Searching for "learning spaces"

Key Issues in Teaching and Learning Survey

The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative has just launched its 2018 Key Issues in Teaching and Learning Survey, so vote today: http://www.tinyurl.com/ki2018.

Each year, the ELI surveys the teaching and learning community in order to discover the key issues and themes in teaching and learning. These top issues provide the thematic foundation or basis for all of our conversations, courses, and publications for the coming year. Longitudinally they also provide the way to track the evolving discourse in the teaching and learning space. More information about this annual survey can be found at https://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/key-issues-in-teaching-and-learning.

ACADEMIC TRANSFORMATION (Holistic models supporting student success, leadership competencies for academic transformation, partnerships and collaborations across campus, IT transformation, academic transformation that is broad, strategic, and institutional in scope)

ACCESSIBILITY AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING (Supporting and educating the academic community in effective practice; intersections with instructional delivery modes; compliance issues)

ADAPTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING (Digital courseware; adaptive technology; implications for course design and the instructor’s role; adaptive approaches that are not technology-based; integration with LMS; use of data to improve learner outcomes)

COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION AND NEW METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING (Developing collaborative cultures of assessment that bring together faculty, instructional designers, accreditation coordinators, and technical support personnel, real world experience credit)

DIGITAL AND INFORMATION LITERACIES (Student and faculty literacies; research skills; data discovery, management, and analysis skills; information visualization skills; partnerships for literacy programs; evaluation of student digital competencies; information evaluation)

EVALUATING TECHNOLOGY-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL INNOVATIONS (Tools and methods to gather data; data analysis techniques; qualitative vs. quantitative data; evaluation project design; using findings to change curricular practice; scholarship of teaching and learning; articulating results to stakeholders; just-in-time evaluation of innovations). here is my bibliographical overview on Big Data (scroll down to “Research literature”https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/11/07/irdl-proposal/ )

EVOLUTION OF THE TEACHING AND LEARNING SUPPORT PROFESSION (Professional skills for T&L support; increasing emphasis on instructional design; delineating the skills, knowledge, business acumen, and political savvy for success; role of inter-institutional communities of practices and consortia; career-oriented professional development planning)

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT (Incentivizing faculty innovation; new roles for faculty and those who support them; evidence of impact on student learning/engagement of faculty development programs; faculty development intersections with learning analytics; engagement with student success)

GAMIFICATION OF LEARNING (Gamification designs for course activities; adaptive approaches to gamification; alternate reality games; simulations; technological implementation options for faculty)

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN (Skills and competencies for designers; integration of technology into the profession; role of data in design; evolution of the design profession (here previous blog postings on this issue: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/10/04/instructional-design-3/); effective leadership and collaboration with faculty)

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND ADVISING FOR STUDENT SUCCESS (Change management and campus leadership; collaboration across units; integration of technology systems and data; dashboard design; data visualization (here previous blog postings on this issue: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=data+visualization); counseling and coaching advising transformation; student success analytics)

LEARNING ANALYTICS (Leveraging open data standards; privacy and ethics; both faculty and student facing reports; implementing; learning analytics to transform other services; course design implications)

LEARNING SPACE DESIGNS (Makerspaces; funding; faculty development; learning designs across disciplines; supporting integrated campus planning; ROI; accessibility/UDL; rating of classroom designs)

MICRO-CREDENTIALING AND DIGITAL BADGING (Design of badging hierarchies; stackable credentials; certificates; role of open standards; ways to publish digital badges; approaches to meta-data; implications for the transcript; Personalized learning transcripts and blockchain technology (here previous blog postings on this issue: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=blockchain

MOBILE LEARNING (Curricular use of mobile devices (here previous blog postings on this issue:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/09/25/mc218-remodel/; innovative curricular apps; approaches to use in the classroom; technology integration into learning spaces; BYOD issues and opportunities)

MULTI-DIMENSIONAL TECHNOLOGIES (Virtual, augmented, mixed, and immersive reality; video walls; integration with learning spaces; scalability, affordability, and accessibility; use of mobile devices; multi-dimensional printing and artifact creation)

NEXT-GENERATION DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND LMS SERVICES (Open standards; learning environments architectures (here previous blog postings on this issue: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/03/28/digital-learning/; social learning environments; customization and personalization; OER integration; intersections with learning modalities such as adaptive, online, etc.; LMS evaluation, integration and support)

ONLINE AND BLENDED TEACHING AND LEARNING (Flipped course models; leveraging MOOCs in online learning; course development models; intersections with analytics; humanization of online courses; student engagement)

OPEN EDUCATION (Resources, textbooks, content; quality and editorial issues; faculty development; intersections with student success/access; analytics; licensing; affordability; business models; accessibility and sustainability)

PRIVACY AND SECURITY (Formulation of policies on privacy and data protection; increased sharing of data via open standards for internal and external purposes; increased use of cloud-based and third party options; education of faculty, students, and administrators)

WORKING WITH EMERGING LEARNING TECHNOLOGY (Scalability and diffusion; effective piloting practices; investments; faculty development; funding; evaluation methods and rubrics; interoperability; data-driven decision-making)

+++++++++++
learning and teaching in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=teaching+and+learning

Library 2.0 Makerspaces

Library 2.017: Makerspaces

Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 2-5PM

registering

organized in partnership with Heather Moorefield-Lang, who will serve as moderator for the opening panel and as the closing keynote speaker: “There has been a lot of talk about makerspaces in libraries over the past four years. If you are unsure what makerspaces are, think of them as creative locations for tinkering, collaborating, problem solving, and creating in a library or educational space. No matter how many maker learning spaces you may visit, you will quickly notice no two are the same. Each librarian and makerspace delivers their own brand of service to their individual community. Attendees will investigate how librarians with makerspaces can create new partnerships and collaborative efforts in and with their communities, offering further services and methods to meet patron needs.”
Joining Heather for the opening hour will be: Dr. June Abbas, PhD, a Professor in the School of Library and Information Studies (SLIS) at the University of Oklahoma, Norman campus; Leanne Bowler, Associate Professor at the University of Pittsburgh; Kristin Fontichiaro, clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan School Information; Kyungwon Koh, assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma School of Library and Information Studies.

++++++++++++++++
more on Makerspaces and libraries in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=makerspaces

next gen digital learning environment

Updating the Next Generation Digital Learning Environment for Better Student Learning Outcomes

a learning management system (LMS) is never the solution to every problem in education. Edtech is just one part of the whole learning ecosystem and student experience.

Therefore, the next generation digital learning environment (NGDLE), as envisioned by EDUCAUSE in 2015 …  Looking at the NGDLE requirements from an LMS perspective, I view the NGDLE as being about five areas: interoperability; personalization; analytics, advising, and learning assessment; collaboration; accessibility and universal design.

Interoperability

  • Content can easily be exchanged between systems.
  • Users are able to leverage the tools they love, including discipline-specific apps.
  • Learning data is available to trusted systems and people who need it.
  • The learning environment is “future proof” so that it can adapt and extend as the ecosystem evolves.

Personalization

  • The learning environment reflects individual preferences.
  • Departments, divisions, and institutions can be autonomous.
  • Instructors teach the way they want and are not constrained by the software design.
  • There are clear, individual learning paths.
  • Students have choice in activity, expression, and engagement.

Analytics, Advising, and Learning Assessment

  • Learning analytics helps to identify at-risk students, course progress, and adaptive learning pathways.
  • The learning environment enables integrated planning and assessment of student performance.
  • More data is made available, with greater context around the data.
  • The learning environment supports platform and data standards.

Collaboration

  • Individual spaces persist after courses and after graduation.
  • Learners are encouraged as creators and consumers.
  • Courses include public and private spaces.

Accessibility and Universal Design

  • Accessibility is part of the design of the learning experience.
  • The learning environment enables adaptive learning and supports different types of materials.
  • Learning design includes measurement rubrics and quality control.

The core analogy used in the NGDLE paper is that each component of the learning environment is a Lego brick:

  • The days of the LMS as a “walled garden” app that does everything is over.
  • Today many kinds of amazing learning and collaboration tools (Lego bricks) should be accessible to educators.
  • We have standards that let these tools (including an LMS) talk to each other. That is, all bricks share some properties that let them fit together.
  • Students and teachers sign in once to this “ecosystem of bricks.”
  • The bricks share results and data.
  • These bricks fit together; they can be interchanged and swapped at will, with confidence that the learning experience will continue uninterrupted.

Any “next-gen” attempt to completely rework the pedagogical model and introduce a “mash-up of whatever” to fulfil this model would fall victim to the same criticisms levied at the LMS today: there is too little time and training to expect faculty to figure out the nuances of implementation on their own.

