Nov
2016
flexibility of distance learning
Students appreciate flexibility of distance learning
+++++++++++++++++
more on hybrid learning in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=hybrid+learning
Digital Literacy for St. Cloud State University
+++++++++++++++++
more on hybrid learning in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=hybrid+learning
http://blog.commlabindia.com/elearning-design/elearning-development-aspects-to-consider-infographic
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
online learning
http://blog.teachable.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-launching-your-online-course
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
more on elearning in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=elearning
Tomlin, P. (2009). A Matter of Discipline: Open Access, the Humanities, and Art History. Canadian Journal Of Higher Education, 39(3), 49-69.
Recent events suggest that open access has gained new momentum in the humanities, but the slow and uneven development of open-access initiatives in humanist fields continues to hinder the consolidation of efforts across the university. Although various studies have traced the general origins of the humanities’ reticence to embrace open access, few have actually considered the scholarly practices and disciplinary priorities that shape a discipline’s adoption of its principles. This article examines the emergence, potential and actualized, of open access in art history. Part case study, part conceptual mapping, the discussion is framed within the context of three interlocking dynamics: the present state of academic publishing in art history; the dominance of the journal and self-archiving repository within open-access models of scholarly production; and the unique roles played by copyright and permissions in art historical scholarship. It is hoped that tracing the discipline-specific configuration of research provides a first step toward both investigating the identity that open access might assume within the humanities, from discipline to discipline, and explaining how and why it might allow scholars to better serve themselves and their audiences.
Solomon, D. J., & Björk, B. (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 63(8), 1485-1495. doi:10.1002/asi.22673
Article processing charges ( APCs) are a central mechanism for funding open access (OA) scholarly publishing. We studied the APCs charged and article volumes of journals that were listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals as charging APCs. These included 1,370 journals that published 100,697 articles in 2010. The average APC was $906 U.S. dollars (USD) calculated over journals and $904 USD calculated over articles. The price range varied between $8 and $3,900 USD, with the lowest prices charged by journals published in developing countries and the highest by journals with high-impact factors from major international publishers. Journals in biomedicine represent 59% of the sample and 58% of the total article volume. They also had the highest APCs of any discipline. Professionally published journals, both for profit and nonprofit, had substantially higher APCs than journals published by societies, universities, or scholars/researchers. These price estimates are lower than some previous studies of OA publishing and much lower than is generally charged by subscription publishers making individual articles OA in what are termed hybrid journals.
Beaubien, S., & Eckard, M. (2014). Addressing Faculty Publishing Concerns with Open Access Journal Quality Indicators. Journal Of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 2(2), 1-11. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1133
BACKGROUND The scholarly publishing paradigm is evolving to embrace innovative open access publication models. While this environment fosters the creation of high-quality, peer-reviewed open access publications, it also provides opportunities for journals or publishers to engage in unprofessional or unethical practices. LITERATURE REVIEW Faculty take into account a number of factors in deciding where to publish, including whether or not a journal engages in ethical publishing practices. Librarians and scholars have attempted to address this issue in a number of ways, such as generating lists of ethical/unethical publishers and general guides. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT In response to growing faculty concern in this area, the Grand Valley State University Libraries developed and evaluated a set of Open Access Journal Quality Indicators that support faculty in their effort to identify the characteristics of ethical and unethical open access publications. NEXT STEPS Liaison librarians have already begun using the Indicators as a catalyst in sparking conversation around open access publishing and scholarship. Going forward, the Libraries will continue to evaluate and gather feedback on the Indicators, taking into account emerging trends and practices.
Husain, S., & Nazim, M. (2013). Analysis of Open Access Scholarly Journals in Media & Communication. DESIDOC Journal Of Library & Information Technology, 33(5), 405-411.
he paper gives an account of the origin and development of the Open Access Initiative and explains the concept of open access publishing. It also highlight various facets related to the open access scholarly publishing in the field of Media & Communication on the basis of data collected from the most authoritative online directory of open access journals, i.e., Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The DOAJ covers 8492 open access journals of which 106 journals are listed under the subject heading ‘Media & Communication’. Most of the open access journals in Media & Communication were started during late 1990s and are being published from 34 different countries on 6 continents in 13 different languages. More than 80 % open access journals are being published by the not-for-profit sector such as academic institutions and universities.
