more on online discussions in this IMS blog
more on online discussions in this IMS blog
We answer the question we are asked. Asking good questions improves instructor/student communications and designing successful discussions begin by drafting good questions. Many of us are looking for ways to improve online discussion activities: let’s start with the questions we ask. Through a presentation and a facilitated discussion, we will explore how to get the type of responses we are looking for by looking at what makes a question effective.
About the presenter: Treden Wagoner, Instructional Designer, has an MA in Education and over 20 years’ teaching experience. He has specialized in education technology since 2002. As an instructional designer, Treden works with CEHD instructors to develop effective course sites and the integration of technology for teaching and learning. His interest in asking good questions began when he was an art museum educator.
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2019, 3:00−4:00 p.m. CDT
Code: 746 250 839
previous webinars’ recordings:
Learning Commons YouTube Channel
more on instructional design in this IMS blog
the topics of privacy pertaining technology is becoming ubiquitous.
If you feel that the content of your class material can benefit of such discussions, please let us know.
Please have some titles, which can help you brainstorm topics for discussions in your classes:
Power, Privacy, and the Internet
Privacy groups slam Department of Homeland Security social media proposal
FBI quietly changes its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans
Facebook canceled a student’s internship after he highlighted a massive privacy issue
Teenagers, The Internet, And Privacy
Online privacy: It’s time for a new security paradigm
On social media, privacy, etc.
Hacking the Future: Privacy, Identity, and Anonymity On the Web
Are We Puppets in a Wired World?
How Teens Deal With Privacy and Mobile Apps
If you seek more tangible, hands-on assistance with similar and/or any topics regarding technology, please do not hesitate to contact us.
PPT is converted to iSpring.
rubric and examples of the technology they might use (for podcast etc). They are tech ed master students, so they have the background.
more on discussion in education in this blog:
Q: the instructor does not want the students to see each other D2L discussion entries across groups
A: When creating the groups and after selecting “New Category” look down for a checkbox “Set Up Discussion Areas.”
If the box is not checked, students will be divided into groups, but continue seeing each other posts.
Selecting the areas will constrain the discussion to be seen only within the group.
July 23-24, 2020 11:00am – 2:00pm Eastern
The Tech & Learning Virtual Leadership Summit is an exclusive, FREE, invitation-only virtual event for top-level executives from school districts around the country with education technology buying responsibilities. Taking the best of Tech & Learning’s in-person Leadership Summits, the Virtual Summit will provide an environment where district leaders can share their successes and challenges in facilitated small group discussions.
Most students do not want an online education, and many are calling for reductions in tuition fees to compensate for what they perceive might be a lower-quality education and experience. Some might choose to wait for a return to on-campus delivery.
Most professors do not want to teach in an online environment because they value engaging with students in discussions, debates, and laboratory demonstrations. There are many good pedagogical reasons why most post-secondary education continues to take place in a face-to-face, on-campus delivery mode despite the longstanding availability of technology to support online teaching.
Professor and student preferences aside, there is a more pressing problem looming.
There is precious little time for professors to change all of their courses to an online mode of delivery.
Nova Scotia Universities and Colleges need a significant and urgent infusion of funding from the provincial government to cover the increased costs of converting post-secondary education into an entirely different mode of operation over the next three months. Universities cannot be expected to cover those costs alone, and neither should students.
more on online teaching in this IMS blog
While in-person test proctoring has been used to combat test-based cheating, this can be difficult to translate to online courses. Ed-tech companies have sought to address this concern by offering to watch students take online tests, in real time, through their webcams.
Some of the more prominent companies offering these services include Proctorio, Respondus, ProctorU, HonorLock, Kryterion Global Testing Solutions, and Examity.
Algorithmic test proctoring’s settings have discriminatory consequences across multiple identities and serious privacy implications.
While racist technology calibrated for white skin isn’t new (everything from photography to soap dispensers do this), we see it deployed through face detection and facial recognition used by algorithmic proctoring systems.
