Overview/Rationale
I chose to create a module/unit in Moodle to work with our capstone projects for senior high school students enrolled in the STEM program—a project based learning cohort. The “capstone” is the final 6 week group project for the course and is designed to be a summative assessment of the skills they have developed through the program, much like ETEC 590 is the capstone project is for the MET program. This is especially useful for us as instructors because, although projects will change from year to year, the structure of the capstones will remain the same. So, this assignment should be useful year over year with the chance for tweaks where necessary. The function of the Moodle is to compliment F2F classes in a blended model.
Pedagogical Framework
The design of this module was based in constructivist theory, especially as it relates to:
a) eliciting prior knowledge
b) active learning based in resolving cognitive conflicts and misconceptions
c) social cognition
d) reflective abstraction
Constructivism is based on the belief that knowledge cannot be directly transmitted from teacher to student because of our perceptual limitations (von Glasersfeld, 2012). Rather, the student engages with their environment directly through active learning that recognizes their unique perspective and prior experiences, and seeks to challenge misconceptions within a socially meaningful context, concluding with an opportunity for reflection (Fosnot & Perry, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978). Project Based Learning, in particular, is recognized as being a constructivist approach to learning (Baviskar, Hartle, & Whitney, 2009; Pecore, 2013). The design for the content followed the four-lens concepts of Anderson (2004) that consider a balance of considerations including the learner, knowledge, assessment, and connection to the larger STEM community. Finally, the Seven Principles of Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) were of critical consideration; special effort was made to encourage interactivity and cooperation between students and teachers, as well as respecting diverse talents and ways of learning.
Module Struture
Beyond the “general discussion” at the beginning, the structure of the module began with the assessment strategies of Gibbs and Simpson (2005). The overall flow of the module is to begin with formative activities to elicit prior knowledge through a digital story and two discussions. I began with identifying core concepts for development: project management, research and prototyping, presentation of a proposal, and production of a final project artifact. These elements receive the greatest assessment value. First up are two activities designed to explore project management through a digital story and research. Feedback is most effective when it is rapid, encouraging, and actionable (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). The intent here is to encourage students to consider how they will manage their project, and defend their chosen framework to their peers. Explicit guidance is given about how to contribute constructively to discussions.
Once the project has begun in earnest, groups need to present a thoughtful project proposal in two parts: a research paper and live presentation. The 2017 NMC/CoSN Horizon Report (Freeman, Becker, Cummins, 2017) states that digital literacy skills, including analyzing sources, is of critical importance. A key focus for the research report is to develop strong source analysis skills. Rubrics are given for both, but the research rubric is self-evaluated; the purpose of this self-evaluation is based in Gibbs and Simpson’s (2005) claim that one true benefit of self-evaluation is actually getting the students to read the rubric! Worked examples are known to be extremely valuable as scaffolds in discovery-based learning (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011). To this end, there is a video tutorial on how to develop a high quality live presentation.
The live presentation of the proposals is followed by a group sharing of the background proposal documents. Effectively, students are sharing out their idea of how the project is going to work, including Gantt Charts, costs, roles, and risk assessments. There is a file sharing repository created in Moodle where groups submit their plan, then use a provided rubric to assess the plans of other groups. At the end of the sharing session, groups need to provide a summary of peer feedback, and how they plan to incorporate this feedback into their plans. This activity was largely based on the findings of Ciampa (2014) in which students are motivated by cooperative problem solving, control of their learning, and safe competition.
All the activities to this point are largely formative—since the project has not really found its legs. I tried to focus on self or peer evaluation, and lots of discussion. This now changes. In week 5 and 6, after several iterative cycles, student groups are to produce a final artifact. Although the artifact is tangible and will be used for a live year-end showcase, this assessment is in video format via a sharing database. The rationale for video is to allow for diversity (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996; Gibbs & Simpson, 2005) as well as forming a rich digital record that is easily shared at a later date, if the students choose to do so (Bates, n.d.).
Finally, the course ends with an individual COLLES survey tool in Moodle. The purpose of this in-situ multiple choice tool is to measure the degree to which the project satisfied the conditions of a constructivist pedagogy (Baviskar, Hartle, & Whitney, 2009; Pecore, 2013).
Moodle as an LMS
I would like to conclude with an assessment of Moodle using Bates’ SECTIONS model (Bates, n.d). I don’t think the platform would suit my K-12 students very well. Although it is very functional, the format and look is quite dated. It does not matter to me, but teens are quite fashion forward and find a video and image-rich environment more motivating (Ciampa, 2014). Compared to Google Classroom, Moodle is not very easy to use for either student or instructors. There are literally hundreds of options in drop down menus. I found myself either missing, misunderstanding, or misappropriating content. This was especially true of video and image content, which does not allow hotlinking or uploading images larger than 2MB. It does have the advantage of being free, but consequently does not come with tech support of any sort other than grassroots community resources, many of which are out of date or no longer supported.
One area where Moodle shines is teaching functions and interactivity. Even if they are clunky, there are many frameworks for student-teacher-content activity. I especially liked the discussion forums, workshops, and database activities. Anderson (2004) finds that students need opportunities for discourse within the epistemology of a subject domain and these are great vehicles for that. None of these activities have parallel structures in my current LMS, Google Classroom.
Moodle has precedent in our district, although it has the same privacy and security concerns as other free LMSs. Data is stored on a remote server outside of the district and country. Finally, there does not seem to be any limitation on access to classroom materials, beyond what restrictions an instructor implements. If I wished to make digital records accessible to students beyond the time scale of the course, it appears to be possible.
Although I enjoyed the experience of touring another LMS, I would not likely use Moodle in my current practice, largely because it is not very easy to use, and the format is not likely to be favoured by students.
References
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?. Journal of educational psychology, 103(1), 1.
Anderson, T. (2004). Towards a theory of online learning. Theory and practice of online learning, 2, 109-119.
Bates, A. (n.d.). Chapter 8: Choosing and using media in education: the SECTIONS model. Teaching In A Digital Age. Retrieved on March 30, 2018, from http://www.alistapart.com/articles/writelivinghttps://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/
Baviskar 1, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist‐teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541-550.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE bulletin, 49, 3-6.
Ciampa, K. (2014). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96.
Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 2, 8-33.
Freeman, A., Becker, S. A., & Cummins, M. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K. The New Media Consortium.
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and teaching in higher education, (1), 3-31.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
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.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2012). A constructivist approach to teaching. In Constructivism in education (pp. 21-34). Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process.