Learning While Socializing
Lynn Pregitzer
Pepperdine University
EDOL 755
16 November 2010
Abstract
Finding ways to pass on knowledge is important as organizations feel pressure to raise their level of performance during difficult times. The theory discussed in this paper gives an alternative view to the traditional method education and training. In Etienne Wenger’s view, people learn while they associate with each other. (Wenger, 2006) Using this as a foundation, he develops systems to give groups of people with mutual interests a place to meet and share solutions and learning through conversations.
Learning While Socializing
Organizations face the challenge of effectively managing knowledge to stay competitive. Businesses are faced with staying ahead due to globalization along with technological advances. To optimize efficiency, management must capitalize on its existing knowledge base. This need is amplified in today’s economic depression. Hansen (1999) categorized knowledge mainly as hard and soft. He describes hard knowledge as words and numbers stored in databases and soft knowledge as intuition and wisdom. (Hansen, 1999)
Etienne Wenger (n.d.) describes himself as an expert in social learning. (n.p.) In their book, Lave and Wenger (1991) analyze learning that takes place while people keep company with others. They specifically speak to the apprentice model (as cited in Koliba & Gajda, 2009). Examples include junior carpenters train with master journeymen and midwives that train with a veteran in the field. A very common example of this practice is seen when teenage girls begin learning the art of makeup. They establish relationships with peers that have mastered the skill. Due to the amount of time spent with these “masters” they become adept at it. The learning in this case is incidental and happens at a subconscious level. Dr. Wenger called acquiring new skills in this manner as “Communities of Practice” (COP). (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
Etienne Wenger is the author of several books on COP and speaks on the topic at forums around the world. (Wenger, n.d.) In addition, he is a consultant to major corporations such as Hewlett-Packard, DaimlerChrysler and P&G. Wenger also regards himself as a researcher and is currently leading a new research the project that expands on COP and analyzes the dynamics of learning that spans across schools and universities, corporations, governments and churches. (Wenger, n.d.)
The Theory
Learning in a societal context existed long before Wenger identified it as COP. (Wenger, 2006) In Japan, for example, life-long learning for adults is called shakai kyoiku or social education. (Gordon, 1998) Adult education classes, similar to the non-credit education courses in the United States, are offered to promote learning for life. (Gordon, 1998) Courses are held locally in a casual setting, frequently lead by an expert in the village. Furthering the knowledge base of the people in this manner is important because people rarely pursue a higher level of education in the formalized system once they graduate from high school or college. (Gordon, 1998) The Japanese Ministry of Education supports these activities through formalized laws and policies. (Gordon, 1998) Although learning has occurred in this manner for centuries, through his research, Wenger (2006) illustrated it as a practical model applicable to organizations.
The three elements of COPs are a realm of interest and commitment by the members, a space where the members can congregate and a collection of shared solutions, experiences and stories. (Wenger, 2006)
In the first key element, Wenger uses the term “domain” to describe the common goals the groups subscribes to. (Wenger, 2006) There is an underlying commitment to the purpose of the group because of the mutual benefit. As I see it, this is innate to how teenage girls form cliques. Their mutual interests bring them together and through storytelling they learn new skills such as how to apply makeup. In a business example, a Canadian insurance company with 3,000 geographically distributed independent sales agents used the COP to discuss new products, best practices and resolve issues. (Wenger, 2002)
The second required element is space. (Wenger, 2006) This is where the conversations happen and activities are held to build relationships. (Wenger, 2006) These spaces can be impromptu like a gathering in the bathroom at school, or preplanned lie a meeting in conference room. COPs can be held on online environments as well. (Wenger, 2001) This implies that transference of knowledge can occur without boundaries. An perfect example of this the use of social mediums like facebook and twitter. Teenagers are now able to codify the acquired knowledge on these websites.
The third characteristic is the element of practice. (Wenger, 2006) This is explained as the solutions that are arrived at collaboratively, joint use of resources or the experiences shared in the group. (Wenger, 2006) The value of the informal structure is that it facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge from one to another. (Wenger, 2006) A long standing tradition in high schools are sororities. Something that started as informal gathering in hallways and bathrooms, became a supported institution that lived on long after the girls graduated. The tales and best practices are left behind in manuals, videos and online media to build on the past.
