Erin’s Educational Technology Journey

I spent today re-reading some posts from past modules. I felt motivated to do so because I’m getting “deeper” into my LMS Moodle course design, and I can see all of the pieces fitting together. In our Module 2 discussion, we had to give advice to a community educator who was responding to the needs for an ESL population concerned with diabetes prevention and care. The community educator wants to create a DVD to help members of the population because their understanding of spoken English is great, but they find it difficult to recall important information from workshops.

My initial reaction was not to suggest a DVD due to the time, the cost and the lack of flexibility the format affords. However, through participating in discussion threads (I admit, I lurk more than I post) I realized that the population would benefit from a DVD. Simply because we have the Internet doesn’t mean it is the best choice. I overlooked the fact that a DVD covers all of the basic needs. It delivers the workshop in spoken English, subtitles could be added and it could be repeated several times to clarify understanding. In addition, if members had questions, they could note the time and segment of the DVD (depending on design) and reference it to the community educator. Just because there are bells and whistles with presentation software and formats doesn’t mean we need to use them! This reminded me of  Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS, where student needs and ease of use are emphasised as part of a framework for selecting educational technology tools.

Below is my original post. You can see how far I’ve come!

Anju’s need: To create a learning material that ESL students with fluent oral understanding and poor written understanding can use to help memorize one-hour workshop material.

Discussion:

I would not recommend a DVD for Anju. I would have suggested that Anju use PowerPoint (PP) presentations on a blog/website (or a similar OS application) instead of investing in a video camera and laptop to produce DVDs.  See Annette Smith’s post (May 31) on taping lectures, which inspired my thinking.

 This way, students could access the presentations online, and choose the ones that relate to their concerns without the risk or cost of losing or damaging a DVD. Anju could link her site to other resources on diabetes management, online dictionaries and to diabetes information in other languages. I am assuming Anju is not trained in media design or instructional design. Creating a simple website/blog would allow the community to access her materials and Anju would not need a great deal of “catch-up” in a WYSIWYG editor. Michael Haworth has posted four reasons to avoid creating a DVD in this case: time management, video creation issues, inflexibility of DVDs and being locked into a platform for the duration of her project. See his  June 1 post for details.

If Anju asked me for advice, I would suggest that she create a series of short (10 minute) clips that incorporate the main aspects of a given topic related to the overall workshop into a simple viewing program (powerpoint,for one). If the topic of a workshop was on daily exercise, 10 minutes about why exercise is important, followed by 10 minutes on how to do key exercises and 10 minutes on issues one may come across when exercising (elevated heart rate, excessive thirst…etc). This is to keep students interested and to lessen the risk of overwhelming them with new vocabulary and information. I assume Anju knows her audience, but a preliminary survey may be required to meet student needs and assess unique ESL issues (simplified vocabulary).

I have never authored a DVD, and I ventured into the 565 Toolkit for help with this activity. To create a DVD, Anju would need her lesson plan (divided into 10 minute sections),  her multimedia organized, her multimedia fully produced, her information in a folder hierarchy and DVD-R- because DVD+R may not work on older players (ETEC 565 Toolkit, DVD). She will need to learn her video camera’s functions, and how to upload her video for editing in her DVD authoring program. Whew!

According to ww.signvideo.com, she would have to author the video and audio into a structure like menus and chapters, and then burn her DVD. She would then have to know how many copies in total, and burn that number of DVDs. Her total number may be very high, rising the project’s cost,  and the entire process sounds time consuming!  She is also assuming that students would have a DVD player or access to one. This is a large assumption, and she should have surveyed students before purchasing a video camera and taking this route!

Estimated time:  I have never attempted to create a DVD as a learning resource. Including the time it would take to learn to use the video camera, laptop DVD program and design the materials, my best guess is two months for an amateur/beginner’s effort. I came up with this answer assuming that she would spend 3 weeks planning the learning materials for a unit (based on my teaching experience), 1 week recording various data, and the remainder of the time mastering her DVD authoring tool.

