Learning Technologies: Selection, Design, & Application

Working in a group of 5 across multiple time zones, our group looked to develop and create a platform evaluation for Learning Management Systems that would be beneficial to a non-profit Canadian organization; Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Canada.  Using the Bates model of S.E.C.T.I.O.N.S. we assessed three learning management systems: Moodle, WordPress, and Eliademy.  Our S.E.C.T.I.O.N.S. model was used with a rubric and we ranked each LMS based on a three point scale for the affordances that each provided in their usefulness to BBBSC.

I thoroughly enjoyed this experience in working collaboratively with four other group members.  Each group member brought their own skill set to the project and through asynchronous and synchronous learning opportunities, I believe we created a Personal Learning Community, albeit in only a few weeks.  So much of the conversations that we had were very productive, with individuals suggesting ideas, ranking the merit of each idea and ultimately incorporating these into our assigned task.  Given the multiple tasks within the overall assignment, each and every individual stepped up to accomplish our goal.

At first I was wondering as an elementary school teacher how this assignment might look for me as it was based more around an organization than an educational opportunity.  However, I was pleasantly surprised with the fact that I found many direct parallels to the corporate and non-profit world and the education system.  One of the great benefits that I found as a teacher was working with my colleagues, some of whom work in other fields.  Their insight into other organizational issues and components that support the learning of individuals in other realms was a refreshing opportunity to learn from others.

I have to thank my group for a great experience.

1. Give an example of organizational policy that regulate “use of mobile technology” or “mobile devices”. What is the purpose of these rules?

Coming from the perspective of an elementary school, organizational policy that regulates the ¨use of mobile technology¨ or ¨ mobile devices¨ in our district is stipulated and regulated from the School District Level.  Organizational policy states that students are not to bring mobile technology or mobile devices to school.  I know that this changes when students enter the high school setting for a variety of reasons.   The purpose of these rules are to ensure that students are safe and that such devices are not being used in inappropriate manners.  However, I have noticed two scenarios which challenge this policy in our school.  First, what I have noticed is that this policy while in place, is certainly not followed at all schools and by all administration and teaching staff.  Second, many parents of students as young as Grade 4 age are sending students to school with such devices and are arguing that they are being sent for safety purposes.  As we move forward with 21st Century Learning models and the integration of technology, our school district technology coordinator suggests the following:

Integrating technology into classroom instruction means more than teaching basic computer skills and software programs in a separate computer class. Effective tech integration must happen across the curriculum in ways that research shows deepen and enhance the learning process. In particular, it must support four key components of learning: active engagement, participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connection to real-world experts. Effective technology integration is achieved when the use of technology is routine and transparent and when technology supports curricular goals. (Edutopia, 2008).  Information, Media and Technology skills are one of the critical foundation pieces of the Framework for 21st Century Learning (http://www.p21.org).

If we are to push forward into the realm of 21st Century Constructivist Learning classrooms, I would argue that mobile technology and mobile devices are an important and integral component in fostering such an initiative.  To further set the scene in our elementary school, I have a very progressive 21st Century administrator who while following the district policy in terms of the encouragement of digital citizenship and appropriate use of technology, including mobile devices, also sees the impact that these devices have in the classroom setting.  As such, he is more than happy to give students wireless access to such devices and allow them in the classroom under the provision that they are to be used for educational assignments.  As the classroom teacher, I see the significant learning benefits to my students in his support of such devices.  It is important to note however, that he is quick to remove the privilege of accessing our school wireless network and removing said device if a student does not choose to practice digital citizenship.

I find after having a look at the UBC Digital Tattoo site, I find that many of the challenges that educators face in terms of digital citizenship are addressed as well as the teaching of some of the positive aspects and affordances that technology can bring to the learning environment.  I found these positive aspects very intriguing as I think as educators that we can sometimes tend to treat digital citizenship education as a list of ¨don’t do that¨, instead of addressing the potential impacts that technology integration and affordances can have.

