Author Archives: Allen Wideman

Allen is an elementary based educator with the Calgary Board of Education. His experience as a classroom teacher has been primarily in Grades 5 and 6, with a focus on technology integration to support and enhance learning experiences for students and staff. Allen is currently teaching as a Physical Education specialist for Grades 1-4, and he is a graduate student at UBC in the Master of Educational Technology program.

A Possible Solution for Lenora

Lenora’s limited experience with developing a website, and her limited online access at home, are two important considerations for determining an option that might best meet her needs and goals. One potential solution for Lenora would be to create a wiki, as this would allow for the sharing of documents and information, as well as offering collaborative opportunities for her colleagues to discuss problems, ideas and resources. According to the Bates SECTIONS framework (2014), the first step in selecting technology is to know your students (or in this case, Lenora’s colleagues), their similarities and differences, what technologies they already have access to, and what digital skills they already possess or lack. Therefore, if Lenora is experiencing difficulties with online access and technical expertise, it seems likely that many of the colleagues with whom she intends to collaborate will be experiencing the same challenges. Lenora will need to bear this in mind when she is selecting and developing her online anti-bullying resources. As her colleagues seemed to have enjoyed utilizing the cradleboard.org resources, perhaps Lenora could get some feedback from them regarding some of the aspects of this website that were positive and beneficial, and other areas that needed to be changed or addressed. This would give her a starting point in determining what her own resource might look like in order to best support and meet the goals of her anti-bullying project.

Creating a wiki requires minimal technical expertise, and the user friendly interface would allow for flexibility in creating the organization and visual layout of the website. These templates would be adaptable to Lenora’s needs as they may change in the near future, and she would be able to design her wiki during the initial stages with opportunities for personalizing the content and design as she becomes more comfortable and clearer with her intentions. According to Coates (2005), an important aspect for consideration is the ability of a given technology to be adaptable to the needs of diverse academic cultures and communities. Google Sites and Wikispaces are two options for creating a wiki that Lenora may wish to explore, as they would provide the flexibility and adaptability needed to address the diverse and changing needs of her community of professionals. Both options offer Lenora a basic starting point from which she can develop her knowledge and level of comfort with designing and maintaining a wiki, and both options offer a user friendly interface from which to work with.

As far as privacy and access are concerned, a wiki would allow Lenora to control and manage the accessibility of the information and discussions contained within. She could decide to share access only amongst colleagues or have the wiki available online publicly, and she would be able to determine the level of permissions for each individual person that has access to the website. Regarding the content of the wiki, different documents, presentations, photos and videos could be incorporated into and shared within the website. Many of these items could be created offline when Lenora is working at home, and she would be able to integrate and upload this content into the wiki when she has better online access, such as during her time at school. This should help support her in maintaining the balance between work and personal time that she is seeking.

References

Bates, J. (2014). Teaching in digital age, Chapter 8. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

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, 11,(1), 19-36. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9

Reflections on the Evaluation Rubric – Assignment #1

For the Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric Assignment, our group was tasked with determining which LMS would successfully meet the needs of a new online program being developed to support students enrolled at Le Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie Britannique. After reviewing the scenario description, and attempting to assess the current and potential future needs of Le Conseil, we collaborated to create an evaluation rubric that was organized around four fundamental areas of consideration: Logistics, Support, and Management, Communication, Design, and Usability. Much like assessment rubrics that are created in collaboration with students to guide and support their work, our group developed a rubric that included four different rating levels to determine how a given LMS might function to meet the needs of Le Conseil. We attempted to create a clearly defined set of criteria to assess the ways in which different LMS would satisfy the goals as described within each of the four different categories.

In terms of assessing the current needs of Le Conseil and their new online program, we found this to be challenging, as we were unsure as to whether the online courses would be offered individually to students or within a cohort group structure. Therefore, the criteria that we incorporated within our rubric could be utilized to assess the capability of different LMS to meet the needs of both types of course organization. According to Coates (2005), customizable LMS provide course instructors and designers with the ability to be adaptable to the needs of diverse academic cultures and communities (p.31). I believe that this consideration is crucial in selecting and evaluating LMS, as the needs of the students will determine the future planning that the online program will be required to implement in order to support student learning and remain effective and relevant in a changing technological landscape.

