May
2013
Summer Technology Institute 2013
http://www.stcloudstate.edu/teaching/documents/TechInstituteSchedule_TENTATIVE.pdf
Digital Literacy for St. Cloud State University
http://www.stcloudstate.edu/teaching/documents/TechInstituteSchedule_TENTATIVE.pdf
A a workshop for COLL 150 and HONS 100 instructors on May 10.
Here is the outline and resources.
Media Literacy and Skills
Media Literacy (according to Wikipedia — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy)
The term has been conceived in many different ways and across all academic departments (Mihalidis, 2008).
Media literacy is central in a broader concept of access (Sourbati, 2009).
The relationship between visual competencies and the notion of media literacy have not been fully explored or adequately specified (Griffin, 2008).
Media literacy interventions refer to education programs designed to reduce harmful effects of the media by informing the audience about one or more aspects of the media, thereby influencing media-related beliefs and attitudes, and ultimately preventing risky behaviors. Positive effects of media literacy interventions were observed across diverse agents, target age groups, settings, topics, and countries (Jeong et al, 2012).
Media literacy, information literacy and digital literacy are the three most prevailing concepts that focus on a critical approach towards media messages
The 21st century has marked an unprecedented advancement of new media. New media has become so pervasive that it has penetrated into every aspect of our society. New media literacy plays an essential role for any citizen to participate fully in the 21st century society. Researchers have documented that literacy has evolved historically from classic literacy (reading-writing-understanding) to audiovisual literacy to digital literacy or information literacy and recently to new media literacy. A review of literature on media literacy reveals that there is a lack of thorough analysis of unique characteristics of newmedia and its impacts upon the notion of new media literacy. The purpose of the study is to unpack new media literacyand propose a framework for a systematic investigation of new media literacy
Hobbs versus Potter
Media Skills
Ten basic new media skills that today’s journalist should know: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2008/03/ten_basic_new_m.php
Sources:
Mihailidis, P. (2008). Are We Speaking the Same Language? Assessing the State of Media Literacy in U.S. Higher Education. Simile, 8(4), 1-14. doi:10.3138/sim.8.4.001 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=40303609
Hobbs, R. (2011). EMPOWERING LEARNERS WITH DIGITAL AND MEDIA LITERACY. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=61819923
http://www.knightcomm.org/digital-and-media-literacy-a-plan-of-action/
Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society, 33(2), 211-221. doi:10.1177/0163443710393382 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=59569702
“Victor” CHEN, D., WU, J., & WANG, Y. (2011). Unpacking New Media Literacy. Journal Of Systemics, Cybernetics & Informatics, 9(2), 84-88. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=83259046
Sourbati, M. (2009). Media Literacy and Universal Access in Europe. Information Society, 25(4), 248-254. doi:10.1080/01972240903028680 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=43050924
GRIFFIN, M. (2008). Visual competence and media literacy: can one exist without the other?. Visual Studies,23(2), 113-129. doi:10.1080/14725860802276255 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=33944793
Jeong, S., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media Literacy Interventions: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal Of Communication, 62(3), 454-472. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01643.x http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=76349359
Yates, B. L. (2002). Media education’s present and future: A survey of teachers. Simile, 2(3), N.PAG. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10537377
Technology Literacy and Skills
Technology Literacy
definition:
consider this: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/chri1010/TLI/023958.html
Technology Literacy is the ability to responsibly use appropriate technology to communicate, solve problems, and access, manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information to improve learning in all subject areas and to acquire lifelong knowledge and skills in the 21st century.
Technology literacy is the ability of an individual, working independently and with others, to responsibly, appropriately and effectively use technology tools to access, manage, integrate, evaluate, create and communicate information.
“Technological Literacy is the ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technology” (Gallop Poll, 2004, p. 1). “Technological literacy encompasses three interdependent dimensions: (1) knowledge, (2) ways of thinking and acting; and (3) capabilities” (Technically Speaking, 2006, p.1).
http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/Senate/AgendasMinutes/200708/techlit2.pdf
Comprehension of technological innovation and the impact of technology on society — may include the ability to select and use specific innovations appropriate to one’s interests and needs.
http://www.education.com/definition/technological-literacy/
Technological Literacy Reconsidered: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v4n2/waetjen.jte-v4n2.html
ICT literacy, which is increasingly referred to as the fourth literacy, is neither as well defined nor as readily assessed as reading, writing, and arithmetic (Mirray and Perez, 2010).
The importance for the public and educators to be proficienttechnology users since technology literacy is one of the important skills in the 21st century (Eisenberg et al, 2010).
Technology literacy is hampered by well-intentioned educators who are trying to develop checklists and tests (Miners, 2007).
Technology Skills:
Sources:
http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework/350
Pérez, J., & Murray, M. (2010). Generativity: The New Frontier for Information and Communication Technology Literacy. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Information, Knowledge & Management, 5127-137. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=58079824
Eisenberg, M., Johnson, D., & Berkowitz, B. (2010). Information, Communications, and Technology (ICT) Skills Curriculum Based on the Big6 Skills Approach to Information Problem-Solving. Library Media Connection, 28(6), 24-27. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=50728714
Miners, Z., & Pascopella, A. (2007). The NEW Literacies. District Administration, 43(10), 26-34. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27024204
NAEP Will Include Technology Literacy in 2012. (Cover story). (2008). Electronic Education Report, 15(20), 1-7. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=62828392
Heller-Ross, H. (2004). Reinforcing information and technology literacy. College & Research Libraries News, 65(6), 321-325. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13541089
—————————————————————-
Do you have ideas and materials regarding Media and Technology Literacy and Skills? Pls contribute…
Thursday, April 11, 11AM-1PM, Miller Center B-37
and/or
http://media4.stcloudstate.edu/scsu
We invite the campus community to a presentation by three vendors of Classroom Response System (CRS), AKA “clickers”:
11:00-11:30AM Poll Everywhere, Mr. Alec Nuñez
11:30-12:00PM iClikers, Mr. Jeff Howard
12:00-12:30PM Top Hat Monocle Mr. Steve Popovich
12:30-1PM Turning Technologies Mr. Jordan Ferns
links to documentation from the vendors:
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/ClickerSummaryReport_NDSU.docx
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/Poll%20Everywhere.docx
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/tophat1.pdf
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/tophat2.pdf
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/turning.pdf
Top Hat Monocle docs:
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/thm/FERPA.pdf
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/thm/proposal.pdf
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/thm/THM_CaseStudy_Eng.pdf
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/thm/thm_vsCRS.pdf
iCLicker docs:
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/iclicker/iclicker.pdf
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/iclicker/iclicker2VPAT.pdf
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/iclicker/responses.doc
Questions to vendor: alec@polleverywhere.com |
The site and the service are the property of Poll Everywhere. We do not provide handheld devices. Participants use their own device be it a smart phone, cell phone, laptop, tablet, etc. |
Poll Everywhere is used daily by thousands of users. Audience sizes upwards of 500+ are not uncommon. We’ve been used for events with 30,000 simultaneous participants in the past. |
N/A |
Student participants may register by filling out a form. Or, student information can be uploaded via a CSV. |
N/A. Poll Everywhere sells service licenses the length and number of students supported would be outlined in a services agreement. |
Need more information to answer. |
8am to 8pm EST native English speaking phone support and email support. |
Company pioneered and invented the use of this technology for audience and classroom response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Everywhere. University of Notre Dame University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill University of Southern California San Diego State University Auburn University King’s College London Raffles Institution Fayetteville State University Rutgers University Pepperdine University Texas A&M University University of Illinois |
Our Privacy Policy can be found here: http://www.polleverywhere.com/privacy-policy. We take privacy very seriously. |
Name. Phone Number. Email. For the purposes of voting and identification (Graded quizzes, attendance, polls, etc.). It is never shared or sold to others. |
No. |
Import via text. Export via CSV. |
Works via standard web technology including Safari, Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer. Participant web voting fully supported on Android and IOS devices. Text message participation supported via both shortcode and longcode formats. |
Depends on negotiated service level agreement. We offer a student pays model at $14 per year or Institutional Licensing. |
Depends on negotiated service level agreement. We offer a student pays model at $14 per year or Institutional Licensing. |
Downloadable slides from the website for Windows PowerPoint and downloadable app for PowerPoint and Keynote integration on a Mac. |
17. State your level of integration with Desire2Learn (D2L)?Does the integration require a server or other additional equipment the campus must purchase?Export results from site via CSV for import into D2L. |
We follow the latest web standards best practices to make our website widely accessible by all. To make sure we live up to this, we test our website in a text-based browser called Lynx that makes sure we’re structuring our content correctly for screen readers and other assisted technologies. |
No. |
Supports image formats (.PNG, .GIF, .JPG). |
We ship new code daily. New features are released several times a year depending on when we finish them. New features are released to the website for use by all subscribers. |
Poll Everywhere is a web based classroom response system that allows students to participate from their existing devices. No expensive hardware “clickers” are required. More information can be found at http://www.polleverywhere.com/classroom-response-system. |
N/A. Battery manufacturers hate us. Thirty percent of their annual profits can be contributed to their use in clickers (we made that up). |
Our is a “cloud based” system. User data is stored there even when your computer is not on. |
We want to take clicker companies out of business. We think it’s ridiculous to charge students and institutions a premium for outdated technology when existing devices and standard web technology can be used instead for less than a tenth of the price. |
No. |
No. |
Depends on a variety of factors. Most university wireless networks are capable of supporting Poll Everywhere. Poll Everywhere can also make use of cell phone carrier infrastructure through SMS and data networks on the students phones. |
Yes. |
Yes. |
No. |
Gloria Sheldon
MSU Moorhead
Fall 2011 Student Response System Pilot
Summary Report
NDSU has been standardized on a single student response (i.e., “clicker”) system for over a decade, with the intent to provide a reliable system for students and faculty that can be effectively and efficiently supported by ITS. In April 2011, Instructional Services made the decision to explore other response options and to identify a suitable replacement product for the previously used e-Instruction Personal Response System (PRS). At the time, PRS was laden with technical problems that rendered the system ineffective and unsupportable. That system also had a steep learning curve, was difficult to navigate, and was unnecessarily time-consuming to use. In fact, many universities across the U.S. experienced similar problems with PRS and have since then adopted alternative systems.
A pilot to explore alternative response systems was initiated at NDSU in fall 2011. The pilot was aimed at further investigating two systems—Turning Technologies and iClicker—in realistic classroom environments. As part of this pilot program, each company agreed to supply required hardware and software at no cost to faculty or students. Each vendor also visited campus to demonstrate their product to faculty, students and staff.
An open invitation to participate in the pilot was extended to all NDSU faculty on a first come, first serve basis. Of those who indicated interest, 12 were included as participants in this pilot.
Pilot Faculty Participants:
Pilot Overview
The pilot included three components: 1) Vendor demonstrations, 2) in-class testing of the two systems, and 3) side-by-side faculty demonstrations of the two systems.
After exploring several systems, Instructional Services narrowed down to two viable options—Turning Technologies and iClicker. Both of these systems met initial criteria that was assembled based on faculty input and previous usage of the existing response system. These criteria included durability, reliability, ease of use, radio frequency transmission, integration with Blackboard LMS, cross-platform compatibility (Mac, PC), stand-alone software (i.e., no longer tied to PowerPoint or other programs), multiple answer formats (including multiple choice, true/false, numeric), potential to migrate to mobile/Web solutions at some point in the future, and cost to students and the university.
In the first stage of the pilot, both vendors were invited to campus to demonstrate their respective technologies. These presentations took place during spring semester 2011 and were attended by faculty, staff and students. The purpose of these presentations was to introduce both systems and provide faculty, staff, and students with an opportunity to take a more hands-on look at the systems and provide their initial feedback.
In the second stage of the pilot, faculty were invited to test the technologies in their classes during fall semester 2011. Both vendors supplied required hardware and software at no cost to faculty and students, and both provided online training to orient faculty to their respective system. Additionally, Instructional Services staff provided follow-up support and training throughout the pilot program. Both vendors were requested to ensure system integration with Blackboard. Both vendors indicated that they would provide the number of clickers necessary to test the systems equally across campus. Both clickers were allocated to courses of varying sizes, ranging from 9 to 400+ students, to test viability in various facilities with differing numbers of users. Participating faculty agreed to offer personal feedback and collect feedback from students regarding experiences with the systems at the end of the pilot.
In the final stage of the pilot, Instructional Services facilitated a side-by-side demonstration led by two faculty members. Each faculty member showcased each product on a function-by-function basis so that attendees were able to easily compare and contrast the two systems. Feedback was collected from attendees.
Results of Pilot
In stage one, we established that both systems were viable and appeared to offer similar features, functions, and were compatible with existing IT systems at NDSU. The determination was made to include both products in a larger classroom trial.
In stage two, we discovered that both systems largely functioned as intended; however, several differences between the technologies in terms of advantages and disadvantages were discovered that influenced our final recommendation. (See Appendix A for a list of these advantages, disadvantages, and potential workarounds.) We also encountered two significant issues that altered the course of the pilot. Initially, it was intended that both systems would be tested in equal number in terms of courses and students. Unfortunately, at the time of the pilot, iClicker was not able to provide more than 675 clickers, which was far fewer than anticipated. Turning Technologies was able to provide 1,395 clickers. As a result, Turning Technologies was used by a larger number of faculty and students across campus.
At the beginning of the pilot, Blackboard integration with iClicker at NDSU was not functional. The iClicker vendor provided troubleshooting assistance immediately, but the problem was not resolved until mid-November. As a result, iClicker users had to use alternative solutions for registering clickers and uploading points to Blackboard for student viewing. Turning Technologies was functional and fully integrated with Blackboard throughout the pilot.
During the span of the pilot additional minor issues were discovered with both systems. A faulty iClicker receiver slightly delayed the effective start date of clicker use in one course. The vendor responded by sending a new receiver, however it was an incorrect model. Instructional Services temporarily exchanged receivers with another member of the pilot group until a functional replacement arrived. Similarly, a Turning Technologies receiver was received with outdated firmware. Turning Technologies support staff identified the problem and assisted in updating the firmware with an update tool located on their website. A faculty participant discovered a software flaw in the iClicker software that hides the software toolbar when disconnecting a laptop from a second monitor. iClicker technical support assisted in identifying the problem and stated the problem would be addressed in a future software update. A workaround was identified that mitigated this problem for the remainder of the pilot. It is important to note that these issues were not widespread and did not widely affect all pilot users, however these issues attest to the need for timely, reliable, and effective vendor support.
Students and faculty reported positive experiences with both technologies throughout the semester. Based on feedback, users of both systems found the new technologies to be much improved over the previous PRS system, indicating that adopting either technology would be perceived as an upgrade among students and faculty. Faculty pilot testers met several times during the semester to discuss their experiences with each system; feedback was sent to each vendor for their comments, suggestions, and solutions.
During the stage three demonstrations, feedback from attendees focused on the inability for iClicker to integrate with Blackboard at that time and the substantial differences between the two systems in terms of entering numeric values (i.e., Turning Technologies has numeric buttons, while iClicker requires the use of a directional key pad to scroll through numeric characters). Feedback indicated that attendees perceived Turning Technologies’ clickers to be much more efficient for submitting numeric responses. Feedback regarding other functionalities indicated relative equality between both systems.
Recommendation
Based on the findings of this pilot, Instructional Services recommends that NDSU IT adopt Turning Technologies as the replacement for the existing PRS system. While both pilot-tested systems are viable solutions, Turning Technologies appears to meet the needs of a larger user base. Additionally, the support offered by Turning Technologies was more timely and effective throughout the pilot. With the limited resources of IT, vendor support is critical and was a major reason for exploring alternative student response technologies.
From Instructional Services’ standpoint, standardizing to one solution is imperative for two major reasons: cost efficiency for students (i.e., preventing students from having to purchase duplicate technologies) and efficient utilization of IT resources (i.e., support and training). It is important to note that this recommendation is based on the opinion of the Instructional Services staff and the majority of pilot testers, but is not based on consensus among all participating faculty and staff. It is possible that individual faculty members may elect to use other options that best meet their individual teaching needs, including (but not limited to) iClicker. As an IT organization, we continue to support technology that serves faculty, student and staff needs across various colleges, disciplines, and courses. We feel that this pilot was effective in determining the student response technology—Turning Technologies—that will best serve NDSU faculty, students and staff for the foreseeable future.
Once a final decision concerning standardization is made, contract negotiations should begin in earnest with the goal of completion by January 1, 2012, in order to accommodate those wishing to use clickers during the spring session.
Appendix A: Clicker Comparisons
Turning Technologies and iClicker
Areas where both products have comparable functionality:
Areas where the products differ:
Main Shortcomings of Turning Technology Product:
Main Shortcomings of iClicker Product:
Please consider two instruction sessions on Softchalk in April:
Registration at:
SoftChalk is provider of content authoring software for educators in K-12, colleges, universities and medical programs. With SoftChalk, educators can create professional, engaging, learning content quickly and easily, which enhances their teaching and improves the learning experience for their students.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM until 2:45 PM
Follow us on Twitter: @SCSUtechInstruc | #techworkshop
IMS Blog: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims
Ideas? Suggestions? Pls email pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu
Steps to Install SoftChalk Create and Enter Your License Key
I cute video tutorial, which can help you handle your smartboard:
http://readyteacher.com/tricks-to-calibrating-the-smart-board/
Need more help with smartboard? Pls contact
social media on mobile devices (Twitter and Facebook) to accommodate and enhance learning – and audio and video applications to enhance your presentations and projects.
– What is social media
– What are mobile devices
– Why social media on mobile devices?
– How they intersect in learning and teaching
Hands-on
– Describe your mobile device and determine its OS
what is OS and what kinds there are. Why is it important
– What social media applications are you familiar with
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/hr2012.pdf
http://vergepipemedia.com/blog/using-social-media-for-higher-education/
http://ctlt.jhsph.edu/blog/post.cfm/social-media-in-higher-education-mobile-devices
Web editing and design _dreamweaver
Basics
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/adobe-cs5-dreamweaver-html-basics.html
Why Dreamweaver:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/dreamweaver/articles/dw_wordpress_pt1.html
(and not MS Word, WordPress, Weebly)
Basic Web development
Web design
http://webdesign.about.com/od/webdesignbasics/u/webdesignbasics.htm
please contribute with your favorite and/or most helpful source to work with Dreamweaver; web development and design.
Please share with us an application, which, in your opinion can successfully substitute Dreamweaver (e.g., WordPress, Weebly, etc.) for learning and teaching purposes.
Follow us on Twitter: @scsutechinstruc #techworkshop
image processing
Photoshop CS5 basics.
Tools
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/photoshop-cs5-allinone-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html
Shortcuts..
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/basics/type/font-size/
Handouts (CS6):
http://ittraining.iu.edu/training/browse.aspx?workshop=PHOBA#self-paced
please contribute with your favorite and/or most helpful source to work with Photoshop.
Please share with us an application, which, in your opinion can successfully substitute Photoshop for learning and teaching purposes.
Follow us on Twitter: @scsutechinstruc #techworkshop