Teaching Naked: How Moving Technology out of Your College Classroom Will Improve Student Learning
José Antonio Bowen, president, Goucher College
Technology is changing higher education, but the greatest value of a physical university will remain its face-to-face (naked) interaction between faculty and students. Technology has fundamentally changed our relationship to knowledge and this increases the value of critical thinking, but we need to redesign our courses to deliver this value. The most important benefits to using technology occur outside of the classroom. New technology can increase student preparation and engagement between classes and create more time for the in-class dialogue that makes the campus experience worth the extra money it will always cost to deliver. Students already use online content, but need better ways to interact with material before every class. By using online quizzes and games, rethinking our assignments and course design, we can create more class time for the activities and interactions that most spark the critical thinking and change of mental models we seek.
more on online teaching in this IMS blog
Eyal, L. (2012). Digital Assessment Literacy — the Core Role of the Teacher in a Digital Environment. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 37-49.
Common to all is a view of the level of literacy as a measure of the quality of human capital of a society or a particular area. Literacy develops in interaction with the environment (Vygotsky, 1987).
digital assessment literacy refers to the role of the teacher as an assessor in a technology-rich environment.
Learning Management Systems (LMS) benefits and limitations
Measurement allows quantitative description of a particular characterization of an individual, expressed in numbers.
the combination of assessment and measurement provides a thorough and accurate picture, based upon which practical conclusions can be drawn (Wagner, 1997). A test is a systematic process in which an aspect of student behavior is quantitatively evaluated (Suen & Parkes, 2002).
For several decades this system of assessment has been criticized for a variety of reasons, including the separation between the teaching-learning process and the evaluation process, the relatively low level of thinking required, and the quantitative reporting of results, which does not contribute to students’ progress. In the last decade, the central argument against the tests system is that their predictability is limited to the field and context in which the students are tested, and that they do not predict student problem solving ability, teamwork, good work habits and honesty.
teachers mistakenly believe that repeating lessons will improve students’ achievements.
To evaluate how well the goals were achieved, objective measurement methods are employed (Black, et al., 2004).
Eshet- Alkalai (2004) offered a detailed conceptual framework for the term ‘digital literacy’ that includes: photo-visual thinking; reproduction thinking; branching thinking; information thinking; and socio-emotional thinking.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2009). Changes Over Time in Digital Literacy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 713-715. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0264
two major patterns of change over time: (a) closing the gap between younger and older participants in the tasks that emphasize profi- ciency and technical control and (b) widening the gap between younger and older participants in tasks that emphasize creativity and critical thinking. Based on the comparison with the matched control groups, we suggest that experience with technology, and not age, accounts for the observed lifelong changes in digital literacy skills
Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Soffer, O. (2012). Guest Editorial – Navigating in the Digital Era: Digital Literacy: Socio-Cultural and Educational Aspects. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 1.
a wide range of technological, cognitive and social competences—collectively termed “Digital Literacy.” Users thus must become “digitally literate” in order to cope effectively with the complex sociological, cognitive and pedagogical challenges these technologies pose. These skills include, for example, the ability to operate computers and navigate the net effectively, to cope with large volumes of information, to evaluate the reliability of information, and to critically assess what seem to be natural (and not ideologically biased) technological tools. In a different way from the spirit of modern print, learners construct and consume knowledge in non-linear environments. They need to learn, collaborate and solve problems effectively in virtual (non face-to-face) learning environments, and to communicate effectively in technology-mediated social participation environments.
It is important to note: digital literacy, then, is not limited simply to computer and Internet operation and orientation. It also relates to a variety of epistemological and ethical issues arise due to the unique characteristics of digital technologies and that are often overlapped with trends related to the post-modern and post-structural era. These include questions regarding the authority of knowledge, intellectual property and ownership, copyright, authenticity and plagiarism. Furthermore, issues such as self-representation, virtual group dynamics, and on-line addiction also arise.
more on digital literacy in this IMS blog
We know that many of you have been interested in exploring Turnitin in the past, so we are excited to bring you an exclusive standardized price and more information on the roll out of Feedback Studio, replacing the Turnitin you have previously seen. We would like to share some exciting accessibility updates, how Feedback Studio can help faculty deliver formative feedback to students and help students become writers. Starting today thru December 31st non-integrated Feedback Studio will be $2.50 and integrated Feedback Studio will be $3 for new customers! Confused by the name? Don’t be! Turnitin is new and improved! Check out this video to learn about Feedback Studio!
Meet your exclusive Turnitin Team!
Ariel Ream – Account Executive, Indianapolis firstname.lastname@example.org – 317.650.2795
Juliessa Rivera – Relationship Manager, Oakland email@example.com – 510.764.7698
Juan Valladares – Account Representative, Oakland
firstname.lastname@example.org – 510.764.7552
To learn more, please join us for a WebEx on September 21st. We will be offering free 30 day pilots to anyone who attends!
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
11:00 am | Central Daylight Time (Chicago) | 1 hr
Meeting number (access code): 632 474 162
my notes from the webinar
I am prejudiced against TI and I am not hiding it; that does not mean that I am wrong.
For me, TurnitIn (TI) is an anti-pedagogical “surfer,” using the hype of “technology” to ride the wave of overworked faculty, who hope to streamline increasing workload with technology instead of working on pedagogical resolutions of not that new issues.
Low and behold, Juan, the TI presenter is trying to dazzle me with stuff, which does not dazzle me for a long time.
WCAG 2.0 AA standards of the W3C and section 508 of the rehabilitation act.
the sales pitch: 79% of students believe in feedback, but only %50+ receive it. HIs source is TurnitIn surveys from 2012 to 2016 (very very small font size (ashamed of it?))
It seems to me very much like “massaged” data.
Testimonials: one professor and one students. Ha. the apex of qualitative research…
next sales pitch: TurnitIn feedback studio. Not any more the old Classic. It assesses the originality. Drag and drop macro-style notes. Pushing rubrics. but we still fight for rubrics in D2L. If we have a large amount of adjuncts. Ha. another gem. “I know that you are, guys, IT folks.” So the IT folks are the Trojan horse to get the faculty on board. put comments on
This presentation is structured dangerously askew: IT people but no faculty. If faculty is present, they will object that they ARE capable of doing the same which is proposed to be automated.
More , why do i have to pay for another expensive software, if we have paid already Microsoft? MS Word can do everything that has been presented so far. Between MS Word and D2L, it becomes redundant.
why the heck i am interested about middle school and high school.
TI was sued for illegal collection of paper; paper are stored in their database without the consent of the students’ who wrote it. TI goes “great length to protect the identity of the students,” but still collects their work [illegally?}
November 10 – 30 day free trial
otherwise, $3 per student, prompts back: between Google, MS Word and D2L (which we already heftily pay for), why pay another exuberant price.
D2L integration: version, which does not work. LTI.
“small price to pay of such a beauty” – it does not matter how quick and easy the integration is, it is a redundancy, which already can be resolved with existing tools, part of which we are paying hefty price for
Quantile Measures for Math Added to Kansas Student Assessments
By Dian Schaffhauser 05/27/16
There are two types of Lexile measures: a person’s reading ability and the text’s difficulty. Students who are tested against state standards receive a Lexile reader measure from the Kansas Reading Assessment. Books and other texts receive a Lexile text measure from a MetaMetrics software tool called the Lexile Analyzer, which describes the book’s reading demand or complexity. When used together, the two measures are intended to help match a reader with reading material that is at an appropriate difficulty or will at least help give an idea of how well a reader should comprehend text. The reader should encounter some level of difficulty with the text, but not enough to get frustrated. The Lexile reader measure is used to monitor reader progress.
My note: is this another way / attempt to replace humans as educators? Or it is a supplemental approach to improve students’ reading abilities.
Digital Badges in Education: Trends, Issues, and Cases.
In recent years, digital badging systems have become a credible means through which learners can establish portfolios and articulate knowledge and skills for both academic and professional settings. Digital Badges in Education provides the first comprehensive overview of this emerging tool. A digital badge is an online-based visual representation that uses detailed metadata to signify learners’ specific achievements and credentials in a variety of subjects across K-12 classrooms, higher education, and workplace learning. Focusing on learning design, assessment, and concrete cases in various contexts, this book explores the necessary components of badging systems, their functions and value, and the possible problems they face. These twenty-five chapters illustrate a range of successful applications of digital badges to address a broad spectrum of learning challenges and to help readers formulate solutions during the development of their digital badges learning projects.
