Author Archives: Meghan Gallant

Assignment 1 Reflection — Meghan Gallant

Designing an LMS evaluation rubric challenged me in ways I did not initially expect. While I knew I would have to take the requirements and limitations outlined in the case study into consideration, I did not expect to experience anxiety as I assumed to know what would be important to consider from YESNet’s perspective.

Our group began with a clear structure to get started with—Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model. I was pleased to be using the SECTIONS model in its intended context and felt confident that, using the framework as a guide, I would contribute relevant and thoughtful criterion. However, when I began to think about what YESNet required, I realized I knew very little about what they would desire in an LMS or how they expected an LMS to facilitate blended learning. I could not put myself in YESNet’s shoes, so I started researching LMSs and blended learning.

Ellis and Calvo (2007) suggest that the first step when implementing a blended learning environment is that: staff begin by undertaking some sort of decision-making. Those initial decisions depend on the size and scope of the redevelopment or design of the course, the needs of students, the learning strategies of their department, and the culture of the institution. (p.63)

Unfortunately, I am not a member of YESNet and I did not undertake any decision making, so I had to make a lot of assumptions about YESNet’s needs. The first assumption I made was back when I chose to contribute criterion for the Ease of Use and Cost components of Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model. After reflecting on why I chose to work with these particular components, I discovered that these two considerations are what I usually consider early on when choosing technology for my own classes. Someone had to cover Ease of Use and Cost, but was I biased in choosing them? Had I put my priorities ahead of the needs of the students, the learning strategies of YESNet, and the culture of the institution in assuming that Ease of Use and Cost would be priorities? Would my suggested criterion be useful, or would my bias skew the criterion’s validity? I wasn’t sure what type of feedback to expect when I went into our second group meeting.

Once I started working with the group, I felt better about my contributions. The group worked together re-wording, adding and deleting, and rearranging the criterion. After several hours of work, the group developed a rubric I am proud of. Revision and collaboration are not features unique to our group—this happens all the time. However, it highlighted an important point—choosing evaluation criterion is not a task that should be undertaken by a single person. I feel that working in a group softens personal bias and keeps assumptions to a minimum. As a group, we discussed the criterion and drew from our combined experience; this lead to our group addressing many considerations that would have never crossed my mind. Ideally, this is how the development of an evaluation rubric should be approached—as a team working toward a common goal.

References

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

Ellis, R.A. & Calvo, R.A. (2007). Minimum indicators to assure quality of LMS-supported blended learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 60-70. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.10.2.60?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Group 3: YESNet Learning Technologies Advisory Committee’s LMS Evaluation Rubric

Group Members: Jo-Anne Chrona, Meghan Gallant, Sean Turner, Tanya Walsh

Precis of Scenario

We, of the Yukon Education Student Network (YESNet) Learning Technology Advisory Committee (LTAC), have been recruited to develop a rubric which will be used to evaluate the suitability of learning management systems (LMSs) to meet YESNet’s current and future needs.

At present, YESNet, in partnership with Yukon First Nations Programs & Partnerships Unit of the Yukon’s Ministry of Education, needs to develop secondary courses in a blended-learning format that will serve the needs and interests of Aboriginal communities.

Na Cho Nyak Dun First Nation has graciously agreed to host the pilot program. However, there are significant concerns regarding the reliability and bandwidth of its internet services. In fact, most of the nation’s citizens rely on 3G networks.

Category

Criteria

3 – Exemplary

2 – Adequate

1 – Limited

0 – Inadequate

Students

Does the LMS allow for a blend of individual, collaborative and cooperative learning?

LMS supports multiple forms of individual, collaborative and cooperative learning activities.

LMS supports individual and some collaborative and cooperative learning activities.

LMS supports individual learning and some collaborative learning activities.

LMS supports only individual learning activities.

Students

Does the LMS support use of a variety of media so that students with diverse strengths and varied needs have multiple access points (i.e. visual, print-based, auditory) for learning activities and assessment?

LMS supports the use of a variety of auditory, print-based and other visual media for learning activities and assessment.

LMS supports the use of auditory, print-based and other visual media for learning activities and assessment.

LMS supports the use of print-based and other visual media for learning activities and assessment.

LMS supports the use of print-based media only.

Students

Does the LMS support mobile delivery and compatibility with a wide variety of devices for wide-reaching accessibility?

LMS offers full mobile delivery and is compatible with a large selection of devices.

LMS offers mobile delivery to a large variety of devices, but some devices may not support all LMS functions.

LMS offers mobile delivery to a limited amount of compatible devices.

LMS is not optimized for multiple devices and/or mobile delivery.

Students

Does the LMS web or cloud have 24/7 access with (mostly) low bandwidth requirements?

LMS is web or cloud based and does not require heavy bandwidth.

LMS is web or cloud based, but certain functions require higher bandwidth.

LMS is web or cloud based, but has significant bandwidth requirements.

LMS is not web or cloud based and/ or bandwidth requirements are prohibitive.

Ease of Use

Is the LMS intuitive, requiring little to no additional training for students?

LMS is purposefully designed with a 20 minute or less learning curve.

LMS is purposefully designed, but the learning curve is 20+ minutes.

LMS is not entirely intuitive and may require additional online tutorials.

LMS cannot be navigated or used without extensive training.

Ease of Use

Is the LMS intuitive, requiring little to no additional training for instructors?

LMS is purposefully designed to be updated and operated with minimal training.

LMS can be updated and operated with some online tutorials.

LMS requires formal F2F training or assistance from outside sources, after which it can be operated independently.

LMS requires extensive training or can only be created and updated by outside staff.

Cost

Can the LMS be implemented within our budget using existing hardware and/or with minimal increased capital in the community schools?

LMS can be implemented within existing budget, hardware, and infrastructure in communities.

LMS is within budget and will require only minimal investment in hardware or infrastructure.

LMS will require significant, (but achievable) funds and/or investment in hardware and infrastructure.

LMS requires funds and/or infrastructure beyond the current capabilities.

Cost

Does the LMS cost include the addition of future users?

LMS allows additional user registrations at anytime at no additional cost.

LMS allows additional users at a cost-per-user basis.

LMS allows for additional registrations at license renewal only.

LMS user number is permanently capped at time of license agreement.

Cost

Is the LMS well-tested and reliable, therefore keeping ongoing maintenance costs minimal?

LMS is well-tested and reliable with a history minimal disruption in service.

LMS is an established product and is known to require occasional maintenance.

LMS is relatively new and/or is known to require regular maintenance.

LMS has no track record or is known to have significant technical issues.

Teaching and Media Selection

Does the LMS design provide a variety of multimedia and communication tools?

LMS fully supports the use of a variety of multimedia, varied (asynchronous and synchronous) communication tools, including social media.

LMS supports the use of a variety of multimedia and both asynchronous and synchronous communication tools.

LMS supports minimal use of multimedia and/or only asynchronous communication tools.

LMS does not support the use of multimedia and/or communication tools.

Teaching and Media Selection

Does the LMS provide sufficient opportunity for integration of locally developed instruction?

LMS can support integration of locally developed instruction.

LMS can integrate some locally developed instruction.

LMS can integrate limited locally developed instruction.

LMS cannot integrate locally developed instruction.

Interaction

Does the LMS allow for multiple types of interactivity, making it suitable for the creation of blended learning environments?

LMS supports student-material, student-teacher, student-student, user-generated and student-community interactions.

LMS supports student-material, student-teacher, and student-student interactions.

LMS supports student-material and student-teacher interactions.

LMS only supports student-material interaction.

Organisational Issues

Can LMS be integrated within existing school/district systems (i.e. work with ASPEN)?

LMS can be easily integrated within current school/district systems, and is adaptable for future changes.

LMS can be easily integrated within current school/district systems.

