e-learning | InforMedia Services (IMS)

The University of California, Berkeley’s School of Information (I School) has tapped a private partner to help launch a new online program, Master of Information and Cybersecurity (MICS).

Dubbed cybersecurity@berkeley, the new program was developed in collaboration with the university’s Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity and College of Engineering.

The 27-unit course will use 2U’s online learning platform for live, weekly meetings. Between sessions, students will have access to interactive content designed by MICS faculty. Students will also have the opportunity to visit campus to meet faculty and classmates and attend lectures and workshops curated specifically for students in the program.

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

06
Dec
2016

social media collaborative learning

categories: Digital literacy, distributive learning, e-learning, mobile learning, open learning, social media, student-centered learning

Zhang, X., Chen, H., Pablos, P. O. de, Lytras, M. D., & Sun, Y. (2016). Coordinated Implicitly? An Empirical Study on the Role of Social Media in Collaborative Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2622

PDF file available here: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2622/4000

++++++++++++++++++

Vlachopoulos, D. (2016). Assuring Quality in E-Learning Course Design: The Roadmap. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2784

PDF file available here: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2784/3952

++++++++++++++++++

Ungerer, L. M. (2016). Digital Curation as a Core Competency in Current Learning and Literacy: A Higher Education Perspective. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2566

metaliteracy

Technology considerably impacts on current literacy requirements (Reinking, as cited in Sharma & Deschaine, 2016). Being literate in the 21st century requires being able to decode and comprehend multimodal texts and digital format and also engage with these texts in a purposeful manner. Literacy is not merely based on a specific skill, but consists of a process that embraces the dynamic, social, and collaborative facets of digital technology (Lewis & Fabos, as cited in Mills, 2013).

Mackey and Jacobson (2011) suggest reframing the concept of information literacy as metaliteracy (supporting multiple literacy types) because of a tremendous growth in social media and collaborative online communities. They propose that information literacy currently involves more than a set of discrete skills, since active knowledge production and distribution in collaborative online communities are also necessary.

Mackey and Jacobson (2011) position metaliteracy as an overarching and comprehensive framework that informs other literacy types. It serves as the basis for media literacy, digital literacy, ICT literacy, and visual literacy.

According to Mills (2013, p. 47), digital curation is the sifting and aggregation of internet and other digital resources into a manageable collection of what teachers and students find relevant, personalized and dynamic. It incorporates the vibrancy of components of the Internet and provides a repository that is easily accessible and usable.

Pedagogies of Abundance

According to Weller (2011), a pedagogy of abundance should consider a number of assumptions such as that content often is freely available and abundant. Content further takes on various forms and it is often easy and inexpensive to share information. Content is socially based and since people filter and share content, a social approach to learning is advisable. Further, establishing and preserving connections in a network is easy and they do not have to be maintained on a one-to-one basis. Successful informal groupings occur frequently, reducing the need to formally manage groups.

Resource-based learning. Ryan (as cited in Weller, 2011) defines resource-based learning as “an integrated set of strategies to promote student centred learning in a mass education context, through a combination of specially designed learning resources and interactive media and technologies.”

Problem-based learning. Problem-based learning takes place when learners experience the process of working toward resolving a problem encountered early in the learning process (Barrows & Tamblyn, as cited in Weller, 2011). Students often collaborate in small groups to identify solutions to ill-defined problems, while the teacher acts as facilitator and assists groups if they need help. Problem-based learning meets a number of important requirements such as being learner-directed, using diverse resources and taking an open-ended approach.

Communities of practice. Lave and Wenger’s (as cited in Weller, 2011) concept of situated learning and Wenger’s (as cited in Weller, 2011) idea of communities of practice highlight the importance of apprenticeship and the social role in learning.

My note: this article spells out what needs to be done and how. it is just flabeghasting that research guides are employed so religiously by librarians. They are exactly the opposite concept of the one presented in this article: they are closed, controlled by one or several librarians, without a constant and easy access of the instructor, not to mention the students’ participation

+++++++++++++++++
more on teaching w social media in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=social+media+teaching

Save

06
Dec
2016

compensation for online

categories: e-learning, mobile learning, online learning, pedagogy

Compensation for creation of online courses

++++++++++++++++++++

I absolutely echo Kimber’s notion that a team approach to course development can actually take longer, even when one of the team members is an instructional designer. Perhaps because faculty members are used to controlling all aspects of their course development and delivery, the division of labor concept may feel too foreign to them. An issue that is similar in nature and referred to as ‘unbundling the faculty role’ is discussed at length in the development of competency-based education (CBE) courses and it is not typically a concept that faculty embrace.

Robin

+++++++++++++++++++

I will also confirm that the team approach to course development can take longer. Indeed it does in my experience. It requires much more “back and forth”, negotiating of who is doing what, ensuring that the overall approach is congruent, etc. That’s not to say that it’s not a worthwhile endeavor in some cases where it makes pedagogical sense (in our case we are designing courses for 18-22 year-old campus-based learners and 22+ year-old fully online learners at the same time), but if time/cost savings is the goal, you will be sorely disappointed, in my experience. The “divide and conquer” approach requires a LOT of coordination and oversight. Without that you will likely have a cobbled together, hodgepodge of a course that doesn’t meet expectations.

Best, Carine Director, Office of Instructional Design & Academic Technology Ottawa University 1001 S. Cedar St. * Ottawa, KS 66067 carine.ullom@ottawa.edu * 785-248-2510

++++++++++++++++++++

Breaking up a course and coming up with a cohesive design and approach, could make the design process longer. At SSC, we generally work with our faculty over the course of a semester for each course. When we’ve worked with teams, we have not seen a shortened timeline.
The length of time it takes to develop a course depends on the content. Are there videos? If so, they have to be created, which is time-consuming, plus they either need to have a transcript created or they need subtitles. Both of those can be time-consuming. PowerPoint slides take time, plus, they need more content to make them relevant. We are working with our faculty to use the Universal Design for Learning model, which means we’re challenging them to create the content to benefit the most learners
I have a very small team whose sole focus is course design and it takes us 3-4 weeks to design a course and it’s our full-time job!

Linda
Linda C. Morosko, MA Director, eStarkState Division of Student Success 330-494-6170 ext. 4973 lmorosko@starkstate.edu

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kelvin, we also use the 8-week development cycle, but do occasionally have to lengthen that cycle for particularly complex courses or in rare cases when the SME has had medical emergencies or other major life disruptions. I would be surprised if multiple faculty working on a course could develop it any more quickly than a single faculty member, though, because of the additional time required for them to agree and the dispersed sense of responsibility. Interesting idea.

-Kimber

Dr. Kimberly D. Barnett Gibson, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs and Online Learning Our Lady of the Lake University 411 SW 24th Street San Antonio, TX 78207 Kgibson@ollusa.edu 210.431.5574 BlackBoard IM kimberly.gibson https://www.pinterest.com/drkdbgavpol/ @drkimberTweets

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hello everyone. As a follow-up to the current thread, how long do you typically give hey course developer to develop a master course for your institution? We currently use an eight week model but some faculty have indicated that that is not enough time for them although we have teams of 2 to 4 faculty developing such content. Our current assumption is that with teams, there can be divisions of labor that can reduce the total amount time needed during the course development process.

Kelvin Bentley, PhD Vice President of Academic Affairs, TCC Connect Campus Tarrant County College District

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At Berkeley College, full-time faculty may develop online courses in conjunction with an instructional designer. The course is used as a master template for other sections to be assigned from. Once the course has been scheduled and taught, the faculty member receives a stipend. The faculty member would receive their normal pay to teach the developed course as part of their semester course load, with no additional royalties assigned for it or any additional sections that may be provided to students.

Regards, Gina Gina Okun Assistant Dean, Online Berkeley College 64 East Midland Avenue, Suite 2, Paramus, NJ 07652 (973)405-2111 x6309 gina-okun@berkeleycollege.edu

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

We operate with nearly all adjunct faculty where >70% of enrollment credits are onlinez
With one exception that I can recall, the development contract includes the college’s outright ownership, with no royalty rights. One of the issues with a royalty based arrangement would be what to do when the course is revised (which happens nearly every term, to one degree or another). At what point does the course begin to take on the character of another person’s input?
What do you do if the course is adapted for a shorter summer term, or a between-term intensive? What if new media tools or a different LMS are used? Is the royalty arrangement based on the syllabus or the course content itself? What happens if the textbook goes out of print, or an Open resource becomes available? What happens if students evaluate the course poorly?
I’m not in position to set this policy — I’m only reporting it. I like the idea of a royalty arrangement but it seems like it could get pretty messy. It isn’t as if you are licensing a song or an image where the original product doesn’t change. Courses, the modes of delivery, and the means of communication change all the time. Seems like it would be hard to define what constitutes “the course” after a certain amount of time.

