Category Archives: Assignment 2: Intro Module

Intro Module

Overall Experience

Looking back at creating an the introductory module using the LMS Moodle I feel it was a very valuable learning experience. I have never created a course online and this really challenged me to apply the knowledge gained from the ETEC 565A course readings and discussions into practice. From a learning perspective, having the freedom to choose a course or topic that we are already familiar with really kept my motivation throughout the assignment. I found myself starting at one extreme of being completely focused trying to figure out the technical side of how to get Moodle to work the way I wanted it to. This aspect took the most time at the beginning but once I got a better handle on it and shifted to the other end of the spectrum by focusing on the pedagogical foundations from our course readings. Over time, as I got more comfortable with the Moodle platform and what it was capable of I could more easily balance my focus on both course design and pedagogy concurrently.

Design Approach

In designing my introductory module I used the Bates (2014) SECTIONS framework to guide my decisions. The items that were given closer attention because they had greater relevance to the assignment included students, ease of use, teaching functions and interactions. Starting with the target audience (ie “students”) and considering what I see in the healthcare landscape from my own experience I realized that health care personnel come from a wide range of cultural backgrounds and ages. As a part of the introductory activity, I encouraged learners to tell share something about their own cultural differences. In particular, I wanted to get a sense of how the dynamics between a patient or family member and a health care personnel may be differ in different cultures. Taking this approach early on in the design process enable me to be more learner-centered in my approach such that cultural differences are acknowledged and accommodated (Anderson 2008).

With all online learning courses, there is an assumption of a basic level of computer and digital literacy. In designing the layout of the course, I strived to keep it simple and easy to use by having only four key tabs to navigate from the home page. Many of the background pages were purposefully hidden in the final layout to minimize the distractions and not overwhelm the students at first glance. I found it helpful to gain feedback from performing a user test with two family members. The feedback I received was valuable for me to continue to improve my design and make navigating the site more intuitive.

To carefully consider the teaching functions in my course design I found it particularly useful to take a backward course design approach suggested by our course instructor, Natasha. The approach encouraged me to always keep the desired learning outcomes at the forefront of my course design and more specifically assessment strategies.

From an interactions perspectives, students are predominantly interacting with the content in the introductory module to familiarize themselves with the course expectations. Through the discussion forum and invitation to provide a video or picture self introductions more opportunities for interactions between students are presented. There are less interactions with the course instructor as I feel that I would play more a role of facilitator.

Once I created the basic layout of the course I was able of fine tune the visual design to improve the look of the course. At times, there were technical issues that could only be resolved by taking a closer look at the actual html coding. This is where I turned to the Moodle community and YouTube for tutorials on how to edit specific things. The combination of the two options was optimal for me to learn how as it offered a variety of media formats to cater to different learning styles based on what I was trying to achieve.

Assessment Strategies

I chose to use the quiz tool in Moodle for only five questions and create an additional assessment assignment. In considering how the knowledge gained from the course will ultimately be deployed in the future I felt that assessments strictly in the form of multiple choice, matching and short answer limited the type of skills I wanted the learners to have. Coming up with the quiz tool feedback responses was challenging as feedback needs to be useful to the learner and acted upon in order for it to be of a value to their learning (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005). The essay question requires the instructor to manually review the answer and provide a grade. This limited the ability to provide an overall feedback at the end of the exam based on the partially auto-graded questions. The assessment strategies I plan to use with the student further in the course are predominantly formative in nature. The required tasks were designed engage students to work on productive activities that they can see the value in pursuing and put forth good effort (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005). The assignment grading values are progressively larger in order for the instructor to identify key areas of weakness early on and encourage students to keep adapting their knowledge. The intention is for students to ultimately apply their cumulative knowledge towards Assignment #3 which serves as a summative assessment. Assignment #3 serves to challenge students to problem solve by considering relevant questions when they are presented with limited information. This is representative of the type of critical thinking they will require when dealing with patients can be poor descriptors of their own symptoms. This assignment focuses on real world issues and students learn to solve authentic problems (ISTE 2008).

Communication Strategies

The main communications strategies that I will be using for this course are the discussion forums and email. There will be the option of a setting up a video conference depending on the needs of the class. I would like the students to use the discussion forum space to build a community of learners who can share ideas and learn to resolve issues through collaboration.
Through this approach I aim to encourage reciprocity and cooperation among students (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). It is anticipated that written communication will enable learners to be more thoughtful and reflective when formulating responses.

References

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

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

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

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

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

After selecting Moodle as my LMS of choice, I found that determining a topic or focus area for the course was challenging, as I intended to create modules that would be as interactive and engaging as possible for students at the Grade 5 and 6 level. I was aiming to create a course that would be challenging, interactive and collaborative for students, without a heavy focus on reading materials or passive acquisition of information. Basically, I intended to have the students designing, creating and guiding their own learning, while working to support the learning of their peers. With gaming being such a prevalent focus in the lives of our students, I eventually selected the Scratch 2.0 programming language as a focus area that would engage students with opportunities to design and create multimedia projects, such as video games, while connecting with cross curricular subject areas for students to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding.

Scratch 2.0 is a visual programming language that provides students of all ages with an opportunity to create interactive stories, projects, games and animations. Scratch 2.0 was developed by the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at MIT, and is a free web based programming language that supports students in learning to work with code in a user friendly, visual educational environment. Users program in Scratch 2.0 by working with blocks of code and attaching them together like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle in order to create programs called scripts. Through designing and building with blocks of code, the students participate in “Drag and Drop Programming,” and the online environment of Scratch 2.0 allows for collaborating and sharing ideas and projects amongst users across the Scratch community.

