Searching for "clickers"

Classroom Response System CRS or clickers: questions to vendors

Good evening,

We are pleased to inform you that your classroom response system is chosen as final candidate for campus-wide adoption/support at St. Cloud State University. Should you be interested in pursuing this opportunity, we invite you to respond to the attached list of questions and to prepare a brief presentation for members of the selection committee and interested faculty/staff.

The deadline for responding to the questions is 12:00 pm (CST), Tuesday, April 9. This deadline will allow us to review the responses in time for the vendor presentations on Thursday, April 11, 11AM-1PM. The presentations will be held virtually via Adobe Connect: http://media4.stcloudstate.edu/scsu. Please let us know, if you need to test and familiarize yourself with the presentation platform.

The presentation should be no more than 10 minutes long, followed by 10 minutes for follow-up questions. We suggest that you focus on the highlights of your system, presuming a moderately knowledgeable audience. We may follow up via email or telephone call prior to making our final selection.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Classroom Response System Taskforce:
Dr. Anthony Hansen
Dr. Michael Rentz
Dr. Joseph Melcher
Dr. Andrew Anda
Dr. Tracy Ore
Dr. Jack McKenna
Dr. Plamen Miltenoff

 

Questions to vendor
1. Is your system proprietary as far as the handheld device and the operating system software?
2. Describe the scalability of your system, from small classes (20-30) to large auditorium classes. (500+).
3. Is your system receiver/transmitter based, wi-fi based, or other?
4. What is the usual process for students to register a “CRS”(or other device) for a course? List all of the possible ways a student could register their device. Could a campus offer this service rather than through your system? If so, how?
5. Once a “CRS” is purchased  can it be used for as long as the student is enrolled in classes? Could “CRS” purchases be made available through the campus bookstore? Once a student purchases a “clicker” are they able to transfer ownership when finished with it?
6. Will your operating software integrate with other standard database formats? If so, list which ones.
7. Describe the support levels you provide. If you offer maintenance agreements, describe what is covered.
8. What is your company’s history in providing this type of technology? Provide a list of higher education clients.
9. What measures does your company take to insure student data privacy? Is your system in compliance with FERPA and the Minnesota Data Practices Act? (https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=13&view=chapter)
10. What personal data does your company collect on students and for what purpose? Is it shared or sold to others? How is it protected?
11. Do any of your business partners collect personal information about students that use your technology?
12. With what formats can test/quiz questions be imported/exported?
13. List compatible operating systems (e.g., Windows, Macintosh, Palm, Android)?
14. What are the total costs to students including device costs and periodic or one-time operation costs
15. Describe your costs to the institution.
16. Describe how your software integrates with PowerPoint or other presentation systems.
17. State your level of integration with Desire2Learn (D2L)?

Does the integration require a server or other additional equipment the campus must purchase?

18. How does your company address disability accommodation for your product?
19. Does your software limit the number of answers per question in tests or quizzes? If so, what is the max question limit?
20. Does your software provide for integrating multimedia files? If so, list the file format types supported.
21. What has been your historic schedule for software releases and what pricing mechanism do you make available to your clients for upgrading?
22. Describe your “CRS”(s).
23. If applicable, what is the average life span of a battery in your device and what battery type does it take?
24. Does your system automatically save upon shutdown?
25. What is your company’s projection/vision for this technology in the near and far term.
26. Does any of your software/apps require administrator permission to install?
27. If your system is radio frequency based, what frequency spectrum does it operate in? If the system operate in the 2.4-2.5 ghz. spectrum, have you tested to insure that smart phones, wireless tablet’s and laptops and 2.4 ghz. wireless phones do not affect your system? If so, what are the results of those tests?
28. What impact to the wireless network does the solution have?
29. Can the audience response system be used spontaneously for polling?
30. Can quiz questions and response distributions be imported and exported from and to plaintext or a portable format? (motivated by assessment & accreditation requirements).
31. Is there a requirement that a portion of the course grade be based on the audience response system?

 

 

 

—————-

Plamen Miltenoff, Ph.D., MLIS

Professor

204-J James W. Miller Center

Learning Resources and Technology Services

720 Fourth Avenue South

St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498

320-308-3072

pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/faculty/

“I am not strange, I am just not normal.” Salvador Dali

 

Clickers (Classroom Response System)

what kind of clickers are you using?

what kind of clickers are you familiar with?

what qualities in clickers do you find useful, necessary, obligatory for your course[s]?

At the moment SCSU is still considering eInstruction http://www.einstruction.com/ as its default clicker system (clickers sold in the Bookstore)

However, faculty on campus are slowly adopting other systems:

http://iresponseapp.com/features/

http://www.turningtechnologies.com

https://www.tophatmonocle.com/

http://www.polleverywhere.com/

while each of these systems appeal differenetly to different faculty from different disciplines, having a standard, campus-wide clicker system has also strong advantages.

 

TopHat and textbook publishers

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-02-04-top-hat-raises-55-million-to-take-on-big-textbook-publishers

Mike Silagadze isn’t shy about his desire to take market share from the largest college textbook publishers through his classroom software company Top Hat. He believes his company’s brand of digital textbooks beats anything Pearson, McGraw-Hill and their ilk can provide.

Founded in 2009, Top Hat claims that 2.7 million students access its digital course materials, including those at 750 of the top 1,000 higher education institutions in North America.

Silagadze believes younger faculty members and future generations of college students will help drive institutions to adopt digital materials instead of print.

Top Hat has challenged tangible goods for a long time now. Its first offering was a digital version of clickers to measure student responses in the classroom. In 2017, the company launched a marketplace for e-textbooks, working with authors and offering openly licensed content from the likes of OpenStax as well.

Last year, the company ceased sales of individual assessment tools to instead offer a bundle of its products. Students pay $48 for one year of Top Hat’s products. Interactive textbooks on Top Hat cost an average of $35.

