Assignment #1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric

Group Members: Patrick Conlan, Victoria Olson, Allen Wideman, Heather Woodland

Link to Assignment in Google Document (preferred viewing for rubric portion)

 

Scenario Précis

Our group was given the responsibility of developing an evaluation rubric to determine which LMS would successfully meet the needs of a new online course program being developed to support students enrolled at Le Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie Britannique. Currently, Le Conseil runs a number of face to face schools across BC, as well an online portal, Ecole Virtuelle, that supports enrolled students.

In order to provide opportunities for adult francophone students to access courses, including those required for high school graduation, Le Conseil aims to work with the cooperation of LearnNowBC to develop an online program accessible to over four thousand potential students living throughout BC. As the current demand outside of greater Vancouver does not justify the offering of face-to-face high school completion programs for adult students, Le Conseil seeks to ensure that they select the most suitable LMS to support these students, many of whom perceive their lack of English literacy skills to be a challenge in further pursuit of their studies.

 

Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric for Le Conseil:

This portion of the assignment is more easily reviewed via Google Doc. Please navigate to our original assignment document or download the attached file: Assignment1Rubric

 

Rationale for Inclusions in the Rubric

Our scenario specifically calls to assess Learning Management Systems (LMS) that cater to adult students who lack confidence in English language proficiency skills and may not come to the program with previous online learning experience. There were a number of logistical facts that we were uncertain about with our given scenario, including whether or not courses would be offered via correspondence to each individual student enrolled or whether a cohort-based model would be followed. We also didn’t know whether or not instruction was explicitly in English or in French, or a combination of the two, though we deduced that multilingual capabilities within the chosen LMS was probably a requirement. As such, we have broken our rubric into four major categories:

• Logistics, Support, & Management,
• Communication,
• Design, and
• Usability

Our group chose these components to address a number of positive impacts on teaching and learning listed in Coates, James, & Baldwin’s LMS article from 2005, while taking considerations of some cautions surrounding the potential for future LMS obsoletion from Spiro (2014) and Porto (2015), as well as Bates’ (2014) updated SECTIONS model. First, we aimed to assess whether or not technologies featured sufficient logistical components from a managerial stance, including cost effectiveness, infrastructure compatibility with the institution, and intuitive management features for both IT and instructors. Secondly, there was a focus on the availability of both public and private communications and assessments between the various stakeholders that would utilize the LMS, including student-to-student and student-to-instructor communication within courses, and instructor-to-instructor communication across the Le Conseil institution. This category also included third-party collaborative or social applications included within the LMS framework, that would directly address Porto’s (2015) growing concerns of lack of learner personalization within these technologies. Thirdly, we focused on the design and layout components of the LMS, as these may affect the experiences of instructors and students alike. Creation of customizable course offerings provides instructors and designers with the ability to be adaptable to the needs of diverse academic cultures and communities (Coates et al., 2005, p.31; Spiro, 2014). Lastly, we focused on the general usability of the platform for all stakeholders (Bates, 2014), including ease of use, multilingual capabilities for the user interface, and tutorial options for students who may not have experience in online learning environments.

My Individual Reflection

This assignment challenged me to consider a scenario beyond the scope of my own context. Oftentimes technologies are chosen because they fit a highly specific need in an institution and those factors may vary greatly from one site to another. The needs presented in our group scenario (language differences, adult learners, etc.) obviously required attention while, at the same time, we opted to maintain balance in assessing for quality in the overall technologies chosen. This triggered some personal thought about the different school sites in my own district, which is decentralized (I.e. we are not required to use the same software and apps from school to school), and how each school goes about choosing an LMS or similar technologies. I also considered the pros and cons of such a model: what are the benefits of being decentralized when compared to centralized districts or vice versa? Overall I enjoyed this assignment as it got me thinking about which overall features that I value in a technology-infused learning environment (as per Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005) and which features might be missing or require improvement (as per Porto, 2015). I highly value ease of use for all stakeholders involved as well as communication and personalization features, including third-party app integration.

 

References

 

Bates, J. (2014). Teaching in digital age, Chapter 8. Retrieved fromhttp://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

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. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9

Porto, S. (2015). The uncertain future of Learning Management Systems. The Evolllution: Illuminating the Lifelong Learning Movement. Retrieved fromhttp://www.evolllution.com/opinions/uncertain-future-learning-management-systems/

Spiro, K. (2014). 5 elearning trends leading to the end of the Learning Management Systems. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/5-elearning-trends-leading-to-the-end-of-the-learning-management-system

I have been a Grade 3/4 Teacher & Technology Coach for 2 years, modeling pedagogical practice and technology integration for my staff while supporting them in those areas. When I applied to MET in 2013, I had very little skill or knowledge of theories for applying technology effectively in the classroom. Prior to starting my first course, I joined Twitter, which opened my eyes to a vast and global Personal Learning Network and #edchats, prompting me to start my own blog. That year, I immersed myself in professional learning, attended conferences, learned about several technology tools, and collaborated with colleagues all over the world. By the time I had begun my MET journey, I had underwent major professional growth that aided me greatly in the program. Today, I continue to be a part of a number of professional learning communities that allow me to collaborate with innovative educators including Apple Distinguished Educators Google Certified Innovators & Education Trainers, and the wonderful team of #bcedchat moderators.

As I look ahead to ETEC 565A, my goals are to learn more about LMS systems, to strengthen my understanding and application of best practice qualitative assessment and feedback, to reinforce interpretations of stakeholders’ viewpoints in educational technology decision-making, and to gain new and valuable network connections through our use of social media.

When assessing myself against the ISTE Standards for Students (2008), one of the standards that I prize myself most on is inspiring student learning and creativity in the classroom. Students have a lot of choice in my classroom, including student self-governance, self-regulated Language Arts through Daily 5, and level-appropriate math rotations, all integrated with technology that augments learning processes in different ways for each student.

I have utilized Kidblog (where my students maintained their own digital learning portfolios), Google Classroom, and class Twitter, Instagram, and Remind accounts to have students share their thinking and learning with the world or with their parents. They would use other technologies (Google Docs, PicCollage, Popplet, Explain Everything, YouTube, etc.) to showcase their knowledge, ask questions, and connect with experts or other classrooms. Parents have loved the transparency between home and school; communication about learning has increased between students and between students and adults.

In the exploration of LMS platforms in ETEC 565A, I will be looking to understand the organization that such systems can provide. As a technology coach, I understand that what works for me in my classroom is not the best fit for all instructors; LMS platforms could be another tool to help other teachers harness the power of educational technology. In terms of my own practice, I feel that understanding the role of Learning Management Systems will either push me to consider their integration within my current pedagogical structures or to provide some of their affordances by substituting other technologies in their place.

The second area that I would like to improve in ETEC 565A is my assessment practice. While I feel that I have great ideas about the first part of the ISTE Standard (2008): “Design and develop digital-age learning experiences…”, I concede that assessment practice can often drive design and experience (Moon, 2001). This is an area that will be a major focus for me when I return to the classroom in September. Chickering & Ehrmann (1996) assert that digital communications can make giving assessment and feedback more “speedy”, but, regardless of technology use, it may still be difficult to assess highly qualitative and inquiry-based learning experiences in a timely and meaningful manner. Feedback should be detailed, relevant to the student’s interests, and should impact future learning and creativity of the student. I would like to specifically increase self-reflective and peer-based assessments in my instruction. This may include rubrics and quizzes, which I am currently not a big fan of philosophically-speaking, but I remain open to how they may or may not fit within future practice for myself or other professionals that I support.

A third component that I seek from this course is to learn about the various viewpoints of stakeholders across my K-12 district in educational technology decision-making. Both Bates (2014) and Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens (2010) writings have sound suggestions for these selections, but have a primary focus on post-secondary and online learning environments. The realities in a K-12 district lack some of the luxuries that they suggest as solutions in the technology selection, design, and application process. For example, Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens (2010) and Bates (2014) both suggest that the integration of media and technological specialists in the planning phase should ease the pain of doing it all yourself. However, there is an inadequate amount of human resources to give teachers the support they may need to make this a reality in a K-12 environments. My goal is to understand how to better utilize the available supports in K-12 districts in an attempt to prevent the average teacher from needing to be a “Jack of All Trades” to effectively integrate technologies into their practice (Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens, 2010, p.240).

Lastly, I am looking forward to making new connections through our use of social media in ETEC 565A. It is refreshing to see a Twitter feed and hashtag actively promoted by the instructor of a MET course. In other courses, I have connected with colleagues who happened to use a common course hashtag by chance. However, in this course, I have already made some connections that could last beyond the timeframe of the term’s end. These could serve well for future discussions about professional growth and contextual challenges for each person in the network.

In short, I’m very open to what ETEC 565A can add to my existing pedagogical and technological toolkit. While some of the technologies we will be required to use do not align with what is available at my school site, I’m sure there is transferability in some of their affordances that may fit with my existing practice.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age, Chapter 8. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S., C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved from http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from  http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-teachers

Moon, J. (2001). Reflection in higher education learning. Working Paper 4. York, UK.: The Higher Education Academy.

Nel, C., Dreyer, C., & Carstens, W. A. M. (2010). Educational technologies: A classification and evaluation. Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 35(4), 238-258. Retrieved from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/tvl/article/download/53794/42346