Badges and Leaderboards: Professional Developments for Teachers in K12
Why should I bother earning badges?
issues to consider:
More on badges and gaming in education in this IMS blog:
ACRL e-Learning webcast series: Learning Analytics – Strategies for Optimizing Student Data on Your Campus
This three-part webinar series, co-sponsored by the ACRL Value of Academic Libraries Committee, the Student Learning and Information Committee, and the ACRL Instruction Section, will explore the advantages and opportunities of learning analytics as a tool which uses student data to demonstrate library impact and to identify learning weaknesses. How can librarians initiate learning analytics initiatives on their campuses and contribute to existing collaborations? The first webinar will provide an introduction to learning analytics and an overview of important issues. The second will focus on privacy issues and other ethical considerations as well as responsible practice, and the third will include a panel of librarians who are successfully using learning analytics on their campuses.
Webcast One: Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: The State of the Art and the Art of Connecting the Library with Campus Initiatives
March 29, 2016
Learning analytics are used nationwide to augment student success initiatives as well as bolster other institutional priorities. As a key aspect of educational reform and institutional improvement, learning analytics are essential to defining the value of higher education, and academic librarians can be both of great service to and well served by institutional learning analytics teams. In addition, librarians who seek to demonstrate, articulate, and grow the value of academic libraries should become more aware of how they can dovetail their efforts with institutional learning analytics projects. However, all too often, academic librarians are not asked to be part of initial learning analytics teams on their campuses, despite the benefits of library inclusion in these efforts. Librarians can counteract this trend by being conversant in learning analytics goals, advantages/disadvantages, and challenges as well as aware of existing examples of library successes in learning analytics projects.
Learn about the state of the art in learning analytics in higher education with an emphasis on 1) current models, 2) best practices, 3) ethics, privacy, and other difficult issues. The webcast will also focus on current academic library projects and successes in gaining access to and inclusion in learning analytics initiatives on their campus. Benefit from the inclusion of a “short list” of must-read resources as well as a clearly defined list of ways in which librarians can leverage their skills to be both contributing members of learning analytics teams, suitable for use in advocating on their campuses.
open academic analytics initiative
where data comes from:
- students information systems (SIS)
- Video streaming and web conferencing
- Co-curricular and extra-curricular involvement
D2L degree compass
Predictive Analytics Reportitng PAR – was open, but just bought by Hobsons (https://www.hobsons.com/)
IMS Caliper Enabled Services. the way to connect the library in the campus analytics https://www.imsglobal.org/activity/caliperram
student’s opinion of this process
benefits: self-assessment, personal learning, empwerment
analytics and data privacy – students are OK with harvesting the data (only 6% not happy)
8 in 10 are interested in personal dashboard, which will help them perform
Big Mother vs Big Brother: creepy vs helpful. tracking classes, helpful, out of class (where on campus, social media etc) is creepy. 87% see that having access to their data is positive
recognize metrics, assessment, analytics, data. visualization, data literacy, data science, interpretation
INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT – N.B.
determine who is the key leader: director of institutional research, president, CIO
who does analyics services: institutional research, information technology, dedicated center
analytic maturity: data drivin, decision making culture; senior leadership commitment,; policy supporting (data ollection, accsess, use): data efficacy; investment and resourcefs; staffing; technical infrastrcture; information technology interaction
student success maturity: senior leader commited; fudning of student success efforts; mechanism for making student success decisions; interdepart collaboration; undrestanding of students success goals; advising and student support ability; policies; information systems
developing learning analytics strategy
understand institutional challenges; identify stakeholders; identify inhibitors/challenges; consider tools; scan the environment and see what other done; develop a plan; communicate the plan to stakeholders; start small and build
ways librarians can help
idenfify institu partners; be the partners; hone relevant learning analytics; participate in institutional analytics; identify questions and problems; access and work to improve institu culture; volunteer to be early adopters;
questions to ask: environmental scanning
do we have a learning analytics system? does our culture support? leaders present? stakeholders need to know?
questions to ask: Data
questions to ask: Library role
learning analytics & the academic library: the state of the art of connecting the library with campus initiatives
causation versus correlation studies. speakers claims that it is difficult to establish causation argument. institutions try to predict as accurately as possible via correlation, versus “if you do that it will happen what.”
More on analytics in this blog:
6 Strategies for Differentiated Instruction in Project-Based Learning
1. Differentiate Through Teams
2. Reflection and Goal Setting
3. Mini-Lessons, Centers, and Resources
4. Voice and Choice in Products
5. Differentiate Through Formative Assessments
6. Balance Teamwork and Individual Work
Ten Teaching Trends from the Innovating Pedagogy Report
Ten Teaching Trends from the Innovating Pedagogy Report
The 2015 Innovating Pedagogy Report proposes ten innovations that explore ways of teaching, learning, and assessment for an interactive, engaged world.
Based on the literature regarding games, gaming, gamification, game-based learning, and serious games, several clear trends emerge:
- Gaming and gamification in the sense of game-based learning is about using games and game-like tactics in the education process, for greater engagement and better learning outcomes. However, this is only the first level of such initiative. The second and higher level is about involving students in the game-building and gamification of the learning process (as per Vygotsky’s Zone of…) thus achieving student-centered and experiential learning.
- When hosting games and gaming in any library, “in-person” or electronic/online games are welcome but not sufficient to fulfill their promise, especially in an academic library. Per (1), an academic library has the responsibility to involve students and guide them in learning how to engage in the building process required in true game-based learning.
- Game-based learning, gaming and gamification in particular, in educational (academic library) settings must consider mobile devices and the BYOD movement in particular as intrinsic parts of the entire process. Approaching the initiative primarily by acquiring online “in-person” games, or game consoles has the same limited educational potential as only hosting games, rather than elevating the students to full guided engagement with game-based learning. If public relations and raised profile are the main goals for the academic library, such an approach is justified. If the academic library seeks to maximize the value of game-based learning, then the library must consider: a. gaming consoles, b. mobile devices as part of a BYOD initiative and c. cloud-based / social games, such as MineCraft, SimCity etc.
- Design for game-based learning, gaming and gamification in educational (academic library) settings must include multiple forms of assessment and reward, e.g. badges, leaderboards and/or certificates as an intrinsic part of the entire process. Merely hosting games in the academic library cannot guarantee true game-based learning. The academic library, as the forefront of a game-based learning initiative on campus, must work with faculty on understanding and fine tuning badges and similar new forms of assessment and reward, as they effectively implement large scale game-based learning, focused on the students’ learning gains.
Recommendations for LRS
- In regard to LRS, the gaming and gamification process must be organized and led by faculty, including housing and distributing the hardware, software and applications, when needed.
- The attached paper and the respective conclusions summarized in four points demand educational and experiential background, which is above the limits of the LRS staff. In addition, the LRS staff has clearly admitted that the pedagogical value of gaming and gamification is beyond their interest. This recommendation is not contradicting to the fact and opportunity for LRS staff to participate in the process and contribute to the process; it just negates the possibility of staff mandating and leading the process, since it will keep the gaming and gamification process on a very rudimentary level.
- The process must be further led by faculty with a terminal degree in education (Ph.D.) and experience in the educational field, since, as proved by the attached paper and 4 point conclusion, the goal is not a public-library type of hosting activities, but rather involving students in a pedagogically-sound creative process, with the respective opportunity for assessment and future collaboration with instructors across campus. This recommendation is not contradicting the fact and opportunity for LRS library faculty to participate actively in the process and contribute to the process. It just safeguards from restricting the process to the realm of “public-library” type of hosting activities, but failing to elevate them to the needs of an academic campus and connecting with instructors across campus.
- This conclusions adhere to and are derived from the document recommended by the LRS dean, discussed and accepted by LRS faculty in 2013 about new trends and directions in academic libraries, namely diversification of LRS faculty; breaking from the traditional library mold of including faculty from different disciplines with different opinions and ideas.