The Lego metaphor works only if we’re talking about “old school” Lego design — bricks of two, three, and four-post pieces that neatly fit together. Modern edtech is a lot more like the modern Lego. There are wheels and rocket launchers and belts and all kinds of amazing pieces that work well with each other, but only when they are configured properly. A user cannot simply stick together different pieces and assume they will work harmoniously in creating an environment through which each student can be successful.

As the NGDLE paper states: “Despite the high percentages of LMS adoption, relatively few instructors use its more advanced features — just 41% of faculty surveyed report using the LMS ‘to promote interaction outside the classroom.'”

But this is what the next generation LMS is good at: being a central nervous system — or learning hub — through which a variety of learning activities and tools are used. This is also where the LMS needs to go: bringing together and making sense of all the amazing innovations happening around it. This is much harder to do, perhaps even impossible, if all the pieces involved are just bricks without anything to orchestrate them or to weave them together into a meaningful, personal experience for achieving well-defined learning outcomes.

  • Making a commitment to build easy, flexible, and smart technology
  • Working with colleges and universities to remove barriers to adopting new tools in the ecosystem
  • Standardizing the vetting of accessibility compliance (the Strategic Nonvisual Access Partner Program from the National Federation of the Blind is a great start)
  • Advancing standards for data exchange while protecting individual privacy
  • Building integrated components that work with the institutions using them — learning quickly about what is and is not working well and applying those lessons to the next generation of interoperability standards
  • Letting people use the tools they love [SIC] and providing more ways for nontechnical individuals (including students) to easily integrate new features into learning activities

My note: something just refused to be accepted at SCSU
Technologists are often very focused on the technology, but the reality is that the more deeply and closely we understand the pedagogy and the people in the institutions — students, faculty, instructional support staff, administrators — the better suited we are to actually making the tech work for them.

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

Under the Hood of a Next Generation Digital Learning Environment in Progress

The challenge is that although 85 percent of faculty use a campus learning management system (LMS),1 a recent Blackboard report found that, out of 70,000 courses across 927 North American institutions, 53 percent of LMS usage was classified as supplemental(content-heavy, low interaction) and 24 percent as complementary (one-way communication via content/announcements/gradebook).2 Only 11 percent were characterized as social, 10 percent as evaluative (heavy use of assessment), and 2 percent as holistic (balanced use of all previous). Our FYE course required innovating beyond the supplemental course-level LMS to create a more holistic cohort-wide NGDLE in order to fully support the teaching, learning, and student success missions of the program.The key design goals for our NGDLE were to:

  • Create a common platform that could deliver a standard curriculum and achieve parity in all course sections using existing systems and tools and readily available content
  • Capture, store, and analyze any generated learner data to support learning assessment, continuous program improvement, and research
  • Develop reports and actionable analytics for administrators, advisors, instructors, and students

++++++++++++
more on LMS in this blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=LMS

more on learning outcomes in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=learning+outcomes

directions immersive learning

Emerging Directions in Immersive Learning

Presented by: Maya Georgieva and Emory Craig, May 17, 1:00 – 2:00pm (EDT)

http://events.shindig.com/event/campus-tech

Digital Bodies cofounders Emory Craig and Maya Georgieva for an interactive session that will examine five developments in virtual, augmented, and mixed reality with the greatest potential to impact teaching and learning.   Ask your questions live as they explore how groundbreaking developments in VR, AR, MR, and artificial intelligence will power immersive technologies and transform learning.

Hololense $3000 and it is difficult to use outside. persistent digital objects
https://mixed.reality.news/news/whats-difference-between-hololens-meta-magic-leap-0171361/

https://events.google.com/io/

https://unity3d.com/sundance2017

education: new media, gaming

storytelling: immersive storytelling and AI

Jeremy Bailenson https://vhil.stanford.edu/

Julie Johnston – https://uits.iu.edu/learning-spaces

learning space design

An Open Repository of Learning Space Design

The cross-institutional FLEXspace team created a global forum for sharing examples of technology-enhanced learning environments and their impact on teaching and learning.

By Meg Lloyd 10/12/16

https://campustechnology.com/articles/2016/10/12/an-open-repository-of-learning-space-design.aspx

The Flexible Learning Environments eXchange (FLEXspace) a highly searchable, peer-reviewed repository of technology-enhanced learning spaces, freely available to the higher ed community.

