Well, we (State University of New York at Delhi) have not asked to be “private” and our site is not listed in the above, http://vanckohall.delhi.edu

Our implementation is campus wide (6,000+ enrollments), and while not the size of the University of Delaware (20,000 students), would suggest the following as peer institutions to UD (20,000 +/- students, undergrad and graduate programs)
1. UCLA (http://www.oid.ucla.edu/units/tec/tectutorials/tecmoodle),
2. Louisiana State Univeristy (http://moodle.grok.lsu.edu/),
3. University of Minnesota, (https://moodle.umn.edu/)
4. University of North Carolina (https://moodle.uncc.edu/)
5. North Carolina State (http://delta.ncsu.edu/news/announcements/item.php?id=63)
6. Cal State (http://dat.cdl.edu/lms/csu-moodle-coalition),
7. Idaho State (https://elearning.isu.edu/2009/login/index.php)
8. Oakland University (https://moodle.oakland.edu/moodle/login/index.php)
9. Rutgers State University of New Jersey, New Jersey Institute of Technology (http://moodle.njit.edu/)
10. University of North Dakota (http://lms.ndus.edu/)

OK there’s ten – Moodle must be one better?

I think this is a huge waste of time and only results in the trivial banter like that of above.

I would suggest that the important discussion that should be taking place is how the “procurement process” is changing on campus from one that is centrally controlled by campus administrations to one of emergence where new teaching and learning tools are adopted and adapted by faculty despite the “enterprise solution” identified by the campus. How many faculty are using the LMS as nothing more than a tool for authentication and authorization then pointing out to Flickr, Ning, FB, Second Life, WordPress, Twitter, Drupal, etc.?

The Moodle adoption model (where adoption is at the individual faculty, course, department level) highlights this. While at UCLA I installed Moodle in the Dental School and five years later, it’s the “official” LMS. I think there might be an interesting discussion around this, the adoption models that appear to be bottom-up versus top-down. This might provide a framework for other tools as they emerge on campus.

I would offer that the adoption of on-line learning itself occurred, not through strategic planning or as a centralized initiative, but much more like what we are seeing on our campuses with Web 2.0 and social networking tools (and Moodle). Consider the 2000 Campus Computing Survey, while roughly 55% of campuses offered “full courses online” only 15% of campuses reported “using some type of course management tool in their online offerings” (Green, 2000). Clearly instructors teaching courses recognized the value of incorporating Internet-based technologies into their courses before their campus’ administration did.

Rather than questioning if Moodle or Sakai has more adopters, I spend my time wondering how to provide integration and interoperability between local and remote/distributed/decentralized services and thus open specifications and standards; support, not for specific tools, but for computing concepts and work flow, who is using what and can we create support groups; procurement, how to write an RFI/RFP that includes open source or cloud options, etc.

By the time we figure out which LMS is better, no one will be using any of them.