The Conference at Notre Dame May 12-13 is intriguing as you can see from some of the session titles below. It’s time to register and book lodging.
How do we know they are learning? Digital Evidence of and for Learning
Peruse the titles below to get an idea of the dynamism of this eportfolio conference:
Balancing Summative, Formative, and Transformative ePortfolio Functions within Participatory Learning and Assessment
Competency Based Badging and ePortfolios for the Youth and Adult Workforce in Philadelphia
Show your SPuRS: Bridging Academics and Co-Curricular Professional Readiness
Buckeye Badges: A Pilot Project at Ohio State University
Developing an Integrative Toolkit for Engagement at Michigan (iTeam)
Ethics, ePortfolios, and Badges: Envisaging Privacy and Digital Persistence in Student-Level Learning Evidence
Balancing Summative, Formative, and Transformative ePortfolio Functions within Participatory Learning and Assessment
Plus 15 other sessions.
The keynote address will be given by Daniel T. Hickey on Open Digital Badges + ePortfolios: Searching for and Supporting Synergy. an internationally-known speaker and leader on the changes in higher education around digital technologies.
Here is a description of another session:
By sharing challenges, practices, and examples of maker portfolios, we highlight the importance of makerspaces and community development in the design of portfolios that capture rich learning.
These are the institutions represented in the program:
Grand Valley State University
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Indiana University
Notre Dame
University of Michigan
IUPUI
Ohio State University
Kendall College; Laureate Universities
Boston University
Western Michigan University
Drexel University
University of Charleston
The full program will be posted by late Thursday of this week. This is a must-attend event to know about the latest developments in the eportfolio field.
Registration rates (note that AAEEBL members receive a $100 discount on registration; a student rate is available as well):
Registration Fees:
Non-Member Registration
$250 before April 25
$290 after April 25
Member Registration
$150 before Aprial 25
$190 after April 25
Student Registration
$75 before Aprial 25
$115 after April 25
Includes 2 breakfasts, one lunch and one reception. One and a half days of sessions.
Register now. Book lodging. Notre Dame is just outside of Chicago in Northern Indiana. Midway Airport is probably the closest major airport to the Notre Dame campus. Conference facilities at Notre Dame are excellent — lodging and conference space are adjacent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
More on badges in this IMS blog:
Classroom-based teaching with assignments and activities which students pursue independently of each other.
1 to 29%
Web Facilitated
Web resources and technologies are used to facilitate what is essentially a face-to-face course. May use webpages and course management systems (CMS) to post syllabuses, readings and assignments.
30-79%
Blended / Hybrid
Course blends online and face-to-face delivery. Substantial parts of the content are delivered online and discussions, team projects and activities and web safaris are used for learning. The number of face-to-face sessions is decreased as the volume of online activity increases.
80+%
Online
A course where all, or almost all, of the content is delivered online with no or a very small number of face-to-face meetings.
resources on student-centered learning and the use of rubrics, multimedia, social media to personalize and engage learners
WHAT:
what is student-centered learning: Student-centered learning, also known as learner-centered education, broadly encompasses methods of teaching that shift the focus of instruction from the teacher to the student. In original usage, student-centered learning aims to develop learner autonomy and independence [1] by putting responsibility for the learning path in the hands of students.[2][3][4] Student-centered instruction focuses on skills and practices that enable lifelong learning and independent problem-solving.[5] 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student-centred_learning
+++++++++++++
Student-centered learning moves students from passive receivers of information to active participants in their own discovery process. What students learn, how they learn it and how their learning is assessed are all driven by each individual student’s needs and abilities.
At the system level, this requires implementing curriculum planning practices, pedagogy and assessment methods that support a student-centric approach. In the classroom, teachers craft instruction and apply technology in a way that best serves each student’s learning journey. Technology use is always guided by two primary criteria:
What’s appropriate for the task at hand?
How can activities be designed to develop higher-order thinking skills?
When students take responsibility for their own learning, they become explorers capable of leveraging their curiosity to solve real-world problems. To that end, the ISTE Standards guide teachers toward designing learning experiences that permit student independence and foster lifelong learning.
Technology allows for an unprecedented level of personalized learning, with valuable opportunities to monitor progress and engagement, follow student thinking, and digitally assess competencies. When schools effectively leverage both technology and pedagogy, both students and teachers become empowered to make decisions about their own learning and teaching.
True student-centered learning requires more than just an increase in technology implementation. It represents a shift in the educational culture toward a system that supports technology for standards-based learning and real-world problem solving. As a system transitions to a student-centered approach, educators can more effectively apply technology to improve learning outcomes and help students develop the skills for college and career readiness.