Reed, K. (2014). Awareness of Open Access Issues Differs among Faculty at Institutions of Different Sizes. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 9(4), 76-77.
Objective — This study surveyed faculty awareness of open access (OA) issues and the institutional repository (IR) at the University of Wisconsin. The authors hoped to use findings to inform future IR marketing strategies to faculty. Design — Survey. Setting — University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, a small, regional public university (approximately 10,000 students). Subjects — 105 faculty members. Methods — The authors contacted 397 faculty members inviting them to participate in an 11 question online survey. Due to anonymity issues on a small campus, respondents were not asked about rank and discipline, and were asked to not provide identifying information. A definition of OA was not provided by the authors, as survey participants were queried about their own definition. Main Results — Approximately 30% of the faculty were aware of OA issues. Of all the definitions of OA given by survey respondents, “none … came close” to the definition favoured by the authors (p. 145). More than 30% of the faculty were unable to define OA at a level deemed basic by the authors. A total of 51 (48.57%) of the survey respondents indicated that there are OA journals in their disciplines. Another 6 (5.71%) of the faculty members claimed that there are no OA journals in their disciplines, although most provided a definition of OA and several considered OA publishing to be “very important.” The remaining 48 participants (46%) were unsure if there are OA journals in their disciplines. Of these survey respondents, 38 answered that they have not published in an OA journal, 10 were unsure, and 21 believed that their field benefits or would benefit from OA journals. Survey respondents cited quality of the journal, prestige, and peer review as extremely important in selecting a journal in which to publish. Conclusion — The authors conclude that the level of awareness related to OA issues must be raised before IRs can flourish. They ponder how university and college administrators regard OA publishing, and the influence this has on the tenure and promotion process
KELTY, C. (2014). BEYOND COPYRIGHT AND TECHNOLOGY: What Open Access Can Tell Us about Precarity, Authority, Innovation, and Automation in the University Today. Cultural Anthropology (Society For Cultural Anthropology), 29(2), 203-215. doi:10.14506/ca29.2.02
In this interview, we discuss what open access can teach us about the state of the university, as well as practices in scholarly publishing. In particular the focus is on issues of labor and precarity, the question of how open access enables or blocks other innovations in scholarship, the way open access might be changing practices of scholarship, and the role of technology and automation in the creation, evaluation, and circulation of scholarly work
Armbruster, C. (2008). Cyberscience and the Knowledge-Based Economy. Open Access and Trade Publishing: From Contradiction to Compatibility with Non-Exclusive Copyright Licensing. Policy Futures In Education, 6(4), 439-452.
Open source, open content and open access are set to fundamentally alter the conditions of knowledge production and distribution. Open source, open content and open access are also the most tangible result of the shift towards e-science and digital networking. Yet, widespread misperceptions exist about the impact of this shift on knowledge distribution and scientific publishing. It is argued, on the one hand, that for the academy there principally is no digital dilemma surrounding copyright and there is no contradiction between open science and the knowledge-based economy if profits are made from non-exclusive rights. On the other hand, pressure for the “digital doubling” of research articles in open access repositories (the “green road”) is misguided and the current model of open access publishing (the “gold road”) has not much future outside biomedicine. Commercial publishers must understand that business models based on the transfer of copyright have not much future either. Digital technology and its economics favour the severance of distribution from certification. What is required of universities and governments, scholars and publishers, is to clear the way for digital innovations in knowledge distribution and scholarly publishing by enabling the emergence of a competitive market that is based on non-exclusive rights. This requires no change in the law but merely an end to the praxis of copyright transfer and exclusive licensing. The best way forward for research organisations, universities and scientists is the adoption of standard copyright licences that reserve some rights, namely Attribution and No Derivative Works, but otherwise will allow for the unlimited reproduction, dissemination and re-use of the research article, commercial uses included.
Kuth, M. (2012). ‘Deswegen wird kein Buch weniger verkauft!’ Hybride Publikation von MALIS Praxisprojekten an der Fachhochschule Köln. (German). Bibliothek Forschung Und Praxis, 36(1), 103-109.
The article reports on a library and information science project at the Fachhochschule Köln (University of Applied Sciences, Cologne), Germany, to produce a hybrid, print and online research publication, “MALIS Praxisprojekte 2011,” which is available at http://www.b-i-t-online.de/daten/bitinnovativ.php#band35. It discusses the publishing process from writing to distribution and the implications of combining open access and for-fee publishing models for value chains in the publishing industry.
