Blog:
Click image below. |
Course Description:
Students will explore learning management and content management systems for hosting and organizing online learning activity. Investigations will look at proprietary (e.g., Desire2Learn), open source (e.g., Moodle), Hybrid (e.g., Instructure Canvas) and non-traditional systems (e.g., Web 2.0) regarding the pros and cons and technical competencies for the design of learning activities and course management. Instructor: Avi Luxenburg
|
EVIDENCE & REFLECTION OF LEARNING #1
|
OLTD Program Learning Outcomes:
Evidence to Support Outcomes:
The primary evidence I have selected to demonstrate my competence with regard to the above-noted OLTD 504 learning outcomes is a tutorial that I prepared during Week 2 to teach my Moodle Learning Management System group about Moodle Books (the tutorial was presented during Week 3). This collaborative learning and teaching activity integrated the use of both LMS and non-LMS tools. My tutorial demonstrates the use of Moodle version 2.8, and it has been created using Google Slides, YouTube, and Screencast-O-Matic (for the screencasts which are embedded in the Google slides). To further address “non-LMS environments” noted in the learning outcomes, I have also included a secondary piece of evidence: My Non- LMS Toolkit. Click link above for tutorial with functional videos.
|
|
|
Reflection to Support Evidence: For the LMS Jigsaw and Presentation, students were divided into groups to learn about what is needed in a chosen LMS to create a basic course and a unit or lesson in that course. My group chose Moodle, a non-commercial, open-source Learning Management System, but other groups learned about the D2L and Canvas LMSs. It was determined the process of learning all aspects would be too time-consuming and onerous for each person to do independently, so each individual mastered an aspect of the LMS (i.e., quizzes, assignments, gradebook, etc.) to teach the rest of the group. My contribution was to teach the group about Moodle Books, as exhibited in the tutorial selected for my Primary Evidence of Learning.
The LMS Jigsaw and Presentation taught me as much about non-LMS tools (and the way in which they can be used to facilitate collaborative research and learning/teaching) as the process did about features of the Moodle LMS. Our team started out by discussing (using Blackboard Collaborate Web conferencing) components considered necessary to build a complete LMS unit. We then we signed up for tasks using the Doodle scheduling/polling web-based tool, and each group member watched videos (i.e., via YouTube) and read articles relating to their area in order to later educate the group. Our group decided to set up a Google + Community to facilitate the dialogue and sharing of videos and information. This worked very well, and it demonstrated the way in which non-LMS and LMS tools could be used to facilitate teaching and learning. For this reason, I have included My Non-LMS Toolkit as a Secondary Evidence of Learning piece, as many of the tools within this non-LMS toolkit contributed towards the Moodle Books tutorial and meeting the learning outcomes noted above. Familiarity with common terms, definitions and elements relating to Learning Management Systems (LMS) and non-LMS environments facilitates a shared understanding and, therefore, the ability to collaborate and demonstrate competency with the design and implementation within LMS and non-LMS environments and tools. This understanding and knowledge, in my opinion, contributed towards our Moodle group’s ability to collaborate in a meaningful and productive way. We were able to assist each other in meeting our goals and objectives, which in turn allowed for the potential optimization and personalization of student learning, through the use of rich, interactive and engaging activities and learning environments (both LMS and non-LMS). This shared experience is so important when working online in our networked and interconnected world, as it is very often necessary to collaboratively problem-solve while implementing new tools and learning experiences. The LMS Jigsaw and Presentation has helped me to better understand possible ways in which I can use a variety of Moodle activities and resources to facilitate learning, while also opening my eyes to the many ways in which non-LMS tools and environments can enrich this learning experience, leading to a more robust learning environment, offering contextual and experiential learning opportunities. |
EVIDENCE & REFLECTION OF LEARNING #2
OLTD Program Learning Outcomes:
Evidence to Support Outcomes: The evidence pieces I have selected to demonstrate my competence with regard to the above-noted OLTD 504 learning outcomes are:
|
|
Primary Evidence: LMS Build
|
|
Secondary Evidence: Accompanying Moodle LMS Journal Reflection
|
|
Reflection to Support Evidence:
Planning learning opportunities most suitable to the strengths and challenges of the Moodle LMS requires a fair level of understanding of the Moodle LMS and its associated tools, and also of the student demographics and external environment(s) and influences that exist, as these may impact the functionality of the LMS. Not only does it take time to learn how to use the Moodle tools, but it also takes time to build within the LMS. Interactive and engaging activities can be integrated into the build; however, thought and planning needs to occur upfront to attain the best possible learning environment. A variety of assessment and evaluation methods/tools can be easily added to a Moodle environment (Moodle has a wide variety of options available for use, such as feedback, survey, choice, forum, quiz, etc.), and external non-LMS tools can be integrated as needed and deemed appropriate to address any challenges of the Moodle LMS. However, external links and content may require monitoring (depending on where sites are hosted and if content is non-static), as is often the case with anything ‘live’ on the Web. Furthermore, I have found that when building learning environments in Moodle, I tend to integrate the use of a number of non-LMS tools to enable me to better meet the Universal Design for Learning Standards. The use of non-LMS tools such as Screencast-O-Matic and Camtasia, for screen recordings and annotated video recording, along with the video hosting, streaming, editing and captioning capability of YouTube, can address any shortcomings of Moodle and enable the creation of interactive lessons for all learning styles, especially audio-visual learners.
