Hi everyone,
After hours and hours of organizing students, filming, editing, and tech work, here’s my final product! Enjoy!
A Pitch for Moodle:
For further information, please see my proposal at
Tag: Pao
Team 8 Conclusion
On behalf of Ian, Sean, Ernie and myself (Jen), I would like to thank ETEC522 for excellent participation in this week’s presentation. We hope you enjoyed the Moodle format for our discussions and activities and hope that you will also consider using the Moodle platform in your future teaching practices.
We have all learned something from the assigned activities and we definitely appreciated the insightful and reflective discussions towards collaborative technologies. We are definitely sure that this will be a growing area of life long learning.
Please feel free to email or contact us if you have any questions or concerns about our presentation. In addition, feel free to continue discussions in the Moddle forums, if you wish.
Enjoy the upcoming week as we are closer to the finish line.
Team 8
Hi Everyone,
It looks like our pool of collaboration technology resources is starting to take form. Thanks!
What’s been interesting is watching how it has been taking form. Some of you are showing your MediaWiki experience, while others are learning on the go. Some of you are creating new pages for your reviews, while others are writing a review on the main page for collaborative technologies and linking directly to the tool’s web page. As a group we are creating something new (and hopefully useful) publicly. And as a group, I wonder, can we form a resource that is coherent , concise, and consistent both in content and format. Does this technology (and the time and energy that we have) allow for this? We’re about halfway through this module, and it’ll be interesting to see how this new resource will look like at the end.
Hi everyone!
Welcome to this week’s presentation on Collaboration Technologies.
Our group has decided to try a different, perhaps more traditional, presentation style using the OSS learning management system called Moodle. Many of you may be familiar with this platform or have had some working experience. If not, that’s ok too!
Our website can be found at —————— (ETEC 522: Module 8 – Collaborative Technologies). To begin, you will need to click on “create new account” and follow the prompts. I have set the enrollment key as ETEC522.
We hope you enjoy our presentation and we look forward to your thoughts and ideas about Collaboration Technologies!
Your Module 8 Presentation Group,
Ian, Sean, Ernie, & Jen
Categories
FOSS/OSS in Public Schools
Blog Question: Would you support implementing FOSS/OSS in your work environment?
At my small secondary school, we already support FOSS/OSS use. Our server is run with Apache software and is hosting Moodle for some of our classes.
On another note, the Vancouver Board of Education has now installed OSS software such as Open Office and Gimp onto board-issued computers. I know there are some teachers, including myself, that aren’t too keen on the Open Office at this point because most of our computer files are MS Word-based. Even though Word files can be opened with Open Office, often, some of the formatting is lost. I think it will definitely take some time before people get used to it and start transferring files over to using these OSS software programs. It sort of reminds me of way back in the day when there was the battle of web browsers…Netscape vs. IE. I can’t remember how many times (lots!) that I switched between the two browsers as my default. One would come up with new features and I would then switch to that one. This went on for years until, of course, IE won out. Now, I’m using Firefox. =)
In general, I would support FOSS/OSS in public schools; however, only if we were given more tech-support from our school board. Last thing I want is to become the tech-support guy every time one of my colleagues has a problem with the OSS. If that’s the model (i.e. teachers becoming their own tech-support) that the school boards are going to then I would not support it.
I decided to “CUBE” Desire2Learn as this is one of the learning management systems I have had experience using as an online teacher. Their corporate website may be found at http://www.desire2learn.com/.
Face 1 – Market Focus
Public Schools (in particular, middle and secondary schools) and higher educational institutions. Alternatively, corporations, associations, healthcare and government agencies may find use in D2L products to training and educate their employees.
Face 2 – Types of Offerings
Desire2Learn’s (D2L) flagship product is its learning management system called the Desire2Learn Learning Environment. This is an educational infrastructure-type product. D2L’s Learning Environment is a web-based system that allows administrator and instructor users to create, teach, deliver, and manage course content to potential student users. This extensive and complex platform includes systems such as grading, internal communication, and user database.
D2L also offers other services including delivery, hosting, content, training and support.
Face 3 – Who is the Buyer?
For public schools, the buyer is likely to be a school district as opposed to a single school itself. This is due to the relatively high cost of the system which would not make it feasible for a school to purchase it for its own use. Upper school board management or school district e-learning staff would likely make the purchasing decisions.
For higher education institutions, since staff and student populations are generally larger than elementary or secondary schools (and therefore have greater budgets), individual faculties or the entire institution itself may choose to purchase D2L’s learning management system to deliver or support its courses.
