Student’s relationship with technology is complex. They recognize its value but still need guidance when it comes to better using it for academics.
|Educause’s ECAR Study, 2013|
|IMS faculty would be happy to meet with you or your group at your convenience.
Please request using this Google Form: http://scsu.mn/1OjBMf9 or
by email: email@example.com | firstname.lastname@example.org
How you can reach us:
Services we provide:
Does social media make room for critical thinking?
Sinprakob, S., & Songkram, N. (2015). A Proposed Model of Problem-based Learning on Social Media in Cooperation with Searching Technique to Enhance Critical Thinking of Undergraduate Students. Procedia – Social And Behavioral Sciences, 174(International Conference on New Horizons in Education, INTE 2014, 25-27 June 2014, Paris, France), 2027-2030. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.871
Bailey, A. (2014). Teaching Alice Walker’s The Color Purple: Using Technology and Social Media To Foster Critical Thinking and Reflection. Virginia English Journal, 64(1), 17.
Eales-Reynolds, L., Gillham, D., Grech, C., Clarke, C., & Cornell, J. (2012). A study of the development of critical thinking skills using an innovative web 2.0 tool. Nurse Education Today, 32(7), 752-756. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.05.017
Baldino, S. (2014). The Classroom Blog: Enhancing Critical Thinking, Substantive Discussion, and Appropriate Online Interaction. Voices From The Middle, 22(2), 29.
Ravenscroft, A., Warburton, S., Hatzipanagos, S., & Conole, G. (2012). Designing and evaluating social media for learning: shaping social networking into social learning?. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 177-182. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00484.x
Education is clearly a social process but it is probably much closer to an ongoing discussion or debate than an extended celebration with an ever-expanding network of friends (p. 179, Ravenscroft et al.)
Enabling Bring Your Own Device
white paper by the Cisco
To help improve understanding of BYOD and its impacts on modern network environments, this white paper will further explore the many differences that exist between corporate and educational approaches to the technology.
In the education space, dealing with non-standard, user-managed devices has been and still remains the norm. Unfortunately, the variety of devices means a multitude of operating systems and software are encountered, with many “standards” being defined. As a result there is little consistency in the device type or the software being installed. Since the device is owned by the student and is a personal resource, it is often difficult or impossible to enforce a policy that prevents users from installing software. In addition, due to the nature of learning as opposed to a corporate environment, it is also difficult to put a restriction on certain classes of software since all may provide a worthwhile educational purpose.
providing a solution that unifies management and deployment polices across both wired and wireless devices is very desirable.
The Internet of Everything (IoE) has spurred a revolution in mobility. Collaboration anywhere, anytime and with any device is quickly becoming the rule instead of the exception. As a result it is now common for students to bring mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets and e-readers into the academic environment to support their educational endeavors.
The infrastructure supporting BYOD no longer has the sole purpose of providing a wireless radio signal within a given area. The focus is now about providing the appropriate bandwidth and quality to accommodate the ever-growing number of devices and ensure that an application provides a good end-user experience. In a sense, applications are now the major driving force behind the continuing evolution of BYOD. For example, a teacher accessing video in the classroom for educational purposes during class hours should have greater priority than a student in the same area accessing a gaming site for recreation.
A state-of-the-art BYOD infrastructure should now be capable of providing more than just generic, general-purpose wireless connectivity. In the classroom environment, the notion of “differentiated access” often resonates with faculty and staff. Once this has been determined, a policy can be applied to the user and their activity on the network.
Granular security can also be intelligently delivered.
Quality of Service (QoS) rate limiting has been available for some time, but now there are newer QoS techniques available.
Location-based services can provide their first interaction with the university. By delivering campus maps and directional information, location-enabled services can enhance the experience of these visitors and provide a positive image to them as well. As a visitor enters a particular building location, information could automatically be provided. In the case of a visiting student, information about the history of a building, departments contained within the building, or other resources could be presented to enhance a guided tour, or provide the perspective student the ability to have a self-directed tour of the campus facilities.
802.11ac Technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac)
Software Defined Networking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_networking)
After yesterday’s post about making the most of Google Keep I received a few emails from readers wanting to know a bit more about how Google Keep works. To answer those questions I recorded the short video that you see embedded below (click here if you cannot see the video).
Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/5601076/A_historical_overview_of_mobile_learning_Toward_learner-centered_education
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?
99-100. Traxler (2011) described five ways in which m-learning offers new learning opportunities: 1. Contingent learning, allowing learners to respond and react to the environment and changing experiences; 2. Situated learning, in which learning takes place in the surroundings applicable to the learning; 3. Authentic learning;
Diel, W. (2013). M-Learning as a subfield of open and distance education. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
- 15) Historical context in relation to the field of distance education (embedded librarian)
- 16 definition of independent study (workshop on mlearning and distance education
- 17. Theory of transactional distance (Moore)
Cochrane, T. (2013). A Summary and Critique of M-Learning Research and Practice. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
( Galin class, workshop)
According to Cook and Sharples (2010) the development of M learning research has been characterized by three general faces a focus upon Devices Focus on learning outside the classroom He focus on the mobility of the learner
Baby I am learning studies focus upon content delivery for small screen devices and the PDA capabilities of mobile devices rather than leveraging the potential of mobile devices for collaborative learning as recommended by hope Joyner Mill Road and sharp P. 26 Large scale am learning project Several larger am learning projects have tended to focus on specific groups of learners rather than developing pedagogical strategies for the integration of am mlearning with him tertiary education in general
m learning research funding
In comparison am learning research projects in countries with smaller population sizes such as Australia and New Zealand are typiclly funded on a shoe string budget
M-learning research methodologies
I am learning research has been predominantly characterized by short term case studies focused upon The implementation of rapidly changing technologies with early adopters but with little evaluation reflection or emphasis on mainstream tertiary-education integration
p. 29 identifying the gaps in M learning research
lack of explicit underlying pedagogical theory Lack of transferable design frameworks
Cochrane, T. (2011).Proceedings ascilite 2011 Hobart:Full Paper 250 mLearning: Why? What? Where? How? http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Cochrane-full.pdf
(Exploring mobile learning success factors http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893351.pdf
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., and Cook, J. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
(Tom video studio)
35 a line of argumentation that defines mobile devices such as mobile phones as cultural resources. Mobile cultural resources emerge within what we call a “bile complex‘, which consist of specifics structures, agency and cultural practices.
36 pedagogy looks for learning in the context of identify formation of learners within a wider societal context However at the beginning of the twentieth first century and economy oriented service function of learning driven by targets and international comparisons has started to occupy education systems and schools within them Dunning 2000 describes the lengthy transformation process from natural assets Land unskilled labor to tangible assets machinery to intangible created assets such as knowledge and information of all kinds Araya and Peters 2010 describe the development of the last 20 years in terms of faces from the post industrial economy to d information economy to the digital economy to the knowledge economy to the creative economy Cultural ecology can refer to the debate about natural resources we argue for a critical debate about the new cultural resources namely mobile devices and the services for us the focus must not be on the exploitation of mobile devices and services for learning but instead on the assimilation of learning with mobiles in informal contacts of everyday life into formal education
Ecology comes into being is there exists a reciprocity between perceiver and environment translated to M learning processes this means that there is a reciprocity between the mobile devices in the activity context of everyday life and the formal learning
Rather than focusing on the acquisition of knowledge in relation to externally defined notions of relevance increasingly in a market-oriented system individual faces the challenge of shape his/her knowledge out of his/her own sense of his/her world information is material which is selected by individuals to be transformed by them into knowledge to solve a problem in the life world
Crompton, H. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
p. 47 As philosophies and practice move toward learner-centered pedagogies, technology in a parallel move, is now able to provide new affordances to the learner, such as learning that is personalized, contextualized, and unrestricted by temporal and spatial constrains.
The necessity for m-learning to have a theory of its own, describing exactly what makes m-learning unique from conventional, tethered electronic learning and traditional learning.
48 . Definition and devices. Four central constructs. Learning pedagogies, technological devices, context and social interactions.
“learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
It is difficult, and ill advisable, to determine specifically which devices should be included in a definition of m-learning, as technologies are constantly being invented or redesigned. (my note against the notion that since D2L is a MnSCU mandated tool, it must be the one and only). One should consider m-learning as the utilization of electronic devices that are easily transported and used anytime and anywhere.
49 e-learning does not have to be networked learning: therefore, e-learnng activities could be used in the classroom setting, as the often are.
Why m-learning needs a different theory beyond e-learning. Conventional e-learning is tethered, in that students are anchored to one place while learning. What sets m-learning apart from conventional e-learning is the very lack of those special and temporal constrains; learning has portability, ubiquitous access and social connectivity.
50 dominant terms for m-learning should include spontaneous, intimate, situated, connected, informal, and personal, whereas conventional e-learning should include the terms computer, multimedia, interactive, hyperlinked, and media-rich environment.
51 Criteria for M-Learning
second consideration is that one must be cognizant of the substantial amount of learning taking place beyond the academic and workplace setting.
52 proposed theories
Activity theory: Vygotsky and Engestroem
Conversation theory: Pask 1975, cybernetic and dialectic framework for how knowledge is constructed. Laurillard (2007) although conversation is common for all forms of learning, m-learning can build in more opportunities for students to have ownership and control over what they are learning through digitally facilitated, location-specific activities.
53 multiple theories;
54 Context is central construct of mobile learning. Traxler (2011) described the role of context in m-learning as “context in the wider context”, as the notion of context becomes progressively richer. This theme fits with Nasimith et al situated theory, which describes the m-learning activities promoting authentic context and culture.
unlike e-learning, the learner is not anchored to a set place. it links to Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach.
Learning happens within various social groups and locations, providing a diverse range of connected learning experiences. furthermore, connectivity is without temporal restraints, such as the schedules of educators.
m-larning as “learning dispersed in time”
my note student-centered learning
Moura, A., Carvalho, A. (2013). Framework For Mobile Learning Integration Into Educational Contexts. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
p. 58 framework is based on constructivist approach, Activity theory, and the attention, relevance and confidence satisfaction (ARCS) model http://www.arcsmodel.com/#!
to set a didacticmodel that can be applied to m-learning requires looking at the characteristics of specific devi
Guide to the Best Homeschooling and Unschooling Resources
* Free online college courses can be found on many sites, with directories available at sites like MIT’s Open Coursework Consortium. Big players in the open-educational resources movement include Coursera and EdX, which offer MOOCs. FutureLearn is UK-based, with free online courses from UK and international universities. More information about these can be found in MindShift’s guide to free quality higher education, plusprevious collections of open educational sites and resources.
Tumbleson, B. E., & Burke, J. (. J. (2013). Embedding librarianship in learning management systems: A how-to-do-it manual for librarians. Neal-Schuman, an imprint of the American Library Association.
p. 20 Embedding Academic and Research Libraries in the Curriculum: 2014-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN
xi. the authors are convinced that LMS embedded librarianship is becoming he primary and most productive method for connecting with college and university students, who are increasingly mobile.
xii. reference librarians engage the individual, listen, discover what is wanted and seek to point the stakeholder in profitable directions.
Instruction librarians, in contrast, step into the classroom and attempt to lead a group of students in new ways of searching wanted information.
Sometimes that instruction librarian even designs curriculum and teaches their own credit course to guide information seekers in the ways of finding, evaluating, and using information published in various formats.
Librarians also work in systems, emerging technologies, and digital initiatives in order to provide infrastructure or improve access to collections and services for tend users through the library website, discovery layers, etc. Although these arenas seemingly differ, librarians work as one.
xiii. working as an LMS embedded librarian is both a proactive approach to library instruction using available technologies and enabling a 24/7 presence.
1. Embeddedness involves more that just gaining perspective. It also allows the outsider to become part of the group through shared learning experiences and goals. 3. Embedded librarianship in the LMS is all about being as close as possible to where students are receiving their assignments and gaining instruction and advice from faculty members. p. 6 When embedded librarians provide ready access to scholarly electronic collections, research databases, and Web 2.0 tools and tutorials, the research experience becomes less frustrating and more focused for students. Undergraduate associate this familiar online environment with the academic world.
p. 7 describes embedding a reference librarian, which LRS reference librarians do, “partnership with the professor.” However, there is room for “Research Consultations” (p. 8). While “One-Shot Library Instruction Sessions” and “Information Literacy Credit Courses” are addressed (p. 809), the content of these sessions remains in the old-fashioned lecturing type of delivering the information.
p. 10-11. The manuscript points out clearly the weaknesses of using a Library Web site. The authors fail to see that the efforts of the academic librarians must go beyond Web page and seek how to easy the information access by integrating the power of social media with the static information residing on the library web page.
p. 12 what becomes disturbingly clear is that faculty focus on the mechanics of the research paper over the research process. Although students are using libraries, 70 % avoid librarians. Urging academic librarians to “take an active role and initiate the dialogue with faculty to close a divide that may be growing between them and faculty and between them and students.”