2. In what way mobile-learning affects the instructional design practices?

After reading the single-case study by Ciampa (2013), I am encouraged to see that educators, administrators, and district officials are seeing the positive impact that mobile learning can have on students and the instructional design practices of educators.  I believe that Ciampa (2013) has hit on some extremely important points surrounding both student and educator motivation around the learning environment.  The six key components (challenge, curiosity, control recognition, competition, and cooperation) hit on each of the components integral to a successful 21st Century student.  That these are both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators as well, instructs students to the fact that they have the abilities to be successful and enjoy the process, with technology as a tool and affordance that will promote their individual success.  One point that Ciampa (2013) suggests in his case-study is the significance that  immediate feedback offers students in encouraging them to push forward on difficult problems.  I have seen this first hand in my classroom and see the significant levels of motivation and enthusiasm towards the task at hand rise.  Certainly if I think about my own pedagogical practice, given that I have access to both mobile technology and Chromebooks in the classroom at a one to one ratio, I seek to create the inclusive learning environment that ¨engages all students regardless of ability, disability, background or learning style” (Ciampa, 2013, p. 91).  If you are to walk into my classroom at almost any point in the day, you will see my students in collaboration with one another.

3. What could be some of the mobile-learning specific rules for creating educational materials?

As I look to address the development of mobile-learning specific rules for creating educational materials, I believe that the rules should not hinder as Ciampa (2013) suggests the satisfaction level, promoting continuing motivation to learn, and the personalized, learner centric nature that promotes authentic learning experiences.  They must also be mobile friendly educational materials.  However, while creating these materials that will increase pupil engagement, there does still have to be specific rules that address the digital citizenship component around using such devices, and there has to still be a bottom line for inappropriate use of mobile devices.

1. What would be your advice to Benoît about the LMS choice in this context? Explain your reasoning.

In the case of Benoit, I commend his movement towards a more hybrid or blended learning module.  As Bates (2014) suggests this type of learning has ¨some advantages over face-to-face teaching in terms of learning performance¨ (p. 313).  As such, with a transformation in his teaching style, my first hint of advice would be that which I ask myself: How am I going to best meet the needs of my learners?  Will I create a successful constructivist learning environment?  Given that Benoit positions his approach to the LMS as putting the learner first, my second suggestion would be to examine and take the time to play around with the affordances.  Much like I would provide my students with an opportunity to explore a technological affordance before proceeding, Benoit should give himself time to explore, discuss with fellow colleagues, and research areas of strength and weakness within each LMS.  As Bates (2014) through his discussions within Chapter 11 suggest, at the forefront of his decision making should be the abilities and availability to work with a team, master the technology, design both course structure and learning activities, explore methods to communicate effectively with both learner and key support players, and explore evaluative opportunities (p.369).  When Benoit feels confident and is comfortable with his direction, I believe his choice of Blackboard Connect or Moodle comes down to a choice between support and autonomy.  Blackboard, in being supported through the major university comes with the benefit of a more succinct support system through the university’s internal IT department.  Therefore, if Benoit is not yet confident enough to run his course online without support, he should accept a test run with Blackboard.

However, I believe there is another larger issue at stake here and it arose through the discussions of last week and the article by Coates, James, & Baldwin (2005).  If Benoit is to keep autonomy throughout his course design, implementation, and delivery, then he should take into consideration Moodle as it offers the affordances of being more open to instructor input and is not going to fall prey to a control over academic knowledge.  Taken from my post last week, I formulate this as a challenge as Hamish, Coates, et al (2005) suggest that ¨such collaborations are more open to various forms of monitoring, inspection, and control¨ (p.30). Further, Hamish, Coates, et al (2005) argue, ¨through making the internet a more seductive and accessible tool for teaching, LMS may also be homogenising the creation, style, and ownership of pedagogical knowledge¨ (p. 32).  Therefore, with Benoit being descried having a popular course, he may be leary to relinquish any of the academic control that he has over the course.  With this regard, my advise would be for Benoit to travel the road of Moodle.

2. What will be the key steps in his work of transferring his face-to-face course in online format?

Through the planning and transferring his face-to-face course into an online format, Benoit will need to be mindful of many key steps throughout the process.  His approach will need to be:

• Systematic – planning will need to address units of study, divided much as our course is into subunits, assignments, discussion forums, and readings
• Sequential – offering learners with the greatest opportunity to see growth in their learning and build upon each unit with more in depth knowledge
• Synchronous and Asynchronous – Give opportunities for learning to proceed in both manners.
• Presentation and Delivery – Attention paid to how and when each lesson is delivered (ex. are students able to have the freedom to work through course at their own pace
• Assessment Opportunities – Needs to provide both formative and summative opportunities
• Skill Development Identification – As suggested by Bates (2014) description around how content will be applied and practiced need be taken into consideration

3. What kind of support he might need during the process?

Throughout this process, Benoit should seek the support of his colleagues and tech available to him.  He should also analyze the vast resources that are open through Moodle as informative aids when confronted with a challenge in development of his course. There are many tutorials available that will take Benoit through the process of setting up his course, to the management of the course.

4. What criteria for his workload estimates would you suggest if the plan is to offer the online version of the course next semester.

Criteria that will need to taken into consideration given Benoit’s probable timeline (which I would think is somewhat short) would follow as suggested by one of my colleagues in this course the Agile Method of Design.  Given that he is probably not as familiar with Moodle as he would like, Benoit should expect the development of his course to require a variety of strategies and changes throughout the development and implementation process.

5. What would be your estimation of the development time (in weeks); how much time it will take Benoît to develop an online version of the course (Business Writing)? Explain the facts and contributing factors which you considered making your estimation.

This is where I can see Benoit faced with a minor challenge.  Unless he is reasonable with his timeline, and the university is offering him an acceptable timeline for development and implementation, I would be concerned that Benoit would not feel as though his course is on par with his face-to-face course, which could certainly affect his enthusiasm for instructing the course online.  As such, I see that he will need a full semester to correctly master the technology and create a course that not only offers the affordances for students to be authentically engaged, but also offers Benoit the ability to deliver the course to his personal sense of satisfaction.

References

Bates, T., (2014). Teaching in a Digital Age. (Online Book)

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. (PDF)

What are some of the advantages and dangers of the process of standardization of knowledge and instructional practices?

A very interesting and engaging topic this week as today I was at a workshop to discuss the implementation of the new my education BC moodle platform for teacher, administrators, and clerical staff which will come into effect in our district in September.  Some of the workshop goals were to:

1. introduce the moodle platform of LMS to teachers from all schools in the district
2. develop a ‘working sense’ of how this will look in the classroom
3. take us through in a matter of an hour and a half the logistics behind what teachers are now going to become responsible for within the classroom and describe the affordances that this moodle will bring to teachers.

As such, this is what I learned today, some of which appears on the surface to be positive and advantageous, and some of which appears on the surface to dangerous and more streamlined into the standardization of instructional practices.

First to the advantageous:

1. educators will now have access to student reports (both formative and summative assessments) that date back to the student entering the public school system.
2. educators will have access to student information including Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and any notes that former teachers leave that are advantageous to developing differentiated learning plans for students to best meet their engagement and learning needs.
3. the process is streamlined in that reporting periods are becoming more concise and to the point in elementary schools (which is great in that reports, at least in our district consume on average 30 – 40 hours per reporting period), time in which we can be planning and developing authentic learning opportunities.

Now to the challenge that not only did I see, but heard repeatedly from the coordinators who were administering the workshop:

1. all of your ideas are great (as they spoke to the teachers), but we take our orders in terms of what is displayed within the moodle, along with the abilities to access information which is restricted from the top down.

