Author Archives: Danielle Couture

Sharing responsibilities

Teaching presence as defined by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999) is crucial when establishing a community of inquiry. It is therefore important that Trinh be able to respond promptly to any queries and have her presence felt by the students, without it becoming a burden.  I would suggest a two-fold solution; first by carefully transferring over some responsibilities to the participants and the website itself and second to establish something similar to office hours.

I would highly recommend that Trinh first consider the questions and queries that she is receiving.  She needs to determine if these should be addressed directly to her as a teacher or whether technical support or a well-designed FAQ could help divert some of the incoming mail.  Equally she could establish, if not already done so, a place on the course website where people could ask questions to the entire group.  This hopefully would alleviate some of the emails by sharing the facilitation responsibility (Garrison et al., 1999) with the other participants of the class.

The second part is establishing a fix session in which her students can reach her online through a live forum, collaborate or google hangouts.  The transcripts of these online discussions can be saved and shared; hopefully alleviating some of the communications.

References:

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher education, 2(2), 87-105.

Still navigating the 20th century

It is spectacular to imagine a room filled with on-task and motivated learners using their mobile devices to engage with the content and access individualized learning.  Unfortunately, this does not reflect my past experience. As I am currently on sabbatical, the following account is a little out of date and I truly hope the situation will have improved when I return.

If asked to describe my school in regards to 21st century skills, I would have to place it in the turn of the 20th century.  In spite of the presence of SmartBoards in every class, my department mirrors very closely the institutionalized mass schooling of early industrial society as described Kalantzis and Cope (2010); classroom desks are in rows, learning is teacher-centered based on facts and memorization and students are quite passive in their learning.  Within the department I was known for my bizarre open-ended projects, interestingly arranged desks and lack of control on my students for although not off-task they were not perfectly silent.

As such it is not hard to conclude that we are nowhere near the situation described by Ciampa (2013), and therefore, nowhere near helping students in the development of 21st century skills. The in-class use of cell phones or mobile devices by students is forbidden unless part of subject-specific (English, French, Dance) educational activities, such as filming in English class or selecting music for a project. We are to send any student caught using a mobile device to the administrators. We are no longer allowed to confiscate devices out of fear of loss, theft or damage.  The reasons provided to the students for the ban on electronic devices include: the possibility of using the devices for bullying and/or filming others without their consent, the fear of theft and damage to devices and the possibility of peer pressure to have the most recent model of electronic device.

Interestingly enough, I believe that incorporating mobile devices in the classroom and modelling how technology should be used could alleviate many of these issues.  Having the students realize that their devices are more than entertainment tools but can be used in a working environment would be a huge step towards the proper management of electronics.  I believe that the true reason electronics are banned at my school is not because this technology is inherently distracting or that the students do not know how to use it, but that the teachers in general are uncertain on how to consistently and properly implement the technology in order to increase the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of students described by Ciampa (2013).

 

References:

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200-222.

Reflections on Assignment 1

Individual Reflections on Assignment 1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric

I greatly enjoyed this assignment as it offered an authentic situation in which we could apply the knowledge from the readings and could experience the selection/design process first hand.  This assignment resembled a complex strategy game in which one must carefully navigate needs and aspirations, barriers and context in order to walk a narrow band between an overly generic rubric and an overly specific rubric; both of which are not useful tools. Below I have identified two key features in creating this balance and have provided my take home message. At this point in the reflection I would like to thank all members of group 1 for the amazing collaborative work.  It was a pleasure working with you. Thank you for this wonderful learning opportunity.

The importance of identifying the context and an example from our rubric

In order to create a useful evaluation rubric, or for any selection of technology, the context, the needs and the culture of the users must be carefully considered (Brown, 2009).  By researching BCcampus and carefully considering both the SECTIONS framework (Bates, 2014) and the good practices from the ISTE (2008), we were able to assess the needs of BCcampus, their requirements and to a certain point what the agency hoped to achieve through the implementation of their LMS.  BCcampus, supporting over 25 post-secondary institutions, needs to serve as a model for all affiliates, and therefore needs to select an LMS that would show innovation, allow for collaboration and can easily incorporate leading-edge technologies (Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005).  The rubric, also needed to help identify a LMS platform that allowed the diverse affiliates of BCcampus to customize and personalize the LMS according to their needs.  As BCcampus is proud of its role as a leader in technological innovation it was very important for us to ensure that the rubric correctly discriminated against LMS platforms that would not be able to adapt to upcoming technologies: we were looking to avoid the potential hang-ups described by Porto (2015) and Spiro (2014). Using these examples, one can see how the context of BCcampus drove many of the decisions in our rubric.

The importance of Identifying the barriers and an example from our rubric

Yet In spite of having a grasp on the expectations of BCcampus towards their future LMS platform, it was also imperative to consider the potential barriers, similar to those mentioned by Zaied (2005), that may limit the proper implementation of the technology. A rubric that does not address these issues might lead BCcampus to select a platform that is ill-suited to them and would not be used.   We attempted to highlight each of these potential barriers through the rubric, allowing BCcampus the opportunity to select the best possible platform considering their situation.  For example, the reduction in IT personal and limited three month timeline meant that cost, provided IT support and compatibility were essential.  As BCcampus was also open to the idea of implementing a new LMS that they had not tried before, our team opted for a simpler weighted criteria that did not assume prior experience with the LMS or time to experiment.

My take home message

I am astonished by the amount of elements that need to be considered in order to create a useful tool and to find that proper balance between too narrow and too generic a rubric. I knew context was very important to consider yet I had no idea how, when designing a tool, every element must be justified in regards to that context in order for the tool to be deemed relevant.  I believe that each of the rubrics generated from this assignment are context specific and time-sensitive.  For example, the rubric from the BCcampus scenario would not necessarily warrant the same results if applied to another organization and would certainly have been considered less relevant for BCcampus a year earlier when the cuts were yet to be announced.  Generic rubrics are not as useful as I once believed.  The selection of a tool or of a technology is not about applying a pre-made rubric or a generic set of criteria; one needs to cater the criteria to one’s specific and temporal context in order to make judicious choices and create an effective learning environment.  Just as a one-size-fits-all course is no longer appropriate (Spiro, 2014), so too is the one-size-fits-all rubric.

Again, thank you for this wonderful learning opportunity and thank you to all members of group 1 for the amazing collaborative work.  It was a pleasure working with you.

Danielle

 

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. Open Textbook.

Brown, T. (Producer). (2009). From Design to Design Thinking. TED Talks. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAinLaT42xY

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, 19-36.

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

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

Spiro, K. (2014). 5 elearning trends leading to the end of the Learning Management Systems.

Zaied, A. N. (2005). A framework for evaluating and selecting learning technologies. Learning, 1(2), 6.

 

Group 1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric for BCcampus

Assignment 1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric

Group 1 – BCcampus

Danielle Couture, Keri Fleming, Edwin Fong, Parmdip Gill, Colleen Huck

Précis

BCcampus is a publicly-funded agency that offers “teaching, learning, and educational technology support“ to the 25 post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and one in the Yukon.  As part of its shared services, BCcampus has been running two LMS platforms; one open-sourced (Moodle) and the other vendor based (D2L) whose contract will expire shortly.  With current restructuring, BCcampus will be losing half of its tech support team in three months, and therefore the possibility of running two separate LMS platforms is no longer an option.  BCcampus will need to decide which LMS they wish to proceed with across the board.  However, as BCcampus is known for its leadership in innovation, they are open to the idea of selecting an entirely new platform. As employees at BCcampus, we have been asked to create an evaluation rubric to help the BCcampus leadership team in the decision making process.  We have designed the rubric to help select a LMS that will fit with the needs, the vision and the mandate of BCcampus: “to connect, collaborate and innovate“. The selection process must also recognize the LMS’ ability to conform and adapt to the geographically and culturally diverse needs of BCcampus’ partner institutions and the thousands of post-secondary students across the country.

Please find our rubric and rationale in attachment

Assignment 1 Rubric for BCcampus (précis, rubric, rationale)

Time and aspirations

In her current situation, Lenora seems tight on time, might have difficulty with access to the internet and has limited knowledge of website creation.  Based on that information alone, I would not recommend the creation of a website.  Although many templates are available which will help her create her site, if she has not created one before and does not have the time to grant in thinking about the choices and the benefits or limitations each will have she might create a chaotic or ineffective site.

I would strongly suggest something that involves fewer choices and less time requirements.  I would suggest creating an Edmodo group or something similar.  It is free, has great resources to support the creation of a group, and is not as time consuming to set up and manage.  It allows for collaboration and a sense of community. I would not suggest an LMS as there are many tools I do not think she would use, such as the formative and summative assessment tools and the class and user management tools described by Coated, James and Baldwin (2005). Combining Bate’s SECTIONS framework (Bates, 2014)  with Chickering & Erhman’s seven Principles (1996), I have included below two other more detailed reasons explaining why I would recommend an Edmodo-style group over a website approach for Lenora’s project.

Organizational Issues: Providing Prompt Feedback and replies 

Another reason I would not suggest for Lenora to go with the website is the fact that she is placing herself and unfortunately her dial-up connection in the middle of the process; every post would have to pass through her dial-up network. As such if someone wishes to respond the website the chain of steps would be the following: 1) read the webpage, 2) compose the response 3) upload it to email 4) Lenora downloads it from e-mail 5) formats it for the website 6) uploads it too the website.  By this time depending on Lenora’s availability or access to the internet, the delay between the original post and the feedback might be too great to be considered effective.  Being the sole administrator of such a site does therefore not make sense.  However, being one of many administrators on a website still requires knowledge of websites by now many people.   Unfortunately having many administrators of a website still will not necessarily solve the issues previously raised depending on their resources. Lenora should establish/create a group in which she can easily send out an email to all the potential members to join in the discussion.  A service like Edmodo, would allow all individuals to upload their own content and to comment quickly and rapidly on what they see in the groups feed.  Therefore ensure 1) good communication, 2) collaboration and 3) prompt feedback.  All of which are examples of good practices as described in Chickering and Erhmann’s (1996) Seven Principles.

Interaction: Sense of community and collaboration

As Lenora’s idea is to provide support, the technology she uses to disseminate selected information must have a sense of community.  Websites also often lack the community feel as they are at times very static; the material is uploaded and sits there until updated.  As a user you simply pull off the material. As Lenora has no experience organising webpages, the idea a including a well-structured forum might be too advanced.  If such an element is inappropriately incorporated, it will be very difficult to follow up on posts and respond to the queries: rendering it seemingly useless and leaving the users with a feeling of isolation. If Lenora truly wishes to offer support, the technology must allow for a sense of community; to allow the users to know they are not alone.   The other issue in regards to a webpage is that anyone can stumble on to it; the potential number of users is too vast to provide that supportive community feel.  By establishing a group using a product such as Edmodo, you might still have a very large number of users, but you can literally see the number and each of their profiles if you want; you know you are not alone, also by allowing the users to post and comment you are allowing them to contribute to the learning of other, strengthening that sense of community and fostering a good learning environment (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996).

I believe that before she embarks on such a project, she must take the time to look at the technologies offered to her and assess each ones strengths and weaknesses with her needs and aspirations.

 

 

References:

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. Open Textbook.

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE bulletin, 49, 3-6.

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, 19-36.

A question for Benoît

Based on the situation, I would suggest that Benoît asks himself which of the two platforms will adapt the best to his needs and those of his students?

In reality this is a very loaded question, for it encompasses many smaller questions.   It also requires Benoît to sit down, consider and reflect upon his context, needs, options and ultimately what he desires to get out of the LMS platform.  It also might guide him through a reflection similar to the one create by (Bates, 2014) framework SECTIONS.  If Benoît fails to ask himself such a question and participate in the necessary reflection, the technology might not be used by the students and therefore the online format of the course will have much difficult to launch off the ground.

 

Total time to prepare the online course – 12-15 weeks (at least)

Regardless of the selected LMS, rethinking and adjusting his course will take time (approximately 5-6 weeks).   Although Benoît has created online material for his business writing class, this was designed to help support a face-to-face learning environment.  Benoît will need to carefully consider how he will construct his class, which media to use and how to properly incorporate student collaboration and participation.  The course will need to be redesigned in accordance to the needs of this entirely online context.  As Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2002) states to ensure effective use of technology involves many decisions from the art of the instructor and teacher environment.

I believe that the time it would take him to truly establish a course would depend on which platform he chooses to use.  BlackboardLearn, as it has templates and therefore might be faster to set up.  Also I would assume that it might be easier to transfer the data from WebCT vista to Blackboard.  Based on his already existing bias regarding Blackboard, it is very possible that the actual implementation of the on-line course might be more time consuming/frustrating due to his opinion.  According to Puckett (2013) the manner educational technology is viewed affects its implementation in the classroom (Puckett, 2013). I would grant about 4 weeks to fully familiarize yourself with the product and assess each of the components to your needs. This number comes from the suggested Moodle MOOC for new users that lasts 4 weeks and requires about 3-4 hours a week.   Uploading the material and designing the LMS as desired could take an additional 2-3 weeks.  Benoît will also need to troubleshoot the entire system as well.

In reality it will take a long time to properly design, select and implement the new-course.  The time that Benoît will give to the creation of his site, the more the students and himself will benefit from the on-line course.

 

References:

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. Open Textbook.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How people learn: Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Puckett, R. (2013). Educational Technology and Its Effective Use. i-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 6.

https://learn.moodle.net/

Dannie’s Flight Path

Dannie’s (Danielle’s) Flight Path

Technology is an ever-growing asset in the world of education.  It facilitates educators in, among other things, creating strong learning networks, sharing ideas with peers and engaging learners in a relevant and meaningful manner.  However, in my experience, technology is often brought into high school education as an afterthought; a high tech bauble to dazzle and hopefully motivate the students.  In spite of access and funding to make technology ubiquitous in the classroom, technology is still mainly being used by both teachers and the students for low-level tasks (Ertmer, 2005). Such practices contribute to the inability of schools to keep up with the proper implementation of modern technology and to the inability of the educational system to fully prepare students for their integration within a technologically advanced society.

Departure Destination: Who am I

As a teacher, I have always enjoyed trying new technologies and I have tinkered my way through a working understanding of educational technology (ET) by attending various conference sessions and webinars. With this knowledge I have attempted to combine many resources in a mock LMS; class website for content delivery, GoConqr and Edmodo for managing assessments and Padlet for additional social interaction.   The result was understandably somewhat chaotic.  This technological experiment led me to apply to the MET in the hopes of ascertaining the necessary tools to build and manage effective online learning environments.

Arrival Destination: Goals

I hope to use the knowledge and learning opportunities presented this course, and in the MET, to create better learning environments for asynchronous learning.  I also aspire to guide my fellow teachers in their own discovery of ET.  Although these might seem quite vast as far as aspirations they all come down to one basic goal: to gather and familiarize myself with the tools necessary to select and implement technology effectively within my context.

In-flight Technology: LMS, assessment, social software and multimedia

Honestly I know very little about LMS, assessment or social software in a formal context, as my past experiences have only led me to putter with programs and platforms I happened to hear about.  I am looking forward to explore these technological tools, to study their affordances and constraints, to discuss their pedagogical merits/pitfall and finally to assess whether these tools are right for my context.  In addition, I have always been leery about social software and therefore hope to gain a better understanding and more confidence in regards to this tool.

Lay-overs:  Required Resources

“To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail” (Mark, Twain)

Technological tools are sometimes over applied when educators and other stakeholders do not have the time or resources to properly each technology.  To master these technologies one needs time to reflect, analyze and evaluate their context, their current pedagogical practices, their content knowledge and their use/preferences/preconceptions of technology.  As Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2002) mentioned on page 206 of How People Learn ″inappropriate uses of technology can hinder learning″.

Analysis of my context, the technology and myself:

In order to properly implement technology, I need to reflect on my myself and on my context.  This self-analysis is extremely important for the manner educational technology is viewed affects its implementation in the classroom (Puckett, 2013). Both the feelings of overconfidence and intimidation in the presence of technology, can lead to the poor implementation of technology (Clarke & Zagarell, 2012). Ertmer (2005) mentions that technology needs to be integrated gradually starting with technologies that support the teachers’ current practices with a strong support system.  This will make the technology relevant to the educator, the context and the students and avoid the adoption flavor of the month forms of technology (Lux, Bangert, & Whittier, 2011). Therefore to ensure an effective integration of technology, I must reflect and analyse my current situation to ensure that the technologies implemented will truly answer the needs of the learning context.

Blog/journal and PLC

A useful tool/resource for such analyses would be a blog or journal. In the past, the pedagogical reasoning behind my use of a specific technology would often get lost in the implementation chaos. After that, it was very difficult to determine if the technology was effective.  A blog/journal could help track and enable quick access to the evolution of my thoughts and context. I also believe that participating in a PLC will greatly increase the odds of selecting, designing and successfully implementing technology.

Good Pedagogical and Content knowledge

In order to properly implement ET, I require a firm grasp on the curriculum and on pedagogy.  It is only in this manner that I will be able to incorporate technology to help deliver the content and design educational learning environments in accordance to TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

 Time:

The final, and most essential, resource I need to master and implement educational technology is time: time to properly experiment with, assess, analyze, implement and familiarize myself with the technologies and tools needed.  Very few teachers take the necessary time to fully analyse technology and integrate it within the curriculum (Barbera, Gros, & Kirschner, 2012). This haste actually increases the gap between the educational system and society’s expectations as the efficiency of technology in education is dependent on the manner in which it is used (Tufte, 2003).  The teacher must truly apply the technology and take/be given the time (Barbera et al., 2012; King & Boyatt, 2014) to critically analyse their needs and select the technology judiciously that will match and fill their needs.

Educational technology, as defined by Bates and Poole (2003), encompasses the technological tools, the skills needed to use them, an understanding on how to select the tool based on the context, the support and organization required to properly put these tools in place. Technology is a wonderful tool: how it is used determines its effectiveness.

 

References:

Barbera, E., Gros, B., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Temporal issues in e-learning research: A literature review.

Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success: ERIC.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How people learn: Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Clarke, G., & Zagarell, J. (2012). Technology in the Classroom: Teachers and Technology: A Technological Divide. Childhood Education, 88(2), 136-139. doi:10.1080/00094056.2012.662140

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.

King, E., & Boyatt, R. (2014). Exploring factors that influence adoption of e‐learning within higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology.

Lux, N. J., Bangert, A. W., & Whittier, D. B. (2011). The development of an instrument to assess preservice teacher’s technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(4), 415-431.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Puckett, R. (2013). Educational Technology and Its Effective Use. i-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 6.

Tufte, E. (2003). PowerPoint is evil: Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. Wired.