GROUP 3: YESNET LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S LMS EVALUATION RUBRIC
Group Members: Jo-Anne Chrona, Meghan Gallant, Sean Turner, Tanya Walsh
Precis of Scenario
We, of the Yukon Education Student Network (YESNet) Learning Technology Advisory Committee (LTAC), have been recruited to develop a rubric which will be used to evaluate the suitability of learning management systems (LMSs) to meet YESNet’s current and future needs.
At present, YESNet, in partnership with Yukon First Nations Programs & Partnerships Unit of the Yukon’s Ministry of Education, needs to develop secondary courses in a blended-learning format that will serve the needs and interests of Aboriginal communities.
Na Cho Nyak Dun First Nation has graciously agreed to host the pilot program. However, there are significant concerns regarding the reliability and bandwidth of its internet services. In fact, most of the nation’s citizens rely on 3G networks.
|
Category |
Criteria |
3 – Exemplary |
2 – Adequate |
1 – Limited |
0 – Inadequate |
|
Students |
Does the LMS allow for a blend of individual, collaborative and cooperative learning? |
LMS supports multiple forms of individual, collaborative and cooperative learning activities. |
LMS supports individual and some collaborative and cooperative learning activities. |
LMS supports individual learning and some collaborative learning activities. |
LMS supports only individual learning activities. |
|
Students |
Does the LMS support use of a variety of media so that students with diverse strengths and varied needs have multiple access points (i.e. visual, print-based, auditory) for learning activities and assessment? |
LMS supports the use of a variety of auditory, print-based and other visual media for learning activities and assessment. |
LMS supports the use of auditory, print-based and other visual media for learning activities and assessment. |
LMS supports the use of print-based and other visual media for learning activities and assessment. |
LMS supports the use of print-based media only. |
|
Students |
Does the LMS support mobile delivery and compatibility with a wide variety of devices for wide-reaching accessibility? |
LMS offers full mobile delivery and is compatible with a large selection of devices. |
LMS offers mobile delivery to a large variety of devices, but some devices may not support all LMS functions. |
LMS offers mobile delivery to a limited amount of compatible devices. |
LMS is not optimized for multiple devices and/or mobile delivery. |
|
Students |
Does the LMS web or cloud have 24/7 access with (mostly) low bandwidth requirements? |
LMS is web or cloud based and does not require heavy bandwidth. |
LMS is web or cloud based, but certain functions require higher bandwidth. |
LMS is web or cloud based, but has significant bandwidth requirements. |
LMS is not web or cloud basedand/ orbandwidth requirements are prohibitive. |
|
Ease of Use |
Is the LMS intuitive, requiring little to no additional training for students? |
LMS is purposefully designed with a 20 minute or less learning curve. |
LMS is purposefully designed, but the learning curve is 20+ minutes. |
LMS is not entirely intuitive and may require additional online tutorials. |
LMS cannot be navigated or used without extensive training. |
|
Ease of Use |
Is the LMS intuitive, requiring little to no additional training for instructors? |
LMS is purposefully designed to be updated and operated with minimal training. |
LMS can be updated and operated with some online tutorials. |
LMS requires formal F2F training orassistance from outside sources, after which it can be operated independently. |
LMS requires extensive trainingor can only be created and updated by outside staff. |
|
Cost |
Can the LMS be implemented within our budget using existing hardware and/orwith minimal increased capital in the community schools? |
LMS can be implemented within existing budget, hardware, and infrastructure in communities. |
LMS is within budget and will require only minimal investment in hardware or infrastructure. |
LMS will require significant, (but achievable) fundsand/orinvestment in hardware and infrastructure. |
LMS requires funds and/orinfrastructure beyond the current capabilities. |
|
Cost |
Does the LMS cost include the addition of future users? |
LMS allows additional user registrations at anytime at no additional cost. |
LMS allows additional users at a cost-per-user basis. |
LMS allows for additional registrations at license renewal only. |
LMS user number is permanently capped at time of license agreement. |
|
Cost |
Is the LMS well-tested and reliable, therefore keeping ongoing maintenance costs minimal? |
LMS is well-tested and reliable with a history minimal disruption in service. |
LMS is an established product and is known to require occasional maintenance. |
LMS is relatively new and/or is known to require regular maintenance. |
LMS has no track record or is known to have significant technical issues. |
|
Teaching and Media Selection |
Does the LMS design provide a variety of multimedia and communication tools? |
LMS fully supports the use of a variety of multimedia, varied (asynchronous and synchronous) communication tools, including social media. |
LMS supports the use of a variety of multimedia and both asynchronous and synchronous communication tools. |
LMS supports minimal use of multimediaand/or only asynchronous communication tools. |
LMS does not support the use of multimediaand/orcommunication tools. |
|
Teaching and Media Selection |
Does the LMS provide sufficient opportunity for integration of locally developed instruction? |
