One other factor is that in a 1:1 computers are used differently than in an
online or blended class.

Bjorn Behrendt
http://www.EdLiaten.com/
http://www.AskBj.net/
http://www.VTed.org/
On Dec 8, 2012 8:42 PM, "Eric Hall" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This is definitely not a "choose your own adventure" situation. In terms
> of support and consistency it certainly makes sense for those using LMS to
> use the same one! What I question is whether it is necessary for everyone
> within a learning community to do so. "Systems" do not fit everyone's needs
> and style, and I see many people who prefer more flexibility (and less
> clutter) and are thus using the Google suite instead. My hope is that we
> can set an expectation for "online classrooms" that gives teachers some
> choice and flexibility without limiting options or widening them so far
> that support is difficult.
>
> Ultimately I think the tension we are experiencing is not the LMS that was
> chosen, but rather the growing pains of folks who are new to "working
> digitally" with their students. Making the jump from no online presence to
> an LMS is a substantial shift, and the expectation that assignments will be
> delivered and (in most cases) collected electronically can take some time
> to adjust to. I suspect we would be hearing the same feedback regardless of
> which LMS was chosen, and I believe Edu 2.0 was chosen by early-adopters as
> an "easier system" than the existing Moodle environment. One reason the
> decision is now being revisited is that the context is now an entire 1:1
> community and not just a handful of folks who may be using it.
>
>
> *Eric Hall*
> *Technology Integration Specialist*
> *Mount Mansfield Union High School*
> *Chittenden East SU*
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Charlie MacFadyen <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>> I understand what you're saying about using a variety of tools generally,
>> but the very point of a learning management system is that it's a...well,
>> system.  Isn't that why you were asking the question to begin with? Or are
>> you thinking that each teacher and class would work with whichever LMS
>> suits them best? I don't mean that sarcastically-- I'm really curious
>> whether people feel that this works.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 7, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Eric Hall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Charlie -
>>
>> In terms of different level of use, using the same tool in different ways
>> or using multiple tools I would argue that it may be a challenge and even
>> (initially) inconvenient for students but perhaps ultimately a more
>> valuable learning experience. I think of the challenge that many adults
>> have moving from Microsoft Office to LibreOffice or Google Docs: If kids
>> only experience "one way" and/or a limited number of tools, will they be
>> developing the sort of technological fluidity we want them to have in a
>> fast-changing landscape? Tools WILL change, so we should be teaching them
>> how to adapt and learn new tools efficiently vs. tailoring to the negative
>> feedback. I believe this is even reflected in the NETS somewhere...
>>
>> Until recently I always thought that it was the adults who had more
>> difficulty with change for a variety of reasons, and that kids were pretty
>> flexible. It has been interesting to encounter a similar resistance to
>> change and inflexibility on the part of many older students! I have told
>> some that they are much to young to sound like stick-in-the-mud adults...
>>
>>
>> *Eric Hall*
>> *Technology Integration Specialist*
>> *Mount Mansfield Union High School*
>> *Chittenden East SU*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Charles MacFadyen <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> The tension that I see arising within LMS use is between the convenience
>>> of the "one-stop shop" and the flexibility of using the best tool for each
>>> particular function.  We use Moodle at CVU (I'll fill out the form soon),
>>> and one complaint students have is that some teachers use it regularly and
>>> others don't.  It seems sometimes that they would prefer either *
>>> everyone* or *no one* to use the LMS, but not something in between!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Eric Hall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt -
>>>>
>>>> I looked, but couldn't find info on SCHOOL-IT from previous
>>>> conversations or LMS comparisons. Could you share again? Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> *Eric Hall*
>>>> *Technology Integration Specialist*
>>>> *Mount Mansfield Union High School*
>>>> *Chittenden East SU*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Matt Henchen <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A few quick points:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. The LMS smackdown *was* focused purely on functionality and not
>>>>>    on any particular tool.  In fact, anybody who was involved in the process
>>>>>    could tell you that we began by brainstorming and prioritizing a list of
>>>>>    functions first...
>>>>>    2. I have never heard anybody advocate for a "one size fits all"
>>>>>    tool, which will meet all of our digital needs - that idea is completely
>>>>>    ridiculous.  However, I have personally advocated for a 'one size fits all'
>>>>>    system for managing classroom resources, grading, assessment, and data
>>>>>    management.  Of course, we could always use a 'suite' of tools to get the
>>>>>    job done, but then we are adding complexity to the system.  The reality is
>>>>>    that classroom teachers do not have the time to use multiple tools to get
>>>>>    the job done.  Every teacher I have talked to appreciates the idea of one
>>>>>    system that can be used to post assignments and resources, grade and
>>>>>    assess, and transmit assessment data automatically to whatever agency needs
>>>>>    it.  However, with that said, the use of an LMS was never meant to be an
>>>>>    end unto itself,  but rather a beginning.  The LMS was meant to be a
>>>>>    springboard for teachers, students, and parents - they have ALWAYS been
>>>>>    meant to be used with other digital tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> The one thing I can agree with Eric on here is that there is not,
>>>>> currently, a system that will meet all of our needs.  However, rather than
>>>>> quilting together another 'suite' of tools that we can stumble along with
>>>>> for a few more years, why don't all the schools interested in using a truly
>>>>> comprehensive LMS get together and put some pressure on the developers of
>>>>> some of the leading LMS?  As many of you know, the developer of Edu20 has
>>>>> offered many times to develop *functions to our specs* and I am sure
>>>>> the developers of the other leading LMS systems would do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Eric Hall <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know we've batted this around a few times, but... the selection of
>>>>>> an LMS (currently Edu 2.0) has come into question at our school, and we are
>>>>>> now revisiting the choice of a digital classroom environment (eg. stick or
>>>>>> switch). Concurrently, we are also exploring how to balance the functions
>>>>>> on an LMS with the use of Google Apps as a productivity suite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am working hard to make this a conversation about "digital
>>>>>> functionality" vs. an LMS smackdown: backing away from the tools and
>>>>>> focusing on the goals first. To that end I have begun to list the
>>>>>> functions of digital classrooms<https://docs.google.com/a/cesuvt.org/document/d/1XenVusOw4k3vBWBbqm_7vg6HqTzUPTPzTJ-OCuoTaPw/edit> that
>>>>>> meet the goals of teachers, students, parents and Administration (the four
>>>>>> "stakeholders" in this process.) This is an open document, so feel free to
>>>>>> add your thoughts!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I am not convinced that there IS a system that meets ALL
>>>>>> needs well, and I advocate for a hybrid approach: using multiple tools
>>>>>> (limited in number for support and consistency) each for their strengths.
>>>>>> That said, we also need to consider the LMS's that are available as part of
>>>>>> the solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have a moment to complete this brief survey<https://docs.google.com/a/cesuvt.org/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDZiXzNMY0gtbHlId19OUzAydURNUEE6MQ>,
>>>>>> it would be appreciated. The full results are here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmH4x6D8GsFedDZiXzNMY0gtbHlId19OUzAydURNUEE>for others involved in similar discussions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Eric Hall*
>>>>>> *Technology Integration Specialist*
>>>>>> *Mount Mansfield Union High School*
>>>>>> *Chittenden East SU*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This e-mail may contain information protected under the Family
>>>>>> Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). If this e-mail contains student
>>>>>> information and you are not entitled to access such information under
>>>>>> FERPA, please notify the sender. Federal regulations require that you
>>>>>> destroy this e-mail without reviewing it and you may not forward it to
>>>>>> anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt Henchen
>>>>> History/Civics Teacher
>>>>> Harwood Union Middle/High School
>>>>> (802) 324-4521
>>>>> www.vermonteducator.com
>>>>> www.newschoolhistory.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Scan here for my contact information...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail may contain information protected under the Family
>>>> Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). If this e-mail contains student
>>>> information and you are not entitled to access such information under
>>>> FERPA, please notify the sender. Federal regulations require that you
>>>> destroy this e-mail without reviewing it and you may not forward it to
>>>> anyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie MacFadyen
>>> Technology Integration Specialist
>>> Champlain Valley Union HS
>>> Hinesburg, VT
>>> (802) 482-7117
>>>
>>
>>
>> This e-mail may contain information protected under the Family
>> Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). If this e-mail contains student
>> information and you are not entitled to access such information under
>> FERPA, please notify the sender. Federal regulations require that you
>> destroy this e-mail without reviewing it and you may not forward it to
>> anyone.
>>
>>
>
> This e-mail may contain information protected under the Family Educational
> Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). If this e-mail contains student information
> and you are not entitled to access such information under FERPA, please
> notify the sender. Federal regulations require that you destroy this e-mail
> without reviewing it and you may not forward it to anyone.
>