Posts Tagged ‘LMS’
Asynch Delivery and the LMS Still Dominate for Online Programs
By Dian Schaffhauser 05/22/17
a recent research project by Quality Matters and Eduventures, the “Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE)” offers a “baseline” examination of program development, quality measures and other structural issues.
95 percent of larger programs (those with 2,500 or more online program students) are “wholly asynchronous” while 1.5 percent are mainly or completely synchronous. About three-quarters (73 percent) of mid-sized programs (schools with between 500 and 2,499 online program students) and 62 percent of smaller programs are fully asynchronous.
The asynchronous nature of this kind of education may explain why threaded discussions turned up as the most commonly named teaching and learning technique, mentioned by 27.4 percent of respondents, closely followed by practice-based learning, listed by 27.3 percent of survey participants.
Blackboard and Instructure Canvas dominated. Audio- and videoconferencing come in a “distant second,” according to the researchers. The primary brands that surfaced for those functions were Adobe Connect, Cisco WebEx, Zoom, Kaltura, Panopto, TechSmith Camtasia and Echo360.
While the LMS plays a significant role in online programming, the report pointed to a distinct lack of references to “much-hyped innovations,” such as adaptive learning, competency-based education systems, simulation or game-based learning tools. (my note: my mouth run dry of repeating every time people start becoming orgasmic about LMS, D2L in particular)
four in 10 require the use of instructional design support, three in 10 use a team approach for online course design and one in 10 outsources the work. Overall, some 80 percent of larger programs use instructional design expertise.
In the smallest programs, instructional design support is treated as a “faculty option” for 53 percent of institutions. Another 18 percent expect faculty to develop their online courses independently. For 13 percent of mid-sized programs, the faculty do their development work independently; another 64 percent may choose whether or not to bring in instructional design help. (my note: this is the SCSU ‘case’)
Among the many possible quality metrics suggested by the researchers, the five adopted most frequently for internal monitoring were:
- Student achievement of program objectives (83 percent);
- Student retention and graduation rates (77 percent);
- Program reputation (48 percent);
- Faculty training (47 percent); and
- Student engagement measures (41 percent).
Creating Collaborative, Interactive & Engaging Online Learning Environments with Shindig
Shindig Interactive Video Chat for Canvas LMS, February 6, 2:00 – 3:00pm (EST)
Shindig recently announced its integration with Canvas by Instructure, bringing the former’s video chat platform to the learning management system.
Attend this webinar to learn how instructors can instantly schedule, customize and launch Shindig sessions directly from within the Canvas LMS, as well as automatically add the video chat sessions to students’ schedules.
Learn about the positive impact of collaborative and interactive learning environments on student success first-hand from educators and instructional technologists from leading universities. This session will highlight different use cases Shindig can be utilized for, including course delivery, office hours, guest speakers, workshops and more.
Early adopters of the Shindig platform will also be sharing highlight videos of their use of the platform and answering questions attendees may have.
Shindig Early Adopter Guest Speakers:
- Michael Angilletta, Professor & Senior Sustainability Scholar, Associate Director of Undergraduate Programs, Arizona State University
Note: Watch the brief tutorial video, Canvas for Shindig
The Shindig Canvas plugin is available for free on a public GitHub Repo. Once the plugin is installed in the university’s LMS, IT administrators can contact Shindig for an API key to enable the creation of on-demand Shindig sessions in Canvas. The company is offering each Canvas client institution 10 free Shindig sessions of up to 1,000 attendees.
First-time users: upon entering the room, click “Allow” to the Flash prompt requesting access to your webcam. (Chrome users may need to click Allow a second time).
Note: The Shindig app currently only supports interacting with the featured speakers through text. To fully enjoy the Shindig experience and be enabled to ask video chat questions of the speaker or video chat privately with other participants, please log in from a computer with webcam and microphone capabilities.
more on LMS in this IMS blog:
My note: Bryan Alexnader finished his blog entry with this q/n: I wonder if that holds true across other LMS tools (Moodle, Sakai, Canvas, etc).
more on use of LMS in education:
An LMS to Support ‘Gameful’ Learning
Seeking to bring the qualities of well-designed games to pedagogical assessment, the University of Michigan created a learning management system that uses gaming elements such as competition, badges and unlocks to provide students with a personalized pathway through their courses.
By David Raths 08/24/16
UM School of Information and School of Education
a new type of learning management system called GradeCraft. GradeCraft borrows game elements such as badges and unlocks to govern students’ progress through a course. With unlocks, for example, you have to complete a task before moving to the next level.
Written in Ruby on Rails and hosted on Amazon Web Services, GradeCraft was created by a small team of students and faculty with additional software support from Ann Arbor-based developer Alfa Jango. Their work received support from UM’s Office of Digital Education and Innovation and the Office of the Provost. GradeCraft can work as a stand-alone platform or in conjunction with a traditional LMS via the LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability) protocol.
Here is how it works: Instructors create a course shell within GradeCraft (similar to the process with any LMS). Students use a tool called the “Grade Predictor” to plan a personalized pathway through the course, making predictions about both what they will do and how they will perform. When assignments are graded, predictions turn into progress; students are then nudged to revisit their semester plan, reassessing what work is available and how well they need to do to succeed overall. Students are able to independently choose an assessment pathway that matches their interests within the framework of learning objectives for the course.
more on LMS in this blog
more on gaming in this blog
more on badges in this blog
Free Webinar: Create and Deploy Training in 10 Minutes…Without an LMS!
Join us on Wednesday, March 9, 2016 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM EST for another great E-Learning 2.0 webinar.
Register here: http://bit.ly/1Scfhdi
In this webinar, you’ll learn about how some businesses are turning to a new breed of training product called LearnBolt to meet their in the moment training needs. LearnBolt is a Learning Development and Delivery System(LDDS) that makes it quick and easy to collect and curate content, organize it, and then immediately push it to the learners all through mobile devices. There will be a live demonstration of the application and discussion on how to make your training development and delivery a more dynamic and fluid process to meet the needs of todays evolving learners.
Key Topics discussed:
• Rapid training development and delivery
• SME Knowledge Mining
• Cloud-based Content Management Systems
• Bite-sized training chunks
• Mobile push learning
Presenter: Steve Albanese
Steve is Founder and CEO of LearnBolt. With over 20 years of building EdTech products and service based businesses, Steve brings valuable experience in training/learning methodologies, production processes, and a deep knowledge of the latest technology and transition trends.
Register Here: http://bit.ly/1Scfhdi
per SCSU faculty request, please have compiled literature (books and peer-reviewed articles) on:
Here some names who are well regarded in the community of online learning as specialists in online discussions:
- Susan Ko
- Palloff and Pratt:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/159169.Keith_Pratt (not sure if you are a goodreads user, I am)
the most recent peer-reviewed literature on keywords: “engag*” + “student*” + “online” = 13K+ titles for the period 2010-2016:
and about 20 articles from the link above with the general search:
A Digital Badging Dataset Focused on Performance, Engagement and Behavior-Related Variables from Observations in Web-Based University Courses By: McDaniel, Rudy; Fanfarelli, Joseph R.. British Journal of Educational Technology, v46 n5 p937-941 Sep 2015. (EJ1071635)
A Student-Centered Guest Lecturing: A Constructivism Approach to Promote Student Engagement By: Li, Lei; Guo, Rong. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, v15 Oct 2015. (EJ1060070)
Full Text from ERIC
Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students Find Engaging? By: Dixson, Marcia D.. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, v10 n2 p1-13 Jun 2010. (EJ890707)
Full Text from ERIC
Effects From Student Engagement Online. ASHE Higher Education Report. Nov2014, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p67-73. 7p. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018.
Engaging Students in Online Courses By: Jacobs, Pearl. Research in Higher Education Journal, v26 Oct 2014. (EJ1055325)
Full Text from ERIC
Engaging Students via Social Media: Is It Worth the Effort? By: Mostafa, Rania B.. Journal of Marketing Education, v37 n3 p144-159 Dec 2015. (EJ1080980)
Engaging Students with Social Media By: Bal, Anjali S.; Grewal, Dhruv; Mills, Adam. Journal of Marketing Education, v37 n3 p190-203 Dec 2015. (EJ1081047)
HOW TO BETTER ENGAGE ONLINE STUDENTS WITH ONLINE STRATEGIES. By: BRITT, DR. MARGARET. College Student Journal. Fall2015, Vol. 49 Issue 3, p399-404. 6p.
Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students’ academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures. By: Cho, Moon-Heum; Cho, YoonJung. Internet & Higher Education. Apr2014, Vol. 21, p25-30. 6p. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008.
Measuring Student Engagement in an Online Program By: Bigatel, Paula; Williams, Vicki. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, v18 n2 Sum 2015. (EJ1065381)
Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE) By: Dixson, Marcia D.. Online Learning, v19 n4 Sep 2015. (EJ1079585)
Full Text from ERIC
On-Line Course Development: Engaging and Retaining Students By: Bruster, Benita G.. SRATE Journal, v24 n2 p1-7 Sum 2015. (EJ1083122)
Full Text from ERIC
Promoting Online Students’ Engagement and Learning in Science and Sustainability Preservice Teacher Education By: Tomas, Louisa; Lasen, Michelle; Field, Ellen. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, v40 n11 Article 5 Nov 2015. (EJ1083370)
Full Text from ERIC
Strengthening student engagement: what do students want in online courses? By: Chakraborty, Misha; Nafukho, Fredrick Muyia. European Journal of Training & Development. 2014, Vol. 38 Issue 9, p782-802. 21p. DOI: 10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0123.
Student Engagement in Online Learning: What Works and Why. ASHE Higher Education Report. Nov2014, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p1-14. 14p. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018.
Student Perceptions of Twitters’ Effectiveness for Assessment in a Large Enrollment Online Course By: Rohr, Linda; Costello, Jane. Online Learning, v19 n4 Sep 2015. (EJ1079590)
Full Text from ERIC
Techniques for Student Engagement Online. ASHE Higher Education Report. Nov2014, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p37-66. 30p. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018.
The civic-social media disconnect: exploring perceptions of social media for engagement in the daily life of college students. By: Mihailidis, Paul. Information, Communication & Society. Oct2014, Vol. 17 Issue 9, p1059-1071. 13p. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.877054.
The Online University Classroom: One Perspective for Effective Student Engagement and Teaching in an Online Environment By: Carr, Marsha. Journal of Effective Teaching, v14 n1 p99-110 2014. (EJ1060450)
Full Text from ERIC
The Perils of a Lack of Student Engagement: Reflections of a “Lonely, Brave, and Rather Exposed” Online Instructor By: Stott, Philip. British Journal of Educational Technology, v47 n1 p51-64 Jan 2016. (EJ1086712)
The VIRI (Virtual, Interactive, Real-Time, Instructor-Led) Classroom: The Impact of Blended Synchronous Online Courses on Student Performance, Engagement, and Satisfaction By: Francescucci, Anthony; Foster, Mary. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, v43 n3 p78-91 2013. (EJ1018277)
Full Text from ERIC
More on “Classroom Discussion and Students Participation” in this IMS blog entry:
Classroom Discussion and Students Participation: how to Secure Student Engagement to Increase Learning and Improve Teaching
- How to increase the number of students who take part in classroom discussions
- How to avoid the problem of dominant talkers
- How to encourage introverted students to increase their participation in classroom discussions
- Strategies to help your students recognize what they learned in any discussion
- How to use the first day of the semester to engage your students—and techniques for getting them to participate right from the start
- What common classroom practices can decrease the likelihood of a student participating in discussion?
- What strategies can you use to overcome established classroom practices and increase student participation?
- And how can you structure classroom discussions to better facilitate student learning?
What does Research Tell Us about Classroom Discussion? Jay Howard
Do College Students Participate More in Discussion in Traditional Delivery Courses or in Interactive Telecourses?
facts from sociological research:
- Gender yields mixed results
- Males participate more frequently than females.
- Males participate more frequently in courses taught by female instructors
- Other studies show the opposite
- Non traditional students participate more frequently
- Instructors’ gender also returns mixed results
- Class size as variable is important, smaller classes, more participation
- Class participation – grading
- Make the students grade themselves at the end of each class period. By making them grade themselves, they reflect and makes them more aware of their contribution.
0 – absent
1 – present but did not verbally participate
2 – verbally participated one time
3 – verbally participated more than once
4 – made an equitable contribution to discussion in terms of both quantity and quality
- The well-known and established belief that smaller classes spur more participation.
Jay Howard maintain his sociological research in 20th centuries constants: physical classroom, no technology surrounding.
In the 21st century, clickers changed the opportunity for immediate feedback. They changed also the discourse of the traditional student participation and classroom discussion:
Traditional forms and techniques for discussion and participation
Weih, T. G. (2015). Discussion Strategies for the Inclusion of ALL Students. Online Submission,
call on student
instructor’s personality issues:
Does the instructor really care of what students have to say
lecturing does not predispose to discussion
- The 10 second rule: students discuss in pairs the concept/question
- Think-Pair-Share: discussion strategy before or after lesson, similar to 10 second but longer
- Quick writes: write their thoughts and then share. Loose paper, names on top,
- Recorder-reporter. Post-lecture. The person reps the group, who is working on a specific question. Each group different question.
- K-W-L. what we know, what we want to learn, what we learned. Teacher instructs students that K = what they know, W = what they want to learn and L = what they learned. . work in small groups, but each student works on h/er chart, thus if student disagrees with rest of the group, has record. L is left blank for after the discussion.
Simich-Dudgeon, C., & National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, W. D. (1998). Classroom Strategies for Encouraging Collaborative Discussion. Directions in Language and Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED435188
Chen, W., & Looi, C. (2007). Incorporating Online Discussion in Face to Face Classroom Learning: A New Blended Learning Approach. Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology, 23(3), 307-326.
Discussions and participation in hybrid environment
Jinhong, J., & Gilson, T. A. (2014). Online Threaded Discussion: Benefits, Issues, and Strategies. Kinesiology Review, 3(4), 241-246.
For each OTD topic, the instructor randomly assigns two to four student discussion leaders who are in charge of organizing OTD for the assigned week. Each of the discussion leaders is asked to generate one or two discussion questions related to the topic based on reading assignments. The use of student discussion leaders is a strategy to encourage active participation and help develop ownership of learning. Once student discussion leaders post their questions, other students are encouraged to contribute to the discussion by answering each question, commenting on the ideas of others, or asking questions of peers or the instructor for the next two days. When the week’s discussion is complete, the student leaders and instructor work together to summarize the discussion and evaluate each student’s participation and contribution to the discussion using a scoring rubric. (p.242)
Implementation (p. 243):
- preparation : On the first day of the course, the instructor introduces topics, how-tos, expectations, grading procedures, and required reading assignments for OTD, and organizes discussion leaders for each online discussion (2–4 leaders for each)
- Opening and Responding: Posted discussion questions become open at the time of the class and students who are not the leaders are required to post at least one response per question within 48 hrs. During this time, the leaders facilitate discussion by responding to comments, raising questions, or redirecting discussion to encourage active participation and ensure the discussion is on track
- Summary and Assessment: The job of the leader is to moderate, summarize discussion threads, and assess them at the end of the discussion. When the week’s discussion is complete, the leaders meet with the instructor to debrief and evaluate each student’s participation and contribution to the discussion using a scoring rubric given by the instructor. After the meeting, each leader posts his or her summary of the discussion to BBCMS and reports at the next in-person class.
Discussions and participation in online environment
Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of Online Discussion Strategies: A Meta-Analysis. American Journal Of Distance Education, 27(4), 228-241. doi:10.1080/08923647.2013.837651
Lin, P., Hou, H., Wang, S., & Chang, K. (2013). Analyzing knowledge dimensions and cognitive process of a project-based online discussion instructional activity using Facebook in an adult and continuing education course. Computers & Education, 60(1), 110-121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.017
- 111 results suggest that using Facebook is not necessarily harmful to a student’s learning performance. Adequate learning activity design and pedagogical goal setting could, in fact, exploit the social and information-sharing function of Facebook, thereby supporting academic learning (Gray et al., 2010). this study seeks to advance the understanding of adult learners’ behaviors in online project discussions using Facebook.
In the process of project-based learning, learners must utilize different kinds of knowledge (e.g., discrete declarative knowledge and dynamic procedural knowledge) (Lou, 2004). Meanwhile, students can develop higher level of cognitive skills for a specific domain as well as the ability to apply adequate knowledge to a specific domain or context during PBL (Barron et al., 1998; Blumenfeld et al., 1991).
Select driving questions or controversial issues as project topics: Blumenfeld et al. (1991) noted that driving questions could facilitate students to explore the project topic. In the exploration process, students must first collect information and propose diverse viewpoints on the project topics. They could subsequently filter out and reach consensus during online discussions. This process involves diverse and converging phases that can move students toward higher-order thinking (Jorczak & Bart, 2009).
- Allow ample time for online discussion: Results of this study indicated that student online discussions lacked diversity in both knowledge and cognitive process dimensions. One possible reason could be that the allotted time for online discussions was not sufficient. Considering the multiple roles that adult learners play in family and/or work, they may not be able to respond to the discussions in a timely manner. Therefore, allowing more time for students to discuss may provide opportunities for students to demonstrate more diverse and deeper thinking (Scherling, 2011).
- Provide a structured rubric for online discussions: Well-designed discussion guidelines and evaluation criteria, i.e., posting protocols or rubric for grading, could serve as scaffolds for student online discussions, which may, subsequently, lead to more meaningful learning (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). Following that, more diverse type of knowledge and levels of cognitive process could be expected to be shown.
- Pay attention to the effects that individual differences may exert on the learner’s interactions: Our results showed that, in the context of online discussions, females and older learners are more likely to have off-topic discussions than their male and/or younger counterparts. These findings are in accord with previous research that suggested effects of individual differences on learning as well as on the use of SNSs (Glynn et al., 2012; Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012; Price, 2006; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2009). Therefore, considering the potential effects that gender and age may exert on online discussions, instructors are advised to consider individual differences when grouping students for online discussions, as a balanced group composition of evenly distributed age and gender could be a better approach than a skewed distribution of individuals.
social interaction, which was considered as irrelevant discussion, may also leading to meaningful thinking and echoes the viewpoints from previous studies, which suggest social interaction can be a critical element in the CSCL environment (Abedin et al., 2011a, 2011b).
Incorporating online discussion in face to face classroom learning: A new blended learning approach
This paper discusses an innovative blended learning strategy which incorporates online discussion in both in-class face to face, and off-classroom settings. Online discussion in a face to face class is compared with its two counterparts, off-class online discussion as well as in-class, face to face oral discussion, to examine the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed strategy. By integrating online discussion into the flow of the classroom, learners are given dedicated time to foster a habit of critical thinking, reflection and articulating these online, which can subsequently seed further in-class oral discussions, and off-class online discussions. It is found that in-class, online discussion can provide a wider spectrum of discussion perspectives, equalise participation in discussion, and promote cognitive thinking skills and in depth information processing. However, the lack of face to face interactions and the need for sufficient time to do online postings pose challenges in implementing online discussion for face to face classroom learning.
PDF file available
More on classroom discussions in this IMS blog:
What’s Hot, What’s Not in 2016
Our expert panelists weigh in on education technology to give us their verdict on which approaches to tech-enabled learning will have a major impact, which ones are stagnating and which ones might be better forgotten entirely.
By Greg Thompson 01/12/16
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD): Lukewarm to Hot
Social Media for Teaching and Learning: Lukewarm to Hot
Digital Badges: Mostly Lukewarm
Open Educational Resources (OERs): Mostly Hot
E-Portfolios: Losing Steam
Learning Management Systems (LMS): Lukewarm to Hot
Flipped Learning: Mostly Hot (but Equitability a Question)
Blended Learning: Unanimously Hot
Student Data Privacy Concerns: Unanimously Hot
Apps for Learning: A Mostly Lukewarm Mixed Bag
Games for Learning: Hot
What are the hot devices?
Cameras like the Canon VIXIA, the Sony HDR-MV1 or the Zoom Q4 or Q8 range from $200 to $400. The secret of these small devices is a tradeoff between video flexibility and audio power. With digital-only zoom, these cameras still deliver full HD video (or better) but with limited distance capabilities. In return, the audio quality is unsurpassed by anything short of a professional boom or wireless microphone setup; most of these cameras feature high-end condenser microphone capsules that will make music or interview recordings shine.
The Chromebook is hot. Seventy-two percent of Chromebook sales were education-related purchases in 2014.
The smartphone is hot. Every day, the smartphone becomes less of a “phone” and more of a device for connecting with others via social media, researching information on the Internet, learning with apps and games and recording experiences with photos and videos.
Cloud-hosted solution: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-amazon-is-so-hard-to-topple-in-the-cloud-and-where-everybody-else-falls-2015-10
content interchange/exchange between the solution and LMSs and adheres to LTI 1.2 global standards:
D2L and BB, it also integrates with Canvas, Moodle, Sakai, BrainHoney https://bwhs.brainhoney.com/Welcome.vp/page.htm , Schoology https://www.schoology.com/, Jenzebar http://www.jenzabar.com/, LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability® 1.2)