++++++++++
more on Top Hat in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=tophat

100 tech debacles of the decade

http://hackeducation.com/2019/12/31/what-a-shitshow

1. Anti-School Shooter Software

4. “The Year of the MOOC” (2012)

6. “Everyone Should Learn to Code”

8. LAUSD’s iPad Initiative (2013)

9. Virtual Charter Schools

10. Google for Education

14. inBloom. The Shared Learning Collaborative (2011)

17. Test Prep

20. Predictive Analytics

22. Automated Essay Grading

25. Peter Thiel

26. Google Glass

32. Common Core State Standards

44. YouTube, the New “Educational TV”

48. The Hour of Code

49. Yik Yak

52. Virtual Reality

57. TurnItIn (and the Cheating Detection Racket) (my note: repeating the same for years: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=turnitin)

59. Clayton Christensen’s Predictions
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=clayton

61. Edmodo. http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=edmodo

62. Edsurge

64. Alexa at School

65. Apple’s iTextbooks (2011)

67. UC Berkeley Deletes Its Online Lectures. ADA

72. Chatbot Instructors. IBM Watson “AI” technology (2016)

81. Interactive Whiteboards (my note: repeating the same for years: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=smartboard)

82. “The End of Library” Stories (and the Software that Seems to Support That)

86. Badges

89. Clickers

90. “Ban Laptops” Op-Eds (my note: collecting pros and cons for years: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/04/03/use-of-laptops-in-the-classroom/)

92. “The Flipped Classroom”

93. 3D Printing

100. The Horizon Report

Future of Libraries with Instructional Design

Library 2.019 virtual mini-conference, “Shaping the Future of Libraries with Instructional Design

Wednesday, March 13th, from 12:00 – 3:00 pm US Pacific Daylight Time (click https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Library+2.019+ID&iso=20190313T12&p1=283&ah=3 to see in your local time zone).

Here are the links to the recordings of the sessions:
https://www.library20.com/page/recordings-id (you must be logged in)

This is a free event, thanks to our founding conference sponsor: School of Information at San José State University.

ATTENDING: We will send links for attending the conference a day or two before the event.

If you have friends or colleagues that wish to attend, this is a free event and we encourage you to share our information widely. However, please send them to the conference registration page (https://www.library20.com/instructionaldesign) rather than giving them the above link directly as it will allow us to track participation.

https://www.library20.com/instructionaldesign

https://www.library20.com/forum/categories/library-2-019-instructional-design-accepted-submissions/listForCategory

#library2019 #libraryid

Dana Bryant

Sandy Hirsch, SJSU School of Information.

Steven Bell, John Shank – integrating ID into practice. blended librarianship.

critical mass of librarians doing ID and libraries hiring IDs.

Michael Flierl
Assistant Professor of Library Science, Purdue University

Dana Bryant
Lead Instructional Technologist for Academic Technology Services, Woodruff Library, at Emory University

Lindsay O’Neill
Faculty, California State University, Fullerton’s Master of Science in Instructional Design and Technology Program

Steven J. Bell (moderator)

Associate University Librarian for Research and Instructional Services at Temple University

https://www.library20.com/page/library-2-0-schedule-gmt-4

What is ID: ID create an environment conductive to students’ success. Thoughtful and applied design. Making faculty and instructors’ life easier. Allow faculty to do what they do best.

Lindsey: solving the instructional problem with the tools at hand.

go-to ed tech? What is the hot tech right now?

Lindsey: H5P (open source) CC – licensed, Moodle, WordPress, build online tutorials for free (Isolde), Norway, well based, VR tours. Will H5P become paid? Michael: cell phones Dana: Emory VoiceThread. From the chat: Articulate365 (pricy), Kahoot, Peardeck, Yellowdig, vidgrid, Adobe Spark, Adobe POst, padlet, Groupme instead of Canvas, Vyond, Coggle, wakelet, Phinx

Suggestions for librarians who want to build ID skills. Dana: connect with the regional community if no ID on campus. Community of practice. Using ID tools, speakers outside of campus. Lindsey: teaching myself what is most interesting to me. what technologies are important. Find a learning community. Michael: repeat the others

keep up to date on ID theory and practices: Dana – ELI, OLC (Online Learning Consortium). ELearning Heroes. Lindsay: corporate word. Michael: POD

the one-shot instruction: what is the approach (q/n from the chat); Dana – ID as a services. person dedicated following up with people requested either ID class or training, open the line of communication. summative evaluation type of activity since we are failing to evaluate how well students absorbed the information. LIndsey: one-shot for basics (e.g. freshman), build scaffold program, reserved the one shot for meeting with librarians, for hands-on. Michael: work with faculty member and rewrite a program, build assessment rather then only deliver

areas of impact: subject matter librarians, working with faculty to use of the library resources, new faculty drawn in info and if not follow up, Canvas support.  Michael: librarians and ID working directly with faculty rewriting their curricula, measure it, demonstrating library need, 3000 students – correlation. document the lib contribution to student learning directly, the teaching-learning culture change. using info and data in more authentic ways. Lindsey: disconnect the way librarian teach vs faculty teach. Coordination scaffolding.

q/n from the chat. easily. how can non ID librarian can easily implement ID type:
Lindsey: new to ID? Google. Jargon and Acronyms. re framing how you see ed technology. technology as something to get the job done. no need to get fancy.
Dana: same as Lindsey. But also learning theories and learning outcomes. From ID perspective: what they will come out with by the end of the session. action words.
Michael: mindset. what students want to learn, before what I will teach. backward design – understanding by design. UDL. Grab a friend and talk through.
Tara

ed tech is not getting job done:
clickers for attendance is horrible idea.

 

from the chat:

Dee Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning1

https://www.byui.edu/outcomes-and-assessment-old/the-basics/step-1-articulate-outcomes/dee-finks-taxonomy-of-significant-learning

https://www.alt.ac.uk/

Association of Talent Development

Christy Tucker’s blog – Experiencing E-Learning

https://www.issotl.com/2019

https://e-learning.zeef.com/tracy.parish

https://www.lib.umich.edu/blogs/tiny-studies/using-pilot-study-test-and-assess-new-instruction-model

http://suny.edu/emtech

I had a really interesting role in grad school where we lived in the land between tech support and pedagogical / design support.

From Rajesh Kumar Das to All panelists and other attendees: (02:38 PM)
Good to hear from mike about affective learning. In this case, could you please focus what kind of technique is approprite for what, i.e. Didactic instruction, a low-complexity teaching technique such as a “Quiz Bowl”, or Jigsaw Method as high-complexity strategy, or both.

From Hailey W. to All panelists and other attendees: (02:36 PM)
As an ID librarian and the campus LMS administrator I struggle with getting them to see that other side of my role. That I’m not just “tech support”. Anyone else? Een jsut not being tech support?

From Vickie Kline to All panelists and other attendees: (02:44 PM)
As a librarian not formally trained in ID, I think a good entry point for exploring is Universal Design for Learning. We also need to pay attention to creating accessibility materials…

From Heather Quintero to All panelists and other attendees: (02:45 PM)
I always start with ADDIE… I am formally trained in ID and am an IT trainer for librarians. ADDIE is a framework for every class I make for both live and online classes. Don’t disregard ADDIE.

From Allison Rand to All panelists and other attendees: (02:47 PM)
The Wiggins and McTighe is a great book!

