Curriculum Materials Methods Overview User'S Guide - School Of: Fill & Download for Free

The LMS assessment checklistDetermine goals and objectivesThe first and foremost step of this checklist is to determine what are we expecting from our LMS i.e the goals and objectives in the long run.For example: Make the UI more Simple For Our teachers or Adding content more easily.What I want to say is Identify the basic problem you are trying to solve right away. This will give the whole process of finding a good LMS a strong foundation.How does your study curriculum look?Sketching out the eLearning curriculum briefly will help you decide what type of content you need and how it will be delivered and a rough idea about the look and feel of the website.The possible list of items students is provided just after completing a module. For Instance List of remain topics, percentage skills acquired and so much more.How will you deliver the content?Most of the eLearning platforms use a mixed approach, which includes these delivery methods like:Self-paced online courses with text and video contentOne to one interaction.Ability to host webinars and podcastsA schedule of live eventsQuizzesText and video contentWhat is your plan for making engaging content?If the process of learning is boring, it is difficult for learners to focus and consume information. This is the worst thing that may crumble the total success of your online curriculum.Let’s check out some popular ways of keeping the students engaged:InteractionOne way of keeping the audience interested is used in offline lectures when the lecturer asks questions. The same approach can be implemented in eLearning by asking students questions during the video and making quizzes.GamificationAnother, complex and interesting method is gamification. Accept it or not but we are obsessed with games in one way or the other.Community cooperationsOne more method of students engagement is through collaboration and interaction with the help of forums, Lessons discussion sections, In-platform private messaging, Peer material sharing.Define Your LMS RequirementsBefore you purchase any product, check to see what the actual requirements are in your institution. If you already have a system running in your institution, you should also check to see if that solution does improve your institution’s flexibility and provide necessary help for your colleagues. Take those list of requirements with you while you enter into the next step.User and course management -(registration, user roles, course creation process)Learning models (self-paced, instructor-led, blended learning, webinars)Support and creation of learning content (Content types: PDFs, docs, MP3s, MP4s, SCORM, AICC; interactive courses, quizzes, and conversation simulations; gamification, etc.)Analytics and reports (learner activity reports, general reports, reports customization, etc.)Payment systems (International payments support, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Stripe)White-labeling and customizationCertificates (does the system provide certificates if you need to generate them)Security (where data is stored, how users should receive logins and passwords and authenticate into the system, and who can have access to what data)Integration with other systems and services (email marketing, CRM, systems)PricingExplore the Market and Evaluate ProvidersWhile you evaluate the products on your shortlist based on your requirements and key features keep these points in mind for better evaluation strategy:FunctionalityTechnical stability and securityCompany overviewCompany brand values and growthUse-case scenarios, how your teachers and staff will use it.Check other customers and references for the firmFinancial analysis, including the pricing for the product and recurring fees for updates and requirement additions.Service and product supportThe DemoOnce you have made your shortlist, contact those companies for a detailed demo. Make sure to check the availability of key decision-makers and technical experts in your institution in order to get the most detailed insight from the demo.Here is the list of top LMSHope this might help.

Distributed learning could be a huge new development - see What is the newest innovation in online learning?1: Replace traditional lectures with tutorials and problem solving. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/science/13teach.html provides an excellent overview of an experiment conducted by Carl E. Wiemann (a Nobel laureate), showing that students taking tutorial-based courses under inexperienced TAs score higher than students taking traditional lecture courses under experienced professors. As an ACM article (http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2007/7/5613-games-for-science-and-engineering-education/fulltext) says...For example, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is a seasoned assessment tool used to evaluate learning in introductory physics classes in U.S. high schools, community colleges, and universities. The degree of learning obtained via a particular mode of instruction is quantified by the <g> score on the FCI, calculated as:<g> = (posttest% − pretest%)/(100% − pretest%).When analyzed, the results of a 6,542-student meta-study involving 62 introductory physics classes across the U.S. at about 20 high schools, colleges, and universities showed conclusively that <g> is 0.23 ± 0.04 for courses taught in the conventional lecture mode; <g> = 0.48 ± 0.14 for courses in which students have at least some kind of "interactive engagement" [4]. What is surprising about this result is not that mass lectures are an intrinsically poor learning vehicle but that the quality of the lecturer matters not at all. Even a superb, highly entertaining lecturer appears to make little difference to the depth of understanding achieved by students.It would appear that the primary advantage of the lecture format is not pedagogical but economical. Having one salaried teacher/professor instructing many students in parallel makes it possible to provide sophisticated technical education at an affordable price point. Needed is a medium that provides similar cost-effectiveness but with the ability to retain rather than alienate learners.Furthermore, it's an enormous waste of time and resources when a teacher (or professor) has to practically give the same lecture several times a day to each individual class. It would be much more productive if students were given an environment where they could do tutorial sessions on their own, and be guided by instructors and TAs (and also be given the opportunity to watch the very best lectures on a given subject, AND use the very best textbooks on a given subject). In fact, it would even provide an excellent employment opportunity for many with limited training, if we had more education funding. It's really a win-win situation here - rather than use education funds to prevent students from learning as well as they could learn if they were simply homeschooled on zero taxpayer dollars, the money could be put to extremely good use this way. And all the teachers would keep their jobs. [1]With tutorials, students could even socialize with each other more (if they want to do so). People often say that "people should go to school to socialize with each other", but in reality, they're not socializing for the vast majority of the time they spend sitting.Interestingly enough - the Economist just ran a piece saying almost the same thing a few months after I wrote this - see http://www.economist.com/node/21529062. The basic synopsis of the article: instead of lectures at school and homework at home - why not have lectures at home and homework at school? (where it also really reduce inequality among students in different home environments too!)Online tutorials can easily be integrated with computer programs. There are numerous computer programs available for each K-12 subject - it's just that they're so dispersed that no one knows where they are, and no one knows which ones are "better" than the others. In fact, there are some very excellent programs like SuperCharged, which have been proved to increase test scores among MIT undergraduates taking electromagnetism, and it's a tremendous loss that it's not available anywhere else (and MIT doesn't even seem to continue using it for some reason). See http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1149189Also, see (paywalled articles, sadly) http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2007/7/5614-how-to-build-serious-games/fulltext and http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2007/7/5613-games-for-science-and-engineering-education/fulltextI'll attach the good quotes to the footer [2]Also, see the NAP report on "Learning Science Through Computer Games and Simulations": http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13078 and http://onthespiral.com/principles-disruptive-learning-environments also provides some more nice analysis:Coaching and Mentoring Replace TeachingThe explicit information we all learned in school is ubiquitously available on the internet. The traditional teacher who lectures to a group in order to convey this information is obsolete. In environments that encourage learning by doing, we need coaches rather than teachers. We need people who observe us in action, correct our mistakes, and point us in the right direction. We need mentors who have the experience to help us formulate the questions we don’t yet know how to ask.More to look at:http://fnoschese.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/khan-academy-my-final-remarks/http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_khan/all/1 (and the first comment to that article)Also...http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110808104521.htmScienceDaily (Aug. 8, 2011) — Self-directed learning has long been heralded as the key to successful education. Yet until now, there has been little research into this theory. Educational researchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) have now shown that schoolchildren can independently develop strategies for solving complex mathematical tasks, with weaker students proving just as capable as their stronger class mates.2: Integrate a novel means of test-taking into the curriculum. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/science/21memory.html shows that test-taking is better at cementing knowledge than traditional lectures. Certainly, there are many complaints about the way many tests are administered today. But there are so many possible test questions on any subject that are available today (just look at all the Princeton Review, Kaplan, CliffNotes, SparkNotes, Schaum's, and Barron's books on the market), that you really can't run out of test bank questions. In fact, you can integrate these tests *into* the tutorials I've mentioned in point (1) above, where students take tests at their own pace (they don't have to be graded on every test), and then get a score, and then check over their questions and mistakes with an instructor/TA.Tutorials would also help students learn at their own pace. Absolutely no tracking would be required, and gifted students wouldn't be held back from learning at their optimal pace - they could even learn calculus at age 12 if they wanted to do so. There are many problems that tracking has on disadvantaged students (that you can read at http://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Track-Schools-Structure-Inequality/dp/0300037252), but at the same time, detracking has many issues, and is effectively institutional torture to our brightest and most promising students.3: Integrate our newest findings of cognitive psychology into the curriculum. See this very excellent post on Quora: Lawrence Kurnarsky's answer to What are some of the biggest problems with public education in America?And this EDGE response:http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_10.html#bharucha4: Vouchers for educational materials (that schools or students can use). This would actually help introduce competition into the textbook (and online tutorial) market, so that the price of textbooks can finally go down. And it would help introduce innovation.Also, students would learn better if they actually knew about all the educational resources and options that were really available for them. But in many cases, they're socialized into believing that their school's education is the best education for them, and fail to find the best resources available for advancing their own education (their parents often find these opportunities, but unfortunately, only privileged students have parents who are willing to do that). And it's sad, because the truth is - that any student - rich or poor, could easily find the best possible learning resources for free, if these resources were somehow more available on the Internet. I've collected a long list of them at Collection of educational resources for the sciences . But I would prefer it if someone else could do it, and distribute it in a way that it were easily accessible to anyone else.[1] I'm not sure how much the economics would scale - but it is something I'm thinking about. One tutor can only handle so many students. At the same time, however, computer tutorials could *really* decrease the costs of monitoring. And let students opt out if they choose to do so - resources aren't completely infinite, so maybe give a small reward to them (which is still less than the cost it takes to educate each pupil) if they can show that they can do it better by themselves without needing any state-funded resources.[2]The gradation in learning outcomes between traditional lectures, Web-based experiences, and immersive games was captured in a 2001 study [8] that measured learning outcomes from a virtual-world-based geology game called Geography Explorer and a virtual-world-based biology game called Virtual Cell. The researchers then compared these outcomes against both Web-based presentation of the material and traditional classroom lectures. Lectures produced the lowest learning outcomes, as measured by a graded test. The Web-presented information increased these outcomes by a margin that ranged from not statistically significant (geology) to 13%–30% (cell biology). The games increased learning outcomes by 15%–40% (Geography Explorer) and 30%–63% (Virtual Cell), compared to the lecture format. These outcomes suggest it is not merely visual representation but active engagement that stimulates improved learningAs a sign of things to come, the creators of a commercially developed algebra game calledDimenxian in 2005 commissioned the Princeton Review, a test education and preparation company (www.princetonreview.com/home.asp), to evaluate the game's learning effectiveness, in collaboration with the Harlem Children's Zone and the Grid Lab at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. In the study of 75 students (tabuladigita.com/ugroups.php?s2=2&s3=0), playing Dimenxian reportedly increased students' algebra knowledge by one grade level (such as from B to A). Underachieving students increased their test scores by as many as three grade levels by playing the game.For example, a numerical methods course taught using a race-car game as the "homework" resulted in students spending roughly twice the time working on the course outside of class compared to other mechanical engineering courses. The professor of this undergraduate course, Brianno Coller of Northern Illinois University, notes that the time was spent willingly; about 80% of the students went on to take the advanced numerical methods course.The principles of science and engineering can be taught not only by playing games but by designing games. In Brianno Coller's race car game/numerical methods course described earlier, students taking the game version of the course had to apply their numerical methods knowledge to programming virtual cars to navigate a virtual race track. In a parallel, non-game-playing version of the course, students instead performed textbook exercises throughout the semester. At the end of the year, Coller asked both sets of students to draw concept maps of what they had learned. Game design/playing and non-game-design/playing students were equally able to recall the major topics learned in class and the names of techniques within each topic. In other words, both groups could reproduce the equivalent of a table of contents in a numerical methods textbook. But for game designers, significant improvement was observed in the number of defining features they could ascribe to a main topic (0.494 vs. 0.145 features/topic, p<0.001) and the number of connections they could make between techniques learned (0.82 vs. 0.02 connections/concept map, p<0.001). The game design exercises did not change the breadth of the content learned but did significantly increase the depth and complexity of what was learned.In one study [11], a middle school class was divided into two groups. The first (the control group, 32 students) learned electrostatics through interactive lectures, experiments, observations, and teacher demonstrations. The second group (58 students), with the same teacher, mostly played an electrostatics game called Supercharged during class time while also receiving lectures and handouts. The 32 in the control group improved their understanding by 15% over their pre-test scores; those who played the game improved their understanding by 28%. Much more impressive was how the simulation contributed to girls' achievement; among girls, the control group improved on their pre-test scores by only 5% and the game group by 23%. A disturbing conclusion is that, at least in this study, lectures alone did nothing for girls.Some more info:User-9918985937555143421's answer to Should we shut down the U.S. Department of Education?Will lecture-style teaching at universities become obsolete? If so, what will replace lectures?

It’s not a bad idea but you probably overestimate the value of both training programs. Here’s my take on the question.Studying from Multiple ResourcesThe good news is that studying a certain topic from 2–3 sources simultaneously is not a bad thing. That’s what I used to do back in the day when preparing training materials for new frameworks, libraries, or tools.Trainers (also book authors, bloggers, industry experts) take different approaches while teaching a course. There are various paths available, leading to the same result.For instance, the first time I read “Thinking in Java” by Bruce Eckel was a nightmare. I couldn’t grasp the OOP examples they started with. I had no clue what events, components, messages were in his book. That kept haunting me while I was going through the rest of the book.Reading it several years later was a no-brainer. It was simply not my first “go-to” resource (based on my skills and experience back then).I co-authored a book on Java programming which is unfortunately not available in English. Our approach was covering OOP at a later point and asking readers to “memorize” the basic required syntax of defining a class and the main method and focusing on the programming essentials (before proceeding with functions and later with classes).That resonated with our study book and most people managed to go through the curriculum without being blocked by the paradigms of the object-oriented programming.A Core Java course I took a while ago really helped me bootstrap my career. I’ve shared the detailed overview of the program in Mario Peshev's answer to Which is the best project a beginner programmer can make?SoloLearn and FreeCodeCampThe problem with both MOOC platforms is that they don’t put too much emphasis on exercises.In all honesty, that would be quite challenging to implement in an automated system - or will require manual reviewers on a payroll reading homework assignments and the like. We’ve done that in two of the training academies I was working with - but students were paying for tutoring, lab exercises, reviews.I’ve seen both courses and they do a good job reviewing the syntax of both languages. But being able to read Arabic or Cyrillic doesn’t mean that you can communicate in Arabic or Russian.Language syntax is merely the core foundation of various paradigms, design patterns, common algorithms and best practices when building a complete application. And the application development is a broader process that includes data management (with a relational or a NoSQL database), transferring data through different APIs, managing user activities, tackling performance and scalability issues… the list goes on.Professional developers are paid to solve business problems with code. Translating business requirements to technical paradigms is what software engineering is all about. Simply learning the syntax means nothing until you build several applications from scratch and make sense of the entire software development life cycle.Java and JavaScriptLearning Java and JavaScript simultaneously is fine, although it may not necessarily be applicable in your day-to-day.JavaScript is widely used as a front-end layer throughout web applications using different back-end languages - such as PHP, Python, Ruby, C#, Java as well. You can switch to a MEAN stack relying on Node.js and work entirely with JavaScript, too.But most JS developers are not expected to program in Java at the same time. There are probably some exceptions in full-stack Java developers, but I won’t say that’s extremely common.Same goes for Java developers. Java is an extremely powerful multipurpose language suitable for all sorts of applications - desktop, web, mobile, embedded, etc. On top of that, many web application framework rely on self-generated front-end (or at least JavaScript).When I was programming in Google Web Toolkit, the front-end was generated by GWT itself (based on Java code and some UI builders). In JSF, we used Trinidad or Tobago, handling even basic CSS activities like dropdown menus and other dynamic front-end components like autosuggest fields and sorting tables using AJAX to handle data through the model layer of the application.Focusing on either language for a start may be a better investment of your time.More importantly, make sure you actually practice your skills. Syntax means nothing unless you can build an application.