Author Archives: Keri Fleming

Professional Connector

Options for Trinh

If Garrison et al’s, Community of Inquiry model (2009) were to reflect Trinh’s situation then it would seem that the one of the overlapping circles, (teaching presence) is out of proportion. The way the scenario is framed, it appears that it is up to Trinh to be the sole human element of the course. She is the source of information for the tidal wave of emails that she receives. Could it be that if she receives that many daily emails, there is a problem with how the course is set up? The scenario does not elaborate as to the nature of the emails, so this response plan is speculative at best.

Here are tactics Trinh could work through:

If the emails are housekeeping in nature (due dates, grading levels, etc.) is that information missing/ill-represented from another place? Could a calendar be set up for/with push reminders sent to student’s emails? To me, this is the social piece of the model.
If the emails are with regards to course content, (library reserves, access to links, etc.) Can some of those queries be redirected to services offered by the library/help desk or even a forum within the course for students to help each other? Are there links (to YouTube videos) showing how to access information in a variety of formats? (As you know not everybody speaks Wookie). To me, this is the cognitive presence piece of the model.
If the emails are specific questions about what the instructor is looking for in terms of assignments, then perhaps the assessment(s) lean too much toward the summative end of the spectrum instead of giving the formative scaffolding most students need in order to check their own progress. Stated differently when students sense there is so much riding on an end result, without knowing how to specifically get to those ends, they will most likely ask a lot of questions. Perhaps Trinh needs to structure some formative pieces into her assignments/lessons so students will know (without an email from her) that they are on the right track. This to me, is the teaching presence piece of the model.

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebooks/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

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(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved from http://www.anitacrawley.net/Articles/GarrisonAndersonArcher2000.pdf

Elementary Cell Phones

I work at two elementary schools. At both schools on the very first day of school, usually a half day, students are sent home with a technology release form to secure (or not) use of technology for individual students. The forms are quite detailed and are in some ways ‘legal’ documents. For some students, who are under protection, photos cannot even accidentally be in any of the pictures taken at school. So because cell phones take photos, it becomes easier to say no to all use of cell phones at elementary during school hours (except in case of emergency [here meaning ‘natural’ disaster]). The official directive off the website of one of my schools reads as follows: “Cell phone use during school hours is not permitted. Devices may not be used during recess or lunch breaks.” (SD36, 2012)

Technically the official policy is the same at my other school, however it has a significant number of Asian students who usually come to Canada a few months before the end of grade 7 to our school specifically, so that they will have guaranteed access to the IB program of the local high school. I have seen those students use their cell phones quite steadily to translate, and in some cases (this will sound odd) but as “comfort devices.” They will watch their favourite “cat” video, or look at sites that remind them of “their normal” and it brings them comfort.

I am not sure how an elementary teacher would even structure a lesson with the idea that a cell phone is the best tool to use. Certainly not within the privacy regulations we are to abide by.

The use of iPads on the other hand, is quite intensive in the Surrey school district. We have the largest deployment of iPads of all schools in North America. Since we started introducing them to schools, our IT department has had to grow and policy change as the use of these devices grew in scope. We have also started wide spread use of the digital portfolio creation tool, Fresh Grade.

With regard to the article we read for this module, I am disappointed that it was chosen. Few educators I know have a team of support such as what was described, not to mention a 1-1 device ration. I understand that Clampa is trying to, and believes has successfully determined, that the taxonomy has validity in a current classroom. The article’s guiding question of: ‘What do elementary teachers and students perceive as the motivational affordances of using mobile devices for learning?’ focuses on two things: “motivational affordance” and “learning” [undefined]. Motivation according to Malone and Lepper can be enhanced through challenge, curiosity, control, recognition, competition, and cooperation (1987). My own experience of using devices, such as iPads, with students, is that, although great, they are not the only tool, nor the best one given the circumstance.

References

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf

Malone, T.W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 223– 253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=1311

Surrey School District. (2012). Cell phone use, BYOD. Retrieved from https://www.surreyschools.ca/schools/bayridge/About/PoliciesProcedures/CodeofConduct/Documents/Supervision.Attendance.BYOD.Personal%20Items.pdf

Learning Objectives for # 1 Rubric

Our group was tasked with creating a rubric to evaluate LMSs for BCcampus. Our group spanned 2 provinces and one territory. We completed our task through a shared document in Google. A link to our completed work is here.

The specifics of the scenario we were given were these:

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.

The detailed rubric we developed looks like this:

Criteria	Fair	Good	Excellent
1. Access
LMS system requirements (compatible with the current system and adaptive to future changes).	The LMS requires considerable system upgrades to integrate with the current BCcampus system.	The LMS requires minor system upgrades to be compatible with the current BCcampus system.	The LMS is fully compatible with the current system used by the BCcampus.
Devices.	The LMS can be accessed with limited functionality on mobile phones and tablets.	Certain features of the LMS may not be accessed on mobiles phones and tablets.	The LMS can be fully accessed using a full range of devices including: mobile phones, tablets, and desktop computers.
System requirements.	The LMS is designed to be used with a particular browser, or requires plugins, or special browser configurations.	The LMS supports the use of more than one browser. May require a downloadable app to run LMS on mobile and other devices.	The LMS runs optimally on Windows Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, and Mozilla Firefox and requires no special set-up requirements.
2. Support
Support available for the interconnectedness of all partner institutions.	Training/ support is only available for a time limited period after the LMS is initially set up. Online resources are limited.	Training/ support is available by phone only during specific hours of the week. There are some online resources.	Training/ support is available whenever the user has need. Online support is accessible 24/7.
Training and maintenance support for educators.	IT support is available during regular office hours by email or phone.	IT support is available by email or phone.	IT support is available 24/7 by email, phone, or live chat.
IT support for students.	Student can access IT support by email only; response will be only during office hours.	Students can access IT support by email or live chat during office hours.	Student can access IT support 24/7 by email or live chat.
3. Functionality
Provides a well thought out interface for all users of the LMS.	The LMS is relatively easy to use.	The LMS is easy to use and possesses some intuitive features.	The LMS has superior scope and sequence and exceptional insight into the needs of the users.
Layers of privacy and security that accommodate various applications (medical, legal, personal).	LMS provides adequate security for many of the applications.	LMS provides adequate security for most of the applications.	LMS provides excellent security for all the applications.
LMS innovations adapt and keep pace with future learners.	Limited design options. May require customized work by vendor, provider or open source LMS specialist.	Some “themes” available to change look and structure of user interface.	LMS interface look and feel can be customized by local administrators. The structure and organization is intuitive, and adaptable to fit needs.
4. Cost
Initiation/migration costs (set-up, implementation, staff training).	Implementation costs are above budget.	Costs are in-line with last year’s budget forecasts.	Costs are well under budget.
LMS maintenance (server back-ups, updates, course back-ups, course edits, archiving, staffing).	Regular maintenance will require more financial resources.	Regular maintenance costs are the same.	Regular maintenance costs are reduced.
Potential future costs (next 4-5 years).	No or limited stability in cost. Possibility of increases within 4-5 years.	Cost is stable for the stated time frame.	No foreseeable cost increases in the future.
5. Customization
LMS is adaptable to changes in technology and user driven initiatives.	The LMS is adequate in its current services.	The LMS has features that are progressive, but many of those changes were the result of user suggestions.	The LMS is structurally agile and responsive to changes in user needs and developments in technology.
Communication modalities.	The LMS has limited integration of new technology into their services; tools such as social media are not capitalized on.	The LMS has integrated new tools and technology, such as social media, yet it does not enhance the user’s experience.	The LMS has successfully and seamlessly integrated new tools and technology, such as social media, that enhances the user’s experience.
Ability to customize learning paths (documentation, archiving, formative assessment).	The LMS has some features, but is limited in scope.	The LMS has features that blend what they can offer with what can be inserted or included by other providers.	The LMS reflects in ways that are superior and extensive how information is actually interacted with by the user.
6. Organizational Requirements
A/synchronous communication mediums that facilitate interactions between: 1) instructor – student 2) student – student 3) student – resources	The LMS has basic offerings that facilitate simple communication avenues.	The LMS has a variety of formats for facilitating student interactions.	LMS design enables easy and effective communication options all interaction types.
Cognitive design.	The spatial and segmented cues of the LMS are adequate.	The LMS has features that pre-load the user prior to more detailed training.	The design elements of the LMS are effective so that learners are focused on the learning content rather than the medium.
Systemic alignment of LMS with BCcampus and its affiliates.	The LMS fits well with the current mandate of BCcampus. The LMS requires some minor adjustments.	The LMS fits very well with the current mandate of BCcampus. The LMS requires few minor adjustments.	The LMS fits perfectly with the current mandate of the BCcampus. No additional adjustments are required.

The reasoned articulation of our choices are in this researched-supported rationale:

Our LMS evaluation rubric is based on elements of the Bates SECTIONS model as well as Chickering and Ehrmann’s seven principles of good practice. As Coates points out, “decisions about university teaching and learning should not be restricted to checklist evaluations of technical and organizational factors” (2005). With that in mind, we did not limit our rubric to standard evaluation criteria, rather we designed the rubric around the specific needs of BCcampus; developing six high-level criteria encompassing the primary concerns of the agency: Access, Support, Functionality, Cost, Customization, and Organizational Requirements.

With 25 affiliates, the importance of versatility without restrictions is paramount. A system that can be accessed by every institution, device and end user, without compromise to functionality, will keep BCcampus at the forefront of innovation. Further, the BCcampus IT support will be reduced in three months making system compatibility an important requirement.

Secondly, it is important that the selected LMS provides support to all users. IT support must be available for BCcampus, the institutions, and the individual users, as these stakeholders might require different assistance at various times. If teachers and learners are not well supported then there is a high risk that the LMS may not be used at all (Bates, 2014).

The functionality of the LMS is an integral criteria for BCcampus to maintain their leadership in innovation by empowering the current and future learners through intuitive user interfaces. Furthermore, the functionality should not compromise the security and privacy of its users in order for open discussions to occur without consequences (Bates, 2014).

BCcampus uses an innovative collaborative model that allows various post-secondary institutions to share resources and costs (BCcampus, 2013). Participating institutions can access the resources and technologies they would not be able to individually. BCcampus must have information about the initial implementation, and future LMS maintenance costs in order to budget effectively. This in turn, will affect the participating institutions and their budgeting.

As Spiro mentioned, students are increasingly taking charge of their own learning; gone are the days of one-size-fits-all courses (2014). This mentality calls for a LMS platform that is customizable – allowing students and teachers alike, the opportunity to curate their own learning path. Further, BCcampus is looking for a long term LMS, meaning it has to be adaptable and able to integrate with new technologies in order to meet the needs of its diverse student population.

Lastly, BCcampus provides a leading-edge collaborative interface. As such, the LMS it uses must have strong cognitive design in its structural components, align with the mandates of its partners, and provide exceptional modalities for communication. We understand this will not be the only tool an evaluation team uses, but believe that the six areas covered will provide a well-rounded summary to the committee.

We used this relevant literature to support our decisions:

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

BCcampus. (September 2013). Annual Report 2012-2013, Strategic Plan 2013-2016, Retrieved from: http://bccampus.ca/files/2013/10/2013-ar-stratplan.pdf

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S., C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved from http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

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

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

My reflection upon your experience completing this assignment

The learning objectives for this module were centred on understanding the role of delivery platforms, and to think about the challenges and opportunities that come with those platforms. Our group work, toward these ends, afforded me a unique learning experience.

My first realization was that evaluative work, such as creating a rubric to select an LMS interface for BCcampus, cannot be a one-person task. The sheer enormity of facets to be aware of needs to be tackled by a team. That team needs be one that have members who know their facts, the implication of those facts, and be thorough.

