To: Calgary Board of Education Learning Innovations Team
Purpose:
I have worked as a teacher for the Calgary Board of Education for the past four and half years. During this time I have seen how the board believes in moving with the times and ensuring that our students have access to the most current and relevant forms of educational tools. The CBE believes in “championing 21st Century learning by infusing learning technologies in the daily school experience” (“Innovation and learning technology”). This is achieved when educators and students use new digital technologies as a means of assisting learning. I propose that the CBE should consider employing Moodle as a Learning Management System (LMS) to achieve their goals. It is user friendly and a cost efficient online venue. Teachers can adapt content delivery and Net Generation students can be engaged by all types of resources.
Background:
Currently the CBE is using the LMS ‘Desire to Learn’ (D2L) as a means of online learning and teaching. This initiative has helped to incorporate technological components into learning. Although this has been a successful endeavour for many teachers, it has its downfalls. Teachers have to apply for a new shell which becomes inactive after some time. The templates and tools used to construct a course in D2L are limited and teachers are not able to adapt or add other external tools. In addition, the current system is costly and also requires ongoing human resource support.
Rationale:
The board is a firm believer in the Universal Design to Leaning (UDL) principles, which provides alternative ways in which to teach and learn. “UDL prompts teachers to design curriculum that is flexible and adaptable to multiple forms of learning and engagement to facilitate the learning of all students” (Lancaster, 2008). Moodle is a good means for incorporating UDL principals into learning. Its socio-constructivist principles allow for inquiry and discovery based approaches to online learning.
Currently the CBE is dealing with many cut backs. The board would benefit from the General Public Licence tool, Moodle, which is free of charge and is accessible to anyone. Moodle would require a one time IT supported installation on each computer. After this, teachers would be able to access the abundant resources available on the internet to independently create and update their sites.
Evaluation of LMS:
Moodle would be the best LMS to be introduced to the CBE. My advocacy of Moodle is based on the assessment I made using Bates’ and Poole’s (2003) ‘SECTIONS’ Framework for Selecting and Using Technology.
Assessment using framework:
Students:
The current CBE student population is diverse in background and ability, but for the most part are digitally aware. They are surrounded by media and have been exposed to technological tools through their education. Their previous experience with LMSes such as D2L and prior technological knowledge would allow for them to learn Moodle easily.
Ease of Use/Reliability:
Moodle is easily accessible from any computer with internet access. It is user friendly and functions on all operating systems and browsers. It is not restricted to one language and has many other capabilities. “Moodle is a template-based system to which content must be added. This makes Moodle’s interface very intuitive and allows for easy navigation” (Klaus, 2005). Moodle is an open-source system that is created in a community setting with input from many different individuals. This allows for collaboration and continuous updating of the system.
Cost:
The licence for Moodle is free. It can be loaded onto any computer and students and teachers can access it from school, home or any other setting. No additional cost would be incurred because the CBE has pre-existing internet and technical capabilities for this system. Initially technical support would be required, which is minimal in comparison to the current infrastructure.
Teaching/Learning:
“Moodle is a course management system designed with learners in mind…..Moodle was developed to encourage interaction between students and to improve learning through the construction of ideas and concrete “things” for others to experience.” (University of Oregon, n.d.). Many LMS that exist are focussed on course delivery. Whereas, Social Constructionist based Moodle is learner-oriented. “The concepts behind this philosophy of learning are that learners actively construct new knowledge by tinkering, and they learn more by explaining why they have learned to others and by adopting a more subjective stance to knowledge being created” (Chavan, & Pavri, 2004).
Interactions/Interactivity:
Moodle allows for social networking tools to be incorporated and external sources to be imported into the site. For example, “any kind of text-based or html-formatted documents, multimedia resources such as graphics, video or audio (e.g., MP3 files), SCORMs ), PowerPoint, Half-Baked exercises, or Flash-based applications. Lesson tasks within Moodle can be linked to any resources that are uploaded to one’s server or that are available on the Internet” (Klaus, 2005).
Organizational issues
Initially the CBE would require IT professionals to set the system up on computers. Once it has been set up, teachers will be able to use it to construct their sites. This will require the teachers to learn how to use the LMS. Once a teacher has set up a site s/he will be able to modify it and set up other sites with ease.
Novelty:
Moodle would be new to the CBE but it has already been tested and used successfully in many other educational institutions.
Speed:
The initial set up will take some time and effort. Teachers will have to put in time and effort to create their courses but because Moodle is easier to update, they will save time in the long run. Accessibility to Moodle will be easy and it can be maintained and updated in an efficient and timely manner.
Conclusion
As the SECTIONS Model indicated, Moodle has many beneficial characteristics and is functional and appropriate for the CBE institution. Many other systems would have similar capabilities, but Moodle is less costly and does not require as much technical support. Moodle would empower teachers to create or modify their course to best suit their students’ needs.
References:
Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: a Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. (Pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Chavan, A, & Pavri, S. (2004).Open-source learning management with Moodle. Linux Journal, (128), Retrieved from http://moodle.org/images/Moodle-in-Linux-Journal.pdf
Desrie to Learn. (n.d.). Retrieved June 4, 2011, http://www.innovativelearning.ca/sec- learntech/d2l-index.asp
Innovation and Learning Technology.(n.d.). Retrieved June 4, 2011, from http://www.innovativel earning.ca/sec-learntech/index.asp
Klaus, B. (2005). Are you ready to “moodle”?. Language Learning and Technology, 9(2), Retrieved from http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu .edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.113.7330%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=k__zTZ_ PDLliALW1uiNBw&usg=AFQjCNEARqRbotmTF1SssXXhDsx1l4krNg&sig2=e_ERBfA3LtGn069Tpnyx3w
Lancaster, P. (2008).Universal design for learning.Colleagues, 3(1), Retrieved from http://scholarworks .gvsu.edu/colleagues/vol3/iss1/5
National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. Retrieved June, 4 2011 from: http://www.iste.org/ Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_for
University of Oregon. “(n.d.).” A Free Alternative to Blackboard [Brochure]. Retrieved June 4, 2011 from http:// center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/uploads/NECC2005/KEY_7486473/ Moore_Moodlebrochure.pdf