MOOC and Libraries
http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/bes/moocsandlibraries
New ACRL Discussion Group—Library Support for MOOCs
Libraries in the Time of MOOCs
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/libraries-time-moocs
issues related to MOOCs, such as intellectual property rights, privacy issues, and state regulations.
MOOCs have arrived on the scene at a time when many institutions of higher learning are in extreme financial crisis
OCLC conference, “MOOCs and Libraries: Massive Opportunity or Overwhelming Challenge? http://www.oclc.org/research/events/2013/03-18.html
The MOOC movement might change this copyright-ownership contract between university and faculty.
Stephens, M. m., & Jones, K. L. (2014). MOOCs as LIS Professional Development Platforms: Evaluating and Refining SJSU’s First Not-for-Credit MOOC. Journal Of Education For Library & Information Science, 55(4), 345-361.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d99055676%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
xMOOCs. Using centralized learning platforms (e.g., Coursera),they emphasize individual learning usingautomated assessment tools.In contrast, cMOOCs stress the relationship between course content and a community of learners. Social learning, in thecase of cMOOCs, is emphasized through uses of distributed tools (e.g., a combination of a course site, student blogs, andsocial etworking sites) to build networks of knowledge and learners. Unlike their xMOOC counterparts, the role of an in istructor in a cMOOC is to be a “guide on the side,” a facilitator of the knowledge making process who uses connectivist learning theory (Siemens, 2004; Siemens,2012)
Learning 2.0 programs, also known as“23 Things,” have offered online technology-focused professional development for library staff and could be considered an early version of LIS-focused MOOCs (Stephens, 2013a). Utilizing concepts such as self-directed learning, play, and an emphasis on lifelong learning, these programs have been offered for individual libraries as well as consortial and state level iterations to reach thousands of library staff.
The course structure of the MOOCversion of the HL incorporated content updated from the SLIS course by the coinstructors. Ten modules were scheduled over a twelve-week “semester.” Students
could earn a certificate of completion, if they finished three of five artifact-based assignments of their choosing, in addition to blogging and participating in an end-of-course virtual symposium. The weekly schedule is available in Appendix A, and assignment descriptions are available in Appendix B
utilizing concepts such as self-directed learning, play, and an emphasis on lifelong learning, these programs have been offered for individual libraries as well as consortial and state level iterations to reach thousands of library staff. Benefits to staff include increased comfort with emerging technologies and an increased desire to continue learning (p. 348).
10 technology hallmarks for every campus
http://www.ecampusnews.com/technologies/technology-hallmarks-campus-099
1. High-speed wireless broadband.
According to the Center for Digital Education’s recent “2013 Yearbook: Technology Innovation in Education,” over 80 percent of education institutions surveyed said that wireless broadband was their “top priority for IT investment.”
2. 24/7 IT support.
We have 24/7 support for emergencies and much of our staff, just like at a hospital, are on call. That’s not a perk for the campus, it’s a necessity.
3. The cloud.
The cloud can also: acquire and implement the latest software and application updates; streamline enrollment and admissions processes; and turn to subscriptions that are scalable and provide options, says Edudemic.
4. Digital textbooks.
Planning for digital textbooks means not only boosting mobile device capabilities on campus, but helping faculty learn to implement digital resources into their course.
5. 21st Century PD for faculty and admin.
From offering a MOOC on classroom management online solutions, to hosting a PD session on Twitter, campus admin should offer multiple options for PD delivery, just like how faculty should offer students multiple options for learning–there’s no better way to teach something than to model it first!
6. MOOCs.
[Read: “3 pros and 3 cons of MOOCs.”]
7. Online course management system.
From sending in-class emails to checking grades, course management systems, like Blackboard, offer faculty and students a fairly intuitive way to manage courses more efficiently.
8. Big Data…
Future-proofing universities are beginning to deploy storage solutions to help manage the unstructured data in physical, virtual and cloud environments. More modern storage solutions are also open source for a high learning curve but low cost.
9…security.
precautions can range from scanning existing databases on the university’s servers to determine where personal information is located and then, depending on the database, destroy the personal information or add more digital security; as well as put cybersecurity systems through a series of penetration tests to highlight security shortcomings.
[Read: “University data breach prompts ‘top-to-bottom’ IT review.”]
10. Social media done well.
of the major ways campuses use social media well is by serving up both “cake” and “broccoli,” or balancing the content that is important and good for the school (broccoli) and the content that is fun and delicious (cake). “If you share enough cake, your audience will consume the occasional broccoli,” she advises.
A former SCSU faculty asked me to help her with literature regarding online learning; she is applying to teach complete online somewhere in the South.
Hey Plamen, Do you have any reading suggestions regarding teaching online? I am applying for a job at ?????? and the program is completely online. I want to be current with the literature if I happen to get an interview.
Hey ???,
It is a simple question, with ever growing complex answer. 2013 was announced as the “MOOC” year and that term literally killed the tag “online education.” Most of the literature on online teaching now is subdued one way or another under MOOC.
However, there are still authors, who are widely cited as “foundational.” E.g.: Susan Ko, Paloff and Pratt
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching Online: A Practical Guide. Taylor & Francis.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2010). Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community. John Wiley & Sons.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the Online Learner: Resources and Strategies for Faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541040.files/Moore%20Theoretical%20Basis%20for%20Distance%20Education.pdf
Moore, M. G. (2013). Handbook of Distance Education. Routledge.
There is a long list of articles, which I am collecting through the years. You can peruse them and choose any further readings, if you want…
Adolphus, M. (2009). USING THE WEB TO teach information literacy. Online, 33(4), 20-25.
Andersen, M. H. (2011). The world is my school: Welcome to the era of personalized learning. Futurist, 45(1), 12-17.
Borja, R. R. (2004). New player in online school market pursues profits. Education Week, 24(15), 8-8.
Brooks-Kirkland, A. (2006). Podcasting for learning. School Libraries in Canada (17108535), 25(4), 44-48.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a european empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a european empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a european empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565.
de Freitas, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2010). Editorial: Crossing boundaries: Learning and teaching in virtual worlds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 3-9.
Department of education report: Its importance, one year later. (cover story).(2010). Distance Education Report, 15(12), 1-7.
Falloon, G. (2010). Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they have to offer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 108-122.
Hrastinski, S., Keller, C., & Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design exemplars for synchronous e-learning: A design theory approach. Computers & Education, 55(2), 652-662.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Miltenoff, P. (2011). Technology and globalization in higher education., 2535-2538.
Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56-68.
Kim, P., Ng, C. K., & Lim, G. (2010). When cloud computing meets with semantic web: A new design for e-portfolio systems in the social media era. British Journal of Educational Technology,41(6), 1018-1028.
Kolowich, S. (2009). MIT tops world ranking of university web sites. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(24), A15-A15.
Leach, J. (2008). Do new information and communications technologies have a role to play in the achievement of education for all? British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 783-805.
Levine, A., Levine, A., & Dean, D. R. (2012). Generation on a tightrope : A portrait of today’s college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mangu-Ward, K. (2010). Teachers unions vs. online education. Reason, 42(4), 44-50.
Nistor, N., & Neubauer, K. (2010). From participation to dropout: Quantitative participation patterns in online university courses. Computers & Education, 55(2), 663-672.
Ramig, R. (2009). Social media in the classroom. Multimedia & internet@schools, 16(6), 8-10.
Ramig, R. (2009). Social media in the classroom. Multimedia & internet@schools, 16(6), 8-10.
Schiller, K. (2009). Augmented reality comes to market. (cover story). Information Today, 26(11), 1-46.
Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067-2077.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Wang, H., & Shao, M. (2008). Desire2Learn for quality matters., 1335-1339.
A Quick Start Guide to Participating in Twitter Chats
http://www.guide2digitallearning.com/blog_tom_murray/quick_start_guide_twitter_chats
This past week, I had the privilege of introducing US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, as a guest moderator for #edtechchat, an educational Twitter chat that I founded with four members of my personal learning network (PLN). Over the course of 60 minutes, almost 2,000 people from around the world, shared about 10,000 tweets in response to the Secretary’s six questions related to being a Connected Educator. Secretary Duncan (@arneduncan) and his Office of Educational Technology (@officeofedtech) deemed October “Connected Educator’s Month” for the second straight year. To close #ce13, Secretary Duncan used the #edtechchat forum to engage in conversation with educators from all over the world.
In reflecting on the chat, many people asked how to get started, and how to possibly follow such a quick flow of information. For one, 10,000 tweets in an hour is by no means typical; but then again, neither is the opportunity to interact with the US Secretary of Education. Although this particular chat with the Secretary may be an extreme example of what possibilities can arise when connecting with others online, each week there are over 160 chats that occur. Virtually all topics are covered in some fashion. Whether you’re a 4th grade teacher (#4thchat) in Maryland (#mdedchat), a principal (#cpchat) in Arkansas (#arkedchat), a new teacher (#ntchat) in Rhode Island (#edchatri), or a parent (#ptchat) connecting on a Saturday (#satchat), there’s something for you.
This Quick Start Guide to Participating in Twitter Chats was created as part of the Digital Learning Transition MOOC (#dltmooc), an online “Massive Open Online Course”, developed by The Alliance for Education (@All4Ed) and the Friday Institute (@FridayInstitute) as part of Project 24 (@all4edproject24). Feel free to download and share the Quick Start resource to help educators get started.
Furthermore, the Official Chat List was created by Chad Evans (@cevans5095) and me (@thomascmurray), with help from our good friend Jerry Blumengarten (@cybraryman1). This resource (shortcut: bit.ly/officialchatlist) is a comprehensive list of the educational Twitter chats that take place each week.
Start small. Choose a chat that peaks your interest. Lurk, listen, and learn. When you’re ready, jump in head first. Grow your PLN and get connected through a Twitter chat this week! Your students will benefit.
– See more at: http://www.guide2digitallearning.com/blog_tom_murray/quick_start_guide_twitter_chats#sthash.W1DPfmY1.dpuf