ADDIE Model

From Shane to All panelists and other attendees: (02:48 PM)
++SLIS open-source course on Instructional Design for Library Instruction

From Wendy to All panelists and other attendees: (02:49 PM)
Char Booth’s USER is also a very good model

http://www.modernlearning.com

https://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/Crouch_Mazur.pdf

From Roberta (Robin) Sullivan to All panelists and other attendees: (02:53 PM)
@Rachel, Peggy, Shane – an open source course is available. Check out the SUNY’s Quality by Design (QbD): Strategies for Effective Teaching and Quality Course Design at: http://suny.edu/qbd This course is available as a facilitated version at least once each semester and as a self-paced non-facilitated version in Blackboard’s CourseSites. After completing the course requirements you can earn a Digital Badge to show your accomplishment.

From Naomi Toftness to All panelists and other attendees: (02:55 PM)
Just heard the terms “deliberate innovation” vs. “desperate innovation” that totally speaks to my situation with wanting to adopt the new cool tech

++++++++++++++++++++++
BB screenshotSESSION LINK – https://sas.elluminate.com/d.jnlp?sid=2008350&password=LIB2019IDPart7 — If the session link doesn’t work for you, please copy and paste into your browser.

Session Title: Gamifying Instruction: Breakouts and Badges!

Your Name and Title: Dr. Brenda Boyer, Librarian & Instructor

Your Library, School, or Organization Name: Kutztown Sr. High School, Rutgers University

Your Twitter Handle (@name): @bsboyer

Name(s) of Co-Presenter(s): Brenda Boyer

Area of the World from Which You Will Present: Kutztown, PA

Language in Which You Will Present: English

Target Audience: Instructional Design Librarians

Short Session Description: Build engagement for your online library instruction using LMS features, Breakout boxes, and digital badges.

Session Strand (use the “tag”): {Session Strand (use the “tag”):}

Full Session Description: It’s time to amp up your library instruction! Gamifying instruction in research skills such as database usage, advanced searching, & more can increase engagement and drive independent learning for students of all ages. This session will describe how learning management system (LMS) features can be combined with digital microcredentials (i.e. badges) and breakout boxes to gamify instruction that can be otherwise deemed boring (for both the learners and the librarian!).

Link to Conference Site Session Proposal (full URL with http://): https://www.library20.com/forum/topics/gamifying-instruction-breakouts-and-badges

Other Websites / URLs Associated with Your Session:

Your Bio: Dr. Brenda Boyer is a librarian and instructional designer. She has developed online instruction for secondary learners in the Kutztown (PA) School District, as well as for graduate and professional development learners at Wilson College and Rutgers University. She designed and instructs the Rutgers graduate course, Learning Theory, Inquiry, & Instructional Design, and is a frequent presenter at AASL, Internet@Schools. She has published articles in School Library Journal, Teacher Librarian, and School Library Connection.

Email: boyer.brenda@gmail.com

notes from Brenda’s session:

are we getting the job done, is our instruction sticking, what evidence we do have?

differentiate: who is ready to do what” at what skill level? how to bring everybody up to speed?

3 elements of Digital Gamification: leverage LMS (set game levels); how digital badges are paired 3. using digital breakout boxes to push challenge, skills

each chat as prerequisite for the next. prerequisite in LMS. Each game level is module. completed with a quizz. if they pass the quiz, opens challenge.1. what is page (facts about a tool to learn about[ what the tool does, feature, etc.) 2. suppe rshort video tour (3 min max), talk about something unique 3. quick quiz (max 5 q/s from the intro page and video). pass the quiz (100 %) to unlock the challenge level. 4. challenge level. digital breakout box embedded in the LMS. breakout using Google Forms. various locks (words, letter, numbers)

Badges why?

Badgr, Credly, iDoceo

Breakout Boxes

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++
SESSION LINK – https://sas.elluminate.com/d.jnlp?sid=2008350&password=LIB2019IDPart8 — If the session link doesn’t work for you, please copy and paste into your browser.

Session Title: Improving Library Tutorials: The Multimedia Design Principles

Your Name and Title: Darlene Aguilar, Instructional Design Librarian

Your Library, School, or Organization Name: Loyola Marymount University

Your Twitter Handle (@name): @DarleneA_ID

Name(s) of Co-Presenter(s):

Area of the World from Which You Will Present: Los Angeles, CA

Language in Which You Will Present: English

Target Audience: Reference and Instruction Librarians, Instructional Designers, Tutorial developers, Academic Librarians

Short Session Description: This session will review Mayer’s (2001) Multimedia Design Principles to help improve instructional modules, tutorials, and videos.

Session Strand (use the “tag”): {Session Strand (use the “tag”):}

Full Session Description: Librarians are creating more online modules, videos, and tutorials to teach information literacy skills. Whether designing instruction online or in-person, research-based instructional methods are required and learning Mayer’s Multimedia Design Principles is the best place to start. In this session, I will review essential prior-knowledge on image types and working memory. I will then show learners how to minimize cognitive overload using these 12 principles: multimedia, spatial contiguity, temporal contiguity, coherence, modality, redundancy, individual differences, signaling, pacing, concepts first, personalization, and human voice.

Link to Conference Site Session Proposal (full URL with http://): https://www.library20.com/forum/topics/improving-library-tutorials-the-multimedia-design-principles

Other Websites / URLs Associated with Your Session: https://linkedin.com/in/darlene-aguilar/

Your Bio: Darlene Aguilar is an Instructional Design Librarian at Loyola Marymount University where she designs and develops video tutorials and online modules on information literacy and library related topics. Additionally, she provides “best practices” training in instructional design to other LMU librarians. She graduated from the University of Southern California with a Master’s in Education for Learning Design and Technology and previously worked at LAUSD for 7 years. She strives to remove learning barriers that are embedded in instruction and curriculum and make learning accessible to all learners.

