Archives: February 2016

LMS Introductory Module

 

The reflection for this Introductory Module will follow the outline of assessment criteria given for LMS Introductory Module.

Let me start by writing that for this project I decided to use Moodle (I had never even heard of Moodle until this course). I decided to design a “fully online” course directed toward teachers of elementary aged students, with the course content focused on how to increase the reading effectiveness of students by increasing the effectiveness of strategic teaching. The link is here.

In the course outline, it reads that the introductory module will be assessed for:

the introductory activity;

My introductory activity was based on a citation found in Anderson (2008). Anderson refers to the work of Dixon (2007) and her work in breaking ice. I read the article (the one cited) and found the work of Dixon and her colleagues would fit with the clientele for my course, teachers. As Dixon writes, “ways in which learners are encouraged and supported to connect, and develop relationships with colleagues who have similar interests and/or compatible work habits, are needed.” Although her research studied the implementation of  icebreaker activities which help to create social presence in online environments,  I knew my “students” would be teachers. Creating social presence would need to move past the potentially surfacing self-efficacious posturing into something creative and dare I write, “fun.”

having 3 substantive HTML pages;

I chose to go with 4 separate pages of substantive content. I looked through all I wanted to convey, felt that it would be best conveyed in four separate pages. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) make the case for cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence in higher learning. Each of these introductory pages provide the foundation on which the higher order thinking — with space for constructing meaning, projecting personness, and the design and facilitation of teaching–possible in online courses, can thrive (Garrison et al. 2000: 91).

having logical and organized structure;

As I have just conveyed in the last section, I divided the content up into four sections: structure (Open Me First), content (Behind the Scenes), communication (Inner Circle), and assessment (Begin at the End). I felt these categories, not so far off from Anderson’s (2008) knowledge-centred, assessment-centred, learner-centred, and community-centred divisions, would group the information in a straightforward and cohesive manner. One-stop-shopping, so to speak.

having early information for students;

The list that Mayer’s authored and that appears in Bates (2014) was helpful for selecting the what should be included and the how should that be formatted for this section. I took Mayer’s (2009) advice that design should be simple, cued, segmented, and simultaneously present content. Further to this, content was also personalized and conversational in style of the voice.

having a reflection on the experience; and

This project felt like archaeology (or rather what I think archaeology would feel like). “Oh look, I have worked for hours and look! there is the toe of the archaeopteryx.” I think I wrote, in one of the first reading responses, that with really good LMSs, one doesn’t notice the structure or the design. The focus becomes the content and the purpose for the course. Ironic that it is best represented when it is invisible. However, it can only get there when a crazy amount of work and thought goes into the design. In their research Coates, James and Baldwin (2005) conclude that, although LMS are here to stay, there is still much to be learned about whether they augment and complement, or if they will substitute the methods used to learn (Coates et al. 2005: 33).

The other surprise from this experience is that I want to learn coding. Some of what I wanted to do, or how I wanted the site to look was limited by inexperience. I do not like the guerilla style of learning by scouring through YouTube looking for “three letter word descriptor sentences” because I don’t actually know what that kind of file is called. “What! It can’t be 2 AM.”

having a reflection on the communication and assessment strategies that will be used in the course.

My plan at this point, with regard to communication, is to exploit its asynchronous characteristics through its time-zone flexibility, response-time expansiveness, and that responses from that form tend to reflect higher-order thinking. As far as synchronous communication forms, I hope to fully make use of the nuances of voice, facial expression, body language and their real-time catalyst to creativity. Either way, they happen in community, which, as the authors Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) note, is a “valuable, if not necessary, context for an educational experience if critical thinking is to be facilitated and deep learning is to be an outcome” (Garrison et al. 2000: 91).

My plan at this point, with regard to assessment, is to align the reacquaint myself with the work of Cameron & Gregory, and that of Clarke, Owens, and Sutton. The former focuses on aligning letter grades with learning outcomes; the latter focuses on creating the conditions for independence in learners. We have spent some time on assessment as a district, especially with the new provincial directive toward competencies, taking the emphasis off task and placing it on skill.

As Gibbs & Simpson (2008) have noted, teachers “have to assess everything that moves in order to capture students’ time and energy” (p. 8). However they also write that, “some assignments create appropriate learning activities as a by-­product”, and “some assessment generates unhelpful and inappropriate learning activities” (p. 15). As with other elements of this subject, ensuring the alignment of process to product is crucial.

At first glance, it may seem “easy” to just build a website as the unreferenced quote at the beginning of ETEC 565 Module 2 asserts. However, one doesn’t have to navigate very far forward to recognize that, in order to make an LMS worth anyone’s while, it must be well designed. As well, it takes an incredible amount of work for it to blend in to the background.

Some final thoughts:

I included a hyperlink to Tumblebooks Daily, for potential serendipitous inspiration. All the strategies that will be used and practiced in the course can be done with picture books. What if you need a book and don’t have one, or don’t know what to look for? Service provided, top right corner. Plus, the book gets read out loud for you!! Win-win.

I have set the course to start January 2017. Not for any other reason than it seemed easier to manage (in my mind) the number of weeks for the course duration. The course administrator for ETEC 565 will be able to “read” that, having access to all parts of the course. However, just wanted whoever reads this to know that the absence of Events actually isn’t an absence, but rather a delay. 🙂

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online learning context. In Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/14_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/ (Chapter 8 on SECTIONS framework)

Cameron, C., and Gregory, K. (2014). Rethinking letter grades: a five step approach for aligning letter grades to learning standards (2nd ed). Winnipeg: Portage & Main.

Clarke, P., Owens, T., and Sutton, R. (2006). Creating independent student learners: a practical guide to assessment for learning. Winnipeg: Portage & Main.

Coates, H. James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of Learning Management Systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(1), 19-36. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9

Dixon, J. (2007). Breaking the ice: Supporting collaboration and the development of community online. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32(2). Retrieved February 2016, from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol32.2/dixon.html

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved from http://www.anitacrawley.net/Articles/GarrisonAndersonArcher2000.pdf

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.

McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2013). Essential questions: opening doors to student understanding. Alexandria: ASCD.

 

No commentsAdd a comment

Pros and Cons reflect

Dr. B writes, “I would like you to think about all the aspects of communication that your group members or other groups, if you had the chance to look at their Google docs, came up with, when you design the communication strategies for your course. Think about that first interaction of your students and the possible “icebreaker”. What will keep them engaged? What will make them come back to the communication? What about yourself and your workload? Think about Trinh and the problems she struggled with. Can you predict what could happen in your course and be proactive with your design?”

Reminders that what make work for some may not work for others. The Aspen group mentioned the different experience from Introverts/extroverts for synchronous communication.

Reminder to design backward. What do we want it to look like? Where do we want it to end up? Plan accordingly. Oak group made a point of archiving synchronous sessions. The availability of that type of resource would take some forethought, but would pay huge dividends in terms of creating community.

Reminders from Maple group that both a/synchronous communication have their strengths and drawbacks. Be intentional with design.

No commentsAdd a comment

Week 8 Boris

The scenario regarding Boris seems to be directly built on the following paragraph from Gibbs and Simpson (2005):

“It is a common observation of higher education teachers that if

coursework is taken away from a module due to resource constraints,

students simply do not do the associated studying; for example

students will rarely write unassessed essays. It is argued that you

have to assess everything that moves in order to capture students’

time and energy. However, coursework does not have to be marked

to generate the necessary learning. Forbes & Spence (1991) reported

a study of assessment on an engineering course at Strathclyde

University. When lecturers stopped marking weekly problem sheets

because they were simply too busy, students did indeed stop tackling

the problems, and their exam marks went down as a consequence.

But when lecturers introduced periodic peer-­assessment of the

problem sheets — as a course requirement but without the marks

contributing — students’ exam marks increased dramatically to a level

well above that achieved previously when lecturers did the marking.

What achieved the learning was the quality of student engagement

in learning tasks, not teachers doing lots of marking. The trick

when designing assessment regimes is to generate engagement with

learning tasks without generating piles of marking” (p. 6).

The trick for Boris will be coming up with a peer-assessed periodic review of the periodic table.

Reference

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

No commentsAdd a comment

Reflective post of Rubric page for ePortfolio

Our group was tasked with creating a rubric to evaluate LMSs for BCcampus. Our group spanned 2 provinces and one territory. We completed our task through a shared document in Google. A link to our completed work is here.

The specifics of the scenario we were given were these:

BCcampus is a publicly-funded agency that offers “teaching, learning, and educational technology support“ to the 25 post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and one in the Yukon.  As part of its shared services, BCcampus has been running two LMS platforms; one open-sourced (Moodle) and the other vendor based (D2L) whose contract will expire shortly.  With current restructuring, BCcampus will be losing half of its tech support team in three months, and therefore the possibility of running two separate LMS platforms is no longer an option.  BCcampus will need to decide which LMS they wish to proceed with across the board.  However, as BCcampus is known for its leadership in innovation, they are open to the idea of selecting an entirely new platform. As employees at BCcampus, we have been asked to create an evaluation rubric to help the BCcampus leadership team in the decision making process.  We have designed the rubric to help select a LMS that will fit with the needs, the vision and the mandate of BCcampus: “to connect, collaborate and innovate“. The selection process must also recognize the LMS’ ability to conform and adapt to the geographically and culturally diverse needs of BCcampus’ partner institutions and the thousands of post-secondary students across the country.

The detailed rubric we developed looks like this:

Criteria Fair Good Excellent
1. Access
LMS system requirements (compatible with the current system and adaptive to future changes). The LMS requires considerable system upgrades to integrate with the current BCcampus system. The LMS requires minor system upgrades to be compatible with the current BCcampus system. The LMS is fully compatible with the current system used by the BCcampus.
Devices. The LMS can be accessed with limited functionality on mobile phones and tablets. Certain features of the LMS may not be accessed on mobiles phones and tablets. The LMS can be fully accessed using a full range of devices including:  mobile phones, tablets, and desktop computers.
System requirements. The LMS is designed to be used with a particular browser, or requires plugins, or special browser configurations. The LMS supports the use of more than one browser. May require a downloadable app to run LMS on mobile and other devices. The LMS runs optimally on Windows Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, and Mozilla Firefox and requires no special set-up requirements.
2. Support
Support available for the interconnectedness of all partner institutions. Training/ support is only available for a time limited period after the LMS is initially set up. Online resources are limited. Training/ support is available by phone only during specific hours of the week. There are some online resources. Training/ support is available whenever the user has need. Online support is accessible 24/7.
Training and maintenance support for educators. IT support is available during regular office hours by email or phone. IT support is available by email or phone. IT support is available 24/7 by email, phone, or live chat.
IT support for students. Student can access IT support by email only; response will be only during office hours. Students can access IT support by email or live chat during office hours. Student can access IT support 24/7 by email or live chat.
3. Functionality
Provides a well thought out interface for all users of the LMS. The LMS is relatively easy to use. The LMS is easy to use and possesses some intuitive features. The LMS has superior scope and sequence and exceptional insight into the needs of the users.
Layers of privacy and security that accommodate various applications (medical, legal, personal). LMS provides adequate security for many of the applications. LMS provides adequate security for most of the applications. LMS provides excellent security for all the applications.
LMS innovations adapt and keep pace with future learners. Limited design options. May require customized work by vendor, provider or open source LMS specialist. Some “themes” available to change look and structure of user interface. LMS interface look and feel can be customized by local administrators. The structure and organization is intuitive, and adaptable to fit needs.
4. Cost
Initiation/migration costs (set-up, implementation, staff training). Implementation costs are above budget. Costs are in-line with last year’s budget forecasts. Costs are well under budget.
LMS maintenance (server back-ups, updates, course back-ups, course edits, archiving, staffing). Regular maintenance will require more financial resources. Regular maintenance costs are the same. Regular maintenance costs are reduced.
Potential future costs (next 4-5 years). No or limited stability in cost. Possibility of increases within 4-5 years. Cost is stable for the stated time frame. No foreseeable cost increases in the future.
5. Customization
LMS is adaptable to changes in technology and user driven initiatives. The LMS is adequate in its current services. The LMS has features that are progressive, but many of those changes were the result of user suggestions. The LMS is structurally agile and responsive to changes in user needs and developments in technology.
Communication modalities. The LMS has limited integration of new technology into their services; tools such as social media are not capitalized on. The LMS has integrated new tools and technology, such as social media, yet it does not enhance the user’s experience. The LMS has successfully and seamlessly integrated new tools and technology, such as social media, that enhances the user’s experience.
Ability to customize learning paths (documentation, archiving, formative assessment). The LMS has some features, but is limited in scope. The LMS has features that blend what they can offer with what can be inserted or included by other providers. The LMS reflects in ways that are superior and extensive how information is actually interacted with by the user.
6. Organizational Requirements
A/synchronous communication mediums that facilitate interactions between:
1) instructor – student
2) student – student
3) student – resources		 The LMS has basic offerings that facilitate simple communication avenues. The LMS has a variety of formats for facilitating student interactions. LMS design enables easy and effective communication options all interaction types.
Cognitive design. The spatial and segmented cues of the LMS are adequate. The LMS has features that pre-load the user prior to more detailed training. The design elements of the LMS are effective so that learners are focused on the learning content rather than the medium.
Systemic alignment of LMS with BCcampus and its affiliates. The LMS fits well with the current mandate of BCcampus.  The LMS requires some minor adjustments. The LMS fits very well with the current mandate of BCcampus.  The LMS requires few minor adjustments. The LMS fits perfectly with the current mandate of the BCcampus. No additional adjustments are required.

 

The reasoned articulation of our choices are in this researched-supported rationale:

Our LMS evaluation rubric is based on elements of the Bates SECTIONS model as well as Chickering and Ehrmann’s seven principles of good practice. As Coates points out, “decisions about university teaching and learning should not be restricted to checklist evaluations of technical and organizational factors” (2005). With that in mind, we did not limit our rubric to standard evaluation criteria, rather we designed the rubric around the specific needs of BCcampus; developing six high-level criteria encompassing the primary concerns of the agency: Access, Support, Functionality, Cost, Customization, and Organizational Requirements.

With 25 affiliates, the importance of versatility without restrictions is paramount. A system that can be accessed by every institution, device and end user, without compromise to functionality, will keep BCcampus at the forefront of innovation. Further, the BCcampus IT support will be reduced in three months making system compatibility an important requirement.

Secondly, it is important that the selected LMS provides support to all users. IT support must be available for BCcampus, the institutions, and the individual users, as these stakeholders might require different assistance at various times. If teachers and learners are not well supported then there is a high risk that the LMS may not be used at all (Bates, 2014).

The functionality of the LMS is an integral criteria for BCcampus to maintain their leadership in innovation by empowering the current and future learners through intuitive user interfaces.  Furthermore, the functionality should not compromise the security and privacy of its users in order for open discussions to occur without consequences (Bates, 2014).

BCcampus uses an innovative collaborative model that allows various post-secondary institutions to share resources and costs (BCcampus, 2013). Participating institutions can access the resources and technologies they would not be able to individually. BCcampus must have information about the initial implementation, and future LMS maintenance costs in order to budget effectively. This in turn, will affect the participating institutions and their budgeting.

As Spiro mentioned, students are increasingly taking charge of their own learning; gone are the days of one-size-fits-all courses (2014). This mentality calls for a LMS platform that is customizable – allowing students and teachers alike, the opportunity to curate their own learning path. Further, BCcampus is looking for a long term LMS, meaning it has to be adaptable and able to integrate with new technologies in order to meet the needs of its diverse student population.

Lastly, BCcampus provides a leading-edge collaborative interface.  As such, the LMS it uses must have strong cognitive design in its structural components, align with the mandates of its partners, and provide exceptional modalities for communication. We understand this will not be the only tool an evaluation team uses, but believe that the six areas covered will provide a well-rounded summary to the committee.

We used this relevant literature to support our decisions:

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/ (Chapter 8 on SECTIONS framework)

BCcampus. (September 2013). Annual Report 2012-2013, Strategic Plan 2013-2016,  Retrieved from: http://bccampus.ca/files/2013/10/2013-ar-stratplan.pdf

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 fromhttp://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of Learning Management Systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11,(1), 19-36. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9

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

My reflection upon your experience completing this assignment

The learning objectives for this module were centred on understanding the role of delivery platforms, and to think about the challenges and opportunities that come with those platforms. Our group work, toward these ends, afforded me a unique learning experience.

My first realization was that evaluative work, such as creating a rubric to select an LMS interface for BCcampus, cannot be a one-person task. The sheer enormity of facets to be aware of needs to be tackled by a team. That team needs be one that have members who know their facts, the implication of those facts, and be thorough.

My second realization was two-part. I did not know/understand what LMS are/were. And further to that, it was a stretch to comprehend the ubiquitous role they play. To add to what I wrote in the first point, many and varied are the things that the LMS interface must provide and perform, and many more are the things that we still wished they could do. The best ones seem to be “invisibly there.’

My third and final realization for this purpose, is that the work that goes on “behind the scenes” often goes under-appreciated by those that use these systems. We know when we don’t like something (how it looks, how it functions, getting help), but sadly it is rare to acknowledge all of the thinking and planning and coding and envisioning and testing and modifying and . . . that several layers of hard work that have resulted in what we see before us.

Keri

No commentsAdd a comment

Not “me” trained

I am writing this blog post only because I am under the impression that I must blog for my current course. For the record I have created 5 different blogs under different hosts, and while I enjoyed the process of figuring out the interface, all of them are taking up dormant storage space somewhere.

It’s just that I hate blogging.

I am a librarian. My entire existence is figuring out what “you” need and helping “you” get there. I spend my days, my money,  and my energies on the hunt for things that other people are interested in. I work fast, hard, and pretty-much solo.

Wikipedia defines a blog as a, “running account of one’s personal life”. Spending time typing the chronicled details of the days chase seems, “meh.”

HOWEVER, if we interpret something like Twitter or Instagram, as a blog/microblog, then I could see how blogging could be more than mundane.  The subject matter/interest group is focused and intentional. Communication is succinct, and content rife with serendipitous potential. Interesting how making it more “snap-chat” and less epic/Homer, makes it more engaging.

Blog definition taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog on Valentine’s Day, 2016.

No commentsAdd a comment