InforMedia Services (IMS)

Technology Instruction for St. Cloud State University

Archive for the 'educational technology' Category

DGBL and digital literacies

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 31st May 2015

Digital game-based learning levels up digital literacies

http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/anotherbyteofknowledge/digital-game-based-learning-levels-up-digital-literacies/

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 – visual literacy, media literacy, collaborative literacy, ICT literacy, information literacy – 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 “an ability to understand and use information from a variety of digital sources and regard it as literacy in the digital age” (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 “at breakneck speeds” (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 “multiliteracies” which can be understood as synonymous with digital literacies.  Cooper et al. (2013), explain multiliteracies is required as a “broader view of literacy” (p. 94), is needed as a result of the diverse range of communications tools, therefore, context is implied.  Ng (2012) also highlights this idea that digital literacy is “the multiplicity of literacies associated with the use of digital technologies” (p. 1066).  The combination of multiliteracies and technologies would also suggest that multimodality is an important element of digital literacy (McLoughlin, 2011) .

7 elements of digital literacy in their Developing Digital Literacies Guide (2014), which can be seen below.

DGBL and digital literacy

 

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).  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 Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (St-Pierre, 2011).  The learning is designed “just beyond what the learner can do” (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:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/11/30/game-based-learning/

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

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

 

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/02/20/digital-literacy-2/

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

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/11/27/reframing-informatioan-literacy-as-a-metaliteracy/

Posted in Digital literacy, educational technology, gamification, gaming, instructional technology, mobile learning, student-centered learning, technology literacy | No Comments »

Google Keep

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 30th May 2015

Google Keep

http://www.freetech4teachers.com/2015/05/how-to-create-edit-and-share-notes-on.htm

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).

Posted in Android, Digital literacy, e-learning, educational technology, information technology, instructional technology, iPAD, mobile apps, mobile learning, student-centered learning, technology literacy | 2 Comments »

handbook of mobile learning

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 27th May 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P 24

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

  1. 25

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

27

m learning research funding

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

28

M-learning research methodologies

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

 

p. 29 identifying the gaps in M learning research

 

lack of explicit underlying pedagogical theory Lack of transferable design frameworks

 

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

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

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

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

37

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

45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52 proposed theories

Activity theory: Vygotsky and Engestroem

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

53 multiple theories;

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

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

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

55. personalization
my note student-centered learning

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

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

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

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

Posted in distance learning, distributive learning, e-learning, educational technology, information technology, instructional technology, mobile learning | No Comments »

social media in education

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 16th May 2015

7 Ways Social Media Has a Role in Education

http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2015/03/7-ways-social-media-has-role-in.html

  1. The Stats – College, Career, and Citizenship Success
    Look who’s watching:
    • 1/4 of college admissions officers consider digital footprint
    • 3/4 of human resource managers
    • 1/3 of employers reject candidates based on something found in profiles
  1. Ensuring Students Are Well Googled
    Here are some ways to get started. My note: well LinkedIn
  2. Social Credibility is the New Credentialing
     Read more about how Armond developed social credibility here.
  3. Student Learning Networks
    In the age of social media, the teacher is no longer the center of learning. The student is. One of the most important things an educator can do is support students in developing a powerful learning network. It also requires an understanding of how to effectively use these tools to connect, collaborate, and grow learning. Want to know more? 15-year-old Alex Laubscher explains here.
  4. Work More Effectively
    Social media allows you to change the paradigm from “teacher” as expert to “group” as expert. This reduces emails and increases the access to good answers and connections.  My note: it is extremely important to understand that “teacher” in this case covers librarians
  5. Connect with Experts via Twitter
    You can find a world of experts on any topic if you have literacy in using Twitter also know as “Twitteracy.”  Just know the right hashtags and how to find experts and you have the world’s best knowledge at your fingertips. It is better than any rolodex allowing you to connect anytime, anywhere, with the interested parties who are available now.
  6. Release the Amazing Work of Students from the Classroom to the World
    We hear stories in passing about the great work happening in schools, but usually it’s locked in a school or classroom or trapped on a laptop. Social media puts an end to that.  Click here to find out what it was.

More on social media in education in this blog:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=social+media+education

Posted in Digital literacy, educational technology, social media | No Comments »

Google drive for interactive presentations

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 29th April 2015

An Excellent Google Drive Tool for Creating Interactive Presentations

http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2015/04/create-interactive-presentations-on-google-drive.html

Pear Deck

Doceri – The Interactive Whiteboard for iPad.

Posted in Digital literacy, e-learning, educational technology, Google +, information literacy, mobile apps, mobile learning, social media, student-centered learning, technology | No Comments »

Voice over presentation: solutions

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 28th April 2015

Voice over presentation

Faculty request to lay voice over a presentation with pictures. Solutions:

  • PowerPoint:

Windows / PC

ppt voice over

ppt voice over

Apple/Mac

voice over PPT on Apple

voice over PPT on Apple

advantages:

– unfortunately, faculty are way too familiar with PPT. Familiar to the point that they don’t want to try something better.
– FERPA complient

disadvantages:

– too old. PPT is pre-Internet. It does not matter how much Microsoft is trying to adapt it, the concept is old. There is a myriad of cloud-based solutions, which do better job: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/09/30/the-5-best-free-slideshow-presentation-and-creation-tools-for-teachers/
– too many files, too many variations
– PPT posted in D2L displays in the D2L Viewer. The visuals are there, but the voice is not. In order to hear the voice, students must download the presentation. Faculty must reflect this in the syllabus.
– faculty need to know how to upload on their web space and figure out URL, if PPT is not place in LMS (D2L)- if faculty places PPT in LMS (D2L), then it is behind password; nearly impossible to share (can share only with SCSU and/or MnSCU members.
– faculty must remember to indicate in the syllabus and/or D2L / Content that “in order to hear the voice over, user must download presentation.”

