Moodle Reflection

Time was needed to familiarize with the Moodle course management system, where help extensions (eg. Moodle docs) were overwhelming being too specific. Content was added within previews and not on actual pages, causing some frustration before sorted out by trial-and-error. With no single best media for online learning (Anderson, 2008), exploring functionalities over what works and does not is gradually adopted into pedagogical repertoires, helping to address existing and emergent needs. For instance modularization enables self-paced learning, able to jump back for review to maintain student engagement. Ciampa (2013) further describes learning in the mobile age as self-directed, building motivation through challenge, curiosity, control, recognition, competition and cooperation. Teachers always strive towards best use of whatever technology at hand, where Moodle requiring little training satisfies Bates’ (2014) reliability and robustness criteria, able to begin study within 20 minutes of logging on. Unfortunately the equation editor was far too cumbersome, resorting to Microsoft Word and inserting formulas as screenshots. Pictures certainly are more difficult to edit than text, though already possessing the know-how to work around constraints is extremely practical. Creating quizzes was actually the most natural, having experience writing questions into a test bank to be subsequently reordered thereafter.

Students can interact with teachers in the ‘General’ window, receiving ‘Announcements’ for important dates, while entering (a)synchronous chats through ‘General Queries’. Upon viewing through program topics with ‘Course Outline’, learners complete an introductory questionnaire with ‘Student Information’. Approximately one of every question type (eg. Check Boxes, Date, Dropdown Box) was included for this survey. Learners then work through ‘Safety’ reading through ‘WHMIS 2015’ content, followed by three question types (eg. Matching, Essay, Numerical) to check for understanding. A minor ‘Safety Quiz’ follows to review matching pictograms, examining ‘Timing’, ‘Grading’, ‘Layout’, and ‘Appearance’ options. The second topic on ‘Measurement’ begins with a lesson page on ‘Unit Conversions’, followed by six numerical practice questions. A subsequent content page introduces ‘Uncertainties’, followed by seven practice activities, ranging from ‘Matching’, ‘Multichoice’ and ‘Numerical’ with appropriate jumps. The third ‘Graphing’ topic introduces ‘Graphical Techniques’ as a lesson, checked with a multiple choice question. A wiki activity follows, where students practice graphing sample data using Google Sheets, interacting with each other for collaborative peer review. Finally, a ‘Measurement Quiz’ on unit conversions and significant figures is taken, examining varied question types along with assessment based on the specified criteria. Functionalities to control ‘Question behaviour’, ‘Review options’, and ‘Overall feedback’ grade boundaries are incorporated, to be partially graded automatically pending question type.

Reflecting on effectiveness using ISTE (2017) standards, Moodle leverages equitable access towards student empowerment, accommodating variability with authentic real-world learning experiences. The ‘Google Sheets’ wiki for example invites learners to apply graphical techniques by collecting sample data to practice graphing with technology beyond hand plotting. Wikis are evolving collaborative platforms where students can participate in assessment-as-learning, or even connect with professionals in the field. Like other course management systems, Moodle enables accessibility from off-campus locations, innovating learner-centred pedagogies to overcome time and content limitations with traditional instruction (Diaz et al., 2009). Although Moodle too is perhaps inflexible compared to newer cloud technologies (Porto, 2015), it does provide sufficient variety to be customized towards social context. Moodle can offer immediate feedback when it still counts that is forward-looking, detailed and facilitative to build self-efficacy (Gibbs and Simpson, 2005).

References

Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Bates, T. (2014). Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model. In Teaching in digital age. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf

Diaz, V., Garrett, P.B., Moore, J., & Schwartz, C. M. (2009). Faculty development for the 21st century. Educause Review (44)3, 46-55. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2009/5/faculty-development-for-the-21st-century

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2017). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators

Porto, S. (2015). The uncertain future of Learning Management Systems. The Evolllution: Illuminating the Lifelong Learning Movement. Retrieved from http://www.evolllution.com/opinions/uncertain-future-learning-management-systems/

Assignment 3 Introductory Module Reflection

For this assignment, I partnered with Alexis Handford. Alexis has experience in instructional design at the postsecondary level, and I have experience as an educator at both secondary and postsecondary levels. We wanted the pairing of our experience and skill sets to very closely mimic the professional collaboration that occurs in designing and implementing online learning opportunities at a Canadian postsecondary institution. Additionally, given our experience as students who are immersed in an online educational context, we knew we wanted to take the advantages and benefits of learning we have personally experienced through the MET program and to embed those opportunities in the course for our potential students. Given the number of worldwide users, its overall brand recognizability, and its open source accessibility, we knew we chose Moodle as our learning management system. Overall, we found its usability, intuitive controls, and built-in graphical user interface elements very accessible to a novice user.