Inspired by constructivist approaches to learning, programming using Scratch 2.0 emphasizes the concepts of designing, creating, personalizing, collaborating, sharing and reflecting. Within the context of the modules of the LMS, my students will have an opportunity to familiarize themselves with Scratch 2.0 by creating their own personal accounts, which allows for collaboration amongst Scratch users, as well sharing projects and ideas while learning from each other. By completing the 8-week series of learning modules, students will learn the basics of Scratch programming through the use of discussions, resources, and video tutorials. This work forms the foundation of programming skills in Scratch 2.0, and will support the students in completing the design challenge and multimedia project, which allows for exploration of more complex programming concepts through the design and creation of an original project linked to the Grade 5 and 6 Language Arts curriculum.

According to the Bates SECTIONS framework (2014), the first step in selecting technology is to know your students, their similarities and differences, what technologies they already have access to, and what digital skills they already possess or lack. Students have extensive interest and experience in playing video games, and through immersion in the design and creation of games and multimedia projects, students will be able to engage in opportunities within stimulating and challenging learning situations that support and reward their knowledge acquisition and skill development.  Immersion further provides students with affordances for creativity and independence to learn within the environment of the Scratch 2.0 programming language while being encouraged to develop skills quickly through design and play. The reality is that if students are able to engage in tasks that enable their attention to be fully engrossed and absorbed in the activity, the end result will be significant learning through knowledge and skill development.

With these considerations forming the basis of the planning and design for the Scratch 2.0 coursework, I worked within the Moodle LMS to begin to create modules with the following goals and learning opportunities in mind:

• provide opportunities for students to engage in self-directed, independent learning
• promote a collaborative, supportive learning environment whereby students are able to teach and learn from each other
• reinforce the importance of skills in designing, planning, creating, problem solving, sharing and evaluating
• develop student understanding and application when working with programming tools for designing and creating multimedia projects
• enhance student knowledge and awareness of emerging standards and practices in media creation
• support students with opportunities to reflect and evaluate throughout the project while providing actionable feedback through formative assessment
• provide opportunities for students to apply planning and problem solving strategies to authentic learning opportunities in order to attain fundamental skills and experiences necessary for 21^st century learning environments

According to Anderson (2008), the affordances of the web can be leveraged to enhance generalized learning contexts, and collaboration and reflection play an important role in creating these contexts. Through the student discussions in the LMS, as well as through interacting within the confines of the Scratch 2.0 website and wiki, the students enrolled in the course will be exposed to ideas and opinions of their peers and will be challenged and motivated to demonstrate their learning through creative outlets in the Scratch 2.0 environment. As part of the culminating assignment in the final weeks of the course, students will share and discuss their original project work with their peers, and they will provide independent reflective feedback on the design process that they engaged in throughout the project work. The modules will present the students with a variety of different project and assessment opportunities, including reflective, metacognitive assignments that enable them to track and critique their own learning processes.

As the course layout and design becomes crucial in creating adaptive content to meet changing needs and learning objectives (Spiro, 2014), the assessment opportunities for students must also be adaptive to these diverse and changing needs. By providing varied assessment opportunities that allow students to demonstrate their learning in personalized and creative ways, students are presented with opportunities to develop essential skills. Through engaging in tasks and projects that allow for meaningful, collaborative problem solving and the demonstration of creativity in developing a solution, students are assessed in situations where their learning experiences can positively and meaningfully impact the experiences of their peers. According to Ciampa (2013), students enjoy having their efforts and achievements recognized by others, and in order to make this learning visible, an environment must be created that allows for the engagement of motivation through recognition. In order for an environment to engage the motivation for recognition, the results of the individual’s activities must be visible to other people, and the work of the students enrolled in the Scratch 2.0 course will be shared and discussed amongst all members of the learning community, not just through interactions with myself as the course teacher.

Bates’ SECTIONS framework (2014) states that assessment should also be influenced by the knowledge and skills that students need in a digital age, which means focusing as much on assessing skills as knowledge of content. In turn, this encourages the development of authentic skills that require understanding of content, knowledge management, problem solving, collaborative learning, evaluation, creativity and practical outcomes. Through the inclusion of relevant and practical project work in the Scratch 2.0 course, students will have opportunities to demonstrate a high level of skill and imagination. According to Gibbs (2005), students need to understand criteria in order to orient themselves appropriately to the assignment, and assessment must perform a role in conveying the standard that students have to aspire to. The final design project includes a rubric that students will be able to reference throughout the course in order to determine where they would situate themselves in the assessment categories. By making these categories visible and explicit to the students, they are provided with opportunities to engage in formative, self-reflective assessment throughout the 8-week course timeframe, while ultimately being held accountable for their own efforts and engagement in their learning. When Bates argues that “nothing is likely to drive student learning more than the method of assessment (2014),” it seems that this statement holds significant truth in terms of how assessment can both positively and negatively impact the learning experiences of our students.

References

Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University.

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

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96.

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31.

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

Setting out to design my LMS, I thought first of pedagogy. What is it I want the students to take away from their learning. How can this be assessed? What technologies can best support this learning? From this point I began an outline of the unit I wanted to design. Once the general outcomes were established, the learning activities were much easier to create.

Being new to Moodle created several interesting challenges. I have learned from past attempts using new software, that having a back-up is always a solid plan. I created most of my tasks in a word document with links and references in a sequential pattern. I initially watched the videos provided by our ETEC 565A course and then attempted to ‘play’ with the software. I always find this part frustrating, what I refer to the students as the ‘struggle to learn’ concept. After a bit of play time, I searched up more advanced videos on Moodle features. I now had enough knowledge to understand their directions and suggestions. Chunking the introductory module into sections, allowed for more manageable experimentation. If I made an error and ‘lost’ that section, it was easy to re-do and rework. Although Moodle shares similarities to D2L, the LMS system I have previously used, the differences in structure and loading information were substantially different.

