Trinh definitely has a tricky problem that I would guess quite a few online educators have to deal with as well. I suppose that this is the burden that we all face with regards to the ubiquity and accessibility of numerous communication mediums. I think the best way to manage the overwhelming amount of channels in which to be contacted is to strictly adhere by guidelines set to the students that they can only communicate via specific means. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like there is a great product yet that can manage all the various incoming channels. Although I guess smartphones are doing a pretty good job on the accessibility aspect. Now for the amount of messages Trinh is sent, that seems like the much larger issue. My recommendation would be to hire a non-paid intern assistant. Just kidding. However, it does somewhat address the real issue; Trinh doesn’t have enough time to respond to the amount of messages she receives. One possible alternative to this is to use an online community or discussion board for any official queries and allow (or require) students to be part of the process. Perhaps a question from Student A can easily be answered by Student B. It would be nice for Trinh to offload that work.
Tag Archives: Oak group
Some assumptions for Lenora
My estimate for Lenora would be no, she should not use a website. However, this is solely based on a few assumptions. The case study says nothing about the interactivity of the pro-d environment that Lenora wants to create. So I question as to why she would need to create a website when she can just provide the appropriate materials for the development session as static documents (i.e. PDFs, Word documents, etc)? Having static documents also allows her to cut down on the network bandwidth issue that she has. Although, to be fair, yes, she does technically need some sort of site to host the documents. So for dissemination purposes of whatever content she ends up creating (documents, video, online discussions, blog, website, etc) if she wants people to be able to access this information, she will need a place to store it on the Internet.
My rationale for this response is mostly due to the writings of Tony Bates’ Teaching in a Digital Age, Chapter 8 (2014). His SECTIONS model makes you look at the availability and affordances of various aspects of utilizing technology for instructional purposes. Here is my line of thinking then… if Lenora has no web design experience, very limited bandwidth availability, and no need for user interactivity, she really should go for the easiest possible model of relaying information. That comes down to a document, perhaps even a presentation.
Now, if she does want to build out a community of people focused around this development issue, then yes, she must have a website. In fact there are some very easy ways to make that happen based on her schedule, location, and skill level. For instance, Google Sites is a quick and easy way to create a fully functional website. Using Google Gears also allows Lenora to work in offline mode so that she is able to create the content she needs while at home. Once she goes to work, she can simply sync the changes necessary. So really, it isn`t as big of an issue as the case study makes it out to be. I think it comes down to knowledge about certain toolsets. Google Apps is one as I`m sure there are many others that could fulfill her requirements as well.
Bates, J. (2014). Teaching in digital age, Chapter 8. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
Too much work, not enough time…
Benoit definitely has a task ahead of him. The first factor that he should take into consideration before comparing the two platforms is the time constraint. Let’s say for example that Benoit has between 12-14 weeks until the next semester starts. That gives him roughly 60-70 hours of available time to invest in this project. Benoit’s time is a finite resource that needs to be taken into account throughout this project. While it does seem that there are positives and negatives to both platforms, my initial opinion is that with such a limited amount of time for development he should be leaning towards a platform he is more or less familiar with, which would be Blackboard.
To expand upon this, Benoit should be asking himself about the overall time commitment for development and support throughout the launch of this course. Being that Benoit’s experience with LMS has been limited to using them as an online repository for resources, the learning curve to create and maintain a new online course is going to be substantial for him. It is hard to say which aspect of technical support is going to be more time intensive between the two solutions. Even if IT is slow to respond for Blackboard issues, it might be quicker and/or easier than some of the issues that arise in Moodle with no formal support structure. I suppose it depends on how comfortable Benoit is with working on online systems.
My breakdown of the time allocation needed for Benoit is as follows:
4 hrs – Review of existing course materials to see if anything needs to be updated or removed for the course transitioning to an online delivery platform.
8 hrs – Revision, modification, and addition of course materials to suit the online course model.
4 hrs – Development/modification of the course topics, objectives, and outcomes.
8 hrs – LMS account/course creation and training time to familiarize oneself with a new system.
16-24 hrs – Creating and/or curating multimedia content for the course. This would include videos, images, audio, presentations, etc.
16 hrs – Development and creation of the weekly activities in the LMS.
8 hrs – Development and creation of the LMS assessments if applicable for the course.
4 hrs – Time spent reviewing and testing the modules of the course.
8 hrs – Time spent dealing with technical difficulties.
My total estimates would put the development at around 76 hours or 15 weeks for Benoit’s Business Writing course.
Ok Benoit – what’s your long game?
After reading through the many excellent posts from my peers in the Oak group this week, I write this knowing that many great questions have already been asked! Yet a post made by Mark in reply to Mo’s post sparked a new question in me, for Benoit: What is the goal of the long game?
Mark brought up the point that LMS continue to be widely used, and the case study is currently applicable – but for how long? I read the Porto (2015) and Spiro (2014) articles last, after completing readings for this and my other course, all of which have been about the viability of LMS or online teaching. So after all that, to read pieces that essentially broke down the traditional LMS – well it almost made me laugh, in a way. It became clear that in the long run, or in the ‘long game’ as I tend to think of it, Benoit is going to find himself on the other side of this project without much need for the results.
Previously asked questions regarding reliability, suitability, and ease of use are all excellent – but again I think I agree with the question of which has the best potential to evolve, as posed by Mark. If it looks likely that LMS as we know them are already in flux, perhaps due to what Coates, James & Baldwin (2005) describes as their tendency to create an “overly systematised compression of different disciplines and styles of learning” (p.31). But seeing as that article is 11 years old, the current LMS options are obviously still well-liked enough since then to have stuck around.
So to return to this week’s task of what to do for poor Benoit, out of the two options provided I would encourage him to go towards Moodle. Although he would have less tech. support through the school (which is apparently unreliable, anyway), it sounds to me like the best option for him to grab the bull by the horns and a) learn how to design web spaces more purposefully and b) create such a space that will be available outside for the students in the longer term, even if eventually it is not used in favour of something else. Considering Spiro’s list of what may herald the downfall of LMS in schools, Moodle seems to be the best compromise – it allows for the functionality of LMS for the school’s use, but will be open-share and thus not lose relevance (or accessibility) as the course closes. Although it may require more independent work on Benoit’s part at the start, it sounds to me like a greater investment in his own skills, as well – no more uploading content to FTP and then walking away, now is the time to get his hands a little dirtier with the creation of things. In terms of factors for the ‘long game’, I would say these would point him more in the direction of Moodle over Blackboard.
In regards to how long it might take him to approach this challenge given his 5 hour per week time allowance, I’m going to propose a longer time frame than many of my peers! If we say that he spends 1 hour per day learning Moodle, 40 hours – or an average North American work week – would span 8 weeks. Considering all that must go into the development of an online course, as Meghan beautifully outlined in her post (LMS learning time, content development, assessment, testing) – it would certainly be a lengthy process. Imagining he had 8 hours per day to develop this, I would hazard to outline the following:
- 2 days to learn Moodle
- 8 days to curate course content
- 5 days to design assessment
- 2 days to test the platform
That would look like 17 8 hour days, or 136 working hours. Considering he only has 5 hours per week to invest, if my math is right (and there is a VERY good chance it isn’t), Benoit would need approximately 27 weeks based on my timeline – about 6 months. This is certainly much higher than it is for many of my peers, but to be honest I would think requesting 6 months to develop a new course, from scratch, sounds quite reasonable! Then again I’ve never had to propose anything such as this before, so if anyone would like to comment, please do!