I will reflect upon two major elements of our design process: the learning theories that underlie the layout of our course materials and content, and our efforts to enmesh relational and social emotional pedagogy with curricular concerns.

Continue reading →

Introductory Module Reflection

For my assignment, I am designing a course in Google Classrooms that can be used with Grade 4 students to teach expository writing.  This is my reflection on the process so far.

Alberta Grade 4 Language Arts Curriculum shifts the attention of student writing from narrative writing to expository writing.  General Outcome 3 states that “Students will listen, speak, read, write, view and represent to manage ideas and information.”  These are the most relevant curriculum outcomes:

3.1:  Focus Attention

  • use organizational patterns of expository texts to understand ideas and information
  • develop and follow a class plan for accessing and gathering ideas and information

3.2: Use a variety of sources

  • locate information to answer research questions, using a variety of sources, such as maps, atlases, charts, dictionaries, school libraries, video programs, elders in the community and field trips

3.3:  Organize information

  • organize ideas and information, using appropriate categories, chronological order, cause and effect, or posing and answering questions
  • record ideas and information that are on topic
  • organize oral, print and other media texts into sections that relate to and develop the topic

Record information

  • make notes of key words, phrases and images by subtopics; cite titles and authors of sources alphabetically
  • paraphrase information from oral, print and other media sources

 

Google Classrooms is a district-wide initiative this year that all teachers are being encouraged to utilize.  For me, it was important to take some of the material I was already covering at the Grade 4 level, and leverage Google Classrooms to make the material a little more student-centred.  As I start with this introductory module, I can see that formative assessment especially should be easier to accomplish using Google Classroom as opposed to what I was doing in a traditional delivery.  For example, I have included a simple online Google Form as a quiz to see what they already know about expository writing and how well-able they are to write an expository paragraph.  This is probably not something I would have “slammed” them with so early on without the capabilities of Google Classroom.

Assessment in general will be a little different using Google Classrooms, and I think this is a good thing.  Gibbs and Simpson (2005) quoted a 1985 paper that found “A review of 150 studies of the relationship between exam results and a wide range of adult achievement found the relationship to be, at best, slight” (Baird, 1985).  Gibbs and Simpson also go on to discuss the importance of course work as opposed to summative tests for long term learning.  So, do teachers need to mark everything that a student works on as part of a course?  “It is argued that you have to assess everything that moves in order to capture students’ time an energy” (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005).  Not necessarily so!  There are other ways to generate student engagement, including peer- and self-assessment.  I am still playing around with the idea of how students could do a little self-assessment as a video to upload, or how they could use online apps to sort the information they’re pulling from multiple sources.

Tony Bates in 2014 noted that “The form of assessment should also be influenced by the knowledge and skills that students need in a digital age, which means focusing as much on assessing skills as knowledge of content.  Thus continuous or formative assessment will be as important as summative or ‘end-of-course’ assessment” (Bates, 2014).  I think this Google Classroom course will have an appropriate focus on the skills students need for gathering and presenting information.  In the past, I have debated whether to allow students to pick their own topic for study.  It would be so easy to tell everyone that they were supposed to write about Alberta settlers, just to help ‘get through’ the Social Studies content.  By shifting the focus to a needed skill set, I think there is a much higher level of student engagement.

Many introductory modules (and course syllabi at the university level for decades) have had a detailed percentage break-down of summative assessment grading.  At the elementary level, there has been long, deep discussion of the types of grades students receive.  We are currently using only EX, AB, AC and NY (excellence, above average, acceptable and ‘not yet’), with no percentage descriptors.  Students receive feedback and individual discussion of their progress, but no percentage grade.  I felt it was useful to explain the difference between formative and summative assessment in a Grade-4-friendly way, but there is no table showing that some assignments are worth more than others.  I think there is value in leading them through the process of writing and presenting an expository piece without picking out one part of the process as more important than another.