My second focus after entering in the basic data, was to consider and revisit design elements. The primary elements I looked to achieve were based on Outten’s LMS Design Principles of appearance, navigation, accessibility, personalization and structure (Outten, 2012). Based on my audience of learners, grade 5 students who likely have not yet used an LMS, I wanted a streamlined appearance that was easy to follow.  I chose a clean look for the theme that used color to separate different components with visual interest that was not overwhelming or distracting. Increased interest and learning options were created by adding visuals and a variety of media such as video, discussion forums and surveys. I felt Moodle made navigation somewhat restrictive. Adding each element as an activity or a resource, limited the flow of a page into a resource as I have used before in website design. As far as I could tell, there is not a way to link one course element to the next i.e. through the use of buttons in Weebly. To overcome this challenge of navigation for elementary students, I kept the structure primarily sequential and added check boxes to keep track of progress. Where possible, activities and resources were added in a pop-up window, allowing students to close the activity and return to the main page without reloading, reducing extra steps. A forum for overall course questions and suggestions was kept separate and always accessible. Screen shots of the course were used as a reference where possible, to assist with navigation. Although BYOD is gaining ground in school, I based my accessibility for computer use only, as this is typical of a class I would teach. I tested all links to ensure they were working and went through the site in ‘student’ mode to ensure the site was working as planned. Several adjustments were identified using this method. Personalization was the most limited element of the introduction. Especially considering the audience, the design of the LMS for a first project would largely flow the same for all students. Moving onto course content, creating groups or variations may be more appropriate. The structure of the course was meant to loosely follow; resource, then activity, resource, activity format. Students first read the introduction and then participated in a forum unrelated to the course content to practice using some of the features and to get familiar with their classmates. This course would be used with students who attend face-to-face class together, however an introductory activity helps with the technical knowledge needed and further knowledge of their peers. Students were presented with some introductory information then asked to do a short pre-assessment. Research was followed by a discussion activity. Exploration of the final project was then followed by a quiz to assess understanding and show students areas they need to review.

In terms of assessment, I chose a shorter quiz and will design a project assessment. The quiz is summative of the learning in the introductory lesson. The questions were designed to ensure understanding of basic vocabulary and assess observations of what would be required for the final project. Using the student responses, a project assessment rubric will be created for the final project and listed in the content sections. This rubric will be used as a measure for feedback as suggested by Jenkins in an ongoing, frequent and comprehensive manner  (Jenkins, 2004). Students will refer to the rubric for self and peer assessment. It will provide feedback for where they currently are, as well as where they will need to be going. I would collect student ‘notes’ from their research through the class dropbox I typically have set up with my students, as this is a process that would be familiar.

Moving forward will be an exciting challenge. Communication with students will be ongoing and continue with discussion forums. Support through the project would be supported in a blended environment but I would aim for much feedback to delivered through the LMS. Students will continue to have tasks chunked, i,e, story writing, pose selection and filming as separate sections.

References

Jenkins, M. (2004).  Unfulfilled promise: Formative assessment using computer-aided assessment. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, i, 67-80. Retrieved from http://www2.glos.ac.uk/offload/tli/lets/lathe/issue1/articles/jenkins.pdf

Outten, Chad. (2012) LMS design principles. My Learning Space. Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/mylearningspace/lms-design-principles

Project Selection

Approaching this assignment was a bit of a challenge for me.  I wanted to do something a little bit different than I’ve been tackling in my day to day workplace, but still expand my skill set to help me grow the skillset needed for my job. I selected to use a Moodle environment as my workplace has developed a Moodle site as our LMS.  For the content, I wanted to do something a little different just for a change of pace, but not something that I was completely unfamiliar that I was biting off more than I could chew.  I decided that I wanted to create a course that I was able to export and provide to some of the organizations that I had worked with in the past.  In particular the Global Travel & Tourism Partnership.  When I first applied for the MET program the Executive Director had written me a very nice letter of recommendation.  By selecting tourism as my topic I was able to use a topic I was familiar with, and also, provide an output that could be used by an organization that helped me to get here.

Course Development

I decided to model the main structure of the course off of the BC Tourism 11 & 12 Program Guide (Simard et al. 2006). I had a couple of reasons for doing this, but the main one is that it is modeled after the Canadian Academy of Travel & Tourism program.  I was the national director of this project for approximately five years and so I’m very familiar with the content that should be included.  With the backbone of the course determined by the curriculum guide I was able to focus on content creation.

I decided early on that I wanted to focus the content around three main principles.  The first principle to ensure that the material is informed by industry subject matter experts. Although I have a background in the industry I wanted to include industry experts in the development of the course.  Through my network of contacts I was able to find two individuals who have experience in national and international roles.  These contacts will feed into the content creation for the modules, particularly around the skill modules and the economic impact module.

Industry engagement

Forming a small industry advisory committee has allowed me to tap into the expertise of individuals who have a broad range of knowledge and experience in the industry.  By keeping the group small I am able to keep communication efficient and maintain a level of engagement with subject matter experts.

The second principle is built around Anderson’s model of eLearning (2008). Sometimes I have trouble connecting some assigned readings to practical application, but this certainly was not the case with the Anderson reading.  While I was reading the material it became apparent that all the interactions that are created are about building a learning community.  I look at Anderson’s model and I see carefully planned interactions designed to increase engagement with the instructor, peers, and the content.  I wanted to keep these principles in mind when designing the material, and although this will come into play more as the course develops I am able incorporate the concepts into some of the material in the Course Introduction.

Community and Learner Engagement

I have selected introductory activities that are fairly low stakes for participants and provide them with a chance to interact with each other through an introduction and sharing their own experiences with the tourism industry.  Although building a learning community can be difficult with a busy course schedule I have decided to require participants to comment on at least two peer posts in order to mark the discussion activity as complete. This will ensure that some interaction is taking place and provide an opportunity for some conversations around the material.  In later modules I anticipate students to interact around occupations and destinations of common interest.

Throughout the course I am going to try to present material using a number of different media. It would be easy to simply provide links, or provide only written material.  I wanted to ensure I was creating several different types of interactions for learners.  Currently I only have forums, videos, and text, but as more develop I want to keep the lessons learned from Bates to ensure the interactions support the learning rather than just existing for the sake of interaction (2014a).

Finally, I wanted to incorporate digital badging into the material. I have been intrigued by digital badging.  Although my interest has focused mainly on the use of digital badging for credentialing, my experience in ETEC 580 and in this course has led me to look at digital badging not only as credentialing, but also as a method to increase the interaction and build the learning community.  I suspect that the best method to create digital badges designed at learning interaction is to review a fully designed course and determine where the badges can best support the learning interactions.  If I already had a fully designed course this is the process that I would like to follow.  As the purpose of this assignment was to create the course and an introductory module I have included some potential badges as placeholders and examples. For the fully developed course, I anticipate a complex badge structure that helps to drive student interactions with the content, their peers, and even the instructor.  The course will culminate with an open badge through the Mozilla Open Badges project and could be used as a credential indicating some knowledge and skills in tourism and hospitality.

The third principle that needed to be accounted for in the course was to have them engage and experience the industry itself. In reviewing the article by Garrison et al, I realized that part of building this experience was to provide an opportunity to develop a community where students can share and collaborate on building their knowledge (1999). In developing this principle I also drew on an important part of all of the different curricular programs that this course compliments and this is an aspect of experiential education.  Usually this is done through work or volunteer experience, but by building opportunities for students to interact with industry professionals and follow industry processes there can be some experiential education built into this course.  The end course could easily be modified to also track workplace experience hours to integrate national and international certificate programs.  This is direction and concept is reinforced by the ISTE standards by stating that it is important to, “engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems” (2008).

Engaging in Real World Experiences

Throughout the design of this course this has really been the central pillar.  From forming an Industry Advisory Committee to crafting interactions the focus is on providing opportunities for students to participate in and follow standard industry practices. This is a concept that is modeled early in the course with the introductory activities.  The students are asked to provide information on their experience, or desired experience participating in the tourism industry.  The purpose of this exercise is to focus students on developing a holistic view of the industry beyond what their preconceived notions might be. This is also incorporated into the practical nature of the content modules, such as skills based content and the practical nature of the assignments. By developing an opportunity for students to learn about the skill sets that are needed in the industry, and providing assignments that have a practical nature.

Communication Strategy

The communication strategy for this course is based largely on the classwork from ETEC 565A, Week 6.  The case study examined during that week quickly brought to the life the realistic scenario of managing multiple channels of communication that could create redundancies, inefficiencies and potentially an overwhelming number of inquiries. My thought process went back to the SECTIONS model as I think this framework also works well when selecting communications media (Bates, 2014a). Based on this, and my experience as a student in this course, I have elected to create a common question and answer forum that an instructor can field all general course questions through.  I have elected not include additional communication methods such as a twitter block and it creates an additional dialog that needs to be monitored by both students and instructors.  I have, however, included email communication for the selection of assignments.  When I took a step back it became apparent that the selection of a topic was more appropriate as one on one communication.  General inquiries regarding the topic would still be posted to the main discussion forum.

Assessment Strategy

While creating the assessment tools for this course I wanted to closely mirror the principles that I have decided to use in creating the course itself.  I wanted to ensure that, as Bates outlines, the assessment choices have a clear purpose and support the learning outcomes of the course (2014b). Using this as criteria, I developed different methods of assessment based on the desired learning outcomes of each section of the course.  I also wanted to place an emphasis on the practical nature of the industry and the experiences of the course leading to a higher weighted value placed on the assignments for the course.

Participation (15%)

The nature of an online course, and the experience that I want to create for my students requires a fairly significant degree of participation.  By creating a participation category, I want to influence students to post to the discussion forums, and also comment on the posts of their peers.

Quizzes (20%)

The content for the quizzes has been selected based on the comments by Bates on multiple choice and short answer questions (2014b).  When I examined the intended content for the initial eight weeks of the course I determined that much of the content was information that formed the basis for the comprehension needed to properly complete the assignments. By using these questions I can assess the comprehension of the basic facts and common knowledge of the industry.  Through the short answer and essay questions I have provided an opportunity to evaluate how well students are able to apply that knowledge in context and provide an analysis of practical real world scenarios.

Assignments (65%)

The assignments make up the bulk of the evaluation for this course due to the practical nature of the learning outcomes and, as Bates states, “Project work encourages the development of authentic skills that require understanding of content, knowledge management, problem-solving, collaborative learning, evaluation, creativity and practical outcomes” (2014b).  The assignments that I have chosen have students analyze the knowledge they have obtained through the course and apply it to the practical situations that would occur in a tourism workplace. This course will not only provide students with the knowledge of how the industry works, but with practical experiences that demonstrate how the industry works.

Basic Assignment Requirements

The Introductory Activity

For my introductory activity I elected to make use of the discussion forum options.  There are two required activities and one options activity.  For the required activities I wanted to provide students with an opportunity to introduce themselves and their experience with the tourism industry, but I wanted to also provide them with a space to describe the industry from their point of view.  I decided to separate the two forums to avoid posts that are too long, and I wanted them to think of a travel experience they had and the industry itself separately.  I provided the optional activity of discovering the significance of the pineapple to the industry to provide an opportunity for students to do a small about of research and appreciate how long his industry has impacted society.

Three substantive HTML pages

There are several html based pages that have already been developed with HTML links, embedded pictures or video, and checklists. I struggled with the definition of substantive, but did not want to add content that could impact student understanding.  I hope to be able to add embedded audio files to the next stage of the product.

Logical and Organized structure

Much of the basic structure is based on the outline provided by the BC Tourism 11 & 12 Curriculum Guide, however I have made a number of choices to assist students with navigating the course material (Simard et al. 2006).  The first is that I have provided html links in the general description that appears at the top of every page.  Students are able to access basic information and every module of the course with one click no matter where they are in the course. I am not truly happy with how this currently is represented as it is not as visually appealing as I would like.  However, I have specifically chosen to only use only text rather than inserting clip art or other items that may clutter up the main page even more.  I have also selected to only display one module of the course at a time.  I wanted to make sure that any student accessing the course did not have to scroll multiple times down a page to find the current module.