Four research context with which undergraduates struggle: big picture, language, situational context and information gathering.
p. 15 ACRL standards One and Three: librarians might engage students who rely on their smartphones, while keeping in mind that “[s]tudents who retrieve information on their smartphones may also have trouble understanding or evaluating how the information on their phone is ‘produced, organized, and disseminated’ (Standard One).
Standard One by its definition seems obsolete. If information is formatted for desktops, it will be confusing when on smart phones, And by that, it is not mean to adjust the screen size, but change the information delivery from old fashioned lecturing to more constructivist forms. e.g. http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/
p. 15 As for Standard Two, which deals with effective search strategies, the LMS embedded librarian must go beyond Boolean operators and controlled vocabulary, since emerging technologies incorporate new means of searching. As unsuccessfully explained to me for about two years now at LRS: hashtag search, LinkedIn groups etc, QR codes, voice recognition etc.
p. 16. Standard Five. ethical and legal use of information.
p. 23 Person announced in 2011 OpenClass compete with BB, Moodle, Angel, D2L, WebCT, Sakai and other
p. 24 Common Features: content, email, discussion board, , synchronous chat and conferencing tools (Wimba and Elluminate for BB)
p. 31 information and resources which librarians could share via LMS
– post links to dbases and other resources within the course. LIB web site, LibGuides or other subject-related course guidelines
– information on research concepts can be placed in a similar fashion. brief explanation of key information literacy topics (e.g difference between scholarly and popular periodical articles, choosing or narrowing research topics, avoiding plagiarism, citing sources properly whining required citations style, understanding the merits of different types of sources (Articles book’s website etc)
– Pertinent advice the students on approaching the assignment and got to rheank needed information
– Tutorials on using databases or planning searches step-by-step screencast navigating in search and Candida bass video search of the library did you a tour of the library
p. 33 embedded librarian being copied on the blanked emails from instructor to students.
librarian monitors the discussion board
p. 35 examples: students place specific questions on the discussion board and are assured librarian to reply by a certain time
instead of F2F instruction, created a D2L module, which can be placed in any course. videos, docls, links to dbases, links to citation tools etc. Quiz, which faculty can use to asses the the students
p. 36 discussion forum just for the embedded librarian. for the students, but faculty are encouraged to monitor it and provide content- or assignment-specific input
video tutorials and searching tips
Contact information email phone active IM chat information on the library’s open hours
p. 37 questions to consider
what is the status of the embedded librarian: T2, grad assistant
p. 41 pilot program. small scale trial which is run to discover and correct potential problems before
One or two faculty members, with faculty from a single department
Pilot at Valdosta State U = a drop-in informatil session with the hope of serving the information literacy needs of distance and online students, whereas at George Washington U, librarian contacted a distance education faculty member to request embedding in his upcoming online Mater’s course
p. 43 when librarians sense that current public services are not being fully utilized, it may signal that a new approach is needed.
pilots permit tinkering. they are all about risk-taking to enhance delivery
p. 57 markeing LMS ebedded Librarianship
library collections, services and facilities because faculty may be uncertain how the service benefits their classroom teaching and learning outcomes.
my note per
“it is incumbent upon librarians to promote this new mode of information literacy instruction.” it is so passe. in the times when digital humanities is discussed and faculty across campus delves into digital humanities, which de facto absorbs digital literacy, it is shortsighted for academic librarians to still limit themselves into “information literacy,” considering that lip service is paid for for librarians being the leaders in the digital humanities movement. If academic librarians want to market themselves, they have to think broad and start with topics, which ARE of interest for the campus faculty (digital humanities included) and then “push” their agenda (information literacy). One of the reasons why academic libraries are sinking into oblivion is because they are sunk already in 1990-ish practices (information literacy) and miss the “hip” trends, which are of interest for faculty and students. The authors (also paying lip services to the 21st century necessities), remain imprisoned to archaic content. In the times, when multi (meta) literacies are discussed as the goal for library instruction, they push for more arduous marketing of limited content. Indeed, marketing is needed, but the best marketing is by delivering modern and user-sought content.
the stigma of “academic librarians keep doing what they know well, just do it better.” Lip-services to change, and life-long learning. But the truth is that the commitment to “information literacy” versus the necessity to provide multi (meta) literacites instruction (Reframing Information Literacy as a metaliteracy) is minimizing the entire idea of academic librarians reninventing themselves in the 21st century.
Here is more: NRNT-New Roles for New Times
p. 58 According to the Burke and Tumbleson national LMS embedded librarianship survey, 280 participants yielded the following data regarding embedded librarianship:
- traditional F2F LMS courses – 69%
- online courses – 70%
- hybrid courses – 54%
- undergraduate LMS courses 61%
- graduate LMS courses 42%
of those respondents in 2011, 18% had the imitative started for four or more years, which place the program in 2007. Thus, SCSU is almost a decade behind.
p. 58 promotional methods:
- word of mouth
- personal invitation by librarians
- email by librarians
- library brochures
- library blogs
four years later, the LRS reference librarians’ report https://magic.piktochart.com/output/5704744-libsmart-stats-1415 has no mentioning of online courses, less to say embedded librarianship
library blog was offered numerous times to the LRS librarians and, consequently to the LRS dean, but it was brushed away, as were brushed away the proposals for modern institutional social media approach (social media at LRS does not favor proficiency in social media but rather sees social media as learning ground for novices, as per 11:45 AM visit to LRS social media meeting of May 6, 2015). The idea of the blog advantages to static HTML page was explained in length, but it was visible that the advantages are not understood, as it is not understood the difference of Web 2.0 tools (such as social media) and Web 1.0 tools (such as static web page). The consensus among LRS staff and faculty is to keep projecting Web 1.0 ideas on Web 2.0 tools (e.g. using Facebook as a replacement of Adobe Dreamweaver: instead of learning how to create static HTML pages to broadcast static information, use Facebook for fast and dirty announcement of static information). It is flabbergasting to be rejected offering a blog to replace Web 1.0 in times when the corporate world promotes live-streaming (http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/live-streaming-video-for-business/) as a way to promote services (academic librarians can deliver live their content)
p. 59 Marketing 2.0 in the information age is consumer-oriented. Marketing 3.0 in the values-driven era, which touches the human spirit (Kotler, Katajaya, and Setiawan 2010, 6).
The four Ps: products and services, place, price and promotion. Libraries should consider two more P’s: positioning and politics.
Mathews (2009) “library advertising should focus on the lifestyle of students. the academic library advertising to students today needs to be: “tangible, experiential, relatebale, measurable, sharable and surprising.” Leboff (2011, p. 400 agrees with Mathews: the battle in the marketplace is not longer for transaction, it is for attention. Formerly: billboards, magazines, newspapers, radio, tv, direct calls. Today: emphasize conversation, authenticity, values, establishing credibility and demonstrating expertise and knowledge by supplying good content, to enhance reputation (Leboff, 2011, 134). translated for the embedded librarians: Google goes that far; students want answers to their personal research dillemas and questions. Being a credentialed information specialist with years of experience is no longer enough to win over an admiring following. the embedded librarian must be seen as open and honest in his interaction with students.
p. 60 becoming attractive to end-users is the essential message in advertising LMS embedded librarianship. That attractivness relies upon two elements: being noticed and imparting values (Leboff, 2011, 99)
p. 61 connecting with faculty
p. 62 reaching students
- attending a synchronous chat sessions
- watching a digital tutorial
- posting a question in a discussion board
- using an instant messaging widget
be careful not to overload students with too much information. don’t make contact too frequently and be perceived as an annoyance and intruder.
p. 65. contemporary publicity and advertising is incorporating storytelling. testimonials differ from stories
p. 66 no-cost marketing. social media
low-cost marketing – print materials, fliers, bookmarks, posters, floor plans, newsletters, giveaways (pens, magnets, USB drives), events (orientations, workshops, contests, film viewings), campus media, digital media (lib web page, blogs, podcasts, social networking cites
p. 69 Instructional Content and Instructional Design
p. 70 ADDIE Model
Analysis: the requirements for the given course, assignments.