Practical Applications
COPs are not effective in all situations. (Wenger, 2010) Wheatley (2000) says people are likely to help each other when they feel their contribution will be valued, when the organization encourages them to learn and when the colleague is important to them. Wenger confirms Wheatley’s assertion. (Wenger, 2010) Organizations must support and endorse learning for this to work. For instance, an organization that designs its rewards system at the individual level will discourage group participation. (Wenger, 2010) Employees have to feel their contributions as valued by management. (Wenger, 2010)
COPs have demonstrated core benefits to organizations by realizing savings in time and money. (Wenger, 2010) This is realized by quick access to people and artifacts. (Wenger, 2006). Some groups even saved money by sending representatives instead of paying for the whole group to attend conferences to enhance the knowledge base of the entire group. (Wenger, 2010) In addition to the aforementioned tangible outcomes, inspiration and trust are intangible benefits realized by thriving practices. (Wenger, 2010)
In conclusion, the practice is effective only in specific situations where a free exchange of information through conversation of experts will realize a solution to a complex problem. (Wenger, n.d.) In hallways of every high school, new knowledge is being absorbed by teenagers engaging with each other. This type of learning cannot occur within the formal walls of the classroom. Learning how to apply makeup is efficiently occurring without any formal cost or venue in cliques. Conversely, there are examples where COPs are inefficient. Take for example, learning about school policies. Generally speaking, such explicit information is best given out on a manual. Similarly, in the business world, I think executives have difficulty connecting this theory to a real return on investment. Intuitively, I agree that there is a real benefit to connecting with peers, but the concept seems too fluid without a formalized structure. Using the example of the teenagers, I think the knowledge will disappear as the students graduate and move on. Interestingly enough, the creating a sorority leaves a legacy behind which the group can keep learning from. The structure of COP is used by companies, but are not referred to in these specific terms. To be able to deploy this as a product, it is necessary to show a real return on investment of developing the COP technology. Koliba and Gajda (2009) confirms in their writing that future research is needed to prove the efficacy of communities of practice in organizations.
References
Christopher Koliba, R. G. (2009). "Communities of Practice" as an Analytical Construct: Implications for Theory and Practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 98-135.
Gordon, B. (1998, March). Lifelong Learning in Japan. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Lifelong Learning in Japan: http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/lifelrn.htm
Hansen, M. N. (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 2, 106-116.
Koliba, C., & Gajda, R. (2009). "Communities of Practice" as an Analytical Construct: Implications for Theory and Practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 97-135.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2001, March). Supporting Communities of practice; A Survey of Community-oriented technologies. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Etienne Wenger: http://www.ewenger.com/tech/index.htm
Wenger, E. (2002, September). Clarica's Agent Network. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Etienne Wenger.
Wenger, E. (2006, June). Communities of Practice. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Etienne Wenger: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/
Wenger, E. (2010, May). Vimeo.Com. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/11712562
Wenger, E. (n.d.). Etienne C. Wenger My Bibliographical Information. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Etienne Wenger: http://www.ewenger.com/bio/index.htm
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide of Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Wheatley, M. (2000). Can knowledge management succeed where other efforts have failed? . Knowledge management: Classic and contemporary works, 3-8.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Reflective Moodle 12.6.2010
Moodle in Hawaii Public Schools
Lynn Pregitzer
Pepperdine University
GSEP
755 E-Learning
Elio Spinello
December 12, 2010
Moodle in Hawaii Public Schools
While working on the Moodle project I pondered the implications of a decentralized learning management system for the Hawaii public school systems. Like many other public school systems in the United States, Hawaii’s system is plagued with budget problems and behemoth bureaucracies. There are two formalized virtual learning projects offered by the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE), but both have a limited reach and are not used across the board by all high school students. This paper discusses the applicability of Moodle to an average high school student in Hawaii from the viewpoint of a teacher. The perspective I chose is the strengths and weakness I observed while working on the learning technology project, whether a public high school teacher could easily take on the implementation of Moodle as a learning management system (LMS) and my argument for providing an e-learning environment to a high school student that aspires to a higher education.
Personal Observations
The major advantage I gleaned from the learning project was the scalability of the Moodle LMS platform. Moodle is an open source software that is estimated to cost about $1,500 for a small setup with limited flexibility. The literature review revealed that smaller schools implemented basic tasks such as posting homework and grades (Brooks-Young, 2008). We learned, however, that the platform has unlimited potential as new “moodles” or plugins to the core platform can be attached and unattached as needed. This holds great appeal because Moodle a launching pad for the future. Moodle developers are not constrained by a proprietary code base, therefore having complete freedom to innovate. The Moodle website alone lists about 700 plugins, most at no cost. Such an open source setup spares the end user from the risk of an outdated platform. Unlike open sourced software, proprietary software packages are completed controlled by one vendor. If the vendor goes out of business, further updates could cease to exist and support can be cut off.
Another strength of moodle is its community of over 38 million users. Such a strong user base guarantees that fresh new ideas and up to date code changes will quickly be implemented. Accordingly, the active user base acts as self-perpetuating mechanism for a more integrated fully featured environment because of the common vested interest in sustaining the platform.
Moodle’s weakness comes from its greatest strength. That is a fully featured platform with sophisticated capabilities could cost up to $5,000 a month to host. We learned that there are many hosting websites offering a variation of plans, which could create confusion for a lay person that doesn’t understand server technology.
Moodle at Hawaii Public Schools
In 2007, the State of Hawaii legislature mandated the formation of a task force to develop e-learning programs for Hawaii. Two LMS were created by this task force. One, the Hawaii Virtual Learning Network, is an environment for public schools that pay a fee for membership and offers ePortfolio and Standards Toolkit as environments. The second LMS is separately operated ESchool, which is a venue where students with interest are able to sign up for online courses. ESchool is not integrated with a traditional classroom environment. Course credits can be used towards high school requirements. Faculty for these programs are specifically trained for online teaching.
Anecdotal information from personal conversations with my stepson, Micah Pregitzer, who is a high school teacher, suggests that barriers to implementing such a broad based strategic change to the pedagogy model in Hawaii public schools is difficult. Instructive strategies are determined by multiple authoritative bodies such as the elected Board of Education, the Hawaii State Teachers Union and the Hawaii DOE. The priorities of these governing bodies usually compete with faculty initiatives. Therefore, chasing down these barriers, albeit in the service of the students, diminishes teachers’ capacity to pursue measurable goals such as test scores.
Given these issues, however, the group demonstrated that an LMS certainly is within reach for someone with Micah’s education background. As a graduated from a major the University of Colorado in Boulder, he excelled in computer technology, his area of interest. Later in life, Micah, like many of his peers, built computers for internet-based computer, the rave of the 90s. As an experiment, a cohort member, Mark Leonard took on building a Moodle site. It took 15 hours for completion. There is an advantage, however, Mark has the technological background for building a Moodle platform. The group does conclude, however, that high schools have computer programs or centers of technology excellence within their districts that can help with this task. Current high school students can also assist with moodle apps as the group did by attaching Elluminate, blogs and FreeMind.
The ultimate factor for creating a collaborative learning system, is a teacher with the vision and will. Creating a maintaining the system could be a class project for a computer class. The groups experience strongly suggests that an LMS environment within the microcosm of one classroom is a reachable goal.
Advantages for Students Aspiring to Higher Education
Before I attended Pepperdine’s doctoral program, I had no experience with LMS. My personal experience was an indication of how much learning can take place in a collaborative environment where learning is documented and shared by a community of motivated individuals. Studies now indicate that over 92 percent of higher education institutions deliver course content utilizing LMS. I can conclude that there is a definitive advantage to a high school student that has experience with this tool.
Malcolm Gladwell states that there is a time when ideas will explode like an epidemic (Gladwell, 2000). My personal prediction is that this will happen in the next five years. The demand for LMS will come from within the mavens that start their own proliferation of LMS out of necessity, thus forcing all schools to adopt the new model of instructional design (Gladwell, 2000).
Conclusion
Although there are barriers to implementing a broad based LMS in every the classroom of the Hawaii public school system, the cost of delaying will be high. LMS are now a common tool common in the education setting, but my literature review indicates that it is proliferating in the business setting as well. Keeping pace with the implementation of technological tools in the education system is a critical element to producing competitive graduates that are ready for higher education and the business world. The Moodle system was proven to be a viable option for a small group with limited resources and time. There are definite costs associated with maintaining the platform, however, but reaching out to expert resources within the community puts Moodle within reach of an average educator.
References
Brooks-Young, S. (2008). Got Moodle? T H E Journal, 35(4), 28-29.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference: Little Brown.
Lynn Pregitzer
Pepperdine University
GSEP
755 E-Learning
Elio Spinello
December 12, 2010
Moodle in Hawaii Public Schools
While working on the Moodle project I pondered the implications of a decentralized learning management system for the Hawaii public school systems. Like many other public school systems in the United States, Hawaii’s system is plagued with budget problems and behemoth bureaucracies. There are two formalized virtual learning projects offered by the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE), but both have a limited reach and are not used across the board by all high school students. This paper discusses the applicability of Moodle to an average high school student in Hawaii from the viewpoint of a teacher. The perspective I chose is the strengths and weakness I observed while working on the learning technology project, whether a public high school teacher could easily take on the implementation of Moodle as a learning management system (LMS) and my argument for providing an e-learning environment to a high school student that aspires to a higher education.
Personal Observations
The major advantage I gleaned from the learning project was the scalability of the Moodle LMS platform. Moodle is an open source software that is estimated to cost about $1,500 for a small setup with limited flexibility. The literature review revealed that smaller schools implemented basic tasks such as posting homework and grades (Brooks-Young, 2008). We learned, however, that the platform has unlimited potential as new “moodles” or plugins to the core platform can be attached and unattached as needed. This holds great appeal because Moodle a launching pad for the future. Moodle developers are not constrained by a proprietary code base, therefore having complete freedom to innovate. The Moodle website alone lists about 700 plugins, most at no cost. Such an open source setup spares the end user from the risk of an outdated platform. Unlike open sourced software, proprietary software packages are completed controlled by one vendor. If the vendor goes out of business, further updates could cease to exist and support can be cut off.
Another strength of moodle is its community of over 38 million users. Such a strong user base guarantees that fresh new ideas and up to date code changes will quickly be implemented. Accordingly, the active user base acts as self-perpetuating mechanism for a more integrated fully featured environment because of the common vested interest in sustaining the platform.
Moodle’s weakness comes from its greatest strength. That is a fully featured platform with sophisticated capabilities could cost up to $5,000 a month to host. We learned that there are many hosting websites offering a variation of plans, which could create confusion for a lay person that doesn’t understand server technology.
Moodle at Hawaii Public Schools
In 2007, the State of Hawaii legislature mandated the formation of a task force to develop e-learning programs for Hawaii. Two LMS were created by this task force. One, the Hawaii Virtual Learning Network, is an environment for public schools that pay a fee for membership and offers ePortfolio and Standards Toolkit as environments. The second LMS is separately operated ESchool, which is a venue where students with interest are able to sign up for online courses. ESchool is not integrated with a traditional classroom environment. Course credits can be used towards high school requirements. Faculty for these programs are specifically trained for online teaching.
Anecdotal information from personal conversations with my stepson, Micah Pregitzer, who is a high school teacher, suggests that barriers to implementing such a broad based strategic change to the pedagogy model in Hawaii public schools is difficult. Instructive strategies are determined by multiple authoritative bodies such as the elected Board of Education, the Hawaii State Teachers Union and the Hawaii DOE. The priorities of these governing bodies usually compete with faculty initiatives. Therefore, chasing down these barriers, albeit in the service of the students, diminishes teachers’ capacity to pursue measurable goals such as test scores.
Given these issues, however, the group demonstrated that an LMS certainly is within reach for someone with Micah’s education background. As a graduated from a major the University of Colorado in Boulder, he excelled in computer technology, his area of interest. Later in life, Micah, like many of his peers, built computers for internet-based computer, the rave of the 90s. As an experiment, a cohort member, Mark Leonard took on building a Moodle site. It took 15 hours for completion. There is an advantage, however, Mark has the technological background for building a Moodle platform. The group does conclude, however, that high schools have computer programs or centers of technology excellence within their districts that can help with this task. Current high school students can also assist with moodle apps as the group did by attaching Elluminate, blogs and FreeMind.
The ultimate factor for creating a collaborative learning system, is a teacher with the vision and will. Creating a maintaining the system could be a class project for a computer class. The groups experience strongly suggests that an LMS environment within the microcosm of one classroom is a reachable goal.
Advantages for Students Aspiring to Higher Education
Before I attended Pepperdine’s doctoral program, I had no experience with LMS. My personal experience was an indication of how much learning can take place in a collaborative environment where learning is documented and shared by a community of motivated individuals. Studies now indicate that over 92 percent of higher education institutions deliver course content utilizing LMS. I can conclude that there is a definitive advantage to a high school student that has experience with this tool.
Malcolm Gladwell states that there is a time when ideas will explode like an epidemic (Gladwell, 2000). My personal prediction is that this will happen in the next five years. The demand for LMS will come from within the mavens that start their own proliferation of LMS out of necessity, thus forcing all schools to adopt the new model of instructional design (Gladwell, 2000).
Conclusion
Although there are barriers to implementing a broad based LMS in every the classroom of the Hawaii public school system, the cost of delaying will be high. LMS are now a common tool common in the education setting, but my literature review indicates that it is proliferating in the business setting as well. Keeping pace with the implementation of technological tools in the education system is a critical element to producing competitive graduates that are ready for higher education and the business world. The Moodle system was proven to be a viable option for a small group with limited resources and time. There are definite costs associated with maintaining the platform, however, but reaching out to expert resources within the community puts Moodle within reach of an average educator.
References
Brooks-Young, S. (2008). Got Moodle? T H E Journal, 35(4), 28-29.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference: Little Brown.
Moodle - Learning Technology Paper 12.6.2010
Group: Mark Leonard, Lynn Pregitzer, Alexander Sevilla, Shawn Warren
The Moodle System
Mark Leonard, Lynn Pregitzer, Alexander Sevilla, Shawn Warren
Pepperdine University
GSEP
755 E-Learning
Elio Spinello
December 12, 2010
The Moodle System
Educators and trainers, no matter the setting, are tasked with creating effective environments that maximize learning outcomes for their participants. As advances in technologies have changed the education and corporate training landscape in recent years, these learning environments are now often connected to eLearning platforms. A large number of academic institutions and corporations provide their educators with standardized platforms, or learning management systems (LMS), in order to provide a comprehensive, well designed and fully supported eLearning solution.
Unfortunately, not all educators, institutions, or corporations are able to utilize a standardized, institution wide LMS. This may stem from the significant barrier to entry costs of a system wide LMS implementation. In other cases, an LMS may be provided, but lack the specific needs of a particular educator or trainer. Technically proficient educators may prefer to create their own open source learning environment as an alternate to a system wide LMS, if given the authorization to do so. In the higher education community specifically, according to a 2009 Campus Computing Survey, while 92 percent of institutions have a campus wide LMS in place, university CIO’s estimate that 55% of classes make some use of a LMS (Green, 2009).
In both of the instances described above, educators are challenged with creating their own eLearning platform. Our team elected to take an action based, constructivist epistemological approach to this specific issue, creating a unique learning activity that would deepen our understanding of eLearning design (Land & Hannafin, 2000). Our goal for the eLearning environment design project was to create a basic eLearning environment using an independent, open source model, and then evaluate the process, the constraints and the outcomes. The learning community includes all educators and trainers who do not have access to a system supported LMS, or have found that their standardized LMS constrains the learning objectives, goals or outcomes they wish to achieve. Through the completion of this design project, we would join an existing community of practice (CoP), educators utilizing open sourcing rather than a standardized LMS. This CoP is emerging as a vocal proponent of open source alternatives to expensive and constrictive LMS model. The open source model also enables members of this CoP to share stolen knowledge, and utilize this information to improve our eLearning environment and its impact on participants (Brown & Duguid, 1996).
Moodle Versus Sakai
Two learning environments, Sakai and Moodle, were considered for this project. Although Sakai is a robust environment actively used by major universities across the nation, the group chose Moodle as an alternative to the mainstream LMS’s. It should be noted that the effectiveness of a customizable LMS depends heavily on an effective user interface and the incorporation of meaningful and smart usability features (Krug, 2000) . The ideal system depends on the organization’s mandatory selection criteria to meet its unique needs. Therefore the group chose Moodle to study its adaptability to a specific demographic, namely the individual educator and small to mid-sized school districts with limited resources. (On a surprise note, after the presentation the group learned that Pepperdine University does in fact have a Moodle server set up for its e-Learning Technology program.)
In choosing Moodle, the group listed four mandatory criteria. The platform must be:
• flexible and capable of growth
• implementable by an average individual with limited technical skills
• affordable and not require specialized computer hardware.
• effective in a computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) strategy.
Flexibility and Growth Capacity of Moodle
Flexibility is inherent to open sourced software, of which Moodle is one, because of the sharing between developers that collaborate while working on new solutions. The freedom to modify the original source code results in a continuously evolving infrastructure. The open architecture also promotes a community that builds tools called plugins that enhance the core application’s capabilities. The collaboration results in a commitment to a community with a vested common interest. The open source model is a platform which avails the user to over 700 add-ons to create a central learning domain. Another quality of an open source platform is that deployment (whether partially or fully completed) is fully under the control of the end user. The ultimate advantage is that the end user can choose any number of plugins to customize the Moodle site to meets the organizations unique needs. Plugins, or moodles—as the group calls it—are mainly free, but there are additional plugins that can be purchased. A listing on the Moodle website shows that there are about 700 known Moodle plugins. The power of open sourced systems is that the possibilities of new and creative applications are unlimited. Another very important characteristic of an open source environment is that the platform can be scaled for use by a small school district to a large university environment. The ability to scale to a group of 3 individuals in the EDOL class made Moodle an ideal choice for the presentation
Easy to Implement
General literature review states that the basic implementation of Moodle is easy to implement (Brooks-Young, 2008; Lawrence, 2009). Part of its popularity can be attributed to its reputation as a learning system that beginner users without technical training can implement. However, the groups’ experience was contrary to this common assumption. The group found that the environment is easy to build for basic tasks only. To take advantage of the vast array of the sophisticated tools, an experienced user with programming background is needed. For the project presentation, the group relied on the expertise of Mark Leonard, an experienced software/web designer who spent over 15 hours developing the project environment from the ground up. Mark also had the technological knowledge behind server hosting to set up Moodle on a laptop. Mark did, however, have access to a range of resources. Online support, community forums, and coworkers that utilize Moodle were available to help. In addition, third party training programs, manuals and training events are available for purchase as well.
An Affordable LMS
In comparison to learning systems such as Sakai which can cost $10,000 or more, Moodle can be implemented from about $1,500. As stated earlier, the open source software is available at no cost, but there are three main expenses associated with any learning management system. There must be a computer server to host the site; there are user training and support costs and maintenance associated with keeping the site up to date and in working order.
Server hosting fees for Moodle can vary widely. The group project was hosted on Mark Leonard’s MacBook Pro for demonstration purposes, but this was limiting, as it could not be deployed for use by others. As an alternative, free sites are available, but these require the use of premade templates which do not allow for customization and place advertisements on the environment. For the most effective implementation, an analysis of the importance of degree of flexibility, the number of courses and storage space should be conducted. A balance of the three factors will determine the ideal server host of the organization. Server hosting services can cost from $150 to $5,000 per year, depending on these factors. ClassroomRevolution.com, Moodlerooms, Inc. and Remote-Learner USA are examples of reputable server hosting services in the United States. Now that Moodle is used in over 200 countries in 78 languages, hosting partners are available worldwide.
Effective CSCL Strategy
Since its inception in 2001, the community of Moodle users has grown to over 38 million users worldwide (None, n.d.)(moodle.org/stats). Perhaps Moodle’s biggest attraction is that the efficacy in learning outcomes is similar for both non-technical and sophisticated users. Participation from the global Moodle community has established it as a central tool for learning organizations. It continuously evolves as developers add new features to the infrastructure. The group found that Moodle possessed the same qualities as major learning management systems and therefore be as effective.
Moodle Plugins
“Apps” are the buzzword these days. Public attention to iTunes and like sources that provide consumers with a variety of games, entertainment, productivity, and business resources—the list of categories are almost endless with many interwoven and coupled with existing software and programs. Moodle is no different; with its many apps or plugins to incorporate into the LMS, the open source provides indefinite possibilities for a learning environment. Our group’s project implemented three such plugins; Elluminate, Blog, and Freemind (mind-mapping program).
The first plugin is Elluminate. The use of this synchronous option is to demonstrate the versatility of Moodle in incorporating web conferencing tools. The need, adeptness, usability of the tool, and preferences of the members of the learning environment determine the web conferencing plugin. The liberality of the platform determines a function depending on the form. Thus the context of the learning environment determines its applications.
The second plugin in our design was the blog. The use of blogs sparks the question, “Can blogs enhance learning environments?” (Huffaker, 2005). Research gives evidence that “blogs can be an important addition to educational technology initiatives because they promote literacy through storytelling, allow collaborative learning, provide anytime-anywhere access, and remain fungible across academic disciplines” (Huffaker, 2005). The platform our group presented promotes utilizing various tools, such as the blog, to meet the needs of a learning environment. In our group’s case, the blog was used as a diary, which can neatly provide “individual expressions and collaborative learning” (Huffaker, 2005). Once again, the use of this tool is determined upon the context.
The last is Freemind (mind-mapping software). This tool is unconventional in learning environments, at least in regards to Sakai and Blackboard. However, the use of it reinforces our groups approach with Moodle as an open-source platform supporting the independence of an institution or individual’s needs. Because Freemind is an asynchronous tool, the members of the learning environment can contribute to the CoP, giving further independence as a LMS. Furthermore, the Freemind plugin is but one possibility of a mind-mapping tool. If this tool becomes obsolete in the design, then Moodle allows for revision or a complete transformation of the tool.
Conclusion
Some of the learnings from this project was that although Moodle can be implemented with less resources than other major LMS, it was clear that there are definite costs associated with the initial development, deployment and for ongoing maintenance. It was also found that the more fully featured platforms required a technically skilled expert as the platform became much more complex. Nevertheless, educators have the perennial dilemma of staying current with quickly changing technological learning environments with even less financial resources. A recent article states that the pace of changes in technology will demand that schools adopt some sort of LMS in the near future. (Garg, 2010) As the computer industry shifts towards incorporating mobile devices to complement learning platforms, Moodle again will be ideal as plugins continue to be built for the platform. The group concludes that Moodle is a viable solution for the small to mid-sized schools and is capable of supporting an integrated collaborative learning environment.
References
Brooks-Young, S. (2008). Got Moodle? T H E Journal, 35(4), 28-29.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). Stolen Knowledge. Situated Learning Perspectives, 47-56.
Garg, A. (2010). Future of Learning Technology - 2015. Insider Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/07/future-of-learning-technology-2015/
Green, K. (2009). LMS 3.0. Insider Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/11/04/green
Huffaker, D. (2005). The Educated Blogger: Using Weblogs to Promote Literacy in the Classroom. AACE Journal, 13(2), 91-98.
Krug, S. (2000). Don't Make Me Think: New Riders.
Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-Centered Learning Environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 1-19). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Inc.
Lawrence, R. (2009). The moodle model. e.learning age, 16-17.
None. (n.d.) Retrieved December 4, 2010, from moodle.org/stats/
The Moodle System
Mark Leonard, Lynn Pregitzer, Alexander Sevilla, Shawn Warren
Pepperdine University
GSEP
755 E-Learning
Elio Spinello
December 12, 2010
The Moodle System
Educators and trainers, no matter the setting, are tasked with creating effective environments that maximize learning outcomes for their participants. As advances in technologies have changed the education and corporate training landscape in recent years, these learning environments are now often connected to eLearning platforms. A large number of academic institutions and corporations provide their educators with standardized platforms, or learning management systems (LMS), in order to provide a comprehensive, well designed and fully supported eLearning solution.
