Searching for "augmented reality education"

Pokemon Go for or against it

New assignment this fall in Minnesota schools: deal with ‘Pokémon Go’

Education Solvejg Wastvedt · ·
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/08/26/pokemon-go-school-concerns
The company accepts requests for removals via its support website
1. School administrator John Wetter took on an odd assignment over summer break at the request of one of his principals: Track down any PokéStops or gyms lurking on Hopkins school grounds. He asked game developer Niantic Labs to remove it from the game.
So far the game has only been blocked at sites such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.
2. Some educators are embracing the interest in “Pokémon Go” as a potential teaching tool. “Any time something becomes a big pop culture sensation, as a teacher I try to just kind of ride the coattails,”
At St. Paul’s Washington Technology Magnet School, educator Eric Gunderson made a spinoff of “Pokémon Go” that students can play on their district-issued iPads. He created it using an augmented reality app called Aurasma. He printed pictures of eggs on sheets of paper. Get the printed egg in view of the iPad’s camera, and an animated animal appears onscreen, a knockoff Pokémon.
The Minnesota Department of Education said it hasn’t gotten inquiries from school districts concerned about “Pokémon Go.” A spokesperson for the Osseo Area School District noted that students face many distractions. “Our leaders are very skilled in dealing with whatever the distraction of the day is,” the spokesperson wrote in an email.

Trends Tomorrow’s Teaching and Learning Environments

Innovating Pedagogy: Which Trends Will Influence Tomorrow’s Teaching and Learning Environments?

Stefanie Panke

In November 2015, the Open University released the latest edition of its ‘Innovating Pedagogyreport, the fourth rendition of an annual educational technology and teaching techniques forecast. While the timelines and publishing interval may remind you of the Horizon Report, the methodology for gathering the trends is different.

The NMC Horizon Team uses a modified Delphi survey approach with a panel of experts.

Teaching and Learning Environments

10 Innovative Pedagogy Trends from the 2015 Edition:

  1. Crossover Learning: recognition of diverse, informal achievements with badges.
  2. Learning through Argumentation: To fully understand scientific ideas and effectively participate in public debates students should practice the kinds of inquiry and communication processes that scientists use, and pursue questions without known answers, rather than reproducing facts.
  3. Incidental Learning: A subset of informal learning, incidental learning occurs through unstructured exploration, play and discovery. Mobile technologies can support incidental learning. An example is the app and website Ispot Nature.
  4. Context-based Learning: Mobile applications and augmented reality can enrich the learners’ context. An example is the open source mobile game platform ARIS.
  5. Computational Thinking: The skills that programmers apply to analyze and solve problems are seen as an emerging trend . An example is the programming environment SCRATCH.
  6. Learning by Doing Science with Remote Labs:  A collection of accessible labs is ilab
  7. Embodied learning: involving the body is essential for some forms of learning, how physical activities can influence cognitive processes.
  8. Adaptive Teaching: intelligent tutoring systems – computer applications that analyse data from learning activities to provide learners with relevant content and sequence learning activities based on prior knowledge.
  9. Analytics of Emotions: As techniques for tracking eye movements, emotions and engagement have matured over the past decade, the trend prognoses opportunities for emotionally adaptive learning environments.
  10. Stealth Assessment: In computer games the player’s progress gradually changes the game world, setting increasingly difficult problems through unobtrusive, continuous assessment.

6 Themes of Pedagogical Innovation

Based upon a review of previous editions, the report tries to categorize pedagogical innovation into six overarching themes:

 “What started as a small set of basic teaching methods (instruction, discovery, inquiry) has been extended to become a profusion of pedagogies and their interactions. So, to try to restore some order, we have examined the previous reports and identified six overarching themes: scale, connectivity, reflection, extension, embodiment, and personalisation.”

  1. Delivering education at massive scale.
  2. Connecting learners from different nations, cultures and perspectives.
  3. Fostering reflection and contemplation.
  4. Extending traditional teaching methods and settings.
  5. Recognizing embodied learning (explore, create, craft, and construct).
  6. Creating a personalized path through educational content.

Further Reading

Follow these links to blog posts and EdITLib resources to further explore selected trends:

full article can be found here:

Innovating Pedagogy: Which Trends Will Influence Tomorrow’s Teaching and Learning Environments?

EDAD 646 tech instruction

EDAD 646 tech instruction with Dr. Roger Worner

Based on the documents attached above, and the discussion and work already surrounding these documents, please consider the following flowchart:

study >>> systems theory >>> cybermetrics >>>

SWOT >>> strategic planning >>> task force >>> architect >>>

CM >>> public adviser >>> public polling >>> referendum

During the exercises surrounding the documents above, you have been introduced to various speakers / practitioners, who presented real-life cases regarding:

  1. business
  2. transportation  https://www.edulog.com/, http://www.tylertech.com/solutions-products/school-solutions/transportation, http://www.busboss.com/
  3. food service (http://www.foodservicedirector.com/research/big-picture/articles/impact-technology-foodservice)
  4. building grounds (http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499142.pdf)
  5. HR (http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d89941160%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite)
  6. others

– the first goal of this technology instruction is to figure out the current state of technology in K12 settings.
assignment:
* split in groups * using each group member’s information and experience about technology in general and technology in school settings, use the flow chart above and identify any known technology, which can improve the process of each step in the flow chart.
* reconvene and compare results among groups. Find similarities and discrepancies and agree on a pool of applicable technology tools and concepts, which can improve the process reflected in the flow chart.

Example how to meet the requirements for the first goal:  1. based on your technological proficiency, how can you aid your study using system thinking/systems approach? the work ahead of you is collaborative. What collaborative tools do you know, which can help the team work across time and space? Skype, Google Hangouts for audio/video/desktopsharing. Google Drive/Docs for working on policies and similar text-based documents.

Work on the following assignment:
Trends in technology cannot be taken separately from other issues and are closely intertwined with other “big” trends :

e.g., mobile workspaces (http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/12/03/mobile-workspaces-on-campus/ ) are part of the larger picture, namely active learning spaces (http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=learning+spaces&submit=Search), which involves, furniture, building construction, etc.

keeping in mind this interdependence / balance, please work in groups on the following questions. Using the available links above and the literature they lead to, as well as your own findings, please provide your best opinion to these questions:

  • when planning for a new building and determining learning spaces, what is the percentage of importance, which we place on technology, in relation to furniture, for example?
  • how much do teachers have a say in the planning of the building, considering that they had worked and prefer “their type” of learning space?
  • who decides what technology and how? how one rationalizes the equation technology = learning spaces = available finances?
  • how much outsourcing (consulting) on any of the components of the equation above one can afford / consider? How much weight the strategic planning puts on the consulting (outsourcing) versus the internal opinion (staff and administrators)?
  • how “far in the future” your strategic plan is willing / able to look at, in terms of technology – learning spaces?

How to stay current with the technology developments:

– the second goal of this technology instruction is to become acquainted with future technological trends and developments.
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/11/25/future-trends-in-education/

 

The New Horizon Report 2015 K12 Edition:
http://k12.wiki.nmc.org/

https://www.graphite.org/ – reviews and ratings for educational materials

ideas:

Are Schools Wasting Moneys on Computers?

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/12/04/computers-in-education/

literature on online teaching

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.

 

 

1 4 5 6