Digital Literacy for St. Cloud State University
I am ringing the alarm.
We have now found >400 papers that all share a very similar title layout, graph layout, and (most importantly) the same Western blot layout.
This is a massive #PaperMill of (what we assume) fabricated data.— Elisabeth Bik (@MicrobiomDigest) February 21, 2020
I coauthored a guide to giving #feedback using #EdTech for the @chronicle. Check it out! #HigherEd #InstructionalDesign https://t.co/yrU6D4Ynke
— Heather Garcia (she/her) (@heathermargar) November 12, 2019
y Holly Fiock and Heather Garcia
https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20191108-Advice-Feedback
students continue to report dissatisfaction with the feedback they get on assignments and tests — calling it vague, discouraging, and/or late.
The use of technology in the classroom (both in face-to-face and online environments)
Two main types of feedback — formative and summative — work together in that process but have different purposes. Formative feedback occurs during the learning process and is used to monitor progress. Summative feedback happens at the end of a lesson or a unit and is used to evaluate the achievement of the learning outcomes.
Good feedback should be: Frequent, Specific, Balanced, Timely
guide on inclusive teaching, frequent, low-stakes assessments are an inclusive teaching practice.
Faculty interest in classroom innovation is on the rise. Professors are trying all sorts of new techniques to improve the first few minutes of class, to make their teaching more engaging, to hold better class discussions. Buzzwords like active learning, authentic assessment, technology integration, and case-based learning are more and more a part of faculty discussions.
Don’t assume technology will solve every problem.
Avoid making long videos
Video and audio feedback doesn’t have to be perfect.
There is such a thing as too much information.
Have a plan.
++++++++++
more on feedback in education in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=feedback
http://chronicle.com/article/Journal-Publishers-Rethink-a/233715/
Over the past few years, they have sought to repair, replace, or revolutionize the practice of peer review. Their methods vary. Some propose radical transparency. Some seek to decouple review from journals. Some propose crediting scientists for their review work. And some propose doing away with the system.
Much of this work was highlighted last month, when a small group of publishers held the first Peer Review Week, via online media, to promote the benefits of and debate changes in the existing system.
“All in all, it seems pretty dreadful,” says Andrew R.H. Preston, a physicist who helped start Publons, one of several services seeking to give researchers scientific credit for their reviews.
Started two years ago, Publons has prompted controversy. It allows referees to upload reviews, without journal approval, that could prove embarrassing to authors. It has raised ethical questions that researchers have only begun to ponder, including basic things, like just who owns peer review, anyway?
Mr. Stell is one of the founders of PubPeer, a website that allows anyone to anonymously comment on a published research article. The site has become known for its role in exposing several scientific frauds in the past few years.