FLEXspace uses the Artstor Shared Shelf platform to create its open education resource and share it with the higher education community.

A user begins by accessing the public facing FLEXspace website, which describes each project.

Ultimately, FLEXspace, used in conjunction with other resources like the Learning Space Rating System, will not only promote understanding of other institutions’ efforts, but also assist individual campus stakeholders in creating master learning space plans.

 

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++
more on learning spaces in this IMS blog

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=learning+space

Key Issues in Teaching and Learning 2016

This year we’d like to involve a wider segment of the teaching and learning community to help us design the survey.  Please join us online for one of two 30-minute discussion sessions:

Sept 14 at 12pm ET OR Sept 15 at 2pm ET
To join, just go to https://educause.acms.com/eliweb on the date and time of the session and join as a guest. No registration or login needed.

———————————————————————————-

Key Issues in Teaching and Learning 2016

http://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/key-issues-in-teaching-and-learning

Key Issues in Teaching and Learning 2016

1. Academic Transformation

3. Assessment of Learning

4. Online and Blended Learning

5. Learning Analytics

6. Learning Space Design

8. Open Educational Resources & Content

9. Working with Emerging Technology

10. Next Gen Digital Learning Environments (NGDLE) & Services

11. Digital & Informational Literacies

12. Adaptive Learning

13. Mobile Learning

14. Evaluating Tech-Based Instructional Innovations

15. Evolution of the Profession

Digital Evidence of and for Learning

Midwest Regional Conference at Notre Dame

http://www.aaeebl.org/?page=notre_dame_2016

The Conference at Notre Dame May 12-13 is intriguing as you can see from some of the session titles below.  It’s time to register and book lodging.

How do we know they are learning? Digital Evidence of and for Learning

Peruse the titles below to get an idea of the dynamism of this eportfolio conference:

  • Balancing Summative, Formative, and Transformative ePortfolio Functions within Participatory Learning and Assessment
  • Competency Based Badging and ePortfolios for the Youth and Adult Workforce in Philadelphia
  • Show your SPuRS: Bridging Academics and Co-Curricular Professional Readiness
  • Buckeye Badges: A Pilot Project at Ohio State University
  • Developing an Integrative Toolkit for Engagement at Michigan (iTeam)
  • Ethics, ePortfolios, and Badges: Envisaging Privacy and Digital Persistence in Student-Level Learning Evidence
  • Balancing Summative, Formative, and Transformative ePortfolio Functions within Participatory Learning and Assessment

Plus 15 other sessions.

The keynote address will be given by Daniel T. Hickey on  Open Digital Badges + ePortfolios: Searching for and Supporting Synergy.  an internationally-known speaker and leader on the changes in higher education around digital technologies. 
Here is a description of another session:

By sharing challenges, practices, and examples of maker portfolios, we highlight the importance of makerspaces and community development in the design of portfolios that capture rich learning.

These are the institutions represented in the program:

  1. Grand Valley State University
  2. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
  3. Indiana University
  4. Notre Dame
  5. University of Michigan
  6. IUPUI
  7. Ohio State University
  8. Kendall College; Laureate Universities
  9. Boston University
  10. Western Michigan University
  11. Drexel University
  12. University of Charleston

The full program will be posted by late Thursday of this week.  This is a must-attend event to know about the latest developments in the eportfolio field.

Registration rates (note that AAEEBL members receive a $100 discount on registration; a student rate is available as well):

Registration Fees:

Non-Member Registration
$250 before April 25
$290 after April 25

Member Registration
$150 before Aprial 25
$190 after April 25

Student Registration
$75 before Aprial 25
$115 after April 25

Includes 2 breakfasts, one lunch and one reception. One and a half days of sessions.

Register nowBook lodging.  Notre Dame is just outside of Chicago in Northern Indiana.  Midway Airport is probably the closest major airport to the Notre Dame campus.  Conference facilities at Notre Dame are excellent — lodging and conference space are adjacent.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
More on badges in this IMS blog:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=badges&submit=Search

More on eportfolio in this IMS blog:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=eportfolio&submit=Search

Active Learning Classrooms

Join us next Tuesday, November 10th from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM, for a special SIG Series webinar: Tales from the National Forum on Active Learning Classrooms

The WSU Learning Spaces Team attended the National Forum on Active Learning Classrooms at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities this summer and learned a lot. With topics ranging from picking whiteboards to better integrating classroom design into your campus strategic planning efforts, the conference was a treasure trove of good practices, pictures of cool new classrooms, links to useful information, and pro tips. Join us as we share what we learned at this amazing gathering. If you didn’t get a chance to go, this session will be a great opportunity to zoom in on the highlights. If you went, we would love to compare notes!