Ask instructors expectations from students vis-a-vis research or information literacy activities
students knowledge about the library already related to their assignments
which are the essential resources for this course
is this a hybrid or online course and what are the options for the librarian to interact with the students.
due date for the research assignment. what is the timeline for completing the assignment
when research tips or any other librarian help can be inserted
copy of the syllabus or any other assignment document
p. 72 discuss the course with faculty member. Analyze the instructional needs of a course. Analyze students needs. Create list of goals. E.g.: how to find navigate and use the PschInfo dbase; how to create citations in APA format; be able to identify scholarly sources and differentiate them from popular sources; know other subject-related dbases to search; be able to create a bibliography and use in-text citations in APA format
p. 74 Design (Addie)
the embedded component is a course within a course. Add pre-developed IL components to the broader content of the course. multiple means of contact information for the librarians and /or other library staff. link to dbases. link to citation guidance and or tutorial on APA citations. information on how to distinguish scholarly and popular sources. links to other dbases. information and guidance on bibliographic and in-text citations n APA either through link, content written within the course a tutorial or combination. forum or a discussion board topic to take questions. f2f lib instruction session with students
p. 76 decide which resources to focus on and which skills to teach and reinforce. focus on key resources
p. 77 development (Addie).
-building content;the “landing” page at LRS is the subject guides page. resources integrated into the assignment pages. video tutorials and screencasts
-finding existing content; google search of e.g.: “library handout narrowing topic” or “library quiz evaluating sources,” “avoiding plagiarism,” scholarly vs popular periodicals etc
-writing narrative content. p. 85
p. 87 Evaluation (Addie)
formative: to change what the embedded librarian offers to improve h/er services to students for the reminder of the course
summative at the end of the course:
p. 89 Online, F2F and Hybrid Courses
p. 97 assessment impact of embedded librarian.
what is the purpose of the assessment; who is the audience; what will focus on; what resources are available
p. 98 surveys of faculty; of students; analysis of student research assignments; focus groups of students and faculty
p. 100 assessment methods: p. 103/4 survey template
p. 106 gathering LMS stats. Usability testing
examples: p. 108-9, UofFL : pre-survey and post-survey of studs perceptions of library skills, discussion forum analysis and interview with the instructor
p. 122 create an LMS module for reuse (standardized template)
p. 123 subject and course LibGuides, digital tutorials, PPTs,
research mind maps, charts, logs, or rubrics
or paper-based if needed: Concept Map Worksheet
Productivity Tools for Graduate Students: MindMapping http://libguides.gatech.edu/c.php
Creating Effective Information Literacy Assignments http://www.lib.jmu.edu/instruction/assignments.aspx
guides on research concepts http://library.olivet.edu/subject-guides/english/college-writing-ii/research-concepts/
Popular versus scholar http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/scholarly/guide.html
list of frequently asked q/s:
banks of reference q/s
p. 124. Resistance or Receptivity
p. 133 getting admin access to LMS for the librarians.
p. 136 mobile students, dominance of born-digital resources
Summey T, Valenti S. But we don’t have an instructional designer: Designing online library instruction using isd techniques. Journal Of Library & Information Services In Distance Learning [serial online]. January 1, 2013;Available from: Scopus®, Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 11, 2015.
Shank, J. (2006). The blended librarian: A job announcement analysis of the newly emerging position of instructional design librarian. College And Research Libraries, 67(6), 515-524.
Macklin, A. (2003). Theory into practice: Applying David Jonassen’s work in instructional design to instruction programs in academic libraries. College And Research Libraries, 64(6), 494-500.
Walster, D. (1995). Using Instructional Design Theories in Library and Information Science Education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, (3). 239.
Mackey, T. )., & Jacobson, T. ). (2011). Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy. College And Research Libraries, 72(1), 62-78.
Nichols, J. (2009). The 3 directions: Situated information literacy. College And Research Libraries, 70(6), 515-530.
Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning (J Libr Inform Serv Dist Learn)
From: Robert “Bob” Bilyk [mailto:Robert.Bilyk@LodeStarLearning.com]
I would choose LodeStar if I wanted to do decision-making scenarios or branched interactions that included visuals and, optionally, voice. I would choose LodeStar if I wanted to mash up html presentations with a dozen activity types and have it all come out in an html 5 compliant fashion.
Having written that, LodeStar was redesigned from the ground up on a framework that will allow more media control in the future. The next step for LodeStar 7 is to restore vector graphics editing and the opportunity to link graphics with interactive properties such as assembling machine parts or maps or a science experiment. LodeStar was redesigned on a platform that allows vector graphics to be first class citizens along with components. That work will take another six months. After that, I may revisit the synchronization of visuals with voice-over. We’ll see.
Incidentally, the recent move of LodeStar to a new look and feel has left vestiges of wonkiness with the dialog box fonts. I can see that in your screen capture. The purpose of the audio dialog is simple — but made unclear by the oversized fonts. Currently, you select an audio file to match the page. Currently, because of an IP issue that got resolved for the browser companies, you can select MP3 and it will run everywhere. The purpose of the .wav file was for a fall back. That is no longer necessary. IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari now natively support MP3. The instructor also has the choice of the audio running automatically or displaying a control that enables the student
to start and stop audio. One page, one audio file. Instructors, especially language instructors, use this successfully.
Robert “Bob” Bilyk
LodeStar Learning Corporation
Follow us on Facebook
Related IMS blog entries:
An Excellent Google Drive Tool for Creating Interactive Presentations
Voice over presentation
Faculty request to lay voice over a presentation with pictures. Solutions:
Windows / PC
– unfortunately, faculty are way too familiar with PPT. Familiar to the point that they don’t want to try something better.
– FERPA complient
– too old. PPT is pre-Internet. It does not matter how much Microsoft is trying to adapt it, the concept is old. There is a myriad of cloud-based solutions, which do better job: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/09/30/the-5-best-free-slideshow-presentation-and-creation-tools-for-teachers/
– too many files, too many variations
– PPT posted in D2L displays in the D2L Viewer. The visuals are there, but the voice is not. In order to hear the voice, students must download the presentation. Faculty must reflect this in the syllabus.
– faculty need to know how to upload on their web space and figure out URL, if PPT is not place in LMS (D2L)- if faculty places PPT in LMS (D2L), then it is behind password; nearly impossible to share (can share only with SCSU and/or MnSCU members.
– faculty must remember to indicate in the syllabus and/or D2L / Content that “in order to hear the voice over, user must download presentation.”
– it is a “social” app, like LinkedIn and Twitter. Tagged correctly, the presentation is a platform for “same-minded” people to discuss mutual interests.
– excellent for sharing: conferences, MOOCs etc.
– it has discussion group in LinkedIn.
– voice over presentation: way to cumbersome compared to PPT. Watch their presentation
– by FERPA regulations, if the presentation contains personal data about students, it cannot be shared on SlideShare
– it is a “social” app, like LinkedIn and Twitter. Tagged correctly, the presentation is a platform for “same-minded” people to discuss mutual interests.
– excellent for sharing: conferences, MOOCs etc.
– like PPT, very easy upload of pix and voice over. Better the PPT, since it is online and easy to distribute.
– easy to upload PPT and easy to voice over each slide
– does not embed in D2L (it is D2L issue, not the app), but works perfectly as a link
– faculty must remember to indicate in the syllabus and/or D2L / Content that when clicking on the URL to the PPT, user must simultaneously press “Ctrl” key to open PPT in a separate browser window or tab
– by FERPA regulations, if the presentation contains personal data about students, it cannot be shared on SlideShare
– consistently voted through last 5 years by K12 educators as great interactive tool.
– video, images, audio and text.
– “constructivist” premiss: teacher and students can exchange asynchronously ideas by using images, video, text and audio.
– free option has limited features.
– by FERPA regulations, if the presentation contains personal data about students, it cannot be shared on on this site.
MediaSpace (https://mediaspace.mnscu.edu )
– crude screen capture: faculty can run the PPT manually and narrate over it.
– dirty but fast
– easily shared online (URL ready)
– FERPA compliant
– students cannot comment (compared to VoiceThread)
– free: http://lodestarlearning.com/downloads/lodeStar7.2/en/LodeStar-7.0.exe
– easy to use
– FERPA compliant; endorsed by MnSCU
– voice over too complex (very much the same as with SlideShare)
– FERPA compliant; endorsed by MnSCU
I have not included TechSmit’s Jing https://www.techsmith.com/jing.html, because their video output (Flash file) is obsolete and impossible to convert for free. While it still can be played, shall faculty want to upload the video file on Youtube or similar social media, it will be impossible.
Related IMS blog entries: