Moving instruction online can enable the flexibility of teaching and learning anywhere, anytime, but the speed with which this move to online instruction is expected to happen is unprecedented and staggering.
“Online learning” will become a politicized term that can take on any number of meanings depending on the argument someone wants to advance.
Online learning carries a stigma of being lower quality than face-to-face learning, despite research showing otherwise. These hurried moves online by so many institutions at once could seal the perception of online learning as a weak option
Researchers in educational technology, specifically in the subdiscipline of online and distance learning, have carefully defined terms over the years to distinguish between the highly variable design solutions that have been developed and implemented: distance learning, distributed learning, blended learning, online learning, mobile learning, and others. Yet an understanding of the important differences has mostly not diffused beyond the insular world of educational technology and instructional design researchers and professionals.
Typical planning, preparation, and development time for a fully online university course is six to nine months before the course is delivered. Faculty are usually more comfortable teaching online by the second or third iteration of their online courses.
In contrast to experiences that are planned from the beginning and designed to be online, emergency remote teaching (ERT) is a temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis circumstances. It involves the use of fully remote teaching solutions for instruction or education that would otherwise be delivered face-to-face or as blended or hybrid courses and that will return to that format once the crisis or emergency has abated.
A full-course development project can take months when done properly. The need to “just get it online” is in direct contradiction to the time and effort normally dedicated to developing a quality course. Online courses created in this way should not be mistaken for long-term solutions but accepted as a temporary solution to an immediate problem.
IM 690 lab plan for March 3, MC 205: Oculus Go and Quest
Readings:
TAM:Technology Acceptances Model
Read Venkatesh, and Davis and sum up the importance of their model for instructional designers working with VR technologies and creating materials for users of VR technologies.
UTAUT: using the theory to learn well with VR and to design good acceptance model for endusers: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/02/20/utaut/
Watch both parts of Victoria Bolotina presentation at the Global VR conference. How is she applying UTAUT for her research?
Read Bracq et al (2019); how do they apply UTAUT for their VR nursing training?
joining a space and collaborating and communicating with other users
Assignment: Group work
Find one F2F and one online peer to form a group.
Based on the questions/directions before you started watching the videos:
– Does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered
– how does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered so far?
– what models and ideas from the videos you will see seem possible to be replicated by you?
exchange thoughts with your peers and make a plan to create similar educational product
Post your writing in the following D2L Discussions thread
Augmented Reality with Hololens Watch videos at computer station)
reading this short article, what are the questions, VR poses to IDs (e.g. SCORM for things like learner picked up the correct tool.)
why do you think creating higher order thinking learning objectives for a virtual reality training
In this conversation between Monica Price and David Cleverdon, what is the most striking idea, you gathered?
Do you think Monica is right when she says that only “see and hear” is not that potent to let us learn?
Can you elaborate on Monica’s thoughts regrading the connection between simulation and retention (e.g. Imo’s group final project can argue that their project for new employees training is superior to the current training with the ability for the employee to repeat the simulation until they think, it is retained)
Allen claims that traditional ID does not translate to VR ID. Do you agree and why?
VR is supposed to be more engaging then 2D. Why?
Which of the six steps do you find important and why?
3 Instructional Design Strategies For Virtual Reality Learning
During Lab work on Jan 28, we experienced Video 360 cardboard movies
let’s take 5-10 min and check out the following videos (select and watch at least three of them)
F2F students, please Google Cardboard
Online students, please view on your computer or mobile devices, if you don’t have googles at your house (you can purchase now goggles for $5-7 from second-hand stores such as Goodwill)
Both F2F and online students. Here directions how to easily open the movies on your mobile devices:
Copy the URL and email it to yourself.
Open the email on your phone and click on the link
If you have goggles, click on the appropriate icon lower right corner and insert the phone in the goggles
Open your D2L course on your phone (you can use the mobile app).
Go to the D2L Content Module with these directions and click on the link.
After the link opens, insert phone in the goggles to watch the video
Videos: While watching the videos, consider the following objectives:
– Does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered, e.g. PBL, CBL, Activity Theory, ADDIE Model, TIM etc. (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/01/29/im-690-id-theory-and-practice/ ). Can you connect the current state, but also the potential of this technology with the any of these frameworks and theories, e.g., how would Google Tour Creator or any of these videos fits in the Analysis – Design – Development – Implementation – Evaluation process? Or, how do you envision your Google Tour Creator project or any of these videos to fit in the Entry – Adoption – Adaptation – Infusion – Transformation process?
– how does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered so far?
– what models and ideas from the videos you will see seem possible to be replicated by you?
Find one F2F and one online peer to form a group.
Based on the questions/directions before you started watching the videos:
– Does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered. e.g. PBL, CBL, Activity Theory, ADDIE Model, TIM etc. (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/01/29/im-690-id-theory-and-practice/ ). Can you connect the current state, but also the potential of this technology with the any of these frameworks and theories, e.g., how would Google Tour Creator or any of these videos fits in the Analysis – Design – Development – Implementation – Evaluation process? Or, how do you envision your Google Tour Creator project or any of these videos to fit in the Entry – Adoption – Adaptation – Infusion – Transformation process?
– how does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered so far?
– what models and ideas from the videos you will see seem possible to be replicated by you?
exchange thoughts with your peers and make a plan to create similar educational product
Evaluate the ability of the game you watched to be incorporated in the educational process
Assignment: In 10-15 min (mind your peers, since we have only headset), do your best to evaluate one educational app (e.g., Labster) and one leisure app (games).
Use the same questions to evaluate Lenovo DayDream:
– Does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered, e.g. PBL, CBL, Activity Theory, ADDIE Model, TIM etc. (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/01/29/im-690-id-theory-and-practice/ ). Can you connect the current state, but also the potential of this technology with the any of these frameworks and theories, e.g., how would Google Tour Creator or any of these videos fits in the Analysis – Design – Development – Implementation – Evaluation process? Or, how do you envision your Google Tour Creator project or any of these videos to fit in the Entry – Adoption – Adaptation – Infusion – Transformation process?
– how does this particular technology fit in the instructional design (ID) frames and theories covered so far?
– what models and ideas from the videos you will see seem possible to be replicated by you?
it will help you visualize better the issues discussed in the article, if you haven’t visited the CAVE lab with Mark Gill yet.
What is the difference between the CAVE, Oculust Quest (the black goggles from the Jan 21 lab) and Google Cardboard? Please let me know, if you would like to discuss.
++++++++++++++++++++
During the Jan 28 lecture, you discussed numerous methods, frameworks and theories. This blog has plenty of materials regarding those topics. You scroll up to the search box in the upper right corner and search using the following key words:
Learning innovation, as conceptualized as an interdisciplinary field, attempts to claim a space at the intersection of design, technology, learning science and analytics — all in the unique context of higher education.
A professional community of practice differs from that of an interdisciplinary academic network. Professional communities of practice are connected through shared professional goals. Where best practices and shared experiences form the basis of membership in professional associations, academic networks are situated within marketplaces for ideas. Academic networks run on the generation of new ideas and scholarly exchange. These two network models are different.
“Learning Experience Design™ is a synthesis of Instructional Design, educational pedagogy, neuroscience, social sciences, design thinking, and User Experience Design.”
Many librarians have shied away from ICT literacy, concerned that they may be asked how to format a digital document or show students how to create a formula in a spreadsheet. These technical skills focus more on a specific tool than on the underlying nature of information.
librarians have begun to use an embedded model as a way to deepen their connection with instructors and offer more systematic collection development and instruction. That is, librarians focus more on their partnerships with course instructors than on a separate library entity.
If TPACK is applied to instruction within a course, theoretically several people could be contributing this knowledge to the course. A good exercise is for librarians to map their knowledge onto TPACK.
ICT reflects the learner side of a course. However, ICT literacy can be difficult to integrate because it does not constitute a core element of any academic domain. Whereas many academic disciplines deal with key resources in their field, such as vocabulary, critical thinking, and research methodologies, they tend not to address issues of information seeking or collaboration strategies, let alone technological tools for organizing and managing information.
Instructional design for online education provides an optimal opportunity for librarians to fully collaborate with instructors.
The outcomes can include identifying the level of ICT literacy needed to achieve those learning outcomes, a task that typically requires collaboration between the librarian and the program’s faculty member. Librarians can also help faculty identify appropriate resources that students need to build their knowledge and skills. As education administrators encourage faculty to use open educational resources (OERs) to save students money, librarians can facilitate locating and evaluating relevant resources. These OERs not only include digital textbooks but also learning objects such as simulations, case studies, tutorials, and videos.
Reading online text differs from reading print both physically and cognitively. For example, students scroll down rather than turn online pages. And online text often includes hyperlinks, which can lead to deeper coverage—as well as distraction or loss of continuity of thought. Also, most online text does not allow for marginalia that can help students reflect on the content. Teachers and students often do not realize that these differences can impact learning and retention. To address this issue, librarians can suggest resources to include in the course that provide guidance on reading online.
My note – why specialist like Tom Hergert and the entire IMS is crucial for the SCSU library and librarians and how neglecting the IMS role hurts the SCSU library –
Similarly, other types of media need to be evaluated, comprehended, and interpreted in light of their critical features or “grammar.” For example, camera angles can suggest a person’s status (as in looking up to someone), music can set the metaphorical tone of a movie, and color choices can be associated with specific genres (e.g., pastels for romances or children’s literature, dark hues for thrillers). Librarians can explain these media literacy concepts to students (and even faculty) or at least suggest including resources that describe these features
My note – on years-long repetition of the disconnect between SCSU ATT, SCSU library and IMS –
instructors need to make sure that students have the technical skills to produce these products. Although librarians might understand how media impacts the representation of knowledge, they aren’t necessarily technology specialists. However, instructors and librarians can collaborate with technology specialists to provide that expertise. While librarians can locate online resources—general ones such as Lynda.com or tool-specific guidance—technology specialists can quickly identify digital resources that teach technical skills (my note: in this case IMS). My note: we do not have IDs, another years-long reminder to middle and upper management. Many instructors and librarians have not had formal courses on instructional design, so collaborations can provide an authentic means to gain competency in this process.
My note: Tom and I for years have tried to make aware SCSU about this combo –
Instructors likely have high content knowledge (CK) and satisfactory technological content knowledge (TCK) and technological knowledge (TK) for personal use. But even though newer instructors acquire pedagogical knowledge (PK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) early in their careers, veteran instructors may not have received this training. The same limitations can apply to librarians, but technology has become more central in their professional lives. Librarians usually have strong one-to-one instruction skills (an aspect of PK), but until recently they were less likely to have instructional design knowledge. ICT literacy constitutes part of their CK, at least for newly minted professionals. Instructional designers are strong in TK, PK, and TPK, and the level of their CK (and TCK and TPK) will depend on their academic background. And technology specialists have the corner on TK and TCK (and hopefully TPK if they are working in educational settings), but they may not have deep knowledge about ICT literacy.
Therefore, an ideal team for ICT literacy integration consists of the instructor, the librarian, the instructional designer, and the technology specialist. Each member can contribute expertise and cross-train the teammates. Eventually, the instructor can carry the load of ICT literacy, with the benefit of specific just-in-time support from the librarian and instructional designer.
My note: I have been working for more then six years as embedded librarian in the doctoral cohort and had made aware the current library administrator (without any response) about my work, as well as providing lengthy bibliography (e.g.https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/08/24/embedded-librarian-qualifications/ and have had meeting with the current SOE administrator and the library administrator (without any response).
I also have delivered discussions to other institutions (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/04/12/embedded-librarian-and-gamification-in-libraries/) Librarians should seriously consider TPACK as a way to embed themselves into the classroom to incorporate information and ICT literacy.
They lurk behind the scenes of a rapidly growing number of courses at colleges and universities, yet instructional designers are an elusive bunch. Their field is exploding—The Chronicle of Higher Education ranked it as one of the top 10 trends in higher ed this year—as more institutions pursue online and blended-learning offerings. But there hasn’t been much consensus on the role of instructional designers across institutions.
estimates at least 13,000 professionals are in the field at higher-ed institutions. Findings provide a glimpse of who instructional designers are:
The average age of IDs is 45 years old
67 percent are female
87 percent have master’s degrees
More than half have teaching experience
IDs reported that their duties vary from day to day, but that their work generally fits into four buckets: design (e.g., creating new or redeveloping old courses); management (e.g., overseeing projects from cradle to grave); training (e.g., helping faculty use new technologies); and support (e.g., providing timely help for LMS questions from faculty).
CALL FOR CHAPTER PROPOSALS Proposal Submission Deadline: February 12, 2019 Leveraging Technology for the Improvement of School Safety and Student Wellbeing
A book edited by Dr. Stephanie Huffman, Dr. Stacey Loyless, Dr. Shelly Allbritton, and Dr. Charlotte Green (University of Central Arkansas)
Introduction
Technology permeates all aspects of today’s school systems. An Internet search on technology in schools can generate millions of website results. The vast majority of these websites (well over 8,000,000 results for one simple search) focuses on advice, activities, and uses of technology in the classroom. Clearly teaching and learning with technology dominates the literature and conversations on how technology should or could be used in classroom settings. A search on school safety and technology can produce more than 3,000,000 results with many addressing technological tools such as video cameras, entry control devices, weapon detectors, and other such hardware. However, in recent times, cyberbullying appears to dominate the Internet conversations in references to school safety. With an increase in school violence in the past two decades, school safety is a fundamental concern in our nation’s schools. Policy makers, educators, parents, and students are seeking answers in how best to protect the physical, emotional, and social well-being of all children.
Objective of the Book
The proposed edited book covers the primary topic of P-12 school safety and the use of technology and technology used for fostering an environment in which all students can be academically successful and thrive as global citizens. School safety is defined as the physical, social, and emotional well-being of children. The book will comprise empirical, conceptual and case based (practical application) research that craft an overall understanding of the issues in creating a “safe” learning environment and the role technology can and should play; where a student’s well-being is valued and protected from external and internal entities, equitable access is treasured as a means for facilitating the growth of the whole student, and policy, practices, and procedures are implemented to build a foundation to transform the culture and climate of the school into an inclusive nurturing environment.
Target Audience
The target audience is leadership and education scholars, leadership practitioners, and technology coordinators. This book will be used as a collective body of work for the improvement of K-12 schools and as a tool for improving leadership and teacher preparation programs. School safety is a major concern for educators. Technology has played a role in creating unsafe environments for children; however it also is an avenue for addressing the challenges of school safety
Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following:
Section I – Digital Leadership
Technology as a Climate and Cultural Transformation Tool
School Leadership in the Digital Age: Building a Shared Vision for all Aspects of Learning and Teaching
Ensuring Equity within a “One to One” Technology Framework
Infrastructure within Communities
Accessible WiFi for Low SES Students
Developing Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Professional Development for School Leaders
Section II – Well Being
Social Media and School Safety: Inputs and Outputs
Tip lines: Crime, Bullying, Threats
Communication and Transparency
Platform for Social Justice
Teaching Strategies to Promote Healthy Student Interactions in Cyberspace (Digital Citizenship?)
Building Capacity and Efficacy, Platform to lower incidence of Cyber-Bullying, Boosting Instructional Engagement
Literacy and Preparedness for the Influence and Consequence of Digital Media Marketing Campaigns directed toward Children, Adolescents, and Teens.
Pioneering Innovative Technology Program in Curriculum: Fostering “Belonging” beyond Athletics & Arts.
Competence in the Blended/Hybrid/Flipped Classroom
Technology to enhance learning for all
Assistive Technology
Accessibility issues
Internet access for Low SES Students in the Blended/Hybrid/Flipped Classroom
Personal Learning Design
Differentiation for Student Efficacy
Strategies for Increasing Depth of Knowledge
Design Qualities for Enhanced Engagement
Submission Procedure
Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit on or before February 12, 2019, a chapter proposal of 1,000 to 2,000 words clearly explaining the purpose, methodology, and a brief summary findings of his or her proposed chapter. Authors will be notified by March 12, 2019 about the status of their proposals and sent chapter guidelines. Full chapters are expected to be submitted by June 12, 2019, and all interested authors must consult the guidelines for manuscript submissions at http://www.igi-global.com/publish/contributor-resources/before-you-write/ prior to submission. See Edited Chapter Template. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-blind review basis. Contributors may also be requested to serve as reviewers for this project.
Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees for manuscripts submitted to this book publication, Leveraging Technology for the Improvement of School Safety and Student Wellbeing. All manuscripts are accepted based on a double-blind peer review editorial process.
Publisher
This book is scheduled to be published by IGI Global (formerly Idea Group Inc.), an international academic publisher of the “Information Science Reference” (formerly Idea Group Reference), “Medical Information Science Reference,” “Business Science Reference,” and “Engineering Science Reference” imprints. IGI Global specializes in publishing reference books, scholarly journals, and electronic databases featuring academic research on a variety of innovative topic areas including, but not limited to, education, social science, medicine and healthcare, business and management, information science and technology, engineering, public administration, library and information science, media and communication studies, and environmental science. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit http://www.igi-global.com. This publication is anticipated to be released in 2020.
Important Dates February 12, 2019: Proposal Submission Deadline March 12, 2019: Notification of Acceptance June 12, 2019: Full Chapter Submission August 10, 2019: Review Results Returned August 10, 2019: Final Acceptance Notification September 7, 2019: Final Chapter Submission
Inquiries can be forwarded to
Dr. Stephanie Huffman
University of Central Arkansas steph@uca.edu or 501-450-5430
This is a free event, thanks to our founding conference sponsor: School of Information at San José State University.
ATTENDING: We will send links for attending the conference a day or two before the event.
If you have friends or colleagues that wish to attend, this is a free event and we encourage you to share our information widely. However, please send them to the conference registration page (https://www.library20.com/instructionaldesign) rather than giving them the above link directly as it will allow us to track participation.
What is ID: ID create an environment conductive to students’ success. Thoughtful and applied design. Making faculty and instructors’ life easier. Allow faculty to do what they do best.
Lindsey: solving the instructional problem with the tools at hand.
go-to ed tech? What is the hot tech right now?
Lindsey: H5P (open source) CC – licensed, Moodle, WordPress, build online tutorials for free (Isolde), Norway, well based, VR tours. Will H5P become paid? Michael: cell phones Dana: Emory VoiceThread. From the chat: Articulate365 (pricy), Kahoot, Peardeck, Yellowdig, vidgrid, Adobe Spark, Adobe POst, padlet, Groupme instead of Canvas, Vyond, Coggle, wakelet, Phinx
Suggestions for librarians who want to build ID skills. Dana: connect with the regional community if no ID on campus. Community of practice. Using ID tools, speakers outside of campus. Lindsey: teaching myself what is most interesting to me. what technologies are important. Find a learning community. Michael: repeat the others
keep up to date on ID theory and practices: Dana – ELI, OLC (Online Learning Consortium). ELearning Heroes. Lindsay: corporate word. Michael: POD
the one-shot instruction: what is the approach (q/n from the chat); Dana – ID as a services. person dedicated following up with people requested either ID class or training, open the line of communication. summative evaluation type of activity since we are failing to evaluate how well students absorbed the information. LIndsey: one-shot for basics (e.g. freshman), build scaffold program, reserved the one shot for meeting with librarians, for hands-on. Michael: work with faculty member and rewrite a program, build assessment rather then only deliver
areas of impact: subject matter librarians, working with faculty to use of the library resources, new faculty drawn in info and if not follow up, Canvas support. Michael: librarians and ID working directly with faculty rewriting their curricula, measure it, demonstrating library need, 3000 students – correlation. document the lib contribution to student learning directly, the teaching-learning culture change. using info and data in more authentic ways. Lindsey: disconnect the way librarian teach vs faculty teach. Coordination scaffolding.
q/n from the chat. easily. how can non ID librarian can easily implement ID type:
Lindsey: new to ID? Google. Jargon and Acronyms. re framing how you see ed technology. technology as something to get the job done. no need to get fancy.
Dana: same as Lindsey. But also learning theories and learning outcomes. From ID perspective: what they will come out with by the end of the session. action words.
Michael: mindset. what students want to learn, before what I will teach. backward design – understanding by design. UDL. Grab a friend and talk through.
Tara
ed tech is not getting job done:
clickers for attendance is horrible idea.
I had a really interesting role in grad school where we lived in the land between tech support and pedagogical / design support.
From Rajesh Kumar Das to All panelists and other attendees: (02:38 PM)
Good to hear from mike about affective learning. In this case, could you please focus what kind of technique is approprite for what, i.e. Didactic instruction, a low-complexity teaching technique such as a “Quiz Bowl”, or Jigsaw Method as high-complexity strategy, or both.
From Hailey W. to All panelists and other attendees: (02:36 PM)
As an ID librarian and the campus LMS administrator I struggle with getting them to see that other side of my role. That I’m not just “tech support”. Anyone else? Een jsut not being tech support?
From Vickie Kline to All panelists and other attendees: (02:44 PM)
As a librarian not formally trained in ID, I think a good entry point for exploring is Universal Design for Learning. We also need to pay attention to creating accessibility materials…
From Heather Quintero to All panelists and other attendees: (02:45 PM)
I always start with ADDIE… I am formally trained in ID and am an IT trainer for librarians. ADDIE is a framework for every class I make for both live and online classes. Don’t disregard ADDIE.
From Allison Rand to All panelists and other attendees: (02:47 PM)
The Wiggins and McTighe is a great book!
From Roberta (Robin) Sullivan to All panelists and other attendees: (02:53 PM)
@Rachel, Peggy, Shane – an open source course is available. Check out the SUNY’s Quality by Design (QbD): Strategies for Effective Teaching and Quality Course Design at: http://suny.edu/qbd This course is available as a facilitated version at least once each semester and as a self-paced non-facilitated version in Blackboard’s CourseSites. After completing the course requirements you can earn a Digital Badge to show your accomplishment.
From Naomi Toftness to All panelists and other attendees: (02:55 PM)
Just heard the terms “deliberate innovation” vs. “desperate innovation” that totally speaks to my situation with wanting to adopt the new cool tech
++++++++++++++++++++++ SESSION LINK – https://sas.elluminate.com/d.jnlp?sid=2008350&password=LIB2019IDPart7 — If the session link doesn’t work for you, please copy and paste into your browser.
Session Title: Gamifying Instruction: Breakouts and Badges!
Your Name and Title: Dr. Brenda Boyer, Librarian & Instructor
Your Library, School, or Organization Name: Kutztown Sr. High School, Rutgers University
Your Twitter Handle (@name): @bsboyer
Name(s) of Co-Presenter(s): Brenda Boyer
Area of the World from Which You Will Present: Kutztown, PA
Language in Which You Will Present: English
Target Audience: Instructional Design Librarians
Short Session Description: Build engagement for your online library instruction using LMS features, Breakout boxes, and digital badges.
Session Strand (use the “tag”): {Session Strand (use the “tag”):}
Full Session Description: It’s time to amp up your library instruction! Gamifying instruction in research skills such as database usage, advanced searching, & more can increase engagement and drive independent learning for students of all ages. This session will describe how learning management system (LMS) features can be combined with digital microcredentials (i.e. badges) and breakout boxes to gamify instruction that can be otherwise deemed boring (for both the learners and the librarian!).
Link to Conference Site Session Proposal (full URL with http://):https://www.library20.com/forum/topics/gamifying-instruction-breakouts-and-badges
Other Websites / URLs Associated with Your Session:
Your Bio: Dr. Brenda Boyer is a librarian and instructional designer. She has developed online instruction for secondary learners in the Kutztown (PA) School District, as well as for graduate and professional development learners at Wilson College and Rutgers University. She designed and instructs the Rutgers graduate course, Learning Theory, Inquiry, & Instructional Design, and is a frequent presenter at AASL, Internet@Schools. She has published articles in School Library Journal, Teacher Librarian, and School Library Connection.
are we getting the job done, is our instruction sticking, what evidence we do have?
differentiate: who is ready to do what” at what skill level? how to bring everybody up to speed?
3 elements of Digital Gamification: leverage LMS (set game levels); how digital badges are paired 3. using digital breakout boxes to push challenge, skills
each chat as prerequisite for the next. prerequisite in LMS. Each game level is module. completed with a quizz. if they pass the quiz, opens challenge.1. what is page (facts about a tool to learn about[ what the tool does, feature, etc.) 2. suppe rshort video tour (3 min max), talk about something unique 3. quick quiz (max 5 q/s from the intro page and video). pass the quiz (100 %) to unlock the challenge level. 4. challenge level. digital breakout box embedded in the LMS. breakout using Google Forms. various locks (words, letter, numbers)
Badges why?
Badgr, Credly, iDoceo
Breakout Boxes
++++++++++++++++++++++
SESSION LINK – https://sas.elluminate.com/d.jnlp?sid=2008350&password=LIB2019IDPart8 — If the session link doesn’t work for you, please copy and paste into your browser. Session Title: Improving Library Tutorials: The Multimedia Design Principles
Your Name and Title: Darlene Aguilar, Instructional Design Librarian
Your Library, School, or Organization Name: Loyola Marymount University
Your Twitter Handle (@name): @DarleneA_ID
Name(s) of Co-Presenter(s):
Area of the World from Which You Will Present: Los Angeles, CA
Short Session Description: This session will review Mayer’s (2001) Multimedia Design Principles to help improve instructional modules, tutorials, and videos.
Session Strand (use the “tag”): {Session Strand (use the “tag”):}
Full Session Description: Librarians are creating more online modules, videos, and tutorials to teach information literacy skills. Whether designing instruction online or in-person, research-based instructional methods are required and learning Mayer’s Multimedia Design Principles is the best place to start. In this session, I will review essential prior-knowledge on image types and working memory. I will then show learners how to minimize cognitive overload using these 12 principles: multimedia, spatial contiguity, temporal contiguity, coherence, modality, redundancy, individual differences, signaling, pacing, concepts first, personalization, and human voice.
Link to Conference Site Session Proposal (full URL with http://):https://www.library20.com/forum/topics/improving-library-tutorials-the-multimedia-design-principles
Other Websites / URLs Associated with Your Session:https://linkedin.com/in/darlene-aguilar/
Your Bio: Darlene Aguilar is an Instructional Design Librarian at Loyola Marymount University where she designs and develops video tutorials and online modules on information literacy and library related topics. Additionally, she provides “best practices” training in instructional design to other LMU librarians. She graduated from the University of Southern California with a Master’s in Education for Learning Design and Technology and previously worked at LAUSD for 7 years. She strives to remove learning barriers that are embedded in instruction and curriculum and make learning accessible to all learners.