Steve Covello Rich Media Specialist/Instructional Designer/Online Instructor Chalk & Wire e-Portfolio Administrator Granite State College 603-513-1346 Video chat: https://appear.in/id.team Scheduling: http://meetme.so/stevecovello

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’ve worked with many institutions that have used Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to develop or provide the online course content. Most often, the institutions also provide a resource in the form of an Instructional Designer (ID) to take the content and create the actual course environment.

The SME is paid on a contract basis for provision of the content. This is a one-time payment, and the institution then owns the course content (other than integrated published materials such as text books, licensed online lab products, etc.). The SME may be an existing faculty member at the institution or not, or the SME may go on to teach the course at the institution. In any event, whoever teaches the course would be paid the standard faculty rate for the course. If the course requires revisions to the extent that a person will need to be engaged for content updates, then that can be a negotiated contract. Typically it is some fraction of the original development cost. No royalties are involved.

Hap Aziz, Ed.D. @digitalhap http:hapaziz.wordpress.com

++++++++++++++++++++

Within SUNY, there is some variance regarding whether a stipend is paid for development or not. In either case, since we are unionized there is policy regarding IP. IP resides with the faculty developer unless both parties agree in writing in the form of a contract to assign or share rights.

Policy statement: http://uupinfo.org/reports/reportpdf/IntellectualPropertyUpdated2016.pdf

Thank you for your feedback on this issue. Our institution does does not provide a royalty as we consider course development as a fee-for-service arrangement. We pay teams of 2-4 faculty $1000 each to develop master course shells for our high-enrollment courses. Instead of a royalty fee, I think an institution can simply provide course developers the perk of first right of refusal to teach the course when it offered as well as providing course developers with the first option to make revisions to the course shell over time.

Kelvin

Kelvin Bentley, Ph.D. Vice President of Academic Affairs, TCC Connect Campus Tarrant County College District

Once upon a time, and several positions ago, we set up a google doc for capturing all kinds of data points across institutions, like this. I’m sure it’s far out of date, but may still have some ideas or info in there – and could possibly be dusted off and oiled up for re-use… I present the Blend-Online Data Collector. This tab is for course development payment.

Kind regards,

Clark

Clark Shah-Nelson

Assistant Dean, Instructional Design and Technology
University of Maryland School of Social Work—Twitter … LinkedIn —voice/SMS: (646) 535-7272fax: 270.514.0112

Hi Jenn,

Just want to clarify…you say faculty “sign over all intellectual property rights of the course to the college.” but later in the email say “Faculty own all intellectual property and can take it with them to teach at another institution”, so is your policy changing to the former? Or, is it the later and that is what you are asking about?

I’ll send details on our policy directly to your email account.

Best,

Ellen

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jennifer Stevens <jennifer_stevens@emerson.edu> wrote:

Hello all,

I am tasked with finding out what the going rate is for the following model:
We pay an adjunct faculty member (“teaching faculty”) a set amount in order to develop an online course and sign over all intellectual property rights of the course to the college.
Is anyone doing this? I’ve heard of models that include royalties, but I personally don’t know of any that offer straight payment for IP. I know this can be a touchy subject, so feel free to respond directly to me and I will return and post a range of payment rates with no other identifying data.
For some comparison, we are currently paying full time faculty a $5000 stipend to spend a semester developing their very first online class, and then they get paid to teach the class. Subsequent online class developments are unpaid. Emerson owns the course description and course shell and is allowed to show the course to future faculty who will teach the online course. Faculty own all intellectual property and can take it with them to teach at another institution. More info: http://www.emerson.edu/itg/online-emerson/frequently-asked-questions
I asked this on another list, but wanted to get Blend_Online’s opinion as well. Thanks for any pointers!
Jenn Stevens
Director | Instructional Technology Group | 403A Walker Building | Emerson College | 120 Boylston St | Boston MA 02116 | (617) 824-3093

Ellen M. Murphy

Director of Program Development
Graduate Professional Studies

Brandeis University Rabb School

781-736-8737

++++++++++++++++
more on compensation for online courses in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+compensation

01
Dec
2016

elearning growth based on flipped and mobile learning

categories: Bring Your Own Device BYOD, distance learning, distributive learning, e-learning, flipped classrooms, hybrid learning, mobile learning, online learning

Report: Flipped and Mobile Helping to Drive Growing Momentum in E-Learning Content and Courses

By Leila Meyer 11/28/16

https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/11/28/report-flipped-and-mobile-helping-to-drive-growing-momentum-in-elearning-content-and-courses.aspx

According to the report, one of the main reasons for the growth in generic e-learning content and courses is the adoption of teaching and learning methods such as the flipped classroom, blended learning and virtual classrooms

The report identifies the proliferation of mobile devices on campus as the third factor helping to drive adoption of these courses. “The availability of gadgets such as e-book readers, tablets, and laptops, coupled with better and uninterrupted Internet connectivity, has led to a greater penetration of digital classrooms and e-learning products,”

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

30
Nov
2016

pedagogical research elearning

categories: announcement, distance learning, distributive learning, e-learning, hybrid learning, mobile learning

What Does Recent Pedagogical Research Tell Us About eLearning Good Practice?

Many instructors indicate that they want their elearning teaching approaches to be evidence-based. Indeed, there are rich and varied sources of research being conducted on elearning good practices available in scholarly journals and government reports. However, few of us have time to keep up with these publications. In this session Christina Petersen will do some of that work for you. She summarize findings from recent government and university reports which review over 1,000 online learning studies. Additionally, she will summarize the findings from newly published articles from pedagogical journals with important information about good practices in online education. These practices address evidence-based methods for promoting student engagement in online courses, good practices for video production, and other topics related to online teaching. We will discuss the importance of all of these findings for your teaching.

Christina Petersen is an Education Program Specialist in the Center for Educational Innovation at the University of Minnesota where she partners with faculty and departments to help create and redesign courses and curriculum to promote maximal student learning. She facilitates a monthly Pedagogical Innovations Journal Club at the CEI. She has a PhD in Pharmacology and her teaching experience includes undergraduate courses in Pharmacology, and graduate courses in Higher Education pedagogy. Her teaching interests include integrating active learning into science courses, teaching in active learning classrooms, and evidence-based teaching practice. She is co-author of a soon-to-be-released book from Stylus, “A Guide to Teaching in Active Learning Classrooms”

View the eLearning Summit presentation

WebEx link for the webinar
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016
Time: 2:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00)
Session number: 805 333 130
Session Password: MNLC@2016

Teleconference information

To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the training session. Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers and enter the access code:

Call-in toll-free number: 888-742-5095
(US) Call-in number: 619-377-3319
(US) Conference Code: 297 345 8873
++++++++++++++++++
more on elearning in this IMS blog:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=elearning

29
Nov
2016

technology use among teachers

categories: Android, Bring Your Own Device BYOD, Digital literacy, distance learning, distributive learning, e-learning, ebook, educational technology, hybrid learning, instructional technology, iPAD, mobile devices, mobile learning, student-centered learning, technology literacy

Technology Use Among Teachers Strong and Growing

By David Nagel 11/17/16

https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/11/17/technology-use-among-teachers-strong-and-growing.aspx

The study, conducted by adaptive learning provider Front Row Education, found that 75 percent of teachers use technology with students on a daily basis and that a bit more than half have a 1-to-1 ratio of devices to students in their classrooms (up 10 points from last year’s survey). That increase in student devices is helping to drive an increase in the use of technology, with about 60 percent of teachers surveyed saying they expect to increase the use of technology in the 2016–2017 school year.

60 percent of teachers have access to Chromebooks, up 15 percent from last year; 64 percent have access to iPads, down 5 percent from last year. iPads tend to be the tool of choice in lower grades (75 percent in K–2), while Chromebooks dominate the middle school years (66 percent). Interestingly,

+++++++++++++++
more on technology use among teachers in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=technology+teachers

29
Nov
2016