Author Archives: rrtoronto

Toronto District School Board teacher and University of British Columbia Master of Education Technology student.

Mobile Devices and lack thereof in the Toronto District School Board

I work for the Toronto District School Board, the biggest board in Canada, with over a quarter of a million students (Yau, Rosolen & Archer, 2013). It’s a big, bloated juggernaut of a school board, a result of an amalgamated city in the late 1990s. It has been riddled with controversy throughout its existence and there is at this point a strong argument for breaking up the board (Ross, 2015). Among myriad other problems is a lack of a consistent policy on technology. According to the Handbook of Community Partners in TDSB schools, “It is strongly recommended that all staff, volunteers, and community partners turn off their devices (or put in vibrating mode) during assigned work hours in the school. The Principal will explain how the cell phone policy applies to the specific school.” (TDSB, 2011). And if the Principal doesn’t, or is unclear? Then it’s the wild west.

This year I teach French, Drama and Music to grades 3-6 at an Alternative elementary school where our Principal is split between our school and another and is seldom present, so pretty much all policies are determined by teachers for their own classrooms, including use of devices. I use one of the school’s 12 iPads almost daily, mostly for video of presentations and students singing songs which play back as I give them feedback, then upload to Google classroom to post on class blogs for parents and students to see. I have tried giving small groups their own iPads to record and self-assess but students tend to get off task by opening other apps or going online.

For the 3 previous years, I worked at a grade 7 and 8 school, and while the aforementioned “turn off devices” policy ruled for the first couple of years, a new principal started flirting with BYOD. As a French immersion teacher, I would use my “Word Reference” dictionary app whenever my French vocabulary failed me, or take pictures of the board to post them on the LMS we used before erasing the board. I would sometime allow students to use their phones for photographing or filming presentations, or use my own phone and play back video of student presentations through a projector for self and peer assessment. I’d allow students to take pictures of missed work on the board to send to their absent friends. Sometimes when we had the mobile laptops in the class, certain student preferred using the school’s wifi on their own phones for research, and I allowed it. I also allowed students to use them as calculators when most of the class set were stolen or destroyed. For a geometry unit, I had one partner describe the rotations, reflections and translations (en français) while the other partner played Tetris. As Ciampa (2013) asserts, these activities provided combinations of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for learning over their analog counterparts.

In a public school setting, access to a mobile device continues to be an issue. I can’t see BYOD working the way it did in the video “Cell Phones in the Classroom : Learning Tools for the 21st Century” (2009) because for economic, health or other reasons, up to 40% (Goodman, 2009) of my middle school students would not have cell phones. At an age where social acceptance is bigger than any lesson in school, it would be totally irresponsible for a teacher to tell a child that he needs a phone, or to leave a child out of an activity because she doesn’t have access to one. If the school doesn’t have enough tablets for ALL the children, any argument 0f motivation, constructivism, or any other benefit ascribed to using mobile devices is moot.

References:

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

Goodman, ?. (2009, December 12). Cell Phones in the Classroom : Learning Tools for the 21st Century. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXt_de2-HBE

Ross, S. (2015, April 17). What to do with TDSB? A new panel mulls breaking it up and other possible reforms. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/what-to-do-with-tdsb-a-new-panel-mulls-breaking-it-up-and-other-possible-reforms/article24007422/

TDSB. (2011). Handbook of Community Partners in TDSB schools. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/Nursing/4b%20CUOS_Handbook-FINAL.pdf

Yau, Rosolen & Archer. (2013). TDSB Students and Families: Demographic Profile. 2011-12 Student & Parent Census. Retrieved from: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/AboutUs/Research/2011-12CensusFactSheet1-Demographics-17June2013.pdf

Reflection on Group 4, UMP

I could relate to the specific need of the UMP through the other course I am currently taking, ETEC 533. There, our assignment last week was to upload video group projects to a system called CLAS, and we then had the option to annotate others’ videos or place or comments on the Connect discussion page. I chose the former option, and this is the first time I’ve done this, so I could picture what was required of an LMS for these medical students and faculty.

I would describe my role as “managing editor”, writing the précis, trying to coordinate who would do what and making most of the final editing decisions, but not really adding any of the ‘meat’ to the rubric. As I explained to the group, I’ve always taken more of a submissive role on MET group projects, but since this is my last semester before graduating, I thought I would try to lead for a change. I think the results were great; everyone contributed and effectively brought in different skills from their varied backgrounds. Kate brought a lot of enthusiasm and common-sense; Mo brought us crucial insider knowledge from working in the field and put the rubric together as a PDF; Nidal brought a lot of technical expertise, and Mark had the work experience and know-how most closely linked to our specific task.

Group 4: UBC’s Undergraduate Medical Program

By: Momoe Hyakutake, Nidal Khalifeh, Mark Viola, Kate Willey, and Randy Ray

LINK TO RUBRIC 

PRÉCIS

Our project, following a directive from UBC’s Dean, is to “select an LMS to deliver distance-based video-based clinical assessment”. The LMS users are 3rd year medical students and clinical faculty from UBC, UNBC (Northern British Columbia) and UVic (Victoria). The main affordance we are seeking for these users is the ability to record, edit, share, annotate, and play video remotely and asynchronously. Students will be videotaped while demonstrating specific clinical examination skills. They will then upload video of this work to the LMS. There, their peers and faculty will be able to comment on specific points in the video. Because no LMS has these specific video features embedded within it, we would require one that supports plug-ins or apps that play hosted videos (e.g. unlisted Youtube videos). We have also been asked for discussion forums and access to student resources such as a “clinical reasoning framework”, which fit more easily within the capabilities of most, if not all, LMSs.  Students will be face-to-face for a clerkship along with one of the faculty members, but others will be located at one of three cooperating Universities – thus, distance education principles must also be considered.

RATIONALE

Whenever an institution decides to implement a change as large as the adoption of a new Learning Management System (LMS) there should be a rather long and exhaustive vetting process where numerous options are considered and tested. When considering criteria for an LMS evaluation, our main concern was identifying the target features and functions that were key to the program in question: the Year 3 video initiative in UBC’s Undergraduate Medical Program. According to Wright, Lopes, et al., a selection committee of key stakeholders needs to be created to identify the ‘target’ features and functions of the required LMS. In addition to some of the basic features in the LMS, our selection committee identified three key features that were mandatory and non-negotiable: 1) the ability to handle media streaming and video annotation; 2) the functionality of the LMS on different OS and via mobile devices through native apps; and 3) the ability of the LMS to provide collaboration tools for end users. During Year Three Rural Family Practice Clerkships, UBC’s Undergraduate Medical Program requires that students be videotaped demonstrating specific clinical skills, while other classmates and faculty annotate the video with feedback. This requirement of the course necessitates the LMS’s ability to handle media streaming. As some of the faculty will not be in the same physical location as the rest of the group members, we identified the need for strong collaborative tools that allow for synchronous and asynchronous communication, including wikis, threaded discussion forums, instant messaging and chat functions. Finally, the ability to have a full user experience on a mobile platform will allow for more access and a more positive experience by students and faculty. As users are in different locations, the stability of the LMS on different operating systems will ensure a more consistent experience with less of a reliance on IT support.

References:

Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. AU Press.

Bates, T., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

Wright, C., Lopes, V., Montgomerie, C., Reju, S., and Schmoller, S. (2014). Selecting a Learning Management System: Advice from an Academic Perspective. Educase Review. Retrieved from: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/4/selecting-a-learning-management-system-advice-from-an-academic-perspective

Benoît’s conundrum

Benoît should ask himself, “How much time will this course take to set up and maintain outside of the usual duties associated with teaching a course?”. Within this question there are really two: one about the initial set up and the other about maintenance, not only for the semester but in future iterations of the course as well. Whichever way he goes, this is a big decision, because, as Coates, James and Baldwin assert, “commitment to one system can mean exclusion from others” (2005, p. 32) and this could entail excluding access to “large libraries of learning objects” (p. 31). An important distinction between Blackboard and Moodle is Blackboard is a commercial system while Moodle is open source.

This question is in no way meant to discount the question of student learning. From what I know (which is admittedly limited at this time) of the two LMSs, they offer similar platforms for asynchronous and synchronous communication, accessing learning resources, and assessment, given that the teacher and/or technical staff know how to use them.

It sounds like his initial learning curve with Moodle will be steeper because he has no experience with it, as opposed to Blackboard, which he will have some facility with through his experience with WebCT. In this setup phase, Blackboard might be easier, assuming Benoît can, against the odds, access the often inaccessible HelpDesk. But Moodle may be easier in the long run, despite him probably needing more than his available 5 hours in the first week or two. It seems that, once up and running, it will be easier for him to update, correct errors, or add new content in Moodle.

Coates et al. mention access, cost and quality (p. 23) as 3 factors to consider when choosing an LMS. Access is better on Moodle, the cost is free on Moodle, and (I am assuming) paid for by the institution for Blackboard, while the quality is probably similar. That gives a slight edge to Moodle, considering the first category.

Lastly, and contrary to my warning above about this being a “big decision”, Benoît should read Stella Porto’s article and consider that fact that his students may be working less and less within the confines of the LMS, instead choosing their own “customized toolboxes” (Porto, 2015) of information from social media and the web at large, in coming semesters.

References

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

Moodle. (2016). Retrieved from: https://moodle.org/

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

ELL online

I have been teaching for 13 years. The first 6 years were as an ESL teacher at King George International College (named not after the King, but the highway in Surrey, B.C., as I understand it) here in Toronto, 1 year was spent doing my Bachelor of Education, and for the last 6 years I have worked as an occasional, and then a full-time contract teacher, teaching French in the Toronto District School Board. As I have always been a language teacher, I intend to create a basic language lesson for this course. I have never taught entirely online, only blended some of my classroom teaching, so creating a course to be taken entirely online is new. I intend to use Connect rather than Moodle simply because I’m familiar with Connect through MET, while I’ve only used Moodle a couple of times. 

As ETEC 565 and ETEC 533 are my last courses in MET, I want to create an ePortfolio that I can use when I start searching for jobs in May. It is my hope to get out of the classroom eventually, though I have a classroom job waiting for me in September if I cannot find something else. I would love to design online learning environments and/ or courses, or advise teachers on how to do so, so those are the types of jobs I will be seeking. Thus, my course work here in ETEC 565 is very relevant to these ambitions.

According to EDNet Insight (2013), English Language Learning (ELL) is the largest and fastest growing area in the Education sector. In the table on the site linked to above, ELL is the only growing sector that is not eLearning, but of course eLearning must be a part of it. Because of the amount of opportunity in this area, it will be the focus of my lesson.

Levy (2009) categorizes areas of second language learning as “grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing, pronunciation, listening, speaking, and culture”. I also know from experience that besides the usual differentiation required in any classroom due to learning styles and multiple intelligences, different cultures have very different prior knowledge of English. Building upon the written/ grammar-based English background of a Korean student is completely different from building upon the more oral-based knowledge of a Mexican who learns English through American media and the Latin roots of a good portion of English vocabulary. During my ESL-teaching years, I was labelled “Dr. Grammar” so I intend to focus on verbs, but only in a communicative context.

When comparing the state of second language technology use in 2009 with that of a “seminal work” by Garrett in 1991, Levy states “ language teachers still lack a “major voice” in determining which technologies are chosen for their use and technology integration remains an issue.” If this state of affairs had not been remedied between 1991 and 2009, I’m sure it has not changed much in the last 6 years either. He mentions some NLPs, or Natural Language Parsing programs, which allow learners to have their writing parsed for errors that can “be reviewed in their various contexts” (p. 770). One can add parameters like 1st language to this parsing, so that if a learner is Korean, for example, it will compare errors in their work to the writing of other Koreans and look for feedback particular to Korean ELL. I will need to research NLPs, and ideally be able to link to and use an existing one rather than having to build such software myself.

Levy concludes his grammar section with:

Although there are many existing prospects for more sophisticated programs for grammar learning, they do not yet appear to have reached the wider language education market, and it is fair to say that most grammar programs are still very basic in the ways they process learner input, diagnose errors, and provide feedback.

My rather vague vision at this point is to integrate some sort of Social Network into an LMS where ELL students can communicate with one another in writing and video chat and receive automated feedback generated by their errors. The automation would be programmed to be more specific and useful as a database of typical errors builds up. If the automated feedback is insufficient, the error would be escalated to receive peer or teacher feedback. Because I am not a programmer, I will need to research what there is out there in terms error-detection leading to automated feedback, how to integrate it into an LMS, and if I can’t integrate existing software, I’ll need to find out what it would take (perhaps financially,  in terms of hiring programmers) to build such a system from scratch.

 

RESOURCES:

EDNet Insight. (2013). The Global English Language Learning (ELL) Market. Retrieved from: http://www.ednetinsight.com/news-alerts/voice-from-the-industry/the-global-english-language-learning–ell–market.html

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in Use for Second Language Learning. The Modern language journal, 93, pp. 769-782. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x.