Searching for "nvivo"

Nvivo shareware

Nvivo shareware

http://www.qsrinternational.com/trial-nvivo

information courtesy

Sandrine Zerbib

Associate Professor of Sociology
St. Cloud State University
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
266 Stewart Hall
720 Fourth Avenue South
St Cloud, MN 56301-4498
Office: (320) 308-3046

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

suggestions for academic writing

these are suggestions from Google Groups with doctoral cohorts 6, 7, 8, 9 from the Ed leadership program

How to find a book from InterLibrary Loan: find book ILL

Citing someone else’s citation?:

http://library.northampton.ac.uk/liberation/ref/adv_harvard_else.php

http://guides.is.uwa.edu.au/c.php?g=380288&p=3109460
use them sparingly:
http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/cite-another-source.aspx
Please take a look at “Paraphrasing sources: in
http://www.roanestate.edu/owl/usingsources_mla.html
it gives you a good idea why will distance you from a possibility of plagiarizing.
n example of resolution by this peer-reviewed journal article
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2566
Ungerer, L. M. (2016). Digital Curation as a Core Competency in Current Learning and Literacy: A Higher Education Perspective. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning17(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2566
Dunaway (2011) suggests that learning landscapes in a digital age are networked, social, and technological. Since people commonly create and share information by collecting, filtering, and customizing digital content, educators should provide students opportunities to master these skills (Mills, 2013). In enhancing critical thinking, we have to investigate pedagogical models that consider students’ digital realities (Mihailidis & Cohen, 2013). November (as cited in Sharma & Deschaine, 2016), however warns that although the Web fulfils a pivotal role in societal media, students often are not guided on how to critically deal with the information that they access on the Web. Sharma and Deschaine (2016) further point out the potential for personalizing teaching and incorporating authentic material when educators themselves digitally curate resources by means of Web 2.0 tools.
p. 24. Communities of practice. Lave and Wenger’s (as cited in Weller, 2011) concept of situated learning and Wenger’s (as cited in Weller, 2011) idea of communities of practice highlight the importance of apprenticeship and the social role in learning.
criteria to publish a paper

Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?

Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

Methodology: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?

Results: Are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?

Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?

Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

mixed method research

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deric%26AN%3dEJ971947%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

Stanton, K. V., & Liew, C. L. (2011). Open Access Theses in Institutional Repositories: An Exploratory Study of the Perceptions of Doctoral Students. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal16(4),

We examine doctoral students’ awareness of and attitudes to open access forms of publication. Levels of awareness of open access and the concept of institutional repositories, publishing behaviour and perceptions of benefits and risks of open access publishing were explored. Method: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected through interviews with eight doctoral students enrolled in a range of disciplines in a New Zealand university and a self-completion Web survey of 251 students. Analysis: Interview data were analysed thematically, then evaluated against a theoretical framework. The interview data were then used to inform the design of the survey tool. Survey responses were analysed as a single set, then by disciple using SurveyMonkey’s online toolkit and Excel. Results: While awareness of open access and repository archiving is still low, the majority of interview and survey respondents were found to be supportive of the concept of open access. The perceived benefits of enhanced exposure and potential for sharing outweigh the perceived risks. The majority of respondents were supportive of an existing mandatory thesis submission policy. Conclusions: Low levels of awareness of the university repository remains an issue, and could be addressed by further investigating the effectiveness of different communication channels for promotion.

PLEASE NOTE:

the researchers use the qualitative approach: by interviewing participants and analyzing their responses thematically, they build the survey.
Then then administer the survey (the quantitative approach)

How do you intend to use a mixed method? Please share

paraphrasing quotes

statement of the problem

Problem statement – Wikipedia

 
Metaphors: A Problem Statement is like… 
metaphor — a novel or poetic linguistic expression where one or more words for a concept are used outside normal conventional meaning to express a similar concept. Aristotle l 
The DNA of the research l A snapshot of the research l The foundation of the research l The Heart of the research l A “taste” of the research l A blueprint for the study
 
 
 
Here is a good exercise for your writing of the problem statement:
Chapter 3
several documents, which can be helpful in two different ways:
– check your structure and methodology
– borrow verbiage
http://education.nova.edu/Resources/uploads/app/35/files/arc_doc/writing_chpt3_quantitative_research_methods.pdf 
http://education.nova.edu/Resources/uploads/app/35/files/arc_doc/writing_chpt3_qualitative_research_methods.pdf
http://www.trinitydc.edu/sps/files/2010/09/APA-6-BGS-Quantitative-Research-Paper-August-2014.pdf

digital object identifier, or DOI

digital object identifier (DOI) is a unique alphanumeric string assigned by a registration agency (the International DOI Foundation) to identify content and provide a persistent link to its location on the Internet. The publisher assigns a DOI when your article is published and made available electronically.