References:

Alberta Education Programs of Study (2000).  English Language Arts K-9.  Retrieved from: http://www.learnalberta.ca/ProgramOfStudy.aspx?lang=en&ProgramId=404703#635484

Baird, L. L. (1985). Do grades and tests predict adult accomplishment?. Research in Higher Education, 23(1), 3-85.

Bates. T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/5-8-assessment-of-learning/

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

Che and Katie

This is a combined reflection from Katie Schultz and Che Katz who worked together on this Project.  We developed our course for International Development: Anthropological Perspectives in the Moodle Learning Management System (LMS) which is based on an actual course currently being developed as an elective for year 2 and 3 undergraduate students in the Faculty of Anthropology at Goldsmiths College, University of London. With permission, we have adapted the course for a blended format and supplemented it with our own work. The blended course format includes face-to-face plenary lectures and tutorial which are supported by online activities that reinforce learning and encourage student engagement. It is assumed that students will spend 7 to 8 hours a week on course related activities, including but not limited to: (i) attendance at lectures, (ii) participating in tutorials, (iii) completing essential readings, and (iv) completing online activities. The referencing systems and other instructions comply with Goldsmiths College, University of London requirements.

We selected the Moodle platform to deliver this course for the following reasons: Continue reading →

Assignment 3 Reflection – Sam

This activity was a bit daunting for me as I am not currently teaching any classes, nor do I identify primarily as a teacher. As such, I decided to pick a course that I felt that I would be qualified to teach, and one that I feel does not currently exist in this format. While there are lots of online TEFL and TESOL courses, many tend to be quite limited (often focused on the mechanics of the English language). I decided to blend the cultural challenges of moving to a new country with some of the basic mechanics of working as a teacher. Many ESL teaching jobs in Asia and elsewhere require a University Degree and Native English skills, but little else. As a result, the course is aimed at individuals who are seeking (or have accepted) international ESL jobs but are not formally trained in education.

Continue reading →

Introductory Module Reflection

Developing this course for an elementary classroom had me questioning what kind of information, besides the activity, I need to share in my introductory module. In our classroom, we discuss learning objectives and develop success criteria so once I considered where my students need to be and looked at some of the previous Google Classroom examples, I felt more comfortable about the direction I wanted to take. I really like using Padlet so I created one for this activity to allow students to contribute to the success criteria which I would establish once students have had the opportunity to participate. Like ETEC 565A I also developed some learning expectations based on the Ontario Curriculum. I feel that students who are in grade 8 should have the opportunity to discover what the government is expecting of them. I then provided information about the modules students would be engaging in with a timetable of key dates. Putting this together helped me with determining the flow for the rest of the content.

Continue reading →

Ice-Breaker: an asynchronous activity

I took the design thinking approach to the course I am developing. It is a short course on Research-policy communication”. It is aimed at PhD students and fresh post-doctoral fellows (<2 years after the completion of their PhD). It is to be proposed to organisations such as MITACS and research universities as a complementary course for their students and fellows.

I am starting from scratch. Such a course has not been offered so far at all anywhere I have looked. As we are working on an Orientation Module, I decided that what is needed at this point in the course is an ice-breaker. At MET’s courses this is usually dealt with by asking the students to present themselves. I wanted to tackle the presentation less up-front, so I decided to propose an asynchronous activity. The students will share their thoughts about the way their research can bring change to the world. They are asked to find/take a picture that bests describes the reality that they want to see impacted by their research. Then they are asked to reflect in three sentences what it is about and how they think it can be changed. They are also invited to react to each other posts.

 

Sam’s Reflection

As a group, we tried to consider the specific context of the program we were developing by digging into the nitty gritty of accessibility, readiness, and cultural responsiveness. Overall, I am happy with the level of detail in our rubric and feel that it would be an effective starting point to help select an appropriate technology solution. In terms of working as a group, my team members were all diligent and engaged. As always, it can be a bit of a challenge to overcome differences in time zones, expectations, and work styles, but we managed to pull together to collaborate.

The context of working in Aboriginal communities was quite new to me, but I really appreciated the support my group shared in piecing together our experiences and research to understand the case as best we could. I appreciated gaining insight into how one might approach the selection of an LMS, but would also be interested to explore some of the LMS platforms in a more hands on way as well.

