Recently, ED/IES SBIR announced its 2015 awards. There are 21 awards in all, covering a range of topics and forms of technology. For example, Zaption is designing a mobile app to help teachers integrate video into science instruction; Speak Agent is building an app to help students with speech disabilities to communicate; and Lingo Jingo is developing a platform to help teachers guide English learners. (To view short video demos of the eight new Phase II projects, see this playlist.)
The 2015 awards highlight two trends that have emerged in the ED/IES SBIR portfolio in recent years –games for learning and bridging the research-to-practice gap in education.
Trend #1: Games for Learning
Strange Loop Games to build a virtual world to engage students in learning about ecosystems,
Kiko Labs to develop mini games to strengthen young children’s thinking and memory skills, and
Schell Games to create a futuristic “ball and stick” molecular modeling kit and app to augment chemistry learning.
For a playlist including videos of these games and 19 others out of the ED/IES SBIR program, see here.
The games for learning trend echoes the movement surrounding games in the field, and is highlighted by recent ED sponsored events including ED Games Week in Washington, DC, last September and the Games for Learning Summit in New York City, in April. Both events convened stakeholders to showcase games and discuss the potential barriers and opportunities for collaboration necessary to accelerate the creation of highly effective games for learning. Stay tuned for more information and initiatives on games for learning out of ED’s Office of Technology.
Trend #2: Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap
Mindset Works, which built on results from prior research including a 2002 IES research grant, to successfully propose a 2010 ED/IES SBIR project to develop SchoolKit. This multimedia platform enables broad distribution of the growth mindset intervention which teaches students to understand that intelligence can be developed through effort and learning. SchoolKit is now in use in more than 500 schools across the country, including half the middle schools in Washington, DC.
Learning Ovationsis building on two prior IES research grants in their 2014 ED/IES SBIR project. The prior IES funding supported the research team as they developed and evaluated an intervention to improve children’s reading outcomes,. This award is supporting the development of an implementation platform to enable large-scale use of this evidence-based intervention across settings. The project is scheduled to end in 2016, after which the platform will be launched.
The new ED/IES SBIR 2015 awards continue the research-to-practice trend. An award to Foundations in Learning furthers basic research from a 2013 National Science Foundation grant (NSF); an award to SimInsights builds on 2005 and 2008IES research projects and a 2011 Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) research project; and an award to Apprendris advances a prior 2012 IES research project and prior 2010 and 2013 NSF research projects.
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?
99-100. Traxler (2011) described five ways in which m-learning offers new learning opportunities: 1. Contingent learning, allowing learners to respond and react to the environment and changing experiences; 2. Situated learning, in which learning takes place in the surroundings applicable to the learning; 3. Authentic learning;
Diel, W. (2013). M-Learning as a subfield of open and distance education. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
15) Historical context in relation to the field of distance education (embedded librarian)
16 definition of independent study (workshop on mlearning and distance education
17. Theory of transactional distance (Moore)
Cochrane, T. (2013). A Summary and Critique of M-Learning Research and Practice. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
( Galin class, workshop)
P 24
According to Cook and Sharples (2010) the development of M learning research has been characterized by three general faces a focus upon Devices Focus on learning outside the classroom He focus on the mobility of the learner
25
Baby I am learning studies focus upon content delivery for small screen devices and the PDA capabilities of mobile devices rather than leveraging the potential of mobile devices for collaborative learning as recommended by hope Joyner Mill Road and sharp P. 26 Large scale am learning project Several larger am learning projects have tended to focus on specific groups of learners rather than developing pedagogical strategies for the integration of am mlearning with him tertiary education in general
27
m learning research funding
In comparison am learning research projects in countries with smaller population sizes such as Australia and New Zealand are typiclly funded on a shoe string budget
28
M-learning research methodologies
I am learning research has been predominantly characterized by short term case studies focused upon The implementation of rapidly changing technologies with early adopters but with little evaluation reflection or emphasis on mainstream tertiary-education integration
p. 29 identifying the gaps in M learning research
lack of explicit underlying pedagogical theory Lack of transferable design frameworks
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., and Cook, J. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
(Tom video studio)
35 a line of argumentation that defines mobile devices such as mobile phones as cultural resources. Mobile cultural resources emerge within what we call a “bile complex‘, which consist of specifics structures, agency and cultural practices.
36 pedagogy looks for learning in the context of identify formation of learners within a wider societal context However at the beginning of the twentieth first century and economy oriented service function of learning driven by targets and international comparisons has started to occupy education systems and schools within them Dunning 2000 describes the lengthy transformation process from natural assets Land unskilled labor to tangible assets machinery to intangible created assets such as knowledge and information of all kinds Araya and Peters 2010 describe the development of the last 20 years in terms of faces from the post industrial economy to d information economy to the digital economy to the knowledge economy to the creative economy Cultural ecology can refer to the debate about natural resources we argue for a critical debate about the new cultural resources namely mobile devices and the services for us the focus must not be on the exploitation of mobile devices and services for learning but instead on the assimilation of learning with mobiles in informal contacts of everyday life into formal education
37
Ecology comes into being is there exists a reciprocity between perceiver and environment translated to M learning processes this means that there is a reciprocity between the mobile devices in the activity context of everyday life and the formal learning
45
Rather than focusing on the acquisition of knowledge in relation to externally defined notions of relevance increasingly in a market-oriented system individual faces the challenge of shape his/her knowledge out of his/her own sense of his/her world information is material which is selected by individuals to be transformed by them into knowledge to solve a problem in the life world
Crompton, H. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
p. 47 As philosophies and practice move toward learner-centered pedagogies, technology in a parallel move, is now able to provide new affordances to the learner, such as learning that is personalized, contextualized, and unrestricted by temporal and spatial constrains.
The necessity for m-learning to have a theory of its own, describing exactly what makes m-learning unique from conventional, tethered electronic learning and traditional learning.
48 . Definition and devices. Four central constructs. Learning pedagogies, technological devices, context and social interactions.
“learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
It is difficult, and ill advisable, to determine specifically which devices should be included in a definition of m-learning, as technologies are constantly being invented or redesigned. (my note against the notion that since D2L is a MnSCU mandated tool, it must be the one and only). One should consider m-learning as the utilization of electronic devices that are easily transported and used anytime and anywhere.
49 e-learning does not have to be networked learning: therefore, e-learnng activities could be used in the classroom setting, as the often are.
Why m-learning needs a different theory beyond e-learning. Conventional e-learning is tethered, in that students are anchored to one place while learning. What sets m-learning apart from conventional e-learning is the very lack of those special and temporal constrains; learning has portability, ubiquitous access and social connectivity.
50 dominant terms for m-learning should include spontaneous, intimate, situated, connected, informal, and personal, whereas conventional e-learning should include the terms computer, multimedia, interactive, hyperlinked, and media-rich environment.
51 Criteria for M-Learning
second consideration is that one must be cognizant of the substantial amount of learning taking place beyond the academic and workplace setting.
52 proposed theories
Activity theory: Vygotsky and Engestroem
Conversation theory: Pask 1975, cybernetic and dialectic framework for how knowledge is constructed. Laurillard (2007) although conversation is common for all forms of learning, m-learning can build in more opportunities for students to have ownership and control over what they are learning through digitally facilitated, location-specific activities.
53 multiple theories;
54 Context is central construct of mobile learning. Traxler (2011) described the role of context in m-learning as “context in the wider context”, as the notion of context becomes progressively richer. This theme fits with Nasimith et al situated theory, which describes the m-learning activities promoting authentic context and culture.
55. Connectivity
unlike e-learning, the learner is not anchored to a set place. it links to Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach.
Learning happens within various social groups and locations, providing a diverse range of connected learning experiences. furthermore, connectivity is without temporal restraints, such as the schedules of educators.
55. Time
m-larning as “learning dispersed in time”
55. personalization
my note student-centered learning
Moura, A., Carvalho, A. (2013). Framework For Mobile Learning Integration Into Educational Contexts. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
students’ multimedia assignments, which lead to online resources
collaboration with other departments for the students projects
moving the class to online environment (even if kept hybrid)
What is it?
the complexity of the learning environment is turning instructional design into a more dynamic activity, responding to changing educational models and expectations. Flipped classrooms, makerspaces, and competency-based learning are changing how instructors work with students, how students work with course content, and how mastery is verified. Mobile computing, cloud computing, and data-rich repositories have altered ideas about where and how learning takes place.
How does it work?
One consequence of these changes is that designers can find themselves filling a variety of roles. Today’s instructional designer might work with subject-matter experts, coders, graphic designers, and others. Moreover, the work of an instructional designer increasingly continues throughout the duration of a course rather than taking place upfront.
Who’s doing it?
The responsibility for designing instruction traditionally fell to the instructor of a course, and in many cases it continues to do so. Given the expanding role and landscape of technology—as well as the growing body of knowledge about learning and about educational activities and assessments— dedicated instructional designers are increasingly common and often take a stronger role.
Why is it significant?
The focus on student-centered learning, for example, has spurred the creation of complex integrated learning environments that comprise multiple instructional modules. Competency-based learning allows students to progress at their own pace and finish assignments, courses, and degree plans as time and skills permit. Data provided by analytics systems can help instructional designers predict which pedagogical approaches might be most effective and tailor learning experiences accordingly. The use of mobile learning continues to grow, enabling new kinds of learning experiences.
What are the downsides?
Given the range of competencies needed for the position, finding and hiring instructional designers who fit well into particular institutional cultures can be challenging to the extent that instructors hand over greater amounts of the design process to instructional designers, some of those instructors will feel that they are giving up control, which, in some cases, might appear to be simply the latest threat to faculty authority and autonomy. My note: and this is why SCSU Academic Technology is lead by faculty not IT staff.
Where is it going?
In some contexts, instructional designers might work more directly with students, teaching them lifelong learning skills. Students might begin coursework by choosing from a menu of options, creating their own path through content, making choices about learning options, being more hands-on, and selecting best approaches for demonstrating mastery. Educational models that feature adaptive and personalized learning will increasingly be a focus of instructional design. My note: SCSU CETL does not understand instructional design tendencies AT ALL. Instead of grooming faculty to assume the the leadership role and fill out the demand for instructional design, it isolates and downgrades (keeping traditional and old-fashioned) instructional design to basic tasks of technicalities done by IT staff.
What are the implications for teaching and learning?
By helping align educational activities with a growing understanding of the conditions,
tools, and techniques that enable better learning, instructional designers can help higher education take full advantage of new and emerging models of education. Instructional
designers bring a cross-disciplinary approach to their work, showing faculty how learning activities used in particular subject areas might be effective in others. In this way, instructional
designers can cultivate a measure of consistency across courses and disciplines in how educational strategies and techniques are incorporated. Designers can also facilitate the
creation of inclusive learning environments that offer choices to students with varying strengths and preferences.
News media material published online is an important first draft of history as the printed newspaper and broadcast news has been and still is. The digital transformation of news multiplies the usage and current online news media constantly develop new channels and modes of communication, redefine the roles of all stakeholders and transform the news in an infinite process.
The IFLA 2015 International News Media Conference 15-16 April 2015 has as its focus the transformation aspects of born digital news media and the implications for long term archiving and access, including issues of e-legal deposit of online news media and long term access to and preservation of news databases, web harvesting of online news media and user experiences with born digital news media collections.
Registration fee is 95 Euros and includes Evening reception 14 April, Light lunches 15-16 April and Dinner 15 April. The detailed programme will be posted on the conference web site and will include speakers from all over the world and tours of the library.
Organizers of the conference are IFLA News Media (Newspapers) Section.
The day before and in conjunction with the conference, April 14, the Center for Research Libraries (Chicago, USA;http://www.crl.edu/) will hold an International Newspaper Archiving and Digitization Summit with major actors in the newspaper digitization community to consider a strategic, cooperative approach to future digitization efforts of the world’s legacy news collections.)
For further information about the conference, please contact: Pär Nilsson (email: par.nilsson@kb.se, ph: +46 10 709 34 04) Karl Isaksson (email: karl.isaksson@kb.se, ph: +46 10 709 36 34)
There is an informative discussion on the LITA board regarding signage, both hard/software-wise as well as design-wise.
From: Hess, M. Ryan [mailto:MHESS8@depaul.edu] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 6:14 PM To:lita-l@lists.ala.org Subject: [lita-l] Re: Digital Signs – Best practices, hints & tips
Hi Christa,
I don’t manage the signs in our library, but had a part in getting them put in place and designing workflows. Along the way, I found some interesting research on the topic:
San Jose Public Library (2009). San Jose Public Library Signage Design Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.olis.ri.gov/ services/ ce/ presentation/ SJW-SignageDesignGuidelines.pdf
Barclay, D. A., Bustos, T., & Smith, T. (June 01, 2010). Signs of success. College & Research Libraries News, 71(6), 299.
Shooting more from the hip, my opinion on digital signage is that commonly made mistakes with content include:
– multiplied narratives don’t work in most library cases. Keep everything short and on a single slide
– keep the slide visible for at least a minute to give people a chance to read it
– make sure your graphics are appropriately sized for HD screens (keep those images sharp and avoid pixelation)
On a technical note, we use a mix of solutions:
– PPTs on USBs
– We’ve experimented with Google Drive Slideshows too, to help streamline the work
M Ryan Hess
Digital Services Coordinator
DePaul University
JTR 303-C, DePaul University, Lincoln Park Campus, 2350 N Kenmore Ave., Chicago IL 60614
office: 773-325-7829 | cell: 650-224-7279 | fax: 773-325-2297 | mhess8@depaul.edu
We are using a Plex Media Server feeding 3 Rokus over a wireless connection from a laptop. We use .jpg pictures for our slides. Each Roku is connected to a different folder on the Plex server since our displays are in different parts of the building.
Edward
—–Original Message—–
From: Junior Tidal [mailto:JTidal@CityTech.Cuny.Edu]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:10 PM
To: lita-l@lists.ala.org
Subject: [lita-l] Re: Digital Signs – Best practices, hints & tips
Hi Christa,
We used two templates for our digital sign. We were using PowerPoint on a Windows machine.
Librarians would take turns updating the slides to promote databases, workshops, library hours, etc., and we had a stable of maybe a dozen or so slides. We updated the slides whenever we needed to promote specific events, usually a couple of weeks before it took place.
This made it much easier to update the slides, because we couldn’t remotely login into the PC with Powerpoint running. Now, we can connect to the RPi/Screenly, and upload images.
Best,
Junior
Junior Tidal
Assistant Professor
Web Services and Multimedia Librarian
New York City College of Technology, CUNY
300 Jay Street, Rm A434
Brooklyn, NY 11201
718.260.5481
Metaliteracy promotes critical thinking and collaboration in a digital age, providing a comprehensive framework to effectively participate in social media and online communities.
Metaliteracy challenges traditional skills-based approaches to information literacy by recognizing related literacy types and incorporating emerging technologies. Standard definitions of information literacy are insufficient for the revolutionary social technologies currently prevalent online.
Information literacy was the term used most frequently in the United States from the late 1980s through most of the 1990s and is still used regularly. (Craig Gibson, “Information Literacy and IT Fluency: Convergences and Divergences,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 46, no. 3 (2007): 24.) p. 64. Social media and online collaborative communities are not specifically addressed in the standard definitions, but many of the highlighted skills are pertinent to today’s information environment.
…these institutional frameworks are not on the cutting edge of emerging trends; they lag behind the innovations of Web 2.0 and social media. Metaliteracy expands the scope of information literacy as more
than a set of discrete skills, challenging us to rethink information literacy as active knowledge production and distribution in collaborative online communities.
Media Literacy,
Digital Literacy,
Visual Literacy,
Cyberliteracy,
Information Fluency,
Metaliteracy
p. 69. While new literacy movements have similar foundation elements to information literacy, specifically
related to critical reading and critical thinking, as well as proficiencies in finding, synthesizing, and creating information, differences are often emphasized based on the specificity of technology or media
formats. As each new form of literacy is introduced, the shared literacy goals related to critical thinking and information skills are often overlooked, creating an unnecessary divide between information literacy
and other literacy types. The information literacy literature has also contributed to this separation in an effort to clarify important distinctions between information and computer skills, or between traditional
bibliographic instruction and new media literacy. Metaliteracy reinforces stronger
connections between information literacy and other literacy frameworks. This approach looks at the foundation principles that unite information and technology, rather than focusing on differences based
on discrete skills, distinct technologies, or media formats.
x-literacies
Jon Dron’s blog
https://landing.athabascau.ca/blog/view/708453/x-literacies
Computer literacy
Internet literacy
Digital literacy
Information literacy
Network literacy
Technology literacy
Critical literacy
Health literacy
Ecological literacy
Systems literacy
Statistical literacy
New literacies
Multimedia literacy
Media literacy
Visual literacy
Music literacy
Spatial literacy
Physical literacy
Legal literacy
Scientific literacy
Transliteracy
Multiliteracy
Metamedia literacy
7th Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries International Conference (QQML2015) 26-29 May 2015, IUT-Descartes University, Paris, France
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
It is our pleasure to invite you in Paris (IUT-Descartes University) for the 7th Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries International Conference (QQML2015, http://www.isast.org) which is organized under the umbrella of ISAST (International Society for the Advancement of Science and Technology).
This is the seventh year of the conference which brings together different disciplines on library and information science; it is a multi–disciplinary conference that covers the Library and Information Science topics in conjunction to other disciplines (e.g. innovation and economics, management and marketing, statistics and data analysis, information technology, human resources, museums, archives, special librarianship, etc).
The conference invites special and contributed sessions, oral communications, workshops and posters.
Target Group
The target group and the audience are library and archives professionals in a more general sense: professors, researchers, students, administrators, stakeholders, librarians, technologists, museum scientists, archivists, decision makers and managers.
Main topics
The emphasis is given to the models and the initiatives that run under the budget restrictions, such as the Information Management and the innovation, the crisis management, the long-term access, the synergies and partnership, the open access movement and technological development.
The conference will consider, but not be limited to, the following indicative themes:
1.Information and Knowledge Management
2.Synergies, Organizational Models and Information Systems
3.Open Data, Open Access, Analysis and Applications
You may send proposals for Special Sessions (4-6 papers) or Workshops (more than 2 sessions) including the title and a brief description at:secretar@isast.org or from the electronic submission at the web page: http://www.isast.org/abstractsubmission.html
You may also send Abstracts/Papers to be included in the proposed sessions, to new sessions or as contributed papers at the web page: http://www.isast.org/abstractsubmission.html
Contributions may be realized through one of the following ways
a. structured abstracts (not exceeding 500 words) and presentation;
b. full papers (not exceeding 7,000 words);
c. posters (not exceeding 2,500 words);
In all the above cases at least one of the authors ought to be registered in the conference.
Abstracts and full papers should be submitted electronically within the timetable provided in the web page: http://www.isast.org/.
The abstracts and full papers should be in compliance to the author guidelines: http://www.isast.org/
All abstracts will be published in the Conference Book of Abstracts and in the website of the Conference. The papers of the conference will be published in the website of the conference, after the permission of the author(s).
Student submissions
Professors and Supervisors are encouraged to organize conference sessions of Postgraduate theses and dissertations.
Please direct any questions regarding the QQML 2015 Conference and Student Research Presentations to: the secretariat of the conference at: secretar@isast.org
Important dates:
First call of proposals: 29th of September 2014
Deadline of abstracts submitted: 20 December 2014
Reviewer’s response: in 3 weeks after submission
Early registration: 30th of March 2015
Paper and Presentation Slides: 1st of May 2015
Conference dates: 26-29 May 2015
Paper contributors have the opportunity to be published in the QQML e- Journal, which continues to retain the right of first choice, however in addition they have the chance to be published in other scientific journals.
QQML e- Journalis included in EBSCOhost and DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals).
Submissions of abstracts to special or contributed sessions could be sent directly to the conference secretariat at secretar@isast.org. Please refer to the Session Number, as they are referred at the conference website to help the secretariat to classify the submissions.
For more information and Abstract/Paper submission and Special Session Proposals please visit the conference website at: http://www.isast.orgor contact the secretary of the conference at : secretar@isast.org
Looking forward to welcoming you in Paris,
With our best regards,
On behalf of the Conference Committee
Dr. Anthi Katsirikou, Conference Co-Chair
University of Piraeus Library Director
Head, European Documentation Center
Board Member of the Greek Association of Librarians and Information Professionals
Learnist is a crowd-sourced collection of knowledge, with web, text and video content covering thousands of topics. Boards are curated by knowledge leaders, providing content from the people who know it best. Create your own expert knowledge boards on the Learnist website and browse with the iOS and Android apps. Learnist was launched in 2012.
Sulia is a subject-based social network to connect users with expert sources. Sulia seeks to help people to discover new sources and engage with their interests. If you’re an expert and would like to reach the audience Sulia has to offer, contact its staff, at experts@sulia.com. Sulia also offers a Sulia Select program, which matches top experts with leading publishers and retailers.
Pheed is a free social multimedia platform, available on iOS, Android and via the web. Pheed users share voice-notes, music, photos, videos, text, and live broadcasts. Pheed channel holders can also monetize their content by charging a monthly subscription fee (between $1.99 and $34.99) or by charging for pay-per-view live broadcast events. Pheed launched with an iOS app in 2012 and an Android app in 2013.
Medium is a place where people share stories and ideas — a great place to generate expert content. Medium is designed to be collaborative, with tools to let readers offer feedback. Medium is also designed to help you find an audience, through a combination of algorithmic and editorial curation. Medium launched in 2012, and its iOS phone app launched in 2014.
Cyber Dust is a platform for temporary mobile messaging. Texts sent via Cyber Dust automatically disappear 24 seconds after being read. Users can blast messages and locations, and send disappearing promotional content, like stickers, animated GIFs, URLs and more. An alternative to Snapchat, Cyber Dust is the latest startup of maverick investor Mark Cuban, whose own legal woes motivated him to create the app.
ShareBloc is a Reddit-like link-sharing community for professionals to curate, distribute, and discuss business content. ShareBloc could also be a good resource for small businesses in the B2B sector. The site launched in 2013 as a peer-review platform for members to rate and review vendors. ShareBloc’s main obstacle will come from the competition it faces from heavyweight LinkedIn.
Thumb is a crowdsourcing platform to ask any question and quickly receive 50 to 100 responses. Easily filter by topic to get relevant responses and new content. Thumb is a resource for any small business looking for quick feedback on a new product or service. Originally launched in 2010 as a tool to give shopping feedback, Thumb has become a place to discover and give feedback on seemingly anything. The mobile app is available for Android and iOS.
Impossible is a network where people help each other out. People who need help post a request, which is shown to users most likely to fulfill it. Those with help to give can share time, skills and objects for free, as they build kindness profiles. While this network is geared toward altruism, it may be a good place for a business to put its product to work.
We Heart It is an image-based social network focused on inspiration, expression, and creativity. It’s a hipper version of Pinterest, aimed at “highly-engaged, tech-savvy, and consumption-focused millennials.” We Heart It has over 20 million monthly visitors to discover, collect, and share images on its mobile apps and website.
Chirp lets you send a message using sound — a chirp — to anyone running the app near you. Share photos, links, notes, and more, all from your built-in iPhone speaker. Chirp could be a powerful marketing tool for location-based businesses looking to entice passers-by. Chirp’s iOS app launched in 2012, and its Android app launched in 2013.
Mobli is a social application for sharing mobile photos and unlimited-length videos. It’s a feature-packed alternative to Instagram. Broadcast your live events, use photo and video filters update weekly, create looping videos, follow locations and hashtags, and more. In November of 2013, Mobil announced a capital raise of $60 million from billionaire Carlos Slim’s América Móvil.–
Vine is an application for creating and sharing six-second looping videos. Vine officially launched in 2013 (after Twitter purchased it in 2012) and quickly became the most-used video sharing application. Recently, Vine launched a new website with a variety of features to discover videos, such as channels, trending tags, and curated content. The change could deliver further gains for Vine, which according to GlobalWebIndex is used by a quarter of U.S. teens.
A former SCSU faculty asked me to help her with literature regarding online learning; she is applying to teach complete online somewhere in the South.
Hey Plamen, Do you have any reading suggestions regarding teaching online? I am applying for a job at ?????? and the program is completely online. I want to be current with the literature if I happen to get an interview.
Hey ???,
It is a simple question, with ever growing complex answer. 2013 was announced as the “MOOC” year and that term literally killed the tag “online education.” Most of the literature on online teaching now is subdued one way or another under MOOC.
However, there are still authors, who are widely cited as “foundational.” E.g.: Susan Ko, Paloff and Pratt
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching Online: A Practical Guide. Taylor & Francis.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2010). Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community. John Wiley & Sons.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the Online Learner: Resources and Strategies for Faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Moore, M. G. (2013). Handbook of Distance Education. Routledge.
There is a long list of articles, which I am collecting through the years. You can peruse them and choose any further readings, if you want…
Adolphus, M. (2009). USING THE WEB TO teach information literacy.Online, 33(4), 20-25.
Andersen, M. H. (2011). The world is my school: Welcome to the era of personalized learning.Futurist, 45(1), 12-17.
Borja, R. R. (2004). New player in online school market pursues profits.Education Week, 24(15), 8-8.
Brooks-Kirkland, A. (2006). Podcasting for learning.School Libraries in Canada (17108535), 25(4), 44-48.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a european empirical study.Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a european empirical study.Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a european empirical study.Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565.
de Freitas, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2010). Editorial: Crossing boundaries: Learning and teaching in virtual worlds.British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 3-9.
Department of education report: Its importance, one year later. (cover story).(2010). Distance Education Report, 15(12), 1-7.
Falloon, G. (2010). Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they have to offer?British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 108-122.
Hrastinski, S., Keller, C., & Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design exemplars for synchronous e-learning: A design theory approach.Computers & Education, 55(2), 652-662.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations.Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Miltenoff, P. (2011). Technology and globalization in higher education., 2535-2538.
Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science.British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56-68.
Kim, P., Ng, C. K., & Lim, G. (2010). When cloud computing meets with semantic web: A new design for e-portfolio systems in the social media era.British Journal of Educational Technology,41(6), 1018-1028.
Kolowich, S. (2009). MIT tops world ranking of university web sites.Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(24), A15-A15.
Leach, J. (2008). Do new information and communications technologies have a role to play in the achievement of education for all?British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 783-805.
Levine, A., Levine, A., & Dean, D. R. (2012). Generation on a tightrope : A portrait of today’s college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mangu-Ward, K. (2010). Teachers unions vs. online education.Reason, 42(4), 44-50.
Nistor, N., & Neubauer, K. (2010). From participation to dropout: Quantitative participation patterns in online university courses.Computers & Education, 55(2), 663-672.
Ramig, R. (2009). Social media in the classroom.Multimedia & internet@schools, 16(6), 8-10.
Ramig, R. (2009). Social media in the classroom.Multimedia & internet@schools, 16(6), 8-10.
Schiller, K. (2009). Augmented reality comes to market. (cover story).Information Today, 26(11), 1-46.
Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types.Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067-2077.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research.Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research.Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research.Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Wang, H., & Shao, M. (2008). Desire2Learn for quality matters., 1335-1339.
