Roberts, C. (2010). The Dissertation Journey. A Practical and Comprehensive Guide to Planing, Writing, and Defending Your Dissertation. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Chapter 9.
Purpose and scope
We talked about “themes” and the need to be careful with breaking them into “subthemes”: if you do a historical overview, avoid chunking it into “dates” and rather keep the thematic relation. Make sure that the relate to your topic; that’s why it is good to keep your title (even if preliminary), outline (even if in progress), thesis (even if under work) etc. on the first page of your Chapter 2 manuscript / draft.
- 87
Formulate your research question / thesis
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7IvS0UYhpxFNGhCZ01fWTBzSjg
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)
About the Webinar
As the cost of sensors and the connectivity necessary to support those sensors has decreased, this has given rise to a network of interconnected devices. This network is often described as the Internet of Things and it is providing a variety of information management challenges. For the library and publishing communities, the internet of things presents opportunities and challenges around data gathering, organization and processing of the tremendous amounts of data which the internet of things is generating. How will these data be incorporated into traditional publication, archiving and resource management systems? Additionally, how will the internet of things impact resource management within our community? In what ways will interconnected resources provide a better user experience for patrons and readers? This session will introduce concepts and potential implications of the internet of things on the information management community. It will also explore applications related to managing resources in a library environment that are being developed and implemented.
Education in the Internet of Things
Bryan Alexander, Consultant;
How will the Internet of Things shape education? We can explore this question by assessing current developments, looking for future trends in the first initial projects. In this talk I point to new concepts for classroom and campus spaces, examining attendant rises in data gathering and analysis. We address student life possibilities and curricular and professional niches. We conclude with notes on campus strategy, including privacy, network support, and futures-facing organizations.
What Does The Internet of Things Mean to a Museum?
Robert Weisberg, Senior Project Manager, Publications and Editorial Department; Metropolitan Museum of Art;
What does the Internet of Things mean to a museum? Museums have slowly been digitizing their collections for years, and have been replacing index cards with large (and costly, and labor-intensive) CMS’s long before that, but several factors have worked against adopting smart and scalable practices which could unleash data for the benefit of the institution, its collection, and its audiences. Challenges go beyond non-profit budgets in a very for-profit world and into the siloed behaviors learned from academia, practices borne of the uniqueness of museum collections, and the multi-faceted nature of modern museums which include not only curator, but conservators, educators, librarians, publishers, and increasing numbers of digital specialists. What have museums already done, what are they doing, and what are they preparing for, as big data becomes bigger and ever more-networked?
The Role of the Research Library in Unpacking The Internet of Things
Lauren di Monte, NCSU Libraries Fellow, Cyma Rubin Fellow, North Carolina State University
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a deceptively simple umbrella term for a range of socio-technical tools and processes that are shaping our social and economic worlds. Indeed, IoT represents a new infrastructural layer that has the power to impact decision-making processes, resources distribution plans, information access, and much more. Understanding what IoT is, how “things” get networked, as well as how IoT devices and tools are constructed and deployed, are important and emerging facets of information literacy. Research libraries are uniquely positioned to help students, researchers, and other information professionals unpack IoT and understand its place within our knowledge infrastructures and digital cultures. By developing and modeling the use of IoT devices for space and program assessment, by teaching patrons how to work with IoT hardware and software, and by developing methods and infrastructures to collect IoT devices and data, we can help our patrons unlock the potential of IoT and harness the power of networked knowledge.
Lauren Di Monte is a Libraries Fellow at NC State. In this role she develops programs that facilitate critical and creative engagements with technologies and develops projects to bring physical and traditional computing into scholarship across the disciplines. Her current research explores the histories and futures of STEM knowledge practices.
What does the internet of things mean for education?
Bryan Alexander: September 17, 2014
I’m not sure if the IoT will hit academic with the wave force of the Web in the 1990s, or become a minor tangent. What do schools have to do with Twittering refrigerators?
Here are a few possible intersections.
- Changing up the campus technology space. IT departments will face supporting more technology strata in a more complex ecosystem. Help desks and CIOs alike will have to consider supporting sensors, embedded chips, and new devices. Standards, storage, privacy, and other policy issues will ramify.
- Mutating the campus. We’ve already adjusted campus spaces by adding wireless coverage, enabling users and visitors to connect from nearly everywhere. What happens when benches are chipped, skateboards sport sensors, books carry RFID, and all sorts of new, mobile devices dot the quad? One British school offers an early example.
- New forms of teaching and learning. Some of these take preexisting forms and amplify them, like tagging animals in the wild or collecting data about urban centers. The IoT lets us gather more information more easily and perform more work upon it. Then we could also see really new ways of learning, like having students explore an environment (built or natural) by using embedded sensors, QR codes, and live datastreams from items and locations. Instructors can build treasure hunts through campuses, nature preserves, museums, or cities. Or even more creative enterprises.
- New forms of research. As with #3, but at a higher level. Researchers can gather and process data using networked swarms of devices. Plus academics studying and developing the IoT in computer science and other disciplines.
- An environmental transformation. People will increasingly come to campus with experiences of a truly interactive, data-rich world. They will expect a growing proportion of objects to be at least addressable, if not communicative. This population will become students, instructors, and support staff. They will have a different sense of the boundaries between physical and digital than we now have in 2014. Will this transformed community alter a school’s educational mission or operations?
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/coursecapture/
this article was written in 2004
Weiler, A. (2005). Information-Seeking Behavior in Generation Y Students: Motivation, Critical Thinking, and Learning Theory. Journal Of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46-53.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133304001521
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d16348908%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite
The research indicates that only a very small percentage of the general population prefer to learn by reading.
members of “Generation Y,” the generation born between 1980 and 1994.
The first model for study of information-seeking behavior in the general population was developed by James Krikelas in 1983. This model suggested that the steps of information seeking were as follows: (1) perceiving a need, (2) the search itself, (3) finding the information, and (4) using the information, which results in either satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
A second model developed by Carol C. Kuhlthau of Rutgers University stresses a process approach with an emphasis placed on cognitive skills; as they increase, so does information-seeking effectiveness. This model is one of the few that was developed based on actual research and not simply on practical experience.
Eisenberg and Berkowitz proposed a model based on the “Big Six Skills”—task definition, information seeking, implementation, use, synthesis, and evaluation. Their model is flexible and nonlinear in the same way that hypertext is, allowing for different areas and avenues to be explored out of sequence. In addition, seekers can go back to refine and reidentify the information need, implementing new strategies.
Critical thinking is a process that is widely acknowledged in the literature to be crucial to the learning process, to cognitive development, and to effective information seeking.
A more effective lesson on Internet information then, rather than specifically dwelling on “good” and “bad” Web sites, would be to present actual examples and to raise questions rather than giving answers, opening the student up to the next level intellectual development, “multiplicity.” Multiplicity is the ability to acknowledge that the world contains knowledge that the student cannot yet classify as right or wrong, knowledge which requires further study and thought (the so-called “gray area”).
Behavior Theory, first developed by B. F. Skinner in the 1950s, uses the concepts of “positive” and “negative” reinforcement to control behavior. This theory explains learning behavior very simply: Reward students who perform well, and punish students who do not.
The “Control Theory” of behavior was developed by William Glasser. The theory states that, rather than being a response to outside stimulus, behavior is determined by what a person wants or needs at any given time, and any given behavior is an attempt to address basic human needs such as love, freedom, power, etc.
The Myers–Briggs Personality Analysis test, developed by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs, was developed using Jung’s theory of personality types in an effort to determine what type any given individual is. The personality type then determines the learning style of a given individual.
Multiple Intelligences
Gardner’s theory relates more directly to intelligence rather than to personality. Gardner states that intelligence is comprised of a group of different abilities, which originate in the stages of development each person passes through as they grow to adulthood. He identifies seven such intelligences—verbal–linguistic, logical–mathematical, visual–spatial, body–kinesthetic, musical–rhythmic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal—but he suggests that there are probably more.
Information seeking is a highly subjective process, one which students approach with prior knowledge, strongly held opinions, and differing levels of cognitive development. From the research it is apparent that, aside from personal preconceptions, issues of time and levels of difficulty in obtaining information are usually of more concern to students than issues of accuracy. It is still unclear, however, whether this is because they are not concerned about the accuracy unless their instructor is, or because they are assuming most information is by nature accurate.
+++++++++++++++++
More on Generation Z and Generation Y in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=generation
this article was published in 2006
Mcdonald, R., & Thomas, C. (2006). Disconnects Between Library Culture and Millennial Generation Values. Retrieved from
http://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/disconnects-between-library-culture-and-millennial-generation-values
disconnects into three categories—technology, policy, and unexploited opportunities—and discuss ways academic libraries can create next-generation landscapes to address these gaps.
Most library information systems and discovery tools are not easy to customize and remain substantially limited by an enduring library obsession with individual privacy and copyright.
Technology Disconnects
Some of the key technology disconnects between libraries and current online communities include:
- Libraries lack tools to support the creation of new-model digital scholarship and to enable the use of Web services frameworks to support information reformatting (for example, RSS) and point-of-need Web-based assistance (multimedia tutorials or instant messaging assistance).
- Dogmatic library protection of privacy inhibits library support for file-sharing, work-sharing, and online trust-based transactions that are increasingly common in online environments, thus limiting seamless integration of Web-based services.
- Ubiquitous handheld access is more prominent thanks to digital lifestyle devices such as smart phones and iPods, yet libraries still focus on digital content for typical desktop PCs.
Policy Disconnects
Drawing a clear line between technology and policy can be difficult. For example, how many of the characteristics of current libraries (identified by the list below) are driven purely by technology or by policy? These traits include:
- Mainly electronic text-based collections with multimedia content noticeably absent
- Constructed for individual use but requires users to learn from experts how to access and use information and services
- Library presence usually “outside” the main online place for student activity (MySpace, iTunes, Facebook, the campus portal, or learning management system)
Similarly, a policy solution might be required to address the following types of disconnects between libraries and online users:
- Deliberately pushing library search tools into other environments such as learning management systems or social network infrastructure and, conversely, integrating popular external search tools into library frameworks (such as Google Scholar and MS Academic Live Search or LibX.org)
- Libraries linking and pointing to larger sets of open-access data that add context to their local collections
- Restructuring access to reflect use instead of library organizational structure
Opportunity Disconnects
What is your library doing to:
- Support the user’s affinity for self-paced, independent, trial-and-error methods of learning?
- Create opportunities to make library information look and behave like information that exists in online entertainment venues?
- Explore alternative options for delivering information literacy skills to users in online environments and alternate spaces?
- Apply the typical user’s desire for instant gratification to the ways that libraries could be using technology for streamlined services?
- Redefine administrative, security, and policy restrictions to permit online users an online library experience that rivals that of a library site visit?
- Preserve born-digital information?
The promise of seamlessness that stems from ubiquitous computing access and instantly available networked information is, unfortunately, stifled significantly within the libraries of today.
++++++++++
more on millennials in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=millennial
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXHhNPGqyq0N6rnmfpUe24PBV1lSAYQzZNVTMIQq9XCxajtA/viewform
short link: http://bit.ly/edadeval
Instructional Design Librarians #libraries #edtech #highered
http://www.scoop.it/t/blended-librarianship/p/4070053667/2016/10/04/blended-librarians-conversations-instr-design-librarians-libraries-edtech-highered
Thursday, October 13 at 3:00 pm EST with guest Joelle Pitts from Kansas State University Libraries.
++++++++++++++++++++++
more on instructional design in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=instructional+design
SITE 2017 CALL FOR PAPERS
Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education site.aace.org
March 5 – 9, 2017 Austin, Texas, USA
Proposals Due: October 21, 2016
SITE 2017 is the 28th annual conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. This society represents individual teacher educators and affiliated organizations of teacher educators in all disciplines, who are interested in the creation and dissemination of knowledge about the use of information technology in teacher education and faculty/staff development.
SITE is unique as the only organization which has as its sole focus the integration of instructional technologies into teacher education programs. SITE promotes the development and dissemination of theoretical knowledge, conceptual research, and professional practice knowledge through conferences, books, projects, and the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education (JTATE).
You are invited to attend and participate in this annual international forum which offer numerous opportunities to share your ideas, explore the research, development, and applications, and to network with the leaders in this important field of teacher education and technology.
There are over 800 presentations in 25 major topic areas! http://site.aace.org/sigs/
The Conference Review Policy requires that each proposal will be peer- reviewed by three reviewers for inclusion in the conference program, and conference proceedings.