Email: darlene.aguilar@lmu.edu

notes from Darlene Aguilar session: spacial contiguity, temporal contiguity. Modality: animation + narration better then animation + text, redundancy: animation and narration then animation + narration + text

boolean operators

 

 

instructional design books

Use of Academic Library Information Technology Lending Programs

Primary Research Group has published the: Survey of American College Students:
Use of Academic Library Information Technology Lending Programs, ISBN 978-
157440-510-1
This study looks at which devices and technologies students check out for loan
from college libraries, presenting detailed statistics on their use of
laptops, tablets, smartphones, cameras and camcorders, mics and audio
recorders, tripods, external hard drives, calculators, headphones and
headsets, student response systems or “clickers”, mobile device chargers,
presentation technology and other devices and technologies.
The study also presents results of an open-ended question through which
students make known their wish lists for technologies and devices that they
would like to see available, or more available, from their academic libraries.
Data in the report is presented in the aggregate and then broken out
separately for fifteen different variables including but not limited to:
college grades, gender, income level, year of college standing, SAT/ACT
scores, regional origin, age, sexual orientation, race & ethnicity, college
major and other personal variables, and by Carnegie class, enrollment size and
public/private status of the survey participants institutions of higher
education.
Just a few of this 110-page report’s many findings are that:
By a ratio of nearly 2:1 females were much more ardent borrowers than men of
student response systems or “tickers” technology: 3.46% of women vs. 1.72% of
men had borrowed them.  Gay students were also more than twice as likely as
straight students to borrow this technology; 6.93% vs. 2.35%. Use also tends
to correlate with high ACT or SAT scores, the higher the score, the greater
the likelihood that a student has borrowed a clicker from their college
library.
The tendency to borrow calculators was lowest among students specializing in
mathematics, computer science, statistics and engineering.
Private college students were four times more likely than those at public
colleges to borrow tripods.
For a table of contents and an excerpt view the product page for this report
on our website at:  https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.primaryresearch.com%2FAddCart.aspx%3FReportID%3D493&data=01%7C01%7Cpmiltenoff%40stcloudstate.edu%7C441e49daa0414c423d7f08d5ab861e17%7C5e40e2ed600b4eeaa9851d0c9dcca629%7C0&sdata=QEdbJmUmy%2BPvdEZYXOZU82a16bZXF52Peo%2BBuIumMT4%3D&reserved=0

teaching with technology

Boulder Faculty Teaching with Technology Report
Sarah Wise, Education Researcher ,  Megan Meyer, Research Assistant, March 8,2016

http://www.colorado.edu/assett/sites/default/files/attached-files/final-fac-survey-full-report.pdf

Faculty perceive undergraduates to be less proficient with digital literacy skills. One-third think
their students do not find or organize digital information very well. The majority (52%) think
they lack skill in validating digital information.
My note: for the SCSU librarians, digital literacy is fancy word for information literacy. Digital literacy, as used in this report is much greater area, which encompasses much broader set of skills
Faculty do not prefer to teach online (57%) or in a hybrid format (where some sessions occur
online, 32%). One-third of faculty reported no experience with these least popular course types
my note: pay attention to the questions asked; questions I am asking Mike Penrod to let me work with faculty for years. Questions, which are snubbed by CETL and a dominance of D2L and MnSCU mandated tools is established.

Table 5. Do you use these in-class technologies for teaching undergraduates? Which are the Top 3 in-class technologies you would like to learn or use more? (n = 442)

Top 3 use in most of my classes have used in some classes tried, but do not use  

N/A: no experience

in-class activities, problems (via worksheets, tablets, laptops, simulations, beSocratic, etc.)  

52%

 

33%

 

30%

 

6%

 

30%

in-class question, discussion tools (e.g. Twitter, TodaysMeet, aka “backchannel communication”)  

 

47%

 

 

8%

 

 

13%

 

 

11%

 

 

68%

using online resources to find high quality curricular materials  

37%

 

48%

 

31%

 

3%

 

18%

iClickers 24% 23% 16% 9% 52%
other presentation tool (Prezi, Google presentation, Slide Carnival, etc.)  

23%

 

14%

 

21%

 

15%

 

51%

whiteboard / blackboard 20% 58% 23% 6% 14%
Powerpoint or Keynote 20% 74% 16% 4% 5%
document camera / overhead projector 15% 28% 20% 14% 38%

 

Table 6. Do you have undergraduates use these assignment technology tools? Which are your Top 3 assignment technology tools to learn about or use more? (n = 432)

Top 3 use in most of my classes have used in some classes tried, but do not use N/A: no experience using
collaborative reading and discussion tools (e.g. VoiceThread, NB, NotaBene, Highlighter, beSocratic) 43% 3% 10% 10% 77%
collaborative project, writing, editing tools (wikis, PBWorks, Weebly, Google Drive, Dropbox, Zotero)  

38%

 

16%

 

29%

 

12%

 

43%

online practice problems / quizzes with instant feedback 36% 22% 22% 8% 47%
online discussions (D2L, Today’s Meet, etc) 31% 33% 21% 15% 30%
individual written assignment, presentation and project tools (blogs, assignment submission, Powerpoint, Prezi, Adobe Creative Suite, etc.)  

31%

 

43%

 

28%

 

7%

 

22%

research tools (Chinook, pubMed, Google Scholar, Mendeley, Zotero, Evernote) 30% 33% 32% 8% 27%
online practice (problems, quizzes, simulations, games, CAPA, Pearson Mastering, etc.) 27% 20% 21% 7% 52%
data analysis tools (SPSS, R, Latex, Excel, NVivo, MATLAB, etc.) 24% 9% 23% 6% 62%
readings (online textbooks, articles, e-books) 21% 68% 23% 1% 8%

Table 7. Do you use any of these online tools in your teaching? Which are the Top 3 online tools you would like to learn about or use more? (n = 437)

 

 

 

Top 3

 

use in most of my classes

 

have used in some classes

 

tried, but do not use

N/A: no experience using
videos/animations produced for my course (online lectures, Lecture Capture, Camtasia, Vimeo)  

38%

 

14%

 

21%

 

11%

 

54%

chat-based office hours or meetings (D2L chat, Google Hangouts, texting, tutoring portals, etc.)  

36%

 

4%

 

9%

 

10%

 

76%

simulations, PhET, educational games 27% 7% 17% 6% 70%
videoconferencing-based office hours or meetings (Zoom, Skype, Continuing Education’s Composition hub, etc.)  

26%

 

4%

 

13%

 

11%

 

72%

alternative to D2L (moodle, Google Site, wordpress course website) 23% 11% 10% 13% 66%
D2L course platform 23% 81% 7% 4% 8%
online tutorials and trainings (OIT tutorials, Lynda.com videos) 21% 4% 16% 13% 68%
D2L as a portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.)  

21%

 

28%

 

18%

 

11%

 

42%

videos/animations produced elsewhere 19% 40% 36% 2% 22%

In both large and small classes, the most common responses faculty make to digital distraction are to discuss why it is a problem and to limit or ban phones in class.
my note: which completely defies the BYOD and turns into empty talk / lip service.

Quite a number of other faculty (n = 18) reported putting the onus on themselves to plan engaging and busy class sessions to preclude distraction, for example:

“If my students are more interested in their laptops than my course material, I need to make my curriculum more interesting.”

I have not found this to be a problem. When the teaching and learning are both engaged/engaging, device problems tend to disappear.”

The most common complaint related to students and technology was their lack of common technological skills, including D2L and Google, and needing to take time to teach these skills in class (n = 14). Two commented that digital skills in today’s students were lower than in their students 10 years ago.

Table 9. Which of the following are the most effective types of learning opportunities about teaching, for you? Chose your Top 2-3. (n = 473)

Count           Percentage

meeting 1:1 with an expert 296 63%
hour-long workshop 240 51%
contact an expert on-call (phone, email, etc) 155 33%
faculty learning community (meeting across asemester,

e.g. ASSETT’s Hybrid/Online Course Design Seminar)

116 25%
expert hands-on support for course redesign (e.g. OIT’s Academic Design Team) 114 24%
opportunity to apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards)  

97

 

21%

half-day or day-long workshop 98 21%
other 40 8%
multi-day retreats / institutes 30 6%

Faculty indicated that the best times for them to attend teaching professional developments across the year are before and early semester, and summer. They were split among all options for meeting across one week, but preferred afternoon sessions to mornings. Only 8% of respondents (n = 40) indicated they would not likely attend any professional development session (Table 10).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Teaching Through Technology
http://www.maine.edu/pdf/T4FinalYear1ReportCRE.pdf

Table T1: Faculty beliefs about using digital technologies in teaching

Count Column N%
Technology is a significant barrier to teaching and learning. 1 0.2%
Technology can have a place in teaching, but often detracts from teaching and learning. 76 18.3%
Technology has a place in teaching, and usually enhances the teaching learning process. 233 56.0%
Technology greatly enhances the teaching learning process. 106 25.5%

Table T2: Faculty beliefs about the impact of technology on courses

Count Column N%
Makes a more effective course 302 72.6%
Makes no difference in the effectiveness of a course 42 10.1%
Makes a less effective course 7 1.7%
Has an unknown impact 65 15.6%

Table T3: Faculty use of common technologies (most frequently selected categories shaded)

Once a month or less A few hours a month A few hours a week An hour a day Several hours a day
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
Computer 19 4.8% 15 3.8% 46 11.5% 37 9.3% 282 70.7%
Smart Phone 220 60.6% 42 11.6% 32 8.8% 45 12.4% 24 6.6%
Office Software 31 7.8% 19 4.8% 41 10.3% 82 20.6% 226 56.6%
Email 1 0.2% 19 4.6% 53 12.8% 98 23.7% 243 58.7%
Social Networking 243 68.8% 40 11.3% 40 11.3% 23 6.5% 7 2.0%
Video/Sound Media 105 27.6% 96 25.2% 95 24.9% 53 13.9% 32 8.4%

Table T9: One sample t-test for influence of technology on approaches to grading and assessment

Test Value = 50
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
In class tests and quizzes -4.369 78 .000 -9.74684 -14.1886 -5.3051
Online tests and quizzes 5.624 69 .000 14.77143 9.5313 20.0115
Ungraded  assessments 1.176 66 .244 2.17910 -1.5208 5.8790
Formative assessment 5.534 70 .000 9.56338 6.1169 13.0099
Short essays, papers, lab reports, etc. 2.876 70 .005 5.45070 1.6702 9.2312
Extended essays and major projects or performances 1.931 69 .058 3.67143 -.1219 7.4648
Collaborative learning projects .000 73 1.000 .00000 -4.9819 4.9819

Table T10: Rate the degree to which your role as a faculty member and teacher has changed as a result of increased as a result of increased use of technology

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
shifting from the role of content expert to one of learning facilitator  

12

 

9.2%

 

22

 

16.9%

 

14

 

10.8%

 

37

 

28.5%

 

29

 

22.3%

 

16

 

12.3%

your primary role is to provide content for students  

14

 

10.9%

 

13

 

10.1%

 

28

 

21.7%

 

29

 

22.5%

 

25

 

19.4%

 

20

 

15.5%

your identification with your University is increased  

23

 

18.3%

 

26

 

20.6%

 

42

 

33.3%

 

20

 

15.9%

 

12

 

9.5%

 

3

 

2.4%

you have less ownership of your course content  

26

 

20.2%

 

39

 

30.2%

 

24

 

18.6%

 

21

 

16.3%

 

14

 

10.9%

 

5

 

3.9%

your role as a teacher is strengthened 13 10.1% 12 9.3% 26 20.2% 37 28.7% 29 22.5% 12 9.3%
your overall control over your course(s) is diminished  

23

 

17.7%

 

44

 

33.8%

 

30

 

23.1%

 

20

 

15.4%

 

7

 

5.4%

 

6

 

4.6%

Table T14: One sample t-test for influence of technology on faculty time spent on specific teaching activities

Test Value = 50
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Lecturing -7.381 88 .000 -12.04494 -15.2879 -8.8020
Preparing course materials 9.246 96 .000 16.85567 13.2370 20.4744
Identifying course materials 8.111 85 .000 13.80233 10.4191 17.1856
Grading / assessing 5.221 87 .000 10.48864 6.4959 14.4813
Course design 12.962 94 .000 21.55789 18.2558 24.8600
Increasing access to materials for all types of learners 8.632 86 .000 16.12644 12.4126 19.8403
Reading student discussion posts 10.102 79 .000 21.98750 17.6553 26.3197
Email to/with students 15.809 93 .000 26.62766 23.2830 29.9724

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2014

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1407/ers1407.pdf

Although the LMS is pervasive in higher education, 15% of faculty said that they
do not use the LMS at all. Survey demographics suggest these nonusers are part of
the more mature faculty ranks, with a tenure status, more than 10 years of teaching
experience, and a full-professor standing.
18
The vast majority of faculty use the LMS
to conduct or support their teaching activities, but only three in five LMS users (60%)
said it is critical to their teaching. The ways in which faculty typically use the LMS are
presented in figure 8.
19
Pushing out information such as a syllabus or other handout
is the most common use of the LMS (58%), which is a basic functionality of the
first-generation systems that emerged in the late 1990s, and it remains one of the core
features of any LMS.
20
Many institutions preload the LMS with basic course content
(58%), up about 12% since 2011, and this base gives instructors a prepopulated plat
form from which to build their courses.
21
Preloading basic content does not appear to
preclude faculty from making the LMS part of their daily digital habit; a small majority
of faculty (56%) reported using the LMS daily, and another 37% use it weekly.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Digital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/student-affairs-and-technology/digital-literacy-engagement-and-digital-identity-development

igital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

+++++++++++++++++

 

++++++++++++++++

more on digital literacy in this IMS blog

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy

Save

analytics in education

ACRL e-Learning webcast series: Learning Analytics – Strategies for Optimizing Student Data on Your Campus

This three-part webinar series, co-sponsored by the ACRL Value of Academic Libraries Committee, the Student Learning and Information Committee, and the ACRL Instruction Section, will explore the advantages and opportunities of learning analytics as a tool which uses student data to demonstrate library impact and to identify learning weaknesses. How can librarians initiate learning analytics initiatives on their campuses and contribute to existing collaborations? The first webinar will provide an introduction to learning analytics and an overview of important issues. The second will focus on privacy issues and other ethical considerations as well as responsible practice, and the third will include a panel of librarians who are successfully using learning analytics on their campuses.

