{"id":8,"date":"2009-05-15T02:34:58","date_gmt":"2009-05-15T10:34:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/?page_id=8"},"modified":"2009-07-28T09:44:26","modified_gmt":"2009-07-28T17:44:26","slug":"lms","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/lms\/","title":{"rendered":"LMS"},"content":{"rendered":"

LMS Final Reflection<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u00a0integrate 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\u00a0has made me more aware of the time and scheduling demands that professional course designers must face.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0of educational design. In addition,\u00a0I feel the process of creating an LMS\u00a0is greatly improved by the application of frameworks\u00a0for selecting and assessing learning technologies. The National Educational Technology Standards and Performance Indicators for Teachers (NETS, 2008), Chickering and Ehrmann’s (1996)\u00a0 Implementing the 7 Principles, <\/em>Bates & Pools’ (2003)\u00a0SECTIONS framework\u00a0and Anderson’s (2008)\u00a0Toward a Theory of Online Learning<\/em>\u00a0greatly influenced my design process.\u00a0In addition to these academic publications, I also feel participating in a collaborative\u00a0learning community focused on LMS design was the key to\u00a0my success.\u00a0\u00a0My ETEC 565 peers helped me understand the finer points of MOODLE, how to improve my course design and how to overcome difficulties I encountered.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0 (2009) Moodle 1.9 for Teaching 7-14 Year Olds <\/em>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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u00a0By designing for interactions, I have satisfied the principles of encouraging contact between students and faculty, developing reciprocity and cooperation\u00a0between 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\u00a0“Students” component. I\u00a0believe 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.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0and 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\u00a0to learn more about LMS design.<\/p>\n

References<\/p>\n

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning.\u00a0 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<\/a><\/p>\n

Bates A. W. & Poole, G. (2003).\u00a0A 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. <\/span><\/p>\n

Chickering, A.W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association\u00a0for Higher Education Bulletin, 39<\/em> (7), 3-7.\u00a0\u00a0Available online 10, July, 2009, from http:\/\/www.aahea.org\/bulletins\/articles\/sevenprinciples.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

Cooch, M. (2009). Moodle 1.9 for Teaching 7-14 Year Olds. <\/em>Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing<\/p>\n

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<\/a><\/p>\n

LMS Reflection: Moodle Splash Page and Object Orientation<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u00a0 member.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0maintain 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.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0images and creating the links was not difficult, and took about one hour. I used images available from\u00a0the open source site Wikimedia Commons. \u00a0I\u00a0considered my Splash\u00a0page from the perspective of a student creating a first impression of the course. The SECTIONS model\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

For members of the MET community, my Moodle (work in progress) can be found here. Please provide any feedback on\u00a0my Splash page\u00a0and feel free to ask me questions. You must login with your own\u00a0Moodle account information\u00a0as my LMS is not set for guest access.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/moodle.met.ubc.ca\/course\/category.php?id=5<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

LMS Selection Assignment and Reflection<\/strong><\/p>\n

Project Objectives<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span>Goal:<\/span>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.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span>Objectives within goal<\/span>: 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span>Strategy: <\/span>Develop sustainable blended learning delivery opportunities (face to face with e-learning) through an open source learning management system (LMS). <\/span><\/p>\n

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.). <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>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).\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Selection of Moodle<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s (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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The open source LMS of Moodle, Clairoline and Sakai were compared using Edutools, The Business Readiness Rating\u2122\u00a0 <\/span>(although still in its request for comments <\/em>stage) \u00a0<\/span>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. <\/span><\/p>\n

Intended Outcomes<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The intended outcomes are based on Bates & Poole\u2019s (2003) SECTIONS model and implications of Chickering & Ehrmann\u2019s (1996) principles of good teaching practices in undergraduate education. In addition, the International Bacclaureate\u2019s Primary Years Program (2009) curriculum is considered. It is proposed that within 1-2 years of Moodle adoption:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>Teachers will teach English material using a constructivist approach and gain technological skills to meet the needs of <\/span>the Tapscott\u2019s (2004) Net Generation. T<\/span>eachers do not become novices online but they need time to adapt to technology supported learning (Kelly, 2007).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>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).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>The creation of a modest LMS fund to secure the sustainability of Moodle for 3-5 years.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Rationale<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

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,<\/span>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). \u00a0<\/span>However, Moodle supports constructivist modular growth through its various applications (Chavan & Pavri,2004). <\/span><\/p>\n

Objectives four and five require minimum technical requirements at start-up. Moodle can run on the school\u2019s 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. <\/span><\/p>\n

Reflection <\/strong>(Note: This is not part of the assignment. Scroll down for references from above post).<\/span><\/p>\n

I found it very difficult to create a proposal for two major reasons: <\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
    I have never worked in an environment using an LMS<\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n
    I am currently not working<\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    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\u00a0for 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\u00a0and 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\u00a0Moodle 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! <\/span><\/p>\n

    This\u00a0activity 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.\u00a0\u00a0(End of Reflection)<\/span><\/p>\n

    References<\/span><\/p>\n

    Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders<\/em>. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. <\/span><\/p>\n

    Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: a Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success.<\/em>(pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Bronk, R., Del Mundo, M., Gillespie, E.,\u00a0 <\/span>Jung, C.,\u00a0 <\/span>& S., Wood, (2009). Delivery platform evaluation rubric. <\/span><\/p>\n

    Chickering, A. W. & Ehrmann. S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49<\/em>(2), 3-6. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http:\/\/www.aahea.org\/bulletins\/articles\/sevenprinciples.htm<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    Cummings, M. C. (2004). \u201cBecause we are shy and fear mistaking\u201d: Computer mediated communication with EFL writers<\/em>. Journal of Basic Writing, 23(2), 23-43. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ684124).<\/span><\/p>\n

    EduTools. Product comparison. Available May 25, 2009, from <\/span>http:\/\/www.edutools.info\/compare.jsp?pj=4&i=599,560,616<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    International Baccalaureate. (2009). Who we are. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from <\/span>http:\/\/www.ibo.org\/general\/who.cfm<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

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

    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<\/em> (pp. 33-46). Hershey: Information Science Publishing. <\/span><\/p>\n

    Learning Management System. Wikipedia<\/em>. Available on June 3, 2009, from <\/span>http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Learning_management_system<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    Moodle About (n.d.). What is moodle? Retrieved June 2, 2009, from <\/span>http:\/\/moodle.org\/about\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    Moodle License (n.d.). Copyright license for moodle. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from <\/span>http:\/\/docs.moodle.org\/en\/License<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

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

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

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

    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<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    Wu, W. S. (2005). Using blogs in an EFL writing class. Proceedings of 2005 International<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics<\/span><\/em>, Taiwan, 426-432. Retrieved<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>from http:\/\/www.chu.edu.tw\/~wswu\/publications\/papers\/conferences\/05.pdf<\/span><\/p>\n

    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<\/em>, 125-139. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Retrieved from http:\/\/www.chu.edu.tw\/~wswu\/publications\/papers\/journals\/04.pdf <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    LMS Rubric Assignment\u00a0 and Reflection<\/strong><\/p>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric (K-12)<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Group 5<\/span><\/strong>(Rachel Bronk, Marjorie Del Mundo, Erin Gillespie, Cathy Jung, Sarah Wood)<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Scenario #5<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

    You are Social Studies (\u201cSocials\u201d) teachers at Vancouver<\/span><\/em>\u2019s Little Flower<\/em> 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\u2019s doing it: they\u2019re concerned about privacy and don\u2019t think the design of the pages is very professional. To be fair, Mrs. McGillivray has been arguing that the school needs to adopt a \u201cproper\u201d LMS for these sorts of things.<\/em> <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    STEP 1 – Objectives<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    LMS will: <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>have privacy protection. <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>have a professional appearance. <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>have video, audio and communication capabilities. <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>be available to purchase for a \u201csmall group\u201d (LFA) fee if purchasing is necessary. <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>have support structures that are oriented for individuals not necessarily working with face to face IT support. <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>ease of use with regards to posting and retrieving materials for both site creator and users.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    STEP 2 \u2013 Rubric<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    \n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Ideal (3)<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Acceptable (2)<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Unacceptable (1)<\/span><\/strong> \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    Privacy\/Access Options<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – username and password protection. <\/span><\/p>\n

    – access must be granted by teacher\/admin.<\/span><\/p>\n


    \n\u00a0 <\/span><\/td>\n

    		\n

    – username and password protection but anonymous can request guest access. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – open access. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    Aesthetics<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – graphics and customizable templates are provided.
    \n– site has an organized and logical appearance.
    \n– several options for appearance template that look professional and easy on the eyes.<\/span><\/td>\n

    		\n

    – limited number of graphics and customizable templates are provided. <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    \u00a0<\/span>– cluttered, disorganized, lack of graphics, limited number of pages<\/span>. <\/span><\/p>\n

