{"id":393,"date":"2018-03-04T22:58:19","date_gmt":"2018-03-05T05:58:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/?p=393"},"modified":"2018-03-04T22:58:19","modified_gmt":"2018-03-05T05:58:19","slug":"muddling-with-moodle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/2018\/03\/04\/muddling-with-moodle\/","title":{"rendered":"Muddling with Moodle!"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Tl;dr —\u00a0 Moodle seems to have two main weakness: age and too many choices.)<\/p>\n

<\/strong>For this assignment, I explored Moodle as a potential LMS.\u00a0 It was an adventure of endless clicking!\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The urban school has a population of 800 students with a broad socio-economic range.\u00a0 The program is elective, but sought out.\u00a0 In general, the students have a sophisticated conception of learning as being active and based in understanding.\u00a0 There is adequate technology available at the school, including laptops, high speed internet, and iPads.\u00a0 Approximately 80% of students have personal mobile devices and about 90% have access to high speed internet in the home.\u00a0 The two-semester course is divided into seven modules; a course introduction, and six projects that range in length from four to six weeks.\u00a0 There are two team-teaching instructors; one for the academic math and physics, and one for the electronics and robotics technology component. \u00a0<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 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).\u00a0 In theory, Moodle can support all of these activities.<\/p>\n

For the early project stages, we aim to have students create prototypes and concept maps, and share their results.\u00a0 \u00a0There 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.\u00a0 This is a serious setback for the first stage of the project.\u00a0 From this perspective, Moodle appears to be built with the teacher at the center, rather than as a student-centered model (Anderson, 2004). \u00a0Moodle does have forums, which would be useful for more thoughtful sharing than may not happen in the confines of a synchronous discussion.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 There is also a chat feature, but it has no critical function in our blended model.<\/p>\n

The next stage in our projects is generally to tackle the \u201cbig build\u201d.\u00a0 The key affordance of the LMS at this stage is a hub for organization of group work that can be accessed ubiquitously.\u00a0 This is key, because the projects are unlike traditional lessons and many aspects \u201cbleed together\u201d.\u00a0 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).\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Students are evaluated weekly on the basis of meeting timeline-based objectives, or \u201ctime on task\u201d, a crucial condition for supporting student learning (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996; Gibbs & Simpson, 2005). \u00a0This seems to be a strength for Moodle.\u00a0 I like their feature that tracks student activity on pages, and tracking in general seems quite wide reaching.\u00a0 Often we need activities designed to elicit rationales and renewed hypotheses from students.\u00a0 In our current practice, this is done through third party programs like TinkerCAD, PhET, and Khan Academy.\u00a0 Embedding these interactivities would be easy, but I would prefer a live discussion and synchronous interaction that is afforded by a blended learning model.<\/p>\n

Finally, the projects culminate in live or video presentation of the final artifact testing and content quizzes of related material.\u00a0 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).\u00a0 The multiple choice and matching are quite reliable, but I would hesitate to use the short answer or essay without more research\u2014my own trial of the quiz gave me 0\/3 on two of my own questions because I answered \u201celements of the atmosphere\u201d instead of \u201ccertain elements of the atmosphere\u201d!\u00a0 Of note, also, was the constructivist COLLES survey tool.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Moodle seems to have two main weakness: age and too many choices.\u00a0 The framework of Moodle seems based in what Hamish, James, and Baldwin (2005) call an \u201coverly simplistic understanding of the relationship between teachers, knowledge, and student learning\u201d (p. 27).\u00a0 This seems most obvious in the difficulty of uploading and embedding content, as well as student-student sharing.\u00a0 I found the entire platform mostly set up for delivery, with interactions as an add-on.\u00a0 As far as choices goes, if hosting Google Classroom is like driving a mini-van, then Moodle is a fighter jet.\u00a0 I\u2019m looking to \u201cpark\u201d or \u201cturn left\u201d and there are 18 clicks and 25 drop-down menus to do it.\u00a0 Tech support and ease of use are important considerations for LMS selection (Bates & Poole, 2003), and Moodle is too much, yet not enough.
\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Anderson, T. (2004). Towards a theory of online learning.\u00a0Theory and practice of online learning<\/em>,\u00a02<\/em>, 109-119.<\/p>\n

Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003).\u00a0Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success<\/em>. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley. 10475 Crosspoint Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46256.<\/p>\n

Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning.\u00a0Tertiary Education & Management<\/em>,\u00a011<\/em>(1), 19-36.<\/p>\n

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever.\u00a0AAHE bulletin<\/em>,\u00a049<\/em>, 3-6.<\/p>\n

Fenton, W. (2016, August 22).\u00a0 Moodle LMS.\u00a0 PC Magazine<\/em>. Retrieved from\u00a0 https:\/\/www.pcmag.com\/article2\/0,2817,2486973,00.asp<\/a><\/p>\n

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students\u2019 learning.\u00a0Learning and teaching in higher education<\/em>, (1), 3-31.<\/p>\n

Pecore, J. L. (2013). Beyond beliefs: Teachers adapting problem-based learning to preexisting systems of practice.\u00a0Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning<\/em>,\u00a07<\/em>(2), 1.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Tl;dr —\u00a0 Moodle seems to have two main weakness: age and too many choices.) For this assignment, I explored Moodle as a potential LMS.\u00a0 It was an adventure of endless clicking!\u00a0 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, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49895,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1122797],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intro-module"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49895"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=393"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":394,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393\/revisions\/394"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/collaboration\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}