Post a yellow button on the classroom door: Students know their cell phones should be on silent (vibrate) and placed face down in the upper right-hand corner of their desk. They will be using them in class, but not the whole time.
Post a green button on the classroom door: Students know they should have their phones turned on (either silenced or set on vibrate) and placed face up in ready position to use throughout the class.
Establishing a Class Contract
Ask your students to help you develop social norms for what is and is not appropriate cell phone use during green and yellow button times. Should they be allowed to go on their social media networks during class? Why or why not?
findings, published in the journal Economics of Education Review in a paper, based on an analysis of the grades of about 5,600 students at a private US liberal arts college, found that using a laptop appeared to harm the grades of male and low-performing students most significantly.
While the authors were unable to definitively say why laptop use caused a “significant negative effect in grades”, the authors believe that classroom “cyber-slacking” plays a major role in lower achievement, with wi-fi-enabled computers providing numerous distractions for students.
con?:with the advent of personal assistants like Siri and Google Now that aim to serve up information before you even know you need it, you don’t even need to type the questions.
pro: Whenever new technology emerges — including newspapers and television — discussions about how it will threaten our brainpower always crops up, Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker wrote in a 2010 op-ed in The New York Times. Instead of making us stupid, he wrote, the Internet and technology “are the only things that will keep us smart.”
Pro and con: Daphne Bavelier, a professor at the University of Geneva, wrote in 2011 that we may have lost the ability for oral memorization valued by the Greeks when writing was invented, but we gained additional skills of reading and text analysis.
con: Daphne Bavelier, a professor at the University of Geneva, wrote in 2011 that we may have lost the ability for oral memorization valued by the Greeks when writing was invented, but we gained additional skills of reading and text analysis.
con: A 2008 study commissioned by the British Library found that young people go through information online very quickly without evaluating it for accuracy.
pro or con?: A 2011 study in the journal Science showed that when people know they have future access to information, they tend to have a better memory of how and where to find the information — instead of recalling the information itself.
pro: The bright side lies in a 2009 study conducted by Gary Small, the director of University of California Los Angeles’ Longevity Center, that explored brain activity when older adults used search engines. He found that among older people who have experience using the Internet, their brains are two times more active than those who don’t when conducting Internet searches.
the Internet holds great potential for education — but curriculum must change accordingly. Since content is so readily available, teachers should not merely dole out information and instead focus on cultivating critical thinking
make questions “Google-proof.”
“Design it so that Google is crucial to creating a response rather than finding one,” he writes in his company’s blog. “If students can Google answers — stumble on (what) you want them to remember in a few clicks — there’s a problem with the instructional design.”
Join us next Tuesday, November 10th from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM, for a special SIG Series webinar: Tales from the National Forum on Active Learning Classrooms
The WSU Learning Spaces Team attended the National Forum on Active Learning Classrooms at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities this summer and learned a lot. With topics ranging from picking whiteboards to better integrating classroom design into your campus strategic planning efforts, the conference was a treasure trove of good practices, pictures of cool new classrooms, links to useful information, and pro tips. Join us as we share what we learned at this amazing gathering. If you didn’t get a chance to go, this session will be a great opportunity to zoom in on the highlights. If you went, we would love to compare notes!
Ken Graetz, Tom Hill, Stephanie Stango, Dave Burman, and Eric Wright are all part of the Winona State University Learning Spaces Team and members of the Teaching, Learning, and Technology Services unit of Information Technology Services. They attended the National Forum as a team this summer and were able to cover almost all of the sessions. Each brings a unique perspective to the discussion, from under-the-hood classroom systems design and configuration to instructional design and pedagogical strategies.
McGill Principles for Designing of Teaching and Learning Spaces has rubric
most useful technology in an ALC appears to be the whiteboard.
Whiteboards are also very glitchy. Projecting my tablet or laptop is just as effective–with less glitches
evidence that students are reluctant to engage in active learning.
the U has done work, but the “Canadians have the process”
the support faculty gets from technicians: two week in the beginning of the semester in a new classroom.
what is the most important goal of your college education and therefore of this course: a. inquiring information b. learning how to sue information and knowledge in anew situation c. developing skills to continue learning after college
GPA cutoff above 3.0
problem solving skills
written communication skills
GigaPan.com instructor will have students use in classes to identify problems engaging in a virtual field trip. student engagement
wikispaces as GOogle docs, MS Word 16, work collaboratively
not group, but team. team work very important
take what we learned in ALCs to traditional large lecture halls
blending the formal with the informal (including outdoors)
creating a learner profile, a set of criteria the school district wanted students to learn while in school. That profile includes: seek knowledge and understanding; think critically and solve problems; listen, communicate, and interact effectively; exhibit strong personal qualities; and engage and compete in a global environment. The profile helps guide all approaches to learning in the district.
Kids already know how to use their devices, but they don’t know how to learn with their devices,” Clark said in an edWeb webinar. It’s the teacher’s role to help them discover how to connect to content, one another and learning with a device that they may have only used for texting and Facebook previously. “It’s about the kids being empowered in the classroom to make decisions about the ways that they are learning,”
IN-CLASS BACK-CHANNELING: Backchanneling refers to the use of networks & social media to maintain an online, real-time conversation alongside spoken remarks.
IN-CLASS READINGS AND HANDOUTS. Smartphones can also be used productively in the classroom as eReaders for books and handouts. You can place all student handouts into DropBox folders (see “Dropbox A Multi-Tool for Educators”).
Using Google Docs for backchanneling with students:
We are pleased to inform you that your classroom response system is chosen as final candidate for campus-wide adoption/support at St. Cloud State University. Should you be interested in pursuing this opportunity, we invite you to respond to the attached list of questions and to prepare a brief presentation for members of the selection committee and interested faculty/staff.
The deadline for responding to the questions is 12:00 pm (CST), Tuesday, April 9. This deadline will allow us to review the responses in time for the vendor presentations on Thursday, April 11, 11AM-1PM. The presentations will be held virtually via Adobe Connect: http://media4.stcloudstate.edu/scsu. Please let us know, if you need to test and familiarize yourself with the presentation platform.
The presentation should be no more than 10 minutes long, followed by 10 minutes for follow-up questions. We suggest that you focus on the highlights of your system, presuming a moderately knowledgeable audience. We may follow up via email or telephone call prior to making our final selection.
Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Classroom Response System Taskforce:
Dr. Anthony Hansen
Dr. Michael Rentz
Dr. Joseph Melcher
Dr. Andrew Anda
Dr. Tracy Ore
Dr. Jack McKenna
Dr. Plamen Miltenoff
Questions to vendor
1. Is your system proprietary as far as the handheld device and the operating system software?
2. Describe the scalability of your system, from small classes (20-30) to large auditorium classes. (500+).
3. Is your system receiver/transmitter based, wi-fi based, or other?
4. What is the usual process for students to register a “CRS”(or other device) for a course? List all of the possible ways a student could register their device. Could a campus offer this service rather than through your system? If so, how?
5. Once a “CRS” is purchased can it be used for as long as the student is enrolled in classes? Could “CRS” purchases be made available through the campus bookstore? Once a student purchases a “clicker” are they able to transfer ownership when finished with it?
6. Will your operating software integrate with other standard database formats? If so, list which ones.
7. Describe the support levels you provide. If you offer maintenance agreements, describe what is covered.
8. What is your company’s history in providing this type of technology? Provide a list of higher education clients.
10. What personal data does your company collect on students and for what purpose? Is it shared or sold to others? How is it protected?
11. Do any of your business partners collect personal information about students that use your technology?
12. With what formats can test/quiz questions be imported/exported?
13. List compatible operating systems (e.g., Windows, Macintosh, Palm, Android)?
14. What are the total costs to students including device costs and periodic or one-time operation costs
15. Describe your costs to the institution.
16. Describe how your software integrates with PowerPoint or other presentation systems.
17. State your level of integration with Desire2Learn (D2L)?
Does the integration require a server or other additional equipment the campus must purchase?
18. How does your company address disability accommodation for your product?
19. Does your software limit the number of answers per question in tests or quizzes? If so, what is the max question limit?
20. Does your software provide for integrating multimedia files? If so, list the file format types supported.
21. What has been your historic schedule for software releases and what pricing mechanism do you make available to your clients for upgrading?
22. Describe your “CRS”(s).
23. If applicable, what is the average life span of a battery in your device and what battery type does it take?
24. Does your system automatically save upon shutdown?
25. What is your company’s projection/vision for this technology in the near and far term.
26. Does any of your software/apps require administrator permission to install?
27. If your system is radio frequency based, what frequency spectrum does it operate in? If the system operate in the 2.4-2.5 ghz. spectrum, have you tested to insure that smart phones, wireless tablet’s and laptops and 2.4 ghz. wireless phones do not affect your system? If so, what are the results of those tests?
28. What impact to the wireless network does the solution have?
29. Can the audience response system be used spontaneously for polling?
30. Can quiz questions and response distributions be imported and exported from and to plaintext or a portable format? (motivated by assessment & accreditation requirements).
31. Is there a requirement that a portion of the course grade be based on the audience response system?
the Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education – CASTLE
If a school’s reputation and pride are built on decades or centuries of “this is how we’ve always done things here,” resistance from staff, parents, and alumni to significant changes may be fierce. In such institutions, heads of school may have to steer carefully between deeply ingrained habits and the need to modernize the information tools with which students and faculty work
Too often, when navigating faculty or parental resistance, school leaders and technology staff make reassurances that things will not have to change much in the classroom or that slow baby steps are OK. Unfortunately, this results in a different problem, which is that schools have now invested significant money, time, and energy into digital technologies but are using them sparingly and seeing little impact. In such schools, replicative uses of technology are quite common, but transformative uses that leverage the unique affordances of technology are quite rare.
many schools fail to proceed further because they don’t have a collective vision of what more transformative uses of technology might look like, nor do they have a shared understanding of and commitment to what it will take to get to such a place. As a result, faculty instruction and the learning experiences of students change little or not at all.
These schools have taken the time to involve all stakeholders—including students—in substantive conversations about what digital tools will allow them to do differently compared with previous analog practices. Their visions promote the potential of computing devices to facilitate all of those elements we now think of as essential 21st-century capacities: confidence, curiosity, enthusiasm, passion, critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-direction. Technology doesn’t simply support traditional teaching—it transforms it for deeper thinking and gives students more agency over their own learning.
Another prevalent issue preventing technology change in schools is fear—fear of change, of the unknown, of letting go of what we know best, of being learners again. But it’s also a fear of letting kids have wide access to the Internet with the possibility of cyberbullying, access to inappropriate material, and exposure to online predators or even excessive advertising. Fears, of course, need to be surfaced and addressed.
The fear drives some schools to ban cellphones, disallow students and faculty from using Facebook, and lock down Internet filters so tightly that useful websites are inaccessible. They prohibit the use of Twitter and YouTube, and they block blogs. Some educators see these types of responses as principled stands against the shortcomings and hassles of digital technologies. Others see them as rejections of the dehumanization of the education process by soulless machines. Often, however, it’s just schools clinging to the past and elevating what is comfortable or familiar over the potential of technology to help them better deliver on their school missions.
Heads of school don’t have to be skilled users themselves to be effective technology leaders, but they do have to exercise appropriate oversight and convey the message—repeatedly—that frequent, meaningful technology use in school is both important and expected. Nostalgia aside, there is no foreseeable future in which the primacy of printed text is not superseded by electronic text and multimedia. When nearly all information is digital or online, multi-modal and multimedia, accessed by mobile devices that fit in our pockets, the question should not be whether schools prepare students for a digital learning landscape, but rather how.
Many educators aren’t necessarily afraid of technology, but they are so accustomed to heavily teacher-directed classrooms that they are leery about giving up control—and can’t see the value in doing so.
Although most of us recognize that mobile computers connected to the Internet may be the most powerful learning devices yet invented—and that youth are learning in powerful ways at home with these technologies—allowing students to have greater autonomy and ownership of the learning process can still seem daunting and questionable.
The “beyond” is particularly important. When we give students some voice in and choice about what and how they learn, we honor basic human needs for autonomy, we enhance students’ interest and engagement, and we truly actualize our missions of preparing lifelong learners.
The goal of instructional transformation is to empower students, not to disempower teachers. While instructor unfamiliarity with digital technologies, inquiry- or problem-based teaching techniques, or deeper learning strategies may result in some initial discomfort, these challenges can be overcome with robust support.
A few workshops here and there rarely result in large-scale changes in implementation.
teacher-driven “unconferences” or “edcamps,” at which educators propose and facilitate discussion topics, can be powerful mechanisms for fostering professional dialogue and learning. Similarly, some schools offer voluntary “Tech Tuesdays” or “appy hours” to foster digital learning among interested faculty.
In addition to existing IT support, technology integration staff, or librarians/media specialists, some schools have student technology teams that are on call for assistance when needed.
A few middle schools and high schools go even further and assign teachers their own individual student technology mentors. These student-teacher pairings last all school year and comprise the first line of support for educators’ technology questions.
As teachers, heads of school, counselors, coaches, and librarians, we all now have the ability to participate in ongoing, virtual, global communities of practice.
Whether formal or informal, the focus of technology-related professional learning should be on student learning, not on the tools or devices. Independent school educators should always ask, “Technology for the purpose of what?” when considering the inclusion of digital technologies into learning activities. Technology never should be implemented just for technology’s sake.
The Gamification of the educations process is not a new concept. The advent of educational technologies, however, makes the idea timely and pertinent. In short 60 min, we will introduce the concept of gamification of the educational process and discuss real-live examples.
at the end of the session, participants will have an idea about gaming and gamification in education and will be able to discriminate between those two power concepts in education
at the end of this session, participants will be able search and select VIdeo 360 movies for their class lessons
at the end of the session, participants will be able to understand the difference between VR, AR and MR.
if you are interested in setting up a makerspace and/or similar gaming space at your school, please contact me after this workshop for more information.
How would you define gamification of the educational process?
Gaming and Gamification in academic and library settings (paper) Short URL: http://scsu.mn/1F008Re
Gamification takes game elements (such as points, badges, leaderboards, competition, achievements) and applies them to a non-game setting. It has the potential to turn routine, mundane tasks into refreshing, motivating experiences (What is GBL (Game-Based Learning)?, n.d.).
Gamification is defined as the process of applying game mechanics and game thinking to the real world to solve problems and engage users (Phetteplace & Felker, 2014, p. 19; Becker, 2013, p. 199; Kapp, 2012). Gamification requires three sets of principles: 1. Empowered Learners, 2. Problem Solving, 3. Understanding (Gee, 2005).
Apply gamification tactics to existing learning task
split in groups and develop a plan to gamify existing learning task
from the web page above, choose a movie or click on this link: https://youtu.be/nOHM8gnin8Y (to watch a black hole in video 360) Open the link on your phone and insert the phone in Google Cardboard. Watch the video using Google Cardboard.
ECAR collaborated with 157 institutions to collect responses from 13,451 faculty respondents across 7 countries about their technology experiences. ECAR also collaborated with 124 institutions to collect responses from 43,559 undergraduate students across 10 countries about their technology experiences. Please see the 2017 student and faculty studies hub for more about this year’s research.
When it comes to meeting technological support needs, students’ default modality is DIY. Students are more than twice as likely to figure out solutions to technology problems on their own, to search online sources, or to ask a friend than they are to use their campus help desk. Contacting the vendor or company to fix a technology problem is the last resort.
Laptops are king, smartphones are queen, and tablets are on the way out.
Students’ experiences with their instructors’ use of and approach to technology in the classroom are a mixed bag. A majority of students said most of their instructors have adequate technology skills, use technology to enhance learning, and encourage the use of collaborative technology tools. However, students said fewer faculty use technology for sophisticated learning tasks (e.g., engagement, creative and critical thinking), and relatively few faculty ask students to use their own devices for in-class work.
Students are choosing sides in the online versus face-to-face debate. For the fourth year in a row, the number of students preferring a blended learning environment that includes some to mostly online components has increased. The number of students preferring completely face-to-face or completely online courses continues to dwindle. The number of students expressing no preference has been cut by more than half since 2014.
Students are satisfied with features of their LMS…except when they aren’t.Students have favorable opinions about the basic features and functionalities of their LMS. But, the more sophisticated the task and the more engagement required of students, the less happy they tend to be. This may be a function of the tools, the instructors who use them, or both.
Students would like their instructors to use more technology in their classes.Technologies that provide students with something (e.g., lecture capture, early-alert systems, LMS, search tools) are more desired than those that require students to give something (e.g., social media, use of their own devices, in-class polling tools). We speculate that sound pedagogy and technology use tied to specific learning outcomes and goals may improve the desirability of the latter.
Students reported that faculty are banning or discouraging the use of laptops, tablets, and (especially) smartphones more often than in previous years. Some students reported using their devices (especially their smartphones) for nonclass activities, which might explain the instructor policies they are experiencing. However, they also reported using their devices for productive classroom activities (e.g., taking notes, researching additional sources of information, and instructor-directed activities).