Searching for "instructional technology"

instructional design and models

Instructional Design Models and Theories

https://elearningindustry.com/instructional-design-models-and-theories

Instructional Design Models and Theories History*

  1. 1903 – Ivan Pavlov discovers Classical Conditioning Theory, while conducting research on the digestive system of dogs.
  2. 1910 – Thorndike introduces its Laws and Connectionism Theory, which are based on the Active Learning Principles.
  3. 1922 – Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Köhler introduce Gestalt Psychology.
  4. 1932 – Psychologist Frederic Bartlett proposes the Schema Theory.
  5. 1937 – B.F. Skinner introduces the Operant Conditioning Theory.
  6. 1937 – May and Doob publish Competition and Cooperation, where the Cooperative and Collaborative Learning Theory is launched, discussed and analyzed.
  7. 1950s – The Information Processing Theory emerges.
  8. 1950s – Computer-based Instruction is used in educational and training environments.
  9. 1954 – Skinner introduces the Programmed Instruction Educational Model.
  10. 1960s – The Inquiry-based Learning Model is developed, based on constructivist learning theories.
  11. 1961 – Jerome Bruner introduces the Discovery Learning Model.
  12. 1960s – Howard Barrows introduces Problem-based Learning (PBL) in the medical education program at McMaster University in Canada.
  13. 1963 – David Ausubel publishes his findings on the Subsumption Theory.
  14. 1962 – The Keller Plan revolves around the Individualized Instruction Model and is used in educational environments throughout the United States.
  15. 1971 – Allan Paivio hypothesized about the Dual Coding Theory; a theory of cognition.
  16. 1974 – Merlin Wittrock publishes the Generative Learning Theory.
  17. 1978- Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Learning Theory influences the West.
  18. 1979 – Charles Reigeluth introduces the Elaboration Theory.
  19. 1980 – Reginald Revans introduces the Action Learning Model.
  20. 1983 – David Merrill introduces the Component Display Theory and Instructional Model.
  21. 1983 – J. M. Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivation is published.
  22. 1988 – Spiro, Feltovich, and Coulson introduce their Cognitive Flexibility Theory.
  23. 1989 – Brown, Collins, Duguid and Newman introduce their Situated Cognition Theory and the Cognitive Apprenticeship Model.
  24. 1990 – The Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt University develops the Anchored InstructionEducational Model.
  25. 1990s – Multimedia and CD-ROMs are introduced in educational environments.
  26. 1991 – Lave and Wenger introduce the Communities of Practice Model and the Situated Learning Theory in “Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation”.
  27. 1991 – Hudspeth and Knirk publish the case-based Learning Model in Performance Improvement Quarterly.
  28. 1992 – Roger C. Schank releases a technical report, introducing the Goal-based Scenario Model.
  29. 1993 – The first Computer-supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILEs) prototype is used in a university setting.
  30. 1995 – Saltzberg and Polyson publish Distributed Learning on the World Wide Web, which outlines the Distributed Learning Model.
  31. 1995 – Dodge and March develop WebQuest.
  32. 1996 – Professor Joseph R. Codde publishes a report that outlines Contract Learning.
  33. 2007 – M. Lombardi publishes a report, outlining the Authentic Learning Model.

+++++++
more on ID in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=instructional+design

Accessible Media, Web and Technology Conference

Accessing Higher Ground – Accessible Media, Web and Technology Conference

Virtual Agenda November 14-16, 2018

++++++++++++++++++

Not So Fast: Implementing Accessibility Reviews in a University’s IT Software Review Process

  • Crystal Tenan, IT Accessibility Coordinator, NC State University
  • Bill Coker, Software Licensing Manager, NC State University

Summary

In this presentation, we will provide an overview of NC State’s IT Purchase Compliance process and focus on the accessibility review process. We will discuss the process of implementation, important considerations for working with the campus community and vendors, and the impact of the IT Purchase Compliance process on campus.

Abstract

Before a university purchases software, it should review the software to ensure it complies with university standards and follows Federal and State guidelines for security and accessibility. Without review, there is a higher risk that purchases put sensitive university data at risk, do not meet the needs of the campus population with disabilities, or require integration with enterprise level applications.

In a joint effort between the Office of Information Technology, the Office of General Counsel and the Purchasing Department, NC State University implemented a process to review purchases of software prior to issuing a purchase requisition.

In this presentation, we will provide an overview of NC State’s IT Purchase Compliance process and focus on the accessibility review process. We will discuss the process of implementation, important considerations for working with the campus community and vendors, and the impact of the IT Purchase Compliance process on campus.

Keypoints

  1. Participants will learn the importance of software reviews prior to purchasing.
  2. Participants will be exposed to an example format of how to structure a software review process.
  3. Participants will learn techniques for collaborating with various campus departments for software reviews.

(handouts available: ask me)

+++++++++

Math Accessibility in Word, Canvas, Conversion and More!

  • Paul Brown, Vice President, Texthelp
  • Rachel Kruzel, Assistive Technology & Accommodations Specialist, Augsburg University

Rachel Kruzel: Free and Low Cost Accessibility Tools (March 2018) https://vimeo.com/259224118

Link to Resources at Augsburg: http://www.augsburg.edu/class/groves/assistive-technology/

Session Details

  • Length of Session: 1-hr
  • Format: Lecture
  • Expertise Level: Beginner
  • Type of session: General Conference

Summary

This session will overview Texthelp’s exciting math accessibility program, EquatIO. Learn how students and professors easily insert math into Word, Canvas, and more as well as make STEM textbook conversion a much easier process. Augsburg’s Rachel Kruzel will provide an inside look into how EquatIO is making math accessible across her campus.

Abstract

EquatIO is Texthelp’s game-changing math software program that gives students and professors multiple means of producing, engaging with, and expressing math with ease. This session will overview how to easily insert math into Microsoft Word, Canvas, and other programs as well as how it can save valuable time and resources in STEM textbook conversion. The program’s core features including math-to-speech, speech-to-math, math prediction, math OCR capabilities and many other tools will be demonstrated, helping empower students in this traditionally challenging area. Attendees will not only learn the program, but also how they can gain free access to its premium features as well as assist their students in utilizing the freemium and premium tools.