Mimi’s LMS reflection

When reflecting upon the process of completing Assignment Two, I made connections back to Chickering’s article (1996) specifically the principles of reciprocity and cooperation among students and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning. Through the use of Google Hangouts and shared Google Documents, our team was able to learn face-to-face which allowed for the sharing of ideas and responding to others’ thinking. Generally, our conversations allowed us to build upon each other’s knowledge in order to produce a better product. As a team we agreed that a key criteria for an LMS to exceeded expectations was the inclusion of social media applications into the High Priority section of the rubric. This decision was based upon Spiro’s (2014) idea that the integration of social media tools into a LMS promotes stronger learning communities through faster communication and more engaging activities. Tools such as Twitter, blogs, wikis and social networking sites like Instagram when used effectively create strong student engagement.This assignment really brought to the forefront my understanding of how,” good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning.” Chickering & Ehrmann (1996) While some of my group members were academically and technologically strong, others were better organizers and leaders. Our diverse talents allowed for deeper collaboration and learning. Finally as an educator who strives to provide active learning for my students, I appreciated the necessity of applying the reading material and additional research articles in order to create a valuable assessment tool that met the requirements of the case study, as it created a situation where my ability to synthesize became the focus rather than my recall. It is clear that the use of Chickering and Ehrmann’s Seven Principles as a framework for creating assignments using technology is not just theoretical, but rather a practical design tool for teachers online and in the classroom.

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 from http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

Spiro, K. (2014). 5 elearning trends leading to the end of the Learning Management Systems. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/5-elearning-trends-leading-to-the-end-of-the-learning-management-system

 

Galina’s LMS Evaluation Rubric Reflection

For the LMS selection: Evaluation rubric assignment, I worked with Agnieszka, Tracey, and Samantha. We were tasked with developing an evaluation rubric to decide which LMS would best suit Yukon Education Student Network (YESNet) who want to develop blended secondary courses that are relevant from an Aboriginal perspective. We had to take into consideration the bandwidth and reliability of internet access and possible upcoming extension.

As I did not have any experience working with indigenous communities before, I found the assignment quite challenging. It was really important to understand the restrictions of their traditional territories, needs and cultural perspectives.  Agnieszka found and shared a few valuable resources that helped me review and analyse the adoption and use of digital technologies specifics in remote and northern Indigenous communities in Canada and get a perspective on their challenges and possible project success issues.

Continue reading →

JENNY’S LMS SELECTION: EVALUATION RUBRIC

The experience of working collaboratively in creating a rubric for the Athabasca University was very interesting. For our case study, the focus was to expand Athabasca’s programs to South Asia but one of their main concerns was the internet connectivity in the remote areas. We started off with everyone brainstorming ideas on a Google Doc and interestingly enough, we all noted down very similar criteria. This formulated our five main categories for our rubric: functionality, accessibility, support, technical requirements and cost. We elaborated on each category by using the SECTIONS framework (Bates, 2014) as the foundation and ensuring all the components were addressed in the rubric criteria.

Throughout the process, I realize that it was very difficult to include detailed evaluation criteria for every stakeholder involved. Although our goal was to ensure that administrators, instructors, and students are all accounted for in the evaluation, it was not possible to address the independent needs of each stakeholder equally in the rubric. It is obvious that certain criteria are of major concern to one stakeholder and not so much to another. Continue reading →

Alexis’ LMS Reflection

For the LMS selection and rubric assignment, I worked with Paige, Mimi, Faeyza, and Andrew and our target audience was adult Francophone students looking to complete High School and improve their ability to read and write English.

Overall, this project was an excellent exercise in learning more about LMS selection, and how to work as a team to determine necessary elements in evaluating LMS systems for specific user needs. We recognized as a team how difficult it can be to accommodate each individual user’s needs, and through that initial frustration, we learned how important discussions and collaboration are in selecting the best LMS possible. While we had originally attempted to organize our rubric by users: Students, Teachers, and Administrators, we quickly realized it is difficult to divide these users in such a separate way. We realized that there is a lot more overlap between users than we originally thought, but it was important we came to this realization during our process, as we diligently worked to ensure that our collective final rubric factored in the needs of all the potential different users, facilitating their different needs (Spiro, 2014). Ultimately we divided our rubric into three sections, High Priority, Medium Priority, and Low Priority. The High Priority chart focused on LMS elements that are essential and necessary to most LMS users. Medium and Low Priorities are more “nice to have” items that allow for greater customization, and Low Priorities, more specifically, are for future predictions. Then we further organized each rubric section into Technical, Functional, and Network (with colour coding) to allow a greater visual overview of which elements the LMS is targeting.