LMS can support integration of locally developed instruction. |
LMS can integrate some locally developed instruction. |
LMS can integrate limited locally developed instruction. |
LMS cannot integrate locally developed instruction. |
|
Interaction |
Does the LMS allow for multiple types of interactivity, making it suitable for the creation of blended learning environments? |
LMS supports student-material, student-teacher, student-student, user-generated and student-community interactions. |
LMS supports student-material, student-teacher, and student-student interactions. |
LMS supports student-material and student-teacher interactions. |
LMS only supports student-material interaction. |
|
Organisational Issues |
Can LMS be integrated within existing school/district systems (i.e. work with ASPEN)? |
LMS can be easily integrated within current school/district systems, and is adaptable for future changes. |
LMS can be easily integrated within current school/district systems. |
LMS can be partially integrated within current school/district systems. |
LMS is not compatible with current school/district systems. |
|
Organisational Issues |
Will the LMS learning components integrate well with existing teaching structures, such as the Rural Equity Action Plan? |
LMS learning components can be integrated within existing teaching structures and that can be adapted as required. |
LMS learning components can be integrated within existing teaching structures. |
LMS learning components can be integrated within some existing teaching structures. |
LMS learning components do not integrate with existing teaching structures. |
|
Networking |
Does the LMS enable learners to network beyond the course? |
LMS provides multiple ways to link with social media and other platforms where students can network with members of their community and other communities. |
LMS provides at least one platform for students to network with members of their own community |
LMS provides links to social media sites where students can network with others. |
LMS provides no means of networking beyond the confines of the course. |
|
Networking |
Does the LMS enable students to develop and export learning resources for fellow students and members of the community? |
LMS parovides multiple ways that students can share their self-created resources with others. |
LMS provides at least one open platform (such as a blog or wiki) where students can share their self-created resources with others. |
LMS provides limited means of exporting student-created resources to other platforms. |
LMS provides no means of accessing student-created resources beyond immediate cohort of instructors and registered students. |
|
Networking |
Does the LMS enable instructors to provide open educational resources to other communities? |
LMS provides multiple ways for instructors to share learning resources. |
LMS provides at least one platform where instructors can provide open educational resources. |
LMS provides limited means of exporting educational resources to other platforms. |
LMS provides no means of accessing educational resources outside of platform. |
|
Security & Privacy |
Do the LMS’ security measures provide protected access for instructors and learners? |
LMS provides superior access protection for both instructors and learners. |
LMS provides standard access protection. |
LMS provides limited access protection but system could easily be breached. |
LMS provides no protected access |
|
Security & Privacy |
Do security and privacy measures comply with the Yukon Ministry of Education’s ATIPP, the Na Cho Nyak Dun First Nation’s requirements, and are consistent with OCAP? |
LMS security and privacy measures exceed those required by both governments. |
LMS security and privacy measures comply with most requirements of both governments. |
LMS security and privacy measures comply with few requirements of both governments. |
LMS security and privacy measures do not comply with requirements of either government. |
Rationale
For our evaluation rubric to help determine which LMS would be best suited for the Yukon Education Student Network (YESNet) and Yukon First Nations Programs & Partnerships Unit of the Yukon’s Ministry of Education, we used Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model, which outlines sets of questions to help people make decisions about which technologies to use. We used his criteria (Students, Ease of Use, Costs, Teaching Functions, Interaction, Organizational Issues, Networking and Security and Privacy) to develop our own rubric to help YESNet’s Learning Technologies Advisory Committee (LTAC) make the best choice for a LMS that focuses on developing blended learning secondary courses that support diverse student needs and honour Aboriginal educational perspectives such as focusing on collaborative and cooperative learning activities, connecting to community, and supporting local autonomy.
References
Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. (Chapter 8). Retrieved fromhttp://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015) Aboriginal worldviews and perspectives in the classroom: Moving forward. Victoria, BC: Queen’s Printer Publishing.
Chrona, J. (2015). First people’s principles of learning. Retrieved fromhttps://firstpeoplesprinciplesoflearning.wordpress.com/
First Nations Centre. (2007). OCAP: Ownership, control, access and possession. Sanctioned by the First Nations Information Governance Committee, Assembly of First Nations. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization.
Yukon Education Student Network. (2016). Yukon schools. Retrieved fromhttp://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/index.html
ASSIGNMENT 1 – REFLECTIONS
Our group (Group 3: YESNet: J. Chrona, M. Gallant, S. Turner, T. Walsh) designed a rubric that would be used to select a learning management system (LMS) for the Yukon Ministry of Education. The hope is to develop blended secondary courses that are relevant from an Aboriginal perspective.
We decided to use Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model since according to him, there is very little literature out there on how to choose the appropriate technologies for teaching. His SECTIONS model clearly breaks down 8 important criteria for people to use for this matter. Each of our group members chose two criterion to work on so the distribution of work was fair. The two criterion that I was tasked with was, “Teaching and Media Selection” and “Interaction”. It was really helpful to discuss as a group on Skype so we could each put our two cents in. As we were discussing Teaching and Media Selection, I didn’t think to include synchronous and asynchronous communication. However my group members pointed this out and I agreed that this was important to have. Working collaboratively in a synchronous environment, such as our group did, helped me to look at things differently in a broader context.
One main point that I was overlooking at first was to include the Aboriginal perspective. I was more concerned at how our group should break down the selection of the LMS. I should have been much more mindful to include this topic and let it be the basis for our rubric since I took last term ETEC 521- Indigeneity, Technology and Education. Nevertheless, I was quick to point out that the Aboriginal perspective is just as important as the selection of the LMS.
Throughout the MET program, I’ve encountered many online projects, in which all of them were communicated through Google Docs. This is the first time for me having multiple group meetings over Skype and I liked how we all worked in a team effort. Previously, I felt it challenging to read over everyone’s comments on Google Docs to see who changed what and when; with Skype we could all talk about our thoughts at that moment and work together.
Maple group
Members of the group: Victoria, Keri, Heather, Sean, Randy, Veronique, Kimberley
Victoria: Hey all, I figured we could colour code our names/font colours so that we know when everyone’s had a chance to add to this document before doing our next round of additions. 🙂 Thanks for doing this
Benefits and drawbacks of synchronous and asynchronous communication
| Synchronous communication | Asynchronous communication | ||
| Benefits | Drawbacks | Benefits | Drawbacks |
| Authentic interpersonal exchanges | Lack of time to process & reflect on information and refine contributions presented in discussions | Ability to reflect on and refine contributions to discussions (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999) | Increased barriers to community formation, especially if the only mode of communication |
| Tone of voice and facial expressions help to communicate messages more clearly | Finding a mutually agreeable time, dealing with time zones (when applicable) | Caters to busy, working people who have other obligations to juggle, contribution time can be chosen for what works best for each individual | Getting work done can take longer when allowing group members to contribute asynchronously (even when working to a deadline) |
| Communication is more intuitive and natural in real time. | One may say something they regret, and unlike F2F, the digital record may remain permanently. | Time to think and organize a well-crafted response. | Also time to over-think a response, so one may allow themselves to digress from the original question. |
| Misunderstandings quickly diagnosed & meaning accurately negotiated | Thinking that goes on is more creative but less critical. | Approach to task tends to be focused/concise. Collaborators on a project can be contributing from New Zealand, Mexico . . . | Can seem like transmission of information rather than collaboration. |
| Students become more motivated and committed because a quick response is expected. | Responses are usually focused more on quantity rather than quality. | Learners can reflect on complex issues because the sender does not expect an immediate response. | Learners might feel isolated and not part of the learning community |
| Learning Sessions occur in a relatively small portion of time | Sessions can flow in a variety of directions quickly. It can be hard to manage the multiple threads or multiple users contributing at the same time | Can accommodate a larger number of community members | Gaps in response times can create disinterest in the ‘conversation’ |
| Gestures and body language can be easily read and interpreted | People who tend to “wear their emotions on their sleeve” may struggle with hiding negative body language | If a negative reaction occurs, they can find a way to turn it into a positive conversation | Tone can be misinterpreted and misunderstood via text |
| Community formed through synchronous communication | Conversations can be dominated by strong personalities. | Equalizes the ‘communication playing field’, all participants can contribute in a meaningful way without social hindrances | Less social pressure to contribute than when F2F. |
| Student has more accountability as he/she has to be present for the class at a certain day and time. | Less flexibility for student with a busy schedule that have to be present for class at a certain time and place. | More flexibility for student because he/she can work on the course at a time that is more convenient. | Student must have more intrinsic motivation to complete the course. |
| Can be more motivating for students because of the live interactions possible with the instructor and other students. | Internet connection (bandwidth) must be fast enough and more course material will be needed (microphone, headset, webcam) | Less material requirements for students. | |
References
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