Moodle and Google – on Libre and Gratis

A couple of weeks ago I was asked by my executive to give a “State of the Union” address to teachers on the successes of my Moodle/Apps@CCC project – the integration of Moodle courseware with Google Apps Education Edition. I was asked particularly to focus on where we were at as a school engaging in e-learning and what some of the future possibilities and potential might be.

It’s no real secret that some of our teachers are doing a fine job of adopting this new technology in a relatively short amount of time and on their own steam. I run afternoon sessions and sessions during school time on everything ranging from the basics of setting up a course page to moving towards co-constructivist learning with a broad range of modes and learning opportunities. Session after session, I see dedicated teachers wanting to know more and do more with technology, to build an online learning community of over a thousand switched-on critical thinkers and learners.

At the same time, many teachers struggle with the concept of e-learning – perhaps understandably so. For them, it simply involves uploading a bunch of Word documents to an online repository somewhere and leaving it at that. Problem is, while it’s a decent first step, the jury’s out on whether that’s really going to make a real difference in the long term. For some, this is the only step – and teachers here need to be challenged to think outside the square.

Seizing my opportunity, I prepared a talk on the nature of open/closed, libre/gratis (check out the Wikipedia page on this) and free vs free. On the one hand, one can appreciate Moodle – a fully open-source, free (as in libre, or speech) and grass-roots initiative. On the other hand, it’s also possible to appreciate Google Apps Education Edition – a relatively closed service, but nonetheless powerful and free (as in gratis, or beer). While the distinction to some might be academic, I really argue that we should always recognise where the Web 2.0 tools we use stand in relation to the questions – some of them ethical, others organisational – posed by the open/closed and libre/gratis paradigms.

Perhaps I’m dealing with two issues here – after all, what’s possibility and potential in relation to open and closed, and what does free beer have to do with it?! In the end, the way I see it is this: we’ve managed to source and use two of the best pieces of scalable software for e-learning-based education, both of which don’t cost us a cent. The possibilities and potential are endless – but that doesn’t change the fact that we need to think critically about how we approach them. After all, who really needs another bunch of Word documents?

Here’s the keynote of the presentation (check it out at slideshare.net to see accompanying notes):

[slideshare id=3382612&doc=presentation-100309205836-phpapp01]

Moodle and NAPLAN – Using Groups and Reports

2010 marks a major turning point in e-learning at Caroline Chisholm College. With the help of my IT Manager and a little support from open source communities, our humble systemic Catholic school is now at the forefront of e-learning as a successful Moodle website.

Moodle is a massive undertaking for any school, let alone a typical budget-conscious systemic catholic school. Part of my journey as a coordinator has been to find out some of the many ways in which an e-learning tool like Moodle enables teachers to work smarter.

The high point of this journey so far emerged today in Period 3, when my Connected Learning class – along with several others – completed the 2009 NAPLAN (national literacy test in Australia) test completely online, using Moodle’s GIFT format. What would have amounted to well over 15 hours of work setting the test manually, photocopying, marking and collating results was streamlined into a little under 3 hours. This of course is leaving aside the fact that now the online test can be easily duplicated, exported and repeated as necessary – all with no marking.

The clincher in this story comes in the time teachers now have to act as professionals. Why should I be sitting for hours manually marking a multiple choice test of which a machine is perfectly capable? Why not use that time to make intelligent, informed decisions as a tertiary-trained professional?

No less than a few seconds after the test closed, I now have access to rich data that can help me better serve the literacy needs of all my students. At a glance, I can see their average results.

Groups set up intelligently allow me to access not only the results for my class, but results for key ability groups (I have used previous test data to establish ability groups ranging from 1-4 with colour-codes).

An item analysis for Kenny-Red (my low language ability group) tells me that these students struggle forming sentences with more than one type of punctuation. In the above case, only 29% of Kenny-Red students were able to rewrite the sentence Go away! Can’t you see that she’s upset? with correct use of exclamation and question marks. As a group, this is now something I can effectively work on in future lessons (while I set different work for my top group, Kenny-Blue).

Of course, the big challenge is convincing many teachers that this is the smarter way to work. Odd though it seems, there are in fact some teachers who see all of this and still choose to manually set and mark the test. I guess old habbits die hard, eh?