Webcast One: Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: The State of the Art and the Art of Connecting the Library with Campus Initiatives
March 29, 2016

Learning analytics are used nationwide to augment student success initiatives as well as bolster other institutional priorities.  As a key aspect of educational reform and institutional improvement, learning analytics are essential to defining the value of higher education, and academic librarians can be both of great service to and well served by institutional learning analytics teams.  In addition, librarians who seek to demonstrate, articulate, and grow the value of academic libraries should become more aware of how they can dovetail their efforts with institutional learning analytics projects.  However, all too often, academic librarians are not asked to be part of initial learning analytics teams on their campuses, despite the benefits of library inclusion in these efforts.  Librarians can counteract this trend by being conversant in learning analytics goals, advantages/disadvantages, and challenges as well as aware of existing examples of library successes in learning analytics projects.

Learn about the state of the art in learning analytics in higher education with an emphasis on 1) current models, 2) best practices, 3) ethics, privacy, and other difficult issues.  The webcast will also focus on current academic library projects and successes in gaining access to and inclusion in learning analytics initiatives on their campus.  Benefit from the inclusion of a “short list” of must-read resources as well as a clearly defined list of ways in which librarians can leverage their skills to be both contributing members of learning analytics teams, suitable for use in advocating on their campuses.

my notes:

open academic analytics initiative
https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=75671025

where data comes from:

  • students information systems (SIS)
  • LMS
  • Publishers
  • Clickers
  • Video streaming and web conferencing
  • Surveys
  • Co-curricular and extra-curricular involvement

D2L degree compass
Predictive Analytics Reportitng PAR – was open, but just bought by Hobsons (https://www.hobsons.com/)

Learning Analytics

IMS Caliper Enabled Services. the way to connect the library in the campus analytics https://www.imsglobal.org/activity/caliperram

student’s opinion of this process
benefits: self-assessment, personal learning, empwerment
analytics and data privacy – students are OK with harvesting the data (only 6% not happy)
8 in 10 are interested in personal dashboard, which will help them perform
Big Mother vs Big Brother: creepy vs helpful. tracking classes, helpful, out of class (where on campus, social media etc) is creepy. 87% see that having access to their data is positive

librarians:
recognize metrics, assessment, analytics, data. visualization, data literacy, data science, interpretation

INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT – N.B.

determine who is the key leader: director of institutional research, president, CIO

who does analyics services: institutional research, information technology, dedicated center

analytic maturity: data drivin, decision making culture; senior leadership commitment,; policy supporting (data ollection, accsess, use): data efficacy; investment and resourcefs; staffing; technical infrastrcture; information technology interaction

student success maturity: senior leader commited; fudning of student success efforts; mechanism for making student success decisions; interdepart collaboration; undrestanding of students success goals; advising and student support ability; policies; information systems

developing learning analytics strategy

understand institutional challenges; identify stakeholders; identify inhibitors/challenges; consider tools; scan the environment and see what other done; develop a plan; communicate the plan to stakeholders; start small and build

ways librarians can help
idenfify institu partners; be the partners; hone relevant learning analytics; participate in institutional analytics; identify questions and problems; access and work to improve institu culture; volunteer to be early adopters;

questions to ask: environmental scanning
do we have a learning analytics system? does our culture support? leaders present? stakeholders need to know?

questions to ask: Data

questions to ask: Library role

learning analytics & the academic library: the state of the art of connecting the library with campus initiatives

questions:
pole analytics library

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

literature

causation versus correlation studies. speakers claims that it is difficult to establish causation argument. institutions try to predict as accurately as possible via correlation, versus “if you do that it will happen what.”

++++++++++++

More on analytics in this blog:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=analytics&submit=Search

Classroom Discussion and Students Participation

Classroom Discussion and Students Participation: how to Secure Student Engagement to Increase Learning and Improve Teaching

  • How to increase the number of students who take part in classroom discussions
  • How to avoid the problem of dominant talkers
  • How to encourage introverted students to increase their participation in classroom discussions
  • Strategies to help your students recognize what they learned in any discussion
  • How to use the first day of the semester to engage your students—and techniques for getting them to participate right from the start
  • What common classroom practices can decrease the likelihood of a student participating in discussion?
  • What strategies can you use to overcome established classroom practices and increase student participation?
  • And how can you structure classroom discussions to better facilitate student learning?

What does Research Tell Us about Classroom Discussion? Jay Howard
http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=facsch_papers

Do College Students Participate More in Discussion in Traditional Delivery Courses or in Interactive Telecourses?
https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_higher_education/v073/73.6howard.html

facts from sociological research:

  • Gender yields mixed results
    • Males participate more frequently than females.
    • Males participate more frequently in courses taught by female instructors
    • Other studies show the opposite
  • Non traditional students participate more frequently
  • Instructors’ gender also returns mixed results
  • Class size as variable is important, smaller classes, more participation
  • Class participation – grading
    • Make the students grade themselves at the end of each class period. By making them grade themselves, they reflect and makes them more aware of their contribution.
      0 – absent
      1 – present but did not verbally participate
      2 – verbally participated one time
      3 – verbally participated more than once
      4 – made an equitable contribution to discussion in terms of both quantity and quality

 

  • The well-known and established belief that smaller classes spur more participation.
    Jay Howard maintain his sociological research in 20th centuries constants: physical classroom, no technology surrounding.
    In the 21st century, clickers changed the opportunity for immediate feedback. They changed also the discourse of the traditional student participation and classroom discussion:
    http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=clickers&submit=Search

Traditional forms and techniques for discussion and participation

Weih, T. G. (2015). Discussion Strategies for the Inclusion of ALL Students. Online Submission,
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED561060

  • Don’ts:
    call on student
    instructor’s personality issues:

Does the instructor really care of what students have to say
lecturing does not predispose to discussion

  • The 10 second rule: students discuss in pairs the concept/question
  • Think-Pair-Share: discussion strategy before or after lesson, similar to 10 second but longer
  • Quick writes: write their thoughts and then share. Loose paper, names on top,
  • Recorder-reporter. Post-lecture. The person reps the group, who is working on a specific question. Each group different question.
  • K-W-L. what we know, what we want to learn, what we learned. Teacher instructs students that K = what they know, W = what they want to learn and L = what they learned. . work in small groups, but each student works on h/er chart, thus if student disagrees with rest of the group, has record. L is left blank for after the discussion.

