Continuing to work on this assignment with a partner, rather than alone, afforded me some time and advantages that I am not normally used to when planning my instruction.  Having a partner to work with allowed me to step back and look at my ideas objectively for a time before suggesting and allowed me to receive feedback on my ideas from another professional.

My biggest challenge in creation of this module was trying to mesh together my old ideas of what an online course is, with what I have learned over the course of my MET journey.  The last time I taught an online course was 2013 and even at that point, much of the logistics of the course were dictated:  there shall be so many assessments, there must be open and “alway-on” communication between instructor and student (it was actually very hard for me to even define office hours, as in the past I was expected to respond immediately, unless I was sleeping!)

Using our guiding contexts, it was relatively easy to create technology that is sound in pedagogy, content and knowledge (TPCK) as both Laurie and myself have the technology experience and I have a deep background in the content.  Creating a student-centred environment seemed, for me, to be the biggest challenge.  I struggle with how to make a content-heavy course like Calculus centred on the students, minimizing lectures.  This is something I struggle with in my daily practice as well.

Personally, I am 100% for allowing broad solutions and open access to materials and creations.  However, due to various legislations (FOIPPA in BC and LAFOIP in SK, for example) that is not possible.  As well, individual institutions have their own policies and procedures related to openness of access.

My school division invested heavily in Google Apps (GAFE) about 4 years ago.  There were numerous convention sessions,inservices, and consultant visits to schools to train staffs and bring them up to speed on the features and abilities of GAFE.  We were encouraged, and in some cases required, to share information with each other through GAFE.  In reality, while it may seem that this was a restrictive policy, it actually broadened the amount and type of resources available to all in my division.  Many teachers took their enitre home directory and uploaded it into Google Drive and made it searchable to all.  If I was searching for resources for a specific topic I could just search the Drive app and find resources created by other teachers.

Sadly, due to a combination of LAFOIP and school division policy, that sort of mass-sharing is no longer encouraged.  One of the main reasons is that the school division has an ownership claim over anything created by teachers and used with students.

Many of my science colleagues still share resources informally, which is awesome in itself, but it is frustrating that the broad range of resources that was once available has dwindled.

Here’s the link to my digital story illustrating my journey in selecting an LMS to augment my F2F classroom.

As I have mentioned before, part of my professional growth plan is to go paperless within the next 5 years, and my first step in that journey involved simply content delivery, something which all LMS can do adequately.

My goal for this fall is to make assignment submission paperless, and I feel that my choice gives me a good option to begin this process.

I hope you enjoy my story.

http://prezi.com/3iienqycjnlc/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

Many people who know and teach math might question how social media can be useful.  Most “traditionalist” math teachers see math as an individual exercise to be mastered by doing more practice (on one’s own, no less).  However, I have a success story with Math 9.  One of the outcomes in Saskatchewan Math 9 is

There are only so many examples of 3D objects that I could find (and create on my own) so I leveraged another teacher in my school division, at another school, to create more and novel practice.  We created a hashtag, #nesdmath9 to communicate with each others’ classes and our students would come up with 3D objects for the other class to determine the areas of.  Some of my higher end students even went so far as to combine this project with their shop class, and created their objects in a CAD program (Google SketchUp).  It was a great way to communicate with and leverage the resources out there.  Both myself and my colleague loved the experience and we are comparing our teaching loads year after year to try this again.  So far we have not taught the same class in the same year since, but we both believe this is valuable for our students.

Going into this I was unsure of the results, as I identify as a more traditionalist math teacher however seeing the results has made me realze that Twitter is a powerful tool in education.

Working on this assignment with a partner, rather than alone, afforded me some time and advantages that I am not normally used to when planning my instruction.  Having a partner to work with allowed me to step back and look at my ideas objectively for a time before suggesting and allowed me to receive feedback on my ideas from another professional.

