Archive of ‘instructional technology’ category

IoT for Product Managers

Internet of Things: A Primer for Product Managers

The first step to becoming an IoT Product Manager is to understand the 5 layers of the IoT technology stack.

5 layers of IoT

1. Devices

Devices constitute the “things” in the Internet of Things. They act as the interface between the real and digital worlds.

2. Embedded software

Embedded software is the part that turns a device into a “smart device”. This part of the IoT technology stack enables the concept of “software-defined hardware”, meaning that a particular hardware device can serve multiple applications depending on the embedded software it is running.

Embedded Operating System

The complexity of your IoT solution will determine the type of embedded Operating System (OS) you need. Some of the key considerations include whether your application needs a real-time OS, the type of I/O support you need, and whether you need support for the full TCP/IP stack.

Common examples of embedded OS include Linux, Brillo (scaled-down Android), Windows Embedded, and VxWorks, to name a few.

Embedded Applications

This is the application(s) that run on top of the embedded OS and provide the functionality that’s specific to your IoT solution.

3. Communications

Communications refers to all the different ways your device will exchange information with the rest of the world. This includes both physical networks and the protocols you will use.

4. Cloud Platform

The cloud platform is the backbone of your IoT solution. If you are familiar with managing SaaS offerings, then you are well aware of everything that is entailed here. Your infrastructure will serve as the platform for these key areas:

Data Collection and Management

Your smart devices will stream information to the cloud. As you define the requirements of your solution, you need to have a good idea of the type and amount of data you’ll be collecting on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis.


Analytics are one of they key components of any IoT solution. By analytics, I’m referring to the ability to crunch data, find patterns, perform forecasts, integrate machine learning, etc. It is the ability to find insights from your data and not the data alone that makes your solution valuable.

Cloud APIs

The Internet of Things is all about connecting devices and sharing data. This is usually done by exposing APIs at either the Cloud level or the device level. Cloud APIs allow your customers and partners to either interact with your devices or to exchange data. Remember that opening an API is not a technical decision, it’s a business decision.

Related post: The Business of APIs: What Product Managers Need to Plan For

5. Applications

This is the part of the stack that is most easily understood by Product teams and Executives. Your end-user applications are the part of the system that your customer will see and interact with. These applications will most likely be Web-based, and depending on your user needs, you might need separate apps for desktop, mobile, and even wearables.

The Bottom Line

As the Internet of Things continues to grow, the world will need an army of IoT-savvy Product Managers. And those Product Managers will need to understand each layer of the stack, and how they all fit together into a complete IoT solution.


more on Internet of Things in this blog:

bibliography on Arduino use in education

Bibliography on Arduino use in education:

peer-reviewed – permanent link to the SCSU online database search (Arduino + Education)

Almeida Cavalcante, M. (2013). Novas tecnologias no estudo de ondas sonoras. Caderno Brasileiro De Ensino De Física, 30(3), 579-613.

Almeida Cavalcante, M., Tavares Rodrigues, T. T., & Andrea Bueno, D. (2013). CONTROLE REMOTO: PRINCIPIO DE FUNCIONAMENTO (parte 1 de 2). Caderno Brasileiro De Ensino De Física, 30(3), 554-565.

Atkin, K. (2016). Construction of a simple low-cost teslameter and its use with arduino and MakerPlot software. Physics Education, 51(2), 1-1.

Galeriu, C., Edwards, S., & Esper, G. (2014). An arduino investigation of simple harmonic motion. Physics Teacher, 52(3), 157-159.

Galeriu, C., Letson, C., & Esper, G. (2015). An arduino investigation of the RC circuit. Physics Teacher, 53(5), 285-288.

Grinias, J. P., Whitfield, J. T., Guetschow, E. D., & Kennedy, R. T. (2016). An inexpensive, open-source USB arduino data acquisition device for chemical instrumentation. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(7), 1316-1319.

Kuan, W., Tseng, C., Chen, S., & Wong, C. (2016). Development of a computer-assisted instrumentation curriculum for physics students: Using LabVIEW and arduino platform. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 427-438.