Ken Graetz, Tom Hill, Stephanie Stango, Dave Burman, and Eric Wright are all part of the Winona State University Learning Spaces Team and members of the Teaching, Learning, and Technology Services unit of Information Technology Services. They attended the National Forum as a team this summer and were able to cover almost all of the sessions. Each brings a unique perspective to the discussion, from under-the-hood classroom systems design and configuration to instructional design and pedagogical strategies.

Register for the webinar at http://www.eventbrite.com/o/minnesota-online-quality-initiative-7290950883. Please forward this on to anyone on your campus who might be interested.

Link to the Virtual Room:

https://moqi.zoom.us/j/672493176

Or join by phone:

+1 646 568 7788 (US Toll) or +1 415 762 9988 (US Toll)

Meeting ID: 672 493 176

FlexSpace. flexspace.org

CCUMC Leadership in Media and Academic Technology. http://www.ccumc.org

EduCause learning space rating system.
http://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/learning-space-rating-system

McGill Principles for Designing of Teaching and Learning Spaces has rubric

most useful technology in an ALC appears to be the whiteboard.

Whiteboards are also very glitchy. Projecting my tablet or laptop is just as effective–with less glitches

evidence that students are reluctant to engage in active learning.

the U has done work, but the “Canadians have the process”

the support faculty gets from technicians: two week in the beginning of the semester in a new classroom.

what is the most important goal of your college education and therefore of this course: a. inquiring information b. learning how to sue information and knowledge in  anew situation c. developing skills to continue learning after college

  1. creativity
  2. computer skills
  3. GPA cutoff above 3.0
  4. problem solving skills
  5. teamwork skills
  6. verbal communication
  7. written communication skills

GigaPan.com  instructor will have students use in classes to identify problems engaging in a virtual field trip. student engagement

design thinking

wikispaces as GOogle docs, MS Word 16, work collaboratively

not group, but team. team work very important

take what we learned in ALCs to traditional large lecture halls

blending the formal with the informal (including outdoors)

connecting ALCs together across distance

thinking about gear (raised floors, smart kapp boards) http://smartkapp.com/

LMS and student learning

Techniques for Unleashing Student Work from Learning Management Systems

http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/02/13/techniques-for-unleashing-student-work-from-learning-management-systems/

the fundamental problem is that learning management systems are ultimately about serving the needs of institutions, not individual students.

In his manifesto on Connectivism, George Siemens writes that in Connectivist learning environments, the “pipes” of a course are more important than what flows through those pipes. The networks that students build are durable structures of lifelong learning, and they are more important

by having students own their learning spaces and democratize the means of production. Rather than forcing students to log in to an institutional LMS, I asked them to create their own websites, blogs, Twitter accounts and spaces on the open Web. In these spaces, students could curate links and connections and share their evolving ideas. Whatever they create is owned and maintained by them, not by me or by Harvard. They can keep their content for three months, three years, or the rest of their lives, so long as they continue to curate and move their published content as platforms change.

so, it is back what i claimed at the turn of the century: LMS were claimed to be invented to make the instructor’s life “easier”: instead of learning HTML, use LMS. My argument was that by the time one learns the interface of WebCT, one can learn HTML and HTML will be remain for the rest of their professional life, whereas WebCT got replaced by D2L and D2L will be replaced by another interface. I was labeled as “D2L hater” for such an opinion.
Now to the argument that LMS was a waste of instructors’ time, is added the new argument that it is also a waste of students’ time.

The way that Connected Courses deal with this challenge is by aggregation, sometimes also called syndication. All of the content produced on student blogs, websites, Twitter accounts and other social media accounts is syndicated to a single website. On the Flow page, every piece of content created by students, myself and teaching staff was aggregated into one place. We also had Blog and Twitter Hubs that displayed only long-form writing from blogs or microposts from Twitter. A Spotlight page highlighted some of the best writings from students.

