Faculty perceive undergraduates to be less proficient with digital literacy skills. One-third think
their students do not find or organize digital information very well. The majority (52%) think
they lack skill in validating digital information. My note: for the SCSU librarians, digital literacy is fancy word for information literacy. Digital literacy, as used in this report is much greater area, which encompasses much broader set of skills
Faculty do not prefer to teach online (57%) or in a hybrid format (where some sessions occur
online, 32%). One-third of faculty reported no experience with these least popular course types
my note: pay attention to the questions asked; questions I am asking Mike Penrod to let me work with faculty for years. Questions, which are snubbed by CETL and a dominance of D2L and MnSCU mandated tools is established.
Table 5. Do you use these in-class technologies for teaching undergraduates? Which are the Top 3 in-class technologies you would like to learn or use more? (n = 442)
usingonline resourcesto find high quality curricular materials
37%
48%
31%
3%
18%
iClickers
24%
23%
16%
9%
52%
otherpresentation tool (Prezi, Google presentation, Slide Carnival, etc.)
23%
14%
21%
15%
51%
whiteboard / blackboard
20%
58%
23%
6%
14%
Powerpoint or Keynote
20%
74%
16%
4%
5%
document camera / overhead projector
15%
28%
20%
14%
38%
Table 6. Do you have undergraduates use these assignment technology tools? Which are your Top 3 assignment technology tools to learn about or use more? (n = 432)
D2Lasa portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.)
21%
28%
18%
11%
42%
videos/animationsproducedelsewhere
19%
40%
36%
2%
22%
In both large and small classes, the most common responses faculty make to digital distraction are to discuss why it is a problem and to limit or ban phones in class. my note: which completely defies the BYOD and turns into empty talk / lip service.
Quite a number of other faculty (n = 18) reported putting the onus on themselves to plan engaging and busy class sessions to preclude distraction, for example:
“If my students are more interested in their laptops than my course material, I need to make my curriculum more interesting.”
I have not found this to be a problem. When the teaching and learning are both engaged/engaging, device problems tend to disappear.”
The most common complaint related to students and technology was their lack of common technological skills, including D2L and Google, and needing to take time to teach these skills in class (n = 14). Two commented that digital skills in today’s students were lower than in their students 10 years ago.
Table 9. Which of the following are the most effective types of learning opportunities about teaching, for you? Chose your Top 2-3. (n = 473)
Count Percentage
meeting 1:1 with anexpert
296
63%
hour-longworkshop
240
51%
contact an expert on-call (phone, email, etc)
155
33%
faculty learning community (meeting across asemester,
e.g. ASSETT’s Hybrid/Online Course Design Seminar)
116
25%
expert hands-on support for course redesign (e.g. OIT’s Academic Design Team)
114
24%
opportunityto apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards)
97
21%
half-dayorday-longworkshop
98
21%
other
40
8%
multi-day retreats/ institutes
30
6%
Faculty indicated that the best times for them to attend teaching professional developments across the year are before and early semester, and summer. They were split among all options for meeting across one week, but preferred afternoon sessions to mornings. Only 8% of respondents (n = 40) indicated they would not likely attend any professional development session (Table 10).
Table T1: Faculty beliefs about using digital technologies in teaching
Count
Column N%
Technology is a significant barrier to teaching and learning.
1
0.2%
Technology can have a place in teaching, but often detracts from teaching and learning.
76
18.3%
Technology has a place in teaching, and usually enhances the teaching learning process.
233
56.0%
Technology greatly enhances the teaching learning process.
106
25.5%
Table T2: Faculty beliefs about the impact of technology on courses
Count
Column N%
Makes a more effective course
302
72.6%
Makes no difference in the effectiveness of a course
42
10.1%
Makes a less effective course
7
1.7%
Has an unknown impact
65
15.6%
Table T3: Faculty use of common technologies (most frequently selected categories shaded)
Once a month or less
A few hours a month
A few hours a week
An hour a day
Several hours a day
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Computer
19
4.8%
15
3.8%
46
11.5%
37
9.3%
282
70.7%
Smart Phone
220
60.6%
42
11.6%
32
8.8%
45
12.4%
24
6.6%
Office Software
31
7.8%
19
4.8%
41
10.3%
82
20.6%
226
56.6%
Email
1
0.2%
19
4.6%
53
12.8%
98
23.7%
243
58.7%
Social Networking
243
68.8%
40
11.3%
40
11.3%
23
6.5%
7
2.0%
Video/Sound Media
105
27.6%
96
25.2%
95
24.9%
53
13.9%
32
8.4%
Table T9: One sample t-test for influence of technology on approaches to grading and assessment
Test Value = 50
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
In class tests and quizzes
-4.369
78
.000
-9.74684
-14.1886
-5.3051
Online tests and quizzes
5.624
69
.000
14.77143
9.5313
20.0115
Ungraded assessments
1.176
66
.244
2.17910
-1.5208
5.8790
Formative assessment
5.534
70
.000
9.56338
6.1169
13.0099
Short essays, papers, lab reports, etc.
2.876
70
.005
5.45070
1.6702
9.2312
Extended essays and major projects or performances
1.931
69
.058
3.67143
-.1219
7.4648
Collaborative learning projects
.000
73
1.000
.00000
-4.9819
4.9819
Table T10: Rate the degree to which your role as a faculty member and teacher has changed as a result of increased as a result of increased use of technology
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
shifting from the role of content expert to one of learning facilitator
12
9.2%
22
16.9%
14
10.8%
37
28.5%
29
22.3%
16
12.3%
your primary role is to provide content for students
14
10.9%
13
10.1%
28
21.7%
29
22.5%
25
19.4%
20
15.5%
your identification with your University is increased
23
18.3%
26
20.6%
42
33.3%
20
15.9%
12
9.5%
3
2.4%
you have less ownership of your course content
26
20.2%
39
30.2%
24
18.6%
21
16.3%
14
10.9%
5
3.9%
your role as a teacher is strengthened
13
10.1%
12
9.3%
26
20.2%
37
28.7%
29
22.5%
12
9.3%
your overall control over your course(s) is diminished
23
17.7%
44
33.8%
30
23.1%
20
15.4%
7
5.4%
6
4.6%
Table T14: One sample t-test for influence of technology on faculty time spent on specific teaching activities
Test Value = 50
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
Lecturing
-7.381
88
.000
-12.04494
-15.2879
-8.8020
Preparing course materials
9.246
96
.000
16.85567
13.2370
20.4744
Identifying course materials
8.111
85
.000
13.80233
10.4191
17.1856
Grading / assessing
5.221
87
.000
10.48864
6.4959
14.4813
Course design
12.962
94
.000
21.55789
18.2558
24.8600
Increasing access to materials for all types of learners
Please develop a one hour workshop for faculty on using a new (or old but new to them) technology tool. The aim is not to only show the technical operation, but the pedagogical use of the tool helping faculty think about what this might mean in their own teaching.
Who: students, faculty and staff
Where: TBD
When: Friday, June 17, 2016. 10-11:30 AM
5 min introduction of workshop presenter Plamen Miltenoff and workshop participants
5 min plan of the workshop
5 min introduction to the topic:
Outline In financially-sparse times for educational institutions, one viable way to save money is by rethinking pedagogy/methodology and adapt it to the burgeoning numbers of mobile devices (BYOD) owned by students, faculty and staff.
In 5 min,
we will be playing a game, using Kahoot (https://kahoot.it). Kahoot is an application from Norway, which is increasingly popular in K12 and gradually picking momentum at higher ed.
Why Kahoot and not any of the other similar polling apps (AKA formative assessment tools), such as PollEverywhere, PollDaddy etc. (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/01/13/formative-assessment-tools/)?
1. Kahoot has gained momentum; at least one third of your undergraduates have used it in high school and are familiar with the interface.
2. I personally like Kahoot for the kahoots. J
3. I like badges as “badges in gamification.” Let me know, if you want to work on this topic some other time and lets schedule work time after this session (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=badges).
In 10-15 min,
lets try to create an account and build our first kahoot (https://getkahoot.com/). You can use any topic and focus on the features, which Kahoot provides. Split in groups and help each other; if you feel stuck, please let me know and I will do my best to help advance further.
Here are two YouTube lectures how to create an account and a kahoot quiz (5 min) and how to play a kahoot (3 min): https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/06/13/how-to-kahoot/
In 5-10 min,
let’s display 1-2 kahoot’s to the entire audience and think about situations, when and where such kahoots can be used for educational purposes.
Let’s think about the implications, which the use of kahoots on BOYD may trigger in the classroom
Let’s think about the preparation needed for the smooth use of the kahoots (is your WiFi in that particular classroom robust enough to hold the action of 20? 200? Students?
Let’s think about students’ engagement: what constitutes it? would a kahoot on their BYOD will be sufficient to pick their interest and if not, what else must be added to the magic elixir?
In 5 min, lets discuss Kahoot’s similarities with other educational technologies used in the classroom
Let’s assess the potential of Kahoot.
how does it compare
how does it transfer
is it compatible with Canvas
first: link to the Hospital Center, but not to the study; difficult to check the facts, which are discussed in the editorial.
title talks about “social media,” but it is not about social media, it is about texting. danah boyd and Eszter Hargittai are apparently not household names in the house of the managing editor
then the author jumps from one issue to another: mindfulness or contemplative computing, but h/she has no clue about these issues also.
the research, which claims that social media (which is not social media, but more like BYOD + texting) has a negative impact on academic performance is no different the research that shows very positive impact of learning with social media. It is NOT about social media, it is about how it is used (methodology).
Our expert panelists weigh in on education technology to give us their verdict on which approaches to tech-enabled learning will have a major impact, which ones are stagnating and which ones might be better forgotten entirely.
Social Media for Teaching and Learning: Lukewarm to Hot
Digital Badges: Mostly Lukewarm
Open Educational Resources (OERs): Mostly Hot
E-Portfolios: Losing Steam
Learning Management Systems (LMS): Lukewarm to Hot
Flipped Learning: Mostly Hot (but Equitability a Question)
Blended Learning: Unanimously Hot
Student Data Privacy Concerns: Unanimously Hot
Apps for Learning: A Mostly Lukewarm Mixed Bag
Games for Learning: Hot
What are the hot devices?
Cameras like the Canon VIXIA, the Sony HDR-MV1 or the Zoom Q4 or Q8 range from $200 to $400. The secret of these small devices is a tradeoff between video flexibility and audio power. With digital-only zoom, these cameras still deliver full HD video (or better) but with limited distance capabilities. In return, the audio quality is unsurpassed by anything short of a professional boom or wireless microphone setup; most of these cameras feature high-end condenser microphone capsules that will make music or interview recordings shine.
The Chromebook is hot. Seventy-two percent of Chromebook sales were education-related purchases in 2014.
The smartphone is hot. Every day, the smartphone becomes less of a “phone” and more of a device for connecting with others via social media, researching information on the Internet, learning with apps and games and recording experiences with photos and videos.
According to the Team 5 meeting notes of 9/22/2015, presented to the library administration, under individual updates, e. Pedagogy, Active Learning/Interactivity/Focused Engagement, there are six points, including ‘flipped classroom,’ as proposed by Chris Inkster, but nothing about my proposal, which can be outlined as “changing the pedagogy of library instruction to fit the increased environment of mobile devices.”It makes the absence of my proposal even more bizarre considering that:
– during a meeting of Team 5 on Sept 23, I was questioned about my proposal and i delivered renewed explainations
Thus, since past proposals submitted by me were cut/ignored in a similar fashion as well as this one, I am formally entering it in a medium, which will bear the time stamp and the seal, so my proposal is not bastardized in the future and everyone can refer to the original idea, shall misunderstandings occur.
From: Miltenoff, Plamen Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:33 PM To: Inkster, Christine D. <cinkster@stcloudstate.edu>; Gruwell, Cindy A. <cagruwell@stcloudstate.edu>; Gorman, Michael S. <msgorman@stcloudstate.edu>; Hubbs, Susan <shubbs@stcloudstate.edu> Subject: Miller Center 218 – Remodel – TWO Questions
Good evening,
I will pick up from the correspondence below and share my thoughts thereafter.
Several weeks ago, Cisco announced a technology, which will allow the institutional IT to assign preference of teaching content over personal usage. In my understanding, the news signals that questions about accessibility need to be accordingly rephrased. It also craves transparency on the SCSU IT.
I have difficulties following Henry May’s ideas because of: 1. Lack of transparency and 2. Lack of didactical understanding.
The quintessential disparity (cart in front of the ox) is that from the emails below, it seems that the technology is driving didactic. If I need to prove that pedagogy drives technology, not vice versa, then there is a profound problem. I will assume that everyone agrees with pedagogy being in the center and technology is serving it. In that sense, this team and any other faculty unit trying to line up their curricular process to Henry’s vision, becomes preposterous; Henry is the one who has to be listening to the faculty and serve them.
Therefore, trying to adjust [long-term]future plans about pedagogy, by asking technology questions first, is in its best limiting. One needs to come up with a didactic frame and ask the responding questions how to furbish such frame with technology. If one assumes, as it is claimed, that this campus is moving to m-learning (mobile learning), BYOD, BYOx or any other fancy acronym, which de facto reflects the preponderance of mobile devices as main gateway to information used by students, then the pedagogy must be [re]designed for m-learning. In that sense, from a pedagogical point of view, I find perplexing focusing on MC 218 and subduing BYOD/x/mobile learning to the pedagogy, which will be exercised in a room ( MC 218). How is it mobile? Using mobile devices in room full with desktops does not make sense to me. Keep teaching a dynamic content such as library instruction in a confined room, also does not make sense to me.
Here is how I see the pedagogical reconsideration of library instruction must be considered.
In April 214, I proposed a plan, adopted from a Chicago librarian:
the plan reflects one of numerous possibilities to change the pedagogy of lecturing in a room (MC 218) to hands-on, real-life construct of knowledge by students on their own (constructivism). The pedagogical foundation is based on the use of personal mobile devices (BYOx), which renders the issue of MC 218 accessibility by wi fi as non-significant, since the hit on the wi fi network will be evenly distributed across the entire building.
The example above is only one of many on curriculum that needs to be changed by adopting gaming and gamification techniques:
the essence of library instruction needs to change from lecturing to facilitation and consultations of students’ own construct and discovery how the library works and can help them; it needs to be a F2F rehearsal of students-librarian virtual relationship, which later on can guide and help students individually then in groups.
In that sense, MC 218 can/should to be considered a hub for activities, which mostly take place across the library. MC 218 can be the center place, where in-depth exercises are performed. Exercises, which require either: 1. Stronger processing power, 2. Intensive typing, or 3. Larger screens. While it needs to be further surveyed, I believe that MC 218 needs to have prevalent presence of dock-type of stations (recharge, dongles to connect to large screens) and other peripherals which can allow students to connect their laptops, tablets and mobile devices, then desktops.
In the mobile era we live in, your students expect more from their institution’s wireless capabilities.
In this informative whitepaper, you’ll learn how deploying the first wireless standard (802.11 AC) where the speed of wireless is faster than a wired connection can empower your institution to meet the growing, technology driven landscape of today’s higher education environment.
My Note: Campuses are gearing up to the challenges of the Millennials and Gen Z. So do, allegedly, the SCSU IT. BOYD is now a term, which (finally, after 3 years of IMS proposing it to CETL) is waved forth and back at the SCSU campus in a lipservice attempt to convince stakeholders and public how much SCSU is with the times.
Once details transpire, however, one can see that 802.11AC allows 1GB connection and for the last 15 years, the SCSU IT never made it transparent (discussion? forget it), when 1 GB LAN will come to the campus. How can SCSU IT wave the BYOD flag, if older and more important issues are not resolved? Even if they are resolved, how does SCSU IT expect faculty to embrace the technology, if it is sold by the IT people? The sound pedagogical approach to new technologies must be done by faculty not by IT folks.
In order for BYOD, for that matter any other technology on campus to work (work means to a very large degree “accepted by educators,” the second most important stakeholder after the students – faculty – must be on board. Are they really on board controlled and dimmed by the SCSU IT?