Searching for "essay"
The Overselling of Education Technology
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-03-16-the-overselling-of-education-technology
my response to ed tech is “It depends.”
Some people seem to be drawn to technology for its own sake—because it’s cool.
Other people, particularly politicians, defend technology on the grounds that it will keep our students “competitive in the global economy.”
But the rationale that I find most disturbing—despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it’s rarely made explicit—is the idea that technology will increase our efficiency…at teaching the same way that children have been taught for a very long time. Perhaps it hasn’t escaped your notice that ed tech is passionately embraced by very traditional schools: Their institutional pulse quickens over whatever is cutting-edge: instruction that’s blended, flipped, digitally personalized.
We can’t answer the question “Is tech useful in schools?” until we’ve grappled with a deeper question: “What kinds of learning should be taking place in those schools?”
Tarting up a lecture with a SmartBoard, loading a textbook on an iPad, looking up facts online, rehearsing skills with an “adaptive learning system,” writing answers to the teacher’s (or workbook’s) questions and uploading them to Google Docs—these are examples of how technology may make the process a bit more efficient or less dreary but does nothing to challenge the outdated pedagogy. To the contrary: These are shiny things that distract us from rethinking our approach to learning and reassure us that we’re already being innovative.
putting grades online (thereby increasing their salience and their damaging effects), using computers to administer tests and score essays, and setting up “embedded” assessment that’s marketed as “competency-based.” (If your instinct is to ask “What sort of competency? Isn’t that just warmed-over behaviorism?”
But as I argued not long ago, we shouldn’t confuse personalized learning with personal learning. The first involves adjusting the difficulty level of prefabricated skills-based exercises based on students’ test scores, and it requires the purchase of software. The second involves working with each student to create projects of intellectual discovery that reflect his or her unique needs and interests, and it requires the presence of a caring teacher who knows each child well.a recent review found that studies of tech-based personalized instruction “show mixed results ranging from modest impacts to no impact” – despite the fact that it’s remarkably expensive.
an article in Education Week, “a host of national and regional surveys suggest that teachers are far more likely to use tech to make their own jobs easier and to supplement traditional instructional strategies than to put students in control of their own learning.”
OECD reportednegative outcomes when students spent a lot of time using computers, while Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) concluded that online charter schools were basically a disaster.
Larry Cuban, Sherry Turkle, Gary Stager, and Will Richardson.
Emily Talmage points out, uncannily aligned with the wish list of the Digital Learning Council, a group consisting largely of conservative advocacy groups and foundations, and corporations with a financial interest in promoting ed tech.
++++++++++++
more on educational technology in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=educational+technology
English 101 materials for discussion on digital literacy.
Jamie Heiman.
All materials on #DigitalLiteracy in the IMS blog here: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy
Scenario for digital literacy in English classes:
What do virtual reality, BuzzFeed quizzes and essay writing have in common?
https://www.educationdive.com/news/what-do-virtual-reality-buzzfeed-quizzes-and-essay-writing-have-in-common/527868/
July 18, 2018
high school students now create infographics, BuzzFeed-like quizzes and even virtual reality (VR) experiences to illustrate how they can research, write and express their thoughts.
technology — using sites like CoSpaces Edu and content learning system Schoology (my note: the equivalnet of D2L at SCSU) — to engage and empower her students.
Thinklink, during a session called “Virtually Not an Essay: Technological Alternatives to a standard essay assignment.” (see this blog materials on ThingLink and like here: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=thinglink. The author made typo by calling the app “ThinKlink, instead of ThinGlink. Also, to use Thinglink’s Video 360 editor, the free account is not sufficient and the $125/month upgrade is needed. Not a good solution for education)
Jamie: I would love to discuss with you #infographics and #Thinglink for use in your courses and the Departmental course.
Digital literacy (DL): options, ideas, possibilities
The Overselling of Education Technology
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-03-16-the-overselling-of-education-technology
Basically, my response to ed tech is “It depends.” And one key consideration on which it depends is the reason given for supporting it.
ads in education periodicals, booths at conferences, and advocacy organizations are selling not only specific kinds of software but the whole idea that ed tech is de rigueur for any school that doesn’t want to risk being tagged as “twentieth century.”
Other people, particularly politicians, defend technology on the grounds that it will keep our students “competitive in the global economy.” This catch-all justification has been invoked to support other dubious policies, including highly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all national curriculum standards. It’s based on two premises: that decisions about children’s learning should be driven by economic considerations, and that people in other countries should be seen primarily as rivals to be defeated.
But the rationale that I find most disturbing—despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it’s rarely made explicit—is the idea that technology will increase our efficiency…at teaching the same way that children have been taught for a very long time.
a deeper question: “What kinds of learning should be taking place in those schools?” If we favor an approach by which students actively construct meaning, an interactive process that involves a deep understanding of ideas and emerges from the interests and questions of the learners themselves, well, then we’d be open to the kinds of technology that truly support this kind of inquiry. Show me something that helps kids create, design, produce, construct—and I’m on board. Show me something that helps them make things collaboratively (rather than just on their own), and I’m even more interested—although it’s important to keep in mind that meaningful learning never requires technology, so even here we should object whenever we’re told that software (or a device with a screen) is essential.
more worrisome are the variants of ed tech that deal with grades and tests, making them even more destructive than they already are: putting grades online (thereby increasing their salience and their damaging effects), using computers to administer tests and score essays, and setting up “embedded” assessment that’s marketed as “competency-based.”
we shouldn’t confuse personalized learning with personal learning. The first involves adjusting the difficulty level of prefabricated skills-based exercises based on students’ test scores, and it requires the purchase of software. The second involves working with each student to create projects of intellectual discovery that reflect his or her unique needs and interests, and it requires the presence of a caring teacher who knows each child well.
a recent review found that studies of tech-based personalized instruction “show mixed results ranging from modest impacts to no impact” – despite the fact that it’s remarkably expensive. In fact, ed tech of various kinds has made headlines lately for reasons that can’t be welcome to its proponents. According to an article in Education Week, “a host of national and regional surveys suggest that teachers are far more likely to use tech to make their own jobs easier and to supplement traditional instructional strategies than to put students in control of their own learning.” Last fall, meanwhile, OECD reportednegative outcomes when students spent a lot of time using computers, while Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes
Ed tech is increasingly making its way even into classrooms for young children. And the federal government is pushing this stuff unreservedly: Check out the U.S. Office of Education Technology’s 2016 plan recommending greater use of “embedded” assessment, which “includes ongoing gathering and sharing of data,” plus, in a development that seems inevitable in retrospect, a tech-based program to foster a “growth mindset” in children. There’s much more in that plan, too—virtually all of it, as blogger Emily Talmage points out, uncannily aligned with the wish list of the Digital Learning Council, a group consisting largely of conservative advocacy groups and foundations, and corporations with a financial interest in promoting ed tech.
++++++++++++++++
more on technology literacy in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=technology+literacy
Check out our LIB 490/590 Digital Storytelling class: http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/lib490/ Subscribe: https://www.facebook.com/groups/SCSUDigitalStorytelling/ Share your thoughts and ideas: https://goo.gl/forms/pbtikak6M45YRp0z2
++++++++++++
A Guide to Producing Student Digital Storytellers
What is Digital Storytelling?
Digital storytelling uses video, audio, social media, blogging and other tools to convey ideas and information effectively. The emphasis is on empowering students to create authentic products that they can share with others beyond the classroom walls, and to allow for audience interaction and feedback.
why should we inspire students to be digital storytellers?
Requires critical thinking: Creating an interdisciplinary product from scratch requires high level thinking skills like evaluating evidence, editing and curation, and production timelines. Digital stories often use multiple skills like writing, public speaking, photography, design and collaboration in a single project which makes them ideal for practicing skills learned other units or classes.
Authentic projects have impact: Creating real-world, impactful products that students share with an audience beyond the classroom is one of the best ways to enhance motivation and increase quality.
Places focus on writing: A picture is worth a thousand words, and video is 30 photos a second. It has its own grammar and style, but concepts of content, structure, tone and audience impact are just as important in multimedia as they are for an essay. Scripts, voiceovers and interview questions emphasize traditional writing skills and are the backbone of all multimedia projects.
Develops digital citizens: What to post online, when and how are all important questions for our students to learn to answer. Require them to comment on others’ work and develop etiquette for online posts and feedback. Rather than being afraid of the internet, embrace it to teach digital citizenship.
Students can add to digital portfolios: All student work can be compiled into a digital portfolio that they can use to promote themselves for jobs/internships
How to Educate Digital Storytellers
1. Focus on content, not the tools
2. Take it to the next “SAMR level.” The SAMR model is a way to gauge how deeply and effectively you use technology (Salvador Dali)
3. Develop expectations and outcomes
4. Start small
5. Evaluate early on and often
+++++++++++++
++++++++++++
How to Use Digital Storytelling in Your Classroom
Empower student creativity with affordable and accessible technology.
++++++++++++
more on digital storytelling in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+storytelling
Taylor, C. (2017). Our evolving agenda. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 43(3), 274-275. doi:10.1177/0191453716680433
Neo-Kantian ethics, for its part, tends to separate issues of the good life from what it considers the central questions of justice.
The reigning neo-liberal ideology, and the order it lauds, is meant to produce a maximization of wealth, and hence of means to fulfil our goals, without asking in what ways our frenetic attempts to increase GNP run counter to some of our most important goals: solidarity, the ability to discern and pursue a truly meaningful and fulfilling life, in keeping with our endowment and inclinations. We are either induced to neglect these in favour of playing our part in increasing GNP and/or we never pause to consider questions about what kind of life is best for us and, above all, what we owe to each other in this department
One of the central issues that arises in this context is that of democracy. After 1945, and then 1989, and then again in 2011 with the Arab Spring, we had the sense that democracy was on the march in history. But not only have many of the new departures been disappointing – Russia, Turkey, Egypt – but democracy is beginning to decay in its historic heartlands, where it has been operative for more than a century.
Inequalities are growing; in fact, democracy has been sacrificed to the supposed path of more rapid growth, as defined by neo-liberalism. This has led to a sense of impotence among non-elites, which has meant a drop in electoral participation, which in turn increases the power of money in politics, which leads to an intensified sense of impotence, and so on.
Taylor, C. (1998, October). The Dynamics of Democratic Exclusion. Journal of Democracy. p. 143.
Liberal democracy is a great philosophy of inclusion. It is rule of the people, by the people, and for the people, and today the “people” is taken to mean everybody, without the unspoken restrictions that formerly excluded peasants, women, or slaves. Contemporary liberal democracy offers the spectacle of the most inclusive politics in human history. Yet there is also something in the dynamic of democracy that pushes toward exclusion. This was allowed full rein in earlier democracies, as among the ancient republics, but today is a cause of great malaise.
The basic mode of legitimation of democratic states implies that they are founded on popular sovereignty. Now, for the people to be sovereign, it needs to form an entity and have a personality. This need can be expressed in the following way: The people is supposed to rule; this means that its members make up a decision-making unit, a body that takes joint decisions through a consensus, or at least a majority vote, of agents who are deemed equal and autonomous. It is not “democratic” for some citizens to be under the control of others. This might facilitate decision making, but it is not democratically legitimate.
In other words, a modern democratic state demands a “people” with a strong collective identity. Democracy obliges us to show much more solidarity and much more commitment to one another in our joint political project than was demanded by the hierarchical and authoritarian societies of yesteryear.
Thinkers in the civic humanist tradition, from Aristotle through Hannah Arendt, have noted that free societies require a higher level of commitment and participation than despotic or authoritarian ones. Citizens have to do for themselves, as it were, what the rulers would otherwise do for them. But this will happen only if these citizens feel a strong bond of identification with their political community, and hence with their fellow citizens.
successive waves of immigrants were perceived by many U.S. citizens of longer standing as a threat to democracy and the American way of life. This was the fate of the Irish beginning in the 1840s, and later in the century of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. And of course, the long-established black population, when it was given citizen rights for the first time after the Civil War, was effectively excluded from voting through much of the Old South up until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.
Multiculturalism and Postmodernism
For although conservatives often lump “postmodernists” and “multiculturalists” together with “liberals,” nothing could be less fair. In fact, the “postmodernists” themselves attack the unfortunate liberals with much greater gusto than they direct against the conser-vatives.
the two do have something in common, and so the targets partly converge. The discourse of the victim-accuser is ultimately rooted in certain philosophical sources that the postmodernists share with procedural liberalism—in particular, a commitment to negative liberty and/or a hostility to the Herder-Humboldt model of the associative bond. That is why policies framed in the language of “postmodernism” usually share certain properties with the policies of their procedural liberal enemies.
The struggle to redefine our political life in order to counteract the dangers and temptations of democratic exclusion will only intensify in the next century (My note: 21st century). There are no easy solutions, no universal formulas for success in this struggle. But at least we can try to avoid falling into the shadow or illusory ways of thinking. This means, first, that we must understand the drive to exclusion (as well as the vocation of inclusion) that democratic politics contains; and second, that we must fight free of some of the powerful philosophical illusions of our age. This essay is an attempt to push our thought a little ahead in both these directions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Taylor, C., & And, O. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition.
+++++++++++++++++++
Taylor, C. A. (1996). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory: Toward a Constructive Analysis of Scientific Rhetorics. Communication Theory (10503293), 6(4), 374-387.
+++++++++++++++++++
Taylor, C., & Jennings, I. (2005). The Immanent Counter-Enlightenment: Christianity and Morality. South African Journal Of Philosophy, 24(3), 224-239.
a passage from Paul Bénichou’s fa mous work Mo rales du grand siècle: ‘Hu man kind re presses its mis ery when ever it can; and at the same time for gets that hu mil i at ing mo ral ity by which it had con demned life, and in do ing so had made a vir tue of ne ces sity.2 ’ In this ver sion, the la tent hu man ist mo ral ity suc ceeds in es tab – lish ing it self, and in so do ing helps to throw the theo log i cal-as cetic code onto the scrap heap. On this view, it is as if the hu man ist mo ral ity had al ways been there, wait ing for the chance to over throw its op pres sive pre de ces sor.
The re la tion ship was something like the fol low ing: As long as one lived in the en – chanted world, where the weather-bells chimed, one felt one self to be in a world full of threats, vul ner a ble to black magic in all its forms. In this world God was for most be liev ers the source of a pos i tive power, which was able to de feat the pow ers of evil. God was the chief source of coun ter-, or white, magic. He was the fi nal guar an tor that good would tri umph in this world of man i fold spir its and pow ers. For those com pletely ab sorbed in this world, it was prac ti cally im pos si ble not to be – lieve in God. Not to be lieve would mean de vot ing one self to the devil. A small mi nor – ity of truly re mark able – or per haps truly des per ate – peo ple did in deed do this. But for the vast ma jor ity there was no ques tion whether one be lieved in God or not – the pos i – tive force was as real a fact as the threats it coun ter acted. The ques tion of be lief was a ques tion of trust and mem ber ship rather than one of the ac cep tance of par tic u lar doc – trines. In this sense they were closer to the con text of the gos pels.
++++++++++
more on philosophy in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=philosophy
When writing your dissertation…
Please have an FAQ-kind of list of the Google Group postings regarding resources and information on research and writing of Chapter 2
digital resource sets available through MnPALS Plus
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/10/21/digital-resource-sets-available-through-mnpals-plus/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
[how to] write chapter 2
You were reminded to look at dissertations of your peers from previous cohorts and use their dissertations as a “template”: http://repository.stcloudstate.edu/do/discipline_browser/articles?discipline_key=1230
You also were reminded to use the documents in Google Drive: e.g. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7IvS0UYhpxFVTNyRUFtNl93blE
Please have also materials, which might help you organize our thoughts and expedite your Chapter 2 writing….
Do you agree with (did you use) the following observations:
The purpose of the review of the literature is to prove that no one has studied the gap in the knowledge outlined in Chapter 1. The subjects in the Review of Literature should have been introduced in the Background of the Problem in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 is not a textbook of subject matter loosely related to the subject of the study. Every research study that is mentioned should in some way bear upon the gap in the knowledge, and each study that is mentioned should end with the comment that the study did not collect data about the specific gap in the knowledge of the study as outlined in Chapter 1.
The review should be laid out in major sections introduced by organizational generalizations. An organizational generalization can be a subheading so long as the last sentence of the previous section introduces the reader to what the next section will contain. The purpose of this chapter is to cite major conclusions, findings, and methodological issues related to the gap in the knowledge from Chapter 1. It is written for knowledgeable peers from easily retrievable sources of the most recent issue possible.
Empirical literature published within the previous 5 years or less is reviewed to prove no mention of the specific gap in the knowledge that is the subject of the dissertation is in the body of knowledge. Common sense should prevail. Often, to provide a history of the research, it is necessary to cite studies older than 5 years. The object is to acquaint the reader with existing studies relative to the gap in the knowledge and describe who has done the work, when and where the research was completed, and what approaches were used for the methodology, instrumentation, statistical analyses, or all of these subjects.
If very little literature exists, the wise student will write, in effect, a several-paragraph book report by citing the purpose of the study, the methodology, the findings, and the conclusions. If there is an abundance of studies, cite only the most recent studies. Firmly establish the need for the study. Defend the methods and procedures by pointing out other relevant studies that implemented similar methodologies. It should be frequently pointed out to the reader why a particular study did not match the exact purpose of the dissertation.
The Review of Literature ends with a Conclusion that clearly states that, based on the review of the literature, the gap in the knowledge that is the subject of the study has not been studied. Remember that a “summary” is different from a “conclusion.” A Summary, the final main section, introduces the next chapter.
from http://dissertationwriting.com/wp/writing-literature-review/
Here is the template from a different school (then SCSU)
http://semo.edu/education/images/EduLead_DissertGuide_2007.pdf
+++++++++++++++++
When conducting qualitative data, how many people should be interviewed? Is there a minimum or a max
Here is my take on it:
Simple question, not so simple answer.
It depends.
Generally, the number of respondents depends on the type of qualitative inquiry: case study methodology, phenomenological study, ethnographic study, or ethnomethodology. However, a rule of thumb is for scholars to achieve saturation point–that is the point in which no fresh information is uncovered in response to an issue that is of interest to the researcher.
If your qualitative method is designed to meet rigor and trustworthiness, thick, rich data is important. To achieve these principles you would need at least 12 interviews, ensuring your participants are the holders of knowledge in the area you intend to investigate. In grounded theory you could start with 12 and interview more if your data is not rich enough.
In IPA the norm tends to be 6 interviews.
You may check the sample size in peer reviewed qualitative publications in your field to find out about popular practice. In all depends on the research problem, choice of specific qualitative approach and theoretical framework, so the answer to your question will vary from few to few dozens.
How many interviews are needed in a qualitative research?
There are different views in literature and no one agreed to the exact number. Here I reviewed some mostly cited references. Based Creswell (2014), it is estimated that 16 participants will provide rich and detailed data. There are a couple of researchers agreed on 10–15 in-depth interviews are sufficient (Guest, Bunce & Johnson 2006; Baker & Edwards 2012).
your methodological choices need to reflect your ontological position and understanding of knowledge production, and that’s also where you can argue a strong case for smaller qualitative studies, as you say. This is not only a problem for certain subjects, I think it’s a problem in certain departments or journals across the board of social science research, as it’s a question of academic culture.
here more serious literature and research (in case you need to cite in Chapter 3)
Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027
https://researcholic.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/sample_size_interviews/
Gaskell, George (2000). Individual and Group Interviewing. In Martin W. Bauer & George Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative Researching With Text, Image and Sound. A Practical Handbook (pp. 38-56). London: SAGE Publications.
Lieberson, Stanley 1991: “Small N’s and Big Conclusions.” Social Forces 70:307-20. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2580241)
Savolainen, Jukka 1994: “The Rationality of Drawing Big Conclusions Based on Small Samples.” Social Forces 72:1217-24. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2580299).
Small, M.(2009) ‘How many cases do I need ? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research’ Ethnography 10(1) 5-38
Williams,M. (2000) ‘Interpretivism and generalisation ‘ Sociology 34(2) 209-224
http://james-ramsden.com/semi-structured-interviews-how-many-interviews-is-enough/
+++++++++++++++++
how to start your writing process
If you are a Pinterest user, you are welcome to just sbuscribe to the board:
https://www.pinterest.com/aidedza/doctoral-cohort/
otherwise, I am mirroring the information also in the IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/08/13/analytical-essay/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
APA citing of “unusual” resources
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/08/06/apa-citation/
+++++++++++++++++++++++
statistical modeling: your guide to Chapter 3
working on your dissertation, namely Chapter 3, you probably are consulting with the materials in this shared folder:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7IvS0UYhpxFVTNyRUFtNl93blE?usp=sharing
In it, there is a subfolder, called “stats related materials”
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7IvS0UYhpxFcVg3aWxCX0RVams
where you have several documents from the Graduate school and myself to start building your understanding and vocabulary regarding your quantitative, qualitative or mixed method research.
It has been agreed that before you go to the Statistical Center (Randy Kolb), it is wise to be prepared and understand the terminology as well as the basics of the research methods.
Please have an additional list of materials available through the SCSU library and the Internet. They can help you further with building a robust foundation to lead your research:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/07/10/intro-to-stat-modeling/
In this blog entry, I shared with you:
- Books on intro to stat modeling available at the library. I understand the major pain borrowing books from the SCSU library can constitute, but you can use the titles and the authors and see if you can borrow them from your local public library
- I also sought and shared with you “visual” explanations of the basics terms and concepts. Once you start looking at those, you should be able to further research (e.g. YouTube) and find suitable sources for your learning style.
I (and the future cohorts) will deeply appreciate if you remember to share those “suitable sources for your learning style” either by sharing in this Google Group thread and/or sharing in the comments section of the blog entry: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/07/10/intro-to-stat-modeling. Your Facebook group page is also a good place to discuss among ourselves best practices to learn and use research methods for your chapter 3.
++++++++++++++++
search for sources
Google just posted on their Facebook profile a nifty short video on Google Search
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/06/26/google-search/
Watching the video, you may remember the same #BooleanSearch techniques from our BI (bibliography instruction) session of last semester.
Considering the fact of preponderance of information in 2017: your Chapter 2 is NOT ONLY about finding information regrading your topic.
Your Chapter 2 is about proving your extensive research of the existing literature.
The techniques presented in the short video will arm you with methods to dig deeper and look further.
If you would like to do a decent job exploring all corners of the vast area called Internet, please consider other search engines similar to Google Scholar:
Microsoft Semantic Scholar (Semantic Scholar); Microsoft Academic Search; Academicindex.net; Proquest Dialog; Quetzal; arXiv;
https://www.google.com/; https://scholar.google.com/ (3 min); http://academic.research.microsoft.com/; http://www.dialog.com/; http://www.quetzal-search.info; http://www.arXiv.org; http://www.journalogy.com/
More about such search engines in the following blog entries:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/01/19/digital-literacy-for-glst-495/
and
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/05/01/history-becker/
Let me know, if more info needed and/or you need help embarking on the “deep” search
+++++++++++++++++
tips for writing and proofreading
please have several infographics to help you with your writing habits (organization) and proofreading, posted in the IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/06/11/writing-first-draft/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/06/11/prewriting-strategies/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/06/11/essay-checklist/
++++++++++++++
letter – request copyright permission
Here are several samples on mastering such letter:
https://registrar.stanford.edu/students/dissertation-and-thesis-submission/preparing-engineer-theses-paper-submission/sample-3
http://www.iup.edu/graduatestudies/resources-for-current-students/research/thesis-dissertation-information/before-starting-your-research/copyright-permission-instructions-and-sample-letter/
https://brocku.ca/webfm_send/25032
+++++++++++++++++
Intelligence: a history
Intelligence has always been used as fig-leaf to justify domination and destruction. No wonder we fear super-smart robots
Stephen Cave
https://aeon.co/essays/on-the-dark-history-of-intelligence-as-domination
To say that someone is or is not intelligent has never been merely a comment on their mental faculties. It is always also a judgment on what they are permitted to do. Intelligence, in other words, is political.
The problem has taken an interesting 21st-century twist with the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
The term ‘intelligence’ itself has never been popular with English-language philosophers. Nor does it have a direct translation into German or ancient Greek, two of the other great languages in the Western philosophical tradition. But that doesn’t mean philosophers weren’t interested in it. Indeed, they were obsessed with it, or more precisely a part of it: reason or rationality. The term ‘intelligence’ managed to eclipse its more old-fashioned relative in popular and political discourse only with the rise of the relatively new-fangled discipline of psychology, which claimed intelligence for itself.
Plato conclude, in The Republic, that the ideal ruler is ‘the philosopher king’, as only a philosopher can work out the proper order of things. This idea was revolutionary at the time. Athens had already experimented with democracy, the rule of the people – but to count as one of those ‘people’ you just had to be a male citizen, not necessarily intelligent. Elsewhere, the governing classes were made up of inherited elites (aristocracy), or by those who believed they had received divine instruction (theocracy), or simply by the strongest (tyranny).
Plato’s novel idea fell on the eager ears of the intellectuals, including those of his pupil Aristotle. Aristotle was always the more practical, taxonomic kind of thinker. He took the notion of the primacy of reason and used it to establish what he believed was a natural social hierarchy.
So at the dawn of Western philosophy, we have intelligence identified with the European, educated, male human. It becomes an argument for his right to dominate women, the lower classes, uncivilised peoples and non-human animals. While Plato argued for the supremacy of reason and placed it within a rather ungainly utopia, only one generation later, Aristotle presents the rule of the thinking man as obvious and natural.
The late Australian philosopher and conservationist Val Plumwood has argued that the giants of Greek philosophy set up a series of linked dualisms that continue to inform our thought. Opposing categories such as intelligent/stupid, rational/emotional and mind/body are linked, implicitly or explicitly, to others such as male/female, civilised/primitive, and human/animal. These dualisms aren’t value-neutral, but fall within a broader dualism, as Aristotle makes clear: that of dominant/subordinate or master/slave. Together, they make relationships of domination, such as patriarchy or slavery, appear to be part of the natural order of things.
Descartes rendered nature literally mindless, and so devoid of intrinsic value – which thereby legitimated the guilt-free oppression of other species.
For Kant, only reasoning creatures had moral standing. Rational beings were to be called ‘persons’ and were ‘ends in themselves’. Beings that were not rational, on the other hand, had ‘only a relative value as means, and are therefore called things’. We could do with them what we liked.
This line of thinking was extended to become a core part of the logic of colonialism. The argument ran like this: non-white peoples were less intelligent; they were therefore unqualified to rule over themselves and their lands. It was therefore perfectly legitimate – even a duty, ‘the white man’s burden’ – to destroy their cultures and take their territory.
The same logic was applied to women, who were considered too flighty and sentimental to enjoy the privileges afforded to the ‘rational man’.
Galton believe that intellectual ability was hereditary and could be enhanced through selective breeding. He decided to find a way to scientifically identify the most able members of society and encourage them to breed – prolifically, and with each other. The less intellectually capable should be discouraged from reproducing, or indeed prevented, for the sake of the species. Thus eugenics and the intelligence test were born together.
From David Hume to Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud through to postmodernism, there are plenty of philosophical traditions that challenge the notion that we’re as intelligent as we’d like to believe, and that intelligence is the highest virtue.
From 2001: A Space Odyssey to the Terminator films, writers have fantasised about machines rising up against us. Now we can see why. If we’re used to believing that the top spots in society should go to the brainiest, then of course we should expect to be made redundant by bigger-brained robots and sent to the bottom of the heap.
Natural stupidity, rather than artificial intelligence, remains the greatest risk.
++++++++++++++++++++++
more on intelligence in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=intelligence
Wiklund, M., Mozelius, P., Westing, T., & Norberg, L. (2016). Biometric Belt and Braces for Authentication in Distance Education. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309548915_Biometric_Belt_and_Braces_for_Authentication_in_Distance_Education
Abstract
a need for new techniques to handle the problem in online environments. To achieve zero cheating is hard (or impossible) without repelling not only cheaters but also those students who do not cheat, where a zero ‐ tolerance emphasis also would risk inhibiting students’ intrinsic motivation. Several studies indicate that existing virtual learning environments do not provide the features needed to control that the intended student is the one taking the online exam. Biometric Belt and Braces for Authentication in Distance Education.
One approach to prevent student’s dishonesty is the university code of honour. This is a set of rules describing what actions are not permitted and the consequences for students taking such actions. Another way of preventing cheating is the use of proctors during written exams. Even while using such codes of honour and proctors, universities still have found many students to cheat. Biometric Belt and Braces for Authentication in Distance Education.
Neutralisation is the phenomenon when a person rationalises his or her dishonest behaviour with arguments like “I can do this because the work load within this course is just too overwhelming” or “I can do this because I have a half ‐ time job on the side which gives me less study time than the other students have”. By doing so the student puts the blame for cheating on external factors rather than on himself, and also protects himself from the blame of others (Haines et al. 1986). This neutralises the behavior in the sense that the person’s feelings of shame are reduced or even eliminated. Haines et al. (1986 Biometric Belt and Braces for Authentication in Distance Education.
Simply asking participants to read a code of honour when they had the opportunity to cheat reduced dishonesty. Also whether one signed the code of honour or just read it influenced cheating. The Shu et al. (2011) study suggests that opportunity and knowledge of ethical standards are two factors that impact students’ ethical decision about cheating. This is in line with the results in (McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield 2001), showing that if students regularly are reminded of the university’s code of honour, they are less likely to cheat Biometric Belt and Braces for Authentication in Distance Education.
For an online course setting, Gearhart (2001) suggest that teachers should develop a guideline for “good practices”.
In online examination there are reports of students hiring other persons to increase their scores (Flior & Kowalski, 2010) and there is a need for new enhanced authentication tools (Ullah, Xiao & Lilley, 2012). For companies and Internet environments the process of authentication is often completed through the use of logon identification with passwords and the assumption of the password to guarantee that the user is authentic (Ramzan, 2007), but logins and passwords can be borrowed (Bailie & Jortberg, 2009). The discussion on how to provide enhanced authentication in online examination has led to many suggested solutions; four of them are: Biometric Belt and Braces for Authentication in Distance Education.
- Challenge Questions: with questions based on third ‐ party data
- Face ‐ to ‐ Face Proctored Exam: with government or institution issued identification
- Web Video Conference Proctor: audio and video conference proctoring via webcam and screen monitoring service with live, certified proctors
- Biometrics and Web Video Recording: with unique biometrics combined with the recording of student in exam via webcam
An idea for online courses is that assessment should not only be a one way process where the students get grades and feedback. The examination process should also be a channel for students’ feedback to teachers and course instructors (Mardanian & Mozelius, 2011). New online methods could be combined with traditional assessment in an array of techniques aligned to the learning outcomes (Runyon and Von Holzen, 2005). Examples of summative and formative assessment in an online course could be a mix of: Biometric Belt and Braces for Authentication in Distance Education.
- Multiple choice questions (MCQ) tests, automatically corrected in a virtual learning environment
- Term papers or essays analysed by the course instructors
- Individual or group assignments posted in digital drop ‐ boxes
- Oral or written tests conducted in the presence of the instructor or through videoconferences (Dikli, 2003)
Authors’ suggestion is a biometric belt and braces model with a combination of scanned facial coordinates and voice recognition, where only a minimum of biometric data has to be stored. Even if the model is based on biometrics with a medium to low grade of uniqueness and permanence, it would be reliable enough for authentication in online courses if two (or more) types of biometrics are combined with the presented dialogue based examination using an interaction/obser ‐ vation process via web cameras. Biometric Belt and Braces for Authentication in Distance Education.
++++++++++++++++++
more on identification in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=identification
++++++++++++++++
more on proctoring and detecting cheating:
http://www.wgu.edu/blogpost/innocent-red-flags-caught-by-online-exam-proctors
voices from the other side:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-to-cheat-online-exam-proctoring.html
https://campustechnology.com/articles/2016/04/06/how-students-try-to-bamboozle-online-proctors.aspx
http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/articles/2014/06/17/think-twice-before-cheating-in-online-courses
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
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
+++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
more on digital literacy in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy
Save
Digital Literacy and Preparing Students for the Workforce
Digital Technology Is Changing the Career Landscape
- People are living longer.
- Technology can now augment and extend our own abilities.
- Daily life is now computational as innovations in sensors and processing make our world a programmable system.
- Our new media ecology and advances in communications systems require media literacies beyond text.
- Social technologies are driving new forms of production and value creation.
- Our world is now globally connected, highlighting diversity and adaptability.
Digital Literacy Is a Professional Competency
media-rich education, including interactive approaches such as digital storytelling or remix education, ensures that students are familiar with modern tools and “natural language” modes of expression. We are increasingly moving into what many scholars consider a post-literate world, one in which images, video, and the written or spoken word are used fluidly together, symbiotically, to communicate increasingly complex concepts. Modern rhetoric now includes TED talks, animated lectures, visual essays, and a plethora of other interactive and dynamic multimedia.
Smart Classrooms = Smart Workers
ten, technology-oriented strengths as “must haves” for future employers:
- An ability to determine deeper meaning or significance of what is being expressed via all mediums.
- An ability to connect with others in a meaningful and direct way via modern technologies and our global networks.
- A proficiency in problem-solving and critical analysis, especially when working with digital relationships or data.
- An ability to adapt to different cultural settings and modalities, necessitated by our global media ecosystem.
- An ability to translate specific information and data into abstracts while understanding the underlying reasoning.
- An ability to critically assess and develop content that uses evolving digital media, leveraging these tools for direct and persuasive communication.
- A transdisciplinary, multimedia mindset that eschews specialized or localized intelligences.
- A design or goal-oriented mindset that employs systems thinking and that develops tasks and work processes towards a desired outcome.
- An ability to discriminate and filter both digital and analog information for importance, while maximizing cognitive and productivity efficiencies.
- An ability to work productively and innovatively via virtual collaboration.
Digital Backpack, is certainly one of the first steps, as is developing an educational framework within which students can meanfully and productively interrogate our technologically driven world.
To learn more about incorporating media in the classroom, download Digital Literacy On-Demand: Visualizing Best Practices in Higher Education, our guide to best practices for multimodal learning and digital media on campus.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More on digital literacy in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
more on digital storytelling in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+storytelling