This online learning environment had three important advantages. First, students owned their means of production. They weren’t writing in discussion forums in order to get 2 points for posting to the weekly prompt. They wrote to communicate with audiences within the class and beyond. Second, everyone’s thinking could be found in the same place, by looking at hashtags and our syndication engines on t509massive.org. Finally, this design allows our learning to be permeable to the outside world. Students could write for audiences they cared about: fellow librarians or English teachers or education technologists working in developing countries. And as our networks grew, colleagues form outside our classroom could share with us, by posting links or thoughts to the #t509massive hashtag.

 

 

 

handbook of mobile learning

Routledge. (n.d.). Handbook of Mobile Learning (Hardback) – Routledge [Text]. Retrieved May 27, 2015, from http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415503693/

Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/5601076/A_historical_overview_of_mobile_learning_Toward_learner-centered_education

Crompton, Muilenburg and Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
The “context”in this definition encompasses m-learnng that is formalself-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware and context neutral.
therefore, m-learning can occur inside or outside the classroom, participating in a formal lesson on a mobile device; it can be self-directed, as a person determines his or her own approach to satisfy a learning goal; or spontaneous learning, as a person can use the devices to look up something that has just prompted an interest (Crompton, 2013, p. 83). (Gaming article Tallinn)Constructivist Learnings in the 1980s – Following Piage’s (1929), Brunner’s (1996) and Jonassen’s (1999) educational philosophies, constructivists proffer that knowledge acquisition develops through interactions with the environment. (p. 85). The computer was no longer a conduit for the presentation of information: it was a tool for the active manipulation of that information” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12)Constructionist Learning in the 1980s – Constructionism differed from constructivism as Papert (1980) posited an additional component to constructivism: students learned best when they were actively involved in constructing social objects. The tutee position. Teaching the computer to perform tasks.Problem-Based learning in the 1990s – In the PBL, students often worked in small groups of five or six to pool knowledge and resources to solve problems. Launched the sociocultural revolution, focusing on learning in out of school contexts and the acquisition of knowledge through social interaction

Socio-Constructivist Learning in the 1990s. SCL believe that social and individual processes are independent in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan-Palinscar, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978).

96-97). Keegan (2002) believed that e-learning was distance learning, which has been converted to e-learning through the use of technologies such as the WWW. Which electronic media and tools constituted e-learning: e.g., did it matter if the learning took place through a networked technology, or was it simply learning with an electronic device?

99-100. Traxler (2011) described five ways in which m-learning offers new learning opportunities: 1. Contingent learning, allowing learners to respond and react to the environment and changing experiences; 2. Situated learning, in which learning takes place in the surroundings applicable to the learning; 3. Authentic learning;

Diel, W. (2013). M-Learning as a subfield of open and distance education. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.

  1. 15) Historical context in relation to the field of distance education (embedded librarian)
  2. 16 definition of independent study (workshop on mlearning and distance education
  3. 17. Theory of transactional distance (Moore)

Cochrane, T. (2013). A Summary and Critique of M-Learning Research and Practice. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
( Galin class, workshop)

P 24

According to Cook and Sharples (2010) the development of M learning research has been characterized by three general faces a focus upon Devices Focus on learning outside the classroom He focus on the mobility of the learner

  1. 25

Baby I am learning studies focus upon content delivery for small screen devices and the PDA capabilities of mobile devices rather than leveraging the potential of mobile devices for collaborative learning as recommended by hope Joyner Mill Road and sharp P. 26 Large scale am learning project Several larger am learning projects have tended to focus on specific groups of learners rather than developing pedagogical strategies for the integration of am mlearning with him tertiary education in general

27

m learning research funding

In comparison am learning research projects in countries with smaller population sizes such as Australia and New Zealand are typiclly funded on a shoe string budget

28

M-learning research methodologies

I am learning research has been predominantly characterized by short term case studies focused upon The implementation of rapidly changing technologies with early adopters but with little evaluation reflection or emphasis on mainstream tertiary-education integration

 

p. 29 identifying the gaps in M learning research

 

lack of explicit underlying pedagogical theory Lack of transferable design frameworks

 

Cochrane, T. (2011).Proceedings ascilite 2011 Hobart:Full Paper 250 mLearning: Why? What? Where? How? http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Cochrane-full.pdf
(Exploring mobile learning success factors http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893351.pdf
https://prezi.com/kr94rajmvk9u/mlearning/
https://thomcochrane.wikispaces.com/MLearning+Praxis

Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., and Cook, J. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
(Tom video studio)

35 a line of argumentation that defines mobile devices such as mobile phones as cultural resources. Mobile cultural resources emerge within what we call a “bile complex‘, which consist of specifics structures, agency and cultural practices.