In order to implement a successful online course, careful consideration must be taken in the introduction and first few activities to ensure that the design elements are effective and easy to follow for all students who will take the course.  As well, it must be easy for the course designer and instructor to follow and maintain the template throughout the design process.  Our course was built with three guiding pedagogical contexts:  1) creating a student-centred learning environment (SCLE), 2) creating technology that is sound in pedagogy, content and knowledge (TPCK), and 3) incorporating collaborative tools to foster a social learning environment.  All of our design elements, learning tool selections, and interactivities were chosen to support these contexts.

After considering the Trinh case study, we decided to create our course with both of us as co-instructors.  Not knowing how many students would enroll initially and not knowing how big this course might get led us to choose a more scalable model in the event of growing numbers.  By co-teaching, we can create more opportunities for interaction as we will both be available at different times for our office hours.

1. Are there other methods that are equally as economical, particularly in terms of instructor time, that are more suitable for assessment in a digital age? For instance, do you think automated essay grading is a viable alternative?

Considering that my teaching context is that of math and science I cannot speak to automated essay grading, but there are similar technologies that are applicable to my context.  For example, Moodle contains a built-in multiple choice grader.  I can easily create, or find multiple choice items that match my content and feed the answer into Moodle.  I can instantly look back at the student’s work and see where they were successful and where they were not.  However, if I have not created these questions myself or if I did not go into a detailed analysis of which wrong answers were picked, I would lack insight into exactly what misunderstandings my students had.  As well, multiple choice items give little to no opportunity for the teacher to give detailed feedback on student work.  However, in terns of time management this does become a tempting option.

2. Would it be helpful to think about assessment right at the start of course planning, rather than at the end? Is this feasible?

Absolutely, unequivocally, yes!  Assessment is ALWAYS the first thing I think of when planning for instruction.  I was introduced to the Understanding by Design (UbD) model early in my teaching career and there are parts of it that I cannot ever see myself going without.  Assessment is the final destination of learning.  If we create a metaphor of learning as a road trip to Toronto, the only thing that makes us successful is getting to Toronto.  Likewise, what makes us successful at learning is meeting expectations on the final assessment.  It doesn’t matter how long it takes to get there, or what detours must be made along the way, the learning is successful when the assessment criteria are met.  Without laying out those criteria early on, it is impossible to make the learning go in the desired direction, because that direction isn’t yet known!

Trinh’s problems are far-reaching, but I believe that they can all be traced back to communication.

The fact the Trinh receives course communication on multiple platforms creates a logistical nightmare at best, and an incredible waste of time as well.  Trinh must organize her course so that she receives communication in one place that she will also commit to responding to within a certain time frame.  It is not fair to expect her to keep office hours, but a turn-around of 36 hours would seem reasonable.  Trinh must be diligent in her efforts to remind students to contact her using the desired channels and to respond using only that channel.

The department must also step up and give her the resources she needs to effectively manage the course.  While she does meet half of her teaching requirement, 150 students at once is too much.  In my school division, online courses are limited to 40 students per section and no more.  If the teachers’ timetable is able to be altered so that they can offer another section, then that course will be expanded and if not then it will be capped.  The department needs to set clear policy on student volume in the course so that Trinh may successfully implement her learner-centred environment.

My school division lets individual schools set their own mobile device policy.  I intend to reference our former policy (up until 2 years ago) and our current policy.

Our former policy stated that mobile devices were banned from use in the building except for lunch and spares.  Any students using a device during class time, or in the hallway during break, would have the device confiscated in the office for the remainder of the day.  This policy made mobile learning impossible.  The purpose of this rule was designed as a knee-jerk reaction to unfiltered device use beforehand.  This policy was intended to quell distractions and attempt to make the learning environment more productive.

Our current policy states that mobile device use is at the individual teacher’s discretion.  Our administration has said that as long as the device is being used for an educational purpose, it is ok to use in class.  New administration has implemented this new policy for a couple of reasons.  First, it takes the police work out of the teachers’ hands.  We no longer have to roam the halls attempting to “catch” students using their devices at inappropriate times.  As well, as we have a shortage of devices (laptops, iPads, etc.) in the school, the staff felt a need to leverage the technology already in the students’ pockets to ease the stress of over booking devices.