Riedel, S. (2012). Distanz zu Wissenschaftlern und Studenten verringern. (German). Bub: Forum Bibliothek Und Information, 64(7/8), 491-492.
A report from the International Bielefeld Conference on April 24-26, 2012 in Bielefeld, Germany is presented. Presentations discussed include the role of information storage and retrieval in libraries, Open Access publishing and content licenses, and the increased automation of the Bielefeld University library.
Ramirez, M., Dalton, J. j., McMillan, G. g., Read, M., & Seamans, N.. (2013). Do Open Access Electronic Theses and Dissertations Diminish Publishing Opportunities in the Social Sciences and Humanities? Findings from a 2011 Survey of Academic Publishers. College & Research Libraries, 74(4), 368-380.
n increasing number of higher education institutions worldwide are requiring submission of electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) by graduate students and are subsequently providing open access to these works in online repositories. Faculty advisors and graduate students are concerned that such unfettered access to their work could diminish future publishing opportunities. This study investigated social sciences, arts, and humanities journal editors’ and university press directors’ attitudes toward ETDs. The findings indicate that manuscripts that are revisions of openly accessible ETDs are always welcome for submission or considered on a case-by-case basis by 82.8 percent of journal editors and 53.7 percent of university press directors polled.
Schuurman, N. (2013). Editorial /Éditorial. Canadian Geographer, 57(2), 117-118. doi:10.1111/cag.12027
The author reflects on the use of the Open Access (OA) publishing for publications. She states that in OA publishing, an un-blinded peer review format is used wherein the authors’ names are known to the reviewer. She mentions that the countries such as Great Britain and Canada passed legislations which mandates the use of OA journals in university publications and health research. She also relates the impact of the changes in publishing to the print versions of journals.
Bazeley, J. W., Waller, J., & Resnis, E. (2014). Engaging Faculty in Scholarly Communication Change: A Learning Community Approach. Journal Of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 2(3), 1-13. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1129
As the landscape of scholarly communication and open access continues to shift, it remains important for academic librarians to continue educating campus stakeholders about these issues, as well as to create faculty advocates on campus. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM Three librarians at Miami University created a Faculty Learning Community (FLC) on Scholarly Communication to accomplish this. The FLC, composed of faculty, graduate students, staff, and librarians, met throughout the academic year to read and discuss topics such as open access, journal economics, predatory publishing, alternative metrics (altmetrics), open data, open peer review, etc. NEXT STEPS The members of the FLC provided positive evaluations about the community and the topics about which they learned, leading the co-facilitators to run the FLC for a second year. The library’s Scholarly Communication Committee is creating and implementing a scholarly communication website utilizing the structure and content identified by the 2012-2013 FLC
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, (2010). Freier Zugang zu Forschungsergebnissen. Bub: Forum Bibliothek Und Information, 62(1), 7.
The article reports that the research society Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) has expanded their support of open access publishing so that universities can now request that the DFG finance publication of their scientific works in open access journals.
Ottina, D. (2013). From Sustainable Publishing To Resilient Communications. Triplec (Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation): Open Access Journal For A Global Sustainable Information Society, 11(2), 604-613.
In their opening reflection on Open Access (OA) in this special section, Fuchs and Sandoval (2013) argue the current policy debate on Open Access publishing is limited by a for-profit bias which blinds it to much of the most innovative activity in Open Access. They further argue for a refocusing of the policy debate within a public service, commons based perspective of academic knowledge production. I pick up these themes by looking at another key term, sustainable publishing, in an effort to contextualize the policy debate on OA within the broader context of the privatization of the university. From this perspective, the policy debate reveals an essential tension between top-down and bottomup cultures in legitimizing knowledge. This is a tension that has profound implications for scholarly practices mediated through digital networked communications. Explicitly acknowledging this fundamental tension gives additional insight into formulating strategies for maintaining an academic culture of free and open inquiry. I suggest that the frame of resilient communications expresses the dynamic nature of scholarly communications better than that of sustainable publishing, and that empowering scholars through practice-based OA initiatives is essential in broadening grass roots support for equitable Open Access amongst scholars
Stevens, L. M. (2013). From the Editor: Getting What You Pay For? Open Access and the Future of Humanities Publishing. Tulsa Studies In Women’s Literature, 32(1), 7-21.