While some test proctoring companies develop their own facial recognition software, most purchase software developed by other companies, but these technologies generally function similarly and have shown a consistent inability to identify people with darker skin or even tell the difference between Chinese people. Facial recognition literally encodes the invisibility of Black people and the racist stereotype that all Asian people look the same.
As Os Keyes has demonstrated, facial recognition has a terrible history with gender. This means that a software asking students to verify their identity is compromising for students who identify as trans, non-binary, or express their gender in ways counter to cis/heteronormativity.
These features and settings create a system of asymmetric surveillance and lack of accountability, things which have always created a risk for abuse and sexual harassment. Technologies like these have a long history of being abused, largely by heterosexual men at the expense of women’s bodies, privacy, and dignity.
Their promotional messaging functions similarly to dog whistle politics which is commonly used in anti-immigration rhetoric. It’s also not a coincidence that these technologies are being used to exclude people not wanted by an institution; biometrics and facial recognition have been connected to anti-immigration policies, supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations, going back to the 1990’s.
Borrowing from Henry A. Giroux, Kevin Seeber describes the pedagogy of punishment and some of its consequences in regards to higher education’s approach to plagiarism in his book chapter “The Failed Pedagogy of Punishment: Moving Discussions of Plagiarism beyond Detection and Discipline.”
my note: I am repeating this for years
Sean Michael Morris and Jesse Stommel’s ongoing critique of Turnitin, a plagiarism detection software, outlines exactly how this logic operates in ed-tech and higher education: 1) don’t trust students, 2) surveil them, 3) ignore the complexity of writing and citation, and 4) monetize the data.
Cheating is not a technological problem, but a social and pedagogical problem.
Our habit of believing that technology will solve pedagogical problems is endemic to narratives produced by the ed-tech community and, as Audrey Watters writes, is tied to the Silicon Valley culture that often funds it. Scholars have been dismantling the narrative of technological solutionism and neutrality for some time now. In her book “Algorithms of Oppression,” Safiya Umoja Noble demonstrates how the algorithms that are responsible for Google Search amplify and “reinforce oppressive social relationships and enact new modes of racial profiling.”
Anna Lauren Hoffmann, who coined the term “data violence” to describe the impact harmful technological systems have on people and how these systems retain the appearance of objectivity despite the disproportionate harm they inflict on marginalized communities.
This system of measuring bodies and behaviors, associating certain bodies and behaviors with desirability and others with inferiority, engages in what Lennard J. Davis calls the Eugenic Gaze.
Higher education is deeply complicit in the eugenics movement. Nazism borrowed many of its ideas about racial purity from the American school of eugenics, and universities were instrumental in supporting eugenics research by publishing copious literature on it, establishing endowed professorships, institutes, and scholarly societies that spearheaded eugenic research and propaganda.
more on privacy in this IMS blog
Need discussions on precision drawing using electronic devices? Talk to us, we can help
more on stylus use in this IMS blog
IM 690 lab plan for March 31, online: Virtual Worlds
If at any point you are lost in the virtual worlds, please consider talking/chatting using our IM 690 zoom link:https://minnstate.zoom.us/j/964455431 or call 320 308 3072
Currently, if you go to the SCSU online dbases
,if they are working at all, don’t be surprised when clicking on EBSCOhost Business Source Complete to see this msg:
and if you execute a search:
“AltSpaceVR” + “education”, you will find only meager 1+ results.
Google Scholar, naturally, will yield much greater number.
So, search and find an article of your interest using Google Scholar. I used “immersive learning” + “education” for my search.
I chose to read this article:
since it addressed design principles when applying mixed reality in education.
What article did you find/choose/read/are ready to share your analysis with?
Tuesday, March 31, 5PM lab
Plamen Miltenoff, Ph.D., MLIS
schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/digitalliteracy
find my office: https://youtu.be/QAng6b_FJqs
more on IM 690 labs in this IMS blog
1 2 3 … 11 Next