(Tl;dr — Moodle seems to have two main weakness: age and too many choices.)
For this assignment, I explored Moodle as a potential LMS. It was an adventure of endless clicking! The intended participants were grade 11/12, enrolled together in a cohort of 23 to 25 students that combines four courses into a blended-learning model, STEM project based learning (PBL) program. The urban school has a population of 800 students with a broad socio-economic range. The program is elective, but sought out. In general, the students have a sophisticated conception of learning as being active and based in understanding. There is adequate technology available at the school, including laptops, high speed internet, and iPads. Approximately 80% of students have personal mobile devices and about 90% have access to high speed internet in the home. The two-semester course is divided into seven modules; a course introduction, and six projects that range in length from four to six weeks. There are two team-teaching instructors; one for the academic math and physics, and one for the electronics and robotics technology component.
The instructional design was based in constructivism and Moodle was visualized as a hub for asynchronous student-centered activities that complement the face-to-face courses. For the instructors this meant including distinct stages and activities that are designed to elicit prior knowledge, introduce disequilibration, encourage meaning-making through discourse, and foster reflective abstraction (Baviskar, Hartle, & Whitney, 2009; Pecore, 2012). In theory, Moodle can support all of these activities.
For the early project stages, we aim to have students create prototypes and concept maps, and share their results. There is no in-situ concept mapping in Moodle, and student-to-student file sharing is possible but harder than simply using Google Drive or Youtube. This is a serious setback for the first stage of the project. From this perspective, Moodle appears to be built with the teacher at the center, rather than as a student-centered model (Anderson, 2004). Moodle does have forums, which would be useful for more thoughtful sharing than may not happen in the confines of a synchronous discussion. In general, though, I find the requirement of sharing to be more spontaneous when done in a more native environment like Youtube, rather than as a separate commenting system. There is also a chat feature, but it has no critical function in our blended model.
The next stage in our projects is generally to tackle the “big build”. The key affordance of the LMS at this stage is a hub for organization of group work that can be accessed ubiquitously. This is key, because the projects are unlike traditional lessons and many aspects “bleed together”. Access to course materials and schedules on mobile devices is very popular in the current student body and on this front, Moodle gets good reviews (Fenton, 2016). Students are evaluated weekly on the basis of meeting timeline-based objectives, or “time on task”, a crucial condition for supporting student learning (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996; Gibbs & Simpson, 2005). This seems to be a strength for Moodle. I like their feature that tracks student activity on pages, and tracking in general seems quite wide reaching. Often we need activities designed to elicit rationales and renewed hypotheses from students. In our current practice, this is done through third party programs like TinkerCAD, PhET, and Khan Academy. Embedding these interactivities would be easy, but I would prefer a live discussion and synchronous interaction that is afforded by a blended learning model.
Finally, the projects culminate in live or video presentation of the final artifact testing and content quizzes of related material. They key elements are clear communication of both knowledge and learning. Perhaps the part I liked best was the in-house quiz tools because of what they offer in terms of rapid feedback, a crucial condition for learning and the bane of most instructors (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005). The multiple choice and matching are quite reliable, but I would hesitate to use the short answer or essay without more research—my own trial of the quiz gave me 0/3 on two of my own questions because I answered “elements of the atmosphere” instead of “certain elements of the atmosphere”! Of note, also, was the constructivist COLLES survey tool. It allows the one-click addition of a standardized survey for data gathering that could be used at the end of a project to measure its effectiveness as constructivist pedagogy.
Ultimately, Moodle seems to have two main weakness: age and too many choices. The framework of Moodle seems based in what Hamish, James, and Baldwin (2005) call an “overly simplistic understanding of the relationship between teachers, knowledge, and student learning” (p. 27). This seems most obvious in the difficulty of uploading and embedding content, as well as student-student sharing. I found the entire platform mostly set up for delivery, with interactions as an add-on. As far as choices goes, if hosting Google Classroom is like driving a mini-van, then Moodle is a fighter jet. I’m looking to “park” or “turn left” and there are 18 clicks and 25 drop-down menus to do it. Tech support and ease of use are important considerations for LMS selection (Bates & Poole, 2003), and Moodle is too much, yet not enough.
References:
Anderson, T. (2004). Towards a theory of online learning. Theory and practice of online learning, 2, 109-119.
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley. 10475 Crosspoint Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46256.
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.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE bulletin, 49, 3-6.
Fenton, W. (2016, August 22). Moodle LMS. PC Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2486973,00.asp
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and teaching in higher education, (1), 3-31.
Pecore, J. L. (2013). Beyond beliefs: Teachers adapting problem-based learning to preexisting systems of practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2), 1.