The article discusses the potential impact of the open access publishing movement on humanities scholarship and publishing. It is suggested that although the free circulation of knowledge is a positive goal, scholars and activists must be careful not to undermine the value of the scholarly and editorial labor which makes quality humanities publications possible. The author also suggests that authors who post their articles for open access or on university commons should pay journals a fee.
Thatcher, S. (2009). From the University Presses–Open Access and the Future of Scholarly Communication. Against the Grain, 21(5), 78-81.
The article presents a speech by the author, delivered on September 23, 2009 as part of the Andrew Neilly Lecture Series at the University of Rochester, in which he discussed open access publishing in terms of university presses and scholarly communication. He presented an overview of the history of such issues, and a forecast of likely future developments.
Dunham, G., & Walters, C. (2014). From University Press to the University’s Press: Building a One-Stop Campus Resource for Scholarly Publishing. Against The Grain, 26(6), 28-30.
The article examines the Office of Scholarly Publishing (OSP) at Indiana University (IU) in Bloomington, Indiana. Topics discussed include the role played in the OSP by Indiana University Press (IU Press), the role played by IUScholarWorks (IUSW), which is an open access publishing initiative administered by IU Libraries, and the location of the university’s publishing activities, which is the Herman B. Wells Library at IU.
Abadal, E. (2013). Gold or green: the debate on Open Access policies. International Microbiology, 16(3), 199-203. doi:10.2436/20.1501.01.194
The movement for open access to science seeks to achieve unrestricted and free access to academic publications on the Internet. To this end, two mechanisms have been established: the gold road, in which scientific journals are openly accessible, and the green road, in which publications are self-archived in repositories. The publication of the Finch Report in 2012, advocating exclusively the adoption of the gold road, generated a debate as to whether either of the two options should be prioritized. The recommendations of the Finch Report stirred controversy among academicians specialized in open access issues, who felt that the role played by repositories was not adequately considered and because the green road places the burden of publishing costs basically on authors. The Finch Report’s conclusions are compatible with the characteristics of science communication in the UK and they could surely also be applied to the (few) countries with a powerful publishing industry and substantial research funding. In Spain, both the current national legislation and the existing rules at universities largely advocate the green road. This is directly related to the structure of scientific communication in Spain, where many journals have little commercial significance, the system of charging a fee to authors has not been adopted, and there is a good repository infrastructure. As for open access policies, the performance of the scientific communication system in each country should be carefully analyzed to determine the most suitable open access strategy.
Bargheer, M., & Schmidt, B. (2008). Göttingen University Press: Publishing services in an Open Access environment. Information Services & Use, 28(2), 133-139.
The article presents a round table discussion that focuses on publishing services in an open access environment that are offered by Göttingen University Press. Begun as an additional service for the Göttingen State and University Library repository, it offers a publication consulting service on behalf of the university. It covers diverse topics such as sciences, life sciences, and humanities.
Jubb, M. (2011). Heading for the Open Road: Costs and Benefits of Transitions in Scholarly Communications. Liber Quarterly: The Journal Of European Research Libraries, 21(1), 102-124.
This paper reports on a study — overseen by representatives of the publishing, library and research funder communities in the UK — investigating the drivers, costs and benefits of potential ways to increase access to scholarly journals. It identifies five different but realistic scenarios for moving towards that end over the next five years, including gold and green open access, moves towards national licensing, publisherled delayed open access, and transactional models. It then compares and evaluates the benefits as well as the costs and risks for the UK. The scenarios, the comparisons between them, and the modelling on which they are based, amount to a benefit-cost analysis to help in appraising policy options over the next five years. Our conclusion is that policymakers who are seeking to promote increases in access should encourage the use of existing subject and institutional repositories, but avoid pushing for reductions in embargo periods, which might put at risk the sustainability of the underlying scholarly publishing system. They should also promote and facilitate a transition to gold open access, while seeking to ensure that the average level of charges for publication does not exceed circa £2,000; that the rate in the UK of open access publication is broadly in step with the rate in the rest of the world; and that total payments to journal publishers from UK universities and their funders do not rise as a consequence.