Unfortunately, not all educators, institutions, or corporations are able to utilize a standardized, institution wide LMS. This may stem from the significant barrier to entry costs of a system wide LMS implementation. In other cases, an LMS may be provided, but lack the specific needs of a particular educator or trainer. Technically proficient educators may prefer to create their own open source learning environment as an alternate to a system wide LMS, if given the authorization to do so. In the higher education community specifically, according to a 2009 Campus Computing Survey, while 92 percent of institutions have a campus wide LMS in place, university CIO’s estimate that 55% of classes make some use of a LMS (Green, 2009).
In both of the instances described above, educators are challenged with creating their own eLearning platform. Our team elected to take an action based, constructivist epistemological approach to this specific issue, creating a unique learning activity that would deepen our understanding of eLearning design (Land & Hannafin, 2000). Our goal for the eLearning environment design project was to create a basic eLearning environment using an independent, open source model, and then evaluate the process, the constraints and the outcomes. The learning community includes all educators and trainers who do not have access to a system supported LMS, or have found that their standardized LMS constrains the learning objectives, goals or outcomes they wish to achieve. Through the completion of this design project, we would join an existing community of practice (CoP), educators utilizing open sourcing rather than a standardized LMS. This CoP is emerging as a vocal proponent of open source alternatives to expensive and constrictive LMS model. The open source model also enables members of this CoP to share stolen knowledge, and utilize this information to improve our eLearning environment and its impact on participants (Brown & Duguid, 1996).
Moodle Versus Sakai
Two learning environments, Sakai and Moodle, were considered for this project. Although Sakai is a robust environment actively used by major universities across the nation, the group chose Moodle as an alternative to the mainstream LMS’s. It should be noted that the effectiveness of a customizable LMS depends heavily on an effective user interface and the incorporation of meaningful and smart usability features (Krug, 2000) . The ideal system depends on the organization’s mandatory selection criteria to meet its unique needs. Therefore the group chose Moodle to study its adaptability to a specific demographic, namely the individual educator and small to mid-sized school districts with limited resources. (On a surprise note, after the presentation the group learned that Pepperdine University does in fact have a Moodle server set up for its e-Learning Technology program.)
In choosing Moodle, the group listed four mandatory criteria. The platform must be:
• flexible and capable of growth
• implementable by an average individual with limited technical skills
• affordable and not require specialized computer hardware.
• effective in a computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) strategy.
Flexibility and Growth Capacity of Moodle
Flexibility is inherent to open sourced software, of which Moodle is one, because of the sharing between developers that collaborate while working on new solutions. The freedom to modify the original source code results in a continuously evolving infrastructure. The open architecture also promotes a community that builds tools called plugins that enhance the core application’s capabilities. The collaboration results in a commitment to a community with a vested common interest. The open source model is a platform which avails the user to over 700 add-ons to create a central learning domain. Another quality of an open source platform is that deployment (whether partially or fully completed) is fully under the control of the end user. The ultimate advantage is that the end user can choose any number of plugins to customize the Moodle site to meets the organizations unique needs. Plugins, or moodles—as the group calls it—are mainly free, but there are additional plugins that can be purchased. A listing on the Moodle website shows that there are about 700 known Moodle plugins. The power of open sourced systems is that the possibilities of new and creative applications are unlimited. Another very important characteristic of an open source environment is that the platform can be scaled for use by a small school district to a large university environment. The ability to scale to a group of 3 individuals in the EDOL class made Moodle an ideal choice for the presentation
Easy to Implement
General literature review states that the basic implementation of Moodle is easy to implement (Brooks-Young, 2008; Lawrence, 2009). Part of its popularity can be attributed to its reputation as a learning system that beginner users without technical training can implement. However, the groups’ experience was contrary to this common assumption. The group found that the environment is easy to build for basic tasks only. To take advantage of the vast array of the sophisticated tools, an experienced user with programming background is needed. For the project presentation, the group relied on the expertise of Mark Leonard, an experienced software/web designer who spent over 15 hours developing the project environment from the ground up. Mark also had the technological knowledge behind server hosting to set up Moodle on a laptop. Mark did, however, have access to a range of resources. Online support, community forums, and coworkers that utilize Moodle were available to help. In addition, third party training programs, manuals and training events are available for purchase as well.
An Affordable LMS
In comparison to learning systems such as Sakai which can cost $10,000 or more, Moodle can be implemented from about $1,500. As stated earlier, the open source software is available at no cost, but there are three main expenses associated with any learning management system. There must be a computer server to host the site; there are user training and support costs and maintenance associated with keeping the site up to date and in working order.
