Technology incorporation and integration grows as fast as technology is developed: exponentially. Students are becoming more interested and excited about using technology in school. Over 83% of students, ages 12 to 17 are using the Internet at school (Zamaria & Fletcher, 2007). As this number continues to increase, the demand for teachers to develop technological lessons is increasing. Some educators may not see a need to change their teaching, however many studies are showing how students’ learning is changing. In particular, students’ motivation towards schoolwork is increasing due to Internet access and integration into classrooms, which is contributing to an increase in understanding (Hayes, 2004; Resnick, 1987). Moreover, 7 out of 10 youth consider the Internet very important not only for entertainment, but also for gathering information (Zamaria & Fletcher, 2007). Students’ perceptions are important, as a positive perception for students tends to lead to an increase in work effort. As educators discover these results, they see an increased demand for online learning. Specifically, there has been an increased use in Course Management Systems (CMS). These online systems have been previously linked primarily with distance education. However, recently CMS has been blended with face-to-face (F2F) learning. Moodle, an open-source CMS, in particular, has peaked educators interest.

Choosing Moodle can be an exciting and perhaps daunting choice. CMSs and Moodle are places “that can help teachers, parents, and administrators communicate better and requires little money or training” (Perkins & Pfaffman, 2006, p. 33). Being able to access a free, open-source program has benefits for increased access for all students, teachers and schools. Moodle has many tools to support student learning. For example, access to blogs, wikis, real-time chats, online or offline assignments, and using features similar to word processors (Perkins & Pfaffman, 2006). For myself, I have had minimal experience in my past using Moodle. During my Virtual School Certification course, we spent only a few hours developing a Moodle shell, not a full active lesson. I created news forums, discussion boards, creating labels and links as well as creating a simple assessment, an online quiz. More recently, I was also able to “play” around with Moodle during the E-learning toolkit activities and testing out different parts from the teacher demonstration. This was only a taste of Moodle and I hope to learn more.

Moodle will be the best access, for my unit for several reasons. Firstly, it is free. Secondly, relates to access. In terms of access, having limited barriers, or barriers that are easily overcome is important. Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS model explains that in organization, removing barriers is an important aspect to an ideal technological program. Barriers for my assignment could include multiple design functions, cost and time. However, this program seems very user-friendly. This user-friendly program can definitely break down barriers quickly. Additionally, ease of use for both students and teachers can lead to a high level of interactivity (Bates & Poole, 2003). These are only a few examples of the many abilities provided by Moodle.

In terms of interactivity, it is important for my lesson as it follows the basis of constructivist theory. In particular, I want my students to have active engagement in knowledge. Also, through collaboration and socialization their knowledge will expand (Jonassen, 1999). By using a constructivist instructional model, I will be able to form thorough lessons. Driver and Oldham’s constructivist instructional model could be adapted from their original science classroom into my language arts classroom. This model follows key elements of constructivism that are very beneficial for the learner. In particular my Moodle will follow: orientation, elicitation, reconstruction of ideas, application of ideas and review:

Orientation – activation of prior knowledge
Elicitation – interaction with peers to decide on ideas
Reconstruction of ideas – knowledge construction of new information
Application of ideas – applying new knowledge to activities
Review – analyzing own ideas (using metacognition)
(Driver & Oldham, 1986; in Biggs, 1996)

I plan to use these principles as the basis for my Moodle short story unit for grade 7 language arts. In particular, I want to address the following British Columbia Prescribed Learning Outcomes (PLOs), for reading- “explain how structures and features of text work to develop meaning” and for writing “write a variety of imaginative writing for a range of purposes and audiences, including short stories, passages, and poems modeled from literature” (2006, p. 59). To further view the breakdown of my Moodle short story unit, please view the attached appendix 1, based upon Driver& Oldham’s instructional model.

However, before my students begin this unit, I would like them to try an icebreaker activity that will get them comfortable with posting online. As well as, this is a chance for me to check that students are able to access and post online; work out all technical issues before our unit begins. For the icebreaker activity, I will ask the students to post in the discussion forum: “What was your favourite book to read when you were younger?”. Following this question, I would instruct my students to read and comment on 3 other students’ posts, beginning and encouraging social interaction immediately.

The overall goals of my lesson are beyond the PLOs. I do want my students to acquire these outcomes, but I also hope to see an increase in student completion. Moreover, I hope that by bringing my lesson online and involving interactivity that students will have an increase in motivation and enjoyment. Overall, my goal is for my students to become active participants in their own learning.

By creating a Moodle site and working through constructivist ideas, interacting with peers, constructing knowledge, etc., students will be able to acquire this learning through an interactive online program.

Appendix1

Resources:

Robinson, C., Pesut, B., Bottorff, J. L., Mowry, A., Broughton, S., & Fyles, G. (2009). Rural palliative care: A comprehensive review. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 12, 253-258. doi:10.1089/jpm.2008.0228

Bates A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). A framework for selecting and using technology. In A.W. Bates & G. Poole, Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education, 75-108. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2006). Grade 7 curriculum package. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/welcome.php

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Perkins, M. & Pfaffman, J. (2006). Using a course management system to improve classroom communication. Science Teacher, 73(7), 33-37.

Biggs, J. (1996) Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-365. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448076.

Hayes, A. (2004). Internet in the elementary classroom: effects on vocabulary comprehension and motivation in the content areas. Retrieved from http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/vol3no1/pdf/ahayes-article.pdf

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think, Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Zamaria C. & Fletcher, F. (2007) Canada online! A comparative analysis of Internet users and non-users in Canada and the world: Behaviour, attitudes and trends 2007. Toronto: Canadian Internet Project.