Tickell, A. (2013). Implementing Open Access in the United Kingdom. Information Services & Use, 33(1), 19-26. doi:10.3233/ISU-130688
Since July 2012, the UK has been undergoing an organized transition to open access. As of 01 April 2013, revised open access policies are coming into effect. Open access implementation requires new infrastructures for funding publishing. Universities as institutions increasingly will be central to managing article-processing charges, monitoring compliance and organizing deposit. This article reviews the implementation praxis between July 2012 and April 2013, including ongoing controversy and review, which has mainly focussed on embargo length
Hawkins, K. K. (2014). How We Pay for Publishing. Against The Grain, 26(6), 35-36.
The article examines the financial aspects of scholarly publishing. Topics discussed include the impact of these financial aspects on academic libraries and university presses, the concept of open access publishing and the financial considerations related to it, and the use of article processing charges (APC) in open access publishing.
Butler, D. (2013). Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 433-435. doi:10.1038/495433a
The article focuses on the investigation of Jeffrey Beall, academic librarian and university researcher at the University of Colorado in Denver regarding the practices of open-access publishing. It says that Beall who became a watchdog for open-access publishers criticizes them on his blog Scholarly Open Access. Beall adds that he was not prepared for the exponential growth of the occurrence of questionable publishers. The insights of publishers on the approach of Beall are also discussed.
Richard, J., Koufogiannakis, D., & Ryan, P. (2009). Librarians and Libraries Supporting Open Access Publishing. Canadian Journal Of Higher Education, 39(3), 33-48
An introduction is presented to the articles within the issue on the theme of open access publishing in Great Britain during the early 2010s, including topics on the economic aspects of and the British government’s policy on open access publishing and its impact on university libraries.
The article presents information on a joint publishing project “Digitalculturebooks” between the University of Michigan Press and the Scholarly Publishing Office of Michigan University Library in Michigan. The aim of the project was to publish books about new media in a printed version and an open access (OA) online version. It is mentioned that the project not only intended to publish innovative and accessible work about the social, cultural, and political impact of new and to collect data about the variation in reading habits and preferences across different scholarly reading communities, but also to explore the opportunities and the obstacles involved in a press working in a partnership with a technologically abled library unit with a business model.
Scientific Publishing: the Dilemma of Research Funding Organisations. (2009). European Review, 17(1), 23-31.
Present changes in scientific publishing, especially those summarised by the term ?Open Access? (OA), may ultimately lead to the complete replacement of a reader-paid to an author, or funding-paid, publication system. This transformation would shift the financial burden for scientific publishing from the Research Performing Organisations (RPOs), particularly from scientific libraries, universities, etc, to the Research Funding Organisations (RFOs). The transition phase is difficult; it leads to double funding of OA publications (by subscriptions and author-sponsored OA) and may thus increase the overall costs of scientific publishing. This may explain why ? with a few exceptions ? RFOs have not been at the forefront of the OA paradigm in the past. In 2008, the General Assembly of EUROHORCs, the European organisation of the heads of research councils, agreed to recommend to its member organisations at least a minimal standard of Open Access based on the Berlin Declaration of 2003 (green way of OA). In the long run, the publishing system needs some fundamental changes to reduce the present costs and to keep up its potential. In order to design a new system, all players have to cooperate and be ready to throw overboard some old traditions, lovable as they may be.
Kennan, M. A. (2010). The economic implications of alternative publishing models: views from a non-economist. Prometheus, 28(1), 85-89. doi:10.1080/08109021003676391
In this article the author discusses economic aspects of alternative economic models for scholarly publishing with reference to a report by J. Houghton and C. Oppenheim. The author present information on the economic models discussed in Houghton and Oppenheim report to the Great Britain’s Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). He discusses the open access (OA) publishing and suggests that mandates should be made by universities for OA.
http://www.colorado.edu/assett/sites/default/files/attached-files/final-fac-survey-full-report.pdf
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).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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% |
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 |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1407/ers1407.pdf
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
more on digital literacy in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy
three shifts in policy and leadership culture may help move these efforts forward:
crucial decisions about curriculum, leadership roles and discipline.
While the hybrid roles that teachers play at teacher-powered schoolsmay seem like a lot of work, they give teachers the power to decide what programs, textbooks, software, etc., should or should not be used in order to make space for the community’s vision. And when teachers decide together on the vision and strategy to reach all students, they are often more invested and excited by the change they are creating from within.
Some of the best available examples of how to improve teacher quality and promote teacher leadership lie in models offered by other high-performing places, like Finland and Singapore.
Seven qualities must be in place.
