The act of developing a rubric for selection of an LMS, while enrolled in an online course hosted on an LMS is fertile ground for reflection! Being my 7th course, I am now pretty comfortable navigating within the sandbox provided–both Blackboard and Canvas. In a very meta way, I find that the MET program designs their courses in a way that follows best practice–our group work on this very project, for example, was a great exercise in meaning making in a social context. It’s great to have a synchronous element and get a glimpse into the context of my classmates. I also find the discussions to be a great way to give space and time for learners of all types to contribute. Two areas for growth might be ease of use, and continuity of access. Some of the interfaces are a bit non-intuitive (too many clicks to access) or clunky (poor sound quality on the Kaltura Media plug-in). It is also a great shame that I no longer have access to the wealth of resources (discussions, course content) from my earlier 6 courses. All told, though, the experience has been amazing.
Online courses can offer students incredible flexibility and access, especially for life-long or in-service learners and those with geographical challenges (Bates and Sangra, 2011). In many, but not all cases, LMSs have the potential to be a critical organizational tool that supports the educational objectives of a high quality course. This assignment and readings have made me more explicitly aware of how moving online from fully face-to-face can be done in a way that is effective but that it requires preparation from all parties. I was particularly struck with how important it is for faculty, in the example of Benoit’s case study, to be given time to and resources to understand how the affordances of technology can be used to support a rich learning environment when leveraged in the right way—not just technology for the sake of technology. Without due care and investment, it could easily be true that an online course is designed in a way that either does not consider the course goals, or fails to design structures to support those goals.
Instead of being a repository for course information, assignments should encourage active learning that is situated, reflective, and flexible for different style of learning. It is of key importance, then, to have high quality, easy to use student-student connections for the social construction of meaning, as well as reliable student-facilitator interactivity. This can be hosted through various asynchronous and synchronous communication tools and discussion forums. Finally, LMSs and webpages are not always the answer when considering online learning environments. As we saw in Lenora’s case, start by understanding your needs and objectives, then look for the tools—technology-based or not—that will best help you meet those goals.
References:
Bates, A., Sangra, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for transforming
teaching and learning. John Wiley & Sons.
Bates, A. (2015, April 05). Teaching in a Digital Age. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from
https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/9-9-the-sections-model-speed-and-
security/
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 January
23, 2018, from http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm