So far designing a Moodle course has been a very valuable learning experience. In terms of the subject matter of the course, I went from originally planning a French lesson to the more abstract conceptual learning of differences between English and French. The main reason for this was that a French lesson should be taught in French; by not making it a French lesson per se, it allowed me to change the language of instruction to English, in order to fit the parameters of this course being in English, while maintaining a link to my main teachable subject, French.
I found Moodle difficult at first. I noticed that when I clicked on “Edit Settings” on any given page, I could see the HTML code for a split second before it returned to a WYSIWYG view. There was one point where I looked for ways to stay in HTML because the program wasn’t doing exactly what I wanted and figured I could get it done more easily through code. I never did find a way for it to show me the HTML code, but I did get past my problem.
Last week I asked if any classmates wanted to critique my course and vice-versa, and I’m very glad I did. Just looking at Victoria’s site reminded me of several things I was missing, and she helped me overcome some of the technical issues as well as making great practical suggestions. Hopefully my comments were of use to her as well.
While I originally conceived of the course simply being for the sake of interest, I did eventually give it a practical raison d’être, for French teachers to be able address prior misconceptions of their English speaking students. Bransford, Brown and Cocking (2000) stress the importance of recognizing a student’s prior knowledge, especially where this prior knowledge may lead to erroneous assumptions in what is being learned. For an anglophone student learning French, their prior knowledge stems from their first and often only known language, English, and when they place their semantic or syntactic English frameworks on French, it can lead to serious misconceptions. This course addresses those misconceptions and proposes ways to fix them to solidify the foundation for further French learning.
If the course had simply been for interest’s sake, I might have considered not having any assessment at all. “There may be contexts, such as a community of practice, where learning is informal, and the learners themselves decide what they wish to learn, and whether they are satisfied with what they have learned” (Bates, 2014), however, like the course needing to be in English, the parameters of the assignment took precedence and they called for assessment.
Gibbs and Simpson (2005) highlighted the fallibility of tests, the greater value of projects, and students’ tendency to concentrate more on what is being assessed, so I decided that including a final project would make for better learning for students in the course. Gibbs and Simpson (2005), Bates (2014), Bransford et al. (2000), and countless other scholars also stress the importance of feedback. The discussion pages allow for peer feedback and encourage metacognition through reflecting on the comments of one’s peers. Lastly, the Final Project proposal, due in week 5, allows students in the course to receive feedback directly from the instructor and gives the student an opportunity to use the feedback. Thus the feedback serves as a form of assessment as learning.
References
Bates. T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from: http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/5-8-assessment-of-learning/
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & National Research Council (U.S.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. Retrieved from: http://nap.edu/9853
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from: http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf