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