1- Create and edit digital audio 2- Use Social bookmarking to share resources with and between learners 3- Use blogs and wikis to create online platforms for students 4- Exploit digital images for classroom use 5- Use video content to engage students 6- Use infographics to visually stimulate students
7- Use Social networking sites to connect with colleagues and grow professionally
8- Create and deliver asynchronous presentations and training sessions 9- Compile a digital e-portfolio for their own development 10- be able to detect plagiarized works in students assignments 11- Create screen capture videos and tutorials 12- Curate web content for classroom learning
13- Use and provide students with task management tools to organize their work and plan their learning 14- Use polling software to create a real-time survey in class 15- Understand issues related to copyright and fair use of online materials 16- Use digital assessment tools to create quizzesHere are some tools for teachers to develop this skill 17- Find and evaluate authentic web based content 18- Use digital tools for time management purposes 19- Use note taking tools to share interesting content with your students 20- Use of online sticky notes to capture interesting ideas
podcast pontification (audio version of blog self reflections)
Greg Steinke The U
A Digital Story Assignment using WeVideo
WeVideo is the Google response to iMovie cloud
The U is on Google email and thus google drive and all other google tools
The Center for Digital Storytelling. short videos, 3-5 min incorporate photographs with the author narration, reflection
Assignment (verbal directions). process (write a 2 page script, every page is about a minute of video), gather images that support the story; edit the script (rewrite); record audio to the script (use an app on the phone instead of WeVideo), WeVideo can edit the audio recording; edit the story, edit the photos to match the story; YourTube and/or Google+
working with faculty: is the digital story a good fit for your course? two questions: does the course have many writing assignments? does everyone have to do the same type of assignment? do you want to offer choices? do you want your students to share their work outside of the class? to you want to explore opportunities for students to develop 21 century skills?
google communities for sharing
wewideo has a tutorial at Center for Digital Storytelling
students can use the digital story for their eportfolio
the entire exercise is entirely based on mobile devices
time frame: scaffolding options
3d printing products were the tangible result of the project and the digital storytelling just the format to present
Google Drive master folder for the phone images and video; iOS apps: MoviePro, FiLMc Pro, VoiceRecord Pro (including mp3); Android: WeVideo
Faculty Development Programs: Digital Storytelling Community of Practice
chemistry professor. 3D printing with different materials.
what else can be made (e.g. reaction vessel)
printing of atoms
Karen: pre-service teachers professor: how to use 3d printers and be comfortable with them. Steve Hoover. Thinkercad and Autodesk123D>
3D academy http://www.team3dacademy.com/index2.html. Pinterest board for3d Printing with resources
Lisa: graphic design. not intuitive. Rhinoceros (not free anymore). 123D strong learning curve. 3d printing will be incorporated in the curriculum. sculpture students and others don’t like fudging on the computer, but Adobe people love it. Some items takes up to 4 hours to print out. when working on the computer is difficult for some students to visualize the dimensionality.
collaborative learning opportunities.
no makerspace or fab lab. additional interest from the theater and business dept. 3d printing is connected to future work skills. new media ecology or media literacy set of skills.
the main presenter: build excitement and interest and gradually step back. how much material goes through and should we charge back. clean and maintenance involved; not too bad. better then a copier. plastic inexpensive. sizes with plastic – $25 and $50. how many project of a spool: depending on the size of the projects but considerable amount. two printers one art dept and one in the faculty dev area.
non profit visually impaired students. how 3d can make difference in special ed.
3d printing lab with access for everybody. ownership brings policy. where housed: neutral place.
only one printer is barely sufficient for faculty to figure out how to use it. purchasing two more if students and curricula to be involved.
The Balancing Act: Team-Creating an eBook as an Alternative Method for Content Delivery Tom Nechodomu, University of Minnesota
Susan Andre uses a slide titled “trust” to elucidate how the entire project was enabled. “trust” and “transparency” are sparse currency in the environment I work in. if she is right an ebook ain’t happening anytime soon at my place.
students involvement. use stipends. student artists. food for the video interviews. create a community, student centered.
people able to change the book.
copyright process; did you find it cumbersome. copyright permission center.
time span and amount of hours spent: 3-4 months per chapter.
David Wiley. Making Teaching and Learning Awesome with Open
MN Learning Commons
open educational resources
education – sharing feedback, encouragement with students passion about the discipline, yourself
open is not the same as free. free + permissions + copyright permission: 5 r = retain (make and own copies), reuse (use in a wide range of ways), revise (adapt, modify, and improve), remix (combine two or more), redistribute (share with others)
free and unfettered access
perpetual, irrevocable copyright permissions
(look but don’t touch is not open)
tech enables OER permits
traditionally copyright materials on the Internet – not so good ; jet on the road
openly copyright materials on the internet _ yes: jet in the air
permission-less innovation. relatively inexpensive and broad permissions.
intellectual infrastructure of education: learning outcomes/objectives; assessments; textbooks. they are relatively expensive and narrow permissions.
To help improve understanding of BYOD and its impacts on modern network environments, this white paper will further explore the many differences that exist between corporate and educational approaches to the technology.