Why do we need it?

2010 Changes to APA for Electronic Materials Digital object identifier (DOI). DOI available. If a DOI is available you no longer include a URL. Example: Author, A. A. (date). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume(number), page numbers. doi: xx.xxxxxxx

http://www.stcloudstate.edu/writeplace/_files/documents/working-with-sources/apa-electronic-material-citations.pdf

Mendeley (vs Zotero and/or RefWorks)

https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/11355/226845?utm_campaign=Mendeley%20Webinars%202&utm_campaignPK=271205324&utm_term=OP28019&utm_content=271205712&utm_source=99&BID=799935188&utm_medium=email&SIS_ID=46360

Online Writing Tools: FourOnlineToolsforwriting

social media and altmetrics

Accodring to Sugimoto et al (2016), the Use of social media platforms for by researchers is high — ranging from 75 to 80% in large -scale surveys (Rowlands et al., 2011; Tenopir et al., 2013; Van Eperen & Marincola, 2011) .
There is one more reason, and, as much as you want to dwell on the fact that you are practitioners and research is not the most important part of your job, to a great degree, you may be judged also by the scientific output of your office and/or institution.
In that sense, both social media and altimetrics might suddenly become extremely important to understand and apply.
Shortly altmetrics (alternative metrics) measure the impact your scientific output has on the community. Your teachers and you present, publish and create work, which might not be presented and published, but may be widely reflected through, e.g. social media, and thus, having impact on the community.
How such impact is measured, if measured at all, can greatly influence the money flow to your institution
For more information:
For EVEN MORE information, read the entire article:
Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2016). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: a review of the literature. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08112
related information:
In the comments section on this blog entry,
I left notes to
Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2016). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1962–1972. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23501
Todd Tetzlaff is using Mendeley and he might be the only one to benefit … 🙂
Here is some food for thought from the article above:
Doctoral students and junior researchers are the largest reader group in Mendeley ( Haustein & Larivière, 2014; Jeng et al., 2015; Zahedi, Costas, & Wouters, 2014a) .
Studies have also provided evidence of high rate s of blogging among certain subpopulations: for example, approximately one -third of German university staff (Pscheida et al., 2013) and one fifth of UK doctoral students use blogs (Carpenter et al., 2012) .
Social data sharing platforms provide an infrastructure to share various types of scholarly objects —including datasets, software code, figures, presentation slides and videos —and for users to interact with these objects (e.g., comment on, favorite, like , and reuse ). Platforms such as Figshare and SlideShare disseminate scholars’ various types of research outputs such as datasets, figures, infographics, documents, videos, posters , or presentation slides (Enis, 2013) and displays views, likes, and shares by other users (Mas -Bleda et al., 2014) .
Frequently mentioned social platforms in scholarly communication research include research -specific tools such as Mendeley, Zotero, CiteULike, BibSonomy, and Connotea (now defunct) as well as general tools such as Delicious and Digg (Hammond, Hannay, Lund, & Scott, 2005; Hull, Pettifer, & Kell, 2008; Priem & Hemminger, 2010; Reher & Haustein, 2010) .
qualitative research
“The focus group interviews were analysed based on the principles of interpretative phenomenology”
 
1. What are  interpretative phenomenology?
Here is an excellent article in ResarchGate:
 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263767248_A_practical_guide_to_using_Interpretative_Phenomenological_Analysis_in_qualitative_research_psychology
 
and a discussion from the psychologists regarding the weaknesses when using IPA (Interpretative phenomenological analysis)

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-24/edition-10/methods-interpretative-phenomenological-analysis