I formulate this as a challenge as I read Hamish, Coates, et al (2005) as they describe the LMS and the complex creation of collaborative opportunities from administrators and teachers.  They further press this point as they suggest that ¨such collaborations are more open to various forms of monitoring, inspection, and control¨ (p.30).  What I find interesting within this regard is that this appears on the surface to be a very real challenge to the autonomy that teachers relish from a managerial standpoint.  I am curious to see if this will be a starting point for further challenges to teacher autonomy with regards to knowledge and instructional practice.  As suggested by Hamish, Coates, et al (2005), ¨through making the internet a more seductive and accessible tool for teaching, LMS may also be homogenising the creation, style, and ownership of pedagogical knowledge¨ (p. 32).  Are educators really going to be accepting of their individual ownership to pedagogical knowledge being shared in an open, online manner?

Would your conclusion be different from what Spiro gets from his observations? Give examples to support your judgment.

Spiro’s argument is that the LMS systems that encompass corporate Learning Management Systems will be dead in five years if there is no adaptation and modification.  In the world of corporate America this may be true, however, in the world of academia, one might argue that the five suggested changes to classroom pedagogy with the implementations of technology are creating Inquiry based learners.  For instance, my classroom is an environment which promotes self directed learning through the IBL model.  Student engagement is at an all time high as we are seeing learners take control of their learning and working in collaboration with myself to generate opportunities to learn around what interests them (they in many ways become their own guide).  Our timelines for learning are very open and flexible, and collaborative and constructivist communities of practice are appearing throughout the room on a regular basis.  Finally, one of the comments directed my way most often by my students is the fact that they can now take their learning with them anywhere and anytime, which enables them to work at a pace conducive with their learning style.

Chose an organization, which you are familiar with, and using the ADDIE model and the “Agile Design” model outlined by Bates’ (2014), evaluate its educational technology conditions.

I am going to have a look at and describe the recent changes that my school district are looking to in terms of inquiry based learning and the adoption of Google Apps For Education accounts for all students.  My division itself employs around 1400 teaching staff within 40 schools that spans a very large geographic area.  In order to further give context, the adoption of Google Drive For Education as a technological affordance was a challenging endeavour to undertake as there are issues around student information and where it is being stored.  However, now that the district has developed safety protocols for the storage of student information, GAFE has made its way into many of the classrooms throughout the district and with the adoption of IBL, GAFE is working well within this 21st century model of learning.

1. How informative these two models are for determining whether your organization implements educational technologies in the most effective way?

When looking at Bates (2014) two models, ADDIE and Agile Design module, I believe that my district has certainly followed through with some of the criterial characteristics seen in the ADDIE model.  I believe that they were successful in two of the five areas that support an ADDIE model of learning.  Many of the variables were analyzed prior to bringing GAFE into the district, and within the model of IBL, the learners’ characteristics were certainly addressed.  Further, delivery and implementation of GAFE for each student has been seemless as student access was readily available.  However, within the other three characteristics, I believe that the school district needs to focus their outlook.  For instance, there has been little attention paid to the learning objectives and how GAFE can successfully enable them.  Rather, GAFE was promoted and teachers who were technological leaders have since seen that there is a lot of work on the front end that is required for GAFE to be a successful affordance.  I wonder here if many teachers might choose to continue without such affordance?  In terms of the evaluation of the success of GAFE in a IBL environment, there is yet to be a lot of data collection to support areas that require improvement and development.  I also question the inflexibility that the ADDIE model brings with it, as the technologies that come into the classroom are in a constant state of change and requires educators to adjust/challenge, and work with a variety of technological affordances in the IBL classroom.  After all, IBL is about choice.

2. Which of these two instructional design models better fit your preferences in the instructional design?

Given the ADDIE model, I would argue that the Agile model of learning best supports the preferences that I have as an IBL educator who employs a vast array of technological affordances in the classroom, including GAFE.  THe flexible models for design certainly resonate more with my educational outlook within my classroom and school.  In particular, the community of inquiry model might best fit my preferences within my classroom.  The guidelines (appropriate technology, etc.) certainly resonate and are evident if you walk into my classroom.  Certainly, the main advantages of the Agile design Bates (2014) fit well with IBL, and my students prepare themselves through real life situational learning objectives for the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world.  I work to develop these digital age specifics and when approaching technology in the classroom, we work together within a First Attempt At Learning (F.A.I.L.) environment (the students of course love the acronym).  More often than not, my students are highly engaged, a part of which stems from the enthusiasm that I have for the IBL model and the integration of technologies such as GAFE.

Consider the evaluation method introduced by Nel, Dreyer and Carstens (2010), and their division between the primary and secondary criteria for analysis.

1. Use these criteria to demonstrate to what extent your organization is ready for implementing educational technologies.

The primary and secondary criteria as a form of evaluation within Nel, Dreyer, and Carstens (2010) provide a sound opportunity to assess the readiness for implementing educational technologies.  Within my district and the push towards IBL along with the successful implementation of technology as a tool certainly demonstrates the move from Long-Standing Pedagogical Practice towards Newly Prefered Pedagogical Practice.  We are a district that is outcome based, cooperative and collaborative, opening up further to Multi-Faceted Interaction and Accommodation, and provide opportunities for Multi-Faceted Feedback.  Many classrooms are working from the mixed mode model of learning as described by Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens (2010).  In particular, I believe that our organization is ready to roll out a more learner-learner environment that is collaborative and social.  You do not have to look far within my own school to see such examples.

Within the secondary criteria, I do however see some concerns as they relate to access.  In particular, if the goal is to have and access technological affordances such as GAFE in multiple classrooms, and multiple schools within my district, then there are some major opportunities to change the status quo.  As an example, of you look at the two neighbourhood schools that are within a five minute drive from my school, you would notice a major difference in the inclusion of technology in classroom environments.  Where my school has a strong infrastructure to support technology (Wireless, access to device on a 3:1 ratio probably), the two schools within minutes are at the opposite end of the spectrum.  Neither have the infrastructure (Wireless, access to devices anywhere near 3:1).

2. What are some other factors that contribute to a better organizational readiness?

Aside from the costs associated with developing the infrastructure to sustain the integration of technology in all schools, there are some factors that would provide better organizational readiness.  As suggested in Zaied (2007), lack of staff training, lack of expertise, and lack of time are certainly playing a role in the organizational readiness.  However, where one could argue we are behind the times within our district, I would argue that we are very forward thinking and progressive in the technology integration into authentic learning opportunities for our students.  I believe that we have excellent personnel who are working hard and are successful at challenging the lack of staff training, and lack of expertise.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Chapter 4: The ADDIE model; Teaching in a Digital Age. (online book)

Nel, C., Dreyer, C., & Carstens, W. A. M. (2010).Educational technologies: A classification and evaluation. Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 35(4), 238-258. (PDF)

Zaied, A. (2007) A Framework for evaluating and selecting learning technologies. The International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 4(2), 141-147. (PDF)

Hello fellow ETEC 565 colleagues,

My Name is Grant Naylor and I live in Kamloops, British Columbia, about a three and a half hour drive northeast of Vancouver.  I am currently working as a grade 7 teacher at one of the local elementary schools.  My wife and I (who is also a teacher) have three children ranging in age from 13 to 3.  They keep us very busy.  I have been teaching for almost ten years now and this is my fourth course in the MET program.  Previously, I have taken ETEC 500, 510, & 532.  Currently, my school district is overhauling their outlook and moving towards a technology driven model of 21st century/inquiry based learning.  My school is very progressive and had a really strong administrator who has made available many platforms, affordances, and opportunities to improve upon best practice.  At the moment, I am also currently applying for our school districts Leadership and Development Program which is a two year program that trains both educational leaders in leadership positions and administrators. To top it off this month, my family and I are also moving into a new home at the end of May.  Something tells me the next few weeks are going to be busy.  In my free time, I enjoy exercising, playing hockey and slow pitch.   

Looking Forward to Working with Everyone!!!

Grant