Archive of ‘Digital literacy’ category

second IMS podcast on technology in education

Second IMS podcast on technology in education: Constructivism

Today’s vocast will be broadcasted live at:

Adobe Connect      |     Facebook Live   |       Twitter (#IMSvodcast) |

and will be archived at:

SCSU MediaSpaceYouTube   (subscribe for the channel for future conversations)

IMS vodcast technology in education

Posted by InforMedia Services on Thursday, February 22, 2018

Constructivism.
Student-centered learning theory and practice are based on the constructivist learning theory that emphasizes the learner’s critical role in constructing meaning from new information and prior experience.

  • What is it?
  • Why do we have to know about it
  • Can we just disagree and stick to behaviorism?
  • Is it about student engagement?
  • Is it about the use of technology?
  • Resources
    • http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/06/28/constructivism-lecture-versus-project-based-learning/
      http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/12/03/translating-constructivism-into-instructional-design-potential-and-limitations/
      http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/03/28/student-centered-learning-literature-review/
      http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/11/05/online-discussion-with-plovdiv-university/
      http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/05/27/handbook-of-mobile-learning/
      Crompton, Muilenburg and Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
    • The “context”in this definition encompasses m-learnng that is formalself-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware and context neutral.
    • 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?
  • Discussion
    • Share with us practical examples of applying constructivist approach in your class
    • Would one hour workshop on turning existing class assignments into constructivist-based class assignments be of interest for you?

+++++++++++++++
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/02/12/first-ims-podcast-on-technology-in-education/

React

React

https://reactjs.org/

In computingReact (sometimes styled React.js or ReactJS) is a JavaScript library[2] for building user interfaces.

It is maintained by FacebookInstagram and a community of individual developers and corporations.[3][4][5]

React allows developers to create large web-applications that use data and can change over time without reloading the page. It aims primarily to provide speed, simplicity, and scalability. React processes only user interfaces in applications. This corresponds to View in the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern, and can be used in combination with other JavaScript libraries or frameworks in MVC, such as AngularJS.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library)

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

challenges ed leaders technology

The Greatest Challenge Facing School Leaders in a Digital World

By Scott McLeod     Oct 29, 2017

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-10-29-the-greatest-challenge-facing-school-leaders-in-a-digital-world

the Center for the Advanced Study of Tech­nology Leadership in Education – CASTLE

Vision

If a school’s reputation and pride are built on decades or centuries of “this is how we’ve always done things here,” resistance from staff, parents, and alumni to significant changes may be fierce. In such institutions, heads of school may have to steer carefully between deeply ingrained habits and the need to modernize the information tools with which students and faculty work

Too often, when navigating faculty or parental resistance, school leaders and technology staff make reassurances that things will not have to change much in the classroom or that slow baby steps are OK. Unfortunately, this results in a different problem, which is that schools have now invested significant money, time, and energy into digital technologies but are using them sparingly and seeing little impact. In such schools, replicative uses of technology are quite common, but transformative uses that leverage the unique affordances of technology are quite rare.

many schools fail to proceed further because they don’t have a collective vision of what more transformative uses of technology might look like, nor do they have a shared understanding of and commitment to what it will take to get to such a place. As a result, faculty instruction and the learning experiences of students change little or not at all.

These schools have taken the time to involve all stakeholders—including students—in substantive conversations about what digital tools will allow them to do differently compared with previous analog practices. Their visions promote the potential of computing devices to facilitate all of those elements we now think of as essential 21st-century capacities: confidence, curiosity, enthusiasm, passion, critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-direction. Technology doesn’t simply support traditional teaching—it transforms it for deeper thinking and gives students more agency over their own learning.

Fear

Another prevalent issue preventing technology change in schools is fear—fear of change, of the unknown, of letting go of what we know best, of being learners again. But it’s also a fear of letting kids have wide access to the Internet with the possibility of cyberbullying, access to inappropriate material, and exposure to online predators or even excessive advertising. Fears, of course, need to be surfaced and addressed.

The fear drives some schools to ban cellphones, disallow students and faculty from using Facebook, and lock down Internet filters so tightly that useful websites are inaccessible. They prohibit the use of Twitter and YouTube, and they block blogs. Some educators see these types of responses as principled stands against the shortcomings and hassles of digital technologies. Others see them as rejections of the dehumanization of the education process by soulless machines. Often, however, it’s just schools clinging to the past and elevating what is comfortable or familiar over the potential of technology to help them better deliver on their school missions.

