Archive of ‘hybrid learning’ category

VR discussion Plovdiv University

***** reserve space: register here |  запазете си място: регистрирайте се тук ******

Open Discussion: VR in Education |  Тема: Виртуалната реалност в образованието

Where | Университет Пловдив  https://goo.gl/maps/bLBYXkp5S1S2 and online ( виртуално)
When | Кога: 3. май, 2018, 15 часа |  May 3, 2018, 3PM local time (Bulgaria)
Who | Кой: преподаватели и суденти  |  faculty аnd students
How | Как: използвайте “обратна връзка” за споделяне на вашите идеи  | use the following hashtag for backchanneling #BGtechEd

 

Facebook Live stream:
https://www.facebook.com/InforMediaServices/
and recording available
(предаване на живо и запис)

VIdeo 360 recording: part 1, part 2, part 3

Виртуална реалност в учебния процес – теория и практика-  1-1, 1/2 час продължителност
Virtual reality in teaching and learning – theory and hands-on

Уточняване на понятията относно различните видове реалност: виртуална реалност, video 360 ; разширена реалност;  смесена реалност. VR/AR/MR in education.
Подход и усвояване на различните видове реалност в образованието. Връзка между трите вида реалност в образованието и конструктивизма като теория на преподаването. Връзка между трите вида реалност в образованието и игровия подход и игрофикацията на образованието. Оценяване на обучението базирано на различните видове реалности.

When a student is brilliant on the street corner but falling asleep in class, something is wrong with the schooling system
Ако учащ се е страхотен на ъгъла на улицата, но се проваля или заспива в клас, тогава нещо е грешно с учебната система
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/04/17/education-teched-frenemies/

VR can be inexpensive and effective | Виртуална / разширена реалност може да бъде ефикасна и ефективна: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/04/26/teaching-virtual-reality/

  1. Кратък теоретичен преглед на видео 360 – 10 мин

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2811/2811-6391674579739303939

Definitions for VR/AR/MR | дефиниции на:  виртуална реалност; разширена реалност; смесена реалност
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/03/21/t4tl-games-and-vr-library/

  1. Практически опит с видео 360 – 25 – 30 мин
  • Заснемане с камера
  • Редактиране на заснетия материал и възможности за интерактивност

  1. Дискусия относно методиката на приложение в учебния процес

2 min video from the entrance of your University is viewable through Google Cardboard and your laptops. Study the video and seek answers to the following questions:

******  https://youtu.be/VmOpsrVhEQE  ********
– what are the advantages of Video 360 to all other known-to-you media formats?
кои са предимствата на Видео 360 в сравнение с всички други медийни формати, които познавате?
– what would you do better in terms the video footage?
какво бихте заснимали, което да подобри видео материала за преподавателски и учебни цели (например: както друго място бихте избрали)
– how is / can be this medium advantageous to implementing core learning / teaching techniques
как този медиен формат може да се използва за да се подобрят съществуващите условия за успешно преподаване и обучение

  1. По избор – разговор с Марк Гил от Щатския университет Сейнт Клауд и демонстрация на виртуална реалност в учебния процес – 10-15 мин
  2. По избор –
    1. gaming and gamification and the role of VR and V360
      http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/
    2. digital storytelling and the role of VR and V360 | цифрово разказване и ролята на ВР и В360: http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/lib490/
      Дискусии в тази ФБ група | Discussions welcome here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/SCSUDigitalStorytelling/

#3 from the following blog entry: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/04/17/practical-about-vr-and-ar-in-schools/ (go beyond storytelling)

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

Additional Information |  Дoпълнителна литература/информация

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=virtual+reality

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=augmented+reality

social presence in online learning

We invite you to an upcoming session in the 2017-18 CIDER Sessions series on Wednesday, May 2, 2018. This free, online session will feature David Mykota from the University of Saskatchewan.
 Title: Social Presence in Online Learning: A Scoping Study
This presentation reports the findings of a scoping review of the construct social presence. The methodology follows the design for scoping reviews as advocated by Arksey and O’Malley (2005).

A scoping study is desirable because by synthesizing the research literature the opportunity to identify practical guidelines for the development of social presence is facilitated. A two-stage screening process resulted in 105 studies identified for inclusion with data extracted using a standardized form. A descriptive numerical analysis and qualitative content analysis for those studies included was undertaken. Results from the manuscripts, screened for inclusion and synthesized from the data extracted in the scoping review, provide strategies for the structuring of social presence; the potential benefits of effective affective communication in an online environ; and an overview of the evolution of the construct social presence. Future research that links both the theoretical and empirical frameworks that validate social presence across a variety of online and e-learning environs is recommended so that best practices for excellence in higher education can continue to be made possible.

When: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 – 11am to 12noon Mountain Time (Canada)

Where: Online through Adobe Connect at:
https://athabascau.adobeconnect.com/cider

Registration is not required; all are welcome. CIDER Sessions are recorded and archived for later viewing through the CIDER website. For more information on CIDER and our Sessions, please visit us at:
http://cider.athabascau.ca

Pre-configuration:
Please note that it is important to set up your system prior to the event. Make sure your Mac or PC is equipped with a microphone and speakers, so that you can use the audio functionality built into the conferencing software. The Adobe Connect platform may require an update to your Flash Player; allow time for this update by joining the session 10 minutes prior to the scheduled presentation.

*********************

CIDER sessions are brought to you by the International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL) and the Centre for Distance Education, Athabasca University: Canada’s Open University and leader in professional online education. The Sessions and their recordings are open and available to all, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Our mailing address is:

Athabasca University

International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL)
1200, 10011 – 109 Street

Edmonton, AB T5J 3S8

Canada

Add us to your address book

++++++++++++++++++++++++
more on distance ed theories in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/04/26/distance-education-theories/

distance education theories

Transactional Distance

online learning is most effective when the perceived pedagogical distance between the instructor and students in the course is minimized with increased interaction; Interaction occurs through learner-instructor communication, learner-learner collaboration, and learner-content engagement. All three levels of interaction have important implications for effective online learning

popular:

8 Tips To Minimize Transactional Distance In eLearning

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

dissertations:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/51

https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/5764/Dissertation_lebeck.pdf

http://faculty.jou.ufl.edu/mleslie/spring96/moore.html

Classes:

https://ci484-learning-technologies.wikispaces.com/Transactional+Distance+Theory

By M. Moore:

Moore, M. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning.Convergence, 5, 76-88.

Moore, M. (1973). Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 44, 661-679.

Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp.22-38).New York: Routledge.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 1-6.

Moore, M. G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of  distance education (2nd ed.), (pp.89-105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moore, M. G., (2013). Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge

Community of Inquiry (CoI)

The Community of Inquiry theoretical framework focuses on the degree of presence in the online learning environment. Presence is vital to student success in online courses. There are three types of presence that must be maintained: 1. Social presence to increase learners’ sense of community in the online environment, 2. Cognitive presence to enable learners to construct meaning from the online experience, and 3. Teaching presence to increase learner perception of the instructor’s ability to provide structure and direction in the online environment

popular:

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

https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Community_of_inquiry_model

https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/

Community of Inquiry from Phil Ice

peer reviewed:
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/18714/INTHIG%20369%20INTRO.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/398997/A_Constructivist_Approach_to_Online_Learning_The_Community_of_Inquiry_Framework

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED387454

By Garrison:

Garrison,  D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013).  The community of inquiry theoretical framework. In M. Moore, Handbook of Distance Education (3 ed.) (pp. 104-119). New York: Routledge.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2/3), 87-105.

Garrison, D.R. and Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the Community of Inquiry framework:

Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education 10(3): 157–172 (2007).

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133-148.

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

Exemplary Course Program Rubric

Exemplary Course Program Rubric

http://www.blackboard.com/resources/catalyst-awards
if problems with the link above, try this one:
/bb_exemplary_course_rubric_apr2017.pdf

Course Design

Course Design addresses elements of instructional design. For the purpose of this rubric, course design includes such elements as structure of the course, learning objectives, organization of content, and instructional strategies.

Interaction and Collaboration

Interaction denotes communication between and among learners and instructors, synchronously or asynchronously. Collaboration is a subset of interaction and refers specifically to those activities in which groups are working interdependently toward a shared result. This differs from group activities that can be completed by students working independently of one another and then combining the results, much as one would when assembling a jigsaw puzzle with parts of the puzzle worked out separately then assembled together. A learning community is defined here as the sense of belonging to a group, rather than each student perceiving himself/herself studying independently.

Assessment

Assessment focuses on instructional activities designed to measure progress toward learning outcomes, provide feedback to students and instructors, and/or enable grading or evaluation. This section addresses the quality and type of student assessments within the course.

Learner Support

Learner Support addresses the support resources made available to students taking the course. Such resources may be accessible within or external to the course environment. Learner support resources address a variety of student services.

+++++++++++
more on online teaching in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+teaching

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

best practices in online proctoring

To catch a cheat: Best practices in online proctoring

As online education expands, students are bringing old-fashioned cheating into the digital age

According to the latest report from Babson Survey Research Group, nearly 6.5 million American undergraduates now take at least one course online

1. Listen to students and faculty. Every college, university, or online-learning provider has a different approach to online learning. At Indiana University, where more than 30 percent of students take at least one online course, the online education team has launched Next.IU, an innovative pilot program to solicit feedback from the campus community before making any major edtech decision. By soliciting direct feedback from students and faculty, institutions can avoid technical difficulties and secure support before rolling out the technology campus-wide.

2. Go mobile. Nine in 10 undergraduates own a smartphone, and the majority of online students complete some coursework on a mobile device. Tapping into the near-ubiquity of mobile computing on campus can help streamline the proctoring and verification process. Rather than having to log onto a desktop, students can use features like fingerprint scan and facial recognition that are already integrated into most smartphones to verify their identity directly from their mobile device.

For a growing number of students, mobile technology is the most accessible way to engage in online coursework, so mobile verification provides not only a set of advanced security tools, but also a way for universities to meet students where they are.

3. Learn from the data. Analytical approaches to online test security are still in the early stages. Schools may be more susceptible to online “heists” if they are of a certain size or administer exams in a certain way, but institutions need data to benchmark against their peers and identify pain points in their approach to proctoring.

In an initial pilot with 325,000 students, for instance, we found that cheating rose and fell with the seasons—falling from 6.62 percent to 5.49 percent from fall to spring, but rising to a new high of 6.65 percent during the summer.

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

definitions online learning

Online learning here is used as a blanket term for all related terms:

  • HyFlex courses – hybrid + flexible
    “hybrid synchronous” or “blended synchronous” courses

    • Definition:
      The HyFlex model gives students the choice to attend class in person or via synchronous remote stream and to make that choice on a daily basis. In other words, unlike online and hybrid models which typically have a fixed course structure for the entire semester, the HyFlex model does not require students to make a choice at the beginning of term and then stick with it whether their choice works for them or not; rather students are able to make different choices each day depending on what works best for them on that day (hence the format is “flexible”) (Miller and Baham, 2018, to be published in the Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Teaching Statistics).
    • Definition from Horizon Report, HIgher Ed edition, 2014. p. 10 integration of Online Hybrid and Collaborative Learning
    • Definition from U of Arizona (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/itet/article/view/16464/16485)
      Beatty (2010) defines HyFlex courses to be those that “enable a flexible participation policy for students whereby students may choose to attend face-to-face synchronous class sessions or complete course learning activities online without physically attending class”
  • Online courses
    • Definition
      Goette, W. F., Delello, J. A., Schmitt, A. L., Sullivan, J. R., & Rangel, A. (2017). Comparing Delivery Approaches to Teaching Abnormal Psychology: Investigating Student Perceptions and Learning Outcomes. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 16(3), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717716624
      p.2.Online classes are a form of distance learning available completely over the Internet with no F2F interaction between an instructor and students (Helms, 2014).
    • https://www.oswego.edu/human-resources/section-6-instructional-policies-and-procedures
      An online class is a class that is offered 100% through the Internet. Asynchronous courses require no time in a classroom. All assignments, exams, and communication are delivered using a learning management system (LMS). At Oswego, the campus is transitioning from ANGEL  to Blackboard, which will be completed by the Fall 2015 semester.  Fully online courses may also be synchronous. Synchronous online courses require student participation at a specified time using audio/visual software such as Blackboard Collaborate along with the LMS.
    • Web-enhanced courses

Web enhanced learning occurs in a traditional face-to-face (f2f) course when the instructor incorporates web resources into the design and delivery of the course to support student learning. The key difference between Web Enhanced Learning versus other forms of e-learning (online or hybrid courses) is that the internet is used to supplement and support the instruction occurring in the classroom rather than replace it.  Web Enhanced Learning may include activities such as: accessing course materials, submitting assignments, participating in discussions, taking quizzes and exams, and/or accessing grades and feedback.”

  • Blended/Hybrid Learning
    • Definition

Goette, W. F., Delello, J. A., Schmitt, A. L., Sullivan, J. R., & Rangel, A. (2017). Comparing Delivery Approaches to Teaching Abnormal Psychology: Investigating Student Perceptions and Learning Outcomes. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 16(3), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717716624
p.3.

Helms (2014) described blended education as incorporating both online and F2F character- istics into a single course. This definition captures an important confound to comparing course administration formats because otherwise traditional F2F courses may also incorp- orate aspects of online curriculum. Blended learning may thus encompass F2F classes in which any course content is available online (e.g., recorded lectures or PowerPoints) as well as more traditionally blended courses. Helms recommended the use of ‘‘blended’’ over ‘‘hybrid’’ because these courses combine different but complementary approaches rather than layer opposing methods and formats.

Blended learning can merge the relative strengths of F2F and online education within a flexible course delivery format. As such, this delivery form has a similar potential of online courses to reduce the cost of administration (Bowen et al., 2014) while addressing concerns of quality and achievement gaps that may come from online education. Advantages of blended courses include: convenience and efficiency for the student; promotion of active learning; more effective use of classroom space; and increased class time to spend on higher- level learning activities such as cooperative learning, working with case studies, and discuss- ing big picture concepts and ideas (Ahmed, 2010; Al-Qahtani & Higgins, 2013; Lewis & Harrison, 2012).

Although many definitions of hybrid and blended learning exist, there is a convergence upon three key points: (1) Web-based learning activities are introduced to complement face-to-face work; (2) “seat time” is reduced, though not eliminated altogether; (3) the Web-based and face-to-face components of the course are designed to interact pedagogically to take advantage of the best features of each.
The amount of in class time varies in hybrids from school to school. Some require more than 50% must be in class, others say more than 50% must be online. Others indicate that 20% – 80% must be in class (or online). There is consensus that generally the time is split 50-50, but it depends on the best pedagogy for what the instructor wants to achieve.

Backchannel and CRS (or Audience Response Systems):
https://journals.uair.arizona.

More information:

Blended Synchronous Learning project (http://blendsync.org/)

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/itet/article/view/16464/16485

https://www.binghamton.edu/academics/provost/faculty-staff-handbook/handbook-vii.html

VII.A.3. Distance Learning Courses
Distance learning courses are indicated in the schedule of classes on BU Brain with an Instructional Method of Online Asynchronous (OA), Online Synchronous (OS), Online Combined (OC), or Online Hybrid (OH). Online Asynchronous courses are those in which the instruction is recorded/stored and then accessed by the students at another time. Online Synchronous courses are those in which students are at locations remote from the instructor and viewing the instruction as it occurs. Online Combined courses are those in which there is a combination of asynchronous and synchronous instruction that occurs over the length of the course. Online Hybrid courses are those in which there is both in-person and online (asynchronous and/or synchronous) instruction that occurs over the length of the course.

Online Students Need More Interaction

Online Students Need More Interaction with Peers and Teachers [#Infographic]

New research shows online learners are seeking more interaction, mobile device support and career services.

university administrators want to make sure their courses are up to standards and their students are supported.

new report from the Learning House and Aslanian Market Research measures the opinions of 1,500 online students regarding everything from course satisfaction to study methods

institutions need to more clearly share the positive outcomes that come with completing degree and certificate programs online.”

online courses would be better if there was more contact and engagement.

online students

++++++++++++++
more on online students in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+students

proctoring ideas

Digital Proctoring

I great exchange on ideas regarding digital proctoring in the Blended and Online Learning listserv:

STUDENTS

David Huckleberry

Coordinator of Digital Instruction – Physics & Astronomy

Purdue University

Office = PHYS 176

525 Northwestern Avenue

West Lafayette, IN 47907

dhuckleb@purdue.edu

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

Proctorio

Scott Robison, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Digital Learning and Design
Portland State University

Portland, OR 97201
503-725-9118
@otterscotter
+++++++++++++++++
At University of Wisconsin – Superior – we have stopped offering proctoring for students.  Faculty, however, have come up with a way for online testing. They ask student to use Kaltura tto record their face and part of the test and then post the video in the dropbox.

Rebecca Graetz, EdD

Instructional Program Manager II

UW – Superior

rgraetz@uwsuper.edu

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

ProctorU, an online proctoring service, with online courses that offered online exams and BioSig ID for courses that did not require exams.

Kelvin Bentley
Email: timelord33@gmail.com
Twitter: blacktimelord
++++++++++++++

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

1 2 3 11