The content of the course offerings will be required to match with student needs and expectations, and therefore, personalized course layout and design becomes crucial in helping instructors and students access and create adaptive content to meet changing needs and learning objectives (Spiro, 2014). We believe that these areas are addressed throughout the rubric, and most specifically within the design and usability categories.

Considerations around cost, infrastructure, and support for communications are critical in the LMS evaluation process. Although we didn’t receive any information about these areas as they apply to Le Conseil, we integrated these components into the evaluation rubric in a format that allows for flexibility in terms of the different LMS so that each may be applied for assessment purposes. The SECTIONS framework, as proposed by Bates (2014), provided further guidance with incorporating cost effectiveness, management features, and organizational issues into the overall scheme of the evaluation rubric.

We feel that our evaluation rubric represents the collective work of our team members, and reflects some of the differences in background knowledge and professional experiences that we each brought to the planning and final design.

Our LMS Evaluation rubric may be accessed here

References

Bates, J. (2014). Teaching in digital age, Chapter 8. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Porto, S. (2015). The uncertain future of learning management systems. The Evolllution: Illuminating the Lifelong Learning Movement. Retrieved fromhttp://www.evolllution.com/opinions/uncertain-future-learning-management-systems/

Spiro, K. (2014). 5 elearning trends leading to the end of the learning management systems. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/5-elearning-trends-leading-to-the-end-of-the-learning-management-system

Efficiency for Benoit

For Benoit, one of the key questions that will need to be considered is centered around the issue of efficiency of teaching, as discussed by Coates (2005). In particular, how much time does Benoit feel he can afford to apply to the development of his online course, and how much time does he envision his students spending on learning within his chosen LMS? With his prior familiarity and experience in WebCT Vista, Benoit would likely spend less time on developing his online course through Blackboard Learn, and therefore require less support. He would be sacrificing some of affordances offered by Moodle in terms of controlling the flexibility and customizability of the learning environment, but his proficiency with Web CT Vista might lead to the development of a better constructed LMS initially in Blackboard Learn.

Benoit should weigh the benefits of Blackboard Learn and Moodle by speaking with colleagues who have had some experience, both positive and negative, with both LMS before determining how these may or may not match the learning goals that he’s established for the students in his business writing course. In terms of efficiency, will the students be as familiar with working in Moodle as they would be working in Blackboard Learn, and how might this impact the quality of time they are able to devote to the writing course? According to Bates (2014), “it is not only students though who may need prior preparation. Technology can be too seductive. You can start using it without fully understanding its structure or how it works.” In this case, is Benoit’s goal for himself, and his students, more concerned with the learning of the LMS itself, or engaging with the course content?

To be honest, I’m not entirely sure how much time Benoit would need to devote to developing his business writing course. With at least some of the content already in place from the lecture notes and readings from his face-to-face course, Benoit seems to have a solid starting point, as well as having prior experience with WebCT Vista. If he’s going with his estimate of 5 hours per week, it would seem that Benoit will require 2-3 weeks to experiment with his chosen LMS and learn about the tools and possibilities before spending another 3-4 weeks developing the course itself in time to launch for the upcoming semester. This might be a conservative estimate if Benoit choses to work within Blackboard Learn, and he may require additional time if he choses to develop with Moodle, depending on how he choses to develop his writing course to best meet the learning goals for his students.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a Digital Age. http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/(Chapter 8 on SECTIONS framework)

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, 11,(1), 19-36. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9

Allen’s Flight Path – From the Classroom to the Gym (and back again)

My teaching experience began in Grades 3 and 4 as a classroom based teacher, but after moving into Grades 5 and 6 about three years into my career, I felt as though I had found my calling as an educator. Technology integration has always been an area of interest for me, and I had the opportunity to take on a school based technology lead role for a few years, which allowed me to work with teachers and students across the grade groupings to support their learning and development. The Organizational Issues analysis of Bates’ SECTIONS framework (2014) struck a chord with me, and I strongly believe in the need for professional development opportunities and technical support and guidance amongst school staff. The Interaction analysis of the SECTIONS framework highlights areas that I would like to further explore, including new and varied methods of effectively communicating and responding to feedback that involves students, teachers, and parents.