Keypoints

  1. Math accessibility is here!
  2. EquatIO is a digital math solution for all students and staff.
  3. Save time and resources in STEM textbook conversion.

Disability Areas

All Areas, Cognitive/Learning, Vision

Topic Areas

Alternate Format, Assistive Technology, eBooks, Faculty Instruction/Accessible Course Design, Including Accessibility in Curriculum, Information Technology, Uncategorized, Web/Media Access

Speaker Bio(s)

Paul Brown

Paul Brown has been in education for 20 years as a teacher, technology coach, manager, and currently is a Vice President at Texthelp. Paul’s team oversees the successful implementation of the Read&Write and EquatIO product lines. Paul is a Cleveland Browns fan for life and asks for your pity ahead of time. He and his family live in Edina, MN.

Rachel Kruzel

Rachel Kruzel, ATP, is the Assistive Technology & Accommodations Specialist at Augsburg University in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is a RESNA Certified Assistive Technology Practitioner (ATP). She has over 8 years of experience working in in the CLASS Office (Disability Resources) focusing on assistive technology, educational technology, transitioning from K-12 to higher education, academic accommodations implementation, and digital, electronic, and web accessibility. Rachel has presented both regionally and nationally on a variety of topics about assistive technology, as well as accessibility, transition, assistive technology tools such as the QIAT-PS and specific software program demonstrations and trainings, as well as general consultation with students, parents, schools, and organizations. She also provides consulting and direct consumer support through assistive technology consultation and the implementation process.

++++++++++++++++

“We don’t have enough staff assigned to making IT accessible!”

Summary

How often do we hear people say this or feel this way ourselves? In this session the speaker will engage with attendees on promising practices for making the most of limited resources toward a more accessible IT environment on campus.

Abstract

How often do we hear people say this or feel this way ourselves? In this session the speaker will engage with attendees on promising practices for making the most of limited resources toward a more accessible IT environment on campus. Topics will included but not be limited to convening a high level task force of key stakeholders on campus, developing policies and guidelines, offering training on accessibility within other training opportunities, presenting at regularly occurring meetings and special interest groups, developing partnerships, supporting a group of IT accessibility liaisons to extend the reach of central services, securing funds to proactively caption videos and remediate inaccessible documents (particularly those that are high impact/use), providing online resources for specific target groups, and purchasing accessibility tools for campus-wide use. The speaker will provide examples and the audience will contribute their own ideas, experiences, and lessons learned.

Keypoints

  1. Organizations promoting accessible IT on campuses are often under staffed.
  2. Promising practices have been developed at some schools for maximizing the impact of available resources.
  3. Promising practices have been developed at some schools for maximizing the impact of available resources.

Disability Areas

All Areas

Topic Areas

Administrative/Campus Policy, Information Technology, Uncategorized

Speaker Bio(s)

Sheryl Burgstahler

Dr. Sheryl Burgstahler founded and directs the DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) Center and the ATC (Access Technology Center) as part of her role as Director of Accessible Technology Services at the University of Washington (UW). These centers promote (1) the support the success of students with disabilities in postsecondary education and careers and (2) the development of facilities, IT, services, and learning activities that are welcoming and accessible to individuals with disabilities. The ATC focuses efforts at the UW; the DO-IT Center reaches national and international audiences with the support of federal, state, corporate, foundation, and private funds. Dr. Burgstahler is an affiliate professor in the UW College of Education. She developed and taught the Accessibility and Compliance in Online Education online course offered by Rutgers University and currently teaches graduate courses in applications of universal design in higher education at City University of New York and Saint Louis University.

(handouts available: ask me)

++++++++++++++++++

Evaluating and Repairing Word and PowerPoint Files

Summary

In this hands-on workshop, learn to evaluate and repair common accessibility issues in Microsoft Word and PowerPoint.

Abstract

Both Word and PowerPoint contain a very useful accessibility checker that can identify many potential accessibility issues within a document. However, like any automated checker, there are also many issues that it cannot detect–accessibility evaluation is always a combination of evaluation tools and manual checks.

During this workshop, participants will practice evaluating and repairing many common accessibility issues of Word and PowerPoint files. We will use practice files and a printable evaluation checklist to evaluate Word docs and Power Point slides.

Keypoints

  1. Learn to use the built-in Microsoft Office Accessibility Checker
  2. Identify accessibility issues that must be analyzed manually
  3. Practice evaluating and repairing the accessibility of Word and PowerPoint files

Disability Areas

All Areas

Topic Areas

Uncategorized, Web/Media Access

Speaker Bio(s)

Jonathan Whiting

o: Jonathan Whiting is the Director of Training at WebAIM, based at Utah State University. His main passion is helping others learn to make the web more accessible to people with disabilities. Jonathan is also currently involved in the GOALS Project, a program to assist institutions of Higher Education in improving their accessibility system-wide. With a Master’s Degree in Instructional Technology and over fifteen years of experience in the field of web accessibility, Jonathan has published dozens of articles, tutorials, and other instructional resources. He has traveled extensively to train thousands of web developers and other professionals who develop or maintain web content.

(handouts available: ask me)

+++++++++++++++++++++

Powerful Presentation Skills for the Accessibility Professional

  • Christa Miller, Director of Inclusive Media Design, Virginia Tech

Summary

As subject matter experts in disabilities and accessibility, we are often called upon to provide training and professional development to others. However, it is uncommon for us to receive formal training in this area ourselves. Through discussion and small group activities, participants will explore and practice techniques for giving presentations

Abstract

As accessibility and disability professionals we are well equipped with the content knowledge needed to provide motivation, or justification on the what, why and how of accessibility. Unfortunately, we are often called upon to provide this to experts in a wide range of unrelated fields who do not intrinsically know what it means “to be accessible”. Not only is the audience challenging to reach, but the content challenges the audience on multiple levels. That being said, by using best practices for training adult learners, accessibility training can become a pleasure.

This session aims to provide techniques and practice on critical presentation skills for accessibility professionals including but not limited to: increasing audience engagement, developing powerful slides and visuals, checking your work for accessibility, and practicing before presenting.

Keypoints

  1. Presentations by accessibility professionals should exemplify best practice for accessibility
  2. Successful presentations are part performance and part technical know-how
  3. Accessibility presentations should contain more application and practice than background information

Disability Areas

All Areas

Topic Areas

Administrative/Campus Policy, Faculty Instruction/Accessible Course Design

Speaker Bio(s)

Christa Miller

Christa Miller is a proud Virginia Tech Hokie and is currently the Director of Inclusive Media Design. She first became interested in assistive technologies (AT) while earning her BS in Electrical Engineering. Her passion for accessible technology and universal design then led her to pursue her MS in Industrial Systems Engineering, concentrating in Human Factors Engineering.

Between 2006 and 2018, Christa has worked in many roles for Assistive Technologies, part of Technology-enhanced Learning and Online Strategies (TLOS). Notable among these was as the lead Braille Transcriber for Braille Services, an initiative to provide in-house production of Braille materials for the University for which she received the Excellence in Access and Inclusion Award in 2012. Her unique knowledge of the tools and technologies needed to produce Braille for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses has led her to consult with disability service providers from many other post-secondary institutions and share that knowledge at national conferences.

In her current role, Christa has enjoyed co-leading a several professional development programs aimed at providing Teaching Faculty, Instructors and Graduate Teaching Assistants with the knowledge, skills and confidence necessary to create inclusive learning environments.

(handouts available: ask me)

++++++++++++++++

IT Colleagues: from Accessibility Newbies into Accessibility Auditors

  • Kristen Dabney, Assistive Technology Instruction Specialist, Tufts University

Summary

Tufts Student Accessibility Services office created accessibility testing guidelines designed to help IT professionals complete basic accessibility audits for digital products before they are purchased.

Abstract

As Tufts implemented its accessible procurement protocol, the need for a streamlined accessibility audit process became crucial. For a university to be proactive and evaluate product accessibility before purchase, a comprehensive auditing system must be in place. These audits (completed by our SAS-trained IT team) provide a more in-depth view than that described by a vendor’s VPAT. This simple to use guide enhanced campus-wide buy-in while also making forward progress on procurement audits. Attendees will learn the process used to initiate and develop these guidelines, the arguments successfully used to get the procurement process firmly in the IT office, the training process for IT auditors and best practices for sustainability beyond the initial training workshop. This session will conclude with a walk though of an example application using the guidelines developed by Tufts Student Accessibility Services office.

Keypoints

  1. Training guide for IT professionals new to testing accessibility
  2. Quick walk through Accessibility Audit process
  3. Accessibility Review Instructions + Vendor Accessibility Report Checklist (WCAG 2.1 standards)

Disability Areas

All Areas

Topic Areas

Administrative/Campus Policy, Assistive Technology, Information Technology, Uncategorized

Speaker Bio(s)

Kristen Dabney

Kristen Dabney graduated from Grinnell College with a degree in Physics, and later from University of Connecticut with a Postsecondary Disability Services Certification since the Physics degree wasn’t saying “I’m interested in accessibility” loud enough. She currently works as an Assistive Technology Instruction Specialist at Tufts University.

(handouts available: ask me)

+++++++++++++++++++

Social media and accessibility

  • Gian Wild, Ms, AccessibilityOz

Summary

Gian Wild goes through the accessibility issues of each of the four main social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn) and discusses ways that you can make sure your social media content is accessible.

Abstract

Social media accessibility is an incredibly important tool in modern society. It is not just the young who access social media, with close to 30% of people over the age of 65 interacting on social networking sites, and 50% of people aged 50 – 64. As the percentage of recruiters who use LinkedIn is now 95%, social media is becoming an essential part of negotiating the current working environment. The main reason why social media is not accessible is that social networking sites and apps are almost continually refreshed. Facebook sometimes changes twice a day. This, coupled with a lack of a formal testing process, means that what may be accessible today may be literally gone tomorrow.

Keypoints

  1. Social media networks cannot be relied upon to be accessible
  2. A number of easy things you can do to make your social media more accessible
  3. The most improved and the most accessible social media networks of 2018

Disability Areas

All Areas

Topic Areas

Uncategorized, Web/Media Access

Speaker Bio(s)

Gian Wild

Gian works in the area of web accessibility: making sure web sites and mobile apps can be used by people with disabilities. She spent six years contributing to the international set of web accessibility guidelines used around the world and is also the CEO and Founder of AccessibilityOz. With offices in Australia and the United States, AccessibilityOz has been operating for five years. Its clients include the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games, Optus, Seek and Foxtel. A 2017 Australian of the Year award nominee, Gian splits her time between Australia the US. A regular speaker at conferences around the world, in 2015 she presented to the United Nations on the importance of web accessibility at the Conference of State Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

(handouts available: ask me)

+++++++++++++++++

I Was Wrong! Build Your Successful Accessibility Program by Learning from My Mistakes

Angela Hooker, Microsoft

Summary

Whether or not you’re new to the field, when you manage an accessibility program, you can fall into common traps–but there’s no need to! Learn from my observations and old mistakes! Get tips for running a successful program and avoiding poor management choices, poor policy, poor planning, and more that can hinder your program.

Abstract

So, you’re leading an accessibility program…how’s that working out?

If you’re a new accessibility program manager or a seasoned pro, you can still make rookie mistakes. I sure have, and that’s after over 16 years of running accessibility and user experience programs!

Has your laid back nature defeated your process-driven “evil twin”? Does your site’s written content defeat the accessibility features that your other team members created? Are you unsure why your developers still “don’t get it”? Do your leaders avoid you and conversations about accessibility, except to say that “It’s great!”? Or perhaps your web management direction–when it comes to overall content, design, and development choices–doesn’t quite support the needs of your audience, and you’re not sure where things are going wrong.

My experience from the corporate and government sectors will help you plan your program, whether it’s for a higher education, corporate, or government environment. Get on track with process, program management, setting proper expectations, and more to help you drive great user experiences and real accessibility across your organization.

Keypoints

  1. Learn the common mistakes in creating and sustaining an accessibility program and how to avoid them.
  2. Understand the importance of setting boundaries for accepting and establishing program responsibilities.
  3. Get tips to manage the overall content, design, development, and testing–which drive your program’s success.

Disability Areas

All Areas

Topic Areas

Uncategorized, Web/Media Access

Speaker Bio(s)

Angela Hooker

Angela Hooker is a Senior Accessibility Product Manager at Microsoft, where she’s built a center of expertise for accessibility, user experience, and universal design. She’s brought her web management, development, design, accessibility, and editorial and content management expertise to the government and private sector for over 20 years. Angela also advocates for role-based accessibility and believes that teaching people how to incorporate principles of accessibility in their everyday work creates a sustainable program and produces the most accessible user experiences. In addition to accessibility and universal design, she supports plain language and web standards. Angela speaks on and writes about accessibility, user experience, and plain language.

(handouts available: ask me)

+++++++++++++++++++++

Trending Tech Tools: What’s New, What’s Improved & What’s on the Horizon for Assistive Technology & Accessibility Tools

  • Rachel Kruzel, Assistive Technology & Accommodations Specialist, Augsburg University

Summary

The field of Assistive Technology and Accessibility is constantly changing. Tech giants are making more frequent updates to their products. As a result, knowing the latest updates is essential. Assistive Technology and Accessibility software updates from major tech companies such as Texthelp, Sonocent, and Microsoft, as well as free and low cost tools to support students on campus will be featured and shown.

Abstract

Both the Assistive Technology and Accessibility fields are constantly changing. Software companies are soliciting user feedback continuously and deciding which suggestions are the most important to develop and update. These updates and developments are released every six to twelve weeks. Much of this AT is central for students to access courses and curriculum in an accessible way. This presentation will focus on the most recent updates from the major assistive technology companies who are making waves in the tech field. The latest releases from companies like Texthelp, Sonocent, Microsoft, as well as other tech giants will be shown. Free and low cost assistive technology tools that are on the cutting edge or are strong supports for students will be featured in this session as well. Participants will leave with updates to tools they are using to support students on their campuses and ideas on how to use these tools on campus to implement both Assistive Technology and Accessibility.

Keypoints

  1. Assistive technology companies are releasing product updates every six to twelve weeks on average.
  2. Latest updates and features to commonly used Assistive Technology tools in higher education will be shown.
  3. Both for-purchase and free/low cost assistive technology tools can be easily implemented to support students.

Disability Areas

All Areas

Topic Areas

Assistive Technology, Uncategorized

Speaker Bio(s)

Rachel Kruzel

Rachel Kruzel, ATP, is the Assistive Technology & Accommodations Specialist at Augsburg University in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is a RESNA Certified Assistive Technology Practitioner (ATP). She has over 8 years of experience working in in the CLASS Office (Disability Resources) focusing on assistive technology, educational technology, transitioning from K-12 to higher education, academic accommodations implementation, and digital, electronic, and web accessibility. Rachel has presented both regionally and nationally on a variety of topics about assistive technology, as well as accessibility, transition, assistive technology tools such as the QIAT-PS and specific software program demonstrations and trainings, as well as general consultation with students, parents, schools, and organizations. She also provides consulting and direct consumer support through assistive technology consultation and the implementation process.

(handouts available: ask me)

++++++++++++++++

The Big Ten Academic Alliance’s Shared Approach to Procurement and Vendor Relations

  • Bill Welsh, Rutgers University
  • Charlie Collick, Director of IT Accessibility, Rutgers University
  • Nate Evans, Manager, Digital Content & Accessibility, Michigan State University

Summary

Learn how the Big Ten Academic Alliance is working together to develop policies, processes and procedures for procurement of accessible IT as well as assisting each other with managing vendor relationships that can foster better product accessibility within the Big 10. Also, each presenter will share their own institutions practices in this area.

Abstract

The Big Ten Academic Alliance are working together through a CIO sponsored group called the Information Technology Accessibility Group to leverage their coalition in regards to the accessibility of IT products purchased. The presenters will provide insight into their current collaborative efforts and share the four goals that the ITAG/Procurement Working Group is developing to improve best practices and shared basic standards for accessibility in IT procurement processes. This partnership has identified the following four goals to address IT accessibility: 1.Education & Marketing 2. Shared Solicitation Requirements for IT purchases 3. Standardize Evaluation 4. Leverage the BTAA purchasing power to work with vendors to improve accessibility and develop shared repository of IT accessibility evaluations. Participants will discover methods of alignment, and see how shared approaches to vendor relationship management can leverage economy of scale and foster vendor commitment.

Keypoints

  1. Product accessibility best practices
  2. Establishing product accessibility repositories
  3. There are resources available in this arena for others to utilize and assist in developing

Disability Areas

All Areas

Topic Areas

Administrative/Campus Policy, Information Resources, Information Technology, Uncategorized

Speaker Bio(s)

Bill Welsh

Bill is the Associate VP of Rutgers Access and Disability Resources. He has worked at Rutgers since 2013. Previously, he worked at Penn State University (1999-2013) and Drexel University (1994-1999) as Director of Disability Services

Charlie Collick

Charlie is the Director of IT Accessibility at Rutgers University. He is responsible for the accessibility of all enterprise academic and administrative technology and digital content. He also serves as Director of Software Site Licensing where he is responsible for vetting all central funded technology purchases for the University and the distribution of the licenses to staff, faculty, and students. Charlie has been an employee of Rutgers OIT since 2008. Before serving in his current role, Charlie was the Acting Director of Teaching and Learning with Technology where he lead a team of instructional designers, education technologists, and LMS support staff. His professional experience includes accessibility, instructional design, instructional technology, functional management, organizational development, strategic planning, and technology procurement. His broad technical background spans general IT, applications and systems support, web design and development, and the delivery of related services.

Nate Evans

Nate works with students, faculty, staff, and administrators across the institution to help create more inclusive environments, and shape better digital experiences. He leads Michigan State University’s digital accessibility program, and the Digital Content & Accessibility team to provide central support and resources, and to measure digital accessibility improvement.

(handouts available: ask me)

+++++++++++++++++

Not Another Lecture-Style Presentation

  • Brad Held, Accessible Technology Coordinator, University of Central Fl

Summary

Disability Professionals struggle to garner interest for their presentations or workshops. Just getting faculty or staff to register for their training doesn’t guarantee that the topics will be practiced. In this presentation, the presenter will share tips for designing a memorable educational experience that doesn’t involve a projector/clicker.

Abstract

As accessible technology experts, we often find it difficult to fill the seats at our presentations. This might be because of the topics we discussed are overwhelmingly complicated to understand, or because attendees do not believe enough students are affected by our subject matter. Regardless of the reason, the attendee doesn’t always leave with a lasting memory of how they can create access to their environment. What if we could take some of the visual elements of our technology and incorporate it with inclusive principles, then design an experience that is FUN? Based on the popular escape room game concept, you can challenge teams to be locked in a room full of barriers. Have them escape by identifying and removing the barriers within the room with more accessible approaches within the time allotted. UCF will share their design secrets for creating an escape room activity that will have your entire institution buzzing. The presentation will end with an interactive demonstration.

Keypoints

  1. How to create a different activity other than a lecture style presentation
  2. Designing a memorable experience involving accessibility.
  3. Incorporating accessible technology and inclusive principle.

Disability Areas

All Areas

Topic Areas

Other, Uncategorized

Speaker Bio(s)

Brad Held

Brad Held has been the Assistant Director – Accessible Technology for the Student Accessibility Services office at University of Central Florida (UCF) for the past four years. He earned his Bachelor’s degree in Applied Biotechnology at the University of Georgia in 2006. Prior to arriving at UCF, Brad worked in Assistive Technology for almost ten years: four years in a public school K-12 setting with Gwinnett County Public Schools in Georgia and five years in higher-education at The University of Georgia and The University of South Carolina. He is certified in Assistive Technology Applications. Aside from helping UCF students received academic supports, Brad also has a learning disability. Brad uses his personal experience to aid students in being active participants in the accommodation process.

++++++++++++++++++

Interactive 3d printed tactile campus maps

  • Holly Lawson, Assistant Professor, Portland State University
  • Shiri Azenkot, Assistant Professor, Cornell Tech
  • Lei Shi, PhD Student, Cornell Tech
  • Michael Cantino, Research Assistant, Portland State University

Summary

This presentation introduces the Markit and Talkit iOS software, which enables an individual to add text or audio annotations to a 3d printed model. Presenters share the use of this toolkit with 3d printed tactile maps.

Abstract

Recent advances in 3d printing technology have made tactile models more available to individuals who are visually impaired. With grant funding from the National Science Foundation, we have developed and field-tested iOS technology that empowers individuals to modify models by adding audio or text annotations. Using this technology, a modified model can provide voice output or display a description of a model component when it is touched by a user. In this session, we will introduce the 3d printing technology and its application with 3d printed tactile maps for use with individuals with visual impairments at Portland State University and Portland Community College.

Keypoints

  1. interactive 3d printed models can provide greater access to campus environments than traditional tactile maps
  2. interactive 3d printed maps can be customized to include wayfinding information most pertinent to the user
  3. the use of interactive 3d printed models is a cost effective solution for institutes of higher education

Disability Areas

Mobility, Vision

Topic Areas

Assistive Technology, Uncategorized

Speaker Bio(s)

Holly Lawson

Dr. Holly Lawson is an Assistant Professor at Portland State University and

the coordinator of the Visually Impaired Learner program. Since 1994, she has worked in the VIL field, beginning as a residential instructor for the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired and then the Peace Corps in Morocco. Her master’s and PhD are from the University of Arizona where she held several positions in teaching and research. She came to PSU in 2014, having previously worked as an assistant professor and the coordinator for the Virginia Consortium of Teacher Preparation in Vision Impairment at George Mason University.

Shiri Azenkot

Dr. Shiri Azenkot is an Assistant Professor at the Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute at Cornell Tech, Cornell University, and a field member in the Information Science Department. She is also an affiliate faculty member in the Computer Science Department at the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology. Currently, her research is funded by the NSF, AOL, Verizon, and Facebook. Before arriving at Cornell Tech, she was a PhD student in Computer Science & Engineering at the University of Washington, where she was advised by Richard Ladner and Jacob Wobbrock. Shiri has received the UW graduate medal (awarded to just one PhD candidate at the university each year), a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, and an AT&T Labs Graduate Fellowship.

Lei Shi

Lei Shi is a fourth-year Ph.D. student at Cornell University and an AOL fellow at Cornell Tech, where he is advised by Shiri Azenkot. His research interests lie in the fields of accessibility, human-computer interaction, and design. Specifically, he explores how to combine 3D printing technologies and innovative design to help people. Previously, Lei got his bachelor degree in Electrical Engineering from Zhejiang University, with a double degree in Industrial Design.

Michael Cantino

Michael Cantino worked in K-12 special education for 11 years before coming to Portland Community College in 2017. During that time, he specialized in supporting students with behavioral challenges, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and students with visual impairments. Michael is a Library of Congress certified braille transcriber and is skilled in the production of tactile graphics and 3D models for visually impaired learners. At PCC, Michael provides a broad range of supports for students experiencing disabilities, with a focus on assistive technology, alternative formats, and in-class supports. In addition to his work at Portland Community College, Michael is also a Research Assistant at Portland State University where he is studying the use of interactive 3D models to support visually impaired learners.

(handouts available: ask me)

+++++++++++++++++++

The Power of PDF

Instructional designers, document developers, analysts QA

Naveesha  and Sachun Gupta

++++++++++
more on UDL in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=udl

New Directions in Instructional Design

ELI Online Focus Session

New Directions in Instructional Design: Keeping Pace in a Time of Rapid Change

April 19 & 20, 2017 | Noon–3:30 p.m. (ET)

https://events.educause.edu/eli/focus-sessions/2017/new-directions-in-instructional-design-keeping-pace-in-a-time-of-rapid-change

  • What new organizational models and practices do instructional design teams need to adopt?
  • How can instructional designers best make use of the increasing amount of learning data that is available?
  • What kinds of evidence-based practices make the most sense for instructional designers?
  • What are some professional development approaches that provide structure for instructional designers to share their mutual areas of expertise, while focusing on key areas of professional growth?
  • Learning technologists and instructional designers
  • Campus teaching and learning center directors and staff
  • Faculty members and instructors
  • Senior teaching and learning administrators (e.g., deans, provost office staff)
  • Librarians
  • Presentation Sessions: Sessions designed to provide an overview of specific topic areas and successful emerging approaches related to the focus session theme immediately followed by opportunities to interact one-on-one with session presenters.
  • Project Rounds: A series of institutional cases/examples presented in a sequential, fast-paced format exploring a single project, emerging technology, or campus initiative. Project rounds will be followed by an opportunity for separate discussion with each of the presenters.

+

 

+++++++++++++
more on ID in this IMS post
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=instructional+design

educational technology

The Overselling of Education Technology

By Alfie Kohn     Mar 16, 2016

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-03-16-the-overselling-of-education-technology

my response to ed tech is “It depends.”

Some people seem to be drawn to technology for its own sake—because it’s cool.

Other people, particularly politicians, defend technology on the grounds that it will keep our students “competitive in the global economy.”

But the rationale that I find most disturbing—despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it’s rarely made explicit—is the idea that technology will increase our efficiency…at teaching the same way that children have been taught for a very long time. Perhaps it hasn’t escaped your notice that ed tech is passionately embraced by very traditional schools: Their institutional pulse quickens over whatever is cutting-edge: instruction that’s blended, flipped, digitally personalized.

We can’t answer the question “Is tech useful in schools?” until we’ve grappled with a deeper question: “What kinds of learning should be taking place in those schools?”

Tarting up a lecture with a SmartBoard, loading a textbook on an iPad, looking up facts online, rehearsing skills with an “adaptive learning system,” writing answers to the teacher’s (or workbook’s) questions and uploading them to Google Docs—these are examples of how technology may make the process a bit more efficient or less dreary but does nothing to challenge the outdated pedagogy. To the contrary: These are shiny things that distract us from rethinking our approach to learning and reassure us that we’re already being innovative.

putting grades online (thereby increasing their salience and their damaging effects), using computers to administer tests and score essays, and setting up “embedded” assessment that’s marketed as “competency-based.” (If your instinct is to ask “What sort of competency? Isn’t that just warmed-over behaviorism?”

But as I argued not long ago, we shouldn’t confuse personalized learning with personal learning. The first involves adjusting the difficulty level of prefabricated skills-based exercises based on students’ test scores, and it requires the purchase of software. The second involves working with each student to create projects of intellectual discovery that reflect his or her unique needs and interests, and it requires the presence of a caring teacher who knows each child well.a recent review found that studies of tech-based personalized instruction “show mixed results ranging from modest impacts to no impact” – despite the fact that it’s remarkably expensive.

 an article in Education Week, “a host of national and regional surveys suggest that teachers are far more likely to use tech to make their own jobs easier and to supplement traditional instructional strategies than to put students in control of their own learning.”

OECD reportednegative outcomes when students spent a lot of time using computers, while Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) concluded that online charter schools were basically a disaster.

Larry Cuban, Sherry Turkle, Gary Stager, and Will Richardson.

Emily Talmage points out, uncannily aligned with the wish list of the Digital Learning Council, a group consisting largely of conservative advocacy groups and foundations, and corporations with a financial interest in promoting ed tech.

++++++++++++
more on educational technology in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=educational+technology

Overselling of Education Technology

The Overselling of Education Technology

By Alfie Kohn     Mar 16, 2016

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-03-16-the-overselling-of-education-technology

Basically, my response to ed tech is “It depends.” And one key consideration on which it depends is the reason given for supporting it.

ads in education periodicals, booths at conferences, and advocacy organizations are selling not only specific kinds of software but the whole idea that ed tech is de rigueur for any school that doesn’t want to risk being tagged as “twentieth century.”

Other people, particularly politicians, defend technology on the grounds that it will keep our students “competitive in the global economy.” This catch-all justification has been invoked to support other dubious policies, including highly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all national curriculum standards. It’s based on two premises: that decisions about children’s learning should be driven by economic considerations, and that people in other countries should be seen primarily as rivals to be defeated.

But the rationale that I find most disturbing—despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it’s rarely made explicit—is the idea that technology will increase our efficiency…at teaching the same way that children have been taught for a very long time.

a deeper question: “What kinds of learning should be taking place in those schools?” If we favor an approach by which students actively construct meaning, an interactive process that involves a deep understanding of ideas and emerges from the interests and questions of the learners themselves, well, then we’d be open to the kinds of technology that truly support this kind of inquiry. Show me something that helps kids create, design, produce, construct—and I’m on board. Show me something that helps them make things collaboratively (rather than just on their own), and I’m even more interested—although it’s important to keep in mind that meaningful learning never requires technology, so even here we should object whenever we’re told that software (or a device with a screen) is essential.

more worrisome are the variants of ed tech that deal with grades and tests, making them even more destructive than they already are: putting grades online (thereby increasing their salience and their damaging effects), using computers to administer tests and score essays, and setting up “embedded” assessment that’s marketed as “competency-based.”

we shouldn’t confuse personalized learning with personal learning. The first involves adjusting the difficulty level of prefabricated skills-based exercises based on students’ test scores, and it requires the purchase of software. The second involves working with each student to create projects of intellectual discovery that reflect his or her unique needs and interests, and it requires the presence of a caring teacher who knows each child well.

a recent review found that studies of tech-based personalized instruction “show mixed results ranging from modest impacts to no impact” – despite the fact that it’s remarkably expensive. In fact, ed tech of various kinds has made headlines lately for reasons that can’t be welcome to its proponents. According to an article in Education Week, “a host of national and regional surveys suggest that teachers are far more likely to use tech to make their own jobs easier and to supplement traditional instructional strategies than to put students in control of their own learning.” Last fall, meanwhile, OECD reportednegative outcomes when students spent a lot of time using computers, while Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes

Ed tech is increasingly making its way even into classrooms for young children. And the federal government is pushing this stuff unreservedly: Check out the U.S. Office of Education Technology’s 2016 plan recommending greater use of “embedded” assessment, which “includes ongoing gathering and sharing of data,” plus, in a development that seems inevitable in retrospect, a tech-based program to foster a “growth mindset” in children. There’s much more in that plan, too—virtually all of it, as blogger Emily Talmage points out, uncannily aligned with the wish list of the Digital Learning Council, a group consisting largely of conservative advocacy groups and foundations, and corporations with a financial interest in promoting ed tech.

++++++++++++++++
more on technology literacy in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=technology+literacy

teaching with technology conference

Magna Teaching with Technology Conference,

October 5, 2018, St. Louis, MO

https://www.magnapubs.com/teaching-with-technology-conference/plenary-sessions.html

  • Thriving Minds: What’s Working, What’s Not, and What’s Next in Teaching with Technology

Michelle D. Miller, director, First Year Learning Initiative, professor of psychological sciences, Northern Arizona University

Educational technology has survived its early challenges—but is it thriving yet?

take a look at some outstanding examples of what evidence-based, engaging, technologically-enhanced teaching can look like in practice. We will then consider approaches, resources, and techniques that could help us push past some of the biggest challenges faced by our movement. These approaches include making students our allies in the fight against distraction and disengagement; explicitly considering cognitive principles when developing, incorporating and evaluating new technologies; and nurturing faculty and instructional designers as an important—perhaps the most important—source of truly useful, truly innovative ideas for teaching and learning with technology.

  • What Role does/should the 3T’s of Technique, Tools, and Time Play in Modern Educational Practices?

Dave Yearwood, professor, University of North Dakota

What use are discussions about tools without some understanding about the techniques needed to maximize a tool’s effectiveness in multiple settings? What teaching and learning opportunities can educators and students take advantage of when technological tools are leveraged with proven practices to gain knowledge and understanding about what is possible? Furthermore, what factors should be considered regarding the efficient use of time in task achievement and task completion of identified learning goals in face-to-face and online settings? Tools, Technique, and Time, the 3 triplets of ePedagogy cannot be looked at in isolation. An examination of the 3t’s will be conducted with the intent of revealing through examples how the triplets can be applied/used in a complimentary fashion to help faculty and students achieve their collective identified educational objectives—increased learning and understanding with targeted applications.

  • Educators as Designers and the Architecting of Learning

Remi Kalir, assistant professor of information and learning technologies, University of Colorado Denver

design and create learning environments, learning opportunities, and learning technologies.

+++++++++++
more on teaching with technology in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=teaching+with+technology

second IMS podcast on technology in education

Second IMS podcast on technology in education: Constructivism

Today’s vocast will be broadcasted live at:

Adobe Connect      |     Facebook Live   |       Twitter (#IMSvodcast) |

and will be archived at:

SCSU MediaSpaceYouTube   (subscribe for the channel for future conversations)

Constructivism.
Student-centered learning theory and practice are based on the constructivist learning theory that emphasizes the learner’s critical role in constructing meaning from new information and prior experience.

  • What is it?
  • Why do we have to know about it
  • Can we just disagree and stick to behaviorism?
  • Is it about student engagement?
  • Is it about the use of technology?
  • Resources
    • https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/06/28/constructivism-lecture-versus-project-based-learning/
      https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/12/03/translating-constructivism-into-instructional-design-potential-and-limitations/
      https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/03/28/student-centered-learning-literature-review/
      https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/11/05/online-discussion-with-plovdiv-university/
      https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/05/27/handbook-of-mobile-learning/
      Crompton, Muilenburg and Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
    • The “context”in this definition encompasses m-learnng that is formalself-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware and context neutral.
    • therefore, m-learning can occur inside or outside the classroom, participating in a formal lesson on a mobile device; it can be self-directed, as a person determines his or her own approach to satisfy a learning goal; or spontaneous learning, as a person can use the devices to look up something that has just prompted an interest (Crompton, 2013, p. 83). (Gaming article Tallinn)Constructivist Learnings in the 1980s – Following Piage’s (1929), Brunner’s (1996) and Jonassen’s (1999) educational philosophies, constructivists proffer that knowledge acquisition develops through interactions with the environment. (p. 85). The computer was no longer a conduit for the presentation of information: it was a tool for the active manipulation of that information” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12)Constructionist Learning in the 1980s – Constructionism differed from constructivism as Papert (1980) posited an additional component to constructivism: students learned best when they were actively involved in constructing social objects. The tutee position. Teaching the computer to perform tasks.Problem-Based learning in the 1990s – In the PBL, students often worked in small groups of five or six to pool knowledge and resources to solve problems. Launched the sociocultural revolution, focusing on learning in out of school contexts and the acquisition of knowledge through social interaction
    • Socio-Constructivist Learning in the 1990s. SCL believe that social and individual processes are independent in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan-Palinscar, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978).
    • 96-97). Keegan (2002) believed that e-learning was distance learning, which has been converted to e-learning through the use of technologies such as the WWW. Which electronic media and tools constituted e-learning: e.g., did it matter if the learning took place through a networked technology, or was it simply learning with an electronic device?
  • Discussion
    • Share with us practical examples of applying constructivist approach in your class
    • Would one hour workshop on turning existing class assignments into constructivist-based class assignments be of interest for you?

+++++++++++++++
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/02/12/first-ims-podcast-on-technology-in-education/

challenges ed leaders technology

The Greatest Challenge Facing School Leaders in a Digital World

By Scott McLeod     Oct 29, 2017

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-10-29-the-greatest-challenge-facing-school-leaders-in-a-digital-world

the Center for the Advanced Study of Tech­nology Leadership in Education – CASTLE

Vision

If a school’s reputation and pride are built on decades or centuries of “this is how we’ve always done things here,” resistance from staff, parents, and alumni to significant changes may be fierce. In such institutions, heads of school may have to steer carefully between deeply ingrained habits and the need to modernize the information tools with which students and faculty work

Too often, when navigating faculty or parental resistance, school leaders and technology staff make reassurances that things will not have to change much in the classroom or that slow baby steps are OK. Unfortunately, this results in a different problem, which is that schools have now invested significant money, time, and energy into digital technologies but are using them sparingly and seeing little impact. In such schools, replicative uses of technology are quite common, but transformative uses that leverage the unique affordances of technology are quite rare.

many schools fail to proceed further because they don’t have a collective vision of what more transformative uses of technology might look like, nor do they have a shared understanding of and commitment to what it will take to get to such a place. As a result, faculty instruction and the learning experiences of students change little or not at all.

These schools have taken the time to involve all stakeholders—including students—in substantive conversations about what digital tools will allow them to do differently compared with previous analog practices. Their visions promote the potential of computing devices to facilitate all of those elements we now think of as essential 21st-century capacities: confidence, curiosity, enthusiasm, passion, critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-direction. Technology doesn’t simply support traditional teaching—it transforms it for deeper thinking and gives students more agency over their own learning.

Fear

Another prevalent issue preventing technology change in schools is fear—fear of change, of the unknown, of letting go of what we know best, of being learners again. But it’s also a fear of letting kids have wide access to the Internet with the possibility of cyberbullying, access to inappropriate material, and exposure to online predators or even excessive advertising. Fears, of course, need to be surfaced and addressed.

The fear drives some schools to ban cellphones, disallow students and faculty from using Facebook, and lock down Internet filters so tightly that useful websites are inaccessible. They prohibit the use of Twitter and YouTube, and they block blogs. Some educators see these types of responses as principled stands against the shortcomings and hassles of digital technologies. Others see them as rejections of the dehumanization of the education process by soulless machines. Often, however, it’s just schools clinging to the past and elevating what is comfortable or familiar over the potential of technology to help them better deliver on their school missions.

Heads of school don’t have to be skilled users themselves to be effective technology leaders, but they do have to exercise appropriate oversight and convey the message—repeatedly—that frequent, meaningful technology use in school is both important and expected. Nostalgia aside, there is no foreseeable future in which the primacy of printed text is not superseded by electronic text and multimedia. When nearly all information is digital or online, multi-modal and multi­media, accessed by mobile devices that fit in our pockets, the question should not be whether schools prepare students for a digital learning landscape, but rather how.

Control

Many educators aren’t necessarily afraid of technology, but they are so accustomed to heavily teacher-directed classrooms that they are leery about giving up control—and can’t see the value in doing so.

Although most of us recognize that mobile computers connected to the Internet may be the most powerful learning devices yet invented—and that youth are learning in powerful ways at home with these technologies—allowing students to have greater autonomy and ownership of the learning process can still seem daunting and questionable.

The “beyond” is particularly important. When we give students some voice in and choice about what and how they learn, we honor basic human needs for autonomy, we enhance students’ interest and engagement, and we truly actualize our missions of preparing lifelong learners.

The goal of instructional transformation is to empower students, not to disempower teachers. While instructor unfamiliarity with digital technologies, inquiry- or problem-based teaching techniques, or deeper learning strategies may result in some initial discomfort, these challenges can be overcome with robust support.

Support

A few workshops here and there rarely result in large-scale changes in implementation.

teacher-driven “unconferences” or “edcamps,” at which educators propose and facilitate discussion topics, can be powerful mechanisms for fostering professional dialogue and learning. Similarly, some schools offer voluntary “Tech Tuesdays” or “appy hours” to foster digital learning among interested faculty.

In addition to existing IT support, technology integration staff, or librarians/media specialists, some schools have student technology teams that are on call for assistance when needed.

A few middle schools and high schools go even further and assign teachers their own individual student technology mentors. These student-teacher pairings last all school year and comprise the first line of support for educators’ technology questions.

As teachers, heads of school, counselors, coaches, and librarians, we all now have the ability to participate in ongoing, virtual, global communities of practice.

Whether formal or informal, the focus of technology-related professional learning should be on student learning, not on the tools or devices. Independent school educators should always ask, “Technology for the purpose of what?” when considering the inclusion of digital technologies into learning activities. Technology never should be implemented just for technology’s sake.

++++++++++++
more on digital literacy for EDAD in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy+edad

instructional design

Developments in Instructional Design

https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2015/5/eli7120-pdf.pdf

Mobile computing, cloud computing, and data-rich repositories have altered ideas about where and how learning takes place.
designers can find themselves filling a variety of roles. They might design large, complex systems or work with faculty and departments to develop courses and curricula. They might migrate traditional resources to mobile or adaptive platforms. They might help administrators understand the value and potential of new learning strategies and tools. Today’s instructional designer might work with subject-matter experts, coders, graphic designers, and others. Moreover, the work of an instructional designer increasingly continues throughout the duration of a course rather than taking place upfront
Given the expanding role and landscape of technology—as well as the growing body of knowledge about learning and about educational activities and assessments—dedicated instructional designers are increasingly common and often take a stronger role.
Competency based learning allows students to progress at their own pace and finish assignments, courses, and degree plans as time and skills permit. Data provided by analytics systems can help instructional designers predict which pedagogical approaches might be most effective and tailor learning experiences accordingly. The use of mobile learning continues to grow, enabling new kinds of learning experiences.
In some contexts, instructional designers might work more directly with students, teaching them lifelong learning skills. Students might begin coursework by choosing from a menu of options, creating their own path through content, making choices about learning options, being more hands-on, and selecting best approaches for demonstrating mastery. Educational models that feature adaptive and personalized learning will increasingly be a focus of instructional design.
Instructional designers bring a cross-disciplinary approach to their work, showing faculty how learning activities used in particular subject areas might be effective in others. In this way, instructional designers can cultivate a measure of consistency across courses and disciplines in how educational strategies and techniques are incorporated.
+++++++++++++++
more on instructional design in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=instructional+design

Information Technology and Teacher Education conference

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

1 2 3 4 18