities
# Prefer Moodle 7 18 18
# Prefer Blackboard 0 4 4
# Neutral 3 5 5
# Did Not Use 20 3 3

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer Moodle 100% 82% 82%
% Prefer Blackboard 0% 18% 18%

18
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q6: Interface

Data: Interface
Intuitive- Consis- Simplicity Ability to Ability to 508
ness tency Custo- Organize Comp-
mize liance
# Prefer
Moodle
23 23 23 18 20 4
# Prefer
Blackboard
6 3 7 7 7 0
# Neutral 1 3 0 5 3 3
# Did Not
Use
0 0 0 0 0 23

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer
Moodle
79% 88% 77% 72% 74% 100%
% Prefer
Blackboard
21% 12% 23% 28% 26% 0%

19
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q7: Ease of Use

Data: Ease of Use

Content Content/File Quiz/ Course Course
Creation Management Assessment Management Design
Creation
# Prefer
Moodle
23 21 15 23 23
# Prefer
Blackboard
3 5 2 6 6
# Neutral 3 4 2 1 1
# Did Not Use 1 0 11 0 0

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer
Moodle
88% 81% 88% 79% 79%
% Prefer
Blackboard
12% 19% 12% 21% 21%

20
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q8: Training and Support

Data: Training and Support

Ease of Training Usefulness of Help Ease of Initial
Feature Configuration
# Prefer Moodle 22 22 22
# Prefer Blackboard 3 2 4
# Neutral 4 5 4
# Did Not Use 1 1 0

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer Moodle 88% 92% 85%
% Prefer Blackboard 12% 8% 15%

21
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q10: Migrate and Import Tools

Data: Migrate and Import Tools

Accessibil- Migrate Migrate Import Backup and
ity of Content Content Content Save
Tools between between from other Courses
Sections Products Products
# Prefer
Moodle
9 12 5 11 13
# Prefer
Blackboard
0 2 1 3 0
# Neutral 6 3 4 1 1
# Did Not Use 15 13 20 15 16

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer
Moodle
100% 86% 83% 79% 100%
% Prefer
Blackboard
0% 14% 17% 21% 0%

22
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q11: Compatibility

Data: Compatibility
Browser Platform JAVA Compatibility
Compatibility Compatibility
# Prefer Moodle 23 19 22
# Prefer Blackboard 0 0 1
# Neutral 6 3 3
# Did Not Use 1 8 4

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer Moodle 100% 100% 96%
% Prefer Blackboard 0% 0% 4%

23
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q12: Reliability

Data: Reliability
Consistency of Reliability of Use Frequency of
User Experience Experience System Errors
# Prefer Moodle 23 23 22
# Prefer Blackboard 2 2 0
# Neutral 3 3 6
# Did Not Use 0 0 1

Out of those who expressed a preference

% Prefer Moodle 92% 92% 100%
% Prefer Blackboard 8% 8% 0%

24
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Positive Aspects of Moodle

` Moodle is stable and reliable.
` Moodle is easy to use and navigate.
` Moodle is compatible with a range of browsers and
platforms.
` Moodle has a built in wiki feature.
` Moodle is compatible with LaTeX, which allows easy
input for math courses.
` Moodle’s gradebook feature, while complex, is superior
to Blackboard.
` Moodle allows instructors to easily upload and
incorporate a variety of content.

Concerns about Moodle

` Gradebook feature is complicated and inflexible.
` Cannot release modules or tests at a pre-specified time.
` Format is not maintained when transferring objects
between courses and sections.
` Cannot combine sections of a course or forms groups
with members in different sections.
` Cannot import grades from outside programs, such as
Excel.
` More flexibility in configuration and page layout would be
appreciated.

25
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Q16: Overall Preference

6% 13%

10%

71%

Survey of Faculty with no BB Experience

` Faculty without prior Blackboard experience completed a
survey parallel to the comparison survey.
` The results indicated that Moodle met faculty
expectations in almost all categories. The exceptions:
` Two out of five respondents Slightly Disagreed that the Ability
to Customize was user-friendly.
` One out of five respondents Slightly Disagreed that the Help
Feature was user-friendly.
` One out of five respondents Slightly Disagreed that the Ability
to Migrate Content between Courses and Sections was
effective and efficient.

26
 Appendix C: Spring 2009 Faculty Survey Results

Survey of Faculty with no BB Experience

` Q16: Overall, Moodle is an effective and useful learning
management system.
` The respondent who ‘Strongly Disagreed’ commented
‘Need more experience with Moodle in order to respond
to this.’
1 1

27
Appendix D. Student Evaluation of Moodle, Spring 2009

n= 313
response rate= 15%

If you were given the

option to take courses
using either Moodle or
Blackboard Vista, which
would you choose?
Moodle 80.5%
Blackboard Vista 19.5%

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

AGREE DISAGREE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
Moodle is easy to use. 95.1% 4.9% 66.9% 28.2% 1.6% 3.3%
Moodle is flexible. 90.5% 9.5% 54.1% 36.4% 5.8% 3.7%
Moodle helps me reach
my learning goals. 89.3% 10.7% 40.7% 48.6% 6.6% 4.1%
Moodle fits my learning
style. 85.5% 14.5% 49.0% 36.5% 9.1% 5.4%

Better About
than the same Worse
BB as BB than BB
Reliability and Stability
when Accessing the
Course 69.9% 25.9% 4.2%
Moodle is relatively easy
to learn. 68.8% 25.7% 5.5%
Ease of Navigation 68.6% 21.8% 9.6%
Moodle's interface is
consistent. 66.5% 27.5% 5.9%
Flexibility and
Organization 66.1% 24.3% 9.6%
Assignments 64.7% 27.2% 8.2%
Submitting and Tracking
Assignments 64.1% 28.6% 7.4%
Tasks require an
appropriate number of
mouse clicks. 62.0% 32.9% 5.1%
The user interface for
students is intuitive. 60.7% 31.2% 8.1%
Moodle is compatible
across different
platforms. 59.8% 36.8% 3.4%

28
Quizzes, Feedback, and
Grades 59.8% 32.2% 8.0%
Assignment Submission 58.5% 34.3% 7.2%
Gradebook 54.5% 38.3% 7.2%
Hyperlinks 54.5% 40.4% 5.1%
Assessments 54.4% 40.4% 5.3%
The built-in online help
feature provides the
necessary support. 54.4% 40.9% 4.8%
Calendar 54.1% 39.0% 6.9%
Syllabus 53.4% 39.7% 6.8%
Announcements 53.4% 35.6% 11.0%
Discussions 52.8% 39.5% 7.7%
Learning Modules 52.6% 42.2% 5.2%
Contributing to
Discussions 52.6% 35.5% 12.0%
Communication with
Faculty or Peers 52.4% 38.2% 9.4%
Group Participation 52.1% 36.8% 11.1%
Communicating with
Classmates 48.7% 42.2% 9.1%
Roster 47.8% 44.8% 7.3%
Communicating with
Instructor 45.7% 47.8% 6.5%
Chat 44.3% 45.1% 10.6%
Mail 38.7% 50.4% 10.9%

Moodle is more difficult

to learn on my own than
Blackboard was.
Strong Disagree 42.9%
84.5%
Disagree 41.6%
Agree 9.7% 15.5%
Strong Agree 5.9%

29
Appendix E. Total Cost of Operation

30
Appendix F. Outline of Moodle Change Process

31
Appendix F. Outline of Moodle Change Process
(Continued)

32
Appendix G. Projected Transition Timeline

33
 Appendix H. About the Committee and its Activities

Committee Structure. The committee was co-chaired by Dr. Marvin Croy and Dr. Ron
Smelser, in consultation with and support from Dr. Valorie McAlpin. The committee
included staff from the Center for Teaching and Learning, faculty experienced in teaching
with various learning management systems, and staff from Information Technology Services
and various Colleges. These faculty and staff included:

Andy Bobyarchick Geography and Earth Sciences

Dan Boisvert Philosophy
Debra Brooks Distance Learning
Diane Cassidy Computer Science
Michael Cato Health Informatics Lab
John Champion Center for Teaching and Learning
Marvin Croy Philosophy
Lienne Edwards Nursing
Gwen Foss Nursing
Donna Gunter Atkins Library
Katherine Hall-Hertel Graduate School
Richard Hartshorne Education Leadership
Marcus Hesse Student Representative
Phil Ice Education, Middle Grades
Valorie McAlpin Center for Teaching and Learning
Heather McCullough Languages And Culture Studies
Lisa Nickel Atkins Library
Garvey Pyke Center for Teaching and Learning
Ron Smelser Engineering
Lorraine Stanton Center for Teaching and Learning
Katherine Languages And Culture Studies
Stephenson
Susan Wagoner Information Technology Services

