Oct
2015
Digital Literacy for St. Cloud State University
Sessoms, D. (2008). DIGITAL STORYTELLING: Training Pre-service Teachers to Use Digital Storytelling Across the Curriculum. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 958-960). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). http://www.editlib.org/p/27300/
Yuksel, P., Robin, B. & McNeil, S. (2011). Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling all around the World. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 1264-1271). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). http://www.editlib.org/p/36461/
According to the Team 5 meeting notes of 9/22/2015, presented to the library administration, under individual updates, e. Pedagogy, Active Learning/Interactivity/Focused Engagement, there are six points, including ‘flipped classroom,’ as proposed by Chris Inkster, but nothing about my proposal, which can be outlined as “changing the pedagogy of library instruction to fit the increased environment of mobile devices.” It makes the absence of my proposal even more bizarre considering that:
– during a meeting of Team 5 on Sept 23, I was questioned about my proposal and i delivered renewed explainations
– the webinar ONLINE GENERATION IS TRANSFORMING LIBRARIES: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/09/22/online-generation-is-transforming-libraries/, as referred by Chris Inkster, is discussing exactly the need of pedagogical changes proposed by me.
Thus, since past proposals submitted by me were cut/ignored in a similar fashion as well as this one, I am formally entering it in a medium, which will bear the time stamp and the seal, so my proposal is not bastardized in the future and everyone can refer to the original idea, shall misunderstandings occur.
From: Miltenoff, Plamen
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:33 PM
To: Inkster, Christine D. <cinkster@stcloudstate.edu>; Gruwell, Cindy A. <cagruwell@stcloudstate.edu>; Gorman, Michael S. <msgorman@stcloudstate.edu>; Hubbs, Susan <shubbs@stcloudstate.edu>
Subject: Miller Center 218 – Remodel – TWO Questions
Good evening,
I will pick up from the correspondence below and share my thoughts thereafter.
The quintessential disparity (cart in front of the ox) is that from the emails below, it seems that the technology is driving didactic. If I need to prove that pedagogy drives technology, not vice versa, then there is a profound problem. I will assume that everyone agrees with pedagogy being in the center and technology is serving it. In that sense, this team and any other faculty unit trying to line up their curricular process to Henry’s vision, becomes preposterous; Henry is the one who has to be listening to the faculty and serve them.
Therefore, trying to adjust [long-term]future plans about pedagogy, by asking technology questions first, is in its best limiting. One needs to come up with a didactic frame and ask the responding questions how to furbish such frame with technology. If one assumes, as it is claimed, that this campus is moving to m-learning (mobile learning), BYOD, BYOx or any other fancy acronym, which de facto reflects the preponderance of mobile devices as main gateway to information used by students, then the pedagogy must be [re]designed for m-learning. In that sense, from a pedagogical point of view, I find perplexing focusing on MC 218 and subduing BYOD/x/mobile learning to the pedagogy, which will be exercised in a room ( MC 218). How is it mobile? Using mobile devices in room full with desktops does not make sense to me. Keep teaching a dynamic content such as library instruction in a confined room, also does not make sense to me.
Here is how I see the pedagogical reconsideration of library instruction must be considered.
In April 214, I proposed a plan, adopted from a Chicago librarian:
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/
the plan reflects one of numerous possibilities to change the pedagogy of lecturing in a room (MC 218) to hands-on, real-life construct of knowledge by students on their own (constructivism). The pedagogical foundation is based on the use of personal mobile devices (BYOx), which renders the issue of MC 218 accessibility by wi fi as non-significant, since the hit on the wi fi network will be evenly distributed across the entire building.
The example above is only one of many on curriculum that needs to be changed by adopting gaming and gamification techniques:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/03/19/recommendations-for-games-and-gaming-at-lrs/
the essence of library instruction needs to change from lecturing to facilitation and consultations of students’ own construct and discovery how the library works and can help them; it needs to be a F2F rehearsal of students-librarian virtual relationship, which later on can guide and help students individually then in groups.
In that sense, MC 218 can/should to be considered a hub for activities, which mostly take place across the library. MC 218 can be the center place, where in-depth exercises are performed. Exercises, which require either: 1. Stronger processing power, 2. Intensive typing, or 3. Larger screens. While it needs to be further surveyed, I believe that MC 218 needs to have prevalent presence of dock-type of stations (recharge, dongles to connect to large screens) and other peripherals which can allow students to connect their laptops, tablets and mobile devices, then desktops.
Thank you.
Plamen
http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2015/06/25/Tackling-BYOE-in-Higher-Ed.aspx
pedagogy drives technology, not the other way around.
transparency:
Faculty will have to adjust transparency at the speed of thought as we adopt a new-generation style that values speed, depth and agility of communication tools.
Sinprakob, S., & Songkram, N. (2015). A Proposed Model of Problem-based Learning on Social Media in Cooperation with Searching Technique to Enhance Critical Thinking of Undergraduate Students. Procedia – Social And Behavioral Sciences, 174(International Conference on New Horizons in Education, INTE 2014, 25-27 June 2014, Paris, France), 2027-2030. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.871
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedselp%26AN%3dS1877042815009234%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
Bailey, A. (2014). Teaching Alice Walker’s The Color Purple: Using Technology and Social Media To Foster Critical Thinking and Reflection. Virginia English Journal, 64(1), 17.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedo%26AN%3d98060385%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
Eales-Reynolds, L., Gillham, D., Grech, C., Clarke, C., & Cornell, J. (2012). A study of the development of critical thinking skills using an innovative web 2.0 tool. Nurse Education Today, 32(7), 752-756. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.05.017
Baldino, S. (2014). The Classroom Blog: Enhancing Critical Thinking, Substantive Discussion, and Appropriate Online Interaction. Voices From The Middle, 22(2), 29.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedo%26AN%3d99913218%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
Ravenscroft, A., Warburton, S., Hatzipanagos, S., & Conole, G. (2012). Designing and evaluating social media for learning: shaping social networking into social learning?. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 177-182. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00484.x
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d75254126%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
Education is clearly a social process but it is probably much closer to an ongoing discussion or debate than an extended celebration with an ever-expanding network of friends (p. 179, Ravenscroft et al.)
#MNsummit2015
Main speaker
Engagement not completion
Design experience not product
Create change, not simply respond to it
He was a geography teacher : Dimitrina
Experience explore expand. Adventure based how to collaborate in ways we have not collaborated before pedagogical guidelines internet driven
Instructor – content – design
Today: first think is design, content, instructor. So how do we design learning environments is the most important one
Guide learners as designers. Constructivism. Design for meaning. Through the power of the story.
Geotetic design a learning environment learn geography using GIS
Situated movies (student-centered learning)
Grant Earthducation go to the most remote parts of the world to align their education with their culture, instead of what the government is downing as culture
Use of phone: whoever answers instructor’s question first, gets to pose the next question to the rest of the audience.
Design based research
Self-narrative, referencing the experience real world issues in real time
Geotetic not only how prepare teachers, but desing learning environmwer of the story.
we explore: https://www.we-explore.com/
9.5 design as a learner.
the U Media Lab.
The Changing Earth. App GoX (instagram on steroids. tell their story through the app). How is this different from Google Earth
Raptor Lab (rehabilitate a raptor).
adoering@umn.edi chasingseals.com @chasingseals
podcast pontification (audio version of blog self reflections)
WeVideo is the Google response to iMovie cloud
The U is on Google email and thus google drive and all other google tools
The Center for Digital Storytelling. short videos, 3-5 min incorporate photographs with the author narration, reflection
Assignment (verbal directions). process (write a 2 page script, every page is about a minute of video), gather images that support the story; edit the script (rewrite); record audio to the script (use an app on the phone instead of WeVideo), WeVideo can edit the audio recording; edit the story, edit the photos to match the story; YourTube and/or Google+
working with faculty: is the digital story a good fit for your course? two questions: does the course have many writing assignments? does everyone have to do the same type of assignment? do you want to offer choices? do you want your students to share their work outside of the class? to you want to explore opportunities for students to develop 21 century skills?
