Educator, Thinker, Consultant
EduPaths is a project from the State of Michigan to help educators in their professional growth. There are a wide variety of classes.
The course that I’m currently participating in is Extending Your Classroom to the Cloud: February 2019.
As part of that course, we have the option of completing one of three experiences:
I decided Screencasting was the way to go! Below is a quick video on the new defaults in iLearn.
Everyone wants something for free. But what really is free? In terms of web sites, information and more on the internet, free seems to be the standard. Like the old adage, there is no free lunch, things are really aren’t free on the internet. There are costs to host and produce web sites.
Let’s take a look at how this impacts us as educators. Here is a look at Free vs Free vs Paid.
The first free is sites or applications which look like they are completely free. These are usually supported by ads, a Freemium model or a “future revenue model”. Let’s take a look at each of these:
Here, ads are sold to pay the bills. This is generally pretty straight forward. This somewhat follows the old TV model. For decades, TV was free because the producers and deliverers of TV sold advertising space. Your half hour show was actually about 22 minutes of content and 8 minutes of advertising. Advertising was an effective way to create desire and thus sales.
However, please note that advertising has changed. With the internet, tracking and coordination of information is possible. Thus, advertisers may get more information than we understand and expect. Facebook is the poster child for how this information can be used. There is a lot of discussion around information security. This can be a complex subject. Certainly though, we know that information is being used to ever more effectively to manipulate us (similar to how advertisers have always done).
Here, free sites are supported by those willing to pay for extra features. These extra features can come in a wide range of products. One general example of freemium products tend to be casual games. These can generally be played for free, but there are real advantages to paying to “level up” or purchase in game clothing.
How about an educational example? Edmodo followed a freemium model for a while (more about that in a minute). Edmodo was (and is) free to use. They decided to “skip the bureaucracy” and market directly to teachers (this is a pretty common marketing tactic). Their hope was that the teachers would then pressure the districts to pay to adopt the platform. That didn’t work out so well, so they also implemented a marketplace. The Marketplace offered additional features and professional development at a cost. One of those products was “Snapshot”. This promised district level administrators a “real time” look into how Edmodo was being used. They also offered individual teachers a variety of tools that could be purchased for roughly $10 per year per class.
However, neither of those methods seemed to have worked out. Thus, Edmodo took the next popular option: selling themselves. Currently, Edmodo is owned by the Chinese gaming company NetDragon. (Hm, why would a Chinese gaming company want a Learning Management System focused on the K – 12 marketplace? Could it be that they have an interest in the demographics and data about those users?).
Finally, many companies want to develop a really large user base. Once they have that large user base, they will “figure out” how to monetize those users. This is largely the model that Twitter followed. Some of these will end up turning to Ad base revenue, some will sell out (literally).
Class Dojo is an interesting example here. Class Dojo is owned by a private company (Class Twist). Thus, their financials are not publicly available. However, there are estimates available. Estimates are revenue of $880,000 per year. Their last funding round was for $21 million dollars. At some point, those investors will expect to get more money than they invested. Class Dojo has recently announced that they will sell the service to parents to be used at home. (*Personally, I’m doubtful that this will produce enough revenue to support the company). Parent payment certainly hasn’t worked out for another K-12 darling: Remind. Remind has struggled to hit upon a revenue model that will pay the bills and return the investment from investors. Remind tried “Activities” which provided permission slip services and payments with a cut of every transaction going to Remind. They are now on their second method of monetization: premium services. Remind is leveraging their popularity with teachers to entice districts to pay for premium services. This is a familiar script. Provide a free version to teachers. Get lots teachers using the service. Then start charging districts for the service. (After all, there will be popular support for the districts to pay for the service.)
Another “free” option is open source. In one sense, open source truly is free. But, it’s free as in “free like a puppy”. There will be costs associated with open source. Generally, one needs to host the software. Hosting can be done through paying for hosting space or equipment. There is also a cost in knowledge and knowing how to update the software.
Open source has many advantages. The software won’t “go away”. Once it is open source, it is available for others to develop or adapt. There is no on going costs for the actual software. There is the ability to change, modify or extend the software to meet your specific needs. Frequently, there is a community that develops and shares plug-ins, themes, features, etc. That community can be very helpful and passionate. You have the ability to own your data. Don’t underestimate the power of a passionate community. Open source also means that data portability is an option. If you want to move to another system, you can.
There is the possibility that it will stop being developed AND that no one else will continue developing the product.
Moodle is a great example of open source software. Any educator (or institution) can download and use Moodle. Moodle also has a revenue model. They recognize that not every district wants to run their own Moodle server. So Moodle partners with primary providers and receives a percentage of their revenue. That is some companies provide the servers and support to run Moodle and charge districts for that service. Moodle also has a particularly passionate community that extends Moodle even further. Moodle has been around for almost two decades now. The future of Moodle looks very bright as well.
A quick word about OER (Open Educational Resources). These are generally resources (right there in the name) as opposed to services. OER frequently comes from teachers and artists creating resources for their own use. OER can also come from the Public Domain. OER can also come from individuals being paid to produce the work for another purpose and shared.
This one is the most straight forward. You pay a price and receive a product. Paid products mean that as long as you pay, you have access. This is a very traditional model and easy to understand. One thing to be aware of though is “introductory pricing”. With “introductory pricing”, a “low” fee is charged in order to get the customer to buy in. Once that pricing period ends, the fees generally sky rocket. This can mean the loss of data, resources and skills. Thus, sometimes, paid products can be even more costly than one realizes.
Paid products generally have really good sales team support. A good sales team will be able to highlight the advantages (and ignore the disadvantages) of their product.
There are lots of examples of paid products. Take a look at Pearson’s many, many offerings. There are lots of curriculum offerings that make sense.
Canvas as an example of “introductory pricing”. Canvas traditionally offers a three year contract at “low cost”. Once that three year period is up, the cost goes up. (The idea here is that is expensive to change once you have committed to them). Canvas has never broken even much less made a profit. Canvas makes the claim that “large losses now mean large profits later”. At one point, for every $1 in revenue, they spent .63¢ in sales and marketing.
Which is the right choice for educators? Any of the above. Different situations call for different solutions. In some cases, the paid version is absolutely the correct choice. Pay the price, get the service. In some cases, free (open source) is absolutely the correct choice. (I’m a believer in open source software. I truly believe that if educators would work together a bit more, this could be an even more powerful option). I’ve also written previously about being thoughtful about investing (Invest In…) Sometimes, the free (we’ll make money somehow) is the correct choice (though I worry most about this one). I worry because educators frequently fall into this one. After all, who doesn’t want free?
All of these need to be consciously decided upon. Educators need to understand the bigger picture and the WHY of choosing one over the other. We need to be sophisticated consumers.
It’s time for Michigan to invest in the wonderful teachers, educators and support staff of Michigan public schools. One way to do this is to fully commit to supporting the implementation and development of open source throughout the state. Let the state be a leader to provide excellent resources to all of the districts.
Michigan has a goal of being a Top 10 in 10 state. Several of the touch strategic goals could be addressed or further assisted by the adoption of open source options.
The State has actually kind of begun the process. Michigan has committed to become an OER (Open Educational Resources) state. The Michigan OER site is now open. Michigan has started to develop some OER textbooks. This is a good start. But, there is so much more to do. We can go way deeper than materials.
First of all, Michigan needs to make educators aware of the power of OER. There also needs to be a real PR campaign to get teachers involved.
Michigan could do so much more to help the educational process. (This would end up impacting the kids, the very reason that we do the tough work that we do). If Michigan were to commit to using Open Source resources where it makes sense, so much good could be done. There could be so much collaboration around the state. There could be long term planning and work that is meaningful.
