For Assignment 1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric, our group was tasked with developing an evaluation rubric to help BCcampus<\/a> make a decision about which LMS to\u00a0select.<\/p>\n Pr\u00e9cis<\/b><\/p>\n BCcampus is a publicly-funded agency that offers \u201cteaching, learning, and educational technology support\u201c to the 25 post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and one in the Yukon. \u00a0As 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. \u00a0With current restructuring, BCcampus will be losing half of its tech support team in three months, and therefore the option\u00a0of running two separate LMS platforms is no longer viable. \u00a0BCcampus will need to decide which LMS they wish to proceed with across the board\u00a0or\u00a0if\u00a0selecting an entirely new platform is the best way to go. Our group (\u00a0Danielle Couture,\u00a0Keri Fleming,\u00a0Edwin Fong,\u00a0Colleen 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.<\/p>\n Here is our rubric and rationale<\/a>\u00a0for your reference.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n “Decisions\u00a0about university teaching and learning should not be restricted to\u00a0checklist evaluations of technical and organisational factors. It is vital\u00a0to maintain the educational perspective rather than emphasize any\u00a0technological determinism which takes specific characteristics of\u00a0online systems or teaching for granted.”<\/p>\n \u2014 Coates,James & Baldwin<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/p>\n Over the last few years, there appears\u00a0to 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\u00a0value they add to the student learning experiences and faculty’s teaching experiences is often not recognized as it can’t be translated easily\u00a0into monetary terms. Combined with the lingering industrial factory production based thinking of the last couple centuries, course production is treated\u00a0as\u00a0\u00a0production line packaging of knowledge.<\/p>\n 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\u00a0course\u00a0can be\u00a0different each time it is delivered, due to when it is taught, who it is taught to, and who teaches it.\u00a0\u00a0I have heard many\u00a0instructors say that they never teach the same course twice, as the students themselves influence how the teaching and learning occurs.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n S<\/strong>\u00a0–\u00a0Students Nor are the educational development staff identified in the Seven Principles (Chickering, 1996 ) framework:<\/p>\n 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\u00a0team 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.<\/p>\n The perspective taken by Coates, James and Baldwin\u00a0about 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.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age<\/em> http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/<\/a>(Chapter 8 on SECTIONS framework)<\/p>\n Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S., C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever.\u00a0American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49<\/em>(2), 3-6. Retrieved fromhttp:\/\/www.aahea.org\/articles\/sevenprinciples.htm<\/a><\/p>\n 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<\/em>, 11,(1), 19-36. http:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s11233-004-3567-9<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Description \u00a0of\u00a0Assignment #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\u00a0select. Pr\u00e9cis BCcampus is a publicly-funded agency that offers \u201cteaching, learning, and educational technology support\u201c to the 25 post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and one in … Continue reading Delivery Platform Evaluation<\/span>
\n\n
My Reflections on Assignment #1<\/h5>\n
\nE<\/strong>\u00a0–\u00a0Ease of use and reliability
\nC<\/strong>\u00a0–\u00a0Costs
\nT<\/strong>\u00a0–\u00a0Teaching functions and media selection
\nI<\/strong>\u00a0–\u00a0Interaction
\nO<\/strong>\u00a0–\u00a0Organizational issues
\nN<\/strong>\u00a0–\u00a0Networking
\nS<\/strong>\u00a0–\u00a0Security and privacy<\/p>\n\n
\n