Flight Path Précis

My flight path, as presented 4 months ago, was based primarily on the two main reasons I have undertaken the MET journey, the first a personal reason and a the second, professional. Firstly, I want to be a role model for my sons and those around me, to be recognized as one that ‘walks the walk’, not only ‘talks the talk’. Secondly, from a professional viewpoint, I wanted to formalize the pedagogical aspect of all my ‘self-directed’ technological learning from the last two decades. I have acquired several technical certifications and designations, but feel at times I don’t always have the ‘pedagogical’ credibility I feel I deserve in professional contexts as my ‘techie-ness’ seems to overshadow my pedagogical side. Thus, perhaps this is another ‘personal’ reason rather than professional one, but regardless, it will benefit me professionally. In fact, I believe it already has, as I have been given a new position within my school board – as ‘System Principal, technopedagogy’, starting in September 2013. I have coveted this role for some time and am very pleased to take on this new challenge and can’t help but feel that my MET journey is already paying dividends.

With regards to 565a, I wanted to better understand the methods and thinking behind selecting technologies for the educational context. I have frequently had to consult and advise in the last few years on mass purchasing and program design around technology, but never had a formal way of evaluating the technology being considered. The various discussions and tasks in the course have brought me to discover the SECTIONS model (Bates & Poole, 2003). The LMS rubric creation was particularly helpful as it helped me put to use the SECTIONS framework and really think about evaluation criteria for technology. I have always been a whiz-bang-bleeding-edge gadget guy, and have alway been worried about chasing premature-technology for educational use. This framework gives me a concrete method of ‘balancing’ out my thinking around technology for the classroom. It has been an interesting experience – I have new thinking and new resources that I will be bringing back to ‘work’ this september; I shall detail this below.

eLearning Toolkit experience

LMS: The work with Moodle was a somewhat nostalgic return to my CMS/LMS roots. It provided me with a good opportunity to see how it evolved from version 1.5, 1.8, etc. Having installed it many times over the years, I found it interesting to use the UBC implementation. I was frequently frustrated with the speed of the UBC Moodle LMS as it was sluggish and very very laggy on some evenings (unusable on 3 different occasions). Having an ultra-high speed 55 Mb connection at home with everything else lighting fast, I have to surmise that there are load balancing issues with the UBC server(s) hosting the Moodle installation. Nonetheless, the platform did seem stable and usable if I timed my work for late night sessions.

All in all, I was quite pleased to see how Moodle had evolved, particularly in the access / restriction control features, progress tracking and granularity of the features for the resources and activities. Not being a fan of the Desire2Learn platform (adopted by the Ontario Minsitry of Ed), or the sluggish, bloated Blackboard implementation at UBC, I would really like to take a MET course that would be delivered on the Moodle platform so I could really appreciate the strength and weaknesses of Moodle compared to commercial LMSes. All of my LMS experimentation has been as an educator; I think there would be significant insight into using Moodle as a student in higher learning. I have had good success with it as an educator, but have not had the opportunity to see it in action in a very large implementation. At this time, considering the performance of Moodle in the UBC context and the problems and issues I have had with it in terms of speed and responsiveness (as well as several other students), it seems it may not be ready for ‘primetime’ in this current version or UBC may have to revise its implementation. I should state however that this is a very positive experience as it instigated a great deal of exploration and reflection on my part, which in the end, was the objective of the project!

Web design and HTML authoring: Having taught HTML, CSS, Javascript, PHP and MySQL over the years, I cannot claim to have made any significant learning with this part of the toolkit. I did however appreciate the ‘refresher’ in having to lookup some HTML formatting tags as I had to go into source code in Moodle for being able to place / move / configure certain aspects of Youtube videos or tables in my pages. I like that this is included in the toolkit and the course as this is typically a major stumbling block for those trying to go ‘above and beyond’ when learning ‘web design’. Too often, tools like Dreamweaver (remember ‘MS frontpage’? *shudder*) gloss over the ‘code’ and users struggle when they need to ‘fix’ things or troubleshoot. I was always started my web design courses with Notepad and HTML basics and worked my way to Dreamweaver-like tools and ultimately to a CMS.

Synchronous Communication Tools: I have used ICQ, Skype, MSN Messenger, Adium, etc. for many years, in personal and professional contexts. Most of my professional experience with these tools has been with colleagues and fellow educators during meetings, workshops and presentations. We are using Polycom CMA Desktop, Google Hangouts, and Skype extensively these days as it highly efficient and economical with our loaded timetables and the large extended territory that our school board serves. Within the context of this course however, I have not used many of these tools. The closest I have come has been using the chat features within Google Drive as we worked on the assignments in real-time, with the occasional Google Voice chat. I have however, in the context of other MET courses, used Google Hangouts and Skype extensively. The greatest challenge here is the different time zones and student workloads / obligations. Thus, the bulk of my communications in this course, with fellow students or with the instructor has been in asynchronous fashion.

Social software: Being a HUGE fan of web 2.0 ‘social’ software, I particularly enjoyed exploring these tools in greater depth. I use many of these applications in a professional context (i.e., video editing on youtube, twitter as my PLN, Google Drive for pretty much anything, bubble.us for brainstorming and planning, long-list-here…), I thoroughly enjoyed using some new ways to use existing tools and discovering new ones. For instance, in preparing my Moodle Workshop, I discovered how to integrate voice comments in Google Documents for descriptive feedback! I am delivering a workshop with a colleague in October on assessment in the digital era (ECOO 2013); this will be highly beneficial and was a terrific find as it will now be part of the many of the training sessions my department will deliver this year. I also very much enjoyed using ‘GoAnimate‘ in the Digital Story assignment and will have many uses for that tool this coming school year. I also discovered several other gems as I visited some peer projects.

A comment I feel I must make here however is that some of these tools should be an integral part of the UBC course offerings, especially in the MET program. I have yet to come across a course that uses Twitter effectively if at all, or any of the other hundreds of tools that are available. It is somewhat ironic that we, as educators, should explore and use these tools and are encouraged to do within the context of certain assignments, yet UBC courses have the opportunity to ‘walk the walk’ and model usage of these tools in a learning context and do not do so. The bulk of the interaction is through blackboard, forums and email – yet these tools are considered very dated and represent but a very small percentage of all the tools and variety available to us. By continuing to offer courses that are designed in such a way, we are perpetuating the model as UBC MET students will mimic the structure they encounter in their courses into their classrooms. I feel this needs to be re-visited and discussed with the professors and course designers. I understand that there is manageability issues as well as training issues, however, there is, in my opinion, an expectation of current if not leading edge technologies to be used in these courses by the students. As an example, the session to present Moodle within the Blackboard Connect session was not an outstanding success… this would have been an ideal opportunity to use something such as Google Hangouts On Air. Sure, there would have been some configuration and logistical challenges initially, but these would have been no greater than the browser / plugin updates the students had to do for the Blackboard session. Furthermore, as Google Hangouts On Air AUTOMATICALLY saves the broadcasted stream as a Youtube video, students that missed the Connect session could have watched it at a later date. however, I digress, I am certain that there is an ‘enterprise’ level aspect I am neglecting when considering such tools in the context of UBC, as well as the fact that there is certainly some sensitivity to espousing preference for certain tools over others.

Multimedia and Authoring Tools: The Digital story assignment brought me to discover GoAnimate and then blend it with Youtube video editor for some minor updates. I also worked with a variety of tools (flickr, Prezi, BigHugeLabs (thank you Mark bates), and a few other tools). Having created many digital woks with Final Cut Pro, iMovie, Adobe premiere and the Adobe Master suite, I am quite comfortable with these tools and cannot say I used them extensively in this course. I focused mostly on the social tools described above for my Authoring tools as they eliminate the complexity and the need for sophisticated workflows with the higher end tools. If anything, the SECTIONS framework once again came into play here in that I weighed the pros and cons of using certain tools in certain contexts and will carry this thinking with me to my professional tasks. Again, a beneficial reflection for my long-term orientation.

Accessibility: I was sensitive to the accessibility issues in that I used audio is some of the works I created to accompany the visual presentation. Furthermore, I am somewhat familiar with W3C standards as it became law recently in ontario for publicly funded websites / organizations. Our school board is ‘retrofitting’ many of our web services to respect these standards and made me reflect further on the challenges we are facing. It was for accessibility reasons that I included ‘Voice based’ descriptive feedback in my Moodle Online Workshop. As stated earlier, I am planning on bringing this back to my board this september. I do however recognize that I need to do more in this regard and will be more considerate in future versions of my work (i.e., use captioning in Youtube videos, provide more audio in the visual-based applications, etc.).

mLearning: Unfortunately, I did not really have the opportunity to do much in this regard in the context of my assignments. I did however use my 7″ Android tablet and iPad extensively to do the readings, participate in the forums and research many of the assignments. I explored several applications as well and have made some discoveries that will be useful in a professional context. The most significant ‘learning’ I did in this regard once again goes back to my Moodle Workshop. I included content in my ‘Module 4: assessment with Google Drive’ that explains and demonstrates how an educator can use an iPad / tablet in realtime to collect anecdotal evidence or informal assessments as he/she circulates in the classroom. I do think this will continue to explode in popularity as educators harness the power of mobility and gain enough confidence and know-how to use it effectively in the classroom. I am tasked this year to do exactly this with the new position I have in my school board. I will certainly be able to discuss the challenges and training needs of mLearning far more intelligently in year from now. 🙂

Overall ETEC565a experience – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
As I reflect on the overall experience, the slogan ‘The Good, The Bad and the Ugly’ comes to mind. Let me explain, and fair warning, this bit is frank and quite personal, but I wouldn’t want to deliver it any other way.
For the most part, the course was good, and in many cases excellent. I have done a great amount of learning and in the end feel that I did in fact get out of the course what I expected. I find myself reflecting about all the things I want to do this year in my school board, things I want to change about my practice as an educator and the resources and tools I will put into play this year. This is ‘the Good’ and makes up pretty much 95% of the course experience.
Now, ‘The Bad’. Coming into the course, I had been warned about the considerable workload and deadlines and so on. I thought I was on top of things and things were going quite well. However, I did misunderstand the due date on an assignment, and this can only be my fault, because I would have asked about it if I would have realized I was confused. Thus, after what I considered a rather severe punitive grade for a late assignment, I challenged the reasoning behind it and compared it to Evaluation policy that I must espouse as an educator within my own context and that grades MUST be a reflection of the work that was performed; it cannot be used as punitive measure (i.e., lateness). I understand full well that the higher learning context is NOT the same as the K-12 context, but even in recognizing this, my mind is stubbornly hanging on to the notion that it should be. This being said, I understand the position I put the instructor in, and have come to accept the decision; if it were my course, it would also be non-negotiable.

Finally, ‘the Ugly’… with this ‘late grade’ incident and my quest for a specific overall GPA in question, I lost much of the motivation that had carried me to date in this course. Coupled with tumultuous times at work (job interviews, additional responsibilities), outside engagements and multiple MET courses, things became a little intense. I am no different than other participants and understand and appreciate that we all carry significant workloads and responsibilities, however, in the midst of all this, frustration set in and the course I had been enjoying so much to do date suddenly became a burden. As I reflect, it is obvious that I was no longer giving the best of myself to the course as I had planned and usually did. There is a sense of disappointment on my part in the mindset I adopted and the timing with the school year end and all the changes I was going through with work. However, I have succeeded fairly well to date, despite all this, and feel I am going out with a great learning lesson. I would go so far as to say it was a pretty good reality check all things considered. The course is well organized, the instructor is definitely ‘on top’ of everything, and the group has been excellent. This reflective final assignment is pretty clever as it is forcing me to see all the good I am getting out of the course.
The best part of the course has been the hands-on practical nature of the assignments. I, as well as many of the other students I suspect, are growing weary of ‘essays’ and ‘dropboxes’ that are nowhere a reasonable reflection of what a MET course should be and are simple ‘digitized’ versions of what we have always done in education. I would even go so far as to say that ETEC 512, 565a, 522 to name a few should be the minimal format for any MET course. Considering my above discussion about social software, the MET program could go from good to great with a few tweaks and changes (in my opinion of course)… however, once again, I digress. In light of my flight path and my goals in this course, I have more than achieved them and I am completing the course far better equipped and wiser than when I started it.

Next Steps
This part of the reflection is quite ‘à propos’ as I have been contemplating the next steps in light of my new position, my near completion of the MET journey as well as the start of the new school year in a few weeks. In the short term, I will be starting ETEC 531 as my 9th course very soon, and hope to complete ETEC 521 as my tenth and final course by this time next year. Professionally, I will be taking on new, broader responsibilities and am quite pleased that I have new tools to take on the tasks. Not only am I bringing back new applications (GoAnimate, Voice Comments in Google Docs, etc.) but very important resources that will definitely guide me as a system principal (NETS standards, SECTIONS framework, etc.). I am moving forward a little wiser, a little more knowledgeable and definitely inspired, despite the apparent sombre tone of this reflection. I came into the MET program with a vision of what technopedagogy should look like and definite objectives with regards to transformed teaching practice and how to achieve it. There will also be the continued explosion of mobile devices in education and the seemingly blurring of the traditional classroom walls as online access and cloud computing become more and more ubiquitous. I feel that I will be equipped for any and all of these changes if I understand the core elements  and strategies to successful technology integration in teaching practice.

Thus, ETEC565a has definitely moved me forward in my vision by helping me refine it with research-based strategies, and I am better equipped to take on the monumental task of helping educators transform teaching practice – the focus of my professional life at the moment. Although my reflection of ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ seems indicative of the need to take a break once I complete the MET, I was set on going as far as the Ed.D, and still intend to pursue it. In fact, I had narrowed my choices to UBC and one another canadian university BECAUSE of the possibility of continuing the MET in this regard… and I still feel I made the correct choice.

 

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.

Levine, A.  (2007). “50 Web 2.0 Ways to Tell a Story.”  Accessed 3 November 2012. http://cogdogroo.wikispaces.com/StoryTools

National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers, (2008), International Society for Technology in Education, retrieved online: http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2008.htm