Archive of ‘e-learning’ category

benefits of mobile technology

How Teachers Leverage Mobile Technology

“Teachers and administrators continue to see the No. 1 benefit of any digital tool, content or resource as enhancing student engagement. While that is interesting, it has limited value. Lots of thing can engage kids — that does not necessarily point to an academic benefit or value proposition on its own. So, I always acknowledge the engagement benefit but look deeper at other benefits that can shed new insights into how the teachers are leveraging these powerful devices to transform education — or to change the trajectory of the learning process for their students.

among the more interesting or meaningful benefits were:

  • Improvement of communications between stakeholders, such as the ability for students to ask question via e-mail. “Stronger communications between students and teachers is a huge benefit
  • Extending learning beyond regular school hours: “Teachers giving that high marks as a real or perceived benefit means that they are also looking for ways to extend learning time beyond the school day but realize that kids need a device to make that a reality.”
  • Student ownership of the learning process: “Students who are using mobile devices in class are empowered/enabled to be in the driver’s seat of their own learning


more on mobile technology in this blog

google phones

Google Phones

the media of this morning is filled with reports about google phones:

New Leak Reveals Everything About Google’s Pixel And Pixel XL Phones

Everything there is to know about Google’s new Pixel phones just leaked

Everything there is to know about Google’s new Pixel phones just leaked

and much more on Twitter:


more on mobile devices for education in this IMS blog

synchronous online learning

Most Faculty Tackle Synchronous Online Instruction Ill-Prepared

By Dian Schaffhauser 09/22/16

a new report from the Online Learning Consortium, a non-profit professional organization that aims to help educators integrate best practices into their online instruction. The OLC researchers involved in developing “What Can We Learn From Our Colleagues? A Framework for Virtual Classroom Training” solicited online responses from 733 people with “substantial” experience in teaching and “significant” experience in online.

Among the instructors who had taught using a synchronous classroom, two thirds (66 percent) had received training specifically on how to do that. A quarter (27 percent) received a month or more of training; a third (32 percent) received less than a day. A remarkable 55 percent took their training before going into a virtual classroom.

Half of the respondents were primarily self-taught; only 24 percent received formal training; and the remaining 26 percent did their learning through informal conversations with peers who teach synchronously. The training included lots of reading, video tutorials and listening to lectures — in other words, as the report’s authors noted, “sage on the stage” activities that are “antithetical to effective virtual classroom pedagogy.” Forty-one percent of people said synchronous activities “played little or no role in their virtual classroom training”; only 30 percent found that synchronous activities did play a substantial role.

What didn’t exist in training for almost four in five respondents were any of the following:

  • “Shadowing” of an experienced online instructor;
  • Teaching or co-teaching in a classroom being monitored by a trainer or experienced online instructor; or
  • Reviewing recordings of their own performances in a virtual classroom.

Also helpful, the survey found:

  • Peer coaching from colleagues;
  • Reviewing recordings of the instructor’s performance; and
  • Consulting with an instructional designer.

my note: another glaring proof that faculty IS needed in the process.

more on synchronous online instruction in this IMS blog

elearning market in decline

Global E-Learning Market in Steep Decline, Report Says

By Richard Chang

a recent report released by Ambient Insight Research, a Washington state-based market research firm.

Revenues for self-paced e-learning in 2016 are heavily concentrated in two countries — the United States and China. The growth rate in the U.S. is at -5.3 percent, representing a $4.9 billion drop in revenues by 2021, while in China, the rate is at -8.8 percent, representing a $1.9 billion drop by 2021. The e-learning market in China has deteriorated rapidly in just the last 18 months, the report said.

  • Of the 122 countries tracked by Ambient Insight, 15 have growth rates for self-paced e-learning over 15 percent during the next five years. These countries are heavily concentrated in Asia and Africa, with the two outliers being Slovakia and Lithuania.
  • Eleven of the top 15 growth countries will generate less than $20 million by 2021. Of the top 15, Slovakia and Lithuania are anticipated to generate the highest revenues for self-paced products by 2021, at $55.4 million and $36.5 million, respectively.
  • The growth rates are negative in every region except Africa, where the growth is flat at 0.9 percent. The steepest declines are in Asia and Latin America at -11.7 percent and -10.8 percent, respectively. The economic meltdowns in Brazil and Venezuela are major inhibitors in Latin America.
  • There are 77 countries with flat-to-negative growth rates. The countries with the lowest growth rates are Yemen (-18.7 percent), Brazil (-19.8 percent), Qatar (-23.5 percent) and Venezuela (-26.8 percent).

Self-paced e-learning products include online courses, managed education services, managed training, e-books and learning management systems, according to the report. The author does not consider mobile and game-based learning, which are growing, to be in the self-paced e-learning category.

The news on the self-paced e-learning industry is so bad, Ambient Insight will no longer publish commercial syndicated reports on the industry, the firm says on its website and in the report.


more on elearning in this IMS blog

digital portfolio

MindTap Offers Users Free Access to Digital Portfolio Tool

By Sri Ravipati 08/03/16

MindTap, an online learning platform from Cengage Learning, will be able to build digital portfolios of their work for free and keep them for life.

mobile app version is available on the Apple Store and Google Play.


more on e-portfolio in this IMS blog:

faculty and online teaching

Moving beyond smile sheets: A case study on the evaluation and iterative improvement of an online faculty development program

The eCampus Quality Instruction Program (eQIP) is an online faculty development program developed to train faculty in designing and teaching fully online courses.

What is the best way to design and develop high- quality online courses and support faculty as they teach online?

Given faculty’s competing priorities and limited time, we contend that it is important for institutions, and specifically faculty developers, to analyze how much time faculty are spending in online faculty development activities as well as which parts are taking the most (or least) time. (p. 5)

A successful online faculty development program must include pedagogical support, technology support, and design and development support (Baran & Correia, 2014) that overcome obstacles about time, expertise, and motivation of faculty (Henning, 2012).(p. 17)


more on online learning in this IMS blog


Clemson University’s Centralized Proctoring Story

e-Campus news offers a proctoring model: conveniently presented in a 5-step outline, webinar and “case study” paper.

According to them, you just “Follow their story and learn how the team at Clemson Online implemented RPNow, and how they’re planning to centralize remote proctoring to increase student convenience, faculty efficiency and reduce the costs of exam administration.”

It is, of course, sponsored by the company, who will be paid for the proctoring

Here are my issues with the proposal:

  1. step 5 of the five-step outline: “Take control of the payment model. Institutional payment (as opposed to student pay) creates a better experience for the student and cost savings for all.”
    so, if the institution pays, then student don’t pay? I find this and illusion, since the institution pays by using students’ tuition. which constantly grows. so, the statement is rather deceptive.
  2. As with the huge controversy around Turnitin (e.g., this 2009 article, and this 2012 article), “mechanizing” the very humane process evaluation is outright wrong. The attempt to compensate the lack of sufficient number of faculty by “outsourcing” to machines is en vogue with the nationwide strive of higher ed administration to create an “assembly line” type of education, which makes profit, but it is dubious if it teaches [well].
  3. Pedagogically (as per numerous discussions in the Chronicle of Higher Education and similar sources), if the teaching materials and exams are structured in an engaging way, students cheat much less. The “case study” paper claims reduction of cheating, but it is reduction based on fear to be caught, not based on genuine interest in learning.


1 2 3 10