Larger healthcare, corporations or government agencies, where there is a need to train and educate large numbers of staff members, may choose to use this learning management system for these purposes.
Face 4 – Global Markets
As internet access expands across the world, so too is the growth of online education. Public schools, higher educational institutions, corporations, healthcare, and government agencies around the globe, where internet access is widely available, are the target markets for D2L.
Face 5 – Development of the Market
D2L’s vision is to be a global leader in providing e-learning solutions to their clients. They have won a number of awards for technology innovation; however, these awards were presented by North American based associations and institutions. In order for D2L to meet their global market aspirations, greater computer and internet access in regions with restricted or poor availability needs to be realized. Though this may be beyond the scope of D2L’s line of products and services, infiltrating these markets by providing products and solutions that meet their current technology capabilities may help to develop and expand D2L’s global market.
Face 6 – Learning Technology Competing with Other Forms of Learning
For various reasons, many educators who use traditional methods of teaching (e.g. chalkboard, paper and pencil exercises) may refuse to or be afraid to integrate technologies in their teaching practices. However, most would still agree that computer skills are a highly important component of a modern education, especially since these skills are transferable to many potential occupations. Encouragement through professional development, training, and follow up support are necessary to assist colleagues with technology use.
D2L’s Learning Environment could be used in conjunction with traditional teaching approaches following a blended learning model or be used to replace traditional classroom teaching and learning by placing courses completely online.
Categories
The 60-second Pitch
Hope no one has posted this one yet…I’m finding it a little difficult to sort through all the blog posts here. Google Reader isn’t really helping either. Nonetheless, this article discusses how to make a good impression in one’s pitch. Enjoy!
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jun2007/sb20070604_577187.htm
Here’s my 2nd go at a pitch analysis…hope it makes sense…my eyes are starting to close!
- CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles?
- Ted Dodds appears confident and well-spoken. He exudes a very professional, experienced demeanour.
- He speaks of UBC’s mission, considers the students and the community
- Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success
- Dodds suggests that UBC is a very decentralized university. Each faculty has its own e-learning component. He stresses the importance of formal and informal meetings and strategies, including the use of E-strategy Townhall meetings, which include invited leaders of other institutions (peers and competitors), boards members, deans, vice presidents etc. He stresses the importance of collaboration between these e-learning stakeholders.
- Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling?
- Yes, I believe this model is feasible. By working collaboratively with e-learning stakeholders, university leaders, and competing educational institutions, UBC’s reputation stands to gain. In turn, registration may increase.
- Dodds suggests that the E-strategy is a framework, not plan or mandate, thus giving more freedom to members of the community.
- Competitive Products – What is a realistic market size, market share and selling price that these products or services can capture in a very competitive world?
- There is a demand for e-learning and UBC IT’s vision is to be a active an collaborative partner in the e-learning community. They are working together with other universities and educational leaders to create products that can promote e-learning. Unfortunately, Dodds does not provided any statistics on market size, student enrolment, demand etc.
- Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success?
- No time length is given but UBC is working with other educational institutions in the e-learning community. It is leader in e-learning innovation. Path to success is ongoing.
- Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it?
- Dodds mentions that UBC is well known for “commercialization of individual research within the campus”. E-learning innovation at UBC has brought about commercial products such as WebCT. He mentions that UBC is taking a leadership role in opensource software and community source software which help to get campus level innovations to a broader audience. Working with other campuses to create a community source system
- Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear
- Participation and altruistic relationship in the e-learning community helps to promote UBC reputation. By taking a leadership role in opensource software and creating E-strategy townhall meetings for community stakeholders contributes to UBC IT’s success.
- Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition?
- Yes, as an EVA, I would invest in UBC IT’s vision for e-learning. Furthermore, I would encourage and recommend potential students to take a serious look at e-learning programs through UBC.
Ok, here’s my first pitch analysis. Next one to come later.
Royal Roads University Pitch
- CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles?
- Based on the pitch presentation, Burgess does seem to have done her research and has a good working knowledge of the university. She provides a confident, enthusiastic pitch, but to me, this appears to be due to her charisma rather than track record. She does not present anything at all about her credentials or personal background that would help further sell her pitch.
- Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success
- There is no mention of a management team or who may be involved in instituting such a program. I’m assuming there would be some faculty members or key people at RRU on board already. This can’t be a solo effort, can it??? If so, forget it! Establishing the management team clearly is needed in this pitch.
- Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling?
- Burgess seems to provide good information on opencourseware, including some history, current opencourseware consortium, and how RRU fits in the market (benefiting and altruistic relations). She has done her research based on a model of opencourseware from MIT, a much larger school.
- Importantly, Burgess seems to suggest having opencourseware available to prospective students would help attract more tuition paying students to the school. However, is there a guarantee that this would happen? What is the cost of marketing this free, opencourseware? Is there a guarantee that the university will be able to recover its marketing costs over time?
- Competitive Products – What is a realistic market size, market share and selling price that these products or services can capture in a very competitive world?
- In following the footsteps of the much larger school, MIT, RRU would be in competition with MIT’s reputation, established program, and larger financial budget. Burgess mentioned that there were over 200+ institutions involved in an opencourseware consortium so there must be many other universities that would be in competition with RRU.
- Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success?
- There does not appear to be any timeline provided for this venture. How long will it take before the university sees a profit from attracting paying students to RRU by marketing their opencourseware?
- There does not appear to be a market analysis performed to show the demand for opencourseware among prospective students.
- Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it?
- To me, what Burgess is pitching appears to be something that other universities are already doing. There isn’t anything that sticks out that is different than what is already being done by RRU’s potential competitors. This plan is obviously taking after MIT’s model.
- Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear
- It appears that success would be measured based on attracting paying students to RRU as well as more experienced faculty.
- Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition?
- Though the presentation was well-prepared, it seemed somewhat ‘amateurish’ to me. The video was filled cheesy text messages inserted on top of still-framed pictures of the university. Between still-frames was low-quality, handy-cam video clips of Burgess providing some commentary. Though the information presented was fairly good, I thought the low-quality, amateur-style video detracted from a ‘professional’ pitch. As an EVA, I’m not sure I would entrust my money into what may seem like an amateur venturist.
- Furthermore, I think more market analysis needs to be done and presented to demonstrate that there is demand for opencourseware. Burgess needs to provide more persuasive evidence showing how the university stands to gain financially, not just in reputation, and how long it will take to recoup marketing costs. After all, if this venture is a money losing one, then there is no way the university should go for it.
Ernie’s Royal Roads University Pitch Analysis
- CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles?
- Based on the pitch presentation, Burgess does seem to have done her research and has a good working knowledge of the university. She provides a confident, enthusiastic pitch, but to me, this appears to be due to her charisma rather than track record. She does not present anything at all about her credentials or personal background that would help further sell her pitch.
- Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success
- There is no mention of a management team or who may be involved in instituting such a program. I’m assuming there would be some faculty members or key people at RRU on board already. This can’t be a solo effort, can it??? If so, forget it! Establishing the management team clearly is needed in this pitch.
- Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling?
- Burgess seems to provide good information on opencourseware, including some history, current opencourseware consortium, and how RRU fits in the market (benefiting and altruistic relations). She has done her research based on a model of opencourseware from MIT, a much larger school.
- Importantly, Burgess seems to suggest having opencourseware available to prospective students would help attract more tuition paying students to the school. However, is there a guarantee that this would happen? What is the cost of marketing this free, opencourseware? Is there a guarantee that the university will be able to recover its marketing costs over time?
- Competitive Products – What is a realistic market size, market share and selling price that these products or services can capture in a very competitive world?
- In following the footsteps of the much larger school, MIT, RRU would be in competition with MIT’s reputation, established program, and larger financial budget. Burgess mentioned that there were over 200+ institutions involved in an opencourseware consortium so there must be many other universities that would be in competition with RRU.
- Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success?
- There does not appear to be any timeline provided for this venture. How long will it take before the university sees a profit from attracting paying students to RRU by marketing their opencourseware?
- There does not appear to be a market analysis performed to show the demand for opencourseware among prospective students.
- Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it?
- To me, what Burgess is pitching appears to be something that other universities are already doing. There isn’t anything that sticks out that is different than what is already being done by RRU’s potential competitors. This plan is obviously taking after MIT’s model.
- Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear
- It appears that success would be measured based on attracting paying students to RRU as well as more experienced faculty.
- Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition?
- Though the presentation was well-prepared, it seemed somewhat ‘amateurish’ to me. The video was filled cheesy text messages inserted on top of still-framed pictures of the university. Between still-frames was low-quality, handy-cam video clips of Burgess providing some commentary. Though the information presented was fairly good, I thought the low-quality, amateur-style video detracted from a ‘professional’ pitch. As an EVA, I’m not sure I would entrust my money into what may seem like an amateur venturist.
- Furthermore, I think more market analysis needs to be done and presented to demonstrate that there is demand for opencourseware. Burgess needs to provide more persuasive evidence showing how the university stands to gain financially, not just in reputation, and how long it will take to recoup marketing costs. After all, if this venture is a money losing one, then there is no way the university should go for it.