Augmented reality can be described as experiencing the real world with an overlay of additional computer generated content. In contrast, virtual reality immerses a user in an entirely simulated environment, while mixed or merged reality blends real and virtual worlds in ways through which the physical and the digital can interact. AR, VR, and MR offer new opportunities to create a psychological sense of immersive presence in an environment that feels real enough to be viewed, experienced, explored, and manipulated. These technologies have the potential to democratize learning by giving everyone access to immersive experiences that were once restricted to relatively few learners.
In Grinnell College’s Immersive Experiences Lab http://gciel.sites.grinnell.edu/, teams of faculty, staff, and students collaborate on research projects, then use 3D, VR, and MR technologies as a platform to synthesize and present their findings.
In terms of equity, AR, VR, and MR have the potential to democratize learning by giving all learners access to immersive experiences
downsides :
relatively little research about the most effective ways to use these technologies as instructional tools. Combined, these factors can be disincentives for institutions to invest in the equipment, facilities, and staffing that can be required to support these systems. AR, VR, and MR technologies raise concerns about personal privacy and data security. Further, at least some of these tools and applications currently fail to meet accessibility standards. The user experience in some AR, VR, and MR applications can be intensely emotional and even disturbing (my note: but can be also used for empathy literacy),
immersing users in recreated, remote, or even hypothetical environments as small as a molecule or as large as a universe, allowing learners to experience “reality” from multiple perspectives.
David Demaine, S., Lemmer, C. A., Keele, B. J., & Alcasid, H. (2015). Using Digital Badges to Enhance Research Instruction in Academic Libraries. In B. L. Eden (Ed.), Enhancing Teaching and Learning in the 21st-Century Academic Library: Successful Innovations That Make a Difference (2015th ed.). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2882671
At their best, badges can create a sort of interactive e-resume.
the librarian may be invited into the classroom, or the students may be sent to the Iibrary for a single research lesson on databases and search tem1s- not enough for truly high-quality research. A better alternative may be that the professor require the students to complete a series of badges- designed, implemented, and managed by the librarian- that build thorough research skills and ultimately produce a better paper.
Meta- badges are s impl y badges that indicate comp letion o f multiple related badges.
Authentication (determining that the badge has not been altered) and validation/verification (checking that the badge has actually been earned and issued by the stated issuer) are major concerns. lt is also important, particularly in the academic context, to make sure that the badge does not come to replace the learning it represents. A badge is a symbol that other skills and knowledge exist in this individual’s portfolio of skills and talents. Therefore, badges awarded in the educational context must reflect time and effort and be based on vetted standards, or they will become empty symbols
Digital credentialing recognizes “learning of many kinds which are acquired beyond formal education institutions .. . ; it proliferates and disperses author- ity over what learning to recognize; and it provides a means of translation and commensuration across multiple spheres” (Oineck, 2012, p. I)
University digital badge projects are rarely a top-down undertaking. Typi- cally, digital badge programs arise from collaborative efforts “of people agi- tating from the middle” (Raths, 2013).
Based on this research, institutions using what they perceive as fully integrated solutions are more likely to feel that technology does not enhance their advising function. This contradicts the advertised benefits of integrated functionality (i.e., it eases the pain of managing multiple products). These negative views have been influenced by these institutions’ experiences with the specific products that they have adopted. Institutions using fully integrated solutions are less likely to report satisfaction with their products.
++++++++++++
more on academic advising and technology in this IMS blog https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=advising
– Current initiatives and progress on sustainable models for making monographs openly accessible. Webinar for Open Access Week, Tuesday, October 24, 4 p.m Eastern (10 a.m. HAST; 1 p.m. Pacific; 2 p.m. Mountain; 3 p.m. Central)
Registration is free. Please sign up with this registration form
with a growing number of initiatives, publishers, and economic models, the question is sustainability. There are a number of different models, including Open Book Publishers, Open Humanities Press, and numerous university and commercial publishers who have open monograph publications, thus more initiatives than we could include for this one-hour webinar. We have invited a selected number of representatives from various open monograph publishing initiatives to participate in a panel discussion about their current economic models and future of open access monographs. Each panelist will give a brief statement about their initiative, their editorial review process, their funding model, and their perspectives on the future of open access monographs. Following their brief statements, we will have a question and answer period moderated by Kevin Smith, the Dean of Libraries at the University of Kansas.
