Searching for "powerpoint"

PowerPoint Keynote Prezi

Pros and Cons of PowerPoint, Keynote, and Prezi

Posted by Gabrielle Reed | April 19, 2016
https://www.ethos3.com/2016/04/pros-and-cons-of-powerpoint-keynote-and-prezi/

PowerPoint

Pros

The versatility and compatibility of PowerPoint is a primary selling point for many presenters. Since it functions with both Microsoft Windows and Mac OS, PowerPoint is especially ideal for users intending to distribute their presentation out to other individuals and groups. Compared to Keynote and Prezi, PowerPoint has robust design options and multimedia capabilities. Through this program, users are able to follow a simple process to add audio and video clips to their slides.

Cons

Although PowerPoint is compatible across both Mac and PCs, the quality of the program is not created equal on each system – with the Mac version falling short of the PC version. On the design front, what PowerPoint makes up for in design options, it lacks in design function. Plus, audiences may perceive PowerPoint templates and themes as outdated

Keynote

Pros

For those well-versed in Mac applications, Keynote will be breeze. Beginning presenters, along with veterans who are pressed for time will also appreciate the ease of Keynote. Equipped with templates with built-in layouts into the themes, Keynote allows its users to essentially knock out two birds with one stone. Are you featuring animations in your deck? Keynote handles these much better than PowerPoint or Prezi. Compared to PowerPoint, Keynote boasts more elegant, sleek templates and design features powered by Adobe programs. If you want to save your Keynote presentations as a YouTube video or Quicktime slideshow, there will be no hassle involved in the effort.

Cons

PC users might really struggle with Keynote upon first introduction. For example, the application’s design tools are nested in dropdown menus and tabs, possibly foreign to the avid PC user.

Prezi

Pros

Prezi is a useful option for particularly storytelling-driven presentations. It’s non-linear storytelling capabilities far surpass the offerings in either PowerPoint or Keynote. From integrating multimedia and pngs and vector images constructed outside the web-based application fairly seamlessly to allowing collaboration among team members invested in the presentation, Prezi provides unique design and distribution capabilities. This presentation-building option also adds movement to a presenter’s message, which could be particularly engaging in many settings.

Cons

While Prezi’s web-based format provides simple embedding processes for blogs and web pages, any disruption in Internet connection or tiny glitch can reduce design quality and functionality. Even utilizing the zoom functions within Prezi can lead to fuzzy and pixelated photography. Some audiences could find the zoom functions gimmicky, while others could succumb to motion sickness. Designing within Prezi can be a challenge too, as users are limited to a set amount of colors and fonts and shapes are difficult to manipulate.

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

Death by PowerPoint

How PowerPoint is killing critical thought

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/23/powerpoint-thought-students-bullet-points-information?CMP=share_btn_link

Bored students is the least of it – the bullet point-ization of information is making us stupid and irresponsible

The genesis story runs like this: from the late 1950s corporations began to realise that, rather than going to the trouble of developing new products they hoped would meet a need, they could use marketeers to create the perception of need, then develop products to meet it (a shift brilliantly dramatised in the TV series Mad Men). To do this, different departments had to be able to speak to each other, to sell ideas internally. So while there had always been meetings, now there were meetings about meetings and – hey presto! – the modern world was born.

The presentational precursor to PowerPoint was the overhead projector, which is why PP screens are still called “slides”. The program owes most to Whitfield Diffie, one of the time lords of online cryptography, but it was quickly snapped up by Microsoft. Its coding/marketing roots are intrinsic to its cognitive style, being relentlessly linear and encouraging short, affirmative, jargonesque assertions: arguments that are resolved, untroubled by shades of grey.

It’s no coincidence that the two most famous PowerPoint presentations are: a) the one presented to Nasa managers by engineers, explaining with unarguable illogic why damaged tiles on the space shuttle Columbia were probably nothing to fret about; and b) General Colin Powell’s equally fuzzy pitch for war with Iraq. Now, blaming PowerPoint for Iraq would be a bit like blaming Darwin for Donald Trump, but the program made scrutiny of the case harder. Not for nothing did Brigadier General McMaster, of the US military, subsequently liken the proliferation of PP presentation in the military to an “internal threat”, saying: “It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems are not bullet-izable.

