Description of Assignment #1
For Assignment 1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric, our group was tasked with developing an evaluation rubric to help BCcampus make a decision about which LMS to select.
Précis
BCcampus is a publicly-funded agency that offers “teaching, learning, and educational technology support“ to the 25 post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and one in the Yukon. As part of its shared services, BCcampus has been running two LMS platforms; one open-sourced (Moodle) and the other vendor based (D2L) whose contract will expire shortly. With current restructuring, BCcampus will be losing half of its tech support team in three months, and therefore the option of running two separate LMS platforms is no longer viable. BCcampus will need to decide which LMS they wish to proceed with across the board or if selecting an entirely new platform is the best way to go. Our group ( Danielle Couture, Keri Fleming, Edwin Fong, Colleen Huck and myself) as employees at BCcampus have been asked to create an evaluation rubric to help the BCcampus leadership team in the decision making process.
Here is our rubric and rationale for your reference.
“Decisions about university teaching and learning should not be restricted to checklist evaluations of technical and organisational factors. It is vital to maintain the educational perspective rather than emphasize any technological determinism which takes specific characteristics of online systems or teaching for granted.”
— Coates,James & Baldwin
My Reflections on Assignment #1
The first thing that came to my mind, without considering the evaluation rubric, was that BCcampus promotes open educational resources. I thought using Moodle would be a natural fit. The money saved from not re-newing the vendor-based LMS could be used to save the jobs of the staff whose positions are slated to be cut, and to train them in using and supporting Moodle.
Over the last few years, there appears to be a trend in post-secondary educational institutions in the lower mainland, to cut support staff and to rely (often un-realistically) on technological solutions. Course designer and LMS support staff are a great assets to educational institutions. However, the value they add to the student learning experiences and faculty’s teaching experiences is often not recognized as it can’t be translated easily into monetary terms. Combined with the lingering industrial factory production based thinking of the last couple centuries, course production is treated as production line packaging of knowledge.
In reality, in today’s information rich society, courses are a non-static. Not only do courses change due to changes in information or content, but a course can be different each time it is delivered, due to when it is taught, who it is taught to, and who teaches it. I have heard many instructors say that they never teach the same course twice, as the students themselves influence how the teaching and learning occurs.
The thing that stood out in the frameworks we studied in class, is that the “people” aspect seems to be drowning in all the other factors. For example, in the SECTIONS framework developed by Bates and Pool (Bates, 2014), covers many aspects, but not “people” specifically.
S – Students
E – Ease of use and reliability
C – Costs
T – Teaching functions and media selection
I – Interaction
O – Organizational issues
N – Networking
S – Security and privacy
Nor are the educational development staff identified in the Seven Principles (Chickering, 1996 ) framework:
- Encourages contacts between students and faculty.
- Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students.
- Uses active learning techniques. (a.k.a. “Encourages active learning”)
- Gives prompt feedback.
- Emphasizes time on task.
- Communicates high expectations.
- Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.
As most educators know the “human connection” aspect both face-to-face and online enriches the educational experience. This does not just include the instructor, but the entire team involved in the creation, delivery and support for the courses. For example, lack of knowledge, prompt technical support can interrupt learning, or even hinder it. Lack of specialized media production staff impacts the quality of media used, or the cost associated with the time of instructors creating media on their own.
The perspective taken by Coates, James and Baldwin about merely making decisions about teaching and learning based on checklist evaluations of technical and organizational factors alone (Coates,James & Baldwin, 2005) makes sense to me. Underlying ideas, assumptions, and values need to explored more throughly when making these sort of decisions.
References
Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/(Chapter 8 on SECTIONS framework)
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S., C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of Learning Management Systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11,(1), 19-36. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9