Enquiries: conf@aace.org
Hosted By: AACE.org – The Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
Sponsored by: LearnTechLib.org – The Learning and Technology Library
Boulder Faculty Teaching with Technology Report
Sarah Wise, Education Researcher , Megan Meyer, Research Assistant, March 8,2016
http://www.colorado.edu/assett/sites/default/files/attached-files/final-fac-survey-full-report.pdf
Faculty perceive undergraduates to be less proficient with digital literacy skills. One-third think
their students do not find or organize digital information very well. The majority (52%) think
they lack skill in validating digital information.
My note: for the SCSU librarians, digital literacy is fancy word for information literacy. Digital literacy, as used in this report is much greater area, which encompasses much broader set of skills
Faculty do not prefer to teach online (57%) or in a hybrid format (where some sessions occur
online, 32%). One-third of faculty reported no experience with these least popular course types
my note: pay attention to the questions asked; questions I am asking Mike Penrod to let me work with faculty for years. Questions, which are snubbed by CETL and a dominance of D2L and MnSCU mandated tools is established.
Table 5. Do you use these in-class technologies for teaching undergraduates? Which are the Top 3 in-class technologies you would like to learn or use more? (n = 442)
|
Top 3 |
use in most of my classes |
have used in some classes |
tried, but do not use |
N/A: no experience |
| in-class activities, problems (via worksheets, tablets, laptops, simulations, beSocratic, etc.) |
52% |
33% |
30% |
6% |
30% |
| in-class question, discussion tools (e.g. Twitter, TodaysMeet, aka “backchannel communication”) |
47% |
8% |
13% |
11% |
68% |
| using online resources to find high quality curricular materials |
37% |
48% |
31% |
3% |
18% |
| iClickers |
24% |
23% |
16% |
9% |
52% |
| other presentation tool (Prezi, Google presentation, Slide Carnival, etc.) |
23% |
14% |
21% |
15% |
51% |
| whiteboard / blackboard |
20% |
58% |
23% |
6% |
14% |
| Powerpoint or Keynote |
20% |
74% |
16% |
4% |
5% |
| document camera / overhead projector |
15% |
28% |
20% |
14% |
38%
|
Table 6. Do you have undergraduates use these assignment technology tools? Which are your Top 3 assignment technology tools to learn about or use more? (n = 432)
|
Top 3 |
use in most of my classes |
have used in some classes |
tried, but do not use |
N/A: no experience using |
| collaborative reading and discussion tools (e.g. VoiceThread, NB, NotaBene, Highlighter, beSocratic) |
43% |
3% |
10% |
10% |
77% |
| collaborative project, writing, editing tools (wikis, PBWorks, Weebly, Google Drive, Dropbox, Zotero) |
38% |
16% |
29% |
12% |
43% |
| online practice problems / quizzes with instant feedback |
36% |
22% |
22% |
8% |
47% |
| online discussions (D2L, Today’s Meet, etc) |
31% |
33% |
21% |
15% |
30% |
| individual written assignment, presentation and project tools (blogs, assignment submission, Powerpoint, Prezi, Adobe Creative Suite, etc.) |
31% |
43% |
28% |
7% |
22% |
| research tools (Chinook, pubMed, Google Scholar, Mendeley, Zotero, Evernote) |
30% |
33% |
32% |
8% |
27% |
| online practice (problems, quizzes, simulations, games, CAPA, Pearson Mastering, etc.) |
27% |
20% |
21% |
7% |
52% |
| data analysis tools (SPSS, R, Latex, Excel, NVivo, MATLAB, etc.) |
24% |
9% |
23% |
6% |
62% |
| readings (online textbooks, articles, e-books) |
21% |
68% |
23% |
1% |
8% |
Table 7. Do you use any of these online tools in your teaching? Which are the Top 3 online tools you would like to learn about or use more? (n = 437)
|
Top 3 |
use in most of my classes |
have used in some classes |
tried, but do not use |
N/A: no experience using |
| videos/animations produced for my course (online lectures, Lecture Capture, Camtasia, Vimeo) |
38% |
14% |
21% |
11% |
54% |
| chat-based office hours or meetings (D2L chat, Google Hangouts, texting, tutoring portals, etc.) |
36% |
4% |
9% |
10% |
76% |
| simulations, PhET, educational games |
27% |
7% |
17% |
6% |
70% |
| videoconferencing-based office hours or meetings (Zoom, Skype, Continuing Education’s Composition hub, etc.) |
26% |
4% |
13% |
11% |
72% |
| alternative to D2L (moodle, Google Site, wordpress course website) |
23% |
11% |
10% |
13% |
66% |
| D2L course platform |
23% |
81% |
7% |
4% |
8% |
| online tutorials and trainings (OIT tutorials, Lynda.com videos) |
21% |
4% |
16% |
13% |
68% |
| D2L as a portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.) |
21% |
28% |
18% |
11% |
42% |
| videos/animations produced elsewhere |
19% |
40% |
36% |
2% |
22% |
In both large and small classes, the most common responses faculty make to digital distraction are to discuss why it is a problem and to limit or ban phones in class.