Resources:

Hudson, B. (2002). DVD authoring part 1. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://www.signvideo.com/d-athr_pt1.htm

ETEC 565 Learning Toolkit: DVD. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

ETEC 565 Diabetes DVD Discussion Thread

Wikipedia (2009). DVD authoring. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_authoring

Project Objectives

·         Goal: initiate e-learning program in upper elementary (grades 4-6; population=45) by developing functioning blended delivery classroom opportunities through use of the open source Moodle learning management system (LMS) within two years.

·         Objectives within goal: overall pedagogical gains for the English language learning (ELL) program due to increased exposure to English use. This may attract new students and increase student enrolment levels resulting in capital gain within five years.

·         Strategy: Develop sustainable blended learning delivery opportunities (face to face with e-learning) through an open source learning management system (LMS).

Moodle is an open source LMS, software used to plan, deliver, and manage learning in a school, which includes an online virtual classroom and courses led by the instructor (Learning management, n.d.; Moodle, n.d.).  To projectobjectives, it is proposed that Moodle be installed as the schools LMS. Current instructional technology (IT) support staff can liaise with teachers to ensure enrolment procedures and space allocations are functional. IT must transfer current class website data and student/teacher information to Moodle. Initial professional development must focus on IT training and teacher training. A project management approach is suggested to decide on key areas of investment, resource allocation, identify existing technology support and to ensure the focus remains the English learning environment (Bates, 2000).  

Selection of Moodle

Traditionally licensed LMS systems can be extremely costly, with WebCT costing into the hundreds of thousands (Wagstaff, 2009). Thegoal is not focused on economic gain, and our school would not see a return on investment if a licensed LMS was purchased. Cost, Teaching and Learning and Ease of Use are three major areas of Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS model that support a decision to implement Moodle. Moodle is open source under the GNU Public licensing, meaning it is free to use, adapt and modify to suit our needs (Moodle License, n.d). I explored a demo Moodle and found its interface and icons very novice/ELL friendly.

The open source LMSof Moodle, Clairoline and Sakaiwere compared using Edutools, The Business Readiness Rating™  (although still in its request for comments stage)  and a needs-based rubric (Bronk, Del Mundo, Gillespie, Jung & Wood., 2009; Ronsen, n.d.). The key elements analysed include student record management, tools for assessment, communications tools, costs, system requirements, ease of use, security and constructive teaching/learning opportunities. Moodle most clearly suited the needs of this project by having the strongest security, online support systems and communities, a variety of tools suitable for beginners and a user-friendly intuitive interface.

Intended Outcomes

The intended outcomes are based on Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS model and implications of Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996) principles of good teaching practices in undergraduate education. In addition, the International Baccalaureate’s Primary Years Program (2009) curriculum is considered. It is proposed that within 1-2 years of Moodle adoption:

1.      Teachers will teach English material using a constructivist approach and gain technological skills to meet the needs of the Tapscott’s (2004) Net Generation. Teachers do not become novices online but they need time to adapt to technology supported learning (Kelly, 2007).

2.      English language learners will engage in inquiry-based learning opportunities in a meaningful way and gain technological skills that can transfer to areas outside of the classroom. (International Bacclaureate, 2002).

3.      The school will offer varied learning opportunities for students while fostering a sense of community. The school will remain competitive in the private elementary sector through the use of innovative and modern approaches to educational technology and ELL.

4.      Technical requirements and training will be sustainable for three to five years. Moodle will be implemented in grades 4, 5 and 6 and will be sustained through staff training, current levels of IT staffing and the creation of a Moodle fund.

5.      The creation of a modest LMS fund to secure the sustainability of Moodle for 3-5 years.

Rationale

The timeline is supported by Bates (2000) project management approach directed for long term technological change. Objectives 1-3are supported by research on English language learning and technology integration. Social software, like wikis available through Moodle,enable students to generate knowledge in a shared and openly collaborative space (Wheeler, Yeomans & Wheeler, 2008). Wu (2005; 2006) and Cummings (2004) argue English language students benefit from the innovative incorporation of technology in the classroom. It has been argued that the artificial constructs of interaction in an LMS limit discovery and constructivist learning (Siemens, 2004).  However, Moodlesupports constructivist modular growth through its various applications (Chavan & Pavri,2004).