More on the topic in this blog:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/11/11/death-by-powerpoint/

maximise PowerPoint’s true potential.

http://www.theguardian.com/guardian-masterclasses/2015/may/12/using-powerpoint-for-data-visualisation-adam-frost-tobias-sturt-digital-course2

Course content

  • An introduction to the principles of data visualisation
  • Storytelling with PowerPoint
  • How to design using PowerPoint
  • Creating compelling narratives
  • Practical exercise: create a sample slide using pen and paper
  • Tools and further reading
  • Q&A and group discussion

DEATH OF pOWERPOINT

PowerPoint alternatives

Finally, the pre-Internet application PowerPoint, which is suffocating higher education in terms of presentation alternatives, is discussed to be retired:

Prezi
The Company Trying To Kill Microsoft PowerPoint Just Raised $57 Million

http://www.businessinsider.com/prezi-raises-57-million-2014-11#ixzz3JXSRT9I5

Microsoft Sway
Microsoft Is Sick Of PowerPoint, Too

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-sway-microsofts-own-powerpoint-replacement-2014-11

Death by PowerPoint (from #POD13)

what is it:

http://www.slideshare.net/thecroaker/death-by-powerpoint
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/08/death-by-powerpoint-2/

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Columns/PowerPoint.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2012/10/11/death-by-powerpoint/

how it could be:

Nancy Duarte: The secret structure of great talks

http://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_duarte_the_secret_structure_of_great_talks.html

Cheating Death by PowerPoint: Analyze and Synthesize

http://my.brainshark.com/Cheating-Death-by-PowerPoint-Analyze-and-Synthesize-738618804

how to do storytelling:

How to tell a story (6 talks) 

http://www.ted.com/playlists/62/how_to_tell_a_story.html 

avoid power point

Universities should ban PowerPoint — It makes students stupid and professors boring

http://www.businessinsider.com/universities-should-ban-powerpoint-it-makes-students-stupid-and-professors-boring-2015-6

An article in The Conversation recently argued universities should ban PowerPoint because it makes students stupid and professors boring.

Originally for Macintosh, the company that designed it was bought by Microsoft. After its launch the software was increasingly targeted at business professionals, especially consultants and busy salespeople.

As it turns out, PowerPoint has not empowered academia. The basic problem is that a lecturer isn’t intended to be selling bullet point knowledge to students, rather they should be making the students encounter problems. Such a learning process is slow and arduous, and cannot be summed up neatly. PowerPoint produces stupidity, which is why some, such as American statistician Edward Tufte have said it is “evil”.

Of course, new presentation technologies like Prezi, SlideRocket or Impress add a lot of new features and 3D animation, yet I’d argue they only make things worse. A moot point doesn’t become relevant by moving in mysterious ways. The truth is that PowerPoints actually are hard to follow and if you miss one point you are often lost.

While successfully banning Facebook and other use of social media in our masters programme in philosophy and business at Copenhagen Business School, we have also recently banned teachers using PowerPoint. Here we are in sync with the US armed forces, where Brigadier-General Herbert McMaster banned it because it was regarded as a poor tool for decision-making.

Courses designed around slides therefore propagate the myth that students can become skilled and knowledgeable without working through dozens of books, hundreds of articles and thousands of problems.

review  of research on PowerPoint found that while students liked PowerPoint better than overhead transparencies, PowerPoint did not increase learning or grades

Research comparing teaching based on slides against other methods such as problem-based learning – where students develop knowledge and skills by confronting realistic, challenging problems – predominantly supports alternative methods.

PowerPoint slides are toxic to education for three main reasons:

  1. Slides discourage complex thinking.
  2. students come to think of a course as a set of slides. Good teachers who present realistic complexity and ambiguity are criticised for being unclear. Teachers who eschew bullet points for graphical slides are criticised for not providing proper notes.
  3. Slides discourage reasonable expectations

Measuring the wrong things

If slide shows are so bad, why are they so popular?

Exams, term papers and group projects ostensibly measure knowledge or ability. Learning is the change in knowledge and skills and therefore must be measured over time.

When we do attempt to measure learning, the results are not pretty. US researchers found that a third of American undergraduates demonstrated no significant improvement in learning over their four-year degree programs.

They tested students in the beginning, middle and end of their degrees using the Collegiate Learning Assessment, an instrument that tests skills any degree should improve –  analytic reasoning, critical thinking, problem solving and writing.

 

++++++++++++++++++++
more on [why not to use] PowerPoint in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=powerpoint

compensation for online

Compensation for creation of online courses

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

I absolutely echo Kimber’s notion that a team approach to course development can actually take longer, even when one of the team members is an instructional designer. Perhaps because faculty members are used to controlling all aspects of their course development and delivery, the division of labor concept may feel too foreign to them. An issue that is similar in nature and referred to as ‘unbundling the faculty role’ is discussed at length in the development of competency-based education (CBE) courses and it is not typically a concept that faculty embrace.

Robin

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

I will also confirm that the team approach to course development can take longer.  Indeed it does in my experience.  It requires much more “back and forth”, negotiating of who is doing what, ensuring that the overall approach is congruent, etc.  That’s not to say that it’s not a worthwhile endeavor in some cases where it makes pedagogical sense (in our case we are designing courses for 18-22 year-old campus-based learners and 22+ year-old fully online learners at the same time), but if time/cost savings is the goal, you will be sorely disappointed, in my experience.  The “divide and conquer” approach requires a LOT of coordination and oversight.  Without that you will likely have a cobbled together, hodgepodge of a course that doesn’t meet expectations.

Best, Carine  Director, Office of Instructional Design & Academic Technology Ottawa University 1001 S. Cedar St. * Ottawa, KS 66067 carine.ullom@ottawa.edu * 785-248-2510

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

Breaking up a course and coming up with a cohesive design and approach, could make the design process longer. At SSC, we generally work with our faculty over the course of a semester for each course. When we’ve worked with teams, we have not seen a shortened timeline.
The length of time it takes to develop a course depends on the content. Are there videos? If so, they have to be created, which is time-consuming, plus they either need to have a transcript created or they need subtitles. Both of those can be time-consuming. PowerPoint slides take time, plus, they need more content to make them relevant. We are working with our faculty to use the Universal Design for Learning model, which means we’re challenging them to create the content to benefit the most learners
I have a very small team whose sole focus is course design and it takes us 3-4 weeks to design a course and it’s our full-time job!

Linda
Linda C. Morosko, MA Director, eStarkState Division of Student Success 330-494-6170 ext. 4973 lmorosko@starkstate.edu

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

Kelvin, we also use the 8-week development cycle, but do occasionally have to lengthen that cycle for particularly complex courses or in rare cases when the SME has had medical emergencies or other major life disruptions.  I would be surprised if multiple faculty working on a course could develop it any more quickly than a single faculty member, though, because of the additional time required for them to agree and the dispersed sense of responsibility. Interesting idea.

-Kimber

Dr. Kimberly D. Barnett Gibson, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs and Online Learning Our Lady of the Lake University 411 SW 24th Street San Antonio, TX 78207 Kgibson@ollusa.edu 210.431.5574 BlackBoard IM kimberly.gibson  https://www.pinterest.com/drkdbgavpol@drkimberTweets

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

Hello everyone. As a follow-up to the current thread, how long do you typically give hey course developer to develop a master course for your institution? We currently use an eight week model but some faculty have indicated that that is not enough time for them although we have teams of 2 to 4 faculty developing such content. Our current assumption is that with teams, there can be divisions of labor that can reduce the total amount time needed during the course development process.

Kelvin Bentley, PhD Vice President of Academic Affairs, TCC Connect Campus Tarrant County College District

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

At Berkeley College, full-time faculty may develop online courses in conjunction with an instructional designer.   The course is used as a master template for other sections to be assigned from. Once the course has been scheduled and taught, the faculty member receives a stipend.  The faculty member would receive their normal pay to teach the developed course as part of their semester course load, with no additional royalties assigned for it or any additional sections that may be provided to students.

Regards, Gina   Gina Okun Assistant Dean, Online Berkeley College  64 East Midland Avenue, Suite 2, Paramus, NJ 07652 (973)405-2111  x6309 gina-okun@berkeleycollege.edu

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

We operate with nearly all adjunct faculty where >70% of enrollment credits are onlinez
With one exception that I can recall, the development contract includes the college’s outright ownership, with no royalty rights. One of the issues with a royalty based arrangement would be what to do when the course is revised (which happens nearly every term, to one degree or another). At what point does the course begin to take on the character of another person’s input?
What do you do if the course is adapted for a shorter summer term, or a between-term intensive? What if new media tools or a different LMS are used? Is the royalty arrangement based on the syllabus or the course content itself? What happens if the textbook goes out of print, or an Open resource becomes available? What happens if students evaluate the course poorly?
I’m not in position to set this policy — I’m only reporting it. I like the idea of a royalty arrangement but it seems like it could get pretty messy. It isn’t as if you are licensing a song or an image where the original product doesn’t change. Courses, the modes of delivery, and the means of communication change all the time. Seems like it would be hard to define what constitutes “the course” after a certain amount of time.

Steve Covello Rich Media Specialist/Instructional Designer/Online Instructor Chalk & Wire e-Portfolio Administrator Granite State College 603-513-1346 Video chat: https://appear.in/id.team  Scheduling: http://meetme.so/stevecovello

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

I’ve worked with many institutions that have used Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to develop or provide the online course content. Most often, the institutions also provide a resource in the form of an Instructional Designer (ID) to take the content and create the actual course environment.

The SME is paid on a contract basis for provision of the content. This is a one-time payment, and the institution then owns the course content (other than integrated published materials such as text books, licensed online lab products, etc.). The SME may be an existing faculty member at the institution or not, or the SME may go on to teach the course at the institution. In any event, whoever teaches the course would be paid the standard faculty rate for the course. If the course requires revisions to the extent that a person will need to be engaged for content updates, then that can be a negotiated contract. Typically it is some fraction of the original development cost. No royalties are involved.

Hap Aziz, Ed.D. @digitalhap http:hapaziz.wordpress.com

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

Within SUNY, there is some variance regarding whether a stipend is paid for development or not. In either case, since we are unionized there is policy regarding IP. IP resides with the faculty developer unless both parties agree in writing in the form of a contract to assign or share rights.

Policy statement: http://uupinfo.org/reports/reportpdf/IntellectualPropertyUpdated2016.pdf

Thank you for your feedback on this issue. Our institution does does not provide a royalty as we consider course development as a fee-for-service arrangement. We pay teams of 2-4 faculty $1000 each to develop master course shells for our high-enrollment courses.  Instead of a royalty fee, I think an institution can simply provide course developers the perk of first right of refusal to teach the course when it offered as well as providing course developers with the first option to make revisions to the course shell over time.

Kelvin

Kelvin Bentley, Ph.D. Vice President of Academic Affairs, TCC Connect Campus Tarrant County College District

Once upon a time, and several positions ago, we set up a google doc for capturing all kinds of data points across institutions, like this. I’m sure it’s far out of date, but may still have some ideas or info in there – and could possibly be dusted off and oiled up for re-use… I present the Blend-Online Data Collector. This tab is for course development payment.

Kind regards,

Clark

Clark Shah-Nelson

Assistant Dean, Instructional Design and Technology
University of Maryland School of Social Work—Twitter … LinkedIn —voice/SMS: (646) 535-7272fax: 270.514.0112

Hi Jenn,

Just want to clarify…you say faculty “sign over all intellectual property rights of the course to the college.” but later in the email say “Faculty own all intellectual property and can take it with them to teach at another institution”, so is your policy changing to the former? Or, is it the later and that is what you are asking about?

I’ll send details on our policy directly to your email account.

Best,

Ellen

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jennifer Stevens <jennifer_stevens@emerson.edu> wrote:

Hello all,

I am tasked with finding out what the going rate is for the following model:
We pay an adjunct faculty member (“teaching faculty”) a set amount in order to develop an online course and sign over all intellectual property rights of the course to the college.
Is anyone doing this? I’ve heard of models that include royalties, but I personally don’t know of any that offer straight payment for IP. I know this can be a touchy subject, so feel free to respond directly to me and I will return and post a range of payment rates with no other identifying data.
For some comparison, we are currently paying full time faculty a $5000 stipend to spend a semester developing their very first online class, and then they get paid to teach the class. Subsequent online class developments are unpaid. Emerson owns the course description and course shell and is allowed to show the course to future faculty who will teach the online course. Faculty own all intellectual property and can take it with them to teach at another institution. More info: http://www.emerson.edu/itg/online-emerson/frequently-asked-questions
I asked this on another list, but wanted to get Blend_Online’s opinion as well. Thanks for any pointers!
Jenn Stevens
Director | Instructional Technology Group | 403A Walker Building  |  Emerson College  |  120 Boylston St  |  Boston MA 02116  |  (617) 824-3093

Ellen M. Murphy

Director of Program Development
Graduate Professional Studies

Brandeis University Rabb School

781-736-8737

++++++++++++++++
more on compensation for online courses in this IMS blog:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+compensation

flexibility of distance learning

Students appreciate flexibility of distance learning

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

ALA on digital literacy

In the wake of NMC release regarding digital literacy, http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/10/25/nmc-on-digital-literacy/ (not coincidence, the author is active with NMC)

ALA is offering a webinar:
Rethinking Digital Literacy to Serve Library Staff and Users eCourse
Paul Signorelli Item Number: 1541-9124

http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=11469&zbrandid=4634&zidType=CH&zid=38811756&zsubscriberId=1026665847&zbdom=http://ala-publishing.informz.net

Asynchronous eCourse beginning November 14, 2016 and continuing for 5 weeks (includes an extension of 1 week for Thanksgiving)

Estimated Hours of Learning: 24
Certificate of Completion available upon request

Learning outcomes

After participating in this course, you will be able to:

  • incorporate ever-evolving definitions of digital literacy into learning opportunities
  • draw upon a variety of digital resources to create digital-learning opportunities
  • seek additional resources that you can use in your continuing efforts to keep up with new developments in digital literacy in libraries and other learning organizations

What is digital literacy? Do you know how you can foster digital literacy through formal and informal learning opportunities for your library staff and users?

Supporting digital literacy still remains an important part of library staff members’ work, but sometimes we struggle to agree on a simple, meaningful definition of the term. In this four-week eCourse, training/learning specialist Paul Signorelli will begin by exploring a variety of definitions, focusing on work by a few leading proponents of the need to foster digital literacy among people of all ages and backgrounds. He will explore a variety of digital-literacy resources – including case studies of how we creatively approach digital-literacy learning opportunities for library staff and users, and will explore a variety of digital tools that will help to encourage further understanding of this topic.

Now, who is ready to build their digital-literacy skills and help their users become digital literate as well?

eCourse Outline

Part 1: Digital Literacy: Initial Definitions and Explorations

  • An overview of various definitions of digital literacy
  • Several components of digital literacy
  • Exploring Doug Belshaw’s extensive work on defining and fostering digital literacy

Part 2: Digital Literacy: Crap Detection and Other Skills and Tools

  • Exploring Howard Rheingold’s approach to crap detection and other digital literacy/net literacy skills
  • Participation, collaboration, creativity, and experimentation as digital-literacy skills
  • Building our digital-literacy toolkit

Part 3: Digital Literacy in Learning

  • The varying digital literacy needs of our youngest students, of teens, and of adults
  • Exploring various online resources supporting our digital-literacy training-teaching-learning efforts
  • The myth of the digital native

Part 4: Fostering Digital Literacy: Creating Within a Digital Environment

  • Creating a framework to promote digital literacy
  • Designing workshops and other learning opportunities
  • Keeping up in an evolving digital literacy landscape

How this eCourse Works

The eCourse begins on Monday, November 14, 2016. Your participation will require approximately six hours a week, at times that fit your schedule. All activities take place on the website, and you will be expected to:

  • Read, listen to or view online content
  • Post to online discussion boards
  • Complete weekly assignments or activities

Instructor Paul Signorelli will monitor discussion boards regularly during the four-week period, lead group discussions, and will also answer individual questions. All interaction will take place on the eCourse site, which will be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It’s recommended that students log into the site on the first day of class or within a few days for an overview of the content and to begin the first lesson.

User Requirements

Participants will need regular access to a computer with an internet connection for online message boards participation, viewing online video, listening to streaming audio (mp3 files), and downloading and viewing PDFs and PowerPoint files. ALA Editions eCourses are fully compatible with Windows and MacOs.

About the Instructor

Paul Signorelli, co-author of Workplace Learning & Leadership with Lori Reed, is a San Francisco-based writer, trainer, presenter, and consultant exploring, fostering, and documenting innovations in learning. Having earned an MLIS through the University of North Texas (with an emphasis on online learning), he remains active in the American Library Association, the New Media Consortium (educational technology), and the Association for Talent Development (formerly the American Society for Training & Development).

My note: Finally ALA is addressing a huge gap. Namely, letting conservative librarians dress information literacy with the appearance of “digital literacy.”

++++++++++++++++
more on digital literacy in this IMS blog:

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

1 2 3 4