Proportion of Content
Delivered Online |
Type of Course |
Typical Description |
0% |
Traditional |
Classroom-based teaching with assignments and activities which students pursue independently of each other. |
1 to 29% |
Web Facilitated |
Web resources and technologies are used to facilitate what is essentially a face-to-face course. May use webpages and course management systems (CMS) to post syllabuses, readings and assignments. |
30-79% |
Blended / Hybrid |
Course blends online and face-to-face delivery. Substantial parts of the content are delivered online and discussions, team projects and activities and web safaris are used for learning. The number of face-to-face sessions is decreased as the volume of online activity increases. |
80+% |
Online |
A course where all, or almost all, of the content is delivered online with no or a very small number of face-to-face meetings. |
Flipped ClassroomCompetency-Based Learningopen learning Gamification Immersive Learning Environments Adaptive Learning and Assessment Systems |
++++++++++++++++++
Glossary of Online Learning Terms http://theelearningcoach.com/resources/online-learning-glossary-of-terms/
E-Learning Terms
http://www.bpcc.edu/educationaltechnology/glossary.html
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:
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
Does the instructor really care of what students have to say
lecturing does not predispose to 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
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):
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
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
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).
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).
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.
=============
More on classroom discussions in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=discussions&submit=Search
please have a link to a PDF copy print out instruction sessions spring 2016
Dreamweaver: 4 Mondays – 10-10:45AM . Jan 18, 25, Feb 1, 8 ; location MC 205. attendees cap is 5
Keywords: web development, web design, Adobe Dreamweaver
Description: Adobe Dreamweaver CC is the default web development tool on campus. In four consecutive weeks, learn the basics of Dreamweaver, web development, web design and maintaining web pages on the Web. Site map and site structure. HTML and HTML5 basics, basics of CSS, page properties, text editing, hyperlinks and images, tables, forms.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Photoshop: 4 Tuesdays – – 10-10:45AM . Jan 19, 26, Feb 2, 9 ; location MC 205. attendees cap is 5
Keywords: image processing, image editing, visual literacy, Adobe Photoshop
Description: In four 45 min sessions, learn the basics of image editing. A comprehensive understanding of Adobe Photoshop and its essential tools. Design and edit, adjusting images for the Internet and print outs. Learn image formats, compressions, layers. Retouching, repairing and correcting photos
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Social Media in Education 9:30-10:15 AM. Feb 3, 10, 17, 24. location MC 205. attendees cap is 15
Keywords: social media, social media in education, social media and learning, social media and teaching, social media and communication, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Diigo, Delicious, Evernote, SideVibe, Pinterest, Vine, Snapchat, Google+, Zotero, Mendeley, blogs, wikis, podcasts, visuals, text
Description: In four 45 min sessions, structure your approach to social media and assess how to use in teaching and learning. What is social media and how to use it. How to discriminate between personal and professional use of social media. Amidst 180 most popular social media tools, acquire a robust structure to cluster them and orient yourself quick and easy, which tools fit best your teaching materials and methods to enable learning and communication with your students. Visuals versus text and how to combine them for effective communication and teaching. Policies, engagement of students. Expanding and improving research and organization of your research through social media and networking toward your research through social media.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Cheating: what, why and how to avoid: Jan 28, 10-10:45AM . location MC 205. attendees cap is 15
Keywords: cheating, academic dishonesty, academic integrity, plagiarism.
Description: in 45 minutes we can start a conversation about identification of cheating practices and determination of what plagiarism is, considering generational differences, the evolution of the Internet. Identifying of “cheating” can provide robust boundaries for understanding students’ behavior and identifying practices and methods to alleviate such behavior, including change of teaching methods and practices.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
10 basics steps to start social media. March 16, 11-11:45AM location MC 205. attendees cap is 15
Keywords: social media, social media in education, social media and learning, social media and teaching, social media and communication, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Diigo, Delicious, Evernote, SideVibe, Pinterest, Vine, Snapchat, Google+, Zotero, Mendeley, blogs, wikis, podcasts, visuals, text
Description: introduction to social media and its use for personal and professional purposes. Ideas and scenarios of using different social media tools in education. Hands-on exercises for using social media in teaching.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Games and Gamification in Education. Feb 24 2-2:45PM, March 25, 10-10:45AM, April 14, 2-2:45PM MC 205, attendees cap is 5
Keywords: play, games, serious games, game-based learning, gaming, gamification.
Description: Gaming and Gamification is one of the most pronounced trends in education as per the New Horizon Report. Besides the increase of participation and enthusiasm, it increases learning. Introduction to gaming and gamification by establishing definitions, learning to distinguish gaming and gamification and learning the basics of gaming and gamification in the teaching process. Hands-on exercises for introducing gaming practices in the teaching and learning process and gamifying the existing syllabi.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Teaching Online. Jan. 29. 10-10:45AM. Feb 18, 2-2:45PM, March 30, 3-3:45 PM MC 205. attendees cap is 5.
Keywords: online teaching, mobile teaching, distance education, distributive learning, hybrid learning, hybrid teaching, blended learning
Description: this 45 min session is aimed to help you transition your F2F teaching to hybrid and online teaching. Learn about synchronous and asynchronous modes of teaching and communication to structure and organize your class materials and methods for better delivery. Hands-on exercises for improving content delivery, class discussions and communications among instructor and students.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Effective Presentations. Jan 28, 2-2:45PM. MC 205. attendees cap is 10
Keywords: presentations, PowerPoint, alternatives to PowerPoint, presentation design, presentation essentials, Prezi, SlideShare, LodeStar, Zentation, Zoho, Powtoon, Zaption, Thinglink, Haiku, Kahoot, Storify, EdPuzzle, PollDaddy, Evernote, Mammoth, SideVibe, Paddlet, Remind, Death by PowerPoint, visual literacy, media literacy, digital literacy, visuals
Description: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/01/07/effective-presentations/ . These four 45 minute sessions are aimed to introduce and orient faculty, staff and students to the opulence of alternatives to PowerPoint and revisit the basics of well-tailored presentation. Hands-on exercises for improving the structure and delivery of presentation as well as the choice of presentation tools.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Death by PowerPoint. Feb 26, 10-10:45PM. MC 205. attendees cap is 10
Keywords: presentations, PowerPoint, alternatives to PowerPoint, presentation design, presentation essentials, Death by PowerPoint, visual literacy, media literacy, digital literacy, visuals.
Description: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/01/07/effective-presentations/ . This 45 minute session is aimed to introduce and orient faculty, staff and students to the basics of PowerPoint and revisit the basics of a well-tailored presentation. Hands-on exercises for improving the structure and delivery of presentation as well as the choice of presentation tools.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Contemplative Computing or Disconnect: How to Bring Balance in Your Life by Managing well Your Technology. Feb 17. 2-2:45PM. MC 205. attendees cap is 10
Keywords: disconnect, Sherry Turkle, contemplative computing, mediation, contemplative practices, balance, technology stress
Description: this 45 min session introduces faculty, staff and students to the idea of regulating the use of technology in a meaningful way. Hands-on exercises and sharing good practices on balancing the use of technology in daily life.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Videos in the classroom: fast and easy. Jan 28, 10-10:45PM. MC 205. attendees cap is 5.
Keywords: video, video editing, video manipulation, visual literacy, digital literacy, MovieMaker, iMovie, Instagram, Vine, YouTube, Kaltura
Description: this 45 min session is an orientation to the resources available for delivery of visual materials in the classroom. Hands-on experience of different basics tools on different computer platforms.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Voice Over presentations: solutions. Feb 4, 10-10:45PM. MC 205. attendees cap is 5.
Keywords: PowerPoint, VoiceThread, LodeStar, MediaSpace (Kaltura), audio editing, narration
Description: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/04/28/voice-over-presentation-solutions/ . This 45 min session is a short hands-on introduction to the tools available at MnSCU intuitions and free third-party applications for delivery of narrative attached to presentations.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Infographics: make your projects, presentations and research credible through presentable data. Feb 10, 2-2:45PM. March 29, 10-10:45AM, MC 205. attendees cap is 10
Keywords: Piktochart, Infogr, Visualy, statistics, visual literacy, digital literacy
Description: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/04/09/infographics-how-to-create-them/. This 45 min session is an orientation to the world of infographics. Short introduction to the basics of statistics and their importance in presenting a research and idea. Hands-on exercise using one of the 3 popular infographic tools.
The Chronicle of Higher Education article, “The View From the Top, What Presidents Think About Financial Sustainability, Student Outcomes, and the Future of Higher Education”, gives a great snapshot of the perceptions and concerns of 400 public and private college Presidents.
http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/21820/docs/WhatCollegePresidentsThink.pdf
Among their beliefs: