Original by Markus Angermeier Vectorised and linked version by Luca Cremonini

1) I have a lot to learn about design – and I definitely know what I don’t like

I am attracted to tools with a well-designed interface first and foremost. I got suckered into spending more time then I should have playing around with tools that just didn’t do what I needed them to simply because of a clean interface. On the other hand, I struggled with some good tools with clunky interfaces, but for the most part dropped them before really giving them a thorough review.

After spending days investigating tools and criticizing them, I had to turn my eye back to my work-related LMS build. I immediately started seeing design choices that would have aggravated me if I had first seen them in another context. I’ve since cleaned up and streamlined some of my work-related course builds.

I know that I have a lot to learn about designing for the online space – most notably about streamlining and minimizing design elements. The non-LMS build really helped me to see that.

2) I am much more comfortable in an LMS – but I know branching out is necessary

The non-LMS build was very difficult for me. I kept comparing LMS and non-LMS tools, which was not really the point of the activity. The point was to find the strong non-LMS tools and try them out. I struggled every time I couldn’t identify immediately what data a tool collected or where it was hosted. Eventually I gave up my strangle-hold on the idea of Canadian-hosted servers only, and branched out to find some pretty cool tools.

The more I think about this, the more I realize that I view LMSs as “safe” spaces – little electronic bubbles. Of course, that isn’t necessarily true, and no LMS can do all of things being demanded by 21^st century teachers and students. While it is important to be mindful of where data is going and how it is being used, that shouldn’t stop us from utilizing the best tools to get the best outcomes for students.

3) I am not good at learning online – but I’m getting better

I struggle with many of things we have discussed throughout OLTD – burnout, disorganization, multitasking, and being self-motivated. I find it much too easy to put my online course on “pause” when my job gets hectic, or when something in my personal life demands my attention. I’ve learned (the hard way) that simply scheduling time is not enough for me, I need my calendar to pop up and remind me to take that time – and I need to sit in a space with few distractions.

I’ve found the lack of weekly synchronous sessions for OLTD 504 especially difficult to deal with. This final week I realized I have been half a week off from where I should have been for the majority of the course. In my professional life I have never needed micro-managing, and I survived a 5 year double-degree program with an extremely hectic course schedule, but haven’t seemed to find my groove when it comes to online learning. What gives?

I think the experience struggling with learning online will make me a better online teacher, however. The subjects I was best at tutoring were those I had to struggle to learn originally. To go back to learning theory – I had to build my own scaffolds and construct my own knowledge so my foundation was much stronger. I’m still actively trying to get online learning to “click” for me – but it is getting better.

4) I believe in ePortfolios – I just don’t like mine

I’ve been trying to get my artifacts together for my ePortfolio and am realizing how powerful they can be. I spent hours going through assessments, thinking about what I was supposed to learn and if I felt I had learned it. After that I had to validate why I thought I learned it – or think about why I didn’t and what I could have done differently. Building my ePortfolio has been a rewarding metacognitive experience.

My biggest issue with my ePortfolio right now is that seems very static. I would love to integrate my Twitter feed into it somehow, and maybe document and pull in more the evidence from my work life. I want my ePortfolio to be more active, and more holistic. I haven’t figured out the best way to do that yet, but I will continue to work on it. I feel like there are some specific skills I need to improve on (like working with webpages and HTML design) that I need to learn before I can really make my ePortfolio shine.

OLTD 504 has been a bit of a struggle for me, and pushed me out of my comfort zone more than I expected. This course has exemplified the need to “keep up” with the latest tech, tools and learning theories, and this program as a whole is giving me the drive and skills necessary to do so.

Bring it on 505!

I have always respected the Community of Inquiry (COI) Framework for online course design, in part due to its integration with constructivist learning theory. I have based my Non-LMS on the review Garrison (2007) provided on the framework.

I have taken Figure 1 from Garrison (2007) and added icon images of various non-LMS tools where I feel they fit best in the framework. There is a legend with links to the various tools at the bottom of this post.

How will you build community and inspire discourse?

Building community requires opportunities to interact socially as well as in the context of the course. In order to allow student to interact informally, I would utilize Twitter and Collaborize Classroom. I feel that Twitter can be used to help students begin to share information through the use of a course hashtag. Students can share with each other without the pressure of learning a completely new tool, and interactions can be less structured. Collaborize Classroom interactions would be more structured, but allow for more space to have discussions. I would initially use this tool informally and then begin to use it for more course-based discussions, attempting to create the personal to purposeful, intellectual relationships discussed in Garrison (2007).

Additional tools to help student develop community included are Google Drive and Wiggio. These are tools I would feel comfortable suggesting to students and supporting as they begin more serious interactions around content building and course material. Google Drive would allow students to share working documents and create content together. Wiggio is a fully online tool that allows students to self-organize groups, and provides checklists, calendars, file sharing and text and voice communication tools.

How will you provide content, interactivity with content, and organization?

Organization, in terms of design and facilitation, remains very teacher-driven in my opinion. The tool I will use as a dashboard or landing space for students is LiveBinders. A LiveBinder can integrate not only static documents, but web resources – including Google Documents. Therefore, LiveBinders provides a good “curating” tool for content, where interactive elements can be housed or linked to. I would also provide a course calendar using Google Calendars, as it can be easily embedded into LiveBinders and would allow students to subscribe using multiple other calendar tools.

In order to provide synchronous interaction between students and between the instructor and students I would utilize Twiddla, because of the whiteboard capabilities. Ideally, a synchronous tool would also include polling options and more desktop and sharing options – like those provided by Blackboard Collaborate. Twiddla does allow for audio and text chat, in addition to the shared whiteboard, and it is a free web-based tool that requires no sign in.

How will you handle assessment as, for and of learning?

This question is difficult to answer because I do not have a classroom to reference when thinking about my design. In the following paragraphs, I am thinking specifically of competency-based education with older learners.

In keeping with my commitment to the COI Framework, I would want to provide collaborative content creation spaces for students, so would like to see a wiki-type tool. In this specific design, I have settled on using Wikispaces, as they have a special platform specifically for education. I would utilize this tool for formative assessment of knowledge development, and perhaps summative assessment of project-based work. If I was working with younger students there are other collaborative tools that are easier to use, such as Padlet, which I would choose instead.

I would also hope to get students to develop ePortfolios of their work. The tool I like the best is WordPress. It is primarily blogging tool, so allows for multimedia interactivity (depending on what instance you are using) as well as a lot of variety for customization. Students would be able to structure their ePortfolios in the ways that make the most sense to them (chronologically, competency-focused, or some other category system) and would provide them a flexible space.

Reference
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues.  Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ842688.pdf

Legend with URLs:

– Twitter: https://twitter.com/

– Collaborize Classroom: http://www.collaborizeclassroom.com/

– Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/

– Wiggio: http://wiggio.com/

– Livebinders: http://www.livebinders.com/

– Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/

– Twiddla: http://www.twiddla.com/

– Wikispaces: https://www.wikispaces.com/

– WordPress: http://wordpress.com/

In OLTD 502 course I looked at the Technology Acceptable Model (TAM) originally proposed by Davis (1989) as a way of framing my planning of training materials. TAM simply says that the perceived usefulness (PU) and the perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) of a technology affects how and when it is adopted by users. In my mind, the heart of the LMS / non-LMS discussion comes down to PU and PEOU –what are the capabilities of the systems and are they easy to use.

Capabilities (PU)

Web 2.0 tools, used in a non-LMS system, are highly attractive because if instructors are willing to look around and try different services, the possibilities are nearly endless. If one tool isn’t working the way instructors expected or hoped, they can try another one later in the course, or the next time they run the course. LMSs tend not to have that same flexibility – tools cannot be easily substituted for one another unless instructors start using systems outside the LMS.

However, LMSs are capable of providing a standardized, safe space for instructors and students. Students know what to expect and know where to go. Instructors know that their material can be kept secure behind an authentication wall. Commercial LMSs can also offer robust analytic and management tools that non-LMSs simply can’t.

Ease of Use (PEOU)

LMSs tend to have a very low PEOU. Most LMSs have a plethora of tools available, and in trying to provide all possible tools to instructors they become complex and overwhelming. Unless the instructors have a desire to use the system, they likely will avoid it. In most post-secondary cases, however, there is a technical team available to help instructors through learning the LMS and troubleshooting any issues with its use.

In contrast, a non-LMS based on Web 2.0 tools generally has a high PEOU, as many of the available tools are used by students and instructors in their personal lives. Most tools are generally used for a singular purpose, such as microblogging. While they can be used for other purposes, they do not have an overwhelming number of possibilities. It is much easier to focus on what tools instructors want to use in a non-LMS system, and completely customize a tool set. If a customized set of tools is used in a non-LMS system, however, instructors need to be prepared to be the technical support for their students, which can be challenging for some.

I don’t really believe there is a black and white answer to the LMS/ non-LMS discussion. An LMS can serve as a great dashboard and content storage area, and then direct students outward to the best hand-selected Web 2.0 tools. The tools that best support student learning and that align with the instructor’s philosophy of teaching should be used. The likelihood of the “next generation” LMS described in “Managing Courses, Defining Learning: What Faculty, Students, and Administrators Want” is very low, so instructors should become comfortable breaking the mold of their current LMS (if they are using one) and making use of the best non-LMS tools out there.

I have been working in Desire2Learn (VIULearn) for over a year and a half through my position at the Centre for Innovation and Excellence in Learning (CIEL) at Vancouver Island University (VIU). I have spent a lot of time replying to support emails and phone calls and built or helped to develop parts of many courses. I am currently working on building a course on using VIULearn with another member of CIEL, under the direction of the Director of CIEL, Liesel Knaack.

Given my relatively unique position, I have a few thoughts about strengths and weaknesses of VIULearn.

The Weaknesses

Image “Overwhelmed” by Walt Stoneburner under license CC BY 2.0

VIULearn is an extremely robust system. There are very few things instructors want to do in the system that we have not been able to figure out how to do yet. That is a huge strength – but for entry-level instructors it is a massive weakness. The system seems too big, overwhelming and complicated for someone who just wants to dip their toe in the water. To try and combat that feeling, CIEL offers introduction workshops (or “get up and run” workshops), which offer just enough of the system to get comfortable, without any of the bells and whistles that can be overwhelming.

For more intermediate and advanced instructors who are used to other Learning Management Systems (LMSs) VIULearn doesn’t allow for a lot of customization. We are using a very specific Course Home layout, and the look and feel is the same for all courses and all programs across VIU. This was done, in part, for students: once they know where to find something it is in the same place in all of their classes.

Finally, there is a bit of a gaping hole in VIULearn when it comes to student collaboration. Students cannot easily “get together” using VIULearn without instructor help. We are hoping that Wiggo (recently acquired by Desire2Learn and being integrated into the LMS) will help to alleviate that issue. (Wiggio is also available for free outside of Desire2Learn here: http://wiggio.com/). I have written a blog post about Wiggio in the past here: http://wordpress.viu.ca/ciel/2013/08/02/wiggio/ as well.

The Strengths

Image taken from http://www.desire2learn.com/products/.

Again, VIULearn is an extremely robust system, especially with the other products CIEL has integrated into the system. There are capabilities for most types of assessment and evaluation, synchronous and asynchronous discussions, file management, media integration, and a plethora of small, easily managed tools like Checklists, Glossary and FAQs.

Most tools can also be divided into introductory, intermediate and advanced use. I can tell you there is more to most tools then meets the eye – I am still learning about them after working with them for over a year – but an entry-level instructor can still use most tools relatively easily.

I believe that this system offers a lot of solutions for instructors who are able to invest the up-front time into it. A crowd favorite tool right now is “User Progress”. This allows the instructor to see how often a student logs into the system, what content items they have looked at, and for about how long they viewed those files. Some instructors find that information extremely helpful – it allows them to pick up on the students who may need some additional support without the student having to ask for it. Another tool many instructors like is “Rubrics”. After taking the time to build a rubric in the system, it can be attached to assignments so students can view them before submitting, and help to speed up marking as well.

I could go on and on about why I like using VIULearn, but I would rather hear from instructors and students of the system. What are your top likes and dislikes of the system?