Abstract:

Introduction:
In 2016, Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), UK, decided to adopt Canvas as the new learning management system (LMS) across the institution. Rather than just changing the LMS, as an institution, we wanted learning technologies to support ambitious changes to teaching, assessing and students’ learning. The new LMS takes centre-stage in adopting a highly student-centred active learning approach embedded in an increasingly digital campus [1].
This article demonstrates how student and staff views and requirements shaped the implementation of the new LMS in 2017-18 against institutional strategic targets [2] and national drivers for change [3],[4],[5].

Methodology:
The evaluation process involved seeking views from students and staff across the university using a student survey, and student and staff workshops (2016-17), prior to implementing Canvas across the institution. These evaluations focused on what students and staff expect from a LMS and what it should deliver against the backdrop of a changing higher education landscape. These outcomes informed how ARU adopted Canvas through training, using templates and applying minimum adoption requirements. The latest evaluation (2017/18) focussed on the impact, success, and gaps in these adoption measures through student focus groups and a staff survey across all faculties.

Evaluation focus:
The evaluation asked the questions to what extent
• there has been a change in adoption between the previous and new LMS both in content and uptake?
• the adoption of the new LMS has changed students and staff use of and attitudes towards adopting the LMS?
• the new LMS has made a difference to student learning and if yes why?
• training, templating and minimum adoption requirements made a difference?

Structure:
After a brief introduction to the institutional and national context of this change initiative, the article considers the journey from initial consultation to implementation and its impact. The different evaluation approaches are introduced and their findings discussed as well as how the findings informed staff training, LMS templating and minimum adoption requirements. The article concludes by considering the next steps in this journey.

References:
[1] Anglia Ruskin University, Designing our Future 2017 – 2026. Our Strategy. 2017, Accessed 21/11/2018. Retrieved from https://www.anglia.ac.uk/~/media/Files/corporate-documents/designing-our-future-2017-2026.pdf
[2] Anglia Ruskin University, Education Strategy 2018-2022. 2018. Unpublished.
[3] T. Newman, H. Beetham and S. Knight, Student digital experience tracker 2016: results from the pilot project, Jisc, Accessed 21/11/2018. Retrieved from https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/55660511/student-digital-experience-tracker-2016-results-from-the-pilot-project
[4] NUS. Comprehensive Guide to Learning and Teaching. 2015. Accessed 21/11/2018. Retrieved from https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/comprehensive-guide-to-learning-and-teaching
[5] B. Rienties, N. Lie and V. Marsh, Modelling and Managing Student Satisfaction: Use of Student Feedback to Enhance Learning Experience, Subscriber Research Series 2015-16, 2015.The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Accessed 21/11/2018. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/24826/

Keywords:

Students as partners, technology-enhanced learning, virtual learning environment, consistent design, minimum adoption requirements, managing change.