my note: which completely defies the BYOD and turns into empty talk / lip service.
Quite a number of other faculty (n = 18) reported putting the onus on themselves to plan engaging and busy class sessions to preclude distraction, for example:
“If my students are more interested in their laptops than my course material, I need to make my curriculum more interesting.”
I have not found this to be a problem. When the teaching and learning are both engaged/engaging, device problems tend to disappear.”
The most common complaint related to students and technology was their lack of common technological skills, including D2L and Google, and needing to take time to teach these skills in class (n = 14). Two commented that digital skills in today’s students were lower than in their students 10 years ago.
Table 9. Which of the following are the most effective types of learning opportunities about teaching, for you? Chose your Top 2-3. (n = 473)
Count Percentage
| meeting 1:1 with an expert |
296 |
63% |
| hour-long workshop |
240 |
51% |
| contact an expert on-call (phone, email, etc) |
155 |
33% |
| faculty learning community (meeting across asemester,
e.g. ASSETT’s Hybrid/Online Course Design Seminar) |
116 |
25% |
| expert hands-on support for course redesign (e.g. OIT’s Academic Design Team) |
114 |
24% |
| opportunity to apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards) |
97 |
21% |
| half-day or day-long workshop |
98 |
21% |
| other |
40 |
8% |
| multi-day retreats / institutes |
30 |
6% |
Faculty indicated that the best times for them to attend teaching professional developments across the year are before and early semester, and summer. They were split among all options for meeting across one week, but preferred afternoon sessions to mornings. Only 8% of respondents (n = 40) indicated they would not likely attend any professional development session (Table 10).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Teaching Through Technology
Table T1: Faculty beliefs about using digital technologies in teaching
|
Count |
Column N% |
| Technology is a significant barrier to teaching and learning. |
1 |
0.2% |
| Technology can have a place in teaching, but often detracts from teaching and learning. |
76 |
18.3% |
| Technology has a place in teaching, and usually enhances the teaching learning process. |
233 |
56.0% |
| Technology greatly enhances the teaching learning process. |
106 |
25.5% |
Table T2: Faculty beliefs about the impact of technology on courses
|
Count |
Column N% |
| Makes a more effective course |
302 |
72.6% |
| Makes no difference in the effectiveness of a course |
42 |
10.1% |
| Makes a less effective course |
7 |
1.7% |
| Has an unknown impact |
65 |
15.6% |
Table T3: Faculty use of common technologies (most frequently selected categories shaded)
|
Once a month or less |
A few hours a month |
A few hours a week |
An hour a day |
Several hours a day |
| Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
| Computer |
19 |
4.8% |
15 |
3.8% |
46 |
11.5% |
37 |
9.3% |
282 |
70.7% |
| Smart Phone |
220 |
60.6% |
42 |
11.6% |
32 |
8.8% |
45 |
12.4% |
24 |
6.6% |
| Office Software |
31 |
7.8% |
19 |
4.8% |
41 |
10.3% |
82 |
20.6% |
226 |
56.6% |
| Email |
1 |
0.2% |
19 |
4.6% |
53 |
12.8% |
98 |
23.7% |
243 |
58.7% |
| Social Networking |
243 |
68.8% |
40 |
11.3% |
40 |
11.3% |
23 |
6.5% |
7 |
2.0% |
| Video/Sound Media |
105 |
27.6% |
96 |
25.2% |
95 |
24.9% |
53 |
13.9% |
32 |
8.4% |
Table T9: One sample t-test for influence of technology on approaches to grading and assessment
|
Test Value = 50 |
| t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
| Lower |
Upper |
| In class tests and quizzes |
-4.369 |
78 |
.000 |
-9.74684 |
-14.1886 |
-5.3051 |
| Online tests and quizzes |
5.624 |
69 |
.000 |
14.77143 |
9.5313 |
20.0115 |
| Ungraded assessments |
1.176 |
66 |
.244 |
2.17910 |
-1.5208 |
5.8790 |
| Formative assessment |
5.534 |
70 |
.000 |