Continue reading →

Assignment 2 Reflection

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. Continue reading →

Tracey’s Personal Reflection

Working as a group, we first aligned on focusing on the given scenario (YESTNet Pilot Program and Aboriginal learning) and providing as much detail and depth as possible so that creating the rubric could be very specific. We found the rubric the most effective when the criteria were very detailed and pointed. This required doing a lot of research to investigate ever dimension of the context of the scenario. The first step was to understand the dimensions of the YESNet Pilot Program as it relates to Aboriginal learning (Greenall et al. 2001). When we couldn’t find actual data, we made reasonable assumptions (i.e. the allotted budget). We then defined large sweeping categories (always relating back to the original context) like accessibility (O’Donnell 2016), readiness (Sharp et al. 2011) and cultural responsiveness (Greenall 2005). We then delved into each category. For accessibility, we evaluated items like technical access, special learner needs, and usability (Medina-Flores et al. 2015) keeping the overall cultural context in mind. For readiness and support, one point we looked at was the need for face-to-face technical support as an outcome of the cultural background (Yukon 2007). We looked at how the platform could effectively support the blended learning requirements (Rueckl 2017) all while fitting within the budget constraints and potential future deployment plans.

 

There really are so many different factors that impact the decision to be made on choosing an LMS. It’s important to start with the breadth of the situation before choosing the areas to evaluate. And there are so many aspects of the categories to evaluate, that priorities need to be assigned to ensure critical decisions can be made. There is clearly not one LMS that will suit every scenario but evaluation with the help of a rubric can help focus the decision.

 

References:

 

Greenall, D., and L. Stelios. (2001). Aboriginal Digital Opportunities: Addressing Aboriginal Learning Needs through the Use of Learning Technologies. The Conference Board of Canada

Greenall, D. (2005). Final report October 2005: Formative evaluation of the Sunchild, E-Learning Community. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.sccyber.net/images/pdf/Conference_Board_of_Canada_Study_2005.pdf [accesed 20 January 2018]

Medina-Flores, R., & Morales-Gamboa, R. (2015). Usability evaluation by experts of a learning management system. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 10(4), pp. 197-203.

O’Donnell, S., B. Beaton, R. McMahon, H. E. Hudson, D. Williams, T. Whiteduck, and First Nations Education Council. (2016). “Digital Technology Adoption in Remote and Northern Indigenous Communities in Canada.” Canadian Sociological Association 2016 Annual Conference. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary,

Rueckl, R. (2017) Don’t Ditch the Classroom: How an LMS Can Support Blended Learning. Software Advice. Retrieved from https://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/lms-blended-learning/Retrieved from https://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/lms-blended-learning/ [accessed on 20 January 2018]

Sharpe, D., D. Philpott, and M. Bourgeois. (2011). “A Pan-Canadian Survey of E-Learning for Aboriginal High School Students.” Killick Centre for E-Learning Research Report. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/citations?doi=10.1.1.230.8146 [accessed 21 January 2018]

Yukon Education Reform Project (2007) Final Report. Department of Education, Yukon. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.yk.ca/pdf/publications/ed_reform_report.pdf [accessed 25 January 2017]

What is a rubric anyways…?

The completion of the assignment has been a real learning curve for me. First, I was not even sure what we were asked to do. I relied on my team-mates to clarify what a rubric for an LMS might look like while I took on another task, namely the preparation of the Précis. Second, when I finally got the grasp of what a rubric for LMS was and how to assess it (Pappas 2013, Kabassi et al. 2015, Rueckl 2017), I found myself not even wanting an LMS for this particular case study. Continue reading →

Mike’s Very Meta Discussion About LMSs

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.  Continue reading →

Amanda’s LMS reflection

The LMS rubric assignment allowed me to gain a greater understanding of the decisions that organizations and institutions must make regarding Learning Management Systems. The members of my group were great to work with, because everyone was flexible with meeting times and completed their work by our self-imposed deadlines. I felt that the assignment was equitably divided between our five members and was done at the same level of quality by all.

 

Continue reading →

Katie’s Reflection on LMS Rubric Selection

The process of preparing a rubric for Athabasca University’s new Learning Management System (LMS) was helpful in exposing the fact that a single framework could never meet the needs of every institution. Nor could a single framework meet the needs of one institution over time as needs and priorities are constantly changing. For example, when Athabasca University began contemplating the need for marketing their courses in South East Asia, it was clear that the direct demands placed on their current LMS would change, such as the need for functionality over low bandwidth internet and meeting security and accessibility regulations in different countries (Squires, 2017).