I have also made a conscious effort not to clutter modules with documents that could be linked, but did not necessarily need to be reviewed as part of the module by creating a “References and Resources” section.  A perfect example is with the Career Explorations Assignment Rubric.  This document needed to be referenced, but didn’t need to be included in the list resources and activities in the module.  Rather than clutter the module, I simply linked to a resource listed in the “References and Resources” section. In addition, the documents in this section include a link that returns users to the main page of the site.

Having early information for students

This was a delicate balance where I had to provide students with some information, but also wanted to provide an opportunity for students to connect with each other and introduce themselves.  By creating the short video I was able to introduce the topic and push the idea that they need to expand their definition of tourism.  I tried to support this not only through the scripting of the presentation, but also through the visuals used.

Conclusion

In the end, this project seems to be coming together nicely, however, it is taking much more time than I anticipated to pull it together.  There are some aspects that are there currently that I consider placeholders until an area can be developed fully, an example would be the badges that are currently listed.  As I mentioned, I want to review these once the course is complete.   I’m also surprised at how long this reflection has become, but this was a valuable exercise to articulate my decision making process.  With input from my industry advisory committee, and potentially end user organizations I am looking forward to completing the development of this course.

References

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

Bates, T. (2014a). Chapter 8 SECTIONS Framework. In Teaching in a Digital Age. Retrieved February 21, 2016, from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Bates, T. (2014b). Appendix 1: Building an effective learning environment A.8 ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING. Retrieved February 21, 2016, from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/5-8-assessment-of-learning/

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved from http://www.anitacrawley.net/Articles/GarrisonAndersonArcher2000.pdf

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

Simard, S., Bragg, J., Fogarty, L., & Thompson, B. (2006). Tourism 11 and 12 Program Guide (Rep.). Retrieved February 14, 2016, from Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia website:https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/pdfs/applied_skills/2006pg_tourism1112.pdf

Here’s a link to my reflexion posted in my eportfolio.

Creating this introductory module was an exacting yet powerful experience. In my undergraduate years, I worked within a computer-aided system of instruction – essentially a correspondence course on a university server. Now that courses can benefit from the affordances of the Internet, it is essential to understand the functionality of learning management systems (LMS) that are pervasive across post-secondary institutions.

The course shell I created is based around the Oral-Systemic Curriculum project at the University of Manitoba (UM, 2015). I have been tasked with taking content modules written by experts, converting them into an online format and then creating an educational program for our family medicine residents.

In planning this program, the first thing I focused on were the needs of the students, as suggested by Bates (2014). Our learners are spread out across the province as they complete their clinical placements. Therefore, it is logical to put our learning resources in an LMS so students can access them remotely. Learning units will also be available in different formats. Students will be able to download a pdf version of the content for offline reading, which is important when students are in areas with unreliable Internet access. We also wanted to create a multi-media experience for those students who could take advantage of it. This would allow us to enrich student learning by giving them access to a variety of learning resources (Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2004). Not only would this be appealing to students with different learning preferences (Bates, 2014), but it would also promote digital age learning (ISTE, 2008) wherein students are encouraged to manage their own learning as they pursue their professional goals.

It is also crucial that we “engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems”, as ISTE (2008) suggests. Medical residents are highly motivated learners but they have many competing demands on their time. Therefore, it was important to create learning experiences based on scenarios that would reflect the kinds of cases they encounter in their medical practices. Otherwise, they will not see the value in devoting their energy to this learning initiative.

Once we have interested students enough to engage with the material, it is imperative that they begin discussing it. Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) highlight the value of sharing and responding to others’ ideas as a way of deepening learning. “They must talk about what they are learning, write reflectively about it, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves” (p. 4). This is why from the very first discussion forum, I have encouraged students to reflect on their prior experiences with oral-systemic health issues, which until now they may not even realize that they have encountered.

It is important that our learners take the knowledge from the units and think about how they may apply it within their own medical settings. Therefore, in designing this course, I have taken the advice of Nel, Dreyer, and Carstens (2010) and focused on learning outcomes. I want to focus on what students will be able to do after taking this course, which is why I will include learning objectives not only for the overall program but also within each learning module. This will keep the focus on active learning instead of the passive absorption of information (Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens, 2010).

Naturally, I am hoping that students find the challenge of our interesting learning modules intrinsically motivating. Just in case that isn’t so, I have included some extrinsic motivation, as suggested by Ciampa (2013). Ciampa suggests that a learner is extrinsically motivated when he/she engages in an activity because he/she wants to achieve some “instrumental end” (p. 83). In this case, it is the privilege of being allowed to attend our Academic Day. Students generally appreciate this event because it means a day off from their regular clinical placements and it is a chance to come back to campus (at the University’s expense) and meet up again with their colleagues.

My hope is that by the end of the course, we will have created a Community of Inquiry about oral-systemic health issues. Our online discussion fora will create the opportunity for students to experience both a cognitive and social presence within the regular online exchanges with their peers. However, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999), also point out the importance that a teaching presence is felt. The quality of the content of the learning modules speaks to the quality of our writers. However, during administration of the program, I will probably be the one moderating the discussion fora, with only occasional help from our two instructors. Therefore, the Academic Day will give students a chance to interact with experts in the field of oral-systemic science. Students will get the chance to connect the ideas presented online with the reality of the clinical scenarios while guided by important people in the learning community. This is a concept called connectivism (Anderson, 2008a) wherein teachers play a key role in scaffolding student in what would otherwise be an overwhelming amount of information and experiences.

Gibbs and Simpson (2005) list the conditions in which assessment supports learning. The questions chosen for the quizzes are geared towards orienting students to the most important sections of the content (Condition 2). The short essay questions are there to focus students’ thinking around important applications of this information. Sufficient feedback is provided (Condition 4) in the form of discussion comments and it is designed to be timely (Condition 5) so that students receive it when it matters to them. This is particularly true of the Academic Day where they will receive over-the-shoulder coaching on their clinical techniques. This is the most important forms of feedback because if it is attended to (Condition 9) and acted upon (Condition10), the students’ clinical skills will improve. It is these techniques that I hope they will take back with them into their practice settings and in this way improve healthcare outcomes for Manitobans.

References:

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

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a 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

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

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

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved from http://www.anitacrawley.net/Articles/GarrisonAndersonArcher2000.pdf

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

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

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

University of Manitoba. (2015). International Centre for Oral-Systemic Health: Curriculum Project. Retrieved from http://www.umanitoba.ca/icosh/oshcurriculum.html

My goal with this assignment was to begin to create an on-line professional development course that met the needs to BC educators who are seeking to understand the First Peoples Principles of Learning (FPPL) and learn how to use them as a framework to create learning environments and activities in the BC K-12 system. The need for this type of pro-d has intensified as BC undergoes its curriculum revisions which now include an increased focus on the FPPL as an effective approach to student-centred learning. As it was important for me to begin to create something that is relevant for my purposes, I wanted to create an online professional development experience that can substitute for the person-to-person pro-d that I have been doing with school districts in the province.

The materials intended to meet the requirements of Assignment #2 are found in the Intro and Module 1 sections of my Moodle course.

Modelling Through Design

Beside the inherent challenge of learning how to develop a course in Moodle, I was also challenged to design a course that also reflected the very principles the course participants would be learning about, and have made this effort explicit to the participants as I ask them to pay attention to what is asked of them, and determine how the course attempts to model what it is they are learning how to do.  This goal of the course reflecting the FPPL affects both the content of the course, the types of interactions asked of participants, and the assessment used in the course.

The FPPL reflect a learner-centred approach to learning that mirrors O’Neill & McMahon’s (2005) summary of learner-centred learning as learning environments that include increased learner choice, active learning (learner “doing” more than the teacher), and shifting power in the student-teacher relationship (learner owning own learning). As students proceed through the course they will engage in thinking about how the FPPL also reflect a learner-centred approach. One might even argue that they are the original learner-centred approach (and in a similar vein are considered by some as the original example of place-based learning).

Central to the implications of a FPPL approach to learning is the development of community, and a collaborative approach to learning. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) also suggest that knowledge building is supported by intentional social interaction where participants provide constructive response to each other’s work, and the positive effect of collaborative learning is supported by Rogers and Ellis (1994) in their explanation of collaboration within the framework of distributed cognition, whereby knowledge is shared throughout networks of people. In order to reflect the complimentary drivers of both FPPL and constructivist approaches to the course, the first discussion topic asks participants to share information about themselves both professionally and personally. The overview of the course informs participants that subsequent activities will provide opportunities for collaborative work and will ask them to support each other’s learning through feedback to each other.

Assessment Decisions

The course is not a conventional one with grades or credits. As such, it makes extensive use of formative assessment strategies that are designed to further the participants’ learning, which also reflect a First Peoples’ perspective of assessment that it be authentic and relevant to supporting learning. These strategies are primarily self- and peer- evaluation, with additional provoking questions from the facilitator.

As Wiggens (2006) indicates, the purpose of assessment in education is to further learning. For the purposes of this course the learning is more effective if internalized by the learner in a way that encourages the learner to develop the habit of self-evaluation, as this process also compliments a First Peoples’ perspective of education. In addition, two of the five strategies that William (2006) as indicated in identifies as allowing assessment to assist, rather than inhibit learning are:

• Creating learning environments where students are supported in owning their own learning (rather than the teacher being seen as responsible for the creating the learning)
• Encouraging learners to be resources for each other

Both these strategies are included in the course design decisions as they also reflect principles found in the FPPL.

From a First Peoples’ perspective, summative assessment could be interpreted as the application of what it is that was learned. In this course this summative element that might be included in grade-based course is replaced by the final project where educators are asked to create the units of study for their students and implement them in their classrooms. Their learning will be represented by their ability to do.

In order to remain loyal to the principles I am using to guide the development of the course I decided to use the quiz requirement of this assignment as a formative assessment tool at the beginning of the course. The use of it this way can be understood as a combination of assessment for learning and assessment as learning (Earl, 2003) The questions are designed to be small teaser questions to start participants thinking about First Peoples, and First Peoples’ perspectives in education. As soon as participants answer the multiple choice, matching and short answer questions, they are provided with answers. It does not matter if the question is answered correctly, as the process of being asked the question, and thinking about the answers, meets the goal of generating thinking and peaking curiosity. Reading materials in subsequent modules will expand upon the information and ideas briefly touched upon in the quiz questions.  The participants are ask to keep a record of their long answer questions to that they can refer back to them to compare with later learning in the course.

Communication

Course participants are encouraged to use each other as the first line of support. This strategy helps develop their understanding that they can support each other’s learning journey. It contributes to the development of a sense of community that is important in the context of the FPPL and in a learning environment influenced by constructivist concept that learning is socially constructed. Social constructivist theory proposes that learning occurs as a result of the individual’s interaction within a group or community (Vygostky, 1978). The collaborative nature of group learning, which is further supported by encouraging learners to see each other as a potential learning support reflects Vygotsky’s understanding that social interaction is the necessary and primary cause of ontological development of knowledge in an individual (Glassman, 1994).

The course contains a discussion forum where students are encouraged to post questions that might be able to be answered by other course participants. I indicated that, as the facilitator, I would regularly check the postings to respond to questions that were not able to be answered by anyone in the group. As a last resort, I supplied an e-mail address for direct queries.

Final Thoughts

I have to say that I found this assignment a challenge. I spent more time trying to learn what in the end seemed to be simple things about organizing on Moodle. Various video resources I found and watched helped somewhat, but it took an inordinate amount of time to find answers to simple little questions – and at times these were not resolved, so I made alternate decisions about the course design. At one point I looked at what was actually in the assignment course site (what I had achieved up until that point) and it seemed pathetically sparse in comparison to the amount of time invested. At this point, I am not sure that Moodle would be the option I would choose if I had to make a decision about an LMS for my purposes.