In the education space, dealing with non-standard, user-managed devices has been and still remains the norm. Unfortunately, the variety of devices means a multitude of operating systems and software are encountered, with many “standards” being defined. As a result there is little consistency in the device type or the software being installed. Since the device is owned by the student and is a personal resource, it is often difficult or impossible to enforce a policy that prevents users from installing software. In addition, due to the nature of learning as opposed to a corporate environment, it is also difficult to put a restriction on certain classes of software since all may provide a worthwhile educational purpose.
providing a solution that unifies management and deployment polices across both wired and wireless devices is very desirable.
The Internet of Everything (IoE) has spurred a revolution in mobility. Collaboration anywhere, anytime and with any device is quickly becoming the rule instead of the exception. As a result it is now common for students to bring mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets and e-readers into the academic environment to support their educational endeavors.
The infrastructure supporting BYOD no longer has the sole purpose of providing a wireless radio signal within a given area. The focus is now about providing the appropriate bandwidth and quality to accommodate the ever-growing number of devices and ensure that an application provides a good end-user experience. In a sense, applications are now the major driving force behind the continuing evolution of BYOD. For example, a teacher accessing video in the classroom for educational purposes during class hours should have greater priority than a student in the same area accessing a gaming site for recreation.
A state-of-the-art BYOD infrastructure should now be capable of providing more than just generic, general-purpose wireless connectivity. In the classroom environment, the notion of “differentiated access” often resonates with faculty and staff. Once this has been determined, a policy can be applied to the user and their activity on the network.
Granular security can also be intelligently delivered.
Quality of Service (QoS) rate limiting has been available for some time, but now there are newer QoS techniques available.
Location-based services can provide their first interaction with the university. By delivering campus maps and directional information, location-enabled services can enhance the experience of these visitors and provide a positive image to them as well. As a visitor enters a particular building location, information could automatically be provided. In the case of a visiting student, information about the history of a building, departments contained within the building, or other resources could be presented to enhance a guided tour, or provide the perspective student the ability to have a self-directed tour of the campus facilities.
applying the mechanics of games to the science of psychometrics — the measurement of the mind.
Scholars like James Paul Gee believe video games actually come much closer to capturing the learning process in action than traditional fill-in-the-bubble tests. My note: Duh...
Schwartz’s theory of assessment focuses on choice. He argues that the ultimate goal of education is to create independent thinkers who make good decisions. And so we need assessments that test how students think, not what they happen to know at a given moment.
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 Guidethat 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) .
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:
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).
Recently, ED/IES SBIR announced its 2015 awards. There are 21 awards in all, covering a range of topics and forms of technology. For example, Zaption is designing a mobile app to help teachers integrate video into science instruction; Speak Agent is building an app to help students with speech disabilities to communicate; and Lingo Jingo is developing a platform to help teachers guide English learners. (To view short video demos of the eight new Phase II projects, see this playlist.)
The 2015 awards highlight two trends that have emerged in the ED/IES SBIR portfolio in recent years –games for learning and bridging the research-to-practice gap in education.
Trend #1: Games for Learning
Strange Loop Games to build a virtual world to engage students in learning about ecosystems,
Kiko Labs to develop mini games to strengthen young children’s thinking and memory skills, and
Schell Games to create a futuristic “ball and stick” molecular modeling kit and app to augment chemistry learning.
For a playlist including videos of these games and 19 others out of the ED/IES SBIR program, see here.
The games for learning trend echoes the movement surrounding games in the field, and is highlighted by recent ED sponsored events including ED Games Week in Washington, DC, last September and the Games for Learning Summit in New York City, in April. Both events convened stakeholders to showcase games and discuss the potential barriers and opportunities for collaboration necessary to accelerate the creation of highly effective games for learning. Stay tuned for more information and initiatives on games for learning out of ED’s Office of Technology.
Trend #2: Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap
Mindset Works, which built on results from prior research including a 2002 IES research grant, to successfully propose a 2010 ED/IES SBIR project to develop SchoolKit. This multimedia platform enables broad distribution of the growth mindset intervention which teaches students to understand that intelligence can be developed through effort and learning. SchoolKit is now in use in more than 500 schools across the country, including half the middle schools in Washington, DC.
Learning Ovationsis building on two prior IES research grants in their 2014 ED/IES SBIR project. The prior IES funding supported the research team as they developed and evaluated an intervention to improve children’s reading outcomes,. This award is supporting the development of an implementation platform to enable large-scale use of this evidence-based intervention across settings. The project is scheduled to end in 2016, after which the platform will be launched.
The new ED/IES SBIR 2015 awards continue the research-to-practice trend. An award to Foundations in Learning furthers basic research from a 2013 National Science Foundation grant (NSF); an award to SimInsights builds on 2005 and 2008IES research projects and a 2011 Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) research project; and an award to Apprendris advances a prior 2012 IES research project and prior 2010 and 2013 NSF research projects.
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.
15) Historical context in relation to the field of distance education (embedded librarian)
16 definition of independent study (workshop on mlearning and distance education
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
m-larning as “learning dispersed in time”
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.