Author Archive

games 4 learning in higher ed

What do you think are the main difficulties of using games for learning in higher education?

Rafaela Lima Santos de Souza, Masters Student in Production Engineering at Universidade Federal Fluminense, , Universidade Federal Fluminense, Universidade Federal Fluminense Rio de Janeiro Area, Brazil

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2774663/2774663-6354261006046240770

Étienne Wenger

http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/

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

condensed semesters

Austin, A., & Gustafson, L. (2006). Impact of Course Length on Student Learning. JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION, 5(1), 26–37.
Condensed or time shortened semesters are becoming more common as more non-traditional students seek higher education. Many universities now offer full semester courses over two or three weekends. Also, inter semester courses of one to three weeks are also becoming popular as university administrators seek to find ways to increase student enrollments. While there is much anecdotal evidence that grades during summer semesters tend to be higher than during the fall semester, we must ask if condensed semester courses actually provide students with the same learning experience as a traditional 16-week semester?
Overall we find that there is a significant improvement from taking shorter courses that cannot be explained solely by student characteristics. Using a very large database and by using more robust models this study provides more definitive results than have been achieved in past studies. Compared to a sixteen week semester, there is an improvement at 8 weeks, 4 weeks, and 3 weeks. We also find that those benefits differ, peaking at four weeks. 10 This complements the results of Scott (2003) who finds that classroom relationships and classroom atmosphere are two important factors that explain why performance is better in intensive courses than the traditional format i.e. there is a better bond between teacher and student when they meet every day than just two or three times a week. While 4 week and 3 week sessions both meet daily, the three week session, with just 11 teaching days, may be to short a time span for that bond to fully develop. More importantly, we also find that the improved grades are not meaningless – they do reflect greater learning.11 We find that the grades given for a shortened intensive course have the same significantexplanatory power for future performance as those earned during a traditional 16 week semester. This combats the popular perception (among students anyway) that the bar is lowered in some manner during the shortened sessions. This is clearly not the case as we find no evidence of any correction for those grades. There are some obvious policy implications from this study. Universities wishing to maximize learning with limited resources might consider changing their course structure from predominately sixteen week to four week semesters, a more modular system. A full semester load (12 hours) can be taken in the same time (16 weeks) by taking a traditional semester, or 4 four weeks sessions. Both cases would involve the same amount of class time per week, and so the modular structure would place no additional burden on a student.
Jaschik, S. (2008, March 28). Students Prefer Intensive Courses. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/28/intensive

second IMS podcast on technology in education

Second IMS podcast on technology in education: Constructivism

Today’s vocast will be broadcasted live at:

Adobe Connect      |     Facebook Live   |       Twitter (#IMSvodcast) |

and will be archived at:

SCSU MediaSpaceYouTube   (subscribe for the channel for future conversations)

Constructivism.
Student-centered learning theory and practice are based on the constructivist learning theory that emphasizes the learner’s critical role in constructing meaning from new information and prior experience.

  • What is it?
  • Why do we have to know about it
  • Can we just disagree and stick to behaviorism?
  • Is it about student engagement?
  • Is it about the use of technology?
  • Resources
    • https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/06/28/constructivism-lecture-versus-project-based-learning/
      https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/12/03/translating-constructivism-into-instructional-design-potential-and-limitations/
      https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/03/28/student-centered-learning-literature-review/
      https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/11/05/online-discussion-with-plovdiv-university/
      https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/05/27/handbook-of-mobile-learning/
      Crompton, Muilenburg and Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
    • The “context”in this definition encompasses m-learnng that is formalself-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware and context neutral.
    • therefore, m-learning can occur inside or outside the classroom, participating in a formal lesson on a mobile device; it can be self-directed, as a person determines his or her own approach to satisfy a learning goal; or spontaneous learning, as a person can use the devices to look up something that has just prompted an interest (Crompton, 2013, p. 83). (Gaming article Tallinn)Constructivist Learnings in the 1980s – Following Piage’s (1929), Brunner’s (1996) and Jonassen’s (1999) educational philosophies, constructivists proffer that knowledge acquisition develops through interactions with the environment. (p. 85). The computer was no longer a conduit for the presentation of information: it was a tool for the active manipulation of that information” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12)Constructionist Learning in the 1980s – Constructionism differed from constructivism as Papert (1980) posited an additional component to constructivism: students learned best when they were actively involved in constructing social objects. The tutee position. Teaching the computer to perform tasks.Problem-Based learning in the 1990s – In the PBL, students often worked in small groups of five or six to pool knowledge and resources to solve problems. Launched the sociocultural revolution, focusing on learning in out of school contexts and the acquisition of knowledge through social interaction
    • Socio-Constructivist Learning in the 1990s. SCL believe that social and individual processes are independent in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan-Palinscar, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978).
    • 96-97). Keegan (2002) believed that e-learning was distance learning, which has been converted to e-learning through the use of technologies such as the WWW. Which electronic media and tools constituted e-learning: e.g., did it matter if the learning took place through a networked technology, or was it simply learning with an electronic device?
  • Discussion
    • Share with us practical examples of applying constructivist approach in your class
    • Would one hour workshop on turning existing class assignments into constructivist-based class assignments be of interest for you?

+++++++++++++++
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/02/12/first-ims-podcast-on-technology-in-education/

schoology interoperability

How One District Created a Culture of Innovation Through Interoperability

Join the Executive Director of Technology for the School District of Pickens County in South Carolina, Barbara Nesbitt, on Thursday, February 22 at 1pm EST to hear how they used Schoology to:

  • Centralize their technologies and resources
  • Save teachers time to focus on student achievement
  • Ensure a consistent student experience from grade-to-grade
  • Expand learning outside the physical classroom

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

Unity

https://unity3d.com/

Unity is a cross-platform game engine developed by Unity Technologies,[2] which is primarily used to develop both three-dimensional and two-dimensional video games and simulations for computersconsoles, and mobile devices. First announced only for OS X at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference in 2005, it has since been extended to target 27 platforms.[3][4] Six major versions of Unity have been released.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_(game_engine)

React

React

https://reactjs.org/

In computingReact (sometimes styled React.js or ReactJS) is a JavaScript library[2] for building user interfaces.

It is maintained by FacebookInstagram and a community of individual developers and corporations.[3][4][5]

React allows developers to create large web-applications that use data and can change over time without reloading the page. It aims primarily to provide speed, simplicity, and scalability. React processes only user interfaces in applications. This corresponds to View in the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern, and can be used in combination with other JavaScript libraries or frameworks in MVC, such as AngularJS.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library)

++++++++++++++
more on Java script in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=java+script

challenges ed leaders technology

The Greatest Challenge Facing School Leaders in a Digital World

By Scott McLeod     Oct 29, 2017

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-10-29-the-greatest-challenge-facing-school-leaders-in-a-digital-world

the Center for the Advanced Study of Tech­nology Leadership in Education – CASTLE

Vision

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.

Fear

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.

Control

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.

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.

++++++++++++
more on digital literacy for EDAD in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy+edad

1 251 252 253 254 255 491