Searching for "byod"

teaching with technology

Boulder Faculty Teaching with Technology Report
Sarah Wise, Education Researcher ,  Megan Meyer, Research Assistant, March 8,2016

http://www.colorado.edu/assett/sites/default/files/attached-files/final-fac-survey-full-report.pdf

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)

Top 3 use in most of my classes have used in some classes tried, but do not use  

N/A: no experience

in-class activities, problems (via worksheets, tablets, laptops, simulations, beSocratic, etc.)  

52%

 

33%

 

30%

 

6%

 

30%

in-class question, discussion tools (e.g. Twitter, TodaysMeet, aka “backchannel communication”)  

 

47%

 

 

8%

 

 

13%

 

 

11%

 

 

68%

using online resources to find high quality curricular materials  

37%

 

48%

 

31%

 

3%

 

18%

iClickers 24% 23% 16% 9% 52%
other presentation 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)

Top 3 use in most of my classes have used in some classes tried, but do not use N/A: no experience using
collaborative reading and discussion tools (e.g. VoiceThread, NB, NotaBene, Highlighter, beSocratic) 43% 3% 10% 10% 77%
collaborative project, writing, editing tools (wikis, PBWorks, Weebly, Google Drive, Dropbox, Zotero)  

38%

 

16%

 

29%

 

12%

 

43%

online practice problems / quizzes with instant feedback 36% 22% 22% 8% 47%
online discussions (D2L, Today’s Meet, etc) 31% 33% 21% 15% 30%
individual written assignment, presentation and project tools (blogs, assignment submission, Powerpoint, Prezi, Adobe Creative Suite, etc.)  

31%

 

43%

 

28%

 

7%

 

22%

research tools (Chinook, pubMed, Google Scholar, Mendeley, Zotero, Evernote) 30% 33% 32% 8% 27%
online practice (problems, quizzes, simulations, games, CAPA, Pearson Mastering, etc.) 27% 20% 21% 7% 52%
data analysis tools (SPSS, R, Latex, Excel, NVivo, MATLAB, etc.) 24% 9% 23% 6% 62%
readings (online textbooks, articles, e-books) 21% 68% 23% 1% 8%

Table 7. Do you use any of these online tools in your teaching? Which are the Top 3 online tools you would like to learn about or use more? (n = 437)

 

 

 

Top 3

 

use in most of my classes

 

have used in some classes

 

tried, but do not use

N/A: no experience using
videos/animations produced for my course (online lectures, Lecture Capture, Camtasia, Vimeo)  

38%

 

14%

 

21%

 

11%

 

54%

chat-based office hours or meetings (D2L chat, Google Hangouts, texting, tutoring portals, etc.)  

36%

 

4%

 

9%

 

10%

 

76%

simulations, PhET, educational games 27% 7% 17% 6% 70%
videoconferencing-based office hours or meetings (Zoom, Skype, Continuing Education’s Composition hub, etc.)  

26%

 

4%

 

13%

 

11%

 

72%

alternative to D2L (moodle, Google Site, wordpress course website) 23% 11% 10% 13% 66%
D2L course platform 23% 81% 7% 4% 8%
online tutorials and trainings (OIT tutorials, Lynda.com videos) 21% 4% 16% 13% 68%
D2L as a portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.)  

21%

 

28%

 

18%

 

11%

 

42%

videos/animations produced elsewhere 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 an expert 296 63%
hour-long workshop 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%
opportunity to apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards)  

97

 

21%

half-day or day-long workshop 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).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Teaching Through Technology
http://www.maine.edu/pdf/T4FinalYear1ReportCRE.pdf

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 8.632 86 .000 16.12644 12.4126 19.8403
Reading student discussion posts 10.102 79 .000 21.98750 17.6553 26.3197
Email to/with students 15.809 93 .000 26.62766 23.2830 29.9724

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2014

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1407/ers1407.pdf

Although the LMS is pervasive in higher education, 15% of faculty said that they
do not use the LMS at all. Survey demographics suggest these nonusers are part of
the more mature faculty ranks, with a tenure status, more than 10 years of teaching
experience, and a full-professor standing.
18
The vast majority of faculty use the LMS
to conduct or support their teaching activities, but only three in five LMS users (60%)
said it is critical to their teaching. The ways in which faculty typically use the LMS are
presented in figure 8.
19
Pushing out information such as a syllabus or other handout
is the most common use of the LMS (58%), which is a basic functionality of the
first-generation systems that emerged in the late 1990s, and it remains one of the core
features of any LMS.
20
Many institutions preload the LMS with basic course content
(58%), up about 12% since 2011, and this base gives instructors a prepopulated plat
form from which to build their courses.
21
Preloading basic content does not appear to
preclude faculty from making the LMS part of their daily digital habit; a small majority
of faculty (56%) reported using the LMS daily, and another 37% use it weekly.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Digital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/student-affairs-and-technology/digital-literacy-engagement-and-digital-identity-development

igital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

+++++++++++++++++

 

++++++++++++++++

more on digital literacy in this IMS blog

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy

Save

Greensboro presentation

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.

Short link: : http://bit.ly/UNCGpres

Alternatives to the pedagogical use of BYOD

Who: students, faculty and staff
Where: TBD
When: Friday, June 17, 2016. 10-11:30 AM

announcement

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

social media in academia

Research: Social media has negative impact on academic performance

By Denny Carter, Managing Editor
April 17th, 2013
study released by researchers at The Miriam Hospital’s Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine shows a link between social media use and poor academic performance
My note: weak arguments by the managing editor
  • 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).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

More on contemplative computing in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=contemplative+computing

Also on the connection of mobile devices and sleep:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/04/09/sleep/

live Kahoot Skype between schools

A live Skype connection between two schools, one in Plovdiv, Bulgaria and one in London, U.K. enables students to compete on Kahoot:

3rd graders play Kahoot using their mobile phones (BYOD).

The opportunity to compete against students from another country brings enormous enthusiasm in the entire session.

Gamifying the educational experience is the other part, which brings enthusiasm.

tech ed trends in 2016

What’s Hot, What’s Not in 2016

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.

By Greg Thompson 01/12/16

https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/01/12/whats-hot-whats-not-in-2016.aspx

  • Bring Your Own Device (BYOD): Lukewarm to Hot

  • 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.

educational technology and faculty development

Educational Technology and Faculty Development in Higher Education

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1507.pdf

 The Potential of Mobile Devices for Teaching and Learning

Despite the near ubiquity of student laptops and smartphones, in-class BYOD is still an emerging practice.

educause 2015

8:00 AM11:30 AM

Meeting Room 231-232
Session Type: Morning Seminar
Meeting Room 140-141
Session Type: Afternoon Seminar
Meeting Room 241-242
Session Type: Afternoon Seminar
Sagamore Ballroom 6
Meeting Room 132-133
Session Type: Discussion Session
Sagamore Ballroom 4
Poster Sessions, Exhibit Hall H-K
Session Type: Poster Session
Poster Sessions, Exhibit Hall H-K
Shoji Kajita
Session Type: Poster Session
Poster Sessions, Exhibit Hall H-K
Session Type: Poster Session
Poster Sessions, Exhibit Hall H-K
Leslie Kennedy
Session Type: Poster Session
Poster Sessions, Exhibit Hall H-K
Jon W. Dunn
Session Type: Poster Session
Sagamore Ballroom 4
Rob Peregoodoff
Meeting Room 237-238
Session Type: Concurrent Session
Meeting Room 231-232
Session Type: Concurrent Session
Meeting Room 132-133
Session Type: Discussion Session
Meeting Room 203-204
Wabash Ballroom 2
Session Type: Concurrent Session
Meeting Room 201-202
David Stack
Session Type: Concurrent Session
Meeting Room 239
Rose A. Rocchio
Session Type: Discussion Session
Sagamore Ballroom 5
Jaime Casap
Session Type: Featured Session
Meeting Room 201-202
Session Type: Concurrent Session
Meeting Room 203-204
Meeting Room 134-135
Tanya Joosten
Session Type: Discussion Session
Meeting Room 237-238
Session Type: Concurrent Session

CRS aka clickers to SCSU TPR

Classroom Response Systems, AKA clickers

Report to SCSU TPR

Plamen Miltenoff, pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu

http://scsu.mn/TechInstruct

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

  1. The work, findings and recommendations of the faculty task force of April 2013:
    https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/04/05/classroom-response-system-crs-or-clickers-questions-to-vendors/
    further documents from the interviewing process:
    https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/04/10/clickers-documentation/
    other related information on the interviewing and selection process of CRS vendors:
    https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/04/08/vendors-presentation-on-classroom-response-systems-aka-clickers-thursday-april-11-11-am-miller-center-b-31/

 

  1. Other [including pedagogical] conversations about CRS in the IMS blog:
    https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/02/07/open-or-free-learner-response-software-i-e-byod-clickers/

http://www.educause.edu/library/clickers

 

  1. Additional information on polling tools:
    https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/05/21/polls-and-surveys-tools-for-education/

MC218 remodel

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

– the webinar ONLINE GENERATION IS TRANSFORMING LIBRARIES: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/09/22/online-generation-is-transforming-libraries/, as referred by Chris Inkster, is discussing exactly the need of pedagogical changes proposed by me.

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.

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/

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:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/03/19/recommendations-for-games-and-gaming-at-lrs/

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.

 

Thank you.

Plamen

 

 

 

Internet connection at SCSU

802.11AC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac

The Answer to Meeting Challenging Wireless Needs on Campus: 802.11AC

Campus Technology Whitepaper

Dear Plamen,

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?

1 2 3 4 5