LMS can be partially integrated within current school/district systems.

LMS is not compatible with current school/district systems.

Organisational Issues

Will the LMS learning components integrate well with existing teaching structures, such as the Rural Equity Action Plan?

LMS learning components can be integrated within existing teaching structures and that can be adapted as required.

LMS learning components can be integrated within existing teaching structures.

LMS learning components can be integrated within some existing teaching structures.

LMS learning components do not integrate with existing teaching structures.

Networking

Does the LMS enable learners to network beyond the course?

LMS provides multiple ways to link with social media and other platforms where students can network with members of their community and other communities.

LMS provides at least one platform for students to network with members of their own community

LMS provides links to social media sites where students can network with others.

LMS provides no means of networking beyond the confines of the course.

Networking

Does the LMS enable students to develop and export learning resources for fellow students and members of the community?

LMS parovides multiple ways that students can share their self-created resources with others.

LMS provides at least one open platform (such as a blog or wiki) where students can share their self-created resources with others.

LMS provides limited means of exporting student-created resources to other platforms.

LMS provides no means of accessing student-created resources beyond immediate cohort of instructors and registered students.

Networking

Does the LMS enable instructors to provide open educational resources to other communities?

LMS provides multiple ways for instructors to share learning resources.

LMS provides at least one platform where instructors can provide open educational resources.

LMS provides limited means of exporting educational resources to other platforms.

LMS provides no means of accessing educational resources outside of platform.

Security & Privacy

Do the LMS’ security measures provide protected access for instructors and learners?

LMS provides superior access protection for both instructors and learners.

LMS provides standard access protection.

LMS provides limited access protection but system could easily be breached.

LMS provides no protected access

Security & Privacy

Do security and privacy measures comply with the Yukon Ministry of Education’s ATIPP, the Na Cho Nyak Dun First Nation’s requirements, and are consistent with OCAP?

LMS security and privacy measures exceed those required by both governments.

LMS security and privacy measures comply with most requirements of both governments.

LMS security and privacy measures comply with few requirements of both governments.

LMS security and privacy measures do not comply with requirements of either government.

Rationale

For our evaluation rubric to help determine which LMS would be best suited for the Yukon Education Student Network (YESNet) and Yukon First Nations Programs & Partnerships Unit of the Yukon’s Ministry of Education, we used Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model, which outlines sets of questions to help people make decisions about which technologies to use. We used his criteria (Students, Ease of Use, Costs, Teaching Functions, Interaction, Organizational Issues, Networking and Security and Privacy) to develop our own rubric to help YESNet’s Learning Technologies Advisory Committee (LTAC) make the best choice for a LMS that focuses on developing blended learning secondary courses that support diverse student needs and honour Aboriginal educational perspectives such as focusing on collaborative and cooperative learning activities, connecting to community, and supporting local autonomy.

References

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

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015) Aboriginal worldviews and perspectives in the classroom: Moving forward. Victoria, BC: Queen’s Printer Publishing.

Chrona, J. (2015). First people’s principles of learning. Retrieved from https://firstpeoplesprinciplesoflearning.wordpress.com/

First Nations Centre. (2007). OCAP: Ownership, control, access and possession. Sanctioned by the First Nations Information Governance Committee, Assembly of First Nations. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization.

Yukon Education Student Network. (2016). Yukon schools. Retrieved from http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/index.html

ETEC 565A, Assignment 1, YESNet Rubric PDF Version

Making use of offline editing and curation tools.

The idea:

When I thought about how Lenora could approach the task of creating an online anti-bullying resource with her limited website design skills and dial-up Internet,  I did not think a website was the way to go. The challenges Lenora would face in building a website are not a good use of her limited time. Taking both the time needed compared to Lenora’s priorities and commitments and her Internet access into consideration,  I think Lenora should create a blog instead of a website. A blog would not require a significant amount of website design skills as many come with premade, intuitive templates. Additionally, a blog would not (necessarily) require outside hosting, and would come with many useful features for sharing her content and encouraging interaction. As Lenora may not be confident in her skill set, she could start with something simple, then, as her confidence grows, she could add additional features. A blog would also be a good platform for others to contribute with guest posts.

Solution for dial-up internet:

To mitigate potential difficulties with Lenora’s dial-up connection, I suggest that she use an offline editor to create her blog posts. There are many offline editors available for both Mac and PC, and Lenora could download the .exe at work and bring it home if the file size was too large to download at home. If she did not want to download a client, Microsoft Word 2007 and higher has a blog editing function. Many offline editors allow users to create posts and see it exactly as it would appear on the website, so Lenora could get the text and basic formatting done at home and perhaps upload smaller files. With drafts mapped out at home, Lenora would only have to add the larger files and images while at school, then she could make the post go live with limited extra time spent at school.

Building an audience:

To build her initial audience, Lenora could share a link to her blog in the Cradleboard Teaching Project Teacher’s Circle. She could also use Twitter, or other social media plug-ins to promote the blog and to provide additional avenues of interaction.

Curation as an additional resource:

When considering a blog as a solution for Lenora, I thought about how I usually find blogs I’m interested in–Pinterest. I don’t think Pinterest is ideal for Lenora’s situation, but it did remind me of Spiro’s (2014) point about curation when he suggests that education will move toward learning professionals curating content. I didn’t think Pinterest was what Spiro meant, so I did a quick search and found two similar websites that could be useful for Lenora: Mentormob or Scoop.It. I have not personally used these, but I believe they would enable Lenora to curate content from her blog as well as items already hosted online, lessening the need to upload using her dial-up connection or staying late at work.  As these are meant to facilitate learning, they would complement the blog and perhaps be suited for an online Pro-D.

Drawbacks and considerations:

A drawback to both using a blog that Lenora is not hosting herself and using curation platforms is privacy and ownership of information considerations. Lenora wishes to create this resource for band teachers and may not want her content accessible to the public. Making the blog private could restrict access to her intended audience if Lenora doesn’t add them as permitted users and, her dial-up connection may prohibit her from quickly responding to requests for access. However, being open to the public also creates potential problems; moderating comments, for example, would be time-consuming and a burden on Lenora’s dial-up Internet connection. Lenora would encounter similar issues with the curation platforms and their privacy settings. Additionally, Lenora would also need to carefully examine the privacy policies of both the blog (if she’s not self-hosting) and the curation sites to ensure they meet the requirements of the privacy policy governing her school board and/or geographic jurisdiction to safeguard her information and that of users and contributors.

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

 

 

Reliability should be Benoit’s priority.

In Benoit’s specific situation, a driving factor in his colleagues’ decisions to gravitate toward Moodle is the speed, or, rather, the lack thereof, of support from the IT department for Blackboard Learn. While this is definitely a factor worth considering, I am more alarmed by the implied belief that Moodle is the superior choice because there is less paperwork and less red tape. As the perceived lack of technical support for Blackboard Learn seems to be a significant factor in Benoit’s choice of platform, I believe the question Benoit must ask is: Which platform is most reliable? This is an important question to ask because, regardless of how easy it is to create the course, or how easy it is to use, none of that will matter if the course becomes inaccessible due to technological difficulties. Bates (2014), in his discussion of reliability, states, “Technical support can be a huge cost, not just in paying technical staff to deal with service calls, but also in lost time of students and teachers” (8.3.4 Reliability section, para. 1). The case study explicitly states that there is no real technical support for Moodle and support for Blackboard Learn is slow at his institution. Therefore, it would be wise to consider which platform will ultimately be more reliable in order to decrease possible lost time due to inadequate technical support.

As Benoit can only dedicate five hours per weeks to developing the online course, he does not have the luxury of time. Boettcher (2004), in her analysis of faculty effort required for an hour of instruction to be converted to online material, states “a recommended planning number today for experienced faculty is 10 hours per hour of instruction” (p.3). Boettcher suggests that, in the case of a three-credit course, that approximately 45 hours of instructional time would need to be converted to an online format (p.2). So, if this suggestion is accurate, it would take 450 hours, or 90 weeks at 5 hours per week for Benoit to develop his online course at this rate. Similarly, Wu (2014) reveals that when factoring in all elements of designing an online course, “Verizon Communications reports that it needs at least 40 hours[…]to develop 1 hour of an e-learning course” (p.597). This translates into 1800 hours of development for Benoit’s course if we apply Boettcher’s estimate of instructional hours in a three-credit course. This number is obviously unreasonable as the course is due to go online the next term—so how can I come up with a more appropriate estimate?

First, I need to discount all hours used in platform and interface development as this is largely covered by Moodle and Blackboard Learn’s existing design. Therefore, Verizon Communications’ time estimate is not useful as it does not categorize where the time is spent. Boettcher’s estimate can still apply, but her information is twelve years old, so we need to account for increased usability of LMS and a potential increase in the skill set of users. Finally, we know that Benoit has developed content previous to being asked to develop a fully-online course, so he will save time there. Taking these adjustments into consideration, my estimates of time needed are as follows:

  • Two weeks to become acquainted with the chosen LMS and its functions.

Rationale:
Regardless of which LMS Benoit chooses, he will have to learn how to use it. Bates (2014) suggests a useful criterion to use when estimating time needed for students to learn how to use a new software is 20 minutes. As Benoit has to do more than navigate the course, I estimate it will take approximately 5 hours of learning and 5 hours of practice to become confident in his skill set. This may be reduced if he chooses Blackboard due to his previous experience with WebCT Vista).

  • Six weeks for content development, broken down as follows: two weeks to review existing material from the face-to-face course and determine its suitability for the online course and four weeks to adapt and upload content material.

Rationale:
The content from his face-to-face course may not be entirely suitable for the online course. It would be wise of Benoit to take into account Mayer’s 12 principles of multimedia design as outlined in the Teaching and media selection components of the SECTIONS model (Bates, 2014), then adapt the content for an online-learning environment.

  • Four weeks to construct interaction and assessment components for the course.

Rationale:
While Benoit does have experience uploading content, he will have to design online assessments and opportunities for interaction, something he does not currently have experience with. I presume that this will be time-consuming.

  • Two weeks to conduct a trial run of the course as both student and instructor (perhaps using faculty members as testers?).

Rationale:
When considering Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model, I think Ease of Use is an incredibly important area to consider when choosing technology. Therefore, I suggest that Benoit carefully tests the usability and reliability of this course before launching it. I suggest two weeks so he can potentially recruit colleagues to test the course, rather than relying solely on himself in order to provide an outside perspective.

  • One-two weeks for revisions.

Rationale:
Benoit should reserve ample time to correct any issues discovered in the testing phase.

Total number of weeks: 15-16

References:

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Boettcher, J., (2004, June 29). Online Course Development: What Does It Cost? Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/Articles/2004/06/Online-Course-Development-What-Does-It- Cost.aspx?aid=39863&Page=1

Wu, H. (2014) A framework of combining case-based reasoning with a work breakdown structure for estimating the cost of online course production projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 595-605. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Meghan’s Flight Path

My experience is limited to teaching grade 10 Information Technology for five years at a Chinese-Canadian school in Shenzhen, China. The school caters to students who do not plan on taking the GAO KAO (Chinese university entrance exam), but who do plan on attending university abroad. Our access to technology is limited by the Great Firewall of China and a reliance on traditional Chinese teaching methods (teacher lectures, students do homework). I have access to forty desktop computers running basic software packages, and students receive approximately forty minutes of in-class instruction and forty minutes of hands-on practice each week. I teach three units each year: Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, and Digital Citizenship.

I’m brand new to the MET program. My motivation for applying was an overwhelming feeling that my IT course was stale and not meeting the needs of my students. I thought the most effective way to make improvements would be to educate myself. I know I made the right decision. My goals for 565A are: be open to and try different things and to collaborate and learn from others. My first goal fits well under ISTE standard 3: Model digital age work and learning (ISTE, 2008). It’s not enough for me to say, “Oh, we can’t use that here.” If I expect to make changes to my IT program, I need to try different things. Principle 3 of Chickering and Ehrmann’s seven principles states, “Good Practice Uses Active Learning Techniques” and that is something that resonated with me (1996). I cannot be passive if I want to make a change in my IT course—I need to create change, whether it’s a change in approach, technology, content, or something I haven’t even considered yet. Even if the technology or approaches I learn in 565A won’t work for me here in Shenzhen, I can transfer the skills I did learn to something that will work.

Looking to my goal to collaborate, I was not making any headway on my own, so I recognize the need to collaborate with others. This is difficult for me because I’m shy and I’m not confident in my IT program. When looking at the ISTE standards for teachers, I found it interesting that standard 5: Engage in professional growth and leadership puts “participate in local and global learning communities…” before “contribute to the effectiveness, vitality and self-renewal of the teaching profession…” (ISTE, 2008). I believed that making a change was up to me, and me alone. However, this standard and its layout grabbed my attention and helped me refocus—I need to learn from others, then teach others.

There are many things I would like to learn during this course, but I’m most looking forward to learning about Learning Management Systems. When evaluating myself using the ISTE standards for teachers, Chickering and Ehrmann’s seven principles, and Bates’ SECTIONS framework, I realized that I am falling short in providing opportunities for my students to interact and provide feedback to one another. David Niguidula, in his view of digital portfolios, summarizes research on authentic assessment and feedback, stating, “when a student has a stake in the process of assessment, and when teachers and others provide useful and meaningful feedback, student performance improves” (Niguidula, 2010, p.158) While an LMS is not exactly a digital portfolio, I think Niguidula’s statement still applies. I want to explore using an LMS to encourage more interaction (both teacher-student and student-student), to add elements where students can gain more feedback. Additionally, I had great results using Edmodo to allow students to take more control of their learning (before it was blocked), so I imagine using an LMS and creating a course that is tailored specifically to my needs has the potential to be even more successful.

I am a little hesitant about the social software/social media aspect of the course. I personally find Twitter a little chaotic and I was initially dismayed to learn that we would be using it, but I am willing to give it another go. I predict that approaching it as a professional rather than as a purely social user will change my perspective. I know that social software/media can drive interaction and with interaction being an area I identified as being weak in, I hope to use my experiences during this course to help me add additional elements of interactivity within my own context.

When I consider the skills and resources I need to develop and refine in order to master these technologies, the first item that needs attention will be my HTML skills. It seems that LMS rely heavily on HTML and my HTML skills are rusty and do not reflect different styles of HTML use (markdown, for example). I know that the LMS will have information and help files, but I think looking for additional tutorials will help me with the learning curve. Another area that I need work on is the digital story. I honestly have no idea what that is nor what it entails, so I need to read up on the topic and look at examples. I get the impression that a lot of the resources I will need are examples—which makes sense because I like to model what I teach, so it make sense that this is how I prefer to learn.

My flight path seems narrow and my goals are few. However, I think starting with smaller goals will be most beneficial for me. I’m new to the MET program and I’m taking this course rather early in my journey. This means I don’t have as much of the background learning, but, I do see the value of learning the application first—I won’t get bogged down in theory and perhaps that means I’ll take more risks, and perhaps explore some tangents. I’m not sure what the end result will be, but I’m optimistic and willing to work hard, so I’m sure it won’t be a total disaster.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

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/aticles/sevenprinciples.htm

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

Niguidula, D. (2010). Digital Portfolios and Curriculum Maps: Linking Teacher and Student Work. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World (pp. 153-167). Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.