The evidence of learning presented above (i.e., the Moodle LMS build and journal reflection) supports my view that educators shouldn’t be looking at only one platform or set of tools to meet the needs of all learners, but multiple learning styles in all likelihood require multiple tools and platforms to adequately meet the range of needs. Through recognizing the strengths and limitations of LMS and non-LMS learning environments, we as educators are better able to rise to the challenge of educating learners in the 21st Century. By becoming better educated with regard to the options and range of LMS and non-LMS tools and platforms that exist, we are better able to move from being digitally literate to digitally fluent, thereby facilitating the learning of 21st Century skills. As stated by Kivunja (2014, p. 106): To facilitate learning by Digital Natives, we should embed digital technologies in our teaching, learning and assessment. We need to acknowledge that the world as seen by Digital Natives today is very different to that we older folk grew up in. In today’s 24/7/365 world, we need to embed into our pedagogical practices, strategies which will enable our students to maximize the benefits available from engagement with digital technologies. For us pedagogues of the digital age, the combination of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as espoused by Mishara and Koehler (2006) will enhance our effectiveness in teaching Digital Natives. To the Digital Natives, digital bombardment is not a curse. It is a virtue that spices their lives, and this should include pedagogical learning experiences. |
Critical Challenge Question
|
At the beginning of OLTD 504, instructor
Avi Luxenburg posed a Critical Challenge Question to the cohort group. The question read as follows: |
Thoughts and Musings on the OLTD 504 Critical Challenge Question (CCQ)
Throughout OLTD 504 we have been asked to keep the end goal in mind, a highly effective design strategy, as outlined by Wiggins in his Understanding by Design model (2012, 2014). Instructor Avi Luxenburg has encouraged us to focus on the Critical Challenge Question (quoted above), and to use this question to guide our learning and reflections throughout the course. I have found this process useful, as each week has added another layer of understanding to the guiding CCQ (and further questions or considerations). Avi Luxenburg has also emphasized the need to evaluate our overarching principles and philosophies of education. So, although I have addressed philosophies and beliefs in My Non-LMS Toolkit (and in other documentation in this e-Portfolio), I will restate some of my beliefs below.
Some of my overarching principles and philosophies are:
- Twenty-first century learners need the tools and skills to become self-directed ‘masters of learning’.
- Students should be able to use information and process it at all levels of the Digital Bloom's Taxonomy: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
- We should encourage: collaborating, connecting, sharing, curating, critical-thinking and sense making.
- We need to provide students with the skills they will need to navigate a future where flexibility, adaptability, creativity and innovation will contribute towards success.
- Learning should be social - this networked social learning is authentic and very powerful.
- Students should be connected, networked, responsible citizens (kind, caring, sharing), who have an interest in lifelong learning and are willing to contribute positively to the digital and non-digital world.
- Through constructing real-world inventions (which can be shared with others), education can better address the skills and needs of 21st Century learners. (Papert)
- Learning should be student-directed and student-centric.
- Learning is a continuum that requires multiple means of assessment (both formative and summative). Students need opportunities for self-assessment, in addition to opportunities for feedback and assessment by peers, teachers, and a larger audience (when deemed appropriate).
- We don't just want students to be consumers of information; we want them to be creators too!
In a discussion posted for this OLTD 504 e-Portfolio, What are the Pros and Cons of Using a Learning Management System (LMS) such as Moodle?, I outline a few observations and considerations, based on my limited experience, of working in the online world using an LMS environment. I note challenges, including time, teacher proficiency and training, ease of use and flexibility, and other internal and external factors that can impact the functionality and success of courses designed using a LMS such as Moodle. Furthermore, I fully support Sclater’s statement (2008) that, “The shortcomings of LMSs may, however, have as much to do with institutions’ lack of understanding about how to facilitate learning with them as with the inadequacies of the systems themselves” (p. 2). The learning curve is steep to fully recognize the vast array of possibilities available to create a social and engaging learning environment. LMS tools are often not used to their fullest capacity, due to the time needed to attain proficiency (or for implementation/organization) by both the instructor and the learner.
In my e-Portfolio reflection pieces and in My Non-LMS Toolkit I discuss some of the benefits and challenges of Non-LMS environments when working towards the goals of:
- Building community and inspiring discourse
- Providing content, interactivity with content, and organization
- Handling assessment as, for and of learning
- The ability to move content, grades, etc., within and across systems and the ability of a system to integrate with other resources and services, (plugins available), etc.
- The ease of use
- The support (and any legal) requirements for a chosen LMS and for using (free?) software hosted externally
- The ability to support increasingly sophisticated learners in creative and innovative ways
References
Jafari, A., McGee, P., & Carmean, C. (2006). Managing Courses Defining Learning: What Faculty, Students, and Administrators Want. Educause review, 41(4). Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0643.pdf
Johnson, C., & Lomas, C. (2005). Design of the learning space: Learning and design principles. Educause Review, 40(4), 16. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0540.pdf
Kivunja, C. (2014). Theoretical perspectives of how Digital Natives learn. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 94. Retrieved from http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/ijhe/article/view/4053/2382
Pugliese, L. (2012). A post-LMS world. Educause Review, 47(1), 50-51. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1216.pdf
Sclater, N. (2008). Web 2.0, personal learning environments, and the future of learning management systems. Research Bulletin, 13(13), 1-13. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0813.pdf
Weigel, V. (2005). From course management to curricular capabilities. Educause Review. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/course-management-curricular-capabilities. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0533.pdf
Wiggins, G. (2012, April 23). Understanding by Design [Video]. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cagh0H7PPA
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). What is backward design? Understanding by design, 7-19. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/ellieresourcebinder/WhatisBackwardDesigny.pdf