Experience with
developing online courses
and using Moodle
Fourth AUB Faculty Seminar on Teaching and Learning with Technology
American University of Beirut 31 May 2006
Mediterranean Virtual
University (MVU)
• A European-Funded Project
• Partnership between selected universities from Denmark, Turkey, Malta, Cyprus, Lebanon,
Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine
• Goal is to offer online interactive courses that target university students and professionals
• 40 online courses in Computer Science and Engineering have been developed and
delivered by the different partners
• Plan is under development to identify responsibilities
AUB role in MVU
• AUB is the only university from Lebanon that isparticipating in this project
• Has developed and delivered four courses
Numerical Analysis
VLSI Development
Queuing Theory
Distributed and Object Database Systems
• All material had to be developed a priori, including
presentations, lecture notes, exercises, tests, plus project requirements and material.
• The last two of the above courses were offered just recently as regular courses to AUB students
AUB role in MVU (2)
• Persons who worked on the AUB part of the project:
Prof. Ayman Kayssi – Local Project Manager
Prof. Hassan Artail: Course Developer
Prof. Ali Chehab: Course Developer
Prof. Ali El-Haj: Course Developer
Prof. Karim Kabalan: Course Developer
Dr. Rima Abdallah: E-learning Content Designer
Distributed and Object
Database Systems
• Graduate course in the ECE Department
• 18 Graduate students, organized into 6 project groups
• Course components
Midterm + Final (open book, conceptual understanding and applications)
Topic exercises at end of every activity
Design project (developing a distributed database application)
Software components, middleware (e.g., Java RMI), and skeletons of programs were
provided to have students concentrate on implementation of algorithms.
Research project
More than 20 conference papers relating to six related subjects were provided so as to
have students address/analyze/expand on chosen topics
Two presentations were required from groups to share with the class their findings
• Course was given as a classical course (face to face) – meeting twice a
week, but all material, including project requirements, were put online
• Students were strongly encouraged to use Moodle to get access to
material and to collaborate on projects (group members)
• Students have been using the WebCT LMS for 5+ years and hence, they
Queuing Theory
• Graduate course in the ECE Department
• 5 Graduate students • Course components Assignments Two quizzes Final Exam Course project
- Observe a real life problem - Identify problem components
- Simulate using appropriate simulation tools - Discuss results
- Develop a better solution
• Course was given as a classical course (face to face) – meeting twice a week, but all material, including project requirements, were put online
• Students were strongly encouraged to use Moodle to get access to material and to collaborate on projects (group members)
• Students at AUB have been using the WebCT LMS for 5+ years ⇒ students expect more from Moodle
Guiding
features
of online
learning
In developing the material and designing the
environment within Moodle, an important
objective was to provide a stimulating
environment:
• Various types of content interactivity, learner-to-learner communication ...
• Gain and sustain learner attention through
emotional and sensoriel stimulation (animation, simulation,pictures, ..) .
• Different modes of learning (groupware, class discussion, exercises…)
Taxonomy of Delivered
material
Educational Activities involve knowledge
and development of intellectual skills:
•
Lectures in html (Knowledge, Comprehension,
Analysis)
•
Summary in PPT (Knowledge,
Comprehension, Analysis)
•
Problem solving (Application, Analysis,
Synthesis, Evaluation)
•
Projects (Research, Application, Analysis,
Synthesis, Evaluation)
Evaluation of Teaching
material and Environment
Goal is to discover student evaluation of the new
LMS (i.e., Moodle) and the presentation of the
teaching material
A survey of multiple-choice questions was given to students toward the end of the semester
Students supplied a relatively large number of comments
Answers were compiled and summarized
Results concerning Moodle may be used to predict how AUB students in general will react to it
May be used to fine tune some of the LMS features before its
Evaluation Session –
Teaching material: Likes
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of occurrence
Use of animations Distribution of material and
flow
UI and flow of lectures Interactivity and navigation Tracking feature Exercises with each activity Organization, structure, and
Evaluation Session –
Teaching material: Dislikes
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Percent of occurrence
Scrolling down to see the rest of the main page Separating lecture notes from
slides
Animations do not include sufficient details Course structure is too expanded on main page
Too much scrolling Get distracted when browsing
Evaluation Session –
Teaching material: Judging
the overall experience
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of occurrence Easy access/search
Better-understanding and enjoyment Flexibility by not having to
attend the class Animations help in graspin
concepts (flash) Detailed notes, yet just the
needed information Similar to WebCT Nice way of studying
Evaluation Session – Teaching
material: Suggestions for
improvements
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of occurrence
Adding audio More examples with solutions Improved animations adding links between summaries and detailed
notes
Evaluation Session – Project
team members collaboration
• Class was divided into six groups, three members each
• Each group was responsible for a design and
development project: implementing a distributed database
For the most part, collaboration is most-effective when meeting in person
Often, team members work on a single workstation, especially while integrating components and testing
• Each same group was also responsible for researching a topic and writing a report
•
Involved three groups:
•
For one group, all members were at AUB but in
different locations
Meeting duration 50 min
•
For the second group, one member was at AUB
while the other two were outside
Meeting duration 50 min
•
For the third group, members were at AUB but in
different locations
Meeting duration 2hr 20 min
Evaluation Session – Project
team members collaboration:
Setup
Observations - Group 1: Initial
phases of the design project
• Had a welcome phase and specified one member as the “leader” of the session
• They had a fixed objective: Finding sample code from the web for database functions in java.
• They decided collectively to divide this task into three subtasks (one per member): selection, insertion and deletion functions.
• They were looking for code using a search engine, and found some interesting sites.
• They exchanged and commented the code collectively using textual Moodle chatting and forum.
• They ended the session and agreed to start working on the code
Observations - Group 2: Develop
a required ppt presentation and
work on the design project
• They had a welcome phase and specified one member as the “Leader” of the session
• They already had a draft power point which was prepared during F2F. One member posted it on the forum and
another downloaded it.
• The objective was to improve this presentation and to agree on some missing points.
• They were exchanging ideas and made the following decision collectively:
To add new slides for Java RMI,
To add code for compiling the java RMI server,
To modify the customer table by adding more fields to it
• They ended the session by agreeing on holding another collaboration session to finalize the presentation
Observations - Group 3: Work on
the design project (agreeing on
design decisions)
• A lot of humor at welcome and while working.
• Personalization of words, emotional icons used.
• Did not choose a moderator for the session.
• The group objective was to agree on implementing fragmentation in their projects.
• They exchanged ideas and made decision collectively to implement horizontal fragmentation and agreed on the following steps:
Name the DB and add a new diagram
Import a table and insert a primary key
• The group accessed the DB online and followed the agreed on steps (i.e., fragmentation design)
Students Comments:
F2F versus Online
F2F (when possible) is more advantageous:
•
Group work is mostly focused around one
computer
•
Demonstrating programs lively in front of the
other members
•
Faster, easier, and more interactive
•
Express more by body language and by
speech
Learner Suggestions for
improvement during
Collaboration
•
The chat window (if minimized) must :
Alert of any new incoming messages
Alert of new signed-in users
Add attachment capabilities in the chat window
•
A beep button to multiple users to get their
attention
Concluding remarks
•
The major issues with online learning are:
How to motivate the learner and keep him/her on schedule (content design, LMS, tools, etc.)
How to effectively evaluate student learning (logistics, policies, technology, etc.)
