Modules within Modules

[kristi_levy]

As we move toward Personalized Learning we are beginning to feel boxed in by the linear design of Course Modules.  Many teachers would like the Course Modules to look more like the Course listing in the new UI (Tiles rather than lists) AND have the functionality to have Modules within Modules.  This would allow for MANY more options for student Voice, Choice and Pacing options!

Comments from Instructure

Please refer to our comment from the product team. 

[kristi_levy]

Agreed, Corey. We are not proposing an endless layering of Modules. Of course, that would get very messy. We do however see immense benefit in one sub-layer to support Personalized Learning.

[kmeeusen]

 @corey_jeffers  &  @kristi_levy ​:

For me it is a matter of "How do you get the horses back in, once the barn door is open?" First one layer deep, then the next rounds of requests are supported by something along the lines of, "Our personalized learning strategy is too complex for just one layer to support!"

I think it would be much better if the existing module structure could support redirecting based on low scores, along with the current restriction system based on minimum scores.

KLM

[scottdennis]

Now you're talking about robust conditional release! 

[Stef_retired]

Now you're talking about robust conditional release!

Argh, that's what I thought I was voting for here.

[kmeeusen]

Yes, yes I am!

As in this "In Development" example @Canvas Studio: Conditional Release

KLM

[scottdennis]

Canvas Studio: Conditional Release

[awarmar]

We would also love one level of sub-modules--hope enough votes were cast!

[GideonWilliams]

As a school just implementing Canvas, the inability to create sub modules was the one thing about which our staff raised most concern.

Whilst I appreciate many of the points raised previously, there are a number of reasons why I think at least  one sub/inter/micro modules has a place.

For every subject, we have our individual classes as sections. This allows us to create course material that is common to all as well as differentiated assignments for different teaching groups. One limitation of Canvas is that it is not possible to assign content (pages, links etc) or entire Modules to sections. By developing sub Modules we could create material that is particular to another group. A real strength to Canvas is the flexible nature of the platform, the fact that it is forward facing and allows teachers to openly share resources.

By having sub modules with suitable requirements you could also create a range of personalised paths for learning. What is more, if badges are developed, you could create hierarchical systems that allow learners opportunities to try extension work or develop skills beyond the core tasks. This would also help support move to gamification of learning...

I have put in an idea for which I think would solve many issues. Please take a look at it. I think it is a fairly simple suggestion but has HUGE pedagogical impact.

[admin_brake]

For some of our programs, the content is not linear. Providing the ability for instructors to create content in "blocks", and allow the students to start on any of the modules would better match the needs of these areas of study.

[kristi_levy]

I couldn't agree more! As we work toward personalization, students have FAR more flexibility to determine their path through the curriculum. I believe you will see continued reform in education that makes the linear model of curriculum delivery less and less relevant. Linear deliver is teacher focused, not student focused.

[GideonWilliams]

Spot on Kristi!

My message from Day 1 to staff is that if Canvas is to be successful and have an impact then it must be FORWARD FOCUSED - resources designed for the benefit of learners. Its represents a key shift in approach for many teachers and one that has to be managed effectively.

Ideas such as this one and Hiding and Viewing Modules for Individual Sections support staff and give them the confidence to move away from current roles. Lets hope others think so too and back the message.

[ronmarx]

I just raised this issue with Instructure, and they referred me to this thread. As we investigate and design course templates, this issue raised to the top right away. It's a GREAT idea and, in our opinion, really needs to get done. We're improvising using simple CSS code, but this is a design feature that should be made to ordinary (non-coding) teachers because it showcases the very interface culture Canvas promotes by its (still evolving) look and feel.

[ahardesty]

Even though this issue is closed I wanted to comment. Having at least one level of submodules would be a HUGE help to us with how we structure our courses. We are coming from D2L where we were able to do several levels of submodules. It is a great help in organizing course content, and when done correctly it helps faculty and students with understanding the layout of a course. In D2L we primarily used the submodules to outline the course. Lesson modules would be placed within larger Unit modules.

EXAMPLE:

Unit 1 (level one module)

• Lesson 1.1 (submodule)
• Lesson 1.2 (submodule)
• Lesson 1.3 (submodule)

Unit 2 (level one module)

• Lesson 2.1 (submodule)
• Lesson 2.2 (submodule)
• Lesson 2.3 (submodule)

Not only did this provide a framework it also made it clear that the Lesson Modules were all tied together and were part of a greater whole. In certain situations where we didn't use Units and simply had 16 individual Topic modules (which was true for certain courses) we could have submodules that broke up the content below them.

I would also love to see submodules in order to reduce some of the scrolling that we have to do on the  Modules page. When you have 16 lesson or topic modules there is a lot of scrolling in order to access the later modules.

I really like the idea mentioned above of making the level modules into tiles (similar to the current Canvas Dashboard). Especially if we could add images to the tiles.

[GideonWilliams]

Such important points. Engagement with users and staff is  critical for continued success of a VLE. To this end, improving the functionality and usability are key features. Hoping that the response to the hiding module idea has more success and allowing resources to be targeted to sections. A lot has come on with the use of elearning and the demands of the individual consumer are much grater and more varied. The platform needs to respond to this....

[scottdennis]

You can indent content within a module to denote various levels.  I wonder if adding the ability to indent the modules and the top level rather than hiding/unhiding to denote level would be an easier, more palatable change to make?

[ronmarx]

Scott, as  @ahardesty ​ understood from her application of experience with D2L, my idea applies not only to modules, but also to assignments, and pages. We want Canvas to treat modules as true objects that enclose the items within it, including sub-modules. When you reorder a module, all its enclosed items move too, right? So too should developers be able to create sub-modules (or folders, or sub-directories, whatever you want to call them) within modules to reorder, reassign, or delete. Currently, this can only be done on an item-by-item basis. Although indenting gives the appearance of grouping, it's cosmetic only. You can't grab a text heading and move it AND expect its indented items to move with it. That can only be done in the most tedious way possible: item by item.

Whatever we can do with modules, so too we should be able to do with Pages. Multiple pages oftentimes refer t related topics, and we should be able to group them in folders, and nested folders. Currently, in the Assignments area, Canvas allows for grouping. It doesn't, however, allow sub-grouping. This full range of manipulation should be standard across the Canvas environment. It's current application is uneven at best.

As we're discussing these ideas in fine detail, sometimes a healthy, productive debate, it allows me to succeed in explaining what I may not have explained succinctly enough in the first instance. I hope you see the utility of such a grouping feature across the entire Canvas environment and VOTE UP for Selecting Multiple Content Items in Modules so the Canvas engineers can finally implement it. It will save both developers and teachers a great deal of time, and make Canvas more competitive against many other LMS products that have this feature built into their entire system.

Cheers,

iRon_Mrx

[GideonWilliams]

Super post..

[kmeeusen]

Marx:

While I like the idea of true content grouping and containerization with the ability to move all containerized content at the same time, I am fundamentally opposed to submodules, subfolders, and subdirectories for accessibility reasons. These things make navigation a nightmare for users using screen reader technologies, and for users with certain learning disabilities. The underlying subfolders/modules/directories whatever would need to be invisible to the end user and provide a logical navigation path both forward through the content and backwards to the content sources. Most course builder - faculty - lack the necessary skills to accomplish this. Our old LMS had this capability and the frequent complaints were centered around not know where they were, nor how to easily get back, and these from enabled users. Many publisher-sponsered learning sites use this type of nested structure with similar concerns expressed by students - "it kept sending me to different pages, and I couldn't figure out how to get back to the pages I was studying." Some commercial content does a good job of this, but they expend the resources to structure this well. Something I doubt the average school can afford to do.

Furthermore, utilizing this type of capability effectively requires considerable more build time. Build time is expensive and school do not have that money, their teachers do not have that time. Building in our old LMS required me to carefully construct complicated pathways using navigation links to keep the navigation logical and consistent. Often, I would have to create elaborate flow-maps to track the structure. While these exercises provided a wonderful opportunity to hone my building skills, they were quite time consuming, and not replicable by my faculty, meaning that all changes had to be made by myself. Even in Canvas, there is a lot I can do by being creative with coding and content links; but again, they are not replicable by my faculty so I limit this to professional development courses I maintain myself.

Truly, simplicity is best and it is best for both the learner and the course builder.

KLM

[ronmarx]

Kelley,

We have to agree to disagree on this one. Developers and teachers can misuse ANY functions within an LMS, that doesn't mean we should have the ability to containerize (as you put it).

Where I"m coming from is here: Outline a chapter in a textbook. It's a common, easy and yes, sometimes misused way of collecting main ideas and creating strong logical or sequential paths that makes it easier to learn the subject. This is how the organizational features within modules, pages, assignments should work too. I usually don't have more than 2-3 levels in any outline I write, and I wouldn't violate that operation in Canvas either. Even if most people did what you premise your response upon, after a few missteps like that and they would learn to create more useful outlines.

When I can move headline around in the Modules area and the children-level items stay put, I know something's amiss! Working on the meta-level shouldn't require one work-around after another. If you like the pseudo-ordering function of Canvas just the way it is, deploying folders wouldn't affect the way you work anyway. I'm puzzled why you would be against something that would have no effect on your work routine. Having the ability to group, reorder and manipulate collections of Canvas objects would make me so much more efficient, and can be easily replicable without resorting to esoteric solutions as you suggested. A related feature would be the ability to select more than one item at a time for modification and manipulation. See my idea   up for voting now.

Quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum.

i_Ron

[kmeeusen]

Hi Marx:

Oh I agree about the utility of your idea for seasoned instructional designers, but I administer the LMS and support faculty. Faculty are seldom instructional designers and seldom want to be instructional designers, even when the reality is that they are instructional designers. This means that this type of functionality would either be useless for many of them, and misused by many more. The risk of impact on accessibility is just not worth the complicating factors for me. I have seen too many very bad examples.

We must agree to disagree.

KLM