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. Thanks Sean!
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 below. 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
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 projectobjectives, 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). Thegoal 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 LMSof Moodle, Clairoline and Sakaiwere 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 Baccalaureate’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 Bacclaureate, 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 1-3are 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, Moodlesupports 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.
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
Bates,
Moodle Reflection:
Well, during the first week of Module 2, I have learned a great deal about LMS! I had never even heard of Claroline, and my WebCT knowledge was limited to my adventures in MET. Moodle, although I have heard of it, is an LMS I have only worked with once before, in ETEC 512. I completed a group assignment using Moodle, but I must admit that I had no idea how to manage Moodle! I would e-mail my work as an attachment to group members and they would upload it to Moodle.
Now, consider this week: Choose your own LMS space and complete the Activities
Initially, I felt very concerned and, I admit, a little scared. I e-mail John Egan three times trying to clear up the Vista/Moodle decision. I quickly learned we just had to use ONE (whew!) and that a password would be sent to me shortly. After I received my password, I followed the Moodle activity in the 565 toolkit and was on my way.
The activity was nicely described. It was worded clearly, and I could follow the instructions well. I only had to skip one step, and that was a section on grading responses/replies to the discussion posts. I couldn’t select that option because the Moodle did not open the option for me. Oh well. Generally speaking, I feel more confident that I can complete the Moodle assignment because my first Moodle attempt went very well. I felt great when I completed the tasks. I also noted the “extra help” links and I’ve used some already. Between completing the activity and visiting help sites online, I think I’ve spent about 5 or 6 hours this week learning about Moodle. I have so much more to learn!!!!
By the way, I came across a great resource for beginners like myself. A teacher has posted 2-minute moodle instructions for other teachers. You can visit it here: http://human.edublogs.org/moodle-tutorials-2-minute-moodles/ It helped me get a better understanding of the “overall” Moodle design. Erin
