Tag: submitted

As someone who has participated in threaded discussion, both from an educational and from a recreational setting, I feel that there are several areas where wiki collaboration cannot quite match it. However, from a publication point-of-view, the wiki collaboration is likely to yield a more “appealing” final product than a threaded discussion.

One of the biggest advantages threaded discussions have over wiki collaboration is that it shows in an easy-to-see format what each participant’s contribution is. For an educator who is assessing students’ participation, this format is a lot clearer than going into the history section to find out what has been done collaboratively and individually by all the students, though I admit that this may just be a personal bias.

Another advantage threaded discussions have over wiki collaboration lies in the fact that nothing is really “lost.” As students offer their opinions, sometimes the opinion or suggestion may be disputed, and discarded eventually through discussions. However, that does not mean that the opinion did not serve a purpose, nor that the student who raised the “inadequate” question/opinion did not contribute in a positive fashion. In wiki collaboration though, the final product seldom shows the “steps” and the “trials” that many people collaborated and contributed. In spite the fact that the final product should be considered that of a combined effort and collaboration, the “wrong” steps taken during that process would inevitably be lost.

Wiki collaboration, however, does produce a product that is more presentable than a threaded discussion. After many rounds of collaboration, the finished product is published, has external links, images, etc. In short, it can be a beautiful media production. The same cannot be easily done with many threaded discussion topics and responses.

Personally, I feel that depending on the goal of the collaborative process, wiki collaboration and threaded discussion can both be utilized to maximize the learning experiences of students.

My reflections on communication tools have now been posted.

You can click on the following link to take a look. As always, I appreciate your feedback, any feedback.

Ed’s Reflections on Communication Tools

Proposal for: Mr. Chris Kelly, Superintendent, Vancouver Board of Education (SD# 39)

From: Ed Leung, Science Department Head, Counsellor, Templeton Secondary School

Re: Recommendation for the Implementation of a Learning Management System (LMS) for Templeton Secondary School

Rationale for the Proposal:

Within the mission statement of Vancouver Board of Education (formerly Vancouver School Board) is a pledge to provide educational opportunities for all learners. In recent years, severe shortage in funding from the Ministry of Education has seriously hindered various programs secondary schools can offer to their students. One area that is in great needs is special education. Many Vancouver high schools, particularly those in the Sunrise region, have a significant number of students with special needs, many of them are learning-disabled, as designated by the Ministry. Unlike other schools in the district, however, these “inner city schools” often lack the corporate and parental support that could help to offset some of the financial challenges they face. As a result, students with special needs are often not receiving the support to which they need to maximize their learning. As Chickering and Gamson (1987) have suggested, good educational practice includes using active learning techniques, and respecting diverse ways of learning – although their framework focuses on post-secondary education, these aspects are generalized goals that any school should adapt to. A Learning Management System (LMS) is one of the educational tools that can help address some of these goals. An economic LMS, meanwhile, would be an ideal application for a school that is strapped for funding.

Proposed Learning Management System (LMS) to Adopt

The Learning Management System I am recommending the VBE to adopt is Moodle, an open source LMS that is developed with constructivist learning principles in mind. As an open source software, schools that choose to employ Moodle need not pay a licensing fee, as long as it does not remove the original license and copyright, and apply the same license to any derivative work. While the minimal cost schools need to adopt Moodle is definitely an appealing feature of this LMS, the reason why I am choosing Moodle as my choice recommendation is because it fulfills the requirements set by the SECTIONS model proposed by Bates and Poole (2003) in a very positive fashion. In the following paragraphs, I will outline how Moodle meets these criteria well:

S – Students

In choosing a proper LMS for the targeted students, it is important to know that the technology chosen is appropriate for this targeted group. As a LMS that offers a variety of learning methods, including synchronous and asynchronous messaging, streaming of audio and video segments, etc., Moodle offers a level of excitement to the students while providing essential learning supplements as well.

E – Ease of Use and Reliability

Moodle was first developed in 2002, and has been used by many educators. With proper training, instructors can learn to operate the basics with relative ease. Students in the digital age generally learn how to use any computer interface extremely quickly. With some support, they would easily access and use Moodle as a powerful learning tool.

C – Cost

As mentioned, Moodle is an open source LMS, meaning that the board does not have to pay for any licensing fee. To pilot the use of Moodle in a school such as Templeton Secondary with 1100 students, the board’s current server capacity and computer hardware should suffice. Because Moodle offers a collaborative community for Moodle users for support through forums and detailed users’ manuals, the resources required for tech support in implementing Moodle would be minimal, if not nil altogether. A more detailed break-down of the cost of implementing Moodle will be given at the end of this proposal.

T – Teaching and Learning

One of the more challenging tasks classroom teachers face in teaching students with special needs is the variety of learning needs that these students have. Moodle offers a wide array of learning platforms to allow students of various talents and skills to learn. For example, visual learners can benefit from video streaming of lessons and demonstrations. Students who are challenged in certain learning areas can also use Moodle to foster development in a non-threatening way, as the learning will not be done face-to-face, reducing their anxiety and their fear of failure.

