To help improve understanding of BYOD and its impacts on modern network environments, this white paper will further explore the many differences that exist between corporate and educational approaches to the technology.
In the education space, dealing with non-standard, user-managed devices has been and still remains the norm. Unfortunately, the variety of devices means a multitude of operating systems and software are encountered, with many âstandardsâ being defined. As a result there is little consistency in the device type or the software being installed. Since the device is owned by the student and is a personal resource, it is often difficult or impossible to enforce a policy that prevents users from installing software. In addition, due to the nature of learning as opposed to a corporate environment, it is also difficult to put a restriction on certain classes of software since all may provide a worthwhile educational purpose.
providing a solution that unifies management and deployment polices across both wired and wireless devices is very desirable.
The Internet of Everything (IoE) has spurred a revolution in mobility. Collaboration anywhere, anytime and with any device is quickly becoming the rule instead of the exception. As a result it is now common for students to bring mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets and e-readers into the academic environment to support their educational endeavors.
The infrastructure supporting BYOD no longer has the sole purpose of providing a wireless radio signal within a given area. The focus is now about providing the appropriate bandwidth and quality to accommodate the ever-growing number of devices and ensure that an application provides a good end-user experience. In a sense, applications are now the major driving force behind the continuing evolution of BYOD. For example, a teacher accessing video in the classroom for educational purposes during class hours should have greater priority than a student in the same area accessing a gaming site for recreation.
A state-of-the-art BYOD infrastructure should now be capable of providing more than just generic, general-purpose wireless connectivity. In the classroom environment, the notion of âdifferentiated accessâ often resonates with faculty and staff. Once this has been determined, a policy can be applied to the user and their activity on the network.
Granular security can also be intelligently delivered.
Quality of Service (QoS) rate limiting has been available for some time, but now there are newer QoS techniques available.
Location-based services can provide their first interaction with the university. By delivering campus maps and directional information, location-enabled services can enhance the experience of these visitors and provide a positive image to them as well. As a visitor enters a particular building location, information could automatically be provided. In the case of a visiting student, information about the history of a building, departments contained within the building, or other resources could be presented to enhance a guided tour, or provide the perspective student the ability to have a self-directed tour of the campus facilities.
applying the mechanics of games to the science of psychometrics â the measurement of the mind.
Scholars like James Paul Gee believe video games actually come much closer to capturing the learning process in action than traditional fill-in-the-bubble tests. My note: Duh...
Schwartzâs theory of assessment focuses on choice. He argues that the ultimate goal of education is to create independent thinkers who make good decisions. And so we need assessments that test how students think, not what they happen to know at a given moment.
My note: excellent Australian article, which presents a very strong point on digital literacies (metaliteracies, see URL below) from educators (versus library) perspective. Connected with game-based learning, it clearly renders the traditional perspective of information literacy as miniscules and the notion of digital literacy being “information literacy on steroids” as obsolete. It clearly shows that the “xxx-literacies” are clearly not a domain of the librarians and if the librarians do not wised up and allow other faculty who are “not librarians” to equally participate, they might well count with those faculty going on their own (as it is transparent from this article).
connections will be made between  digital game-based learning and digital literacies to show that digital game-based learning is a powerful pedagogy that incorporates the elements of digital literacies. Through the adoption of game-based learning, digital literacies can be taught in context. Digital literacies are the skills that connect the learning content (curriculum) and digital games are the platform that these digital literacies can be practised within a meaningful context.
Digital literacies is an umbrella term that includes a combination of literacies â visual literacy, media literacy, collaborative literacy, ICT literacy, information literacy â that are needed to take an active, participatory role in life, now and in the future (Hague & Payton, 2010, p. 2).
Bawden (2008), cites Gilster (1997), who defines digital literacy as âan ability to understand and use information from a variety of digital sources and regard it as literacy in the digital ageâ (p.18).
Jisc, identify in their Digital Literacy Guide that it is a concept that is contextual and it is not static.  Change is imminent as new technologies develop âat breakneck speedsâ (Becker, 2011, p. 76), therefore, it can be inferred the digital literacies required to use these new technologies need to be adaptable and flexible to these changes (Haste, 2009).
Cooper, Lockyer & Brown (2013), highlight this plurality by using the term âmultiliteraciesâ which can be understood as synonymous with digital literacies. Â Cooper et al. (2013), explain multiliteracies is required as a âbroader view of literacyâ (p. 94), is needed as a result of the diverse range of communications tools, therefore, context is implied. Â Ng (2012) also highlights this idea that digital literacy is âthe multiplicity of literacies associated with the use of digital technologiesâ (p. 1066). Â The combination of multiliteracies and technologies would also suggest that multimodality is an important element of digital literacy (McLoughlin, 2011) .
digital games (Pivec & Pivec, 2011), which can also be called computer games (Whitton, 2011), video games (Turkay, Hoffman, Kinzer, Chantes & Vicari, 2014) or serious games (Arnab et al., 2012) rather than gamification.
Digital game-based learning then is using digital games in the learning environment with the purpose of achieving learning aligned with learning theory.
Cognitive constructivism is a learning theory that game-based learning could be aligned (Orr & McGuinness, 2014; St-Pierre, 2011). Â This learning theory builds upon the theories of Piaget and Bruner, therefore, an important consideration in the digital game-based classroom would be that choosing games needs to fit the age and level of intellectual development the students are at (St-Pierre, 2011).
A major focus of the socio-constructivist learning theory is that of Vygotskyâs Zone of Proximal Development (St-Pierre, 2011).  The learning is designed âjust beyond what the learner can doâ (Orr & McGuinness, 2014, p. 223) and takes them beyond where their knowledge already exists.
More on digital literacy (metaliteracy) and DGBL in this IMS blog:
After yesterday’s post about making the most of Google Keep I received a few emails from readers wanting to know a bit more about how Google Keep works. To answer those questions I recorded the short video that you see embedded below (click here if you cannot see the video).
Recently, ED/IES SBIR announced its 2015 awards. There are 21 awards in all, covering a range of topics and forms of technology. For example, Zaption is designing a mobile app to help teachers integrate video into science instruction; Speak Agent is building an app to help students with speech disabilities to communicate; and Lingo Jingo is developing a platform to help teachers guide English learners. (To view short video demos of the eight new Phase II projects, see this playlist.)
The 2015 awards highlight two trends that have emerged in the ED/IES SBIR portfolio in recent years âgames for learning and bridging the research-to-practice gap in education.
Trend #1: Games for Learning
Strange Loop Games to build a virtual world to engage students in learning about ecosystems,
Kiko Labs to develop mini games to strengthen young childrenâs thinking and memory skills, and
Schell Games to create a futuristic âball and stickâ molecular modeling kit and app to augment chemistry learning.
For a playlist including videos of these games and 19 others out of the ED/IES SBIR program, see here.
The games for learning trend echoes the movement surrounding games in the field, and is highlighted by recent ED sponsored events including ED Games Week in Washington, DC, last September and the Games for Learning Summit in New York City, in April. Both events convened stakeholders to showcase games and discuss the potential barriers and opportunities for collaboration necessary to accelerate the creation of highly effective games for learning. Stay tuned for more information and initiatives on games for learning out of EDâs Office of Technology.
Trend #2: Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap
Mindset Works, which built on results from prior research including a 2002 IES research grant, to successfully propose a 2010 ED/IES SBIR project to develop SchoolKit. This multimedia platform enables broad distribution of the growth mindset intervention which teaches students to understand that intelligence can be developed through effort and learning. SchoolKit is now in use in more than 500 schools across the country, including half the middle schools in Washington, DC.
Learning Ovations is building on two prior IES research grants in their 2014 ED/IES SBIR project. The prior IES funding supported the research team as they developed and evaluated an intervention to improve childrenâs reading outcomes,. This award is supporting the development of an implementation platform to enable large-scale use of this evidence-based intervention across settings. The project is scheduled to end in 2016, after which the platform will be launched.
The new ED/IES SBIR 2015 awards continue the research-to-practice trend. An award to Foundations in Learning furthers basic research from a 2013 National Science Foundation grant (NSF); an award to SimInsights builds on 2005 and 2008IES research projects and a 2011 Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) research project; and an award to Apprendris advances a prior 2012 IES research project and prior 2010 and 2013 NSF research projects.
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 â Following Piageâs (1929), Brunnerâs (1996) and Jonassenâs (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 informationâ (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12)Constructionist Learning in the 1980s â 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 â 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.
15) Historical context in relation to the field of distance education (embedded librarian)
16 definition of independent study (workshop on mlearning and distance education
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
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
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 âbile complexâ, 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. 47Â 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 âcontext in the wider contextâ, 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.
The answer requires us to think about power. If you look hard at the structure of academia, you will see a lot of teachers who, in one way or another, lack power: adjuncts and term hires (a large population, and growing); untenured faculty (especially in universities like mine); faculty, even tenured faculty, in schools where budget cuts loom; graduate students, always and everywhere. You might see evaluations as instruments by which students, or administrators, exercise power over those vulnerable employees. But if you are a student, and especially if you are a student who cares what grades you get or who needs recommendations, then teachers, for youâeven adjuncts and graduate teaching assistantsâhold power.
Chairmen and deans also need to know when classroom teaching fails: when a professor makes catastrophically wrong assumptions as to what students already know, for example, or when students find a professor incomprehensible thanks to her thick Scottish accent. My note: indeed, when chairmen and deans KNOW what they are doing and are NOT using evaluations for their own power.
Philip Stark is the chairman of the statistics department at the University of California, Berkeley. “I’ve been teaching at Berkeley since 1988, and the reliance on teaching evaluations has always bothered me,” he says.
Michele Pellizzari, an economics professor at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, has a more serious claim: that course evaluations may in fact measure, and thus motivate, the opposite of good teaching. Here’s what he found. The better the professors were, as measured by their students’ grades in later classes, the lower their ratings from students.
“Show me your stuff,” Stark says. “Syllabi, handouts, exams, video recordings of class, samples of students’ work. Let me know how your students do when they graduate. That seems like a much more holistic appraisal than simply asking students what they think.”
I am including a couple whitepapers you can review and forward to all staff who may be curious about our teaching and learning tool and would be attending the demo on May 11th at 1.00pm
Please see the go to meeting instructions for our Bluepulse v1.5 walkthrough.
If you have any questions about the integration, training or implementation, please do not hesitate to email or call and as always I am more than happy to help.
harvest students; feedback – anonymous way to ask questions. D2L surveys offer already this opportunity; Twitter and other the free options for polling apps give the same option, e.g. Polleverywhere gives a word cloud option
the follow up q/n as demonstrated is limited to 160 characters. Why?
i like that it compartmentalize the anonymity but I really ask myself: would SCSU faculty go to such length?
presumptions: non-tenured faculty is interested in the top layers students and wants to find out what works for them best. this loaded, since, if there ARE different learning styles, then what worked for the top layer might be exactly what did not work for the bottom layer, but this approach will gave the faculty a justification to keep stratifying students, instead of thinking of diverse ways to approach all layers. this part of sale, not pedagogy. sorry.
weakness; the entire presentation is trying to sell a product, which might be good for different campus, but not for SCSU, where faculty are overworked, the class load is so great that going to such details might be questionable.
exporting CSV for data massaging is not big deal. indeed the easy of this particular software is admirable, but if the faculty has time to go into such details, they can export the data from D2L or Google Forms and open it in SPSS
Greg’s question: mobility.
libraries and services. pole users without being tied to course. again, that all can be done with other services in the library. if the library cares about it at all.