google communities for sharing
wewideo has a tutorial at Center for Digital Storytelling
students can use the digital story for their eportfolio
the entire exercise is entirely based on mobile devices
time frame: scaffolding options
3d printing products were the tangible result of the project and the digital storytelling just the format to present
Google Drive master folder for the phone images and video; iOS apps: MoviePro, FiLMc Pro, VoiceRecord Pro (including mp3); Android: WeVideo
Storyboard template
http://it.umn.edu/faculty-development-programs-digital-0
Poster sessions:
http://dha.design.umn.edu/faculty/BHokanson.html
iPAD video kit:
ISTE: http://conference.iste.org/2016/
Joe Lau critical thinking
apps: Popplet blog.popplet.com http://www.popplet.com/ (mindmapping)
into the book: http://reading.ecb.org/
Kahoot – the token system. Polleverywhere https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/05/21/polls-and-surveys-tools-for-education/
Symbaloo https://www.symbaloo.com/home/mix/13eOcK1fiV zotero, easybib, delicious, diigo depending on the grade
youth voices; http://youthvoices.net/ replace social media like teachertube is trying to replace youtube
quandary games in education. https://www.quandarygame.org/ sim city
citizen science alliance http://www.citizensciencealliance.org/
Toontastic https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/toontastic/id404693282?mt=8 now free storytelling
coding and programming: https://www.makewonder.com/robots/dashanddot scratch
Osmo : https://www.playosmo.com/en/ $79.99 + give a set for free Stride principle as a parental involvement
chainlink;
kickword; https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.makario.wordkick
red herring (four categories) https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.BlueOxTech.RedHerring&hl=en
http://www.mathplayground.com/logicgames.html
http://www.mathplayground.com/thinkingblocks.html
evaluation:
telestory https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/telestory/id915378506?mt=8
explain everything http://explaineverything.com/
http://pubs.lib.umn.edu/minnesota-elearning-summit/2015/program/23/
http://pubs.lib.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=minnesota-elearning-summit
Jason Spartz, Saint Mary’s University of MinnesotaFollow
Lisa Truax, Saint Mary’s University of MinnesotaFollow
Karen Sorvaag, Saint Mary’s University of MinnesotaFollow
Brett Bodsgard, Saint Mary’s University of MinnesotaFollow
chemistry professor. 3D printing with different materials.
what else can be made (e.g. reaction vessel)
printing of atoms
crystalography dbase
Karen: pre-service teachers professor: how to use 3d printers and be comfortable with them. Steve Hoover. Thinkercad and Autodesk123D>
3D academy http://www.team3dacademy.com/index2.html. Pinterest board for3d Printing with resources
Lisa: graphic design. not intuitive. Rhinoceros (not free anymore). 123D strong learning curve. 3d printing will be incorporated in the curriculum. sculpture students and others don’t like fudging on the computer, but Adobe people love it. Some items takes up to 4 hours to print out. when working on the computer is difficult for some students to visualize the dimensionality.
collaborative learning opportunities.
no makerspace or fab lab. additional interest from the theater and business dept. 3d printing is connected to future work skills. new media ecology or media literacy set of skills.
the main presenter: build excitement and interest and gradually step back. how much material goes through and should we charge back. clean and maintenance involved; not too bad. better then a copier. plastic inexpensive. sizes with plastic – $25 and $50. how many project of a spool: depending on the size of the projects but considerable amount. two printers one art dept and one in the faculty dev area.
non profit visually impaired students. how 3d can make difference in special ed.
3d printing lab with access for everybody. ownership brings policy. where housed: neutral place.
only one printer is barely sufficient for faculty to figure out how to use it. purchasing two more if students and curricula to be involved.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tin+can&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.uwosh.edu/library/quizsmith
http://glickconsulting.com/resouce_brainegames
https://www.google.com/search?q=techers+skills&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.northeastern.edu/camd/gamedesign/people/sebastian-deterding/
https://www.duolingo.com/ Duolingo. App to learn languages using games
http://www.gamification.co/gabe-zichermann/
https://zebrazapps.com/ ZebraZapps
My note: excellent Australian article, which presents a very strong point on digital literacies (metaliteracies, see URL below) from educators (versus library) perspective. Connected with game-based learning, it clearly renders the traditional perspective of information literacy as miniscules and the notion of digital literacy being “information literacy on steroids” as obsolete. It clearly shows that the “xxx-literacies” are clearly not a domain of the librarians and if the librarians do not wised up and allow other faculty who are “not librarians” to equally participate, they might well count with those faculty going on their own (as it is transparent from this article).
connections will be made between digital game-based learning and digital literacies to show that digital game-based learning is a powerful pedagogy that incorporates the elements of digital literacies. Through the adoption of game-based learning, digital literacies can be taught in context. Digital literacies are the skills that connect the learning content (curriculum) and digital games are the platform that these digital literacies can be practised within a meaningful context.
Digital literacies is an umbrella term that includes a combination of literacies – visual literacy, media literacy, collaborative literacy, ICT literacy, information literacy – that are needed to take an active, participatory role in life, now and in the future (Hague & Payton, 2010, p. 2).
Bawden (2008), cites Gilster (1997), who defines digital literacy as “an ability to understand and use information from a variety of digital sources and regard it as literacy in the digital age” (p.18).
Jisc, identify in their Digital Literacy Guide that it is a concept that is contextual and it is not static. Change is imminent as new technologies develop “at breakneck speeds” (Becker, 2011, p. 76), therefore, it can be inferred the digital literacies required to use these new technologies need to be adaptable and flexible to these changes (Haste, 2009).
Cooper, Lockyer & Brown (2013), highlight this plurality by using the term “multiliteracies” which can be understood as synonymous with digital literacies. Cooper et al. (2013), explain multiliteracies is required as a “broader view of literacy” (p. 94), is needed as a result of the diverse range of communications tools, therefore, context is implied. Ng (2012) also highlights this idea that digital literacy is “the multiplicity of literacies associated with the use of digital technologies” (p. 1066). The combination of multiliteracies and technologies would also suggest that multimodality is an important element of digital literacy (McLoughlin, 2011) .
7 elements of digital literacy in their Developing Digital Literacies Guide (2014), which can be seen below.
digital games (Pivec & Pivec, 2011), which can also be called computer games (Whitton, 2011), video games (Turkay, Hoffman, Kinzer, Chantes & Vicari, 2014) or serious games (Arnab et al., 2012) rather than gamification.
Digital game-based learning then is using digital games in the learning environment with the purpose of achieving learning aligned with learning theory.
Cognitive constructivism is a learning theory that game-based learning could be aligned (Orr & McGuinness, 2014; St-Pierre, 2011). This learning theory builds upon the theories of Piaget and Bruner, therefore, an important consideration in the digital game-based classroom would be that choosing games needs to fit the age and level of intellectual development the students are at (St-Pierre, 2011).
A major focus of the socio-constructivist learning theory is that of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (St-Pierre, 2011). The learning is designed “just beyond what the learner can do” (Orr & McGuinness, 2014, p. 223) and takes them beyond where their knowledge already exists.
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/11/30/game-based-learning/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=gaming
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=gaming
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/02/20/digital-literacy-2/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=digital+literacy
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/11/27/reframing-informatioan-literacy-as-a-metaliteracy/
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;
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
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
Cochrane, T. (2011).Proceedings ascilite 2011 Hobart:Full Paper 250 mLearning: Why? What? Where? How? http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Cochrane-full.pdf
(Exploring mobile learning success factors http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893351.pdf
https://prezi.com/kr94rajmvk9u/mlearning/
https://thomcochrane.wikispaces.com/MLearning+Praxis
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
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
p. 58 framework is based on constructivist approach, Activity theory, and the attention, relevance and confidence satisfaction (ARCS) model http://www.arcsmodel.com/#!
http://torreytrust.com/images/ITH_Trust.pdf
to set a didacticmodel that can be applied to m-learning requires looking at the characteristics of specific devi
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nadire_Cavus/publication/235912545_Basic_elements_and_characteristics_of_mobile_learning/links/02e7e526c1c0647142000000.pdf
https://eleed.campussource.de/archive/9/3704
I am including a couple whitepapers you can review and forward to all staff who may be curious about our teaching and learning tool and would be attending the demo on May 11th at 1.00pm
Please see the go to meeting instructions for our Bluepulse v1.5 walkthrough.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/822849653
United States: +1 (312) 757-3126
Access Code: 822-849-653
As you mentioned faculty may be very interested in using Bluepulse, I wanted to include the link for our instructor video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgdpQT3jkBQ&feature=youtu.be
If you have any questions about the integration, training or implementation, please do not hesitate to email or call and as always I am more than happy to help.
Warm regards,
Nick Sankar
Bluepulse Account Manager
MY NOTES:
harvest students; feedback – anonymous way to ask questions. D2L surveys offer already this opportunity; Twitter and other the free options for polling apps give the same option, e.g. Polleverywhere gives a word cloud option
the follow up q/n as demonstrated is limited to 160 characters. Why?
i like that it compartmentalize the anonymity but I really ask myself: would SCSU faculty go to such length?
presumptions: non-tenured faculty is interested in the top layers students and wants to find out what works for them best. this loaded, since, if there ARE different learning styles, then what worked for the top layer might be exactly what did not work for the bottom layer, but this approach will gave the faculty a justification to keep stratifying students, instead of thinking of diverse ways to approach all layers. this part of sale, not pedagogy. sorry.
weakness; the entire presentation is trying to sell a product, which might be good for different campus, but not for SCSU, where faculty are overworked, the class load is so great that going to such details might be questionable.
exporting CSV for data massaging is not big deal. indeed the easy of this particular software is admirable, but if the faculty has time to go into such details, they can export the data from D2L or Google Forms and open it in SPSS
Greg’s question: mobility.
libraries and services. pole users without being tied to course. again, that all can be done with other services in the library. if the library cares about it at all.
Schoology HEd – Digital Learning Ecosystem (March 2015) (PDF document)
From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert Tousignant
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 1:41 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
I’ve been reviewing this thread and thought I’d introduce a new player… Schoology is getting the attention of the analyst community and gobbling up the SIIA Codie awards for best learning platform the last couple of years. (Please note, I am not an impartial observer and I do a horse in the race)
The attached document includes information that will explain a new paradigm for evaluating an LMS that we see being adopted more and more – a move from a focus on utility (features and functions) to one focused standards, interoperability and the user experience (UI/UX).
Feel free to reach out directly if I can be of assistance.
Robert Tousignant
Sr. Director
Schoology Higher Education
O: (212)213-8333 x69
M: (617)838-1366
Colorado State University’s Global Campus Announces Strategic Partnership with Schoology
From: Edward Garay <garay@UIC.EDU>
Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:27 PM
To: “BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU” <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
These days, I tend to favor LMS Review/Selection initiatives that take one to two years to complete, but as always, it depends on the institution, its readiness to spec the needs of their faculty/students and evaluate viable options, as well as the campus resources available to nurture a possible smooth LMS platform transition. I like pointing out to the well-executed recent LMS selection initiatives carried out by UCF, Northwestern, Indiana, Harvard and Dartmouth, although there are many others.
I am also fond of Educause Review 2014 article on Selecting a Learning Management System: Advice from an Academic Perspective available at http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/selecting-learning-management-system-advice-academic-perspective
—
— Ed Garay
University of Illinois at Chicago
UIC School of Public Health
http://www.twitter.com/garay
*** Attend the FACULTY SUMMER INSTITUTE :: Wed-Fri May 27-29 at Urbana-Champaign
#pedagogy #BlendedLearning #classroom #teaching #OnlineLearning #EdTech
http://go.illinois.edu/facultysummerinstitute
_____________________________
From: Hap Aziz <hapaziz@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
To: <blend-online@listserv.educause.edu>
That’s sounds like a similar timeframe to what we had at UB when we moved from Blackboard to Canvas. While LTI didn’t not play a large role in the decision-making process as we changed our LMS, it is now a central consideration as we look to acquire any new app functionality for our learning environment.
I’m setting up an area in the IMS forum area for LTI policy discussion. I’ll share that location with the group shortly so we can take some of the in-the-weeds discussion offline here.
Hap Aziz
Associate Vice President
University of Bridgeport
Connected Learning Innovation Community
IMS Global Learning Consortium
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Sam Bachert <BachertS@sanjuancollege.edu> wrote:
Hap,
The selection process started in January of 2013 and the task force voted at the end of May of 2013 unanimously for Canvas so about 5 months. By October we started training faculty in preparation for the Spring 2014 semester what was amazing about our transition to Canvas was that we had everyone moved out of ANGEL by start of Summer 14 so we only had 1 semester where we were supporting both ANGEL and Canvas. The use of LTI integrations and Canvas makes our jobs a lot easier to support the various tools that faculty are adopting for their classes – it also makes it a lot easier for faculty to integrate other technologies and keep them in the LMS or have single sign on so it is more seamless for students.
Thanks, Sam
Samuel R. Bachert
Manager, Online Services
ellucian®
San Juan College
Voice: 505.566.3310 Mobile: 505.609.0573 Fax: 505.566.3570
bacherts@sanjuancollege.edu * samuel.bachert@ellucian.com
Follow us:
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. Thank you.
From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hap Aziz
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:09 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
Hey, Sam, long time no see! Do you know about how long your whole selection process took? Also, does LTI conformance make your job with academic technology more straightforward to deal with?
Hap Aziz
Associate Vice President
University of Bridgeport
Connected Learning Innovation Community
IMS Global Learning Consortium
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Sam Bachert <BachertS@sanjuancollege.edu> wrote:
JeJe,
I am at San Juan College and we also recently went through the selection process for a new LMS and like others who have commented switched to Canvas (from ANGEL). We ended up with a selection team that was primarily faculty, a couple students, and a handful of technology staff that reviewed the various LMSs and then made our final decision. If you would like I can get you the contact information for the faculty who assisted on the selection team.
Thanks,
Sam
Samuel R. Bachert
Director of Academic Technology
ellucian®
San Juan College
Voice: 505.566.3310 Mobile: 505.609.0573 Fax: 505.566.3570
bacherts@sanjuancollege.edu * samuel.bachert@ellucian.com
Follow us:
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. Thank you.
From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Noval, JeJe (LLU)
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:25 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
Hello Colleagues,
Were any of you, faculty members, involved in the learning management selection process of your educational institution? If so, would it be possible to interview you in the future for a research study?
Best,
JeJe Noval, MS, RD
Assistant Professor
Loma Linda University