There were three main challenges to this assignment: understanding the scenario, designing the rubric, and identifying the LMS features and functions.
As I read the scenario, I realized that it only provided a few clues about the exact requirements. I turned to the module readings, Spiro (2014), Porto (2013) and Coats, James & Baldwin (2005), to gather more information about the needs, size, scale and type of the LMS that would fit the scenario. However, the readings did little to clear the clouds. I then reviewed Bates (2014) SECTIONS model and knew this was the framework that could be used as a guide.
I wrote down some initial points and shared them with the team. We had a lot to think about. Our target audience was adult Francophone working professionals looking to complete secondary education and improve English language skills. This meant acquiring a bilingual LMS that supported both the French and English languages. While I knew an LMS in the French language alone may also work, I thought about the teachers designing the English language courses and felt their needs must be accounted for too. Also, along with learners and teachers, there would be administrators who would manage the system. The information about the interested parties did mention that the institution already had a portal, but would the learners in the new program really need to log on to that portal remained an open question. Additionally, if “LMS are not pedagogically neutral technologies” (Coats, James & Baldwin, 2005, p.27) can we just rely on the inbuilt features or would we need to state our own course design requirements? Would we need an LMS designed for K-12 or adult learners? These were all good questions that made me recognize that real-life scenarios can be quite complex and work contrary to our over-simplistic assumptions about tools and technologies.
Our first group meeting was very encouraging. Discussing the design of K-12 courses for an adult audience with the teachers in our group, especially Mimi, was a learning experience. The discussion clarified that the courses would have to meet the pedagogical needs of the adult learners. I immediately thought of the Andragogy theory and made a mental note to explore it. We had already compiled a list of items based on the SECTIONS model and had some sample rubrics. Alongside, we used our personal experience with the UBC’s Connect environment (Blackboard LMS) to identify categories and features of the LMS. We quickly structured the rubric based on the needs of three types of the LMS users. While we had made a good progress, I was not sure if we had understood the scenario well. I was therefore assigned the task to work on the scenario.
After the first call, I searched the Internet to learn more about how to design a rubric. I had never designed a rubric before and in the MET courses, I have seen these to be as open as a checklist and as detailed as a matrix. As I searched, I settled on the idea of a matrix, and also found a rubric that I thought would serve as an exemplar. Additionally, I picked up on the idea to break down the LMS requirements as needs (priority), wants (good to have), and wishes (optional) (Longsight; 2018). I then worked on the scenario to explain: 1) the stated LMS needs; 2) assumption we can make; 3) future needs. I now had a method to discuss the decision, choices, and rationale.
I created a new rubric shell based on our scenario, divided it into two tables (needs and wants) and shared my progress with my team. We started with a minimum number of high priority features. I wanted to keep it lean to have “deal-breaker” table that could efficiently guide the decision makers to dismiss LMSs that do not meet the basic requirements. However, given the vagueness of the scenario, the team members advised against thinking in too simplistic terms. After all, an LMS is a big investment (Bates, 2014) that must be properly thought-through.
Scoring was another question that was brought up. We could provide a range or exact number to rate the features. We all agreed that providing a range would lead to more subjective rating, hence an exact scoring for each column would work better.
We did think about the aesthetics of the rubric as well and color-coded our categories. Alexis, Andrew, and Paige did a great job with editing and final tweaking to make everything work in the Word format.
This assignment met one of my goals for this course, which was to apply frameworks as a reference to purposefully select learning technologies. Reflecting on the process and experience, I think that I did learn a great deal about how to not only think about technology selection but more importantly approach this task as a process, evaluate choices, and make decisions. Flexibility, open-mindedness, and rational thinking are as important as the domain knowledge.
References:
Bates, T. (2014). Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model. In Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education & Management, 11(1), 19-36. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20
Longsight. (2018). Open source software & support for Higher Education [Web page]. Retrieved from https://www.longsight.com/
Porto, S. (2013). The Uncertain Future of Learning Management Systems. Retrieved from http://www.evolllution.com/opinions/uncertain-future-learning-management
-systems/
Spiro (2014). 5 eLearning Trends Leading to the End of the Learning Management System [Web page]. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/tips-create-elearning-courses-adult-learners