Continue reading →

LMS Rubric Reflection

One of the benefits of this assignment for me personally was the ability to really dive into what a learning management system is and how to go about choosing the right one for a particular task. When I first came into this course I had no idea what LMS even stood for. I was surprised to know that I had been using a variety of them for years, but hadn’t really considered why I had used them.  Having taken a much closer look at the work by researchers like Bates and Chickering and Ehrmann, I have a much better foundation that I can look to when choosing an LMS in the future for myself or my students. With so many options now available, having sound research or a guideline like SECTIONS is so beneficial when choosing an LMS.  Pairing that with a well structured rubric and you’re really setting yourself up for success.  Of course no LMS is perfect and you most likely will encounter issues, but doing the upfront work I feel will pay off. I’m hoping this will help guide my thinking in the future of this course as we work on our future assignments.

I found the group work aspect informative when we had the chance to meet, but I unfortunately missed one of the early meetings and felt a bit lost.  The group was very accommodating and had left a part of the assignment that I could complete once I was able to touch base with them all. They all worked quickly and effectively to finish the assignment and it was nice to have a conversation about the course as well as hear more about their backgrounds. Way to go team!

Jamie

Reflection on LMS rubric for learners in South Asia

The case study assigned to our group was of particular interest to me as an International Development professional. Evaluating LMS platforms for the English-speaking learner in South Asia encouraged me to extend and reflect on my current knowledge of delivering offline learning solutions to the non-English speaking, marginalised populations in Asia and Africa that my professional work currently focuses on. This assignment allowed me to think about the South Asia region from a different perspective; as an educator, it reminded me to think about micro environments and the implications for designing optimal learning environments.

Most interesting to me was understanding the expectations of online learners in a developing country context (Ssekakubo, Suleman & Marsden, 2012). Reading about this topic allowed me to look beyond my pre-conceptions and to resist the urge to project onto different contexts the type of online learning I am accustomed to here in Canada. The ubiquity of internet connectivity I am exposed to as a professional in a Western context isn’t applicable to a region where bandwidth is a barrier, data usage is expensive, internet connectivity is unreliable and mobile phone devices largely vary from the basic phone to smart phones. These considerations are also underlined by having to reflect on the rich diversity of the South Asian context where each country in the region has varying levels of exposure to online and distance learning (Taylor & Sharma, 1990), schooling in the English language and usage of desktop and mobile devices.

As a result, the group proposed a rubric that would feel the most flexible and welcoming to a diverse range of learners. We highlighted the importance of offline learning mode and its reliable synchronisation upon connecting to the Internet; we emphasised the importance of mobile compatibility and its seamless integration with all types of devices; and we made provisions for language localisation that would provide learners the option to explore their learning between English and their local language through translated and contextualised content and interface. We also reflected on the intersections between these considerations with the other dimensions of LMS selection: support, technical, costs and functionality.

I was also pleased to have worked on the Accessibility considerations for learners with disabilities. This experience opened my eyes to the features I take for granted: being able to read in the default type face no matter the font type, colour or size; being able to navigate through an online platform despite the navigation features; and being able to use any device (i.e. mouse, track pad, mobile touch screen) available to command the platform. One salient example while reading the work of Rangin (2011) on Accessibility considerations was the challenge it poses when websites do not provide a confirmation page or notification once an activity or action is complete. For example, when a user fills a form, clicks submit and does not receive a confirmation that the form has been successfully completed. This prompts users to have to re-navigate through the site, re-populate the form and complete the process again. For a user without accessibility challenge, this is already a frustrating experience that disrupts learning, let alone for those who require additional accessibility support.

Overall I enjoyed this assignment – I was able to reflect on the LMS from a critical standpoint grounded in an applicable context. It also helped that I had excellent group members, all of whom provided expert insight from their own experiences.

 

References:

Rangin, H. (2011). A Comparison of Learning Management System Accessibility. Disability Resources and Educational Services (DRES).  Illinois Center for Information Technology and Web Accessibility. Retrieved from: http://presentations.cita.illinois.edu/2011-03-csun-lms/

Ssekakubo G, Suleman H & Marsden G. (2012). Learning management systems: Understanding the expectations of learners in developing countries. Retrieved from: http://pubs.cs.‌uct.ac.za‌‌/archive/00000790/01/el2012_F_202_Ssekakubo.pdf

Taylor, J. & Sharma, S. (1990). Distance Education in South Asia: Towards Regional Co-operation. Retrieved from: http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00236B/WEB/COLL_02.HTM

 

Paige’s LMS Reflection

To begin, our group brainstormed and found sample rubrics for LMS selection on the Internet. There were some great examples, but most of them seemed quite vague, general, and obviously not aligned with our specific scenario. We wanted to showcase our creativity and evaluate relevant criteria for our scenario, so we discussed the possibility of creating user personas to help us identify the needs of teachers, students, and administrators using the LMS. While this was a good start for considering different users’ needs, we decided it was counterintuitive to create different rubrics for all three users because a good LMS should cater to the most needs, and many of these needs were overlapping anyway. My biggest takeaway from this experience is that the development of a rubric plays a significant role in creating a clear goal for the LMS. Also, the LMS has to be flexible for users, so it’s important to structure a flexible rubric.

Continue reading →

Personal Reflection – Jessica

My personal reflection for this assignment will be divided into two different sections. First I will discuss my experiences with my group, and second I will discuss the rationale, trying to not repeat too much from the assignment!

 

This assignment designated me to work with Che, Sally and Ghassan. We initially discussed our ideas over Google Hangouts, which led to a couple video chats that allowed us to converse about our evaluation rubric and what we hoped to achieve. I really enjoyed working with this group and it was great to work with someone who works somewhere that had actually gone through the process of choosing a LMS before. This allowed for some great insight behind the procedures and practices that are followed in a real life situations and how a team is developed to choose a LMS. As such, our group was able to go through each and every part of our rubric with the selection team in mind to ensure we covered all areas that were necessary to cover. Continue reading →

LMS Selection Reflection – Lisa

Going through the process of this assignment brought to light the many challenges that must be overcome and factors to be considered in order to select an appropriate tool for a learning management system. As an elementary school teacher, all those decisions are already made for me and something I don’t really even contemplate when using the tool(s). The only categories of the Bates model that I would really concern myself with would be that of Students and Teaching Functions. While I would also want my students to have rich interactions, this decision would not necessarily be in my hands. When I consider the Students and Teaching Functions categories, I feel that the Chickering and Ehrmann model of the Seven Principles would be more applicable to me as an elementary school teacher. As we indicated in our concluding paragraph, this model appealed to us as having a more pedagogical approach and what I would have to consider using the platform to best suit my students’ needs. Continue reading →

Assignment 2 Reflection

For assignment #2, I had the privilege of working with Paige, Alexis, Mimi and Faeyza. Thanks to Natasha for making our groups based on time zones, it was easy to connect three times over the two weeks using Google Hangouts. We did notice how although Blackboard would ‘meet expectations’ according to the rubric, how we often resorted to third-party software (ex. gmail, Drive) as tried-and-true applications. These however are under different privacy agreements compared to Kaltura for example, which is pertinent to consider in context.

From the Bates (2014) and Chickering-Ehrmann (1996) readings, our initial rubric design focused on three LMS aspects: Functional, Technical and Networking. Functional incorporated affordances the LMS provides; Technical incorporated background hardware requirements; and Networking incorporated promoting connectivity not limited to social media. We approached these sections from three varied personas: student, teacher and administrator, since LMS decisions would look different from each perspective. As a teacher, I might focus on usability; technology personnel might focus on server requirements; principals might focus on budget, etc. Our group ultimately decided that framework (refer to Appendix A) was too restrictive given none of us have actual experience being administrators needing imagination, while there would be considerable overlap between descriptors for students and teachers both working in the classroom.

The structure was then redesigned to focus on each criteria, transferring important points from brainstorming each persona into a unified rubric. Instead of all-or-none, we embedded a scoring system to describe the extent to which the LMS does not meet, meets or exceeds expectations for particular topics within each broad category. Delegating tasks among group members was positive and natural, making revisions directly on Google Docs. Towards the end, I was in charge of downloading a copy to reformat before submission, where we experienced slight miscommunication as minor corrections were still being made to the online document as it was being formatted offline. It took a bit more work and time to piece the modifications back together, but otherwise our team experience was phenomenal!

References

Bates, T. (2014). Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model. In Teaching in digital age. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/

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 from http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm