Archive of ‘mobile learning’ category

compensation for online

Compensation for creation of online courses

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:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+compensation

grant for VR

Iowa District to Use $54K Google Grant for VR Hardware

By Sri Ravipati 11/29/16

https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/11/29/iowa-district-to-use-$54k-google-grant-for-vr-hardware.aspx

Council Bluffs Community School District (CBCSD) in Council Bluffs, IA has received a $54,500 grant from Google’s Charitable Giving Fund of the Tides Foundation. With the funding, the district will purchase 28 kits (each with 15 headsets) that cost about $4,500 per kit, according to a report from the Omaha World-Herald and other sources.

The hardware will enable teachers to incorporate VR into their curriculum, like VR tours on Google Expeditions, Alchemy VR, Discovery VR, zSpace and other platforms.

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

eportfolio conference

Re-Bundling Higher Education:

High Impact ePortfolio Practice and the New Digital Ecosystem

A regional ePortfolio conference jointly sponsored by AAEEBL,  City University of New York and Pace University, ReBundling Higher Education will offer sessions that highlight best practices, evidence of impact, and exciting innovations.

In March, 2017, the Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence-Based Learning (AAEEBL), the City University of New York (CUNY) and Pace University invite you to a conference exploring and discussing ePortfolio practice and its role in the future of higher education.  Use the links above to review the Call for Proposals (which outlines the themes of the conference), to register for the conference or to submit a proposal.

Call for Proposals

Conference proposals are due Dec. 2, 2016, and notification will take place by January 15, 2017.

Special note:  Due to recent budget cuts to NYC area colleges, registration fees will be kept to a minimum for this conference.  Students (graduate or undergraduate) will be admitted free, and registration for all others will be $25, payable at the door.

++++++++++++++
more on eportfolio in this IMS blog:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=eportfolio
more on badges in this IMS blog:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=badges

elearning growth based on flipped and mobile 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:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=elearning

pedagogical research elearning

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:

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

campus VR tour

Students Develop VR Campus Tour of Lehigh U

By Sri Ravipati 11/28/16

https://campustechnology.com/articles/2016/11/28/students-develop-vr-campus-tour-of-lehigh-u.aspx#

To view the VR campus tour, visit the Vertra site.

“The app arose from a group project for an entrepreneurship class taught by professors Joshua Ehrig and James Peterson,” according to a report from The Brown and White,

++++++++++++++++++
more on VR in this IMS blog:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=virtual+reality

technology use among teachers

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:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=technology+teachers

twitter in class

Eleven effective ways to use Twitter in education

http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2014/12/11-effective-ways-to-use-twitter-in.html

  • Hold after class discussions
  • Create an online community of students
  • Ask questions relevant to course materials
  • Start backchannel talks
  • Create a classroom hashtag
  • Use it for class announcements
  • Get feedback from students
  • Share interesting online materials
  • Pass on information about events
  • Have a Twitter account for each class
  • Reward participation
  • Integrate Twitter into Syllabus

Eleven effective ways to use Twitter in education

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

more for the use of Twitter for education in this IMS blog

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=twitter

1 2 3 19