I am not an expert on door counters, but I think that it would be pretty simple — no, really — to make your own system using a small, inexpensive computer like a Raspberry Pi with a wifi adapter and connect it to your current counter. It would take a little programming, but the result could be something that the community could share.
If you are interested in this, we could create a project on GitHub. I would be happy to help.
We have a old door counter which can only be checked manually. We are looking for a new door counter system which can help us to find out how many patrons come in during certain hours. I found a couple systems online and would like know if some libraries recently installed any door counter systems and what’s your experience with them. I made a short list of questions below. If you can take a few minutes to answer those questions or just drop a line or two of your comments to reply to this email, I will really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance for your time and inputs!
what’s the model and the brand of the door counter system?
Wired to your network or wireless connected to the internet?
Does the system count the number of entries/exists hourly?
Dose the system generate reports,if any, automatically?
2. Develop a strong community of support for the initiative early and keep up transparent communication with parents and community members throughout the process.
While these mobile learning pioneers have seen some of the pitfalls and can help districts new to the game avoid the same stumbles, this space is changing quickly and every community’s needs will be different.
“It’s no longer just something you implement; it’s evolving and it’s unique in each location,” Bjerede said. “If you try to be cookie cutter about it you won’t meet the needs of every kid in every classroom.”
The technology will change, students will surprise their teachers and the best advice to district leaders is to stay open to all the possibilities and allow students to take control of the tremendous learning opportunity that having a device at all times could offer them.
=====================================
My note: Kathrina Schwartz offers an opinion, which reflects the second wave (withdrawl) in the 3 steps of innovation
The Struggles and Realities of Student-Driven Learning and BYOD
A 2013 Pew study revealed that only 35 percent of teachers at the lowest income schools allow their students to look up information on their mobile devices, as compared to 52 percent of teachers at wealthier schools.
Many advocates of using mobile technologies say the often cited issues of student distraction are just excuses not to try something new.
“The way you discourage it is engage them in the activity so they don’t even think of sending a text. You’ve got to jump in and play their game or you’re going to lose them.”
Angela Crawford has heard all the arguments of BYOD evangelists, but doesn’t see how they match the reality of her classroom. “BYOD is very problematic in many schools, mine included, because we have a prominent engagement problem,” Crawford said.
Tactics to improve engagement like making work relevant to her students’ lives or letting them use their phones in class to look up information, haven’t worked for Crawford, although she’s tried.
When she first started, Crawford was enthusiastic about jumping into collaborative, project-based learning. “I thought my colleagues were monsters because of how they were teaching,” she said of a school where she previously worked and where teachers lectured all the time. She tried to teach students through projects, but found it was a disaster. To her students’ parents, her efforts to make the classroom “student-centered” looked like she wasn’t teaching. “There is a different perception of what a teacher should be in different cultures,” Crawford said. “And in the African-American community in the South the teacher is supposed to do direct instruction.”
“What works best for each student is really the heart of student-centered learning,” Crawford said. “Sometimes what the student needs best is direct instruction. They need that authoritative, in-control figure who is directing their learning and will get them where they need to go.” Many of Crawford’s students come from homes run by single mothers who rule with an iron hand. She tries to replicate that attitude and presence. “They respond to that; they like it,” Crawford said. “It’s comforting to them.”
Still, Crawford will not be experimenting with a bring-your-own-device program. “My problem with education innovation is we tend to want to take a new technology or a new idea and go forth with it as if it’s the silver bullet,” Crawford said. “What happens is that teachers who teach in my type of environment realize this would be a disaster in my classroom.”
Crawford is skeptical that kids in higher income areas aren’t misusing technology too. Her children attend school in a more affluent district and they tell her that kids are constantly messing around on their devices. They just switch screens when a teacher comes by. They get away with it because their teachers trust them to do their work.
“I think kids in middle class or upper middle class schools are equally distracted as low-income students,” said Bob Lenz, director of innovation at Envision Schools, a small charter network that’s part of the deeper learning movement. “It’s just that because of the privilege of their background the content and the skills that they need to gain in school — they’re coming with a lot of those skills already– so it’s not as urgently needed.”
game-based learning seems to be a misnomer, as the learning is not based on games, but enhanced by them. Commercial games are repurposed and modified to support curricular goals, as opposed to driving them. Of course, learning can and should also be based on games, as they are valid texts that can be studied in and of themselves, but it is important to see video games as elastic tools whose potential uses exceed their intended purpose.
My note: game-enhanced learning can be safely classified under “gamification”:
Gamification is defined as the process of applying game mechanics and game thinking to the real world to solve problems and engage users (Phetteplace & Felker, 2014, p. 19; Becker, 2013, p. 199; Kapp, 2012).
More on the issue of gaming and gamification (including coding) in Scandinavian countries:
Designing a makerspace for your library is an ambitious project that requires significant staff time and energy. The economic, educational and inspirational rewards for your community and your library, however, will make it all worthwhile. This class will make the task of starting a makerspace less daunting by taking librarians step by step through the planning process. Using readings, online resources, discussions and hands-on exercises, participants will create a plan to bring a makerspace or maker activities to their libraries. Topics covered will include tools, programs, space, funding, partnerships and community outreach. This is a unique opportunity to learn in depth about one public library’s experience creating a fully-functioning makerspace, while also exploring other models for engaging libraries in the maker movement.
Melissa S. Robinson is the Senior Branch Librarian at the Peabody Institute Library’s West Branch in Peabody, Massachusetts. Melissa has over twelve years of experience in public libraries. She has a BA in political science from Merrimack College, a graduate certificate in Women in Politics and Public Policy from the University of Massachusetts Boston and a MLIS from Southern Connecticut State University. She is the co-author of Transforming Libraries, Building Communities (Scarecrow Press, 2013).
This is an online class that is taught asynchronously, meaning that participants do the work on their own time as their schedules allow. The class does not meet together at any particular times, although the instructor may set up optional sychronous chat sessions. Instruction includes readings and assignments in one-week segments. Class participation is in an online forum environment.
Payment Info
You can register in this course through the first week of instruction. The “Register” button on the website goes to our credit card payment gateway, which may be used with personal or institutional credit cards. (Be sure to use the appropriate billing address). If your institution wants to pay using a purchase order, please contact us to make arrangements.
==============================
Making, Collaboration, and Community: fostering lifelong learning and innovation in a library makerspace
Tuesday, April 7, 2015 10AM-11:30AM PDT
Registration link: http://www.cla-net.org/?855
Travis Good will share insights garnered from having visited different makerspaces and Maker Faires across the country. He will explain why “making” is fundamentally important, what its affecting and why libraries are natural place to house makerspaces. Uyen Tran will discuss how without funding, she was able to turn a study room with two 3D printers into a simple makerspace that is funded and supported by the community. She will also provide strategies for working with community partners to provide free and innovative maker programs and creating a low cost/no cost library maker environment. Resources and programming ideas will also be provided for libraries with varying budgets and staffing. Upon completing this webinar, every attendee should be able to start implementing “maker” programs at their library.
Based on the literature regarding games, gaming, gamification, game-based learning, and serious games, several clear trends emerge:
Gaming and gamification in the sense of game-based learning is about using games and game-like tactics in the education process, for greater engagement and better learning outcomes. However, this is only the first level of such initiative. The second and higher level is about involving students in the game-building and gamification of the learning process (as per Vygotsky’s Zone of…) thus achieving student-centered and experiential learning.
When hosting games and gaming in any library, “in-person” or electronic/online games are welcome but not sufficient to fulfill their promise, especially in an academic library. Per (1), an academic library has the responsibility to involve students and guide them in learning how to engage in the building process required in true game-based learning.
Game-based learning, gaming and gamification in particular, in educational (academic library) settings must consider mobile devices and the BYOD movement in particular as intrinsic parts of the entire process. Approaching the initiative primarily by acquiring online “in-person” games, or game consoles has the same limited educational potential as only hosting games, rather than elevating the students to full guided engagement with game-based learning. If public relations and raised profile are the main goals for the academic library, such an approach is justified. If the academic library seeks to maximize the value of game-based learning, then the library must consider: a. gaming consoles, b. mobile devices as part of a BYOD initiative and c. cloud-based / social games, such as MineCraft, SimCity etc.
Design for game-based learning, gaming and gamification in educational (academic library) settings must include multiple forms of assessment and reward, e.g. badges, leaderboards and/or certificates as an intrinsic part of the entire process. Merely hosting games in the academic library cannot guarantee true game-based learning. The academic library, as the forefront of a game-based learning initiative on campus, must work with faculty on understanding and fine tuning badges and similar new forms of assessment and reward, as they effectively implement large scale game-based learning, focused on the students’ learning gains.
Recommendations for LRS
In regard to LRS, the gaming and gamification process must be organized and led by faculty, including housing and distributing the hardware, software and applications, when needed.
The attached paper and the respective conclusions summarized in four points demand educational and experiential background, which is above the limits of the LRS staff. In addition, the LRS staff has clearly admitted that the pedagogical value of gaming and gamification is beyond their interest. This recommendation is not contradicting to the fact and opportunity for LRS staff to participate in the process and contribute to the process; it just negates the possibility of staff mandating and leading the process, since it will keep the gaming and gamification process on a very rudimentary level.
The process must be further led by faculty with a terminal degree in education (Ph.D.) and experience in the educational field, since, as proved by the attached paper and 4 point conclusion, the goal is not a public-library type of hosting activities, but rather involving students in a pedagogically-sound creative process, with the respective opportunity for assessment and future collaboration with instructors across campus. This recommendation is not contradicting the fact and opportunity for LRS library faculty to participate actively in the process and contribute to the process. It just safeguards from restricting the process to the realm of “public-library” type of hosting activities, but failing to elevate them to the needs of an academic campus and connecting with instructors across campus.
This conclusions adhere to and are derived from the document recommended by the LRS dean, discussed and accepted by LRS faculty in 2013 about new trends and directions in academic libraries, namely diversification of LRS faculty; breaking from the traditional library mold of including faculty from different disciplines with different opinions and ideas.
Touro College professor teaching graduate education courses
Formative assessments are only good if you use them to alter your teaching or for students to adjust their learning. Too often, I’ve seen exit tickets used and nothing is done with the results.
Please consider other IMS blog postings on assessment
partners across campus for IT/AV: CETL
What is the most important key for creating active learning spaces (ALS).
Mathew shared his work with CETL and his understanding of the importance of faculty being brought to the table. Faculty as equal stakeholder in the process.
In a conversation with him after the presentation, he agreed that faculty must be the leading force in in generating ideas what new technology and how to implement technology in the classroom. He agreed that at the present IT/AV staff is the leading force and this is a corrupt statuquo
key partnerships:
faculty and academic affairs, students, facilities, architects, engineers, contractors, furniture vendors, IT (networking, support instructional design)
challanges: ITS mindset (conservative), Administration must be on board (money), Funding.
MnSCU is not Google friendly. 60% of the staff is not doing the same tasks as 3 years ago.
Open about challenges, sharing more with faculty. Nice to hear this, but the communication must be much larger, to the point when faculty are equal partners in a relationship, which is not far from equal decision making.
If faculty is not considered a REAL stakeholder (versus intimated body in a meeting which is controlled by IT people), the entire technology use goes down the drain. Faculty is much stronger relationship with students then IT is with students. The presentation put weight on IT staff and its connection with students’ needs. It is questionable how IT staff can make stronger connection then faculty, who are in a daily contact with students.
The issue is how to assist faculty to catch up with the technology, not how IT staff to rival faculty in their connection with students. What faculty lacks in understanding of technology cannot be replaced by IT staff increasing interaction with students, but rather assisting faculty with coming to terms with technology.
maintaining innovation: fail fast and fail forward; keep up to date with technology (blank statement); always look for new furniture; focus on space design instead of just A/V; Challenge yourself with new ideas; always learn from your mistakes; always get feedback from students and faculty (again, the PERIPHERAL role of faculty. Is feedback all expected from faculty? It faculty and IT staff must be equal partners at the decision table. not faculty being consulted at decision made by IT staff)
Google Glass mentioned, Pebble watches. supposedly to understand students habits. Big data used to profiling students is very fashionable, but is it the egg in the basket?
they have 3d printer, Inoculus. Makerspace mentioned
examples how to use 3d printing for education (LRS archive collections, MN digital library).
the presenter kept asking if there are questions. it makes me wonder how far back (pedagogically or androgogically) IT staff must be to NOT consider backchanneling. Social media is not a novelty and harvesting opinions and questions using social media should not be neglected
digital classroom breakdown session
Break down session: Digital Classroom
technical, very IT. I am not versed enough to draw impression on how it projects over real faculty work. HDMI cables.
relating to the previous presentation: I really appreciate the IT / AV staff handling all this information, which is complex and important; but during my 15 years tenure at SCSU I learned to be suspicious of when the complexity and the importance of the techy matter starts asserting itself as leading when the pedagogy in the classroom is determined.
HD flow and other hardware and software solutions
VLAN 3. lecture capture.
BYOD support in the classroom: about half of the room raised their hands.
Digital Portfolios: Facilitating Authentic Learning and Cultivating Student Ownership
presented on Tuesday, March 3, 2015.
Steve Zimmerman (charter school director), New York
digital porfolio software: open source. Google Sites – free, but too laborious for teachers
must be student owned and intuitive interface (you cannot say this about MN eFolio)
assessment rubrics
easy sharing and feedback
accessible form mobile devices (you cannot say this about MN eFolio)
easy integration with other applications (you cannot say this about MN eFolio)
Tina Holland
she is not a test person. good for her.
writing, critical thinking, creative thinking, soft skills (communication, collaboration, negotiation). team players, problme solvers, prioritize,
education is moving from traditional teaching methods, to inquiry based. self-directed learning. from summative to formative assessment