Committee Activities

In conjunction with lengthy discussions and analyses at regularly scheduled meetings, committee
activities included:
- meeting with BlackBoard representatives;
- surveying UNC Charlotte faculty and students;
- soliciting input directly from faculty involved in the spring 2006 pilot of BbV;
- attending relevant meetings and discussions at the annual NC TLT conference;
- observing demonstrations of or actually working with alternatives to BbV;
- considering the findings of the NC TLT Collaborative comparison of Sakai and Moodle;
- hearing directly from UNC Charlotte faculty involved in using and evaluating these systems;
- reviewing the university’s previous LMS transition (from WebCT Campus Edition to BbV);
- examining and creating evaluation rubrics;
- comparing cost projections for both BlackBoard Vista and Moodle;
- providing a status reports on the committee’s activities at two meetings of the Faculty Council;

34
 Appendix H continued

- traveling to Appalachian State University to consult with those involved in their transition from
WebCT to Moodle;
- working with CTL staff in planning and implementing the 2008-2009 pilot of Moodle.
________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix I. Faculty Involved in Moodle Evaluation Pilot

Faculty College Dept Courses
Name
Alvarez,
Denise OIP ELTI ELTI 0170-001/0171-001 (crosslisted)
Barnes, CCI Computer ITCS 4231-001 Advanced Game Design and
Tiffany Science Development
Barnes, ITCS 5231-001 Advanced Game Design and
Tiffany Development
Belles, CHHS Kinesiology EXER 3229 001 24329
Matthew
Belles, EXER3229 002 24331
Matthew
Belles, EXER3229 003 24332
Matthew
Belles, EXER 3099 (002)
Matthew
Belles, LBST 2214 655
Matthew
Benchich, CLAS Physics PHYS 1130 - 090
Elizabeth
Benchich, PHYS 1130 - L91
Elizabeth
Benchich, PHYS 1130 - L92
Elizabeth
Bobyarchick, CLAS Geography ESCI 6000 083 Geology for Teachers
Andy
Boisvert, CLAS Philosophy PHIL 1105 001 Critical Thinking
Dan
(Moodle
Mentor)
Boisvert, PHIL 2105 003 Deductive Logic
Dan
(Moodle
Mentor)
Cassidy, CCI Computer LBST 2213 740:Science Technology and Society
Diane Science
Cassidy, ITCS 1102 001: Advanced Internet Concepts
Diane
Cherukuri, ENGR Mechanical MEGR2144-001
Harish
Croy, Marvin PHIL 3235 001Advanced Logic
Croy, Marvin CLAS Philosophy PHIL 2105 008 Deductive Logic
(Moodle
Mentor)
Dal Pra, CLAS Language/Culture ITLN 1201
Daniela St.
Dal Pra, ITLN 1202
Daniela

35
Dal Pra, ITLN 2201
Appendix I continued
Daniela
Dal Pra, ITLN 2202
Daniela
Dal Pra, FORL 3050
Daniela
Delgadillo,
Maria CLAS Language/Cult SPAN2201-005: Intermediate Spanish I
DiPietro, COED Educational EIST5100 - Comp App in Education
Meredith Leadership
(Moodle
Mentor)
DiPietro, EIST6110: Instructional Design
Meredith
Eldridge, CLAS Philosophy PHIL 2105 006 Deductive Logic
Michael
El-
Ghannam,
Ahmed ENGR Mechanical MEGR 3161: Intro to Engineering Materials
Fielding,
Roy CHHS Kinesiology EXER 2150 001: Intro to Kinesiology
Fielding,
Roy ATRN 2150 001: Intro to Kinesiology
Fielding,
Roy EXER 2219 001
Fielding,
Roy EXER 2218 001
Fielding,
Roy EXER 2220 001

