To review my rationale for the Assessment Tool, please see the Assessment Page of my e-portfolio.
Categories
Month: June 2009
Categories
Reflection – Assessment Tool
For this assignment I created an exam that is to be completed at the end of the course, once all modules have been worked through. I was very pleased to find the quiz function in Moodle easy to use. It was very user-friendly. The preview option allowed you to “see” what you were doing and make changes as you went along. I also relied upon the instructions for constructing quizzes found in the book Using Moodle Teaching with the Popular Open Source Course Management System, which is authored by Jason Cole. Overall, I’d rate my experience with Moodle as very good. The toughest part of the assignment was to conduct an exam which covered off the main content of all seven modules, while keeping the length of the exam down.
In terms of the content, the main area I focused on was on was the instructions for the exam. This is particularly important to the audience, the employees, as this is their first exposure to an online exam and LMS system; therefore it is vital that there are clear instructions. It is important that the employees are clear of the expectations. The time limit of one hour imposed was important to note, along with the fact that there were no penalties for incorrect responses. Other details such as a running clock, the mark value for each question and the passing grade were also included. The automatic grading of responses along with the feedback is something else that I really like about Moodle. Not only does it cut down significantly on the marking time, but it also gives the employee some immediate feedback on the correct or incorrect response. It definitely allows for timely and effective feedback, a crucial feature to engage and promote learning amongst employees.
Cole, J. (2005). Using moodle: Teaching with the popular course management system. Sebastopol: CA. O’Reilly Media Inc.
In completing the Communication Tools assignment, I was considered how the audience would take react to the communication tools used. As the LMS is a new tool to the workplace learning, the employees would still be on a learning curve and undoubtedly nervous and even anxious about what the LMS offers and how it will differ from the traditional classroom instructor led training they are used to. As such, I chose to utilize two very basic forms of communication tools, the discussion forum and chat room. These two tools would not be too far of a technological stretch for a “non-techie” group of employees to learn to use rapidly. The discussion forum for posts is very similar to typing in a Word document or email and the chat feature is widely used forums such msn messenger. My thoughts are that to ease the employees into the adopting and using the LMS. If you bombard them with all the features for asynchronous and synchronous communication within one course, this would be too much. My approach is to offer it is small doses, starting off with the easiest-to-use tools. In the subsequent courses offered on the LMS, my intention would then be to expose the employees to another form, such as the wiki function for collaboration.
Categories
Moodle Toolkit Reflection
I found this toolkit activity to be quite straight forward. The instructions provided were step-by-step. What I found to be most challenging and what surprised me the most was that Moodle did not have a preview option. You had to save to see what you had done and then make changes if you were not satisified with the result. For instance, under course settings, you were unable to get a preview of what each theme looked like. You had to select one, save it and then change it if you didn’t like it. Similarly, to view whether bold or colour font looked better you had to try it, save and then edit if you didn’t like it. I found I spent quite a bit of time experimenting with what I liked in terms of asthetics. In comparison, WordPress has a preview feature, which I find to be very helpful as it allows you to see what it will look like before committing to it.
Categories
LMS Proposal Submitted
To access my LMS Proposal Assignment, please visit the LMS page of my e-portfolio.
Categories
Reflection – Evaluation Rubric
In reviewing the rubrics from other scenarios as well as those from other sections who completed the same scenario as my group, I wasn’t surprised to see striking similarities between some of the rubric categories. It was obvious that we all had picked up on the key points in our course readings.
Many of the categories were similar and touched on aspects such as accessibility, cost, privacy, ease of use and support. I enjoyed reviewing all the rubrics and will definitely keep these as samples for future reference.
I found the discussion board comments surrounding use of scales and a “middle ground” and “does not apply” option intriguing. If a standard rubric is used to evaluate several assignment than a “does not apply option” may be warranted as certain assignments may not need to be evaluated on this level. I have worked in organizations where evaluation forms have all been consistent from assignment to assignment and I have also worked in organizations where the evaluation forms have varied based on the individual assignment. From personal experience in assessing assignment of employees during workplace training and particularly during performance appraisal time, I find having the options of a middle option very necessary. Particularly when assessments impact one’s job, the need for accurate assessment rubrics become critical. However, I’ve digressed in my reflections…bringing myself back to evaluation educational technologies and delivery platforms rubrics (as opposed to workplace training evaluation rubrics) I think that it would be interesting to merge the rubrics for Little Flower Academy for all ETEC565 sections to create one comprehensive master rubric…hmmm, I think I’ve just created another task for myself.
Categories
Online Delivery Platform Rubric
Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric (K-12)
Group 5 (Rachel Bronk, Marjorie Del Mundo, Erin Gillespie, Cathy Jung, Sarah Wood)
Scenario #5
You are Social Studies (“Socials”) teachers at Vancouver’s Little Flower 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’s doing it: they’re concerned about privacy and don’t think the design of the pages is very professional. To be fair, Mrs. McGillivray has been arguing that the school needs to adopt a “proper” LMS for these sorts of things.
STEP 1 – Objectives
LMS will:
· have privacy protection.
· have a professional appearance.
· have video, audio and communication capabilities.
· be available to purchase for a “small group” (LFA) fee if purchasing is necessary.
· have support structures that are oriented for individuals not necessarily working with face to face IT support.
· ease of use with regards to posting and retrieving materials for both site creator and users.
STEP 2 – Rubric
|
|
Ideal (3) |
Acceptable (2) |
Unacceptable (1) |
|
Privacy/Access Options
|
– username and password protection. – access must be granted by teacher/admin.
|
– username and password protection but anonymous can request guest access. |
– open access. |
|
Aesthetics
|
– graphics and customizable templates are provided. |
– limited number of graphics and customizable templates are provided.
|
– cluttered, disorganized, lack of graphics, limited number of pages. – banner ads running. |
|
System Requirements / Compatibility with existing technology |
-Meets all system requirements (i.e., supports video, audio, asynchronous and synchronous discussion) |
– Meets most system requirements, can play audio and video.
|
-Does not function with minimum system requirements. |
|
Communication Capabilities |
– discussion forum, e-mail, assignment dropbox, audio chat, instant messaging |
– discussion forum, email |
– no communication options available. |
|
Cost |
– Free (open source).
|
– $5 or less per enrolled student. |
– More than $5 per enrolled student. |
|
Tech Support
|
-Availible 24-7 online for teacher/student. -Online support for those who are new to format, not professionals. -F2F on site through IT support staff. |
-Available online in one resource location. -Online tutorials and self-directed support is available. -No face-to-face IT support. |
– Online support aimed at IT professionals. – F2F support at a high cost (IT staffing). |
|
Ease of use & efficiency for the site creator
|
– Site is intuitive and provides a template as a starting off point. – Creator can customize the site as required. – Creator can easily upload and create material. |
– Site is structured and allows for some customization. – Creator is able to upload and create material. – video, image and other files upload relatively quickly. |
– Site is rigid and does not allow for customization. – Creator has difficulty adding content to the site. |
|
Ease of use (students/ parents)
|
– Site is intuitive and users can easily retrieve and post required information. |
– With some effort, users are able to retrieve and post information. |
– Where the heck is everything?
|
STEP 3 – One paragraph articulation of why you included what you included, citing relevant literature.
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, 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, “look and feel”, 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).
Reference List
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.
Little Flower Academy. (n.d.). “About > School Profile”. Retrieved May 24, 2009 from http://www.lfabc.org/pageMain.php?navigate=abouSchoolProfile
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