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.