Searching for "facebook live"

facebook live

By October 10, 2016

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/4-ways-to-broadcast-on-facebook-live-that-fit-any-budget/

#1: Start With Your Smartphone Budget: Free!

If you go to the Facebook Live Map and browse the live feeds, you’ll often see people talking about nothing in particular, with unflattering close-up camera angles and scratchy audio. People often shift their phones from hand to hand when they tire of holding them, and brush the mic without realizing it.

#2: Invest in a Mobile Phone Setup Budget: $150-$300

iPhone Setup When choosing a mount for an iPhone, consider the iOgrapher ($60), shown below. Attach the 37mm wide angle lens ($40) if you want to get more people or surroundings in the video.
Android and Windows Phone Setup The Saramonic SmartMixer ($149) fits any phone (including the iPhone) and incorporates both audio and video stabilization in one piece of gear. The mics are stereo, and you can angle them however you want to capture multiple people talking.

#3: Broadcast From Your Desktop

Budget: Free-$600  Going live from your computer allows you to bring in guests to interview, add pre-recorded video, graphics, titles (so people know who the hosts are), and more.

You can use the built-in camera on your computer or a USB camera, like the Logitech C920 ($99).

OBS OBS (Open Broadcaster Software) is open-source software, which means it’s available for free.

OBS is a great option, but it doesn’t have all of the bells and whistles of paid software to make it intuitive or easy to use. You’ll need to do a bit of setup and testing before you go live.

Wirecast Wirecast ($495) has been around for years and has come a long way in the last few months as Facebook Live has exploded in popularity. The interface is a little more intuitive than OBS, but still requires some setup and experimentation.

#4: Build a Dedicated Studio Setup

Budget: $3,000-$30,000

++++++++++++++++++++
more on Facebook Live in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=facebook+live

LITA social media webinar live

Facebook Live and Periscope for library use

We conducted a short 5 min live session on Facebook Live and Periscope; the first of three mini-series to test the potential of these tools for academic purposes:
Here is the link to the LITA Webinar Facebook Group page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/LitaSocialMediaWebinar/

Here is some literature :

Mies, G. (2016, June 13). Live from Your Library: A Look at Periscope, Facebook Live and Google Hangouts On Air. Retrieved from http://www.techsoupforlibraries.org/blog/live-from-your-library-periscope-facebook-live-google-hangouts-on-air
Kolowich, L. (n.d.). How to Use Facebook Live: A Complete Guide. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from http://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/facebook-live-guide

+++++++++++++++++++++
more on social media in the library in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=library+social+media

Facebook Oculus

Facebook’s Oculus virtual-reality division: Let’s not go crazy with the hype

http://www.cnet.com/news/facebooks-oculus-virtual-reality-division-lets-not-go-crazy-with-the-hype/

The VR industry is at the beginning of what could be the next major technology trend, with the potential to change the way people live, work and communicate.

Stop Using LinkedIn like Facebook

Ten signs you’re using LinkedIn like Facebook (and how to stop)

1. A profile picture that won’t get you hired.

Do yourself a favour and click the “People you may know” button and pick something you like that has a little more respectability to it. The same applies for avatars and pictures with someone else other than you in them.

2. A professional headline that is anything but.

Use a description that is both accurate and related to either the benefit you provide or your title within your company. Either way, this is guaranteed to return your profile in some searches.

3. Shameless friend collecting.

It’s a bad first impression. Give people a reason to connect with you and start off on the right foot.

4. Not even really wanting to be friends.

What do you do with all those connections? Do you actively keep in touch? What do you do when you get a message from a contact about business? Do you tut, sigh and ignore them? Fly into a rant about people contacting you on LinkedIn to talk business opportunities?

5. Going all “selly sell” right off the bat.

Do you send spam messages? The LinkedIn inbox delivers into your recipient’s inbox. It might be a warmer and softer way to get noticed but there is no relationship. Better to create rapport by asking questions, sharing content, joining the same group and showing your expertise and counselling side there.

6. Joining groups and not getting involved.

If you join groups and then don’t contribute, you’re partially responsible for the failure of the group. Quickest remedy is to set your group digest emails to once weekly and comment on a few discussions once a week when your email lands.

7. Liking and commenting on absolutely everything.

Liking and commenting on everything works well on Facebook and gives your friends a vanity boost but on LinkedIn less so. Think of it as being at that networking event and you’re the loud self absorbed guy no-one wants to talk to. Not quite so appealing?

8. Sending tweets directly into LinkedIn.

The automatic #in from Twitter was removed several years ago but it doesn’t stop the socially savvy copying and pasting or using a third party like Hootsuite to update multiple platforms at the same time. I do this but do try to tailor the messages to not include @ and #. Are your tweets even relevant to your LinkedIn audience? You’ll see they might jar after a while.

9. Asking people you barely know for endorsements and testimonials.

It’s a bit like asking your Facebook page to be liked but actually more vulgar because they haven’t presumably sampled your expertise yet.

10. Insharing Richard Branson’s (and other influencer) updates.

OK, it’s not Richard’s fault, but my point is, I often get to see what Richard and many others have to see a hundred times in my feed thanks to this piece of functionality. It’s got to Facebook like proportions.

When hundreds of people do the obvious, have the bottle to stay true to yourself and go your own way.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ten-signs-youre-using-linkedin-like-facebook-how-stop-ren%C3%A9-power?trk=prof-post

teens iPhones and Facebook

Teens love iPhone more, use Facebook a lot less, says survey

http://www.cnet.com/news/teens-love-iphone-more-than-ever-but-iwatch-doesnt-excite/

When it comes to social networks, teens are even more committed to Instagram. But the most stunning statistic was that Facebook seems to be rapidly disappearing from teen’s lives. In April, 72 percent said they used the site. Now, a mere 45 percent admitted to it.

second IMS podcast on technology in education

Second IMS podcast on technology in education: Constructivism

Today’s vocast will be broadcasted live at:

Adobe Connect      |     Facebook Live   |       Twitter (#IMSvodcast) |

and will be archived at:

SCSU MediaSpaceYouTube   (subscribe for the channel for future conversations)

IMS vodcast technology in education

Posted by InforMedia Services on Thursday, February 22, 2018

Constructivism.
Student-centered learning theory and practice are based on the constructivist learning theory that emphasizes the learner’s critical role in constructing meaning from new information and prior experience.

  • What is it?
  • Why do we have to know about it
  • Can we just disagree and stick to behaviorism?
  • Is it about student engagement?
  • Is it about the use of technology?
  • Resources
    • http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/06/28/constructivism-lecture-versus-project-based-learning/
      http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/12/03/translating-constructivism-into-instructional-design-potential-and-limitations/
      http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/03/28/student-centered-learning-literature-review/
      http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/11/05/online-discussion-with-plovdiv-university/
      http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/05/27/handbook-of-mobile-learning/
      Crompton, Muilenburg and Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
    • The “context”in this definition encompasses m-learnng that is formalself-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware and context neutral.
    • therefore, m-learning can occur inside or outside the classroom, participating in a formal lesson on a mobile device; it can be self-directed, as a person determines his or her own approach to satisfy a learning goal; or spontaneous learning, as a person can use the devices to look up something that has just prompted an interest (Crompton, 2013, p. 83). (Gaming article Tallinn)Constructivist Learnings in the 1980s – Following Piage’s (1929), Brunner’s (1996) and Jonassen’s (1999) educational philosophies, constructivists proffer that knowledge acquisition develops through interactions with the environment. (p. 85). The computer was no longer a conduit for the presentation of information: it was a tool for the active manipulation of that information” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12)Constructionist Learning in the 1980s – Constructionism differed from constructivism as Papert (1980) posited an additional component to constructivism: students learned best when they were actively involved in constructing social objects. The tutee position. Teaching the computer to perform tasks.Problem-Based learning in the 1990s – In the PBL, students often worked in small groups of five or six to pool knowledge and resources to solve problems. Launched the sociocultural revolution, focusing on learning in out of school contexts and the acquisition of knowledge through social interaction
    • Socio-Constructivist Learning in the 1990s. SCL believe that social and individual processes are independent in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan-Palinscar, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978).
    • 96-97). Keegan (2002) believed that e-learning was distance learning, which has been converted to e-learning through the use of technologies such as the WWW. Which electronic media and tools constituted e-learning: e.g., did it matter if the learning took place through a networked technology, or was it simply learning with an electronic device?
  • Discussion
    • Share with us practical examples of applying constructivist approach in your class
    • Would one hour workshop on turning existing class assignments into constructivist-based class assignments be of interest for you?

+++++++++++++++
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/02/12/first-ims-podcast-on-technology-in-education/

first IMS podcast on Technology in Education

Welcome to our Technology in Education weekly sessions (vodcasts)

archived session here: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/view-podcasts/

Every week, we will be presenting you in a short 5 min session with topics of your interest.

We will be providing you with information and giving you the podium to share your solutions.

This information will be broadcasted and archived via multiple channels:

The SCSU MediaSpaceOn the Facebook IMS pageTwitter (#IMSvodcast) |  YouTube

You can participate during the live session via
Adobe Connect
https://webmeeting.minnstate.edu/scsuteched,
Facebook and Twitter

Here is a Google form, where you can share your topics requests,  issues and solutions.

ims technology in education podcast form-t13oah

  • Adobe connect
  • Mediaspace:

  • Youtube (subscribe)

  • Facebook live (subscribe / like)

first vodcast on using technology in education

Vodcast Education and Technology for SCSU

Posted by InforMedia Services on Thursday, February 15, 2018

challenges ed leaders technology

The Greatest Challenge Facing School Leaders in a Digital World

By Scott McLeod     Oct 29, 2017

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-10-29-the-greatest-challenge-facing-school-leaders-in-a-digital-world

the Center for the Advanced Study of Tech­nology Leadership in Education – CASTLE

Vision

If a school’s reputation and pride are built on decades or centuries of “this is how we’ve always done things here,” resistance from staff, parents, and alumni to significant changes may be fierce. In such institutions, heads of school may have to steer carefully between deeply ingrained habits and the need to modernize the information tools with which students and faculty work

Too often, when navigating faculty or parental resistance, school leaders and technology staff make reassurances that things will not have to change much in the classroom or that slow baby steps are OK. Unfortunately, this results in a different problem, which is that schools have now invested significant money, time, and energy into digital technologies but are using them sparingly and seeing little impact. In such schools, replicative uses of technology are quite common, but transformative uses that leverage the unique affordances of technology are quite rare.

many schools fail to proceed further because they don’t have a collective vision of what more transformative uses of technology might look like, nor do they have a shared understanding of and commitment to what it will take to get to such a place. As a result, faculty instruction and the learning experiences of students change little or not at all.

These schools have taken the time to involve all stakeholders—including students—in substantive conversations about what digital tools will allow them to do differently compared with previous analog practices. Their visions promote the potential of computing devices to facilitate all of those elements we now think of as essential 21st-century capacities: confidence, curiosity, enthusiasm, passion, critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-direction. Technology doesn’t simply support traditional teaching—it transforms it for deeper thinking and gives students more agency over their own learning.

Fear

Another prevalent issue preventing technology change in schools is fear—fear of change, of the unknown, of letting go of what we know best, of being learners again. But it’s also a fear of letting kids have wide access to the Internet with the possibility of cyberbullying, access to inappropriate material, and exposure to online predators or even excessive advertising. Fears, of course, need to be surfaced and addressed.

The fear drives some schools to ban cellphones, disallow students and faculty from using Facebook, and lock down Internet filters so tightly that useful websites are inaccessible. They prohibit the use of Twitter and YouTube, and they block blogs. Some educators see these types of responses as principled stands against the shortcomings and hassles of digital technologies. Others see them as rejections of the dehumanization of the education process by soulless machines. Often, however, it’s just schools clinging to the past and elevating what is comfortable or familiar over the potential of technology to help them better deliver on their school missions.

Heads of school don’t have to be skilled users themselves to be effective technology leaders, but they do have to exercise appropriate oversight and convey the message—repeatedly—that frequent, meaningful technology use in school is both important and expected. Nostalgia aside, there is no foreseeable future in which the primacy of printed text is not superseded by electronic text and multimedia. When nearly all information is digital or online, multi-modal and multi­media, accessed by mobile devices that fit in our pockets, the question should not be whether schools prepare students for a digital learning landscape, but rather how.

Control

Many educators aren’t necessarily afraid of technology, but they are so accustomed to heavily teacher-directed classrooms that they are leery about giving up control—and can’t see the value in doing so.

Although most of us recognize that mobile computers connected to the Internet may be the most powerful learning devices yet invented—and that youth are learning in powerful ways at home with these technologies—allowing students to have greater autonomy and ownership of the learning process can still seem daunting and questionable.

The “beyond” is particularly important. When we give students some voice in and choice about what and how they learn, we honor basic human needs for autonomy, we enhance students’ interest and engagement, and we truly actualize our missions of preparing lifelong learners.

The goal of instructional transformation is to empower students, not to disempower teachers. While instructor unfamiliarity with digital technologies, inquiry- or problem-based teaching techniques, or deeper learning strategies may result in some initial discomfort, these challenges can be overcome with robust support.

Support

A few workshops here and there rarely result in large-scale changes in implementation.

teacher-driven “unconferences” or “edcamps,” at which educators propose and facilitate discussion topics, can be powerful mechanisms for fostering professional dialogue and learning. Similarly, some schools offer voluntary “Tech Tuesdays” or “appy hours” to foster digital learning among interested faculty.

In addition to existing IT support, technology integration staff, or librarians/media specialists, some schools have student technology teams that are on call for assistance when needed.

A few middle schools and high schools go even further and assign teachers their own individual student technology mentors. These student-teacher pairings last all school year and comprise the first line of support for educators’ technology questions.

As teachers, heads of school, counselors, coaches, and librarians, we all now have the ability to participate in ongoing, virtual, global communities of practice.

Whether formal or informal, the focus of technology-related professional learning should be on student learning, not on the tools or devices. Independent school educators should always ask, “Technology for the purpose of what?” when considering the inclusion of digital technologies into learning activities. Technology never should be implemented just for technology’s sake.

++++++++++++
more on digital literacy for EDAD in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy+edad

media technology and well being

Kushlev, K. (2018). Media technology and well-being: A complementarity-interference model. In E.Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers. DOI:nobascholar.com.  Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/35761357/Media_Technology_and_Well-Being_A_Complementarity-Interference_Model
Media technology—from mass media to social media and from video gaming to computer-mediated communication—plays an increasingly central role in people’s lives. Due to exponential increases in computing power, people now carry incredibly powerful computers—their smartphones—everywhere they go. This ever-greater access to media technology is generating an ever-greater conflict between media activities and the unmediated activities critical for psychological well-being—from our face-to-face conversations and family time to our down time and work lives. What are the costs and benefits of people’s modern media technology use for psychological well-being? Using a complementarity-interference (CI) framework, I review research to illuminate key psychological processes (i.e., mediators) and conditions (i.e., moderators) of the relationship between media technology and psychological well-being. Based on the existing evidence, I propose an initial theoretical CI model of the effects of media technology on psychological well-being. I use this CI model to outline important directions for future research, providing guidelines for an integrated, theoretically informed research on media technology.
Keywords: Media, Communication technology, Computer-mediated communication (CMC), Subjective well-being, Human-computer interaction (HCI)
Definition Media Technology
Media technology. In this chapter, we will explore psychological well-being in the context of modern media technology. In common parlance, we often think of the word ‘media’ as referring to mass media, such as news media (e.g., TV, radio), and more recently, to social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram). But media—the plural of medium—broadly refers to any technological tool that serves as a bridge or conduit to stimuli not otherwise available in the immediate physical environment. Thus, media technology refers to books and newspapers, radio and television, video and computer games—or to any device or method people use to transcend the constraints of their immediate physical environment: from yesterday’s dial-up telephone to the today’s smartphone, and from writing a hand-written letter to texting a friend (c.f., Okdie et al., 2014). Related terms also exist in the literature including information and communication technology, or ICT, as well as computer-mediated communication, or CMC. Most of the findings discussed here apply to—and in fact come from—the literature on ICT and CMC
While using the broad term, media technology, this chapter will focus primarily on the effects of media technology developed in the past century or so, including television, video games, and, most recently, mobile computers such as smartphones. In other words, we will be focusing on screen media technology. I will use the term mediated to refer to the stimuli afforded by the media technology, and the term unmediated to refer to behavior that does not involve the use of media (e.g., face-to-face interactions). Even though media technology itself is physical, I will use the term immediate physical environment to refer to the environment in which the media technology use occurs.

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

1 2 3 7