There are a couple of challenges faced by educators and districts across the state. One of those challenges is the “shiny object” challenge. As humans, we are generally attracted to “shiny objects”. In technology, this ends up being played out in terms of teachers and other educators chasing the new, heavily PR’d technology movement of the day. This is not being critical of educators, rather this is an acknowledgement of the real world. However, our kids don’t need the latest shiny thing, they need real education.
Real education takes real work. Sorry, but there is no easy, substantive, game changing, student effective magic bullet out there. Real education is messy and hard. It takes work. Real work. Real education takes time, talent, effort and understanding.
Michigan could help by supporting open source software. Districts have many similar needs. By supporting the implementation and development of open source projects, Michigan could reduce friction, free up resources, and increase support across the state.
Michigan provides some terrific support for teachers to continue learning through EduPaths. EduPaths is built on a commercial provider’s system. This is a commercial provider who has never actually made a profit*. They are somewhat famous for offering a great three year deal on their product. After the three years, the cost skyrockets. This leads many educational institutions to drop that provider and move to something else. Thus, this leads to investing in someone else instead of investing in ourselves.
Rather, I would like to see Michigan take a longer view and invest. Invest in the kids. Invest in the teachers. Invest in the Technology Directors.
So what are those investments in open source resources? Well, let’s start with a few suggestions.
There’s more open source out there for us to evaluate and discuss. The good news is that Michigan has a terrific organization that they could tap for help. MAEDS runs a great conference. Technology Directors from around the state get together to discuss challenges and solutions.
This is not my first time to challenge the State to invest in us instead of investing in others. I’ve written about this before. This time though, I’m challenging the State Board of Education.
* Instracture Financial Results – For the full year ending December 31, 2018, Instructure expects revenue of approximately $204.5 million to $209.5 million, as compared to previously stated guidance of $203.5 million to $209.5 million, non-GAAP net loss of ($32.0) million to ($30.0) million, up from ($32.3) million to ($30.3) million, and non-GAAP net loss per common share of ($0.94) to ($0.88), up from ($1.03) to ($0.97).
In my position, one of my responsibilities is purchasing technology. Not only do I purchase technology, but I talk to others about purchasing “stuff”. I work with administrators who are in like positions in other districts. I know many principals (partially the result of previously being a principal). I, and many others, deal with the issue of “cool”. What follows is not about my district, but education in general.
I frequently am asked “what type of computer should I buy?”. People are sometimes taken aback when I respond, “I don’t know. What do you plan on using it for? What are you comfortable with? Why do you want a computer?” See, for me, the Why is more important than the just the What. There is no perfect computer. It really depends on what one wants to do.
These questions are even more important for a school district. When it comes to buying technology, schools are very different than individuals. Schools use technology in different ways than individuals do.
This is a pretty popular issue. This happens a lot. Someone goes to a sales pitch and decides “we’ve got to have this new wonderful widget”. Sales people are generally really good. (It’s kind of their job). However, in the sales pitch, they don’t emphasize the problems that exist. They don’t explain how it will work with your specific network. They may be really well intentioned.
One of my favorite examples of buying the dream, is the purchasing of iPads in schools. Let’s start with this, I’m an avid iPad user. I’m on my third iPad (all of which I’ve purchased with my own money). I think that it is a terrific device. It is an extremely personal device. iPads are not made to be used by multiple people in a classroom. I would even argue that they are not positioned to be the best choice in general in education. With the proper training, iPads could be an extremely valuable tool in education. Let me repeat that. With the proper training, iPads could be an extremely valuable tool in education. Used properly, iPads could be combined with Project Based Learning and other strategies and schemas to lead to real student empowerment. Student could create and consume so much with iPads. In reality, few teachers have the available time and attention to devote to that kind of change. This would not be a just, “oh, well do something different” kind of thing. This would demand a complete re-think of what education is and how it is delivered. All the details and day to day procedures would need to be examined. It’s not just wish. It takes ton of real work. If you don’t believe me, ask the LA school district about their iPad project. Here is some more information: Refund, NPR, MacObserver. LA bought into the promise, the idea of iPads in the school without asking some really hard questions. They never contemplated or planned for the real work (hard work) of actual change.
There has been lots of research on whether technology makes a difference in school or not. One can easily find research that supports either that it is not effective or that is truly makes a difference. That question is a huge question. There are lots of things to look at it and consider for that.
Back to the point. Technology in education is different than what we purchase for home. It is different than what we use on a personal level. Technology needs in education are pretty specific. We should be asking how something is going to be used. We should be asking what problem are we trying to solve. We should be asking how this technology will transform learning in the classroom (we don’t need any more $500 pencils). (The idea of a $500 pencil is when we use a piece of technology to accomplish something that would be more easily and better accomplished using a pencil).
So, sometimes people head out to conferences or salesman come in and “pitch” a product. The sales pitch is convincing and some get really excited about the product. However, the sales pitch is designed to get you to buy. Sometimes asking pointed questions and thinking about the real world use of the product can help determine if that product is right for your school or not. It is best to include a range of users/decision makers in the process.
This is related to the above. Apple seems to be really good at this. Apple puts on a Keynote and suddenly lots of people want to include them into the classroom. There is something great about this. Educators are dreaming and thinking. However, before hitting that purchase button, one should go back to real world questions.
Here is one example. I heard of a teacher who wanted to have an iPad Pro (and Apple Pencil and keyboard) purchased for that teacher’s classroom. This was immediately after the big Keynote. Now, no one had really reviewed the device. No one had considered the pros and cons of such a device. The teacher, though, wants one. (In truth, I kind of want one too. But not enough to have someone else buy one for me when we could use other things in the classroom). The early reviews are out and it doesn’t seem as though the iPad Pro is a great choice for the classroom right now. On one hand, I applaud the teacher wanting to stretch the limits of what is happening in the classroom. On the other, teachers need to really consider what will make the biggest impact in the class. The teacher is an elementary teacher. I’ve reached out to the teacher to request what the intended use would be, but haven’t received a response.
So, I’ll keep asking the question of Why. I hope others will consider the Why as well. I truly believe that technology can make a difference in education. But we need to be thoughtful about what, why and how to get there.
The last post pointed out some of the differences between Moodle and Google Classroom. Of course, Google being Google, they updated Google Classroom the next day.
The update addressed a couple of major concerns: multiple teachers and the ability to delay posts (create drafts). These are two very welcome upgrades. It demonstrates one of the advantages of Google’s iteration scheme. A weakness was discovered and addressed. Much joy in Mudville.
On the flip side, note that the teacher that is invited to edit the classroom has all of the same rights as the originating teacher – with the exception that the invited teacher can’t delete the course. In Moodle, a teacher has much more fine grain permissions that can be granted. The originating teacher in Moodle can give the co-teacher the right to just grade but not to change the content of the course OR to have the same rights OR just about anything that the teacher wants. Of course, this means planning and training. This is a great feature in the real world. Teachers who work together sometimes have different ways of accomplishing goals. Sometimes they have different understandings. A teacher knowing for sure that their content is safe and can’t be changed can be very reassuring. Also, this helps prevent accidental changes. I know many co-teachers who are working with two or three lead teachers. Keeping things organized is paramount. Accidental mistakes can happen.
Moodle contains many ways to prepare content ahead of time and schedule the delivery of content, activities and resources. Theoretically, one could schedule an entire year ahead of time (bad pedagogy for a classroom that meets physically though).
Also note that students can move/delete files from the Classroom folder. This breaks the connection between those files and Classroom. Hopefully, Google will resolve this issue soon as well.
The recent updates are a nice snapshot of the advantage and disadvantage of Google Classroom. It is still regularly updated. The updates address needs that users have. However, Google is not coming at this from a true educational perspective. They are still not addressing the underlying issues of pedagogy. They are focused on the S in the SAMR model.
Moodle is also frequently updated (every six months an updated version is released). Moodle also addresses teacher concerns. Moodle is also built on the concepts of good educational practice. However, Moodle is also more complex and needs more of a training commitment.
Neither tool is the right tool. Both have their place. Thankfully, teachers have options.
Dr Jak Tangkuampien, over at Jak’s Thoughts, has a terrific write up about Moodle vs Google Classroom. I had been thinking many of the same thoughts, but he has written up before I did. Give his post a good read. But first, I’d like to expand on couple of thoughts about Moodle vs Google Classroom.
Google Classroom does a really good job of replicating what many teachers are very comfortable doing already. That is, Google Classroom allows teachers to create documents (templates) that are then distributed to the students to complete and turn in. Google Classroom organizes this nicely. This is analogous to creating a worksheet and passing it out to students. Classroom does make this a digital transaction, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the relationship or the process of education.
Moodle was founded with constructivist educational strategies in mind. Founded by Martin Dougiamas, Moodle was the result of his experience with distance learning in the Australian outback. He was also interested in social constructivist teaching strategies.
Whereas Moodle is developed by educators with an educational bent, Classroom is designed by engineers geared toward education. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Engineers can come up with wonderful ideas.
Google has a tendency to iterate, iterate, iterate. That means that things change. Most of the time, this is for the best. However, as a long time user of Google Reader, well, as a former user of Google Reader, I can tell you that relying on Google to have a product around forever and lead to disappointment. Google killed Google Reader back in 2013. This was after Google had effectively killed off all the other RSS readers but making Reader free and phenomenal. Similarly, Google has retired many other products. A few come to mind:
Google has no problem discontinuing products that it no longer feels deserve it’s attention. One must be aware that the discontinuation of a product is definitely a possibility. Thus, given this history, the end of Google Classroom is always a possibility.
Moodle is open source. Even if Martin Dougiamas (founder of Moodle) decides to move on, Moodle can continue to be developed. In fact, there are several forks of Moodle already in existence. Thus, Moodle is sure to be around for quite some while.
Google Classroom handles the distribution and collection of materials. Using Google tools, the teacher can also create quizzes that students complete. Moodle does these things as well. However, Moodle has a great more flexibility and functionality built in.
Jak’s Thoughts is a nice write up. He includes things like multiple teachers, groups, the ability to create prior to distribution and more. Multiple teachers is a huge issue for my district. We utilize team teaching throughout the district. Moodle allows for that collaboration to happen easily. Teachers can allow other teachers to just view, to help with grading or to fully edit a course. This power is greatly needed.
Google Classroom is a nice tool. It has a beneficial role for teachers. The learning curve to get started is certainly much lower than Moodle. If you are looking for an investment that can lead to true change, Moodle is hard to beat. If you are looking to move toward using digital tools and taking a small step with low barriers, Google Classroom is a great choice.
I found this post, My Teacher is a Zombie, about using the rubrics function in Moodle whilst browsing. It is a very nice write up of using rubrics and especially using rubrics in Moodle.
Essentially, Mr. Dorian Love, mentions how he uses rubrics to quickly and more effectively provide feedback to students by using rubrics. This provides the students with a much better idea of what to improve if a higher grade (or more proficiency) is desired. He provides specifics (including a screenshot of an actual rubric) that he uses to grade his “zombie presentations”.
The biggest point that Mr. Love wants to make is in regards to the chore aspect of grading. Using rubrics can help smooth that out. Moodle can help reduce the friction of grading, make it more transparent and more understandable. Basically, it is a win all the way around.
Note that rubrics probably shouldn’t be the only method of grading that you use. This is one more place the Moodle really shines. Moodle does provide the teacher with multiple methods of providing feedback and grading. Within Moodle, the teacher can choose to use a variety of questions that can be automatically graded (multiple choice questions, Yes/No, True False, Matching, Math equations), short answer quizzes, essays, peer reviewed work, and reflections. Most of these can be mixed and matched together.
Like much of life, there is not one simple way of assessing student work. Moodle helps expand the possibilities of assessment in a way that can help teachers do real work.
Troy Patterson
This hCard created with the hCard creator.
Middle School Matters Content© 2024 Troy Patterson
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