Objectives four and five require minimum technical requirements at start-up. Moodle can run on the school’s server due to its Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP platform (Chavan & Pavri, 2004). Hardware includes approximately 400 MB-1GB of free disc space for installation and course materials, which is currently available. It is requested that the school consider the purchase of a back-up server as teachers develop more content. This would cost approximately $1200-$2000 (CDN) from licensed suppliers. NetSpot is a Moodle Partner in Hong Kong for outsourced support. Sustainability may require contracting NetSpot in the future if student numbers increase. Considering IT support, in-house staff training and server maintenance, a budget of approximately $5,000 (CDN) is requested for the first year of development.

References

Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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.

Bronk, R., Del Mundo, M., Gillespie, E.,  Jung, C.,  & S., Wood, (2009). Delivery platform evaluation rubric.

Chickering, A. W. & Ehrmann. S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

Chavan, A., & Pavri, S. (2004). Open source learning management with moodle. Linux Journal. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7478

Cummings, M. C. (2004). “Because we are shy and fear mistaking”: Computer mediated communication with EFL writers. Journal of Basic Writing, 23(2), 23-43. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ684124).

EduTools. Product comparison. Available May 25, 2009, from http://www.edutools.info/compare.jsp?pj=4&i=599,560,616

International Baccalaureate. (2009). Who we are. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from http://www.ibo.org/general/who.cfm

International Baccalaureate Organization. (2002). A basis for practice: the primary years programme. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from http://www.ibo.org/pyp/documents/basis_pyp_000.pdf

Kelly, O. (2007). Moving to blended delivery in a polytechnic: Shifting the mindset of faculty and institutions. In M. Bullen and D.P. Janes (Eds.), Making the Transition to E-Learning: Strategies and Issues (pp. 33-46). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

Learning Management System. Wikipedia. Available on June 3, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_management_system

Moodle About (n.d.). What is moodle? Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://moodle.org/about/

Moodle License (n.d.). Copyright license for moodle. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://docs.moodle.org/en/License

Ronson, Z. (n.d.). Digging into openbrr of moodle and sakai. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://www.zacker.org/sakai-project-vs-moodle

Siemens, G. (2004). Learning management systems: The wrong place to start learning. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/lms.htm

The Business Readiness Reading (n.d.). Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.openbrr.org/wiki/index.php/Home

Wagstaff, C. (2009). WebCT software rising in cost. The Loquitur: Cabrini College. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from http://media.www.theloquitur.com/media/storage/paper226/news/2002/04/11/News/Webct.Software.Rising.In.Cost-233894.shtml

   Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating

student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. 39 (6), 987-995. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00799.x

Wu, W. S. (2005). Using blogs in an EFL writing class. Proceedings of 2005 International

            Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, Taiwan, 426-432. Retrieved

            from http://www.chu.edu.tw/~wswu/publications/papers/conferences/05.pdf

Wu, W. S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, 3, 125-139.     Retrieved from http://www.chu.edu.tw/~wswu/publications/papers/journals/04.pdf

Bates,

I believe Lenora should use an open source wiki (or blog, Google sites) instead of a website. It is noted that Lenora’s members would have to create an account (in the case of pbworks or Google sites) which may be considered a hurdle by some. I chose to apply the SECTIONS frame work because Lenora has to select and use technology with the purpose of creating and maintaining a community for knowledge building. I think it would take her a few evenings of researching the best OS for her needs, and a few evenings setting up her wiki. She could be up-and-running in one week. My reasoning is as follows:

Students: In the future, the technology may have to be appropriate for students to find resources on bullying. Currently the concern is for other teachers. In this scenario the technology must be appropriate for novices because Lenora does not know the tech-comfort level of those who will attend her pro-d online day. A website or a wiki would be fine because both can be designed for novices. However, a wiki does have the advantage of WYSIWYG and Lenora does not know how to design a website. Decision: Wiki

Ease of Use: Will this technology be reliable. Teachers are depending on this as a learning tool and as a resource. Teachers have limited time for professional development and tech frustrations should be kept to a minimum. A website and a wiki are reliable. However, Lenora is a teacher with limited time and she will be a user of this technology. Decision: Wiki

Costs: Lenora does not have a departmental budget and will handle costs on her own. Assuming her school does not allow her to create a pro-d website using their server; she would have to pay for hosting. Decision: Wiki

Teaching and learning: The kind of learning will be collaborative. Knowledge will be shared and constructed. Instructional approaches will be discussions and feedback, and text-based information is suitable. The best technology would support asynchronous communication because teachers will have different time schedules. A website, if created by a novice, may be Web 1.0 styled. Decision: Wiki, with 2.0 WYSIWYG applications

Interactivity: The interaction required is shared communication. E-mail is not required, but the option would be nice for professionals to stay in touch. The ability to post discussions is required and members could post their addresses in forums. This would be difficult for Lenora to create in a website at her level. Decision: Wiki with 2.0 WYSIWYG applications.

Organizational issues: Lenora needs something she can do easily, by herself and something she won’t need considerable IT support for. Lenora does need a place (online) to go for help because she has limited skills. Decision: Wiki, with help links and forums available 24-7.

Novelty:Lenora needs a technology that is established and has been used to create a community of learning before. She is not a pioneer and she should use an application/site that has satisfied professionals who prioritize collaboration and communication exchange. In addition, a low novelty effect will be less likely to “scare” off the technophobes and novices in her community. Decision: A little research online would lead Lenora, at this point, to Google sites, pbworks, wordpress, edublogger…etc. She could research and decide which application is better suited for beginners.

Speed: Lenora needs to consider how quickly her work can reach others and how quickly they can respond to construct solutions to bullying in the community. This is directly affected by Lenora’s dial-up status. Decision: Keep it simple! Lenora does not need Flash animation, images or fancy banners. Simple text-based asynchronous communication would load with limited frustration. Lenora could prepare text in a word processing program and cut-and-paste into her posts/pages.  This would save her the time of attaching/downloading files.

Moodle Reflection:

Well, during the first week of Module 2, I have learned a great deal about LMS! I had never even heard of Claroline, and my WebCT knowledge was limited to my adventures in MET. Moodle, although I have heard of it, is an LMS I have only worked with once before, in ETEC 512. I completed a group assignment using Moodle, but I must admit that I had no idea how to manage Moodle! I would e-mail my work as an attachment to group members and they would upload it to Moodle.

Now, consider this week: Choose your own LMS space and complete the Activities

Initially, I felt very concerned and, I admit, a little scared. I e-mail John Egan three times trying to clear up the Vista/Moodle decision. I quickly learned we just had to use ONE (whew!) and that a password would be sent to me shortly. After I received my password, I followed the Moodle activity in the 565 toolkit and was on my way.

The activity was nicely described. It was worded clearly, and I could follow the instructions well. I only had to skip one step, and that was a section on grading responses/replies to the discussion posts. I couldn’t select that option because the Moodle did not open the option for me. Oh well. Generally speaking, I feel more confident that I can complete the Moodle assignment because my first Moodle attempt went very well. I felt great when I completed the tasks. I also noted the “extra help” links and I’ve used some already. Between completing the activity and visiting help sites online, I think I’ve spent about 5 or 6 hours this week learning about Moodle. I have so much more to learn!!!!

By the way, I came across a great resource for beginners like myself. A teacher has posted 2-minute moodle instructions for other teachers. You can visit it here: http://human.edublogs.org/moodle-tutorials-2-minute-moodles/ It helped me get a better understanding of the “overall” Moodle design. Erin