    – banner ads running.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    \u00a0System Requirements<\/strong> \/ Compatibility with existing technology<\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    -Meets all system requirements (i.e., supports video, audio, asynchronous and synchronous discussion) <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – Meets most system requirements, can play audio and video. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    -Does not function with minimum system requirements. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    Communication Capabilities<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – discussion forum, e-mail, assignment dropbox, audio chat, instant messaging<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – discussion forum, email<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – no communication options available. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    \u00a0Cost<\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – Free (open source). <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – $5 or less per enrolled student. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – More than $5 per enrolled student. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    \u00a0Tech Support<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    -Available 24-7 online for <\/span><\/p>\n

    teacher\/student.<\/span><\/p>\n

    -Online support for those who are new to format, not professionals. <\/span><\/p>\n

    -F2F on site through IT support staff.
    \n-self-directed support also available.<\/span><\/td>\n

    		\n

    \u00a0-Available online in one resource location.<\/span><\/p>\n

    -Online tutorials and self-directed support is available. <\/span><\/p>\n

    -No face-to-face IT support. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    \u00a0 – Online support aimed at IT professionals. <\/span><\/p>\n

    – F2F support at a high cost (IT staffing).
    \n– membership required for support pages.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    Ease of use & efficiency for the site creator<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – Site is intuitive and provides a template as a starting off point. <\/span><\/p>\n

    – Creator can customize the site as required. <\/span><\/p>\n

    – Creator can easily upload and create material.
    \n– video, image and other files upload quickly.<\/span><\/td>\n

    		\n

    \u00a0– Site is structured and allows for some customization. <\/span><\/p>\n

    – Creator <\/span><\/p>\n

    is able to upload and create material.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    – video, image and other files upload relatively quickly.
    \n\u00a0 <\/span><\/td>\n

    		\n

    – Site is rigid and does not allow for customization. <\/span><\/p>\n

    – Creator has difficulty adding content to the site.
    \n– video, image and other files take too long to upload.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    Ease of use (students\/<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    parents)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – Site is intuitive and users can easily retrieve and post required information. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – With some effort, users are able to retrieve and post information. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    – Where the heck is everything?\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    STEP 3 – One paragraph articulation of why you included what you included, citing relevant literature.<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    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<\/em>, 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, \u201clook and feel\u201d, 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). <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    Reference List <\/strong><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: a Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success.<\/em>(pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

    Little Flower Academy. (n.d.). \u201cAbout > School Profile\u201d. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from http:\/\/www.lfabc.org\/pageMain.php?navigate=abouSchoolProfile

    <\/span><\/p>\n

    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<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span>Module 2 Unit 2 Disussion Topic Part 1: Deciding on an LMS <\/strong><\/p>\n

    I was asked to decide between the OS LMS of Moodle or the\u00a0WebCT\/Vista\u00a0 LMS for Beno\u00eet, 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,\u00a0he is aware of the support available online for Moodle. This is my analysis of the case.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Beno\u00eet should create a strategic plan (Bates, 2000) for the online version of his writing class and do a preliminary assessment using Bates & Poole\u2019s (2003) SECTIONS framework. His biggest questions should be: who will learn with this LMS and how will they learn?<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span>For this reason, the \u201cS\u201dtudents in the SECTIONS framework is the heart of my big question: What are students\u2019 needs and which LMS platform most appropriately meets these needs? This question sets the political issues aside and gives Beno\u00eet a point-of-reference for comparison. Beno\u00eet should create a strategic plan from the perspective of meeting student needs as he considers both LMS approaches.<\/span><\/p>\n

    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.<\/em> Beno\u00eet\u2019s environmental scan assesses the current reality at the institution (Bates, 2000): <\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>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.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>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?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Unknown budget for Beno\u00eet\u2019s course, but university\u2019s LMS is WebCT\/Vista and at no cost to course designers. \u00a0<\/span>What is the cost in lost learning time? If students can\u2019t access the applications, they can\u2019t learn. Moodle help is available to them online, providing support I haven\u2019t mastered yet. My student needs (for IT-support) may be met. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

    Beno\u00eet should envision how he will use his online course (for each LMS) to improve the learning and teaching experience for his students.\u00a0 <\/span>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? <\/em>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\u2019 needs change over time? Will their needs change my teaching methods?<\/em>At this point, I believe Beno\u00eet would be able to identify one LMS as being a better match for his course than the other.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    References<\/span><\/p>\n

    Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: a Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In \u00a0<\/span>Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success.<\/em>(pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    TELR <\/span><\/span>Module 2 Unit 2 Discussion Topic Part 2:Planning a Course<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The situtation called for deciding on the amount of prep-time an instructor (Benoit)\u00a0would need to develop a course using an LMS and deciding between Moodle (OS) and WebCT\/Vista.\u00a0 I reasoned that assuming the length of Beno\u00eet\u2019s course is 12-weeks, with one module per week, he will need 3 \u00bd months to prepare it, approximately 13 weeks:<\/p>\n

    \n

    One Module (Prep): up to 11 days<\/p>\n

    \u2022 Transcribe existing lecture notes from face-to-face class to online format. (10 hours)<\/p>\n

    \u2022 Re-write or add sections (instructor authored) for supplementary information (10 hours)<\/p>\n

    \u2022 Develop threads and forums for: troubleshooting, extended activities, community sharing (5 hours)<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Running total (hrs): 10+10+5= approx 1 day<\/p>\n

    \u2022 Develop and introduce three activities for module: media clip, web investigation & discussion questions: 5 days (roughly 2 days each, given Beno\u00eet has experience in this field).<\/p>\n

    \u2022 After developing and preparing ideas: Design the LMS Module page (5 days, 100 hours).<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grand total (days)\/module: 11<\/p>\n

    Assuming Beno\u00eet improves on using the LMS, his time spent will decrease slightly, where designing the LMS Module page may take only 1 or 2 days. Therefore, my safe estimation is approximately 8 days\/module, with 12 modules, Beno\u00eet will need 13 weeks, or 3 \u00bd months, roughly.<\/p>\n

    Rationale:<\/p>\n

    Deciding on an LMS that both teacher and student can benefit the most from may increase the development time. Although both LMS situations require time (Moodle to learn, WebCT\/Vista to learn without reliable IT-support) it is assumed Beno\u00eet selected the LMS because it met student needs the best. The level of interactivity should be high or Beno\u00eet will risk a drop in student participation as students can become disengaged (Palloff &Pratt, 1999).<\/p>\n

    Interactivities could include asynchronous communications, synchronous communication, multi-media applications and \u201cpublishing\u201d module units on a weekly basis. All of these require prep time and strategic planning. According to Technology Enhanced Learning and Research, one hour of a print-based self-paced instruction equals 20 hours when for an online course. According to Broward College in Florida, their faculty spend between 40-120 hours developing course materials. However, this time is spent on the materials, not on the course itself!<\/p>\n

    \u00a0Trudy Abramson (2003) highlights the importance of time spent on details for online courses that may not be spent on \u201cchalk-and-talk\u201d lectures. Also, Abramson (2003) echoes Palloff & Pratt (1999) with time spent changing or improving teaching style. I tried to include this effort under \u201cre-write or add sections\u201d. This plan assumes the university and its English department are prepared for online learning at the institutional level! Erin<\/p>\n

    References<\/p>\n

    Abramson, T. (2003). Development time for distance learning. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 17(1), 3-4. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from http:\/\/scis.nova.edu\/~abramson\/jids17n1.htm<\/p>\n

    Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass<\/p>\n

    Frequently asked questions about e-learning. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from http:\/\/www.broward.edu\/elearning\/eLearning\/faculty\/faq\/page12865.html#howlong<\/p>\n

    Palloff, R. M &\u00a0 Pratt, K. (1999). When teaching and learning leave the classroom. Custom course materials ETEC 532 (pp. #1). Kelowna, B.C: University of British Columbia Okanagan, Bookstore. (Reprinted from Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).<\/p>\n

    TELR teach online. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from http:\/\/telr.osu.edu\/teachonline\/faq.htm#three<\/a><\/p>\n

    Disussion Topic Reflection: Deciding on an LMS and Planning a Course<\/strong><\/p>\n

    After posting, I reflected on my initial reasoning with a critical eye. The main point that came up in the posts of others was incorporating a “testing” week, having a run-through in the time frame planning. Many 565 members suggested having one week and selecting a few test students to try out the site. I didn’t realize how important this step way. In retrospect, I would add another week onto Benoit’s design timeframe.<\/p>\n

    Another great point in the forums was the fact that Benoit was somewhat familiar with WebCT\/Vista. Most people tend to “stick to what they know”, and this is true for me personally. Benoit may not use Moodle simply because he would prefer to use the familiar. This is a simple point, but one that would strongly influence an instructor.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    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\u00a0integrate more applications and master more of the MOODLE environment, but the end of ETEC 565 has come. Reflecting on this, I feel creating a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":605,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-8","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/605"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8\/revisions\/49"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gillespieetec\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}