Jo

References

Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press

Glassman. M. (1994). All things being equal: The two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky. Developmental Review, 14(2), 186-214.

O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T., (2005) Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? Retrieved from: http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/oneill-mcmahon-Tues_19th_Oct_SCL.html

Rogers, Y., & Ellis, J. (1994). Distributed cognition: an alternative framework for analyzing and Explaining collaborative working. Journal of Information Technology (9), 119-128

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 3(3), 265-283.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, (Eds.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

Wiggens, G. (2006). Healthier testing made easy: The idea of authentic assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.edutopia.org/authentic-assessment-grant-wiggins

Wiliam, D. (2006). Does assessment hinder learning? Paper presented at ETS Invitational Seminar held on July 11th, 2006 at the Institute of Civil Engineers, London, UK. Retrieved from: http://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Papers.html

Introduction

The process of creating the introduction module for my Moodle course is best described as a maze. When I began developing the introduction module the path seemed straightforward. Then, I faced a series of turns and I found myself lost and confused, but eventually I found my way, only to get lost and confused again. Finally, through a lot trial and error, I found the exit and finished the introduction module. I know that the maze analogy is cliche, but it is the only way to describe how I navigated this challenge. It turns out that my reflection is like a maze too, because the rationale behind the decisions I made about my Moodle course inform one another—they are connected and confusing to keep straight.

To begin, here is the context I used when making decisions for the Moodle course.:

 Student Profile

• Grade 10 students at a Sunday-Friday boarding school attending classes for approximately 12 hours a day.
• All EAL (English as an additional language) learners with varying levels of proficiency.
• Students have completed 1 term an IT course taught face-to-face

Moodle Course Context

• A mandatory course.
• Online delivery*.

*Except for the actual delivery of the summative assessment presentation. At this time, I haven’t discovered an effective way to accomplish this via Moodle when taking my students’ current situation (boarding school, limited time, etc) into consideration.

The Approach

My approach to developing this course followed Nel, Dreyer and Carstens’ (2010) five stages in the instructional design process: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (p. 240). However, I only made it through analysis, design, development, and a tiny fraction of implementation because real students have not enrolled or completed my Moodle course.

In the analysis stage, I began by thinking about the offline version of the unit I used as the foundation for my Moodle course. I thought about its strengths and weaknesses and came to the conclusion that I wanted to make the Moodle course more learner-centred and shift the assessment focus from summative to formative. I used this my guide when making course design decisions.

Anderson (2008a) states that a learner-centred approach involves the teacher making “efforts to gain an understanding of students’ prerequisite knowledge, including any misconceptions that the learner starts with in their construction of new knowledge” (p. 47). With this in mind, I decided that,  in the introduction module, I needed to determine what the students already knew and what preconceptions they were bringing with them to the course. I developed two activities for the introduction module to discover more about what my students: the introduction post on the discussion forum and the word cloud activity. However, Anderson (2008a)  goes on to say that, in a learner-centred approach “learner-centred activities make extensive use of diagnostic tools and activities to make visible these pre-existing knowledge structures to both the teacher and the students themselves” (p. 47). So, in order to make the pre-existing knowledge structures visible, I decided to rely on an assessment (the discussion forum post). Why? Because the students would have to submit work, then I could evaluate what their pre-existing knowledge. Did I design a truly learner-centred introduction module? No. I don’t think it’s learner-centred in a traditional sense, but what I learn from the student responses in the introduction module will inform my decisions regarding the rest of the course.

If you check the course schedule, you will see a lot of assessment—10 discussion posts, 7 assignments, a midterm quiz and a summative assessment—thus the course as is rather assessment-focused. While most of the assessment does not occur in the introduction module, I do want to briefly comment on this as I did choose to include information about the assessments in the introduction module. The course is, admittedly, assessment heavy, but I tried to use a lot of formative assessment in the form of coursework. I made this decision because Gibbs and Simpson (2005) make several points in favour of coursework vs examinations, including “coursework marks are a better of long term learning of course content than are exams” (p.7) and “the quality of learning has been shown to be higher in assignment-based courses” (p.7). With this in mind, I made the decision to add a lot of formative assessment coursework assignments in the hopes that my students would learn more effectively and to satisfy my desire to move away from summative assessment as the main focus.

When it came time to design the layout of the course, I relied heavily on the ease of use section from Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model. When I was making the visual and navigational layout decisions I took Bates’ (2014) suggestion that “a useful standard or criterion for the selection of course media or software is that ‘novice students’ […] should be studying within 20 minutes of logging on”. While I was not choosing the software, I was choosing how it would be set up, so I made the course page as uncluttered as possible with clear labels for each item appearing on the page. That way, students could quickly navigate the page. These decisions were deliberate and inspired by Bates’ (2014) interface design suggestion of “an educational program, or indeed any web site should be well structured, intuitive for the user to use, and easy to navigate”. In case the site was not as intuitive as I imagined, I also created three screencast videos—navigating Moodle, posting to the discussion forum, and participating in a poll. I made these so students could quickly learn how to complete all of the tasks that were required in the introduction module. The videos serve a second purpose–visuals are great for EAL learners who may have difficulty with written instructions.

My decision to create a course introduction book was partly common sense—students need to know what to expect, and partly inspired by Anderson’s (2008a) discussion of student-content interactions; I saw the course introduction book as a way to “provide an online help facility, or an intelligent help, if the user is modeled and their path is traced through the information space” (Anderson, 2008a, p.58). I did choose to provide translations of some of the course introduction pages. The reason is best explained by Bates (2014) when he says, “it is important to be clear about the needs of the target group”. For the students to be able to use the course introduction as an online help facility, the information needed to be easily accessible, and to me, that meant using their first language as a bridge.

As you can see, the process of developing the introduction module for my Moodle unit was, indeed, best described as a maze. There was no linear progression in the development of my introduction module because each part informed another part. Each time I thought of an idea or approach for, let’s say assessment, I would have to make a small change somewhere else–for example, the course introduction booklet. I imagine the content module development task will unfold in a similar way.

Looking Ahead

When I thought about how the offline version of this course was traditionally assessed, I knew that I wanted to shift the focus to more formative assessment rather than the typical summative assessment strategies I had typically used. This decision has a huge impact on how I would communicate and, of course, how I would assess the students.

The communication and assessment strategies I plan to use with my students further in the course centre around formative assessment and feedback. For instance, I have included discussion forum posts as required assessments. I chose this as an assessment because I wanted the students to respond to a prompt that would require them to apply what they learned in an authentic context. The discussion forum serves as a place for students to think about and communicate what they have learned, demonstrate how they would apply it, then allow for students to give feedback to each other via comments. As the instructor, reviewing the discussion posts will allow me to identify misconceptions or weaknesses in application and address it with the student before it is too late. I drew on several of Gibbs and Simpson’s (2005) conditions from their influences of assessment on the volume, focus and quality of studying section when developing my assessment strategy. Specifically, I drew on condition 3 “tackling the assessed task engages students in productive learning activity of an appropriate kind” (Gibbs and Simpon, 2005, p. 14), condition 5 “the feedback focuses on students’ performance, on their learning and on actions under the students’ control, rather than on the students themselves and on their characteristics” (Gibbs and Simpon, 2005, p. 18) and condition 6, “the feedback is timely in that it is received by students while it still matters to them and in time for them to pay attention to further learning or receive further assistance” (Gibbs and Simpon, 2005, p.18)

The midterm quiz is also a formative assessment and it provides timely feedback via the automated feedback provided to each student upon completion of the quiz, as per Gibbs and Simpson’s (2005)  condition 6 “the feedback is timely in that it is received by students while it still matters to them and in time for them to pay attention to further learning or receive further assistance (p.18) and it requires the students to act upon the feedback by means of a required discussion post. The decision to have a required discussion post based on the automated feedback from the quiz was inspired by Gibbs and Simpon’s (2005) condition 10, “feedback is acted upon by the student” (p. 24).

Communication further in this course will be challenging. I indicated in the course outline that students can email me directly and participate in optional live chats via WeChat, in addition to posting in the Questions? Comments? forum. I am concerned that, in addition to all of the feedback I will be providing because I chose to use a significant amount of formative assessment, there is a huge risk that I would become overwhelmed if this course went live. However, I can’t be sure until it is implemented.

Conclusion

Without getting to the implementation and evaluation stages of the instructional design process outlined by Nel, Dreyer, and Carsterns (2010), it is difficult to ascertain if I made decisions that will work for my students and the course. I think that, even if the current version of the course went well, future success really depends on the students in the course. I believe that, in every iteration, I would have to make some changes—whether it is changes to the layout, content, or assessments.

References

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

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

Gibbs, G., Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

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

Intro Module Reflection
Assignment 2 was a really engaging and challenging assignment for me. Having never developed an online course, it was interesting to plan how I would disseminate information to students and what an online course would look like under my instruction. I have taken only a few online courses in the MET program, so my perspective is fairly narrow and most likely skewed towards how MET courses are designed. As much as I used MET courses as a template, my course subject matter didn’t translate as easily as I had hoped. I also tried to take into account topics from Spiro’s (2014) article on trends in LMS that we should try and avoid. I quickly realized that there would be no reading assignments and instead opted for video tutorials. The visual nature of the software and the necessity for asynchronous delivery of the curriculum lead me to design the course content as Youtube hosted videos that I will create. Creating these videos will be time intensive but the benefit of having customized videos specifically for this course will benefit the students as opposed to using the numerous videos available on the Internet. Hopefully these curated videos will aid in student motivation as Ciampa (2013) addressed. Using a sychronous lecture method like a live screencast was not something that would be viable for the students. I also decided that for communication, that I would try and keep options fairly simple. Messages to and from myself would be okay using standard email and the internal Connect messaging tool. While I know that there are other mediums available, from the research we have done, it seems to be a good choice of balance. I do advocate to the students that if a question arises that deals with a topic in After Effects that they should search online first. There are many people out there who produce videos and provide training and part of the academic skillset that I am trying to impart on these students are research methodologies. When they are working as professionals with this software they will become used to finding solutions online. Lastly, for the assessment model, it was tricky figuring out the best way to assess their work. Since the course is designed as skill based versus knowledge based, I chose to do more projects than normal quiz/test assessments. However, the quiz component of the assignment fit perfectly as a supplement to a small skills project. I am able to use the quiz as a knowledge formative assessment along with the skilled project. Later on in the course does not seem appropriate for another quiz because they will have spent enough time in the software to be familiar with the tools. Overall, it was a good experience developing the introduction module and as I thought about the structure of the course I tried to refer back to aspects of Anderson’s (2008) article about the four types of learning. Learner-centred was especially crucial since I believe that online courses can be difficult for some students to use.

Assessment Reflection
I enjoyed working on the assessment for my online course. It gave me an opportunity to reflect upon what information I would need to know as a student at that point in time for the class. I decided to use the internal Connect test method due to its ease of use and accessibility. I didn’t think the other tools would provide that much more value to the student or myself. Having an assessment with instant feedback is a huge plus for this subject matter since it will replicate the experience working in the software. When working in video applications there is usually continuous feedback on if things work or not. Obviously for the essay questions I will need to go back and grade them but it will give me the opportunity to give the students some positive and meaningful critique about their design decisions. I chose a formative assessment since project assessments will be the primary assessment type through the course and having a formative quiz early on will be beneficial for the students to see if their knowledge foundation is solid enough. The Gibbs and Simpson (2005) article was helpful in giving me an idea of how to create questions that actually contribute to student learning versus a simple regurgitation of information over the course of the module. This course builds upon so many skills and tools that being very comfortable knowing them is essential to success in the course.

 
Spiro, K. (2014). 5 elearning trends leading to the end of the Learning Management Systems.

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96.

Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University.

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31.