Two years ago, I traded my classroom for a gym, and I’m currently a school based Physical Education specialist for grades 1-4. As a Phys Ed teacher, my teaching space is unique from all others in the building, and the organization and planning for my sessions takes on a different character from classroom based perspectives, but the pedagogy and the opportunities for integrating technology are relevant to the learning that takes place in both the classroom and the gym. In terms of physical literacy, student learning is embedded in activity, culture and context, and skills in communicating and collaborating become an essential component of Phys Ed. We incorporate digital tools in the gym to help students process information and reflect upon their skill and knowledge progression, and the goal of challenging students to progress beyond their current skill level becomes driven by both students and teachers. In terms of multimedia and areas that I would like to explore further, distributed cognition through augmented reality is an exciting area that can be integrated across subject areas, including Phys Ed, to impact student skill and knowledge through motivation and engagement in new ways. The first ISTE standard (2008), centered around facilitating and inspiring student learning and creativity, is an aspect of my pedagogy that I aim to continue to build upon throughout the experiences of the MET program.

My experience with LMS at the elementary school level has been limited to D2L/Brightspace, which I’ve used to customize coursework and communicate/collaborate with students and parents. One of the aspects of ETEC 565A that I’m most looking forward to is the opportunity to learn and experiment with different LMS styles, including Moodle, and developing strategies to assess the strengths and suitability of LMS to support and enhance student learning and collaboration. According to the ISTE standards, educators should aim to create opportunities to “customize and personalize learning activities to address students’ diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools and resources” (p.1). As a former classroom teacher and current Physical Education specialist, I envision the potential for understandings in neuroscience to help empower teachers to better plan for diverse student learning needs and styles, despite the fact that current research in the field of neuroscience does not provide an adequate understanding of the efficient application of these theories to educational practice and pedagogy. Current understandings in neuroscience have only reached the early stages of the research and analysis process, and there exists a need for greater evidence-based knowledge of developmental cognitive neuroscience and the potential impact for designing and evaluating educational programs (Coch and Ansari 2009).

Task design and approaches to planning for individual student learning needs can be enhanced through the application of neural understandings when presented from a practical perspective. One important goal for my own professional development is to learn more about the potential outcomes of interactions between neuroscience and education, and the ways in which technology can be leveraged to best support student learning and engagement. Neurological research can also led to a greater understanding of how our students are able to effectively prepare themselves to learn in a variety of educational contexts. In my role as Physical Education specialist, I’ve had the opportunity to explore the impact of neurological research in the classroom as conducted by clinical professor Dr. John Ratey In his book Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain (2008). Through regular exercise and physical activity, our students can promote the growth and development of new brain receptors, and this can lead to improved executive functioning and planning for individual learning.

On a personal and professional level, I’m interested in exploring ways that technology integration can be utilized to apply our neurological understanding by promoting physical activity and engagement as a means of helping students to support their ability to learn while managing concerns such as depression, anxiety and ADHD through exercise and healthy lifestyle choices. LMS and social media are two ways in which these ideas can be shared and discussed amongst teachers, students and parents, and there are a growing number of Physical Education specialists currently engaging in this work.

With the intention of returning to the classroom at some point in the next few years, I’m aiming to apply my learning in the MET program to cross curricular teaching situations and contexts. Supporting students in actively engaging with technology, while helping them to develop skills in assessing the function and suitability of these tools, is an important aspect of digital citizenship that requires focus and attention in schools. There’s a great quote by Marc Prensky (2010) that I think speaks strongly to the work that we do, and he states that “to set the bar truly high and to seek and demand an exceptional level of creativity from students, partnering teachers have to find ways to set students free to do things ‘their (i.e. the students’) way’ much more than we have ever done in the past” (p.154). As my flight path has taken me from the classroom, to the gym, and potentially back again, I feel that Prensky’s idea holds true in situations and contexts throughout our schools and beyond.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a Digital Age. http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/(Chapter 8 on SECTIONS framework)

Coch, D. & Ansari, D. (2009). Thinking about mechanisms is crucial to connecting neuroscience and education. Cortex, 45(4), 546-7.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-teachers

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives : Partnering for Real Learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Publishing.

Ratey, John. (2008) Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain. New York: Little, Brown and Company.