I – Interactivity

Moodle allows for a variety of ways by which students can interact with their teachers and their classmates. Asynchronously, students can participate in discussion forums, and send messages to their peers as well as teachers. Textual transcripts of lessons and virtual classrooms can also be downloaded by students. Synchronously, students can participate in class or group chat (an excellent place for collaborative learning), and can learn in live classroom and forum.

O – Organizational Issues

As many students in special education are currently traveling in cohorts from class to class, organization is not a big issue when Moodle is implemented. The adapted/modified students in the school can use their skills development class (SDC) to go to the Moodle Room to have a session, in similar ways as how the literacy program Fast ForWord is currently being offered at Templeton. Special needs students enrolled in regular class can also be pulled out should remedial needs arise.

N – Novelty

Though Moodle has been released since 2002, the LMS has been continuously upgraded and modified to meet the needs of its users. The most updated versions of Moodle, Moodle 1.9.5 and 1.8.9, are released as recently as May of 2009.

S – Speed

Downloading and installing Moodle into a school would require minimal time. As for the actual speed in running Moodle, it would be much dependent on the school board’s server’s capability. As the board regularly upgrades its server, so would the speed in using Moodle be enhanced as well.

Cost Breakdown

The biggest cost in implementing Moodle lies not in the purchasing of hardware nor software, but in the training of a staff to set up and run Moodle, and to offer troubleshooting assistance to teachers who are using the LMS. The cost breakdown is as follows:

• EOC Coverage for the Moodle Trainer to install and set up Moodle (estimated to be around 2 weeks, or 10 school days): $200/day x 10 = $2000
• EOC Coverage for the teacher trainer to train teachers in using Moodle (during teachers’ spare blocks): $200/four-block-day x 2 = $400
• EOC release time for teacher trainer to troubleshoot for staff using Moodle: $200 x 3 days = $600 (this amount is the same as that given to the scheduler who creates the school timetable)
• EOC Coverage + Conference Fee to provide teacher trainer with professional development opportunities in using Moodle: $200 for EOC + $300 Conference fee = $500
• Contingency Technology Support = $500
• Total = $4000

Conclusion

Many studies have shown clearly that students with special needs are not intellectually inferior to their peers. The challenge a public school has always faced in the past is that there does not exists the technology and resources that are needed to allow these students to realize their learning capabilities. As a LMS, Moodle does not solve all of the challenges faced by an under-privileged, special needs student in an east-side Vancouver school. It does, however, offer a chance for this student to identify and to foster an area of strength, while providing remedial and practical intervention strategies in helping this student catch up in areas that he/she is challenged.

Reference:

Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: a Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In Effective teaching with Technology in Hihger Education: Foundations for Success. (pp. 77 – 105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), p.3 – 7.

Moodle.org: About Moodle. (n.d.). Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://docs.moodle.org/en/About_Moodle

Moodle.org: News. (n.d.). Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://moodle.org/news/

Moodle.org: Support. (n.d.). Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://moodle.org/forums/

As an educator for 11 years (10 years as a science/biology teacher, and 1 year as a secondary counsellor) working in an inner-city school in Vancouver, I have seen the challenges faced by underprivileged students and students with special needs. While I do not believe education is a political arena where students’ welfare should be used as a bargaining chip, I do feel strongly that our public school system is in need of less bureaucracy and more direct funding that would benefit the students. This is especially true when it comes to the area of technology.

Whenever I have a chance to speak to others about the technology needs, I would not hesitate to tell people that, for a school that has a population of over 1000, it is inconceivable to keep up with the ever-increasing technology needs if the school is only given $5000 from the school board for technology. Feeling pessimistic of the long-term resources individual schools can receive, my colleagues and I have subsequently turned to private sectors for assistance. While deep down, this seems to be a violation of the spirit of public education, I strongly believe that this is the lesser of the two evil – students need technology, and corporations can provide technology with something as little as us recognizing their contributions. I have worked in teams to secure these grants in the past; what I look forward to be able to do is to best utilize the very limited resources we can receive to provide the technology needs for our students.

When I took ETEC 510 last term, I’ve learned some ideas of the design of implementing technology in a classroom. Together with my fellow students, we have designed a mobile computer lab that would utilize wireless internet-ready laptop computers to be moved from room to room to provide the technology needs for our students. We also did some research to identify free/inexpensive resources that can be used by educators to supplement such a lab. From freewares such as Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/) that can be used as a basic sound mixer, to a free forum hosting site such as MakephBB (http://www.makephpbb.com/) that can be used as a forum for students to post discussion questions and answers, there are resources available for educators to use that would enhance the technology experience of our learners without putting any strains on the ever-tightening budget.

The challenge for educators is that these resources are not widely known by teachers, and teachers who may want to utilize them may also feel threatened to learn them. As someone who has supported my colleagues in various technology-based softwares, I want to use my MET experience to become more familiar with the implementation, the delivery, and the assessment of classes that are enhanced technologically. As I do not consider myself as a technology wizard, I feel that I can convey to my fellow staff member that you do not need to be a “techie” to deliver education that is technology-based.