2. What is Constant Comparative Method?

http://www.qualres.org/HomeCons-3824.html

Nvivo shareware

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/01/11/nvivo-shareware/

Qualitative and Quantitative research in lame terms
podcast:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-scientific-method-works/id278981407?i=1000331586170&mt=2
if you are not podcast fans, I understand. The link above is a pain in the behind to make work, if you are not familiar with using podcast.
Here is an easier way to find it:
1. open your cell phone and go find the podcast icon, which is pre-installed, but you might have not ever used it [yet].
2. In the app, use the search option and type “stuff you should know”
3. the podcast will pop up. scroll and find “How the scientific method works,” and/or search for it if you can.
Once you can play it on the phone, you have to find time to listen to it.
I listen to podcast when i have to do unpleasant chores such as: 1. walking to work 2. washing the dishes 3. flying long hours (very rarely). 4. Driving in the car.
There are bunch of other situations, when you may be strapped and instead of filling disgruntled and stressed, you can deliver the mental [junk] food for your brain.
Earbuds help me: 1. forget the unpleasant task, 2. Utilize time 3. Learn cool stuff
Here are podcasts, I am subscribed for, besides “stuff you should know”:
TED Radio Hour
TED Talks Education
NPR Fresh Air
BBC History
and bunch others, which, if i don’t go a listen for an year, i go and erase and if i peruse through the top chart and something picks my interest, I try.
If I did not manage to convince to podcast, totally fine; do not feel obligated.
However, this podcast, you can listen to on your computer, if you don’t want to download on your phone.
It is one hour show by two geeks, who are trying to make funny (and they do) a dry matter such as quantitative vs qualitative, which you want to internalize:
1. Sometimes at minute 12, they talk about inductive versus deductive to introduce you to qualitative versus quantitative. It is good to listen to their musings, since your dissertation is going through inductive and deductive process, and understanding it, can help you control better your dissertation writing. 
2. Scientific method. Hypothesis etc (around min 17).
While this is not a Ph.D., but Ed.D. and we do not delve into the philosophy of science and dissertation etc. the more you know about this process, the better control you have over your dissertation. 
3. Methods and how you prove (Chapter 3) is discussed around min 35
4. dependent and independent variables and how do you do your research in general (min ~45)
Shortly, listen and please do share your thoughts below. You do not have to be kind to this source offering. Actually, be as critical as possible, so you can help me decide, if I should offer it to the next cohort and thank you in advance for your feedback. 

 

 

qualitative method research

Cohort 7

By miltenoff | View this Toon at ToonDoo | Create your own Toon

Qualitative Method Research

quote

Data treatment and analysis

Because the questionnaire data comprised both Likert scales and open questions, they were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Textual data (open responses) were qualitatively analyzed by coding: each segment (e.g. a group of words) was assigned to a semantic reference category, as systematically and rigorously as possible. For example, “Using an iPad in class really motivates me to learn” was assigned to the category “positive impact on motivation.” The qualitative analysis was performed using an adapted version of the approaches developed by L’Écuyer (1990) and Huberman and Miles (1991, 1994). Thus, we adopted a content analysis approach using QDAMiner software, which is widely used in qualitative research (see Fielding, 2012; Karsenti, Komis, Depover, & Collin, 2011). For the quantitative analysis, we used SPSS 22.0 software to conduct descriptive and inferential statistics. We also conducted inferential statistics to further explore the iPad’s role in teaching and learning, along with its motivational effect. The results will be presented in a subsequent report (Fievez, & Karsenti, 2013)

Fievez, A., & Karsenti, T. (2013). The iPad in Education: uses, benefits and challenges. A survey of 6057 students and 302 teachers in Quebec, Canada (p. 51). Canada Research Chair in Technologies in Education. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/5366978/The_iPad_in_Education_uses_benefits_and_challenges._A_survey_of_6057_students_and_302_teachers_in_Quebec_Canada

unquote

 The 20th century notion of conducting a qualitative research by an oral interview and then processing manually your results had triggered in the second half of the 20th century [sometimes] condescending attitudes by researchers from the exact sciences.
The reason was the advent of computing power in the second half of the 20th century, which allowed exact sciences to claim “scientific” and “data-based” results.
One of the statistical package, SPSS, is today widely known and considered a magnificent tools to bring solid statistically-based argumentation, which further perpetuates the superiority of quantitative over qualitative method.
At the same time, qualitative researchers continue to lag behind, mostly due to the inertia of their approach to qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis continues to be processed in the olden ways. While there is nothing wrong with the “olden” ways, harnessing computational power can streamline the “olden ways” process and even present options, which the “human eye” sometimes misses.
Below are some suggestions, you may consider, when you embark on the path of qualitative research.
The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research
Florian Kohlbacher
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/75/153

excellent guide to the structure of a qualitative research

Palys, T., & Atchison, C. (2012). Qualitative Research in the Digital Era: Obstacles and Opportunities. International Journal Of Qualitative Methods, 11(4), 352-367.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d89171709%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite
Palys and Atchison (2012) present a compelling case to bring your qualitative research to the level of the quantitative research by using modern tools for qualitative analysis.
1. The authors correctly promote NVivo as the “jaguar’ of the qualitative research method tools. Be aware, however, about the existence of other “Geo Metro” tools, which, for your research, might achieve the same result (see bottom of this blog entry).
2. The authors promote a new type of approach to Chapter 2 doctoral dissertation and namely OCR-ing PDF articles (most of your literature as of 2017 is mostly either in PDF or electronic textual format) through applications such as
Abbyy Fine Reader, https://www.abbyy.com/en-us/finereader/
OmniPage,  http://www.nuance.com/for-individuals/by-product/omnipage/index.htm
Readirus http://www.irislink.com/EN-US/c1462/Readiris-16-for-Windows—OCR-Software.aspx
The text from the articles is processed either through NVIVO or related programs (see bottom of this blog entry). As the authors propose: ” This is immediately useful for literature review and proposal writing, and continues through the research design, data gathering, and analysis stages— where NVivo’s flexibility for many different sources of data (including audio, video, graphic, and text) are well known—of writing for publication” (p. 353).
In other words, you can try to wrap your head around huge amount of textual information, but you can also approach the task by a parallel process of processing the same text with a tool.
 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here are some suggestions for Computer Assisted / Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) for a small and a large community applications):

– RQDA (the small one): http://rqda.r-forge.r-project.org/ (see on youtube the tutorials of Metin Caliskan); one active developper.
GATE (the large one): http://gate.ac.uk/ | https://gate.ac.uk/download/

text mining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_mining
Text mining, also referred to as text data mining, roughly equivalent to text analytics, is the process of deriving high-quality information from text. High-quality information is typically derived through the devising of patterns and trends through means such as statistical pattern learning. Text mining usually involves the process of structuring the input text (usually parsing, along with the addition of some derived linguistic features and the removal of others, and subsequent insertion into a database), deriving patterns within the structured data, and finally evaluation and interpretation of the output.
https://ischool.syr.edu/infospace/2013/04/23/what-is-text-mining/
Qualitative data is descriptive data that cannot be measured in numbers and often includes qualities of appearance like color, texture, and textual description. Quantitative data is numerical, structured data that can be measured. However, there is often slippage between qualitative and quantitative categories. For example, a photograph might traditionally be considered “qualitative data” but when you break it down to the level of pixels, which can be measured.
word of caution, text mining doesn’t generate new facts and is not an end, in and of itself. The process is most useful when the data it generates can be further analyzed by a domain expert, who can bring additional knowledge for a more complete picture. Still, text mining creates new relationships and hypotheses for experts to explore further.

quick and easy:

intermediate:

advanced:

http://tidytextmining.com/

Introduction to GATE Developer  https://youtu.be/o5uhMF15vsA


 

use of RapidMiner:

https://rapidminer.com/pricing/

– Coding Analysis Toolkit (CAT) from University of Pittsburgh and University of Massachusetts
– Raven’s Eye is an online natural language ANALYSIS tool based
– ATLAS.TI
– XSIGTH

– QDA Miner: http://provalisresearch.com/products/qualitative-data-analysis-software/

There is also a free version called QDA Miner Lite with limited functionalities: http://provalisresearch.com/products/qualitative-data-analysis-software/freeware/

– MAXQDA

–  NVivo

– SPSS Text Analytics

– Kwalitan

– Transana (include video transcribing capability)

– XSight

– Nud*ist

(Cited from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_any_open-source_alternatives_to_Nvivo [accessed Apr 1, 2017].

– OdinText

IBM Watson Conversation
IBM Watson Text to Speech
Google Translate API
MeTA
LingPipe
NLP4J
Timbl
Colibri Core
CRF++
Frog
Ucto
– CRFsuite

– FoLiA
PyNLPl
openNLP
NLP Compromise
MALLET
Cited from: https://www.g2crowd.com/products/nvivo/competitors/alternatives [accessed April 1, 2017
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
more on quantitative research:

Asamoah, D. A., Sharda, R., Hassan Zadeh, A., & Kalgotra, P. (2017). Preparing a Data Scientist: A Pedagogic Experience in Designing a Big Data Analytics Course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 15(2), 161–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12125
++++++++++++++++++++++++
literature on quantitative research:
Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. MIT Press. https://mplus.mnpals.net/vufind/Record/ebr4_1006438
St. Cloud State University MC Main Collection – 2nd floor AZ195 .B66 2015
p. 161 Data scholarship in the Humanities
p. 166 When Are Data?
Philip Chen, C. L., & Zhang, C.-Y. (2014). Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data. Information Sciences, 275(Supplement C), 314–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.01.015

teaching with technology

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

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

Faculty perceive undergraduates to be less proficient with digital literacy skills. One-third think
their students do not find or organize digital information very well. The majority (52%) think
they lack skill in validating digital information.
My note: for the SCSU librarians, digital literacy is fancy word for information literacy. Digital literacy, as used in this report is much greater area, which encompasses much broader set of skills
Faculty do not prefer to teach online (57%) or in a hybrid format (where some sessions occur
online, 32%). One-third of faculty reported no experience with these least popular course types
my note: pay attention to the questions asked; questions I am asking Mike Penrod to let me work with faculty for years. Questions, which are snubbed by CETL and a dominance of D2L and MnSCU mandated tools is established.

Table 5. Do you use these in-class technologies for teaching undergraduates? Which are the Top 3 in-class technologies you would like to learn or use more? (n = 442)

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

N/A: no experience

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

52%

 

33%

 

30%

 

6%

 

30%

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

 

47%

 

 

8%

 

 

13%

 

 

11%

 

 

68%

using online resources to find high quality curricular materials  

37%

 

48%

 

31%

 

3%

 

18%

iClickers 24% 23% 16% 9% 52%
other presentation tool (Prezi, Google presentation, Slide Carnival, etc.)  

23%

 

14%

 

21%

 

15%

 

51%

whiteboard / blackboard 20% 58% 23% 6% 14%
Powerpoint or Keynote 20% 74% 16% 4% 5%
document camera / overhead projector 15% 28% 20% 14% 38%

 

Table 6. Do you have undergraduates use these assignment technology tools? Which are your Top 3 assignment technology tools to learn about or use more? (n = 432)

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

38%

 

16%

 

29%

 

12%

 

43%

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

31%

 

43%

 

28%

 

7%

 

22%

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

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

 

 

 

Top 3

 

use in most of my classes

 

have used in some classes

 

tried, but do not use

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

38%

 

14%

 

21%

 

11%

 

54%

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

36%

 

4%

 

9%

 

10%

 

76%

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

26%

 

4%

 

13%

 

11%

 

72%

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

21%

 

28%

 

18%

 

11%

 

42%

videos/animations produced elsewhere 19% 40% 36% 2% 22%

In both large and small classes, the most common responses faculty make to digital distraction are to discuss why it is a problem and to limit or ban phones in class.
my note: which completely defies the BYOD and turns into empty talk / lip service.

Quite a number of other faculty (n = 18) reported putting the onus on themselves to plan engaging and busy class sessions to preclude distraction, for example:

“If my students are more interested in their laptops than my course material, I need to make my curriculum more interesting.”

I have not found this to be a problem. When the teaching and learning are both engaged/engaging, device problems tend to disappear.”

The most common complaint related to students and technology was their lack of common technological skills, including D2L and Google, and needing to take time to teach these skills in class (n = 14). Two commented that digital skills in today’s students were lower than in their students 10 years ago.

Table 9. Which of the following are the most effective types of learning opportunities about teaching, for you? Chose your Top 2-3. (n = 473)

Count           Percentage

meeting 1:1 with an expert 296 63%
hour-long workshop 240 51%
contact an expert on-call (phone, email, etc) 155 33%
faculty learning community (meeting across asemester,

e.g. ASSETT’s Hybrid/Online Course Design Seminar)

116 25%
expert hands-on support for course redesign (e.g. OIT’s Academic Design Team) 114 24%
opportunity to apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards)  

97

 

21%

half-day or day-long workshop 98 21%
other 40 8%
multi-day retreats / institutes 30 6%

Faculty indicated that the best times for them to attend teaching professional developments across the year are before and early semester, and summer. They were split among all options for meeting across one week, but preferred afternoon sessions to mornings. Only 8% of respondents (n = 40) indicated they would not likely attend any professional development session (Table 10).

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

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

Table T1: Faculty beliefs about using digital technologies in teaching

Count Column N%
Technology is a significant barrier to teaching and learning. 1 0.2%
Technology can have a place in teaching, but often detracts from teaching and learning. 76 18.3%
Technology has a place in teaching, and usually enhances the teaching learning process. 233 56.0%
Technology greatly enhances the teaching learning process. 106 25.5%

Table T2: Faculty beliefs about the impact of technology on courses

Count Column N%
Makes a more effective course 302 72.6%
Makes no difference in the effectiveness of a course 42 10.1%
Makes a less effective course 7 1.7%
Has an unknown impact 65 15.6%

Table T3: Faculty use of common technologies (most frequently selected categories shaded)

Once a month or less A few hours a month A few hours a week An hour a day Several hours a day
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
Computer 19 4.8% 15 3.8% 46 11.5% 37 9.3% 282 70.7%
Smart Phone 220 60.6% 42 11.6% 32 8.8% 45 12.4% 24 6.6%
Office Software 31 7.8% 19 4.8% 41 10.3% 82 20.6% 226 56.6%
Email 1 0.2% 19 4.6% 53 12.8% 98 23.7% 243 58.7%
Social Networking 243 68.8% 40 11.3% 40 11.3% 23 6.5% 7 2.0%
Video/Sound Media 105 27.6% 96 25.2% 95 24.9% 53 13.9% 32 8.4%

Table T9: One sample t-test for influence of technology on approaches to grading and assessment

Test Value = 50
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
In class tests and quizzes -4.369 78 .000 -9.74684 -14.1886 -5.3051
Online tests and quizzes 5.624 69 .000 14.77143 9.5313 20.0115
Ungraded  assessments 1.176 66 .244 2.17910 -1.5208 5.8790
Formative assessment 5.534 70 .000 9.56338 6.1169 13.0099
Short essays, papers, lab reports, etc. 2.876 70 .005 5.45070 1.6702 9.2312
Extended essays and major projects or performances 1.931 69 .058 3.67143 -.1219 7.4648
Collaborative learning projects .000 73 1.000 .00000 -4.9819 4.9819

Table T10: Rate the degree to which your role as a faculty member and teacher has changed as a result of increased as a result of increased use of technology

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
shifting from the role of content expert to one of learning facilitator  

12

 

9.2%

 

22

 

16.9%

 

14

 

10.8%

 

37

 

28.5%

 

29

 

22.3%

 

16

 

12.3%

your primary role is to provide content for students  

14

 

10.9%

 

13

 

10.1%

 

28

 

21.7%

 

29

 

22.5%

 

25

 

19.4%

 

20

 

15.5%

your identification with your University is increased  

23

 

18.3%

 

26

 

20.6%

 

42

 

33.3%

 

20

 

15.9%

 

12

 

9.5%

 

3

 

2.4%

you have less ownership of your course content  

26

 

20.2%

 

39

 

30.2%

 

24

 

18.6%

 

21

 

16.3%

 

14

 

10.9%

 

5

 

3.9%

your role as a teacher is strengthened 13 10.1% 12 9.3% 26 20.2% 37 28.7% 29 22.5% 12 9.3%
your overall control over your course(s) is diminished  

23

 

17.7%

 

44

 

33.8%

 

30

 

23.1%

 

20

 

15.4%

 

7

 

5.4%

 

6

 

4.6%

Table T14: One sample t-test for influence of technology on faculty time spent on specific teaching activities

Test Value = 50
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Lecturing -7.381 88 .000 -12.04494 -15.2879 -8.8020
Preparing course materials 9.246 96 .000 16.85567 13.2370 20.4744
Identifying course materials 8.111 85 .000 13.80233 10.4191 17.1856
Grading / assessing 5.221 87 .000 10.48864 6.4959 14.4813
Course design 12.962 94 .000 21.55789 18.2558 24.8600
Increasing access to materials for all types of learners 8.632 86 .000 16.12644 12.4126 19.8403
Reading student discussion posts 10.102 79 .000 21.98750 17.6553 26.3197
Email to/with students 15.809 93 .000 26.62766 23.2830 29.9724

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

Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2014

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

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

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

Digital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

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

igital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

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

 

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

more on digital literacy in this IMS blog

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

Save