Kubínová, Š., & Šlégr, J. (2015). Physics demonstrations with the arduino board. Physics Education, 50(4), 472-474.

Kubínová, Š., & Šlégr, J. (2015). ChemDuino: Adapting arduino for low-cost chemical measurements in lecture and laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(10), 1751-1753.

Kubínova´, S., & S?le´gr, J. (2015). ChemDuino: Adapting arduino for low-cost chemical measurements in lecture and laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(10), 1751-1753.

López-Rodríguez, F. M., & Cuesta, F. (2016). Andruino-A1: Low-cost educational mobile robot based on android and arduino. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 81(1), 63-76.

McClain, R. L. (2014). Construction of a photometer as an instructional tool for electronics and instrumentation. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(5), 747-750.

Musik, P. (2010). Development of computer-based experiment in physics for charging and discharging of a capacitor. Annual International Conference on Computer Science Education: Innovation & Technology, , I111-I116.

Pagliuca, G., Arduino, L. S., Barca, L., & Burani, C. (2008). Fully transparent orthography, yet lexical reading aloud: The lexicality effect in italian. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 422-433.

Park, S., Kim, W., & Seo, S. (2015). Development of the educational arduino module using the helium gas airship. Modern Physics Letters B, 29(6), -1.

Pereira, A. M., Santos, A. C. F., & Amorim, H. S. (2016). Estatística de contagem com a plataforma arduino. Caderno Brasileiro De Ensino De Física, 38(4), 1-8.

Sulpizio, S., Arduino, L. S., Paizi, D., & Burani, C. (2013). Stress assignment in reading italian polysyllabic pseudowords. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 51-68.

Teikari, P., Najjar, R. P., Malkki, H., Knoblauch, K., Dumortier, D., Gronfier, C., et al. (2012). An inexpensive arduino-based LED stimulator system for vision research. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 211(2), 227-236.

Walzik, M. P., Vollmar, V., Lachnit, T., Dietz, H., Haug, S., Bachmann, H., et al. (2015). A portable low-cost long-term live-cell imaging platform for biomedical research and education. Biosensors & Bioelectronics, 64, 639-649.

Zachariadou, K., Yiasemides, K., & Trougkakos, N. (2012). A low-cost computer-controlled arduino-based educational laboratory system for teaching the fundamentals of photovoltaic cells. European Journal of Physics, 33(6), 1599-1610.

Zubrycki, I., & Granosik, G. (2014). Introducing modern robotics with ros and arduino, including case studies. Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems, 8(1), 69-75.



popular literature:

20 Projects To Celebrate Arduino Day


more on Arduino in this IMS blog

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

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

NISO Webinar IoT

Wednesday, October 19, 2016
1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)

About the Webinar

As the cost of sensors and the connectivity necessary to support those sensors has decreased, this has given rise to a network of interconnected devices.  This network is often described as the Internet of Things and it is providing a variety of information management challenges.  For the library and publishing communities, the internet of things presents opportunities and challenges around data gathering, organization and processing of the tremendous amounts of data which the internet of things is generating.  How will these data be incorporated into traditional publication, archiving and resource management systems?  Additionally, how will the internet of things impact resource management within our community?   In what ways will interconnected resources provide a better user experience for patrons and readers?  This session will introduce concepts and potential implications of the internet of things on the information management community.  It will also explore applications related to managing resources in a library environment that are being developed and implemented.

Education in the Internet of Things
Bryan Alexander, Consultant;

How will the Internet of Things shape education? We can explore this question by assessing current developments, looking for future trends in the first initial projects. In this talk I point to new concepts for classroom and campus spaces, examining attendant rises in data gathering and analysis. We address student life possibilities and curricular and professional niches. We conclude with notes on campus strategy, including privacy, network support, and futures-facing organizations.

What Does The Internet of Things Mean to a Museum?
Robert Weisberg, Senior Project Manager, Publications and Editorial Department; Metropolitan Museum of Art;

What does the Internet of Things mean to a museum? Museums have slowly been digitizing their collections for years, and have been replacing index cards with large (and costly, and labor-intensive) CMS’s long before that, but several factors have worked against adopting smart and scalable practices which could unleash data for the benefit of the institution, its collection, and its audiences. Challenges go beyond non-profit budgets in a very for-profit world and into the siloed behaviors learned from academia, practices borne of the uniqueness of museum collections, and the multi-faceted nature of modern museums which include not only curator, but conservators, educators, librarians, publishers, and increasing numbers of digital specialists. What have museums already done, what are they doing, and what are they preparing for, as big data becomes bigger and ever more-networked?
The Role of the Research Library in Unpacking The Internet of Things
Lauren di Monte, NCSU Libraries Fellow, Cyma Rubin Fellow, North Carolina State University

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a deceptively simple umbrella term for a range of socio-technical tools and processes that are shaping our social and economic worlds. Indeed, IoT represents a new infrastructural layer that has the power to impact decision-making processes, resources distribution plans, information access, and much more. Understanding what IoT is, how “things” get networked, as well as how IoT devices and tools are constructed and deployed, are important and emerging facets of information literacy. Research libraries are uniquely positioned to help students, researchers, and other information professionals unpack IoT and understand its place within our knowledge infrastructures and digital cultures. By developing and modeling the use of IoT devices for space and program assessment, by teaching patrons how to work with IoT hardware and software, and by developing methods and infrastructures to collect IoT devices and data, we can help our patrons unlock the potential of IoT and harness the power of networked knowledge.

Lauren Di Monte is a Libraries Fellow at NC State. In this role she develops programs that facilitate critical and creative engagements with technologies and develops projects to bring physical and traditional computing into scholarship across the disciplines. Her current research explores the histories and futures of STEM knowledge practices.

What does the internet of things mean for education?

Bryan Alexander:

I’m not sure if the IoT will hit academic with the wave force of the Web in the 1990s, or become a minor tangent.  What do schools have to do with Twittering refrigerators?

Here are a few possible intersections.

  1. Changing up the campus technology space.  IT departments will face supporting more technology strata in a more complex ecosystem.  Help desks and CIOs alike will have to consider supporting sensors, embedded chips, and new devices.  Standards, storage, privacy, and other policy issues will ramify.
  2. Mutating the campus.  We’ve already adjusted campus spaces by adding wireless coverage, enabling users and visitors to connect from nearly everywhere.  What happens when benches are chipped, skateboards sport sensors, books carry RFID, and all sorts of new, mobile devices dot the quad?  One British school offers an early example.
  3. New forms of teaching and learning.  Some of these take preexisting forms and amplify them, like tagging animals in the wild or collecting data about urban centers.  The IoT lets us gather more information more easily and perform more work upon it.  Then we could also see really new ways of learning, like having students explore an environment (built or natural) by using embedded sensors, QR codes, and live datastreams from items and locations.  Instructors can build treasure hunts through campuses, nature preserves, museums, or cities.  Or even more creative enterprises.
  4. New forms of research.  As with #3, but at a higher level.  Researchers can gather and process data using networked swarms of devices.  Plus academics studying and developing the IoT in computer science and other disciplines.
  5. An environmental transformation.  People will increasingly come to campus with experiences of a truly interactive, data-rich world.  They will expect a growing proportion of objects to be at least addressable, if not communicative.  This population will become students, instructors, and support staff.  They will have a different sense of the boundaries between physical and digital than we now have in 2014. Will this transformed community alter a school’s educational mission or operations?

How the internet could evolve to 2026: responding to Pew Posted on

instructional design librarian

Instructional 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

Information Technology and Teacher Education conference


Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
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!

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

Hosted By: – The Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
Sponsored by: – 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

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.)  










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















using online resources to find high quality curricular materials  










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










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)  










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.)  










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)  










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










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










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, videos) 21% 4% 16% 13% 68%
D2L as a portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.)  










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)  




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

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  
























your primary role is to provide content for students  
























your identification with your University is increased  
























you have less ownership of your course content  
























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  
























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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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

igital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development




more on digital literacy in this IMS blog


1 2 3 4 36