Category Archives: Assignment 1: Rubric

Assignment 1 Reflection – Mark Viola

I found this weeks assignment to be very interesting. Working in groups can always pose challenges – time, availability and willingness to compromise are typically key factors to the success of a group. I feel that our groups worked extremely well together, using our strengths to benefit the group, allowing others to lead when appropriate and creating a positive atmosphere where each individual felt like their opinion was valuable.

With respect to the actual creation of an LMS rubric, I found the assignment very rewarding. Professionally my school just went through an adoption/transition process to a new LMS and we would have had a much better experience had we used such an evaluation criteria when we vetted possible LMS platforms. Bates and Poole (2009) provide a great general criteria for any piece of educational technology because it forces us to consider every facet of education when evaluating technology. By considering the LMS from a teacher’s, student’s, IT, administrative, and parent perspective it helps to identify they value of a piece of technology. Perhaps the most crucial finding was from ‘Selecting a Learning Management System’ by Wright, Lopes, et al. (2014) which noted that the most crucial step in any selection process is to identify the key requirements which were non-negotiable, and other features which are not as essential. Too often we can become enamoured with some specific features of a new piece of software that we forget what we actually need the software to do. If we do not identify these ‘must-have’ features at the onset of a search, we are bound to be unsatisfied with the result of the search.

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

Assignment #1 – Rubric

Reflection here.

Rubric here or in attachment below.

Assignment1_Rubric_LeConseilScolaireFrancophone

Group 1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric for BCcampus

Assignment 1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric

Group 1 – BCcampus

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

Précis

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

Please find our rubric and rationale in attachment

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

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

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

Assign 1 Reflection – Patrick Conlan – Le Conseil Scolaire Francophone

Assignment 1 was an interesting project. As someone who has had the opportunity to choose an LMS for their school before, it made me reflect on the many facets of that decision. I felt that the readings of Bates (2014), Spiro (2014), and Porto (2015), really helped contribute to the full scope of the decisions that went into making the rubrick. Since my background is primarily from the tech support/administrator side of things, the readings enlightened me in aspects of the curriculum design and teacher usability. Overall I think our rubric came out really well. Everyone in the group provided a lot of positive contributions and we worked well together. I can definitely see this rubric giving people a firm guideline of the questions and expectations to have during the difficult decision of choosing an LMS.

Le Conseil Scolaire Francophone Rubric PDF

Le Conseil Scolaire Francophone Rubric Google Doc

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

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/