Fisher, Molly CLAS Mathematic MAED 3103 090: Using Tech to Teach 2ndary Math
Hartshorne, COED Edu Leadership EIST 6121-090: Instructional Courseware Authoring
Richard
(Moodle
Mentor)
Hartshorne, EIST 6140-090: Instructional Development II
Richard
(Moodle
Mentor)
Hartshorne, EIST 6135-080: Learning Media
Richard
(Moodle
Mentor)
Hilger,
Helen ENGR Civil/Envir. CEGR 4090 H90: Sustainable Design
Hilger,
Helen CEGR 5090 H90: Sustainable Design
Ilson, CCI Comp. Sci
Richard ITCS 1215 003 Intro to Computer Science II
Ilson,
Richard ITCS 2175 002 Logic and Algorithms
Ilson,
Richard ITCS 2215 002 Desing and Analysis Algorithms
Jarrell, Ted ENGR Eng. Tech ETGR 1104 001: Technical Drawing II
Kosara, CCI Computer ITCS 4123 001 Virtualization and Visual
Robert Science Communication

36
Kosara, ITCS 5123 001
Robert
Latulipe, CCI Software/Info ITIS 6400 091 Intro to Human-Comp Interaction
Celine (TNT)
Latulipe, IT IS 8400 091
Celine (TNT)
McAlpin, COED Educational The Adult Learner - 22421 - EIST 6101 - 090
Valorie Leadership
McDaniel, ENGR
Chris ETGR-1201-003
McDaniel, Appendix I continued
Chris ENGR-1201-005
McDaniel,
Chris ENGR-1201-008
McDaniel,
Chris ENGR-1201-009
McDaniel,
Chris ENGR-1201-002
McKenzie, CLAS Sociology SOCY 3173 001 Criminology
Mary
(Moodle
Mentor)
McKenzie, SOCY 4172 001 Sociology of Deviant Behavior
Mary
(Moodle
Mentor)
McKenzie, SOCY 1101-003: Intro to Sociology
Mary
(Moodle
Mentor)
Mielke, CLAS English ENGL 3102 090
Tammy
Mielke, ENGL 6103 090
Tammy
Morong, Jay CAA Theatre LBST 1104 560 Arts & Society - Theatre
(Arts/Arch)

Morong, Jay LBST 1104 562 Arts & Society - Theatre

Payton, CCI Comp. Sci ITCS 6112 001: Software Systems Design/Implement.
Jamie
Pilonieta, COED Reading/Elem READ 3224 001 : (2 sections of 25)
Paola
Pilonieta, READ 3224 002
Paola
Pilonieta, READ 3255 090
Paola
Polly, Drew COED Reading/Elem ELED 3110: Instruc. Design/Elementary Learners

Popejoy, COED Reading/Elem ELED 3221: Teaching Science to Elem Learners

Kate
Popejoy, (3 sections of 25) [were only 2 in Banner 090 & 004 -
Kate DM]
Raymer, CLAS Philosophy PHIL 2105 001 Deductive Logic
Reginald
Rodriguez,
Kimberly OIP ELTI ELTI-0160-001 Listening and Speaking 6

37
Royster,
David CLAS CMSTE/MATH MATH1241: Calculus
Schmid,
Rosemary OIP ELTI ELTI 0140-001 Listening Speaking 401/402
Shaban, CLAS Mathematic
Wafaa MATH 1242 001: Calculus II
Shaban,
Wafaa MATH 1242 007
Shaban,
Wafaa MATH 1241 002: Calculus I
Shaban,
Wafaa MATH 3128 001 Actuarial Science
Sharma, CLAS Physic/Optical PHYS1102 001: Introductory Physics 2
Aditi Science
Sharma, PHYS1102 002: Introductory Physics 2
Appendix I continued
Aditi
Smith, CLAS African Studies
Debra AFRS 1100 800: Intro to Africana Studies
Smith,
Debra AFRS 2100 090: Black Images in the Media
Stephenson, CLAS Language/Culture FREN 1201 001 Elementary French 1
Katherine St.
Stephenson, FREN 2200 001 French for Reading Knowledge
Katherine
Tolley, Patty ENGR Engin Tech ETME 3143-002: Thermodynamics
Turner, CHHS Kinesiology KNES 6285 001 Advanced Cardiopulmonary Phys.
Michael
Wilson, CCI Software/Info
David ITIS 4166 091 Network Based App Devel
Wilson,
David ITIS 5166 091
Wilson,
David ITIS 1210 002: Intro to Web-based Info Systems

38