A virtual reality (VR) medical training system built by Oxford Medical Simulation (OMS) is now being offered for free during the COVID-19 pandemic to help hospitals and medical schools bring in badly-needed additional staffers to provide patient care.
For a limited time, free registration is being offered to faculty, students, and staff of educational institutions (including K-12 schools/districts, universities, colleges, museums, and libraries) who wish to attend but will NOT be presenting at the conference or publishing in the proceedings. To take advantage of this offer, you must register by April 19, 2020 using an email address associated with your educational institution:
No further Academic Full and Short paper submissions are being considered at this stage.
##### INTERESTED IN VOLUNTEERING OR REVIEWING? #####
A range of volunteer opportunities are available, including conference internships for undergraduate and graduate students. Some of the roles currently available include session chair/facilitator, moderator, audio-visual/technical support, virtual event greeter/usher, virtual event photographer, virtual event videographer/livestreamer, 2D artist / illustrator
Expressions of interest are also being solicited from scholars and practitioners wishing to join the iLRN 2020 Program Committee to peer review papers and proposals received in the late submission round (closing April 19, 2020). The late-round submissions will be no longer than 3 pages in length, and each Program Committee member will be asked to review no more than two submissions.
##### INTERESTED IN SPONSORING OR EXHIBITING? #####
A number of sponsorship and exhibition opportunities are available for organizations to:
– Meet and interact with key educational stakeholders
– Showcase their products and services
– Connect and collaborate with top researchers / scientists
– Build and strengthen customer / client relationships.
Packages range from US$500 for a basic virtual exhibit booth to US$15,000 for an exclusive Gold Sponsorship.
Contact email@example.com if you need more info/support, clarifications. E.g. among the great tools in the list is EdPuzzle (https://edpuzzle.com/). EdPuzzle does very much the same as theVideo Quiz in the MinnState MediaSpace (aka Kaltura); we can help you figure out advantages and disadvantages of the tools, their pedagogical application and make final choice.
Algorithmic test proctoring’s settings have discriminatory consequences across multiple identities and serious privacy implications.
While racist technology calibrated for white skin isn’t new (everything from photography to soap dispensers do this), we see it deployed through face detection and facial recognition used by algorithmic proctoring systems.
As Os Keyes has demonstrated, facial recognition has a terrible history with gender. This means that a software asking students to verify their identity is compromising for students who identify as trans, non-binary, or express their gender in ways counter to cis/heteronormativity.
These features and settings create a system of asymmetric surveillance and lack of accountability, things which have always created a risk for abuse and sexual harassment. Technologies like these have a long history of being abused, largely by heterosexual men at the expense of women’s bodies, privacy, and dignity.
my note: I am repeating this for years
Sean Michael Morris and Jesse Stommel’s ongoing critique of Turnitin, a plagiarism detection software, outlines exactly how this logic operates in ed-tech and higher education: 1) don’t trust students, 2) surveil them, 3) ignore the complexity of writing and citation, and 4) monetize the data.
Cheating is not a technological problem, but a social and pedagogical problem.
Our habit of believing that technology will solve pedagogical problems is endemic to narratives produced by the ed-tech community and, as Audrey Watters writes, is tied to the Silicon Valley culture that often funds it. Scholars have been dismantling the narrative of technological solutionism and neutrality for some time now. In her book “Algorithms of Oppression,” Safiya Umoja Noble demonstrates how the algorithms that are responsible for Google Search amplify and “reinforce oppressive social relationships and enact new modes of racial profiling.”
Anna Lauren Hoffmann, who coined the term “data violence” to describe the impact harmful technological systems have on people and how these systems retain the appearance of objectivity despite the disproportionate harm they inflict on marginalized communities.
Higher education is deeply complicit in the eugenics movement. Nazism borrowed many of its ideas about racial purity from the American school of eugenics, and universities were instrumental in supporting eugenics research by publishing copious literature on it, establishing endowed professorships, institutes, and scholarly societies that spearheaded eugenic research and propaganda.
he Intercept reported that Zoom video calls are not end-to-end encrypted, despite the company’s claims that they are.
Motherboard reports that Zoom is leaking the email addresses of “at least a few thousand” people because personal addresses are treated as if they belong to the same company
Apple was forced to step in to secure millions of Macs after a security researcher found Zoom failed to disclose that it installed a secret web server on users’ Macs, which Zoom failed to remove when the client was uninstalled
‘Zoom is malware’: why experts worry about the video conferencing platform
Moving instruction online can enable the flexibility of teaching and learning anywhere, anytime, but the speed with which this move to online instruction is expected to happen is unprecedented and staggering.
“Online learning” will become a politicized term that can take on any number of meanings depending on the argument someone wants to advance.
Online learning carries a stigma of being lower quality than face-to-face learning, despite research showing otherwise. These hurried moves online by so many institutions at once could seal the perception of online learning as a weak option
Researchers in educational technology, specifically in the subdiscipline of online and distance learning, have carefully defined terms over the years to distinguish between the highly variable design solutions that have been developed and implemented: distance learning, distributed learning, blended learning, online learning, mobile learning, and others. Yet an understanding of the important differences has mostly not diffused beyond the insular world of educational technology and instructional design researchers and professionals.
Typical planning, preparation, and development time for a fully online university course is six to nine months before the course is delivered. Faculty are usually more comfortable teaching online by the second or third iteration of their online courses.
In contrast to experiences that are planned from the beginning and designed to be online, emergency remote teaching (ERT) is a temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis circumstances. It involves the use of fully remote teaching solutions for instruction or education that would otherwise be delivered face-to-face or as blended or hybrid courses and that will return to that format once the crisis or emergency has abated.
A full-course development project can take months when done properly. The need to “just get it online” is in direct contradiction to the time and effort normally dedicated to developing a quality course. Online courses created in this way should not be mistaken for long-term solutions but accepted as a temporary solution to an immediate problem.