Author Archive

library and millennials

this article was published in 2006

Mcdonald, R., & Thomas, C. (2006). Disconnects Between Library Culture and Millennial Generation Values. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/disconnects-between-library-culture-and-millennial-generation-values
disconnects into three categories—technology, policy, and unexploited opportunities—and discuss ways academic libraries can create next-generation landscapes to address these gaps.
Most library information systems and discovery tools are not easy to customize and remain substantially limited by an enduring library obsession with individual privacy and copyright.

Technology Disconnects

Some of the key technology disconnects between libraries and current online communities include:

  • Libraries lack tools to support the creation of new-model digital scholarship and to enable the use of Web services frameworks to support information reformatting (for example, RSS) and point-of-need Web-based assistance (multimedia tutorials or instant messaging assistance).
  • Dogmatic library protection of privacy inhibits library support for file-sharing, work-sharing, and online trust-based transactions that are increasingly common in online environments, thus limiting seamless integration of Web-based services.
  • Ubiquitous handheld access is more prominent thanks to digital lifestyle devices such as smart phones and iPods, yet libraries still focus on digital content for typical desktop PCs.

Policy Disconnects

Drawing a clear line between technology and policy can be difficult. For example, how many of the characteristics of current libraries (identified by the list below) are driven purely by technology or by policy? These traits include:

  • Mainly electronic text-based collections with multimedia content noticeably absent
  • Constructed for individual use but requires users to learn from experts how to access and use information and services
  • Library presence usually “outside” the main online place for student activity (MySpace, iTunes, Facebook, the campus portal, or learning management system)

Similarly, a policy solution might be required to address the following types of disconnects between libraries and online users:

  • Deliberately pushing library search tools into other environments such as learning management systems or social network infrastructure and, conversely, integrating popular external search tools into library frameworks (such as Google Scholar and MS Academic Live Search or LibX.org)
  • Libraries linking and pointing to larger sets of open-access data that add context to their local collections
  • Restructuring access to reflect use instead of library organizational structure

Opportunity Disconnects

What is your library doing to:

  • Support the user’s affinity for self-paced, independent, trial-and-error methods of learning?
  • Create opportunities to make library information look and behave like information that exists in online entertainment venues?
  • Explore alternative options for delivering information literacy skills to users in online environments and alternate spaces?
  • Apply the typical user’s desire for instant gratification to the ways that libraries could be using technology for streamlined services?
  • Redefine administrative, security, and policy restrictions to permit online users an online library experience that rivals that of a library site visit?
  • Preserve born-digital information?

The promise of seamlessness that stems from ubiquitous computing access and instantly available networked information is, unfortunately, stifled significantly within the libraries of today.

++++++++++

more on millennials in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=millennial

instructional design librarian

Instructional Design Librarians #libraries #edtech #highered

http://www.scoop.it/t/blended-librarianship/p/4070053667/2016/10/04/blended-librarians-conversations-instr-design-librarians-libraries-edtech-highered

Thursday, October 13 at 3:00 pm EST with guest Joelle Pitts from Kansas State University Libraries.

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

more on instructional design in this IMS blog

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=instructional+design

Information Technology and Teacher Education conference

SITE 2017 CALL FOR PAPERS

Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education site.aace.org
March 5 – 9, 2017 Austin, Texas, USA

Proposals Due: October 21, 2016

SITE 2017 is the 28th annual conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. This society represents individual teacher educators and affiliated organizations of teacher educators in all disciplines, who are interested in the creation and dissemination of knowledge about the use of information technology in teacher education and faculty/staff development.

SITE is unique as the only organization which has as its sole focus the integration of instructional technologies into teacher education programs. SITE promotes the development and dissemination of theoretical knowledge, conceptual research, and professional practice knowledge through conferences, books, projects, and the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education (JTATE).

You are invited to attend and participate in this annual international forum which offer numerous opportunities to share your ideas, explore the research, development, and applications, and to network with the leaders in this important field of teacher education and technology.

There are over 800 presentations in 25 major topic areas! http://site.aace.org/sigs/

The Conference Review Policy requires that each proposal will be peer- reviewed by three reviewers for inclusion in the conference program, and conference proceedings.

Enquiries: conf@aace.org
Hosted By: AACE.org – The Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
Sponsored by: LearnTechLib.org – The Learning and Technology Library

teaching with technology

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

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

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

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

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

N/A: no experience

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

52%

 

33%

 

30%

 

6%

 

30%

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

 

47%

 

 

8%

 

 

13%

 

 

11%

 

 

68%

using online resources to find high quality curricular materials  

37%

 

48%

 

31%

 

3%

 

18%

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

23%

 

14%

 

21%

 

15%

 

51%

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

 

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

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

38%

 

16%

 

29%

 

12%

 

43%

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

31%

 

43%

 

28%

 

7%

 

22%

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

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

 

 

 

Top 3

 

use in most of my classes

 

have used in some classes

 

tried, but do not use

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

38%

 

14%

 

21%

 

11%

 

54%

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

36%

 

4%

 

9%

 

10%

 

76%

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

26%

 

4%

 

13%

 

11%

 

72%

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

21%

 

28%

 

18%

 

11%

 

42%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Count           Percentage

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

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

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

97

 

21%

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

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

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

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

Table T1: Faculty beliefs about using digital technologies in teaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12

 

9.2%

 

22

 

16.9%

 

14

 

10.8%

 

37

 

28.5%

 

29

 

22.3%

 

16

 

12.3%

your primary role is to provide content for students  

14

 

10.9%

 

13

 

10.1%

 

28

 

21.7%

 

29

 

22.5%

 

25

 

19.4%

 

20

 

15.5%

your identification with your University is increased  

23

 

18.3%

 

26

 

20.6%

 

42

 

33.3%

 

20

 

15.9%

 

12

 

9.5%

 

3

 

2.4%

you have less ownership of your course content  

26

 

20.2%

 

39

 

30.2%

 

24

 

18.6%

 

21

 

16.3%

 

14

 

10.9%

 

5

 

3.9%

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

23

 

17.7%

 

44

 

33.8%

 

30

 

23.1%

 

20

 

15.4%

 

7

 

5.4%

 

6

 

4.6%

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

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

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

Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2014

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

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

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

Digital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

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

igital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

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

 

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

more on digital literacy in this IMS blog

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

Save

blockchain credentialing

AAEEBL (The Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence-Based learning) starts the Baston Blog

Blockchain Credentialing: What Impact Will it Have?
Posted By Trent Batson Ph. D.

blockchain credentialing, big news since the MIT Media Lab offered an open source means of credentialing using blockchain technology (the technology behind bitcoin).

Blockchain credentialing makes verification of credentials much simpler and less time consuming, according to the articles I’ve collected below.  Even IBM has entered the arena.

As with badges, we in the eportfolio world need to be aware of the trend toward blockchain credentialing.  I’ve sorted through the links below so I could select those I thought would be most useful for you.

http://www.learningmachine.com/credentials.html

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-06-07-mit-media-lab-introduces-blockchain-technology-for-credentials

https://campustechnology.com/articles/2016/05/16/how-blockchain-will-disrupt-the-higher-education-transcript.aspx — the Phil Long interview

https://www.gartner.com/doc/3279217/reinventing-education-credentials-using-blockchain

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/holberton-school-begins-tracking-student-academic-credentials-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-1463605176

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/blockchain-identity-credentials-enough-eric-korb?articleId=8359553479741654341

http://thenewstack.io/one-school-using-bitcoin-blockchain-authenticate-degrees/

https://console.ng.bluemix.net/docs/services/blockchain/index.html

++++++++++++
more on badges in this blog

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=badges

first SCSU lecture capture meeting

Dear Colleagues,

Do you use lecture capture in your courses? If you do, please join us in one-hour information session.
Lecture/course capture may have different formats and dimensions, from a simple recording of the lecture, to elaborate interactive use of hardware and software.

We created a dedicated blog for the methods and technology of lecture capture:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/coursecapture

Please use the hyperlink and feel welcome to share with us your thoughts before, during and after the session, scheduled for

Thursday,  October 6, 2016, 3:00PM in MC 205.

We welcome your materials, suggestions and questions!

MC 205 is the Professional Development Room on the second floor of the Miller Center (http://www.stcloudstate.edu/campusmap/default.aspx).
To find MC 205, please use this virtual tour. Open in Google Chrome browser the following link: http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/vr_library/virtual_guide.mov. File will download and you can open it in QuickTime application.

If you need assistance to find us, please let us know.

For any other information, please do not hesitate to contact us:

Kannan Sivaprakasam,  ksivaprakasam@stcloudstate.edu
Plamen Miltenoff: pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu

Looking forward to working together…

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

more on lecture capture in this blog:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=lecture+capture

google phones

Google Phones

the media of this morning is filled with reports about google phones:

New Leak Reveals Everything About Google’s Pixel And Pixel XL Phones

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmorris/2016/10/03/new-leak-reveals-everything-about-googles-pixel-and-pixel-xl-phones

Everything there is to know about Google’s new Pixel phones just leaked

Everything there is to know about Google’s new Pixel phones just leaked

http://bgr.com/2016/10/03/google-pixel-specs-pixel-xl-specs-release-date/

and much more on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/search/google+phones

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

more on mobile devices for education in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=mobile+devices

mindfulness and storytelling

How Mindfulness and Storytelling Help Kids Heal and Learn

How Mindfulness and Storytelling Help Kids Heal and Learn

In an attempt to offer more psychological support, they reached out to Grossman who is a teacher and co-founder of Mindful Schools. The definition of mindfulness, says Grossman, is to “pay attention, on purpose, to the present moment.”

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

more on mindfulness and storytelling in this IMS blog

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=mindfulness
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=storytelling

altmetrics in education

Altmetrics: A Practical Guide for Librarians, Researchers and Academics

http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=11531&zbrandid=4634&zidType=CH&zid=38109786&zsubscriberId=1026665847&zbdom=http://ala-publishing.informz.net

——————————–

http://altmetrics.org/tools/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altmetrics

In scholarly and scientific publishing, altmetrics are non-traditional metrics[2] proposed as an alternative[3] to more traditional citation impact metrics, such as impact factor and h-index.[4] The term altmetrics was proposed in 2010,[1] as a generalization of article level metrics,[5] and has its roots in the #altmetrics hashtag. Although altmetrics are often thought of as metrics about articles, they can be applied to people, journals, books, data sets, presentations, videos, source code repositories, web pages, etc. They are related to Webometrics, which had similar goals but evolved before the social web. Altmetrics did not originally cover citation counts.[6] It also covers other aspects of the impact of a work, such as how many data and knowledge bases refer to it, article views, downloads, or mentions in social media and news media.[7][8]

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

more on analytics and metrics in education in this IMS blog

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=analytics

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=metrics

Save

1 160 161 162 163 164 321