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?
while each of these systems appeal differenetly to different faculty from different disciplines, having a standard, campus-wide clicker system has also strong advantages.
I am thinking about doing clicker-type questions as well as groupwork with instant response as the core of my online synchronous class. With this in mind, I am considering either Top Hat (which the students have used as clickers, but what I am not sure about is how well it works for groupwork) versus Learning Catalytics (which has a mode that I know works well and forces students to do the questions themselves first … which I have a love/hate relationship with – and has some question types that might be interesting but I am not as certain about the interface). I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Mike Silagadze isn’t shy about his desire to take market share from the largest college textbook publishers through his classroom software company Top Hat. He believes his company’s brand of digital textbooks beats anything Pearson, McGraw-Hill and their ilk can provide.
Founded in 2009, Top Hat claims that 2.7 million students access its digital course materials, including those at 750 of the top 1,000 higher education institutions in North America.
Silagadze believes younger faculty members and future generations of college students will help drive institutions to adopt digital materials instead of print.
Top Hat has challenged tangible goods for a long time now. Its first offering was a digital version of clickers to measure student responses in the classroom. In 2017, the company launched a marketplace for e-textbooks, working with authors and offering openly licensed content from the likes of OpenStax as well.
Last year, the company ceased sales of individual assessment tools to instead offer a bundle of its products. Students pay $48 for one year of Top Hat’s products. Interactive textbooks on Top Hat cost an average of $35.
This is a free event, thanks to our founding conference sponsor: School of Information at San José State University.
ATTENDING: We will send links for attending the conference a day or two before the event.
If you have friends or colleagues that wish to attend, this is a free event and we encourage you to share our information widely. However, please send them to the conference registration page (https://www.library20.com/instructionaldesign) rather than giving them the above link directly as it will allow us to track participation.
What is ID: ID create an environment conductive to students’ success. Thoughtful and applied design. Making faculty and instructors’ life easier. Allow faculty to do what they do best.
Lindsey: solving the instructional problem with the tools at hand.
go-to ed tech? What is the hot tech right now?
Lindsey: H5P (open source) CC – licensed, Moodle, WordPress, build online tutorials for free (Isolde), Norway, well based, VR tours. Will H5P become paid? Michael: cell phones Dana: Emory VoiceThread. From the chat: Articulate365 (pricy), Kahoot, Peardeck, Yellowdig, vidgrid, Adobe Spark, Adobe POst, padlet, Groupme instead of Canvas, Vyond, Coggle, wakelet, Phinx
Suggestions for librarians who want to build ID skills. Dana: connect with the regional community if no ID on campus. Community of practice. Using ID tools, speakers outside of campus. Lindsey: teaching myself what is most interesting to me. what technologies are important. Find a learning community. Michael: repeat the others
keep up to date on ID theory and practices: Dana – ELI, OLC (Online Learning Consortium). ELearning Heroes. Lindsay: corporate word. Michael: POD
the one-shot instruction: what is the approach (q/n from the chat); Dana – ID as a services. person dedicated following up with people requested either ID class or training, open the line of communication. summative evaluation type of activity since we are failing to evaluate how well students absorbed the information. LIndsey: one-shot for basics (e.g. freshman), build scaffold program, reserved the one shot for meeting with librarians, for hands-on. Michael: work with faculty member and rewrite a program, build assessment rather then only deliver
areas of impact: subject matter librarians, working with faculty to use of the library resources, new faculty drawn in info and if not follow up, Canvas support. Michael: librarians and ID working directly with faculty rewriting their curricula, measure it, demonstrating library need, 3000 students – correlation. document the lib contribution to student learning directly, the teaching-learning culture change. using info and data in more authentic ways. Lindsey: disconnect the way librarian teach vs faculty teach. Coordination scaffolding.
q/n from the chat. easily. how can non ID librarian can easily implement ID type:
Lindsey: new to ID? Google. Jargon and Acronyms. re framing how you see ed technology. technology as something to get the job done. no need to get fancy.
Dana: same as Lindsey. But also learning theories and learning outcomes. From ID perspective: what they will come out with by the end of the session. action words.
Michael: mindset. what students want to learn, before what I will teach. backward design – understanding by design. UDL. Grab a friend and talk through.
Tara
ed tech is not getting job done:
clickers for attendance is horrible idea.
I had a really interesting role in grad school where we lived in the land between tech support and pedagogical / design support.
From Rajesh Kumar Das to All panelists and other attendees: (02:38 PM)
Good to hear from mike about affective learning. In this case, could you please focus what kind of technique is approprite for what, i.e. Didactic instruction, a low-complexity teaching technique such as a “Quiz Bowl”, or Jigsaw Method as high-complexity strategy, or both.
From Hailey W. to All panelists and other attendees: (02:36 PM)
As an ID librarian and the campus LMS administrator I struggle with getting them to see that other side of my role. That I’m not just “tech support”. Anyone else? Een jsut not being tech support?
From Vickie Kline to All panelists and other attendees: (02:44 PM)
As a librarian not formally trained in ID, I think a good entry point for exploring is Universal Design for Learning. We also need to pay attention to creating accessibility materials…
From Heather Quintero to All panelists and other attendees: (02:45 PM)
I always start with ADDIE… I am formally trained in ID and am an IT trainer for librarians. ADDIE is a framework for every class I make for both live and online classes. Don’t disregard ADDIE.
From Allison Rand to All panelists and other attendees: (02:47 PM)
The Wiggins and McTighe is a great book!
From Roberta (Robin) Sullivan to All panelists and other attendees: (02:53 PM)
@Rachel, Peggy, Shane – an open source course is available. Check out the SUNY’s Quality by Design (QbD): Strategies for Effective Teaching and Quality Course Design at: http://suny.edu/qbd This course is available as a facilitated version at least once each semester and as a self-paced non-facilitated version in Blackboard’s CourseSites. After completing the course requirements you can earn a Digital Badge to show your accomplishment.
From Naomi Toftness to All panelists and other attendees: (02:55 PM)
Just heard the terms “deliberate innovation” vs. “desperate innovation” that totally speaks to my situation with wanting to adopt the new cool tech
++++++++++++++++++++++ SESSION LINK – https://sas.elluminate.com/d.jnlp?sid=2008350&password=LIB2019IDPart7 — If the session link doesn’t work for you, please copy and paste into your browser.
Session Title: Gamifying Instruction: Breakouts and Badges!
Your Name and Title: Dr. Brenda Boyer, Librarian & Instructor
Your Library, School, or Organization Name: Kutztown Sr. High School, Rutgers University
Your Twitter Handle (@name): @bsboyer
Name(s) of Co-Presenter(s): Brenda Boyer
Area of the World from Which You Will Present: Kutztown, PA
Language in Which You Will Present: English
Target Audience: Instructional Design Librarians
Short Session Description: Build engagement for your online library instruction using LMS features, Breakout boxes, and digital badges.
Session Strand (use the “tag”): {Session Strand (use the “tag”):}
Full Session Description: It’s time to amp up your library instruction! Gamifying instruction in research skills such as database usage, advanced searching, & more can increase engagement and drive independent learning for students of all ages. This session will describe how learning management system (LMS) features can be combined with digital microcredentials (i.e. badges) and breakout boxes to gamify instruction that can be otherwise deemed boring (for both the learners and the librarian!).
Link to Conference Site Session Proposal (full URL with http://):https://www.library20.com/forum/topics/gamifying-instruction-breakouts-and-badges
Other Websites / URLs Associated with Your Session:
Your Bio: Dr. Brenda Boyer is a librarian and instructional designer. She has developed online instruction for secondary learners in the Kutztown (PA) School District, as well as for graduate and professional development learners at Wilson College and Rutgers University. She designed and instructs the Rutgers graduate course, Learning Theory, Inquiry, & Instructional Design, and is a frequent presenter at AASL, Internet@Schools. She has published articles in School Library Journal, Teacher Librarian, and School Library Connection.
are we getting the job done, is our instruction sticking, what evidence we do have?
differentiate: who is ready to do what” at what skill level? how to bring everybody up to speed?
3 elements of Digital Gamification: leverage LMS (set game levels); how digital badges are paired 3. using digital breakout boxes to push challenge, skills
each chat as prerequisite for the next. prerequisite in LMS. Each game level is module. completed with a quizz. if they pass the quiz, opens challenge.1. what is page (facts about a tool to learn about[ what the tool does, feature, etc.) 2. suppe rshort video tour (3 min max), talk about something unique 3. quick quiz (max 5 q/s from the intro page and video). pass the quiz (100 %) to unlock the challenge level. 4. challenge level. digital breakout box embedded in the LMS. breakout using Google Forms. various locks (words, letter, numbers)
Badges why?
Badgr, Credly, iDoceo
Breakout Boxes
++++++++++++++++++++++
SESSION LINK – https://sas.elluminate.com/d.jnlp?sid=2008350&password=LIB2019IDPart8 — If the session link doesn’t work for you, please copy and paste into your browser. Session Title: Improving Library Tutorials: The Multimedia Design Principles
Your Name and Title: Darlene Aguilar, Instructional Design Librarian
Your Library, School, or Organization Name: Loyola Marymount University
Your Twitter Handle (@name): @DarleneA_ID
Name(s) of Co-Presenter(s):
Area of the World from Which You Will Present: Los Angeles, CA
Short Session Description: This session will review Mayer’s (2001) Multimedia Design Principles to help improve instructional modules, tutorials, and videos.
Session Strand (use the “tag”): {Session Strand (use the “tag”):}
Full Session Description: Librarians are creating more online modules, videos, and tutorials to teach information literacy skills. Whether designing instruction online or in-person, research-based instructional methods are required and learning Mayer’s Multimedia Design Principles is the best place to start. In this session, I will review essential prior-knowledge on image types and working memory. I will then show learners how to minimize cognitive overload using these 12 principles: multimedia, spatial contiguity, temporal contiguity, coherence, modality, redundancy, individual differences, signaling, pacing, concepts first, personalization, and human voice.
Link to Conference Site Session Proposal (full URL with http://):https://www.library20.com/forum/topics/improving-library-tutorials-the-multimedia-design-principles
Other Websites / URLs Associated with Your Session:https://linkedin.com/in/darlene-aguilar/
Your Bio: Darlene Aguilar is an Instructional Design Librarian at Loyola Marymount University where she designs and develops video tutorials and online modules on information literacy and library related topics. Additionally, she provides “best practices” training in instructional design to other LMU librarians. She graduated from the University of Southern California with a Master’s in Education for Learning Design and Technology and previously worked at LAUSD for 7 years. She strives to remove learning barriers that are embedded in instruction and curriculum and make learning accessible to all learners.
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)
usingonline resourcesto find high quality curricular materials
37%
48%
31%
3%
18%
iClickers
24%
23%
16%
9%
52%
otherpresentation 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)
D2Lasa portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.)
21%
28%
18%
11%
42%
videos/animationsproducedelsewhere
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 anexpert
296
63%
hour-longworkshop
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%
opportunityto apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards)
97
21%
half-dayorday-longworkshop
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).
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
ACRL e-Learning webcast series: Learning Analytics – Strategies for Optimizing Student Data on Your Campus
This three-part webinar series, co-sponsored by the ACRL Value of Academic Libraries Committee, the Student Learning and Information Committee, and the ACRL Instruction Section, will explore the advantages and opportunities of learning analytics as a tool which uses student data to demonstrate library impact and to identify learning weaknesses. How can librarians initiate learning analytics initiatives on their campuses and contribute to existing collaborations? The first webinar will provide an introduction to learning analytics and an overview of important issues. The second will focus on privacy issues and other ethical considerations as well as responsible practice, and the third will include a panel of librarians who are successfully using learning analytics on their campuses.
Webcast One: Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: The State of the Art and the Art of Connecting the Library with Campus Initiatives
March 29, 2016
Learning analytics are used nationwide to augment student success initiatives as well as bolster other institutional priorities. As a key aspect of educational reform and institutional improvement, learning analytics are essential to defining the value of higher education, and academic librarians can be both of great service to and well served by institutional learning analytics teams. In addition, librarians who seek to demonstrate, articulate, and grow the value of academic libraries should become more aware of how they can dovetail their efforts with institutional learning analytics projects. However, all too often, academic librarians are not asked to be part of initial learning analytics teams on their campuses, despite the benefits of library inclusion in these efforts. Librarians can counteract this trend by being conversant in learning analytics goals, advantages/disadvantages, and challenges as well as aware of existing examples of library successes in learning analytics projects.
Learn about the state of the art in learning analytics in higher education with an emphasis on 1) current models, 2) best practices, 3) ethics, privacy, and other difficult issues. The webcast will also focus on current academic library projects and successes in gaining access to and inclusion in learning analytics initiatives on their campus. Benefit from the inclusion of a “short list” of must-read resources as well as a clearly defined list of ways in which librarians can leverage their skills to be both contributing members of learning analytics teams, suitable for use in advocating on their campuses.
student’s opinion of this process
benefits: self-assessment, personal learning, empwerment
analytics and data privacy – students are OK with harvesting the data (only 6% not happy)
8 in 10 are interested in personal dashboard, which will help them perform
Big Mother vs Big Brother: creepy vs helpful. tracking classes, helpful, out of class (where on campus, social media etc) is creepy. 87% see that having access to their data is positive
librarians:
recognize metrics, assessment, analytics, data. visualization, data literacy, data science, interpretation
INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT – N.B.
determine who is the key leader: director of institutional research, president, CIO
who does analyics services: institutional research, information technology, dedicated center
analytic maturity: data drivin, decision making culture; senior leadership commitment,; policy supporting (data ollection, accsess, use): data efficacy; investment and resourcefs; staffing; technical infrastrcture; information technology interaction
student success maturity: senior leader commited; fudning of student success efforts; mechanism for making student success decisions; interdepart collaboration; undrestanding of students success goals; advising and student support ability; policies; information systems
developing learning analytics strategy
understand institutional challenges; identify stakeholders; identify inhibitors/challenges; consider tools; scan the environment and see what other done; develop a plan; communicate the plan to stakeholders; start small and build
ways librarians can help
idenfify institu partners; be the partners; hone relevant learning analytics; participate in institutional analytics; identify questions and problems; access and work to improve institu culture; volunteer to be early adopters;
questions to ask: environmental scanning
do we have a learning analytics system? does our culture support? leaders present? stakeholders need to know?
questions to ask: Data
questions to ask: Library role
learning analytics & the academic library: the state of the art of connecting the library with campus initiatives
questions:
literature
7 Things You Should Know About First-Generation Learning Analytics. Published:
Barneveld, A., Arnold, K., & Campbell, J. (2012). Analytics in Higher Education: Establishing a Common Language. Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3026.pdf
causation versus correlation studies. speakers claims that it is difficult to establish causation argument. institutions try to predict as accurately as possible via correlation, versus “if you do that it will happen what.”
Males participate more frequently in courses taught by female instructors
Other studies show the opposite
Non traditional students participate more frequently
Instructors’ gender also returns mixed results
Class size as variable is important, smaller classes, more participation
Class participation – grading
Make the students grade themselves at the end of each class period. By making them grade themselves, they reflect and makes them more aware of their contribution.
0 – absent
1 – present but did not verbally participate
2 – verbally participated one time
3 – verbally participated more than once
4 – made an equitable contribution to discussion in terms of both quantity and quality
The well-known and established belief that smaller classes spur more participation.
Jay Howard maintain his sociological research in 20th centuries constants: physical classroom, no technology surrounding.
In the 21st century, clickers changed the opportunity for immediate feedback. They changed also the discourse of the traditional student participation and classroom discussion: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=clickers&submit=Search
Traditional forms and techniques for discussion and participation
Weih, T. G. (2015). Discussion Strategies for the Inclusion of ALL Students. Online Submission, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED561060
Don’ts:
call on student
instructor’s personality issues:
Does the instructor really care of what students have to say
lecturing does not predispose to discussion
The 10 second rule: students discuss in pairs the concept/question
Think-Pair-Share: discussion strategy before or after lesson, similar to 10 second but longer
Quick writes: write their thoughts and then share. Loose paper, names on top,
Recorder-reporter. Post-lecture. The person reps the group, who is working on a specific question. Each group different question.
K-W-L. what we know, what we want to learn, what we learned. Teacher instructs students that K = what they know, W = what they want to learn and L = what they learned. . work in small groups, but each student works on h/er chart, thus if student disagrees with rest of the group, has record. L is left blank for after the discussion.
Simich-Dudgeon, C., & National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, W. D. (1998). Classroom Strategies for Encouraging Collaborative Discussion. Directions in Language and Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED435188
Using storytelling
Chen, W., & Looi, C. (2007). Incorporating Online Discussion in Face to Face Classroom Learning: A New Blended Learning Approach. Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology, 23(3), 307-326. Discussions and participation in hybrid environment
For each OTD topic, the instructor randomly assigns two to four student discussion leaders who are in charge of organizing OTD for the assigned week. Each of the discussion leaders is asked to generate one or two discussion questions related to the topic based on reading assignments. The use of student discussion leaders is a strategy to encourage active participation and help develop ownership of learning. Once student discussion leaders post their questions, other students are encouraged to contribute to the discussion by answering each question, commenting on the ideas of others, or asking questions of peers or the instructor for the next two days. When the week’s discussion is complete, the student leaders and instructor work together to summarize the discussion and evaluate each student’s participation and contribution to the discussion using a scoring rubric. (p.242)
Implementation (p. 243):
preparation : On the first day of the course, the instructor introduces topics, how-tos, expectations, grading procedures, and required reading assignments for OTD, and organizes discussion leaders for each online discussion (2–4 leaders for each)
Opening and Responding: Posted discussion questions become open at the time of the class and students who are not the leaders are required to post at least one response per question within 48 hrs. During this time, the leaders facilitate discussion by responding to comments, raising questions, or redirecting discussion to encourage active participation and ensure the discussion is on track
Summary and Assessment: The job of the leader is to moderate, summarize discussion threads, and assess them at the end of the discussion. When the week’s discussion is complete, the leaders meet with the instructor to debrief and evaluate each student’s participation and contribution to the discussion using a scoring rubric given by the instructor. After the meeting, each leader posts his or her summary of the discussion to BBCMS and reports at the next in-person class.
D2L
Beyond CMS (D2L)
Discussions and participation in online environment
Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of Online Discussion Strategies: A Meta-Analysis. American Journal Of Distance Education, 27(4), 228-241. doi:10.1080/08923647.2013.837651
Beyond CMS (D2L)
Lin, P., Hou, H., Wang, S., & Chang, K. (2013). Analyzing knowledge dimensions and cognitive process of a project-based online discussion instructional activity using Facebook in an adult and continuing education course. Computers & Education, 60(1), 110-121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.017 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512001819
111 results suggest that using Facebook is not necessarily harmful to a student’s learning performance. Adequate learning activity design and pedagogical goal setting could, in fact, exploit the social and information-sharing function of Facebook, thereby supporting academic learning (Gray et al., 2010). this study seeks to advance the understanding of adult learners’ behaviors in online project discussions using Facebook.
In the process of project-based learning, learners must utilize different kinds of knowledge (e.g., discrete declarative knowledge and dynamic procedural knowledge) (Lou, 2004). Meanwhile, students can develop higher level of cognitive skills for a specific domain as well as the ability to apply adequate knowledge to a specific domain or context during PBL (Barron et al., 1998; Blumenfeld et al., 1991).
118 Select driving questions or controversial issues as project topics: Blumenfeld et al. (1991) noted that driving questions could facilitate students to explore the project topic. In the exploration process, students must first collect information and propose diverse viewpoints on the project topics. They could subsequently filter out and reach consensus during online discussions. This process involves diverse and converging phases that can move students toward higher-order thinking (Jorczak & Bart, 2009).
Allow ample time for online discussion: Results of this study indicated that student online discussions lacked diversity in both knowledge and cognitive process dimensions. One possible reason could be that the allotted time for online discussions was not sufficient. Considering the multiple roles that adult learners play in family and/or work, they may not be able to respond to the discussions in a timely manner. Therefore, allowing more time for students to discuss may provide opportunities for students to demonstrate more diverse and deeper thinking (Scherling, 2011).
Provide a structured rubric for online discussions: Well-designed discussion guidelines and evaluation criteria, i.e., posting protocols or rubric for grading, could serve as scaffolds for student online discussions, which may, subsequently, lead to more meaningful learning (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). Following that, more diverse type of knowledge and levels of cognitive process could be expected to be shown.
Pay attention to the effects that individual differences may exert on the learner’s interactions: Our results showed that, in the context of online discussions, females and older learners are more likely to have off-topic discussions than their male and/or younger counterparts. These findings are in accord with previous research that suggested effects of individual differences on learning as well as on the use of SNSs (Glynn et al., 2012; Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012; Price, 2006; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2009). Therefore, considering the potential effects that gender and age may exert on online discussions, instructors are advised to consider individual differences when grouping students for online discussions, as a balanced group composition of evenly distributed age and gender could be a better approach than a skewed distribution of individuals.
social interaction, which was considered as irrelevant discussion, may also leading to meaningful thinking and echoes the viewpoints from previous studies, which suggest social interaction can be a critical element in the CSCL environment (Abedin et al., 2011a, 2011b).
Incorporating online discussion in face to face classroom learning: A new blended learning approach
Wenli Chen, Chee-Kit Looi
Abstract
This paper discusses an innovative blended learning strategy which incorporates online discussion in both in-class face to face, and off-classroom settings. Online discussion in a face to face class is compared with its two counterparts, off-class online discussion as well as in-class, face to face oral discussion, to examine the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed strategy. By integrating online discussion into the flow of the classroom, learners are given dedicated time to foster a habit of critical thinking, reflection and articulating these online, which can subsequently seed further in-class oral discussions, and off-class online discussions. It is found that in-class, online discussion can provide a wider spectrum of discussion perspectives, equalise participation in discussion, and promote cognitive thinking skills and in depth information processing. However, the lack of face to face interactions and the need for sufficient time to do online postings pose challenges in implementing online discussion for face to face classroom learning.