Simich-Dudgeon, C., & National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, W. D. (1998). Classroom Strategies for Encouraging Collaborative Discussion. Directions in Language and Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED435188

  • Using storytelling

Chen, W., & Looi, C. (2007). Incorporating Online Discussion in Face to Face Classroom Learning: A New Blended Learning Approach. Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology, 23(3), 307-326.
Discussions and participation in hybrid environment

Jinhong, J., & Gilson, T. A. (2014). Online Threaded Discussion: Benefits, Issues, and Strategies. Kinesiology Review, 3(4), 241-246.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3ds3h%26AN%3d100248254%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

For each OTD topic, the instructor randomly assigns two to four student discussion leaders who are in charge of organizing OTD for the assigned week. Each of the discussion leaders is asked to generate one or two discussion questions related to the topic based on reading assignments. The use of student discussion leaders is a strategy to encourage active participation and help develop ownership of learning. Once student discussion leaders post their questions, other students are encouraged to contribute to the discussion by answering each question, commenting on the ideas of others, or asking questions of peers or the instructor for the next two days. When the week’s discussion is complete, the student leaders and instructor work together to summarize the discussion and evaluate each student’s participation and contribution to the discussion using a scoring rubric. (p.242)

Implementation (p. 243):

  • preparation : On the first day of the course, the instructor introduces topics, how-tos, expectations, grading procedures, and required reading assignments for OTD, and organizes discussion leaders for each online discussion (2–4 leaders for each)
  • Opening and Responding: Posted discussion questions become open at the time of the class and students who are not the leaders are required to post at least one response per question within 48 hrs. During this time, the leaders facilitate discussion by responding to comments, raising questions, or redirecting discussion to encourage active participation and ensure the discussion is on track
  • Summary and Assessment: The job of the leader is to moderate, summarize discussion threads, and assess them at the end of the discussion. When the week’s discussion is complete, the leaders meet with the instructor to debrief and evaluate each student’s participation and contribution to the discussion using a scoring rubric given by the instructor. After the meeting, each leader posts his or her summary of the discussion to BBCMS and reports at the next in-person class.

 

  • D2L
  • Beyond CMS (D2L)

Discussions and participation in online environment

Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of Online Discussion Strategies: A Meta-Analysis. American Journal Of Distance Education, 27(4), 228-241. doi:10.1080/08923647.2013.837651

  • Beyond CMS (D2L)

Lin, P., Hou, H., Wang, S., & Chang, K. (2013). Analyzing knowledge dimensions and cognitive process of a project-based online discussion instructional activity using Facebook in an adult and continuing education course. Computers & Education, 60(1), 110-121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512001819

  1. 111 results suggest that using Facebook is not necessarily harmful to a student’s learning performance. Adequate learning activity design and pedagogical goal setting could, in fact, exploit the social and information-sharing function of Facebook, thereby supporting academic learning (Gray et al., 2010). this study seeks to advance the understanding of adult learners’ behaviors in online project discussions using Facebook.

In the process of project-based learning, learners must utilize different kinds of knowledge (e.g., discrete declarative knowledge and dynamic procedural knowledge) (Lou, 2004). Meanwhile, students can develop higher level of cognitive skills for a specific domain as well as the ability to apply adequate knowledge to a specific domain or context during PBL (Barron et al., 1998; Blumenfeld et al., 1991).

  1. 118
    Select driving questions or controversial issues as project topics: Blumenfeld et al. (1991) noted that driving questions could facilitate students to explore the project topic. In the exploration process, students must first collect information and propose diverse viewpoints on the project topics. They could subsequently filter out and reach consensus during online discussions. This process involves diverse and converging phases that can move students toward higher-order thinking (Jorczak & Bart, 2009).
  2. Allow ample time for online discussion: Results of this study indicated that student online discussions lacked diversity in both knowledge and cognitive process dimensions. One possible reason could be that the allotted time for online discussions was not sufficient. Considering the multiple roles that adult learners play in family and/or work, they may not be able to respond to the discussions in a timely manner. Therefore, allowing more time for students to discuss may provide opportunities for students to demonstrate more diverse and deeper thinking (Scherling, 2011).
  3. Provide a structured rubric for online discussions: Well-designed discussion guidelines and evaluation criteria, i.e., posting protocols or rubric for grading, could serve as scaffolds for student online discussions, which may, subsequently, lead to more meaningful learning (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). Following that, more diverse type of knowledge and levels of cognitive process could be expected to be shown.
  4. Pay attention to the effects that individual differences may exert on the learner’s interactions: Our results showed that, in the context of online discussions, females and older learners are more likely to have off-topic discussions than their male and/or younger counterparts. These findings are in accord with previous research that suggested effects of individual differences on learning as well as on the use of SNSs (Glynn et al., 2012; Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012; Price, 2006; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2009). Therefore, considering the potential effects that gender and age may exert on online discussions, instructors are advised to consider individual differences when grouping students for online discussions, as a balanced group composition of evenly distributed age and gender could be a better approach than a skewed distribution of individuals.

 

social interaction, which was considered as irrelevant discussion, may also leading to meaningful thinking and echoes the viewpoints from previous studies, which suggest social interaction can be a critical element in the CSCL environment (Abedin et al., 2011a, 2011b).

Incorporating online discussion in face to face classroom learning: A new blended learning approach

Wenli Chen, Chee-Kit Looi

Abstract

This paper discusses an innovative blended learning strategy which incorporates online discussion in both in-class face to face, and off-classroom settings. Online discussion in a face to face class is compared with its two counterparts, off-class online discussion as well as in-class, face to face oral discussion, to examine the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed strategy. By integrating online discussion into the flow of the classroom, learners are given dedicated time to foster a habit of critical thinking, reflection and articulating these online, which can subsequently seed further in-class oral discussions, and off-class online discussions. It is found that in-class, online discussion can provide a wider spectrum of discussion perspectives, equalise participation in discussion, and promote cognitive thinking skills and in depth information processing. However, the lack of face to face interactions and the need for sufficient time to do online postings pose challenges in implementing online discussion for face to face classroom learning.

PDF file available

=============

More on classroom discussions in this IMS blog:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=discussions&submit=Search

convocation winter 2016

Short link the information below on the IMS blog: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?p=4441 and even shorter one: http://scsu.mn/1RsQErr

Weds 6th

Session I 10-11:15         Voyageurs North (Atwood)

Title
Engage your students: connect CMS (D2L) to social media to enhance the learning process.

Plamen Miltenoff and Emil Towner

Join us online via Adobe Connect: http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims (please login as a “guest” and use your real name)

Outline

In this rapid succession of examples, one can experience a showcase how to enhance students’ engagement by modernizing D2L experience through connection with social media. Bring your own examples and participate in a discussion, which aims finding the right tools for your class and field of study.

Audience:
beginners to advanced

Prerequisite:
come with your own social media accounts: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Vine

Outcomes:

By the end of this session, the participants will have an idea about peculiarity of each of the social media tools: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Vine

By the end of the session, the participants will be familiar with the integration of each of the social media tool into D2L

By the end of the session, the participants will be able to asses to what extent each particular tool fits their field of study

By the end of the session, the participants will be able to compare the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages of the social media tools compared to D2L

Useful links to contact us via social media:
IMS blog: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims
IMS Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/InforMediaServices?ref=hl
IMS Twitter: https://twitter.com/SCSUtechinstruc
IMS Pinterest: http://www.pinterest.com/scsutechnology/
IMS Instagram: http://instagram.com/scsutechinstruct
IMS YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_UMIE5r6YB8KzTF5nZJFyA
IMS Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/115966710162153290760/posts/p/pub
IMS LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scsuinstructionaltechnology

Plan – Plamen Miltenoff:

 Please consider the following survey about your opinion regarding social media in education:

*http://aidemoreto.polldaddy.com/s/social-media-in-education*
please have the short link: http://scsu.mn/1Z8EFFx

most recent contemplations about blogs and social media in general:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/01/01/4507/

  • D2L and Vine
    Vine is a social media services, which provides the ability to share 7 sec videos. Vine is becoming more popular then Instagram (15 sec videos), with the simplicity to create short videos. Students can take sequence of short videos, which amount to 7 sec to reflect the main points of a project. E.g.: chemical reaction, biology dissection, progress of engineering planning, solving a math formula.
    URL to the vine can be posted in the D2L discussion area for further collaborative effort or for peers’ and instructions evaluation
    Vines are a click away from a FB group page or, with the right handle and hashtag, to a Twitter discussion
    The bottom-line to evaluate if fitting your field of study is: can the content be narrated or is it much better if visualized. If the latter, Vine can be your salvation.
    How to Create Social Videos With Your Smartphone http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/01/10/social-videos-with-your-smartphone/
  • D2L and YouTube, EdPuzzle (https://edpuzzle.com/), etc
    YouTube Unveils New Trending Tab
    http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/12/13/improvements-in-social-media-tools/

    Per SCSU IT disclaimer: MediaSpace (Kaltura) is a free, cloud-based video repository solution for campus that allows faculty and staff to upload and distribute video and audio content for academic or administrative purposes. Facilitators will discuss potential uses of MediaSpace for campus, demonst rate how to create Webcam and screen recordings, upload audio/video, and embed or link to MediaSpace content from D2L or a web site.  YouTube is owned by Google and the integration, including statistics and analytics by Google are way beyond MediaSpace. The only selling point of MediaSpace is the FERPA requirement by MnSCU to host privacy data on a MnSCU owned server
  • Google+
    Google+ is indirect competition with any CMS, D2L included, with its GOogle Classroom platform (https://classroom.google.com/ineligible). K12 and higher institutions are outsourcing to GMAIL and with Google Hangouts (Skype also), one can share video, audio and desktops, which makes Adobe Connect + D2L way behind in integration even before Google Drive is mentioned.
    Google Introduces Shared Albums in Google Photos:
    http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/12/13/improvements-in-social-media-tools/
    8 Ways to Use Google+ Hangouts for Your Business http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/09/23/google-hangouts/You can record hangouts directly to your YouTube channel for future use.For private Google+ Hangouts, choose Google+ Video Hangouts, which allow you to have up to 10 participants in a video chat that is accessible only to the people invited.

Plan – Emil Towner:

  1. General stats on integrating social media and things to consider
  1. Integrating LinkedIn Assignments
  1. Integrating Facebook Groups
  • I will show a couple of groups that I have used
  • I can also come up with an “exercise” that participants can do, just let me know: (1) if you want me to and (2) if participants are suppose to have a Facebook account that they can log into during the session

 ===========================================================

Session K 2-3:15: 2PM Wed, Jan 8.  Location: CH455

Title
Engage your students: gaming and gamification in the learning process.

Outline

As part of the broader discussion, a short discussion segment to form and agree on definitions and terms regarding games and gamification. Another short segment to seek consensus if this SCSU campus is ready to departure on the path of gamifying education. After several examples, of how games are used in education and gamification techniques, a discussion on how gaming and gamification can be streamlined amidst shrinking budget and increasing workload. More details and information about gaming and gamification at: http://scsu.mn/1F008Re

Audience:
beginners to advanced

Outcomes:

By the end of this session, the participants will have a working definitions on play, games, serious games, game-based learning, digital game-based learning, gaming, gamification and badges. (more at http://scsu.mn/1F008Re)

By the end of the session, the participants will be familiar with the possibilities for integration of games in the educational process and for gamification of the educational process.

By the end of the session, the participants will be able to asses to what extent games and gamification fit their field of study

Plan:

===========================================

Friday 8th

Session M 10-11:15: CH 455

Title
Present and be presented: engage your students with modern ways to share information

Outline

Two trends plague education: the swamp of PowerPoint presentations and the lack of visual literacy. In this rapid succession of examples, one can experience a showcase of various cloud-based tools, which brings visual presentations way beyond PowerPoint and align with the Millennials demand for current social interaction. A discussion on how relevant these tools are to various disciplines and details on improving the interaction among instructors and students during the presentation. Ongoing discussion about design as part of visual literacy and the difference between blended learning and technology integration.

Audience:
beginners to advanced

Outcomes:

By the end of this session, the participants will have understand the movement “Death by PowerPoint” and will understand the advantage of cloud-based presentation tools to MS PowerPoint

By the end of the session, the participants will be familiar with several tools, which successfully replace PowerPoint and well beyond.

By the end of the session, the participants will be able to asses to what extent games and gamification fit their field of study

By the end of the session, the participants will be able to discriminate between technology integration and blended learning.

Plan:

 

1 2 3