My course design has changed considerably due to these changes in policy.  Where I used to have stand-alone research projects in my science courses, I now have my students perform ad-hoc research.  When a topic comes up I can have my students spend five minutes Googling the topic and we can have an intelligent discussion, where under the old policy I would have to shelf the question and bring it up at a later date.

Specific rules necessary for leveraging mobile devices involve both pedagogy and logistics.  To begin with, any sites that I recommend to my students must be mobile-friendly.  This is becoming less of an issue than it was even a year ago, as most websites are designed to be both desktop and mobile: that is, the website auto-detects the browser accessing it and tailors the display to that device.  I also must make sure that my students understand what appropriate use of the device is. Gaming, texting, checking Facebook are but a few examples of inappropriate use that must be educated rather than having a blanket policy mandating against device use.

As this is my 9th MET course, I would like to think that I have a good amount of experience to draw from when working on group projects. However, there are always unexpected challenges that arise and it is up to the group as a whole to find solutions.

This project was no stranger to technical difficulties; from half an hour spent trying to get a Google Hangout to connect everybody, to connectivity issues on the due date, and not to mention trying to mesh five different schedules from multiple time zones!

Coming to a consensus first on a choice of LMS and then on a methodology of presentation prompted some great discussions. With all of us coming from different contexts with different requirements (personal, district, and legislative) made me seriously consider our choice of LMS in more depth than I would have in a group with similar requirements.

However, the members of my group did a phenomenal job overcoming these challenges. As with all challenges; patience, understanding and a willingness to help wherever needed made this a positive experience.

Benoit must be careful in making his selection of a LMS, as “online LMS have the potential to affect the core business of teaching and learning in unanticipated ways.” (Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005)  He must first have a framework of hisonline course; considering whether to offer the course asynchronously or synchronously, how to  go about embedding both formative and summative assessments, and logistical considerations such as registering users, managing activities, etc.

Benoit must also consider the level of student engagement afforded by his choice of LMS.  A system that has limited forms of student interaction will be less robust than one featuring discussion boards, interactive chats, and other engagement tools.

If I was in Benoit’s shoes, the most important question that I would ask myself is: How can I best meet the needs of my learners?  This question is crucial because without meeting the learners’ needs, the course cannot be successful.  Benoit must spend significant time researching the features of each LMS to determine what matches his comfort level in terms of pedagogy and assessment techniques.  A LMS that does not align with his professional practices will result in significant time spent learning the system and changing his practice to match the limitations of the system.  As Coates, James, and Baldwin found, the choice of LMS will have consequences that may change the teacher’s behaviours (p. 27)  Benoit will still have to spend time marking and giving feedback on his students’ work, as the course is a writing course.

The fact that WebCT is officially supported by the university lends itself to be the natural choice, but with support limited to official channels, speed of access to these supports appears to be an issue.  Having Moodle operated by the Faculty lends itself to more informal tech supports.  A simple walk down the hall to a colleague could resolve an issue in minutes.  However, new issues that arise could be problematic if they have not been experienced by others in the past.  Even so, there is a vast wealth of knowledge online regarding both LMS, so Benoit should have a reasonable ability to resolve his issues with a little legwork.

I expect that Benoit would take approximately 4 weeks to come to a detailed and educated decision about his LMS choice.  A minimum of one week would be required to fully examine each system, testing previously developed courses on each system and reflecting on how well each system aligns with his professional practice.  I would expect Benoit to spend at least a week to reflect on each system and one final week to test out new thoughts and new ideas generated from his reflections.

Personally, if I were in Benoit’s shoes I would choose Moodle.  The local level of expertise in the faculty coupled with the massive amount of online, informal support seems like the better option to me.