My second realization was two-part. I did not know/understand what LMS are/were. And further to that, it was a stretch to comprehend the ubiquitous role they play. To add to what I wrote in the first point, many and varied are the things that the LMS interface must provide and perform, and many more are the things that we still wished they could do. The best ones seem to be “invisibly there.’

My third and final realization for this purpose, is that the work that goes on “behind the scenes” often goes under-appreciated by those that use these systems. We know when we don’t like something (how it looks, how it functions, getting help), but sadly it is rare to acknowledge all of the thinking and planning and coding and envisioning and testing and modifying and . . . that several layers of hard work that have resulted in what we see before us.

Keri

Describe the role delivery platforms play in creating rich educational environments;

Lenora First Person Voice

First let me write that I completely empathize with Lenora. Going to a Pro-D and coming away with ideas that just need to be tweaked “a little” can be a bit of a “hamster-wheel.” Let me give you an example.

When we were doing the rubric assignment for this course, I thought, “Wouldn’t it be cool to sort of do a reverse questionnaire/process of elimination tool where it would lead BCcampus to the choice they needed for an LMS!?” [Note: what I was thinking were those polls that came up during the election, where your political-belief/allegiance would be revealed after a few answered questions]. I hurried over to Google Forms and started creating a questionnaire, then thought ‘wait! maybe, I should do this in Adobe Pro’, and then after an hour or so of making a nickel sized dent in an iceberg, I went off to prep for my real job of teaching the next day.

“Why,” you may ask, “is it always a story with you lady?” To which I will answer (to get us back on track) Lenora has a great idea. She is bursting with enthusiasm, and knows that this resource will potentially be really valuable. However, I think she needs to move this from “Me” to “We” (no © infringement intended). She has a huge resource pool of like-minded educators. Perhaps together they can develop a website with each of them tackling a part of the whole.

I believe there is good reason to pursue the website idea, and there are many options for sites that can be hosted (and self-help for creating) within the myriad of concerns and conditions that one would have for this type of site/scenario. However given the restrictions of her priorities, her internet access, and her unfamiliarity with the process, this endeavour may be best pursued and achieved with a team (but “posse” sounds much more “story”).

To quote the First People’s Principles of Learning: “Learning is holistic,” and “learning ultimately supports the well-being of the self, the family, the community.” (FNESC, 2015) Based on this, it would appear that for First Peoples, an issue such as bullying isn’t handled as a solitary element, nor with a solitary element (such as a website) but rather an opportunity for community to come together and practice ‘community.’ To accurately reflect on this scenario, one needs to remember the crucial piece that their community is based on interconnectedness and on relationship. The Lone Ranger motif is not a fit.

FNESC (2015). First peoples principles of learning. Retrieved from http://www.fnesc.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PUB-LFP-POSTER-Principles-of-Learning-First-Peoples-poster-11×17.pdf

What are they going to use his office for?

At first, my “one” question was going to be ‘what are they going to use his office for?’ If the department head is asking a sessional instructor at a research-intensive university to turn his course into an online course . . .

Anyway, back to the task. This discussion question seems to be framed by the issue of support structures for the choice of LMS.

For Benoit, the advantages of Blackboard seem to be that he is used to the platform, and that it has university based support staff for that structure. The advantages that are provided by going with Moodle are that it is not administered by the university’s IT department and there is some use of it in other departments.

To make a decision about which platform to choose, Benoit may need to consider:

Will technical support for students be a key factor in the deployment of his Business Writing course? Bates chapter on ‘students’ advocates knowing their needs precipitates choice of technologies.

Will Benoit continue to think of his writing course as governed by an alignment to the learning outcomes of the university? The Spiro article speaks to the demise of LMS systems in favour of students finding information on their own terms. The Newman article writes that post-secondary institutions are uniquely poised to integrate infrastructure and support services. Is it time for Benoit to branch out and create his own course disconnected from/parallel to the one he is creating for the university? Can he create a new amalgamation in his course that blend the best of university benefits and his own creative initiative? If I have one question to ask (on behalf of Benoit) would be “Where do you want this to go?” Will the need for Business Writing courses continue at this university? Could this be an opportunity to build his skill base, create something new evidenced by his experience of designing and uploading other content?

If Benoit estimates that he will spend 5 hours a week developing his course, and it is going to be “live” next term then he should double/triple the hours a week he spends in the guess of 14 weeks. If he decides to go with Blackboard, which he knows an earlier version of, he will be accustomed to the framework and be able to “plug” in his prepared content. If he decides to go with Moodle, he will not only have to learn the structure, but figure out how/where to place content, feedback, assignments, online forums, among others. But is “plugging in” information really the answer?

Whether he decides on Moodle or Blackboard, isn’t really the question. I think Benoit will need to decide whether he will: a) rely on the university for direction and support; b) rely on more personal direction and a bigger role in supporting his students; or c) somehow blend the best of all invested stakeholders, creating something that will serve the here and now, but take him to another frontier.

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

Newman, A. (2015). Evidence of learning: a framework for facilitation. EDUCAUSE Review, 50,(6), 47-62. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/10/evidence-of-learning-a-framework-for-facilitation

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/

Keri’s Path

My goal for this course will be to discern the appropriate scenario for this type of application. Not every learning scenario will be suitable for an LMS (and yet every learning forum has some such system for the management of the learning to take place). Knowing the type of learner that I am, my goals will be to know the breadth of elements that need to be considered for an LMS, to ascertain the types of assessment effective in given situations, to determine if/when the use of (which) social interfaces will be optimal, and how the many and diverse forms of media will be educationally sound.

I recognized from the conversion from one format to another during this course, how important concrete examples are to me. Therefore, I think I will be choosing Moodle as a platform because of the structured supports available online.

Many of the elements of Bates’ acronym will parallel differently in an elementary school setting, than in an adult learner construct. Privacy issues with “children in schools” are stricter than adults who have opted to divulge personal information. Internal email accounts that are available to students inside of our District require a school-based moderator. Gmail accounts require parent consent. Some children cannot have their image posted for various reasons which gives another glitch to natural, spontaneous sharing. Is there an educational pay-off that is worth the paper trail of forms?

Networking with team members works with adults, but I am wondering about the best way to set that up for children. Is there a way to virtually scaffold/dovetail the ways I am encouraging cooperation in the classroom?

Educators feel dialogue is the centerpiece of teaching/learning (Nel, Carstens, Dreyer, 2010)[1]. One of my schools has 4 different children who are select mutes, who would rather not be at school than risk speaking with anyone. Learning still needs to be meaningful for them even though the conversation is one-sided.

With that in mind, I am planning to construct an LMS that perhaps encapsulates some of the pre-packageable content that I teach in the library. It may not be a glove-fit for the way I teach, I do want to figure out what would make an LMS a good thing for a specific situation. “Check boxes” and “badges” are not facets of my current teaching practice, so I am not sure what that part will look like. (It may be an issue of terminology. Perhaps I will use ‘levels’, going the gaming route). The complexities of taxonomy for Kindergarteners is different than for say, grade 7s (even though both groups are quite myopic). I think what will be the most challenging for me is trying to make the learning appear/seem authentic for elementary learners.

I will first need to go through the pages available on Moodle’s webpage in order to understand its purpose of design. I will need to take stock of the things I teach in library, and see what can be restructured to fit into the Moodle configuration. I will take what I know of formative/summative assessment along with what we cover in the class and strategically build those pieces in where appropriate.

I will need to figure out (or at least simulate) a social media element. There are many ways student voice is fostered in the library now, but I could set out to forge new ways of doing this. Maybe through each of my Fresh Grade permissions, or more actively through my libraries Twitter feeds. That piece will need some more thought.

Bates, T. Teaching in a digital age: models for media selection. (2015). Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/ January, 2016.

Nel, C., Carstens, WAM. & Dreyer, C. (2010). Educational technologies: a classification and evaluation. Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 35(4), 238-258. Doi:10.4314/tvl.v35i4.53794

[1] Authors are citing the research of Laurillard, 1993, p. 245.