9.56338 |
6.1169 |
13.0099 |
| Short essays, papers, lab reports, etc. |
2.876 |
70 |
.005 |
5.45070 |
1.6702 |
9.2312 |
| Extended essays and major projects or performances |
1.931 |
69 |
.058 |
3.67143 |
-.1219 |
7.4648 |
| Collaborative learning projects |
.000 |
73 |
1.000 |
.00000 |
-4.9819 |
4.9819 |
Table T10: Rate the degree to which your role as a faculty member and teacher has changed as a result of increased as a result of increased use of technology
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Somewhat Disagree |
Somewhat Agree |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
| shifting from the role of content expert to one of learning facilitator |
12 |
9.2% |
22 |
16.9% |
14 |
10.8% |
37 |
28.5% |
29 |
22.3% |
16 |
12.3% |
| your primary role is to provide content for students |
14 |
10.9% |
13 |
10.1% |
28 |
21.7% |
29 |
22.5% |
25 |
19.4% |
20 |
15.5% |
| your identification with your University is increased |
23 |
18.3% |
26 |
20.6% |
42 |
33.3% |
20 |
15.9% |
12 |
9.5% |
3 |
2.4% |
| you have less ownership of your course content |
26 |
20.2% |
39 |
30.2% |
24 |
18.6% |
21 |
16.3% |
14 |
10.9% |
5 |
3.9% |
| your role as a teacher is strengthened |
13 |
10.1% |
12 |
9.3% |
26 |
20.2% |
37 |
28.7% |
29 |
22.5% |
12 |
9.3% |
| your overall control over your course(s) is diminished |
23 |
17.7% |
44 |
33.8% |
30 |
23.1% |
20 |
15.4% |
7 |
5.4% |
6 |
4.6% |
Table T14: One sample t-test for influence of technology on faculty time spent on specific teaching activities
|
|
Test Value = 50 |
| t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
| Lower |
Upper |
| Lecturing |
-7.381 |
88 |
.000 |
-12.04494 |
-15.2879 |
-8.8020 |
| Preparing course materials |
9.246 |
96 |
.000 |
16.85567 |
13.2370 |
20.4744 |
| Identifying course materials |
8.111 |
85 |
.000 |
13.80233 |
10.4191 |
17.1856 |
| Grading / assessing |
5.221 |
87 |
.000 |
10.48864 |
6.4959 |
14.4813 |
| Course design |
12.962 |
94 |
.000 |
21.55789 |
18.2558 |
24.8600 |
| Increasing access to materials for all types of learners |
8.632 |
86 |
.000 |
16.12644 |
12.4126 |
19.8403 |
| Reading student discussion posts |
10.102 |
79 |
.000 |
21.98750 |
17.6553 |
26.3197 |
| Email to/with students |
15.809 |
93 |
.000 |
26.62766 |
23.2830 |
29.9724 |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2014
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1407/ers1407.pdf
Although the LMS is pervasive in higher education, 15% of faculty said that they
do not use the LMS at all. Survey demographics suggest these nonusers are part of
the more mature faculty ranks, with a tenure status, more than 10 years of teaching
experience, and a full-professor standing.
18
The vast majority of faculty use the LMS
to conduct or support their teaching activities, but only three in five LMS users (60%)
said it is critical to their teaching. The ways in which faculty typically use the LMS are
presented in figure 8.
19
Pushing out information such as a syllabus or other handout
is the most common use of the LMS (58%), which is a basic functionality of the
first-generation systems that emerged in the late 1990s, and it remains one of the core
features of any LMS.
20
Many institutions preload the LMS with basic course content
(58%), up about 12% since 2011, and this base gives instructors a prepopulated plat
–
form from which to build their courses.
21
Preloading basic content does not appear to
preclude faculty from making the LMS part of their daily digital habit; a small majority
of faculty (56%) reported using the LMS daily, and another 37% use it weekly.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Digital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/student-affairs-and-technology/digital-literacy-engagement-and-digital-identity-development
+++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
more on digital literacy in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy
Save