Participants for the panel include:
AAUP Open Access Monograph Publishing Initiative– Wendy Pradt Lougee, University Librarian and McKnight Presidential Professor, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. The Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and Association of American University Presses (AAUP) are implementing a new initiative with 13 universities and 60 university presses participating. Universities will provide subventions for open digital monographs, to be published by university presses.
Lever Pressand Knowledge Unlatched – Charles Watkinson, Associate University Librarian for Publishing, University of Michigan Library, and Director, University of Michigan Press. University of Michigan Press and Amherst Press are partners in the Lever Press which is supported by pledging institutions. University of Michigan Press has also been an active participant in Knowledge Unlatched, which uses a crowd -source funding model to make previously published works openly available. Charles is also a Board Member of Knowledge Unlatched Research and will compare Lever Press with KU.
Luminos– Erich van Rijn, Assistant Director, Director of Publishing Operations at University of California Press. The financial model is shared costs between author, institution, publisher, and libraries.
University of Ottawa Press– Lara Mainville, Director of University of Ottawa Press. OA publications are funded by the University of Ottawa libraries.
Moderator: Kevin Smith, Dean of Libraries at the University of Kansas. Prior to joining the University of Kansas, Kevin served as Director of Copyright and Scholarly Communications at the Duke University Libraries.
This workshop will provide attendees, no matter their role in their own institution, with the knowledge, vocabulary, and basic skills needed to communicate intelligently with other stakeholders in the fast-changing scholarly communication landscape.
the economics of commercial and open access publishing; open access publishing models; common misconceptions about open access and how to address them; predatory publishing; copyright, author rights and legislation; article-level- and alt- metrics, and open educational resources.
your library IT’s approach to managing tech support within the framework of moving IT projects forward. Also, how big is your IT team vs your staff?
We have created an environment at our library where staff anticipate almost instant tech support. While this is great for our staff and patrons it’s proven not so great for the IT department as our IT projects that must get done take longer than they should and seem to roll endlessly. It can feel like we’re sacrificing the “big boulders” for endless minutia.
I wondered if you all could tell me your library IT’s approach to managing tech support within the framework of moving IT projects forward.
Also, how big is your IT team vs your staff?
Thank you,
Madeleine Madeleine Sturmer IT Manager | Teton County Library msturmer@tclib.org | 307.733.2164 x143
+++++++++++++++++++++
While the responses will vary widely based on size, type and IT-issues approaches, I can share one.
Providence College is a private, medium-sized (4,300 FTE students) Masters-I institution.
Our library is a fully integrated (horizontally and vertically) Commons (Library+Commons = no silos, traditional+technology-rich, open 116 hours/week for a primarily residential campus.
IT issues are tiered (e.g., 1-5 in complexity) and we have in-house IT specialists (two – one M-F days, one S-Th evenings) and many “back-up specialists”. The IT specialists handle most tiers-1-3 issues (sometimes tier 4) very promptly and refer tier 4-5 issues to central IT. All Library+Commons staff are hired with “relative high-tech/digital expertise, so that there is an articulated in-house IT team. This means that most IT issues are handled in-house and promptly. Library+Commons IT reports up to the Assistant Director and Head of Technology & Access.
the biggest challenge (and the most important) is to get the word out to the staff about how it works. I spoke at multiple all staff meetings about the process, put out a lot of documentation, and spoke at multiple meetings of various teams and departments to get the word out. Once you have a structure you have to support and enforce it. Getting your administration on board is vital-if the director or associate director thinks that they can “jump the queue” it won’t work. They have to understand that for the good of the whole, they might have to wait for something that is non-emergency.
Hope that helps-glad to provide further info offline if needed.
For the completely uninitiated, RSS is just a standardized way of presenting text and images in a feed that can be used by a variety of apps and web services. It is just like how Twitter has a standard way of presenting text and images that all the various Twitter clients understand.
As we’ve already alluded to, when you follow the news via social media, you’re relying on other people bringing you the news, unless you’re following individual news stories. RSS is like getting your newspaper of choice delivered to the front door rather than relying on heading down to the local bar to listen in on what everyone’s shouting about.
With only one page to visit rather than dozens to catch up on, you can spend less time aimlessly drifting around and more time catching up on the posts that matter.
It’s not just for news
Basically anything you might want to keep track of and not miss because of the cacophony of voices on social media,
The always-useful IFTTT (If This Then That) is fluent in RSS, giving you even more ways to make use of RSS. You can build applets to generate tweets or Facebook posts or Instagram updates from a particular feed. Zapier is another service that can take RSS feeds from anywhere in the web and plug them into other apps and platforms.