Server hosting fees for Moodle can vary widely. The group project was hosted on Mark Leonard’s MacBook Pro for demonstration purposes, but this was limiting, as it could not be deployed for use by others. As an alternative, free sites are available, but these require the use of premade templates which do not allow for customization and place advertisements on the environment. For the most effective implementation, an analysis of the importance of degree of flexibility, the number of courses and storage space should be conducted. A balance of the three factors will determine the ideal server host of the organization. Server hosting services can cost from $150 to $5,000 per year, depending on these factors. ClassroomRevolution.com, Moodlerooms, Inc. and Remote-Learner USA are examples of reputable server hosting services in the United States. Now that Moodle is used in over 200 countries in 78 languages, hosting partners are available worldwide.
Effective CSCL Strategy
Since its inception in 2001, the community of Moodle users has grown to over 38 million users worldwide (None, n.d.)(moodle.org/stats). Perhaps Moodle’s biggest attraction is that the efficacy in learning outcomes is similar for both non-technical and sophisticated users. Participation from the global Moodle community has established it as a central tool for learning organizations. It continuously evolves as developers add new features to the infrastructure. The group found that Moodle possessed the same qualities as major learning management systems and therefore be as effective.
Moodle Plugins
“Apps” are the buzzword these days. Public attention to iTunes and like sources that provide consumers with a variety of games, entertainment, productivity, and business resources—the list of categories are almost endless with many interwoven and coupled with existing software and programs. Moodle is no different; with its many apps or plugins to incorporate into the LMS, the open source provides indefinite possibilities for a learning environment. Our group’s project implemented three such plugins; Elluminate, Blog, and Freemind (mind-mapping program).
The first plugin is Elluminate. The use of this synchronous option is to demonstrate the versatility of Moodle in incorporating web conferencing tools. The need, adeptness, usability of the tool, and preferences of the members of the learning environment determine the web conferencing plugin. The liberality of the platform determines a function depending on the form. Thus the context of the learning environment determines its applications.
The second plugin in our design was the blog. The use of blogs sparks the question, “Can blogs enhance learning environments?” (Huffaker, 2005). Research gives evidence that “blogs can be an important addition to educational technology initiatives because they promote literacy through storytelling, allow collaborative learning, provide anytime-anywhere access, and remain fungible across academic disciplines” (Huffaker, 2005). The platform our group presented promotes utilizing various tools, such as the blog, to meet the needs of a learning environment. In our group’s case, the blog was used as a diary, which can neatly provide “individual expressions and collaborative learning” (Huffaker, 2005). Once again, the use of this tool is determined upon the context.
The last is Freemind (mind-mapping software). This tool is unconventional in learning environments, at least in regards to Sakai and Blackboard. However, the use of it reinforces our groups approach with Moodle as an open-source platform supporting the independence of an institution or individual’s needs. Because Freemind is an asynchronous tool, the members of the learning environment can contribute to the CoP, giving further independence as a LMS. Furthermore, the Freemind plugin is but one possibility of a mind-mapping tool. If this tool becomes obsolete in the design, then Moodle allows for revision or a complete transformation of the tool.
Conclusion
Some of the learnings from this project was that although Moodle can be implemented with less resources than other major LMS, it was clear that there are definite costs associated with the initial development, deployment and for ongoing maintenance. It was also found that the more fully featured platforms required a technically skilled expert as the platform became much more complex. Nevertheless, educators have the perennial dilemma of staying current with quickly changing technological learning environments with even less financial resources. A recent article states that the pace of changes in technology will demand that schools adopt some sort of LMS in the near future. (Garg, 2010) As the computer industry shifts towards incorporating mobile devices to complement learning platforms, Moodle again will be ideal as plugins continue to be built for the platform. The group concludes that Moodle is a viable solution for the small to mid-sized schools and is capable of supporting an integrated collaborative learning environment.
References
Brooks-Young, S. (2008). Got Moodle? T H E Journal, 35(4), 28-29.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). Stolen Knowledge. Situated Learning Perspectives, 47-56.
Garg, A. (2010). Future of Learning Technology - 2015. Insider Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/07/future-of-learning-technology-2015/
Green, K. (2009). LMS 3.0. Insider Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/11/04/green
Huffaker, D. (2005). The Educated Blogger: Using Weblogs to Promote Literacy in the Classroom. AACE Journal, 13(2), 91-98.
Krug, S. (2000). Don't Make Me Think: New Riders.
Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-Centered Learning Environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 1-19). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Inc.
Lawrence, R. (2009). The moodle model. e.learning age, 16-17.
None. (n.d.) Retrieved December 4, 2010, from moodle.org/stats/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)