Flight Plan Summary

At the start of this class I outlined my experience as a teacher and administrator in both a First Nations independent school and as an administrator in a BC offshore school in China. These two experiences shifted my educational focus from curriculum development to language learning and language acquisition. Similarly, I have also become focused on developing school wide reading and writing strategies that are applicable across content areas. Much of this focus has been guided by the work Ellis (2005) and his ten principles of Second Language Acquisition. In particular I have tried to create programs that provided students’ with authentic language encounters and the opportunity to interact in the language, instruction that accounts for individual learner differences, and that balance student’s need for meaning and form.

Entering this course my two goals were to find a more effective way to deliver my school’s vocabulary program and to find a way to automate as much of its language assessment as possible. Our vocabulary program has its strengths, but it also has its weaknesses, the largest of which is that we lack the ability to differentiate our instruction. As Ellis (2005) notes, language learners have their own built-in syllabus and as such need the opportunity to explore language that interests them. By getting experience with learning management systems I was hoping to find a way that we could enhance student efficacy. Another weakness that our program faces is the large amount of assessment that must be completed every day. There are about 200 students in our school and with students turning in two or three pieces of work a day the amount of marking is almost untenable. Thus I was hoping to find a way that the Chinese homeroom teachers who do the marking, could still provide strong feedback but decrease the time they spend on marking.

Reflections on the eLearning Toolkit

The design of ETEC-565 is constructivist in nature and as such rather than being taught about learning tool, we were invited to explore and interact with different them. The eLearning toolkit was normally my first stop when I needed to develop a better understanding of a concept or technology. I found the toolkit to be effective and useful, but it was never my final stop. I am not sure if this was because I did not find the answers comprehensive enough or if I simply wanted a second opinion on the topic at hand. Either way it provided a great starting point and normally launched me in the right direction.

I did appreciate a lot of what the toolkit had to offer, even if it was just simple tips or guidelines. Particularly I was impressed with the guidelines for accessibility for individuals with disabilities. This was something I had not really thought about before, and though I am ashamed to say I did not always follow these guidelines while building my Moodle, I am glad that I encountered them. I feel that this is one of the best features of the toolkit. The wiki format made it very easy to explore and interact with concepts you might not have been looking for, but were relevant regardless.

The eLearning toolkit is something that I have bookmarked and will keep referring back to during the course of my explorations with educational technology. There is still a lot of knowledge I have not uncovered and I am looking forward to diving into it deeper once I have some more free time.

Reflections on the Course

Overall my experience in this course was positive, however it did not provide exactly what I was looking for. It did show me that learning management systems (LMS), though effective, have a long way to go before they reach their potential. The constructivist nature of this course put a lot of emphasis on getting involved in the machinations of the technology we were looking at, with the biggest focus being put on Moodle.  One of the first assignments we needed to complete was creating a rubric for an LMS, and in my group we did this mainly through reflecting on the SECTIONS framework developed by Bates and Poole (2003). As such I think it would be appropriate to evaluate my experience with Moodle in terms of this framework.

Students: I think that Moodle can be appropriate for most student populations. For younger grades the course would have to be simplified but still could be used. The biggest hurdle in meeting the needs of a student population is bandwidth but for most schools that are thinking about using Moodle this should not be too much of a hurdle.

Ease of Use: Moodle is relatively easy to use for both educators and students. It took me a little while to orient myself with the software but once I did I was able to navigate and build my course with out any major difficulties. Similarly I feel that students would also be able work their way through a lesson or module without encountering major obstacles. A major benefit of Moodle is that it has a familiar feel to it, and as such navigation and usage feels very intuitive. I wouldn’t say that Moodle is idiot proof, but I do think it is probably as close to it as a LMS can get.

Cost Structure: Moodle is open source so it is free, or at least the basic software implementation is free. There are various other fees associated with Moodle that can actually make it quite costly. At the minimum a school is looking at hosting a dedicated server and hiring IT staff to run that server. For some schools this might already be a sunk cost, but for others it could be an expenditure that might prove more useful elsewhere. It is difficult to gauge how much running Moodle would cost, but it is a misnomer to say that Moodle is free.

Teaching & Learning/Interactivity: I have combined these two headings together as they both focus on a similar idea; what is the learning experience like on Moodle. I found the learning experience on Moodle to be quite limited. It did not seemed engaging and instead at times felt like a slightly more interactive online textbook. When developing lessons and modules on Moodle I felt like I was creating a PowerPoint without the dialogue and discussion that occurs during a PowerPoint presentation. Also the assignments and quizzes available on Moodle are restricted to a limited number of question types. I would imagine that for most courses being offered on the LMS that the more engaging assignments would have to be completed outside of the site. Moodle does provide multiple affordances but without actually teaching a course, it is difficult to determine how effective these affordances are. I recognize that logistical issues have limited the version of Moodle we used, for example we could not add plugins to our Moodle, and thus it is difficult to determine everything that Moodle has to offer. I also recognize that many educators have used Moodle and praised it for the way it engages learners and accommodates different learning styles. Herman Surjono (2014), for example notes that Moodle can be customized to meet different learning styles in a math course. Along these same lines, Scherl, Dethleffsen and Meyer (2012) note that Moodle can be customized to provide interactivity over a wide range of courses, and ultimately is a powerful tool in increasing student engagement in the learning process. Again to fully understand the potential and pitfalls of Moodle, I think that I would have to actually teach a course or a unit using the software.

Organization: Moodle, depending on if it is run independently or through a third party, requires an IT staff with basic technical competencies, however this is not something that every school has. For many organizations it would be much easier to run the software through an offsite server and pay a third party to deal with the technical issues that arise. This is slightly frustrating as it limits an individual teachers ability to create a Moodle for their course. Obviously this is not Moodle’s fault, but it is indicative of the fact that the widespread adoption of any LMS is more in hands of the administration or organization than the individual educator. To me this is a major obstacle to LMS being extensively used, as adoption is going to occur from the top down.

Novelty: Moodle definitely would be something new for students, however I wonder how long this would last, especially if Moodle was implemented as a school based initiative and students were interacting with it everyday.

Speed: Every course takes time to plan and implement. The difference with Moodle and other LMSs is that the course planning and implementation must be front-loaded. Though it would be possible to have improvised elements to a course, these elements would have to be planned in advance. This is one of Moodle’s greatest deficits, though it does not take overly long to create the course, it would be very difficult to change the direction of the course once the course is in session. This may not be a problem for a course with rigid learning outcomes, but probably would be for a more open-ended high school environment. Also it seems that if students are not grasping a concept, it would be difficult to provide remedial support.

My experience with Moodle was a mixed bag. There were a lot of things that I liked about the software but there were also a lot of things that made me think it was not yet fully developed enough to be an effective learning environment. That being said Moodle is an effective learning tool and if it is employed correctly it can augment and strengthen a learning environment by automating and differentiating the learning experience. I think this is one of my biggest take-aways from this course and the MET program in general, there are many great technological tools available to teachers now days, but like any tool if not wielded well, it will prove to be ineffective.

ETEC565A was a noteworthy experience and one I am glad I undertook. I found the experience similar to my experience with Moodle, it wasn’t a great learning environment but it was a very effective learning tool. I didn’t feel fully engaged by the course but I was able to get out of it what I wanted. I think that one thing lacking from the course though was learner participation in the educational artifacts we created. Developing online courses, quizzes and digital stories is exciting but even when it is based on relevant literature it still feels far removed from the classroom. I know it is not realistic, but I wish it were somehow possible for actual learners to assess the artifacts we made and give us their direct feedback. Literature and case studies are very good in guiding us in the right direction, but in my experience they never present the entire picture. The contexts that we work in are diverse and each one has its own assumptions and schema that must be accounted for

Reflections on the Future

The next step for me is to keep exploring language and technology. I plan to try to run a pilot program with our grade 10 students next year where they will have the opportunity to complete their vocabulary course online. I am excited to see how they react to the LMS and what problems they encounter when using the program. This to me is the real test of the course that I have developed and of the LMS itself. The results of this pilot program will help me determine where I will focus my future practices in educational technology.

Previous to this course, my focus in the MET program was on the use of educational technology in the face-to-face classroom. There have been many studies that indicate the power of technology in the second language acquisition classroom. Carol Chapelle (2007) has shown the wide range of benefits that technology provides for English language learners and educators. While Robert Blake (2000) has shown how computer mediated communication can enhance and expanded students opportunity for effective input and output of the second language. Similarly, Jason Goulah (2007) has shown how video creation allows students to collaboratively become immersed in a language and creates meaningful retention of what they have learned.  In this regard I think that my future explorations will focus more on the use of technology in constructivist learning practices within the classroom, than it will on the use of learning management systems.

That being said we never know where we will end up. If my initial experiments with Moodle at my school prove to be fruitful than I might decide to change course. Furthermore teaching in China can be fickle and though my current plan is to remain at my school for the foreseeable future my context may change and as a result my focus would shift.

References

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

Blake, Robert (2000) Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136

Chapelle, Carol A. (2007). Technology and Second Language Acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 98-114

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.

Goulah, Jason (2007) Village Voices, Global Visions: Digital Video as a Transformative Foreign Language Learning Tool. Foreign Language Annals 40(1), 62-78

Scherl, A., Dethleffsen, K. & Meyer, M. (2012). Interactive knowledge networks for interdisciplinary courses navigation within Moodle. Advanced Physiology Education, 36(4), 284-297

Surjono, Herman. (2014). The Evaluation of a Moodle Based Adaptive e-Learning System. International