  • SlideShare

slideshare

slideshare

advantages:

– it is a “social” app, like LinkedIn and Twitter. Tagged correctly, the presentation is a platform for “same-minded” people to discuss mutual interests.
– excellent for sharing: conferences, MOOCs etc.
– it has discussion group in LinkedIn.

disadvantages:

– voice over presentation: way to cumbersome compared to PPT. Watch their presentation
– by FERPA regulations, if the presentation contains personal data about students, it cannot be shared on SlideShare

mybrainshaark

mybrainshaark

advantages:

– it is a “social” app, like LinkedIn and Twitter. Tagged correctly, the presentation is a platform for “same-minded” people to discuss mutual interests.
– excellent for sharing: conferences, MOOCs etc.
– like PPT, very easy upload of pix and voice over. Better the PPT, since it is online and easy to distribute.
– easy to upload PPT and easy to voice over each slide

disadvantages:

– does not embed in D2L (it is D2L issue, not the app), but works perfectly as a link
– faculty must remember to indicate in the syllabus and/or D2L / Content that when clicking on the URL to the PPT, user must simultaneously press “Ctrl” key to open PPT in a separate browser window or tab
– by FERPA regulations, if the presentation contains personal data about students, it cannot be shared on SlideShare

voicethread

voicethread

advantages:

– consistently voted through last 5 years by K12 educators as great interactive tool.
– video, images, audio and text.
– “constructivist” premiss: teacher and students can exchange asynchronously ideas by using images, video, text and audio.

disadvantages:

– free option has limited features.
– by FERPA regulations, if the presentation contains personal data about students, it cannot be shared on on this site.

mediasite

mediasite


advantages
:

– crude screen capture: faculty can run the PPT manually and narrate over it.
– dirty but fast
– easily shared online (URL ready)
– FERPA compliant

disadvantages:

– students cannot comment (compared to VoiceThread)

  • LodeStar

lodestar
lodestar

advantages:

– free: http://lodestarlearning.com/downloads/lodeStar7.2/en/LodeStar-7.0.exe
– easy to use
– FERPA compliant; endorsed by MnSCU

disadvantages:

– voice over too complex (very much the same as with SlideShare)

  • SoftChalk

advantages:
– FERPA compliant; endorsed by MnSCU

disadvantages:

  • others

I have not included TechSmit’s Jing https://www.techsmith.com/jing.html, because their video output (Flash file) is obsolete and impossible to convert for free. While it still can be played, shall faculty want to upload the video file on Youtube or similar social media, it will be impossible.

———————————-

Related IMS blog entries:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/06/01/social-media-and-presentations-free-image-sources/

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/09/30/the-5-best-free-slideshow-presentation-and-creation-tools-for-teachers/

Posted in Digital literacy, e-learning, educational technology, technology literacy | No Comments »

big data and education

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 30th March 2015

Big Data is Finally Coming to Education Here’s What We’ve Learned So Far

http://www.edukwest.com/big-data-education/

Long lectures don’t work.

The best predictor of future course behavior is past course behavior.

Data from MOOCs suggest that one way to boost completion rates is to increase engagement early in the course.

Even in online courses, offline support is essential.

 

More IMS blog entries on Big Data:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=big+data

Posted in educational technology, teaching, technology literacy | No Comments »

education reform Finland

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 24th March 2015

Finland schools: Subjects scrapped and replaced with ‘topics’ as country reforms its education system

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-schools-subjects-are-out-and-topics-are-in-as-country-reforms-its-education-system-10123911.html

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/

Subject-specific lessons – an hour of history in the morning, an hour of geography in the afternoon – are already being phased out for 16-year-olds in the city’s upper schools. They are being replaced by what the Finns call “phenomenon” teaching – or teaching by topic. For instance, a teenager studying a vocational course might take “cafeteria services” lessons, which would include elements of maths, languages (to help serve foreign customers), writing skills and communication skills.

The reforms reflect growing calls in the UK – not least from the Confederation of British Industry and Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt – for education to  promote character, resilience and communication skills, rather than just pushing children through “exam factories”. (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/20/labour-calls-time-on-exam-factory-approach-to-schooling)
(My Note/Question: so UK is ready to scrap what US pushes even harder with the STEM idea?)

More on education in Finland and its education in this IMS blog:

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

Posted in educational technology, learning, student-centered learning | No Comments »

Emerging EdTech

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 22nd March 2015

Emerging Technologies in Education

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/453456256206780716
Emerging Technologies in Education

Posted in educational technology, gaming, learning analytics | No Comments »

SCSU Tech Survey

Posted by Plamen Miltenoff on 13th February 2015

2015.02.13 ITS TechFeeSurvey2014 Presentation

Q14 What technology devices you currently own?

Q15 What technology devices do you plan to purchase in the next year?

Q17 How often do you use the following programs and services?

Posted in educational technology, information technology, instructional technology, mobile learning, online learning, social media, technology literacy | No Comments »