The learning environment evaluation assignment allowed me to analyze an optimal delivery platform solution in-depth for a grade 8-12 school. After defining the needs within our high school, we looked at both the SECTIONS framework (Bates, 2014) and the MIT CITE and IIM framework (Osterweil et al., 2015). We identified what we deemed to be the most crucial components of the frameworks and created a rubric specific to the needs of our high school. The evaluative rubric drew upon the strengths of the SECTIONS framework’s security and privacy (Bates, 2014). As a security and privacy section was an identified gap in the MIT CITE and IIM framework. The MIT CITE and IIM framework categories; teachers, students, learning, sustainability, and community, social, political offered components that were expanded on within our personalized evaluation rubric(Osterweil et al., 2015).
Our group analyzed three learning environments to determine what would best fit the school’s needs. Our group has a range of expertise in the platforms and decided to divide it into three smaller sections looking more in-depth at a specific learning environment and ranking them against the learning environment rubric. Two looked at Microsoft Teams, one looked at Google Classroom, and two (myself included) looked at Edsby. Our group considered the successes that other school divisions/districts had with implementing the learning environments we evaluated. For example, in the chosen Edsby, LMS, we found recent articles, board minutes, and school division news that offered non-biased opinions about the implementation of Edsby within their schools and the broader school district. Having and hearing individual teacher, parent, and student voices as part of determining the selection process in the evaluation of Edsby contributed to the reason it was selected. In addition, our group drew upon the experiences of Greg and I, as we specifically work with teachers in the implementation of Edsby. Through these personal experiences, Greg and I were able to both agree on how Edsby would be placed within each criterion on the rubric and be able to provide a rationale in case of disagreement.
One of the challenges I encountered within this assignment included the creation of the rubric. Having been through the process of working with a school division on implementing a new LMS, it was difficult to not create criteria within the rubric based on what I already knew that Edsby would excel at. It reinforced the importance of having a variety of stakeholders included in the creation of the evaluative rubric. We wanted to ensure that we attempted to make an evaluation rubric that was non-biased and based on the organizational context that we established before determining our chosen learning environment.
Overall, the process of analyzing a learning environment was an informative experience. As a new principal, it provided essential learning and understanding of effectively analyzing and ranking technology programs.
References
Bates, T. (2014). Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model. In Teaching in digital age. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/
Osterweil, S., Shah, P., Allen, S., Groff, J., & Sai Kodidala, P., & Schoenfeld, I. (2015). Summary report: A framework for evaluating appropriateness of educational technology use in global development programs. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts & The Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/115340/Summary%20Report_A%20Framework%20for%20Evaluating%20Appropriateness%20of%20Educational%20Technology%20Use%20in%20Global%20Development%20Programs.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Curtis Bourassa 