Adventures in MET Land

Proposal for: Kris Kennedy, Assistant Super Attendant of West Vancouver School District # 45

Recommendations by: Dale Addis, Science Teacher at Sentinel Secondary School.

RE: Recommendations on an effective tool to enhance student learning with technology for School District #45 (SD 45)

Background

The learning processes in today’s schools are driven by learning outcomes mandated by the Ministry of Education. It is left up to the teacher to design learning environments that afford students opportunities to reach these learning outcomes. Chickering and Gamson (1987) suggest principles for good practice when educating students. They include encouraging student/faculty contact; active learning techniques; prompt feedback; and respect for diverse talents and learning methods. One of West Vancouver School District (SD 45) goals is to increase effective use of educational technology (West Vancouver School District Accountability Contract, 2007). The learning management system (LMS) Moodle currently best enhances teachers’ practice of Chickering and Gamson’s principles, as well as SDS 45’s aforementioned goal.

LMS Defined

An LMS is a web application that allows teachers to post announcements, calendars of events, lessons, assignments, and create communities of learners through the use of synchronous (chat) and asynchronous (email, discussion forums, announcements) communication (Perkins & Pfaffman, 2006). Some LMS platforms support formative and summative quizzing of students. In the case of the LMS platform Moodle, instructors can create web-based learning environments (face-to-face or “f2f” and e-learning) with constructivist-styled lessons (Mougalian & Salazar, 2005). Constructive style lessons, formative/summative quizzing, and other LMS features allow students to pace their learning, and receive immediate feedback on their quizzes, questions, assignments, etc.

LMS Selection

Research on different LMS platforms was conducted (Edutools (2009) web applications allows comparison of LMS platforms). Bates and Poole’s (2003) “SECTIONS” framework was used to place weights on LMS feature categories based on SD 45’s philosophies and current needs. The acronym “SECTIONS” refers to: Students knowledge of technology, Ease of system use/reliability, Cost financially/time, Teaching and learning, Interactivity, Organization, Novelty, and Speed (Bates & Poole, 2003). Feature categories included: communication; productivity; student involvement; administrative/design; course delivery; content development; hardware/software; company details and licensing (Edutools, 2009). A zero-to-ten point LMS feature suitability scale rubric (0 being not suitable to 10 being perfectly suitable), was completed for each short-listed LMS platform. Based on category weighting and the feature suitability scale a numerical value was calculated/assigned for each short-listed LMS. Moodle was found most suitable for SD 45’s needs.

Rational

Moodle was first released in 2002 with students and instructors in mind (Moodle: About). Currently more than 1.5 million teachers are using Moodle to enhance their students learning experiences (Moodle: Statistics). A Moodle course splash page presents a complete course overview and expectations. Students typically, and comfortably, navigate through the system within 20 minutes of introduction.

Having sampled three LMS platforms (Moodle, WebCT/Vista, and Scholaris Sharepoint), personal experience proved Moodle the easiest to set up and support f2f and online learning. Weekly activity and resource options are located in drop boxes for each week the course is in session. A straight forward linear step by step set of options are given to create a resource or an activity. Moodle’s support features made creating lessons, quizzes, and uploading of files simple. Question mark buttons, tutorial videos, and help forums help both staff and students create and navigate within a Moodle shell. These help systems proved more effective compared to using other LMS IT support. An efficient LMS platform means instructors have more effectiveness within their learning environment.

I believe that I would be able to create a Moodle shell for f2f or e-learning with two weeks of lessons within the time frame of 3 weeks. Face-to-face Moodle shell would require less time to maintain while an e-learning shell would require about a week to create each weeks learning activities/resources.

Moodle is a cost effective LMS solution since the licensing fee is nil (Bremer & Bryant, 2005). The system can be hosted on our own districts Windows based servers for the cost of implementation and maintenance by IT staff or by a dedicated teacher (Edutools, 2009). Other cost options include hosting the platform privately at an annual cost of $ 970 per 100 students, with 1 GB storage; or another option is $ 4875 per 3500 students with 40 GB storage (other student/dollar ratios are available at Remote-Learner (2009)). Twenty-four-seven technical support and district specific Moodle themes are just a few features included with hosting costs (Remote-Learner, 2009).

Conclusion

Moodle is the best choice for SD 45’s goal of creating effective f2f and e-learning environments, with the use of technology, and in following Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) principles of good practice. Moodle will enable students, parents and staff to create and maintain effective lines of communication between all parties. Posting assignments, homework, lessons, group work within wiki’s, student discussion and chat forums, and formative/summative quizzes, will allow students the freedom to learn at their own pace, and take more responsibility for their own learning (Perkins & Pfaffman, 2006). The ease and costs of creating different Moodle learning satisfy Bates and Poole’s (2003) “SECTIONS” framework when selecting educational technology. In summary, an LMS, specifically Moodle, will enable a positive learning experience for all stakeholders.

References:

Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: A framework for selecting and using technology. In effective teaching with technology in higher education: foundations for success. (pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Bremer, D., & Bryant, R. (2005). A comparison of two learning management systems: Moodle vs Blackboard. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Converence of the National Advisory Committe on Computing Qualifications , 135-140. Retreived June, 2, 2009 from

http://www.bit.tekotago.ac.nz/staticdata/papers05/concise/bremer_moodle.pdf

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principals for good practice in undergraduate educztion. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin. , 39 (7), 3 – 7.

EduTools. (2009). EduTools Homepage. Retrieved May 27, 2009 from http://www.edutools.info/index.jsp?pj=1

Moodle.org: Moodle Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://moodle.org/stats/

Moodle.org: About. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://moodle.org/about/

Mougalian, C. S. (205). Moodle, the electronic syllabus, lends itself to PrOCALL. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from CALLme: A Computer Assisted Language Learning & Pedagogy Webzine: http://faculty.miis.edu/~bcole/CALLme/page2/page9/page9.html

Perkins, M., & Pfaffman, J. (2006). Using a course managment system to imrpove classroom communication. Science Teacher , 73 (7), 33-37.

Remote-Learner. (n.d.). Remote-Learner. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from Remote-Learner Canada: http://www.oktech.ca/RL_Moodle_FAQ_Canadian%20Prices%200209.pdf

West Vancouver School District accountability contract. (2007). Retrieved February 03, 2009, from West Vancouver School District: http://www.sd45.bc.ca/docs/documents/AccountabilityContract2007_08_000.PDF