To be completely honest, my ultimate goal in signing up for this course was to complete my ninth MET course. That said, I did enjoy the course and got something out of it. My general approach to education is that it needs improvement, and my approach to this course was to look for ideas to improve my practice and identify new educational options that a particular technology can afford. Learning Management Systems for instance can be used to replicate the same models of content delivery as in a lecture style face-to-face environment. It removes some distance barrier and allow more students to enroll in a course or program, but it does not transform the way students learn. On the other hand, a feature such as a discussion board allows students to participate in asynchronous discussions. This type of peer to peer exchange can shift the flow of learning form teacher-to-student to student-to-student exchanges. It affords a new avenue to engage students and, as such, has the potential to enhance the learning experience regardless of whether the course is delivered from a distance or a face-to-face format. Because I have a fundamental belief that our system needs fixing, my goal in analyzing technologies such as LMSs is to look for their potential to improve learning methods and learning conditions, not to adapt existing practices to a different format of delivery.
Despite using two different platforms, the ETEC565 course fits perfectly into the MET model and includes all the regular elements: learning objectives, procedures, content, discussions, assignments criteria, schedule. The nature and the pace of discussions are very similar from course to course. In the MET courses case, the delivery platforms have little impact on the learning. Most of the features from Connect or WordPress add or eliminates possibilities, but does not make any significant contribution to the way students learn. I like WordPress to access the content because I don’t have to log in to view it (faster to use). I have taken courses where the discussions were happening on WordPress and, although only enrolled students can post, everyone can read them. This takes away the privacy aspect of students discussion, but does not change their nature. I like the notification system of WordPress, where I get an email when someone replies to one of my posts; it does not affect the nature of what I post but helps me to reply faster because I do not log on to the course site every day, but I do check my emails. These are all personal preferences and may vary with each users, so I would not adopt or reject an MLS based on these criteria alone. After working with different platforms, I cannot say that one is better than others; it all depends on the context. If there is one aspect that is more important than any other to consider, it is that technical infrastructure and support exist to ensure that it works. A simple platform that works is more useful than a bunch of unreliable gadgets.
I cannot with absolute certainty, pronounce that the use of two combined platforms make this course any different than the other eight I had previously taken. To me, what puts this course above most of the others, because this course was above average in my opinion, is the instructors’ presence. I have taken courses where the instructor is very much absent and the quality and depth of the discussions suffered as a result. The regular participation and the weekly summaries from the instructor have made a difference for me. Despite the fact that this is a Masters program, students motivation is still affected by the instructor’s involvement and we need guidance (feedback) to reassure us that we are on the right track.
The most enlightening part of the course for me was the experimentation with the backward design method. The design aspect can be addressed independently of technology, but technology cannot be addressed without a good understanding of design. How to ensure that the process designed by instructors or designers is conducive to learning and that what is learned is consistent with the learning objectives. Being familiar with this process is also an asset when it comes to evaluate learning technologies because it helps to restrict the use of technology for the sake of using technology rather than using it to facilitate or enhance learning.
From a more technical perspective, I really benefited from the opportunity to explore Moodle again. I had given up on using it even though our school district supports it. My first experience with Moodle was not convincing. I found the templates too rigid and restrictive. This was my first time with the new version of Moodle and I found it much more flexible. On the first project, I concentrated on the pedagogical aspect of the design. The two main goals were to provide greater teacher support to students and provide an environment where students can easily connect with each other. My second goal was to simplify the visual and navigational design. It took some Jimmy rigging, but this time I was able to imprint my design into the platform rather than have the platform dictating my design. I also greatly benefited from doing my experimentation within a community of Moddle makers. Doing so, made it much easier and faster to get information, not to mention that there is a lot to learn just by looking at other Moodlers designs. Also, knowing that I can access support readily by taping into the community of Moodle users makes it a more attractive tool to use.
In the end I am not walking away from this course with a list of LMSs and digital tools with an assessment of their particular features, but rather with a set of guiding principles to analyze them in a variety of contexts. Learning technologies cannot be evaluated in isolation because they do not hold educational value in themselves. I will conclude by restating what I wrote in one of my posts: It is important for educators to realize that technology should be working for them and not the other way around.