Heads of school don’t have to be skilled users themselves to be effective technology leaders, but they do have to exercise appropriate oversight and convey the message—repeatedly—that frequent, meaningful technology use in school is both important and expected. Nostalgia aside, there is no foreseeable future in which the primacy of printed text is not superseded by electronic text and multimedia. When nearly all information is digital or online, multi-modal and multi­media, accessed by mobile devices that fit in our pockets, the question should not be whether schools prepare students for a digital learning landscape, but rather how.

Control

Many educators aren’t necessarily afraid of technology, but they are so accustomed to heavily teacher-directed classrooms that they are leery about giving up control—and can’t see the value in doing so.

Although most of us recognize that mobile computers connected to the Internet may be the most powerful learning devices yet invented—and that youth are learning in powerful ways at home with these technologies—allowing students to have greater autonomy and ownership of the learning process can still seem daunting and questionable.

The “beyond” is particularly important. When we give students some voice in and choice about what and how they learn, we honor basic human needs for autonomy, we enhance students’ interest and engagement, and we truly actualize our missions of preparing lifelong learners.

The goal of instructional transformation is to empower students, not to disempower teachers. While instructor unfamiliarity with digital technologies, inquiry- or problem-based teaching techniques, or deeper learning strategies may result in some initial discomfort, these challenges can be overcome with robust support.

Support

A few workshops here and there rarely result in large-scale changes in implementation.

teacher-driven “unconferences” or “edcamps,” at which educators propose and facilitate discussion topics, can be powerful mechanisms for fostering professional dialogue and learning. Similarly, some schools offer voluntary “Tech Tuesdays” or “appy hours” to foster digital learning among interested faculty.

In addition to existing IT support, technology integration staff, or librarians/media specialists, some schools have student technology teams that are on call for assistance when needed.

A few middle schools and high schools go even further and assign teachers their own individual student technology mentors. These student-teacher pairings last all school year and comprise the first line of support for educators’ technology questions.

As teachers, heads of school, counselors, coaches, and librarians, we all now have the ability to participate in ongoing, virtual, global communities of practice.

Whether formal or informal, the focus of technology-related professional learning should be on student learning, not on the tools or devices. Independent school educators should always ask, “Technology for the purpose of what?” when considering the inclusion of digital technologies into learning activities. Technology never should be implemented just for technology’s sake.

++++++++++++
more on digital literacy for EDAD in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy+edad

fake news disinformation propaganda

the secret of freedom

the secret of freedom

if we are in a post-truth moment then we need to understand the tools we have at hand to deal with falsehoods.

Tom Dickinson describes four different types of distributed ‘fake news’.

‘Fake news’ is lazy language. Be specific. Do you mean:
A) Propaganda
B) Disinformation
C) Conspiracy theory
D) Clickbait

The RAND Corporation, a US think-tank with strong ties to the military industrial complex, recently looked at the influence of the Russian Propaganda Model and how best to deal with it.

Three factors have been shown to increase the (limited) effectiveness of retractions and refutations: (1) warnings at the time of initial exposure to misinformation, (2) repetition of the retraction or refutation, and (3) corrections that provide an alternative story to help fill the resulting gap in understanding when false ‘facts’ are removed.

Critical thinking requires us to constantly question assumptions, especially our own. To develop these skills, questioning must be encouraged. This runs counter to most schooling and training practices. When do students or employees get to question underlying assumptions of their institutions? If they cannot do this, how can we expect them to challenge various and pervasive types of ‘fake news’?

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

Collaborative Instructional Technology Support Model

Online Course | Designing a Collaborative Instructional Technology Support Model

Part 1: March 7, 2018 | 1:00–2:30 p.m. ET
Part 2: March 14, 2018 | 1:00–2:30 p.m. ET
Part 3: March 21, 2018 | 1:00–2:30 p.m. ET

Faculty need a variety of instructional technology support—instructional design, content development, technology, training, and assessment—to name a few. They don’t want to go to one place for help, find out they’re in the wrong place, and be sent somewhere else—digitally or physically. Staff don’t want to provide help in silos or duplicate what other units are doing.

So, how can academic service providers collaborate to offer the right instructional technology support services, in the right place, at the right time, in the right way? In this course, instructional technologists, instructional designers, librarians, and instructional technology staff will learn to use a tool called the Service Center Canvas that does just that.

Learning Objectives:

During this course, participants will:

  • Explore the factors that influence how instructional technology support services are offered in higher education
  • Answer critical questions about how your instructional technology support services should be delivered relative to broader trends and institutional goals
  • Experiment with ways to prototype new services and/or new ways of delivering them
  • Identify potential implementation obstacles and ways to address them

NOTE: Participants will be asked to complete assignments in between the course segments that support the learning objectives stated below and will receive feedback and constructive critique from course facilitators on how to improve and shape their work.

Course Facilitators

Elliot FelixElliot Felix, Founder and CEO, brightspot strategy

Felix founded and leads brightspot, a strategy consultancy that reimagines places, rethinks services, and redesigns organizations on university campuses so that people are better connected to a purpose, information, and each other. Felix is accomplished strategist, facilitator, and sense-maker who has helped transform over 70 colleges and universities.


 

Adam GriffAdam Griff, Director, brightspot strategy

Adam Griff is a director at brightspot. He helps universities rethink their space, reinvent their service offerings, and redesign their organization to improve the experiences of their faculty, students, and staff, connecting people and processes to create simple and intuitive answers to complex questions. He has led projects with a wide range of higher education institutions including University of Wisconsin–Madison, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of California, Berkeley.

Millennials Gen Z prefer live training

Millennials and Gen Z still prefer live training, study finds

 Feb. 13, 2018

https://www.hrdive.com/news/millennials-and-gen-z-still-prefer-live-training-study-finds/516792/

instructor led training

Although by a narrower margin for millennials and Gen Z, the numbers in the Wainhouse study shows that the personal touch hasn’t been replaced in workplace learning.

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

rethinking digital literacy

Rethinking Digital Literacy to Serve Library Staff and Users
facilitated by Paul Signorelli

4-week eCourse
Beginning Monday, May 14, 2018

What is digital literacy? Do you know how you can foster digital literacy through formal and informal learning opportunities for your library staff and users?

Supporting digital literacy still remains an important part of library staff members’ work, but sometimes we struggle to agree on a simple, meaningful definition of the term. In this four-week eCourse, training/learning specialist Paul Signorelli begins by exploring a variety of definitions, focusing on work by a few leading proponents of the need to foster digital literacy among people of all ages and backgrounds. He explores a variety of digital-literacy resources – including case studies of how we creatively approach digital-literacy learning opportunities for library staff and users, and explores a variety of digital tools that will help to encourage further understanding of this topic.

+++++++++++++++
more on digital literacy in this IMS blog

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy

bots, big data and the future

Computational Propaganda: Bots, Targeting And The Future

February 9, 201811:37 AM ET 

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/02/09/584514805/computational-propaganda-yeah-that-s-a-thing-now

Combine the superfast calculational capacities of Big Compute with the oceans of specific personal information comprising Big Data — and the fertile ground for computational propaganda emerges. That’s how the small AI programs called bots can be unleashed into cyberspace to target and deliver misinformation exactly to the people who will be most vulnerable to it. These messages can be refined over and over again based on how well they perform (again in terms of clicks, likes and so on). Worst of all, all this can be done semiautonomously, allowing the targeted propaganda (like fake news stories or faked images) to spread like viruses through communities most vulnerable to their misinformation.

According to Bolsover and Howard, viewing computational propaganda only from a technical perspective would be a grave mistake. As they explain, seeing it just in terms of variables and algorithms “plays into the hands of those who create it, the platforms that serve it, and the firms that profit from it.”

Computational propaganda is a new thing. People just invented it. And they did so by realizing possibilities emerging from the intersection of new technologies (Big Compute, Big Data) and new behaviors those technologies allowed (social media). But the emphasis on behavior can’t be lost.

People are not machines. We do things for a whole lot of reasons including emotions of loss, anger, fear and longing. To combat computational propaganda’s potentially dangerous effects on democracy in a digital age, we will need to focus on both its howand its why.

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

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

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

1 2 3 85