36 pedagogy looks for learning in the context of identify formation of learners within a wider societal context However at the beginning of the twentieth first century and economy oriented service function of learning driven by targets and international comparisons has started to occupy education systems and schools within them Dunning 2000 describes the lengthy transformation process from natural assets Land unskilled labor to tangible assets machinery to intangible created assets such as knowledge and information of all kinds Araya and Peters 2010 describe the development of the last 20 years in terms of faces from the post industrial economy to d information economy to the digital economy to the knowledge economy to the creative economy Cultural ecology can refer to the debate about natural resources we argue for a critical debate about the new cultural resources namely mobile devices and the services for us the focus must not be on the exploitation of mobile devices and services for learning but instead on the assimilation of learning with mobiles in informal contacts of everyday life into formal education

37

Ecology comes into being is there exists a reciprocity between perceiver and environment translated to M learning processes this means that there is a reciprocity between the mobile devices in the activity context of everyday life and the formal learning

45

Rather than focusing on the acquisition of knowledge in relation to externally defined notions of relevance increasingly in a market-oriented system individual faces the challenge of shape his/her knowledge out of his/her own sense of his/her world information is material which is selected by individuals to be transformed by them into knowledge to solve a problem in the life world

Crompton, H. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.

p. 47 As philosophies and practice move toward learner-centered pedagogies, technology in a parallel move, is now able to provide new affordances to the learner, such as learning that is personalized, contextualized, and unrestricted by temporal and spatial constrains.

The necessity for m-learning to have a theory of its own, describing exactly what makes m-learning unique from conventional, tethered electronic learning and traditional learning.

48 . Definition and devices. Four central constructs. Learning pedagogies, technological devices, context and social interactions.

“learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”

It is difficult, and ill advisable, to determine specifically which devices should be included in a definition of m-learning, as technologies are constantly being invented or redesigned. (my note against the notion that since D2L is a MnSCU mandated tool, it must be the one and only). One should consider m-learning as the utilization of electronic devices that are easily transported and used anytime and anywhere.

49 e-learning does not have to be networked learning: therefore, e-learnng activities could be used in the classroom setting, as the often are.

Why m-learning needs a different theory beyond e-learning. Conventional e-learning is tethered, in that students are anchored to one place while learning. What sets m-learning apart from conventional e-learning is the very lack of those special and temporal constrains; learning has portability, ubiquitous access and social connectivity.

50 dominant terms for m-learning should include spontaneous, intimate, situated, connected, informal, and personal, whereas conventional e-learning should include the terms computer, multimedia, interactive, hyperlinked, and media-rich environment.

51 Criteria for M-Learning
second consideration is that one must be cognizant of the substantial amount of learning taking place beyond the academic and workplace setting.

52 proposed theories

Activity theory: Vygotsky and Engestroem

Conversation theory: Pask 1975, cybernetic and dialectic framework for how knowledge is constructed. Laurillard (2007) although conversation is common for all forms of learning, m-learning can build in more opportunities for students to have ownership and control over what they are learning through digitally facilitated, location-specific activities.

53 multiple theories;

54 Context is central construct of mobile learning. Traxler (2011) described the role of context in m-learning as “context in the wider context”, as the notion of context becomes progressively richer. This theme fits with Nasimith et al situated theory, which describes the m-learning activities promoting authentic context and culture.

55. Connectivity
unlike e-learning, the learner is not anchored to a set place. it links to Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach.
Learning happens within various social groups and locations, providing a diverse range of connected  learning experiences. furthermore, connectivity is without temporal restraints, such as the schedules of educators.

55. Time
m-larning as “learning dispersed in time”

55. personalization
my note student-centered learning

Moura, A., Carvalho, A. (2013). Framework For Mobile Learning Integration Into Educational Contexts. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.

p. 58 framework is based on constructivist approach, Activity theory, and the attention, relevance and confidence satisfaction (ARCS) model http://www.arcsmodel.com/#!
http://torreytrust.com/images/ITH_Trust.pdf

to set a didacticmodel that can be applied to m-learning requires looking at the characteristics of specific devi

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nadire_Cavus/publication/235912545_Basic_elements_and_characteristics_of_mobile_learning/links/02e7e526c1c0647142000000.pdf
https://eleed.campussource.de/archive/9/3704

1 2 3 4 10