Proposal
Date of entry: June 12, 2011
Word count: 1000 (not including title page, reference list and appendix)
Available below in Word, PDF, and text
Running head: LMS PROPOSAL FOR MOODLE
Moodle as a Viable Solution:
A Learning Management System (LMS) Selection Proposal
Diana Bang
The University of British Columbia
Preface
This LMS selection proposal is for the Co-Chairs of the Saskatchewan Health Information Resources Partnership (SHIRP), a key decision-maker in funding and providing access to the health region library’s electronic resources. One of SHIRP’s mandates includes the greater integration of technology in education, practice, and research to inform purchasing decisions of resources and services. Thus, I propose that Moodle is hosted by SHIRP’s web server in order to fully implement an accessible, province-wide e-learning library resource for all healthcare practitioners in Saskatchewan. It will provide on-demand library training sessions for busy clinicians who are unable to attend in-person and address their learning needs particularly for those in rural locations. As part of an e-learning initiative, it is imperative that libraries offer choices and flexibility for independent and group learning opportunities. The addition of Moodle would help develop a blended learning environment by complementing the existing suite of face-to-face instruction with self-directed modules and has the potential for complete e-learning library service delivery in the future.
What is Moodle?
Moodle, an acronym for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment is a popular open source LMS designed for educators to create dynamic online courses (Moodle, 2011). It is the leading open source LMS used by North American and European universities (Beatty & Ulasewicz, 2006), and there are currently 53,891 active registered sites from 211 countries with 86 language packs available for download (Moodle, 2011). Martin Dougiamas developed Moodle with constructivist learning principles, social networking and the needs of students and educators in mind (UBC Wiki, 2011). Thus, Moodle is well-suited with Web 2.0 features.
Why Moodle is the Solution
Moodle is multifunctional and its interactive features are conducive to e-learning, making it a superior alternative to traditional library resource guides. Rhodes (1999) & Wheeler (2006) state that as educational institutions increasingly utilize IT infrastructure they face mounting financial constraints due to base licensing fees, training and support required for application software (as cited in Pan & Bonk, 2007). Therefore, an open source solution is evident. Unlike proprietary LMSs, Moodle can be freely downloaded, modified, and distributed under the General Public License all without a licensing fee (Pan & Bonk, 2007). Furthermore, Moodle works without modification on any system that supports PHP including most web host providers (Moodle, 2011). Data is stored in a single database: MySQL and PostgreSQL are optimally supported, but can be used with Access, Interbase, ODBC, and Oracle (Moodle, 2011). Weber (2003) acknowledges that “as an open source product, Moodle is flexible in its customizations and its use is only limited by the knowledge, learning, resources, and innovative spirit of its users rather than by the proprietary rights of vendors” (as cited in Elias, 2010, p.114).
A significant advantage of Moodle over its leading competitors is their foundation in social constructivist pedagogy embedded in its features to support student learning (Moodle, 2011). Hartley & Fallon (2005) surveyed IT executives from 52 colleges and universities, and found that pricing and scalability were crucial factors in their institutional LMS purchasing decisions as all were dissatisfied with the escalating cost of proprietary LMSs (as cited in Pan & Bonk, 2007). Also, with the rise of handheld PDA usage by healthcare practitioners, Moodle can be customized to address mobile learning needs. Koole et al. (2010) examined the usability, learning and social interaction of students’ mobile access to Moodle course materials using a system called MobiGlam. Learners accessed their course notes and reference materials wherever they were. This example illustrates how m-learning can significantly amplify the prospects of using Moodle as part of an overall e-learning strategy.
Evaluation Method for LMS Selection
The selection of Moodle compared to other LMSs were based on an adapted course rubric from Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS framework (see Appendix A, Table 1), Chickering and Ehrmann’s (1996) seven principles of implementing technology as a lever, and Edutools (2011) LMS product comparison and summative decision tools. Another valuable tool was Fetaji & Fetaji’s (2009) standardized e-learning indicators used to evaluate different e-learning platforms and inform successful planning. Their research also conveyed the need for close correlation of software development and e-learning pedagogy which confirmed Moodle was the most viable solution.
As part of the initial testing phase, I developed a sample webpage and discussion forum in Moodle accessed via UBC’s course site. The discussion thread’s functionality was examined by posting a reply and I navigated the layouts using both UBC and Moodle’s demo sites. Overall, the instructor interface was intuitive and easy to use in Moodle. One of the preferred differences between Moodle and Blackboard in terms of ease of use was the system interface which was far more superior as it could be easily modified for visual learners (Beatty & Ulasewicz, 2006).
To highlight, Moodle’s cost-free, open source nature was preferred and in regards to speed, it was the clear winner over commercial systems as it enables developers from around the world to fix issues and build new components without waiting for a full release of changes. It is also possible to enlist the support of students with programming skills to help in the development without a significant cost. Although some technical proficiency with html coding is required this can be alleviated through IT support and a growing online community.
Resources Required for Moodle Implementation
Implementing Moodle will involve the collaboration of stakeholders, system administration, and long-term sustainability efforts including:
IT support for installation, administration and troubleshooting
Time commitment from librarians to develop content for modules
Training and testing
Partnerships/funding from SHIRP, health regions and other key stakeholders
Assistance from instructional designers
Conclusion
Overall, it is easy to understand why Moodle is the most viable solution for SHIRP to implement a province-wide, accessible e-learning library resource for all healthcare practitioners. It will address the e-learning needs of clinicians by offering greater flexibility and choices for self-directed learning opportunities. Developing a blended learning environment is within reach and ultimately could lead to the future implementation of complete e-learning and m-learning library service delivery solutions.
References
Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning, (pp. 271-294). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: A framework for selecting and using
technology. In Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations
for success (pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty perspectives on moving from Blackboard to the Moodle learning management system. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(4), 36-45.
Bradford, P., Porciello, M., Balkon, N., & Backus, D. (2007). The Blackboard learning system: The be all and end all in educational instruction? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 301-314.
EduTools. (2011). CMS: Product comparison system. Retrieved June 9, 2011 from http://www.edutools.info/compare.jsp?pj=4&i=599,616,621,625
Elias, T. (2010). Universal instructional design principles for Moodle. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 110-124.
Fetaji, B., & Fetaji, M. (2009). E-learning indicators: A multi-dimensional model for planning and evaluating e-learning software solutions. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(1), 1-28.
Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31.
Jensen, L. A. (2010). Extend instruction outside the classroom: Take advantage of your learning management system. Computers in Libraries, 30(6), 76-78.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Koole, M., McQuilkin, J. L., & Ally, M. (2010). Mobile learning in distance education: Utility or futility? Journal of Distance Education, 24(2), 59-82.
McGreal, R., & Elliott, M. (2008). Technologies of online learning (e-learning). In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning, (pp. 115-135). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
Moodle. (2011). About Moodle. Retrieved from http://moodle.org/about/
Moodle. (2011). Language packs. Retrieved from http://download.moodle.org/lang16/
Moodle. (2011). Registered Moodle sites. Retrieved from http://moodle.org/sites/
Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). Mission. Retrieved from http://www.opensource.org/
Pan, G., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). The emergence of open-source software in North America. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3), 1-17.
Panettieri, J. (2007). Addition by subtraction. University Business, August, 58-62. Retrieved from http://www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=845
Perkins, M., & Pfaffman, J. (2006). Using a course management system to improve classroom communication. Science Teacher, 73(7), 33-37.
UBC Wiki. (2011). Moodle. Retrieved from http://wiki.ubc.ca/moodle