Erin’s Educational Technology Journey

LMS Final Reflection

My final reflection on building an LMS is difficult to write because I consider my MOODLE LMS a project that can continuously be improved on. I want to integrate more applications and master more of the MOODLE environment, but the end of ETEC 565 has come. Reflecting on this, I feel creating a mock-MOODLE under a deadline has made me more aware of the time and scheduling demands that professional course designers must face.

Generally, I’ve discovered that designing an LMS is a time consuming process which requires a great deal of research, reflection and a strong understanding of educational design. In addition, I feel the process of creating an LMS is greatly improved by the application of frameworks for selecting and assessing learning technologies. The National Educational Technology Standards and Performance Indicators for Teachers (NETS, 2008), Chickering and Ehrmann’s (1996)  Implementing the 7 Principles, Bates & Pools’ (2003) SECTIONS framework and Anderson’s (2008) Toward a Theory of Online Learning greatly influenced my design process. In addition to these academic publications, I also feel participating in a collaborative learning community focused on LMS design was the key to my success.  My ETEC 565 peers helped me understand the finer points of MOODLE, how to improve my course design and how to overcome difficulties I encountered.

My MOODLE LMS was the very first LMS I’ve ever attempted to design. At the beginning of this assignment, I put on a brave front, entered ETEC 565 forums, used Instant Messaging and scoured the Internet for MOODLE help. I’ve visited MOODLEs completed by my ETEC peers and have been greatly impressed and a little intimidated. My MOODLE is not going to win any design awards, but I feel like it is a massive accomplishment. Thirteen weeks ago simply entering a MOODLE site was new to me, let alone designing one! Again, I would not have this sense of accomplishment without the support of the ETEC community and ETEC 565.

The MOODLE components that I had to include based on the assignment outline were challenging to complete at first. I spent a great deal of time reseraching communication tools and learning how to create a quiz. I invested in Mary Cooch’s  (2009) Moodle 1.9 for Teaching 7-14 Year Olds after learning about it from a 565 classmate. After participating in forums, practicing in the MOODLE environment and reading up on MOODLE applications, my anxiety levels dropped. I admit that I never mastered one task assigned: Programming a module for selective release. It is my understanding that MOODLE does not support this as well as Vista, but I can selectively release other applications or use the “hide” function to save displaying modules to students at a later date.

Considering all that I’ve learned in ETEC 565 during my LMS development, I cannot believe how far I’ve come. My LMS design activity has made me more aware of multimedia, integration, frameworks for selecting technolgies and educational design skills. Applying NETS (2008), I feel I have designed a digital learning experience for my students, modelled digital age learning and engaged in professional growth. I have also made every effort to increase Anderson’s (2008) student-teacher, student-student and student-content interactions in my LMS by including resource links, collaborative activities and a variety of communication tools.

 By designing for interactions, I have satisfied the principles of encouraging contact between students and faculty, developing reciprocity and cooperation between students, providing prompt feedback (forums, programmed feedback, e-mail) and respecting diverse ways of learning (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). Finally, Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS model has guided my overall design especially the “Students” component. I believe the applications I’ve selected to enhance my LMS environment are appropriate for grade 4 (ages 9-10) students and appropriate for English Language Learners (ELL). I feel my MOODLE environment is suitable for ELL students because it incorporates resource links, group work and various communication tools in a collaborative environment.

As my final reflection, I must state that I am far from being a “MOODLE Master”. However, my confidence has greatly improved and I have already co-designed a second MOODLE outsite of ETEC 565! In addition, my teaching position in September includes LMS design, and I feel very prepared after completing this assignment. I would like to improve on the areas of Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), assessment strategies and in creating integrative multimedia projects for students within a MOODLE course. Although I have a long way to go, I feel confident and encouraged to apply my LMS design skills and to encourage other teaching professional to learn more about LMS design.

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning.  In: Anderson, T. & Ellioumi, F. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University. Accessed online 15, July, 2009, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch2.html

Bates A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). A Frameword for Selecting and Using Technology. In A.W. Bates & G. Poole, Effective teaching with Technology in Higher Educaiton (pp. 75-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7.  Available online 10, July, 2009, from http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

Cooch, M. (2009). Moodle 1.9 for Teaching 7-14 Year Olds. Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing

National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. (2008). Accessed online 9, July, 2009, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2008.htm

LMS Reflection: Moodle Splash Page and Object Orientation

Moodle has been a sharp learning curve. I am especially grateful for the online community and the MET community which offers support and tips. I realized through a MET colleague that my Splash page was not exactly a Splash page. I thought a Splash page was a welcome page, having never designed an LMS course before. Although I had great feedback in MET forums considering what it should be, I didn’t imagine it correctly until I saw the Splash page of another MET  member.

I quickly learned to edit Topic 0, decide on the main components of my course, upload images, insert a table and create a Splash page that welcomed students. The most difficult part was imagining which aspects of the course should be on the page. I decided to base my objects on my previous MET experience. My experience helped me decide which objects are essential on a Splash page and which are just taking up precious space. It is important to maintain the “less is more” principle with a new course. Too much information and too many links may frustrate and confuse students. I tried to avoid that by creating a “welcome” message, which is listed after the Splash.

It took a great deal of time to consider how the course will be organized and how the objects will be used in the different modules. The mechanics of uploading the images and creating the links was not difficult, and took about one hour. I used images available from the open source site Wikimedia Commons.  I considered my Splash page from the perspective of a student creating a first impression of the course. The SECTIONS model  guided my decisions, and “ease of use” is currently my first priority. As I progress with my LMS, “teaching and learning” will guide my design decisions.

For members of the MET community, my Moodle (work in progress) can be found here. Please provide any feedback on my Splash page and feel free to ask me questions. You must login with your own Moodle account information as my LMS is not set for guest access.

http://moodle.met.ubc.ca/course/category.php?id=5

 

LMS Selection Assignment and Reflection

Project Objectives

·         Goal:initiate e-learning program in upper elementary (grades 4-6; population=45) by developing functioning blended delivery classroom opportunities through use of the open source Moodle learning management system (LMS) within two years.

·         Objectives within goal: overall pedagogical gains for the English language learning (ELL) program due to increased exposure to English use. This may attract new students and increase student enrolment levels resulting in capital gain within five years.

·         Strategy: Develop sustainable blended learning delivery opportunities (face to face with e-learning) through an open source learning management system (LMS).

Moodle is an open source LMS, software used to plan, deliver, and manage learning in a school, which includes an online virtual classroom and courses led by the instructor (Learning management, n.d.; Moodle, n.d.).  To project objectives, it is proposed that Moodle be installed as the schools LMS. Current instructional technology (IT) support staff can liaise with teachers to ensure enrolment procedures and space allocations are functional. IT must transfer current class website data and student/teacher information to Moodle. Initial professional development must focus on IT training and teacher training. A project management approach is suggested to decide on key areas of investment, resource allocation, identify existing technology support and to ensure the focus remains the English learning environment (Bates, 2000). 

Selection of Moodle

Traditionally licensed LMS systems can be extremely costly, with WebCT costing into the hundreds of thousands (Wagstaff, 2009). The goal is not focused on economic gain, and our school would not see a return on investment if a licensed LMS was purchased. Cost, Teaching and Learning and Ease of Use are three major areas of Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS model that support a decision to implement Moodle. Moodle is open source under the GNU Public licensing, meaning it is free to use, adapt and modify to suit our needs (Moodle License, n.d). I explored a demo Moodle and found its interface and icons very novice/ELL friendly.

The open source LMS of Moodle, Clairoline and Sakai were compared using Edutools, The Business Readiness Rating™  (although still in its request for comments stage)  and a needs-based rubric (Bronk, Del Mundo, Gillespie, Jung & Wood., 2009; Ronsen, n.d.). The key elements analysed include student record management, tools for assessment, communications tools, costs, system requirements, ease of use, security and constructive teaching/learning opportunities. Moodle most clearly suited the needs of this project by having the strongest security, online support systems and communities, a variety of tools suitable for beginners and a user-friendly intuitive interface.

Intended Outcomes

The intended outcomes are based on Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS model and implications of Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996) principles of good teaching practices in undergraduate education. In addition, the International Bacclaureate’s Primary Years Program (2009) curriculum is considered. It is proposed that within 1-2 years of Moodle adoption:

1.      Teachers will teach English material using a constructivist approach and gain technological skills to meet the needs of the Tapscott’s (2004) Net Generation. Teachers do not become novices online but they need time to adapt to technology supported learning (Kelly, 2007).

2.      English language learners will engage in inquiry-based learning opportunities in a meaningful way and gain technological skills that can transfer to areas outside of the classroom. (International Baccalaureate, 2002).

3.      The school will offer varied learning opportunities for students while fostering a sense of community. The school will remain competitive in the private elementary sector through the use of innovative and modern approaches to educational technology and ELL.

4.      Technical requirements and training will be sustainable for three to five years. Moodle will be implemented in grades 4, 5 and 6 and will be sustained through staff training, current levels of IT staffing and the creation of a Moodle fund.

5.      The creation of a modest LMS fund to secure the sustainability of Moodle for 3-5 years.

 

Rationale

The timeline is supported by Bates (2000) project management approach directed for long term technological change. Objectives 1-3 are supported by research on English language learning and technology integration. Social software, like wikis available through Moodle,enable students to generate knowledge in a shared and openly collaborative space (Wheeler, Yeomans & Wheeler, 2008). Wu (2005; 2006) and Cummings (2004) argue English language students benefit from the innovative incorporation of technology in the classroom. It has been argued that the artificial constructs of interaction in an LMS limit discovery and constructivist learning (Siemens, 2004).  However, Moodle supports constructivist modular growth through its various applications (Chavan & Pavri,2004).

Objectives four and five require minimum technical requirements at start-up. Moodle can run on the school’s server due to its Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP platform (Chavan & Pavri, 2004). Hardware includes approximately 400 MB-1GB of free disc space for installation and course materials, which is currently available. It is requested that the school consider the purchase of a back-up server as teachers develop more content. This would cost approximately $1200-$2000 (CDN) from licensed suppliers. NetSpot is a Moodle Partner in Hong Kong for outsourced support. Sustainability may require contracting NetSpot in the future if student numbers increase. Considering IT support, in-house staff training and server maintenance, a budget of approximately $5,000 (CDN) is requested for the first year of development.

Reflection (Note: This is not part of the assignment. Scroll down for references from above post).

I found it very difficult to create a proposal for two major reasons:

1. I have never worked in an environment using an LMS
2. I am currently not working

These two points meant that I had to research LMS selection without working knowledge of the cost of major LMS systems. However, I did find a variety of prices based on university costs in several blogs, links and a few documents. I noted that WebCT seems to increase in price every year, and some institutions (New Mexico State University for one) have paid upwards of $600,000. I will begin work at a private IB elementary school in September, and I’ve already been told that they would consider an OS LMS if enough teachers were interested. I prepared this proposal based on past teaching experience, my September working environment and a visit to a Hong Kong school that does use Moodle. The head of the elementary division’s computer department showed me the school’s Moodle from the administrative side. He said the only capital investment was a back-up sever, which I tried to incorporate into my proposal. The school has 15 courses on their Moodle, an excellent IT support staff and computer teachers who have degrees in programming and media design. Most importantly, the school is dedicated to a cultural change toward e-learning and blended delivery. An ideal setting for the growth of e-learning, in my opinion!

This activity forced me to view two completely different approaches to selecting an OS LMS: from the perspective of a school with funding and from the perspective of little funding. Both perspectives informed my proposal and made my LMS understanding much more comprehensive.  (End of Reflection)

References

Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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.

Bronk, R., Del Mundo, M., Gillespie, E.,  Jung, C.,  & S., Wood, (2009). Delivery platform evaluation rubric.

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 May 10, 2009, from http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

Chavan, A., & Pavri, S. (2004). Open source learning management with moodle. Linux Journal. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7478

Cummings, M. C. (2004). “Because we are shy and fear mistaking”: Computer mediated communication with EFL writers. Journal of Basic Writing, 23(2), 23-43. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ684124).

EduTools. Product comparison. Available May 25, 2009, from http://www.edutools.info/compare.jsp?pj=4&i=599,560,616

International Baccalaureate. (2009). Who we are. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from http://www.ibo.org/general/who.cfm

International Baccalaureate Organization. (2002). A basis for practice: the primary years programme. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from http://www.ibo.org/pyp/documents/basis_pyp_000.pdf

Kelly, O. (2007). Moving to blended delivery in a polytechnic: Shifting the mindset of faculty and institutions. In M. Bullen and D.P. Janes (Eds.), Making the Transition to E-Learning: Strategies and Issues (pp. 33-46). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

Learning Management System. Wikipedia. Available on June 3, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_management_system

Moodle About (n.d.). What is moodle? Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://moodle.org/about/

Moodle License (n.d.). Copyright license for moodle. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://docs.moodle.org/en/License

Ronson, Z. (n.d.). Digging into openbrr of moodle and sakai. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://www.zacker.org/sakai-project-vs-moodle

Siemens, G. (2004). Learning management systems: The wrong place to start learning. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/lms.htm

The Business Readiness Reading (n.d.). Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.openbrr.org/wiki/index.php/Home

Wagstaff, C. (2009). WebCT software rising in cost. The Loquitur: Cabrini College. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from http://media.www.theloquitur.com/media/storage/paper226/news/2002/04/11/News/Webct.Software.Rising.In.Cost-233894.shtml

 

  Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating

student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. 39 (6), 987-995. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00799.x

Wu, W. S. (2005). Using blogs in an EFL writing class. Proceedings of 2005 International

            Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, Taiwan, 426-432. Retrieved

            from http://www.chu.edu.tw/~wswu/publications/papers/conferences/05.pdf

Wu, W. S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, 3, 125-139.     Retrieved from http://www.chu.edu.tw/~wswu/publications/papers/journals/04.pdf

 

LMS Rubric Assignment  and Reflection

In a group assignment, we were asked to design a rubric to select an LMS. Our group worked really well together, and we discussed the key parts of the rubric in a forum within 565. To design the rubric, we met using the Wimba live chat, and we all opened the rubric with Google docs. As we discussed various parts of our rubric, we co-edited and sharpened our focus. In the end we were all satisfied with the way our rubric incorporated our scenario and our individual research on the topic. We used Bates & Pooles (2003) SECTIONS to help frame our critique of the situation.

Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric (K-12) 

Group 5(Rachel Bronk, Marjorie Del Mundo, Erin Gillespie, Cathy Jung, Sarah Wood)

 

 

Scenario #5

You are Social Studies (“Socials”) teachers at Vancouver’s Little Flower Academy. One of your colleagues (Mrs. McGillivray) has been using a web page to distribute materials. A number of parents are unimpressed with how she’s doing it: they’re concerned about privacy and don’t think the design of the pages is very professional. To be fair, Mrs. McGillivray has been arguing that the school needs to adopt a “proper” LMS for these sorts of things.

 

STEP 1 – Objectives

 

LMS will:

·                have privacy protection.

·                have a professional appearance.

·                have video, audio and communication capabilities.

·                be available to purchase for a “small group” (LFA) fee if purchasing is necessary.

·                have support structures that are oriented for individuals not necessarily working with face to face IT support.

·                ease of use with regards to posting and retrieving materials for both site creator and users.

 

STEP 2 – Rubric

 

	Ideal (3)	Acceptable (2)	Unacceptable (1)
Privacy/Access Options	– username and password protection. – access must be granted by teacher/admin.	– username and password protection but anonymous can request guest access.	– open access.
Aesthetics	– graphics and customizable templates are provided. – site has an organized and logical appearance. – several options for appearance template that look professional and easy on the eyes.	– limited number of graphics and customizable templates are provided.	– cluttered, disorganized, lack of graphics, limited number of pages. – banner ads running.
System Requirements / Compatibility with existing technology	-Meets all system requirements (i.e., supports video, audio, asynchronous and synchronous discussion)	– Meets most system requirements, can play audio and video.	-Does not function with minimum system requirements.
Communication Capabilities	– discussion forum, e-mail, assignment dropbox, audio chat, instant messaging	– discussion forum, email	– no communication options available.
Cost	– Free (open source).	– $5 or less per enrolled student.	– More than $5 per enrolled student.
Tech Support	-Available 24-7 online for teacher/student. -Online support for those who are new to format, not professionals. -F2F on site through IT support staff. -self-directed support also available.	-Available online in one resource location. -Online tutorials and self-directed support is available. -No face-to-face IT support.	– Online support aimed at IT professionals. – F2F support at a high cost (IT staffing). – membership required for support pages.
Ease of use & efficiency for the site creator	– Site is intuitive and provides a template as a starting off point. – Creator can customize the site as required. – Creator can easily upload and create material. – video, image and other files upload quickly.	– Site is structured and allows for some customization. – Creator is able to upload and create material.  – video, image and other files upload relatively quickly.	– Site is rigid and does not allow for customization. – Creator has difficulty adding content to the site. – video, image and other files take too long to upload.
Ease of use (students/ parents)	– Site is intuitive and users can easily retrieve and post required information.	– With some effort, users are able to retrieve and post information.	– Where the heck is everything?

 

 

STEP 3 – One paragraph articulation of why you included what you included, citing relevant literature.

 

Little Flower Academy (LFA) is an independent, all-girls Catholic high school in Vancouver consisting of approximately 460 students (LFABC, 2009). In creating our rubric, we relied heavily upon the Bates and Poole (2003) article, A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology, which outlined the SECTIONS framework. Each of the categories we have included in the rubric has a direct link to SECTIONS framework and relates to the potential needs of LFA. In this rubric, we considered essential issues for implementation of the Learning Management System (LMS) such as costs, technology, interactivity, ease of use for teachers, learners and parents, “look and feel”, administration, and functionality. For LFA, a professional looking site is desired but in the case of a LMS, professional does not necessarily go hand in hand with high cost. To ensure the needs of parents and students are met, technological support is also a considerable factor in deciding on a LMS. While LFA does not have a strong educational technology tradition, other teachers may want to buy into the LMS (not just Mrs. McGillivray) and therefore the issues of cost and support may change. We feel that by using SECTIONS as our guiding framework, we have also managed to meet the standards for educational technology outlined in the International Society for Technology in Education’s National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (2008).

 

Reference List

 

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.

 

Little Flower Academy. (n.d.). “About > School Profile”. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from http://www.lfabc.org/pageMain.php?navigate=abouSchoolProfile

The International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National educational technology standards and performance indicators for teachers. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2008.htm

 

 

 

 Module 2 Unit 2 Disussion Topic Part 1: Deciding on an LMS

I was asked to decide between the OS LMS of Moodle or the WebCT/Vista  LMS for Benoît, a teacher who had to decide on an LMS with limited IT support at his institution for WebCT/Vista, but with WebCT/Vista working knowledge. However, he is aware of the support available online for Moodle. This is my analysis of the case.

Benoît should create a strategic plan (Bates, 2000) for the online version of his writing class and do a preliminary assessment using Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS framework. His biggest questions should be: who will learn with this LMS and how will they learn?

 For this reason, the “S”tudents in the SECTIONS framework is the heart of my big question: What are students’ needs and which LMS platform most appropriately meets these needs? This question sets the political issues aside and gives Benoît a point-of-reference for comparison. Benoît should create a strategic plan from the perspective of meeting student needs as he considers both LMS approaches.

A strategic plan involves a mission, environmental scan, vision, objectives-goals, strategies and way of monitoring the plan (Bates, 2000). The mission seems to be the creation of an online version of Business Writing for the English department to improve student learning and participation. Benoît’s environmental scan assesses the current reality at the institution (Bates, 2000):

·        Research-intensive university providing university-wide IT support for WebCT/Vista that is difficult to access and slow to respond. My students may be frustrated; most have moderate IT skills, not advanced understanding.

·        Growing number of faculty do not rely on IT support and set up their courses from scratch. Are my students comfortable with this? They expect an excellent university experience; can I provide that with 5 hours prep-time/week?

·        Unknown budget for Benoît’s course, but university’s LMS is WebCT/Vista and at no cost to course designers.  What is the cost in lost learning time? If students can’t access the applications, they can’t learn. Moodle help is available to them online, providing support I haven’t mastered yet. My student needs (for IT-support) may be met.

Benoît should envision how he will use his online course (for each LMS) to improve the learning and teaching experience for his students.  A vision of his course requires concrete descriptions of what his course will look like: which applications, which tools, what resources…etc. Will students use all of the available applications/LMS? Are they necessary? His objectives and goals should be long term, over 3-5 years, and should be observable achievements: increased enrolment, greater incorporation of ed-tech in business writing leading to more learning opportunities, increased course flexibility for working students and for parents. How will my students’ needs change over time? Will their needs change my teaching methods?At this point, I believe Benoît would be able to identify one LMS as being a better match for his course than the other. 

References

Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass

 

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.

 

 

TELR Module 2 Unit 2 Discussion Topic Part 2:Planning a Course

The situtation called for deciding on the amount of prep-time an instructor (Benoit) would need to develop a course using an LMS and deciding between Moodle (OS) and WebCT/Vista.  I reasoned that assuming the length of Benoît’s course is 12-weeks, with one module per week, he will need 3 ½ months to prepare it, approximately 13 weeks: