Author Archives: Victoria Olson

Victoria is a grade 3/4 teacher and technology coach at West Langley Elementary in Langley, British Columbia. She is a student in the Masters of Educational Technology program at the University of British Columbia. Victoria co-founded #bcedchat, EdCamp35, and the EdTech Mentorship Network to increase networking between BC educators and to enrich the focus on professional development within the province. She is an Apple Distinguished Educator (Class of 2015), a Google Certified Teacher (GTAATX), and a Google Education Trainer. Victoria is an active member of her Personal Learning Network and advocates for online sharing of best pedagogical practices. She believes in meaningful tech integration and innovation in schools, helping teachers reach their professional goals with pedagogical development and technology.

Rethinking Mobile Technology Distribution Models – Access always.

I was excited to see Ciampa’s (2013) mobile technology and motivation article as a reading for this course as I’ve used it as a major source for a paper in ETEC 511, as well as an influential model for my research proposal in ETEC 500. This reading is a great indicator for seeing how mobile technologies can impact student motivation for learning and involvement in the classroom space, as well as an exploration of pedagogical growth and how reciprocal teaching can occur between students and adults in a learning community.

My school context is likely an anomaly when compared to other public schools who typically wrestle with the “technology cart” issue. My elementary school was the first in the district to purchase iPads, and of course, we initially had them in a cart and they were wheeled around to share across the school. Teachers also got iPads around the same time and were encouraged by administration to take them home and “play”. Apple ID and passwords were no secret; anyone could download anything within reason that they wanted to try, paid apps included. Some teachers got really into using them and they booked them out all the time. There was increased interest when administration offered to purchase even more devices. As a result, we ended up hosting the first two 1:1 iPad classrooms in the school district, one at the Grade 2 level and one at the Grade 5 level. Those teachers were not young, but experienced, with over 20 years and 30 years of service, respectively.

The remaining devices were filtered into classrooms across the school as even more were purchased by our parent group and administration. (Keep in mind this was a major focus of our school’s mission and vision over that time period – we weren’t made of money; we made sacrifices in other spots and we’re a small school of only 10 classes.) Each classroom “pod” (2-3 rooms around the same grade levels) had access to anywhere between 10-15 iPads. Some pods opted to split them up so they always had a smaller group in their room to access at anytime. Total autonomy was given to how this was done and it seemed to result in very successful and laid back collaborations around device bookings.

Over time, the types of activities that have been done with the iPads have shifted. I have witnessed (and helped along, as a coach) teachers who were predominantly using iPads with their students for highly directed and predictable work such as memory games or math drills. When these teachers began to blog and use social media with their students, there was a shift in the value of student-created work vs. students consuming content in order to better provide an accurate window into the learning community. As a result, students were encouraged to be more self-directed, ask and research their own questions on a topic, engage in online commentary, and connect with experts over media like Twitter (I.e. Olympians, authors, etc.). Kids started creating Genius Hour projects and screencasts talking about their thinking and learning out loud – great artifacts for teachers as both formative and summative assessment pieces. I saw students shift from being told which apps to use to getting to choose them on their own, developing their understandings of technical workflows and pathways (saving to the cloud, importing from camera roll, etc). And, of course, parents absolutely RAVE about the classrooms that use these tools because they get to see far more into their child’s day than ever before. There were and are many positives that we have seen through mobile technology integration in our community.

Of course, it’s not all roses and rainbows in a mobile-enriched school. Management is a major issue for our school with so many devices. Sometimes things don’t work and teachers need to set aside a device or move on to Plan B right in the middle of a lesson. For example, we’ve had issues with individual devices and ghost storage, where the device will appear with maxed storage, even though there is no reason for it to do so, resulting in students unable to save their work. The major downside to mobile technologies is that you need someone around who is able to troubleshoot these issues and provide solutions to students and teachers who work so hard to integrate them. What you don’t pay for in print materials, you might end up paying for in human resources. The support provided to Natasha in Ciampa’s (2013) study is no joke; so far as I’ve seen, it’s necessary for ongoing success of mobile integration.

With all that being said, we have seen a wonderful shift in our learning context that will hopefully continue in years to come. It’s not always perfect, but it’s always growing. This is all thanks to supportive leadership, teachers who are willing to work hard at professional development, students who are open to supporting teachers while they (both) learn, and a parent community who is very open to us taking a crack at technology integration and digital publication with their kids.

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

Assignment #1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric

Assignment #1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric

Group Members: Patrick Conlan, Victoria Olson, Allen Wideman, Heather Woodland

Link to Assignment in Google Document (preferred viewing for rubric portion)

Scenario Précis

Our group was given the responsibility of developing an evaluation rubric to determine which LMS would successfully meet the needs of a new online course program being developed to support students enrolled at Le Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie Britannique. Currently, Le Conseil runs a number of face to face schools across BC, as well an online portal, Ecole Virtuelle, that supports enrolled students.

In order to provide opportunities for adult francophone students to access courses, including those required for high school graduation, Le Conseil aims to work with the cooperation of LearnNowBC to develop an online program accessible to over four thousand potential students living throughout BC. As the current demand outside of greater Vancouver does not justify the offering of face-to-face high school completion programs for adult students, Le Conseil seeks to ensure that they select the most suitable LMS to support these students, many of whom perceive their lack of English literacy skills to be a challenge in further pursuit of their studies.

Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric for Le Conseil:

This portion of the assignment is more easily reviewed via Google Doc. Please navigate to our original assignment document or download the attached file: Assignment1Rubric

Rationale for Inclusions in the Rubric

Our scenario specifically calls to assess Learning Management Systems (LMS) that cater to adult students who lack confidence in English language proficiency skills and may not come to the program with previous online learning experience. There were a number of logistical facts that we were uncertain about with our given scenario, including whether or not courses would be offered via correspondence to each individual student enrolled or whether a cohort-based model would be followed. We also didn’t know whether or not instruction was explicitly in English or in French, or a combination of the two, though we deduced that multilingual capabilities within the chosen LMS was probably a requirement. As such, we have broken our rubric into four major categories:

Logistics, Support, & Management,
Communication,
Design, and
Usability

Our group chose these components to address a number of positive impacts on teaching and learning listed in Coates, James, & Baldwin’s LMS article from 2005, while taking considerations of some cautions surrounding the potential for future LMS obsoletion from Spiro (2014) and Porto (2015), as well as Bates’ (2014) updated SECTIONS model. First, we aimed to assess whether or not technologies featured sufficient logistical components from a managerial stance, including cost effectiveness, infrastructure compatibility with the institution, and intuitive management features for both IT and instructors. Secondly, there was a focus on the availability of both public and private communications and assessments between the various stakeholders that would utilize the LMS, including student-to-student and student-to-instructor communication within courses, and instructor-to-instructor communication across the Le Conseil institution. This category also included third-party collaborative or social applications included within the LMS framework, that would directly address Porto’s (2015) growing concerns of lack of learner personalization within these technologies. Thirdly, we focused on the design and layout components of the LMS, as these may affect the experiences of instructors and students alike. Creation of customizable course offerings provides instructors and designers with the ability to be adaptable to the needs of diverse academic cultures and communities (Coates et al., 2005, p.31; Spiro, 2014). Lastly, we focused on the general usability of the platform for all stakeholders (Bates, 2014), including ease of use, multilingual capabilities for the user interface, and tutorial options for students who may not have experience in online learning environments.

My Individual Reflection

This assignment challenged me to consider a scenario beyond the scope of my own context. Oftentimes technologies are chosen because they fit a highly specific need in an institution and those factors may vary greatly from one site to another. The needs presented in our group scenario (language differences, adult learners, etc.) obviously required attention while, at the same time, we opted to maintain balance in assessing for quality in the overall technologies chosen. This triggered some personal thought about the different school sites in my own district, which is decentralized (I.e. we are not required to use the same software and apps from school to school), and how each school goes about choosing an LMS or similar technologies. I also considered the pros and cons of such a model: what are the benefits of being decentralized when compared to centralized districts or vice versa? Overall I enjoyed this assignment as it got me thinking about which overall features that I value in a technology-infused learning environment (as per Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005) and which features might be missing or require improvement (as per Porto, 2015). I highly value ease of use for all stakeholders involved as well as communication and personalization features, including third-party app integration.

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

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. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/5-elearning-trends-leading-to-the-end-of-the-learning-management-system

Strategies for Lenora to build a website

Assuming that upgrading her home internet is not an option, Lenora should first be tapping into the Cradleboard network of educators along with anyone in her local area who could support her in her learning about website creation. Obviously, she could also do an internet search and tinker with web tools herself, but from the information presented in the case, it generally sounds like Lenora’s technology skills are not strong. Having a weak internet connection would only exacerbate any frustrations that would already occur in this process.

That being said, a website is still a good idea because it provides a resource not only for their own First Nations education community but also for communities who may be in need of similar resources elsewhere. Looking at how the website is being built, the content that would reside on it, and who would put together that content could be a major strategic move for Lenora in her initiation of this project. If I was advising a specific tool for a beginner, I’d suggest a template-based web platform like Weebly that is free, provides in-app tutorials/videos, customer support, and a simple drag and drop user interface for web design.

In addition to learning a thing or two about website design and creation, the Cradleboard network and local educators could also support her by creating content for the site, as “many had stories to share about the bullying in their band schools.” This would not only bring more culturally relevant lenses to light, but would lighten Lenora’s workload in the project (and offset some of the dial-up internet woes, too). Even if the additional authors didn’t have the technological skills to add it to the site, Lenora could do the uploading at home, a page at a time, and would at least be eased of the task of creating some of the content.

Lenora could also attempt to see if her own district would support her in the development of the website project. I have seen teachers who head worthwhile professional development projects be provided with release time from the classroom in order to fully develop and hone them. Support from administration and district leadership in these scenarios may be present; all she has to do is ask. This would allow her to work more quickly and efficiently with access to the broadband network at her school.

Depending on the amount of time she can save herself through in-district or network-based collaborative resources, I would estimate that this website would take at least 3-4 months to build, but this could vary based on her internet speed. This estimation is made with a consideration that she already knows what she generally wants to include on the website. If she’s still in the process of curating sources, I’d say 4-6 months minimum.

Maple Group – Case Study 1

Like Benoit in the case, I am personally not familiar with either platform from the viewpoint of the instructor, but am familiar with other platforms that aid in designing online learning experiences.

The primary question that Benoit should be asking himself is “What are the overall learning goals for students in this online course and how does this technology serve those goals?”. Every other subsequent question that he may ask himself before making a choice should support his answer to that initial question. This question defines the purpose of technology selection as well as its application. Additionally, his own instructional design will play a major role in whether or not these goals are realized (Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005).

Subsidiary questions that Benoit could ask himself might include:

How will students demonstrate their understandings?
How can summative and formative feedback be provided through the system?
Does Benoit have robust enough troubleshooting and support skills to fix any issues within the course himself (if using Moodle)?
When considering Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model:
- Students: Do students need any extraneous software to access the course? Is it device agnostic?
- Ease of Use: Assuming both products meet learning/teaching needs, which is easier to use? Does Benoit or his students require training?
- Cost: Benoit may not be paying for this with money, but with time. Which would be less taxing in terms of time invested? Is it best to endure red tape with support vs. no red tape, but no support either?
- Teaching function – What would Benoit like to include in the body of the course? Which technology makes this available?
- Interaction – What kind of interactions does Benoit want to promote? Between student and content? Student and teacher? Student and student?
- Organization – Does the technology provide affordances that fit Benoit’s style of organization?
- Networking – Can students network between one another and with Benoit to enhance their learning experience?
- Security – Is the technology secure and respectful of student privacy (including assessment and evaluation)?

Regardless of the amount of questions that Benoit could ask, he should always be returning to his purposeful question of student learning goals. This will keep him on track and in consideration of the primary stakeholder in the learning process: the student.

Because I’m a proponent of the no-red-tape route, in this case, I’d probably choose Moodle. I like holding more autonomy over how I design and implement courses, and I would frequently network with colleagues who use the tool, and use their own design and application experiences in order to improve my own.

How many weeks would this take?

I’m unsure here – it truly depends on the level of skill and efficiency with technologies for Benoit. I would say that he would need at least a week to tinker with the technology and to learn its affordances and constraints.

Following a gain of familiarity, I’d give at least a month (4 weeks) for development and curation of digital sources. If he has to create his own media content, I’d tack another 4 weeks onto that preparation time. Benoit should also be prepared to invest time into the ongoing design and maintenance of the course throughout the 13 weeks of semester that his students are enrolled, in order to make improvements as necessary.

References

Bates, T. (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

Victoria’s Flight Path

I have been a Grade 3/4 Teacher & Technology Coach for 2 years, modeling pedagogical practice and technology integration for my staff while supporting them in those areas. When I applied to MET in 2013, I had very little skill or knowledge of theories for applying technology effectively in the classroom. Prior to starting my first course, I joined Twitter, which opened my eyes to a vast and global Personal Learning Network and #edchats, prompting me to start my own blog. That year, I immersed myself in professional learning, attended conferences, learned about several technology tools, and collaborated with colleagues all over the world. By the time I had begun my MET journey, I had underwent major professional growth that aided me greatly in the program. Today, I continue to be a part of a number of professional learning communities that allow me to collaborate with innovative educators including Apple Distinguished Educators Google Certified Innovators & Education Trainers, and the wonderful team of #bcedchat moderators.

As I look ahead to ETEC 565A, my goals are to learn more about LMS systems, to strengthen my understanding and application of best practice qualitative assessment and feedback, to reinforce interpretations of stakeholders’ viewpoints in educational technology decision-making, and to gain new and valuable network connections through our use of social media.

When assessing myself against the ISTE Standards for Students (2008), one of the standards that I prize myself most on is inspiring student learning and creativity in the classroom. Students have a lot of choice in my classroom, including student self-governance, self-regulated Language Arts through Daily 5, and level-appropriate math rotations, all integrated with technology that augments learning processes in different ways for each student.

I have utilized Kidblog (where my students maintained their own digital learning portfolios), Google Classroom, and class Twitter, Instagram, and Remind accounts to have students share their thinking and learning with the world or with their parents. They would use other technologies (Google Docs, PicCollage, Popplet, Explain Everything, YouTube, etc.) to showcase their knowledge, ask questions, and connect with experts or other classrooms. Parents have loved the transparency between home and school; communication about learning has increased between students and between students and adults.

In the exploration of LMS platforms in ETEC 565A, I will be looking to understand the organization that such systems can provide. As a technology coach, I understand that what works for me in my classroom is not the best fit for all instructors; LMS platforms could be another tool to help other teachers harness the power of educational technology. In terms of my own practice, I feel that understanding the role of Learning Management Systems will either push me to consider their integration within my current pedagogical structures or to provide some of their affordances by substituting other technologies in their place.

The second area that I would like to improve in ETEC 565A is my assessment practice. While I feel that I have great ideas about the first part of the ISTE Standard (2008): “Design and develop digital-age learning experiences…”, I concede that assessment practice can often drive design and experience (Moon, 2001). This is an area that will be a major focus for me when I return to the classroom in September. Chickering & Ehrmann (1996) assert that digital communications can make giving assessment and feedback more “speedy”, but, regardless of technology use, it may still be difficult to assess highly qualitative and inquiry-based learning experiences in a timely and meaningful manner. Feedback should be detailed, relevant to the student’s interests, and should impact future learning and creativity of the student. I would like to specifically increase self-reflective and peer-based assessments in my instruction. This may include rubrics and quizzes, which I am currently not a big fan of philosophically-speaking, but I remain open to how they may or may not fit within future practice for myself or other professionals that I support.

A third component that I seek from this course is to learn about the various viewpoints of stakeholders across my K-12 district in educational technology decision-making. Both Bates (2014) and Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens (2010) writings have sound suggestions for these selections, but have a primary focus on post-secondary and online learning environments. The realities in a K-12 district lack some of the luxuries that they suggest as solutions in the technology selection, design, and application process. For example, Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens (2010) and Bates (2014) both suggest that the integration of media and technological specialists in the planning phase should ease the pain of doing it all yourself. However, there is an inadequate amount of human resources to give teachers the support they may need to make this a reality in a K-12 environments. My goal is to understand how to better utilize the available supports in K-12 districts in an attempt to prevent the average teacher from needing to be a “Jack of All Trades” to effectively integrate technologies into their practice (Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens, 2010, p.240).

Lastly, I am looking forward to making new connections through our use of social media in ETEC 565A. It is refreshing to see a Twitter feed and hashtag actively promoted by the instructor of a MET course. In other courses, I have connected with colleagues who happened to use a common course hashtag by chance. However, in this course, I have already made some connections that could last beyond the timeframe of the term’s end. These could serve well for future discussions about professional growth and contextual challenges for each person in the network.

In short, I’m very open to what ETEC 565A can add to my existing pedagogical and technological toolkit. While some of the technologies we will be required to use do not align with what is available at my school site, I’m sure there is transferability in some of their affordances that may fit with my existing practice.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age, Chapter 8. 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/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

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

Moon, J. (2001). Reflection in higher education learning. Working Paper 4. York, UK.: The Higher Education Academy.

Nel, C., Dreyer, C., & Carstens, W. A. M. (2010). Educational technologies: A classification and evaluation. Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 35(4), 238-258. Retrieved from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/tvl/article/download/53794/42346