Rejab, M. M., Awang, I. b., Hassan, S. b., & Ahmad, M. b. (2010). Customizable Rubrics Model for Formative Evaluation of Problem-Based Learning Course. Annual International Conference On Infocomm Technologies In Competitive Strategies, 126-131. doi:10.5176/978-981-08-7240-3_I-51
CORLU, M. S. (2013). Insights into STEM Education Praxis: An Assessment Scheme for Course Syllabi.Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 2477-2485. doi:10.12738/estp.2013.4.1903
Klein, G. C., & Carney, J. M. (2014). Comprehensive Approach to the Development of Communication and Critical Thinking: Bookend Courses for Third- and Fourth-Year Chemistry Majors. Journal Of Chemical Education,91(10), 1649-1654. doi:10.1021/ed400595j
Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G. H., Stohlmann, M., Park, M. S., Kim, Y. R., & … Teo, H. J. (2015). Changes in Faculty Members’ Instructional Beliefs while Implementing Model-Eliciting Activities. Journal Of Engineering Education, 104(3), 279-302. doi:10.1002/jee.20081
student-centered learning through engagement and buy-in: engage with multimedia
Attard, A., Di lorio Emma, Geven, K., & Santa, R. (2010, October). Student-Centred Learning Toolkit for students, staff and higher education institutions. Education International. Retrieved from http://pascl.eu/wp-content/uploads/SCL_toolkit_ESU_EI.pdf
Webcast One: Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: The State of the Art and the Art of Connecting the Library with Campus Initiatives
March 29, 2016
Webcast Two: Privacy and the Online Classroom: Learning Analytics, Ethical Considerations, and Responsible Practice
April 13, 2016
Webcast Three: Moving Beyond Counts and Check Marks: Bringing the Library into Campus-Wide Learning Analytics Programs
May 11, 2016
Special Interest Group: Learning Spaces and Instructional Technology (SIG) webinars are FREE and open to anyone. Please feel free to share this with others at your institution.
This session will describe an approach to online discussions that moves beyond the threaded message boards of D2L Brightspace, yet still maintained an asynchronous online delivery. Using teams, discussions were differentiated by product to allow students to turn in an artifact that represented their shared understanding during specific online course modules. Strategies, Technology guides, rubrics, and student feedback will be shared.
Presenter: Michael Manderfeld
Senior Instructional Designer
Minnesota State University Mankato
Amy Brown, M.Ed. is a K-12 education strategist for CDW·G. January 20, 2016
According to the New Media Consortium’s Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition, schools all over the nation have begun promoting content creation over content consumption.
When evaluating equipment, administrators need to consider how it will work with the space.
More about school media places and the future for information media in academia:
the main value of project-based learning is that it teaches students to ask the right questions. Traditional assignments predefine the information that the students will use. Project-based learning puts students into the position of having to determine what information they need by asking the right questions.
The online environment proves yet another benefit in that it allows for the possibility of creating public results, such as a blog or Wikipedia article. You can also create a class wiki to host the projects. Students are far more invested in work that will be seen by many others than they are in the traditional assignment that is seen by nobody other than the teacher.
Finally, project-based learning constitutes a kind of gamification of learning, and thus has the same benefits that are driving the gamification of education movement. Games allow for short-term failure on the way to a goal without long-term cost, multiple paths to success, and just-in-time information within context of a goal (Gee, 2003; Kiang, 2014).
In November 2015, the Open University released the latest edition of its ‘Innovating Pedagogy’ report, the fourth rendition of an annual educational technology and teaching techniques forecast. While the timelines and publishing interval may remind you of the Horizon Report, the methodology for gathering the trends is different.
The NMC Horizon Team uses a modified Delphi survey approach with a panel of experts.
10 Innovative Pedagogy Trends from the 2015 Edition:
Crossover Learning: recognition of diverse, informal achievements with badges.
Learning through Argumentation: To fully understand scientific ideas and effectively participate in public debates students should practice the kinds of inquiry and communication processes that scientists use, and pursue questions without known answers, rather than reproducing facts.
Incidental Learning: A subset of informal learning, incidental learning occurs through unstructured exploration, play and discovery. Mobile technologies can support incidental learning. An example is the app and website Ispot Nature.
Context-based Learning:Mobile applications and augmented reality can enrich the learners’ context. An example is the open source mobile game platform ARIS.
Computational Thinking: The skills that programmers apply to analyze and solve problems are seen as an emerging trend . An example is the programming environment SCRATCH.
Learning by Doing Science with Remote Labs: A collection of accessible labs is ilab
Embodied learning:involving the body is essential for some forms of learning, how physical activities can influence cognitive processes.
Adaptive Teaching:intelligent tutoring systems – computer applications that analyse data from learning activities to provide learners with relevant content and sequence learning activities based on prior knowledge.
Analytics of Emotions: As techniques for tracking eye movements, emotions and engagement have matured over the past decade, the trend prognoses opportunities for emotionally adaptive learning environments.
Stealth Assessment: In computer games the player’s progress gradually changes the game world, setting increasingly difficult problems through unobtrusive, continuous assessment.
6 Themes of Pedagogical Innovation
Based upon a review of previous editions, the report tries to categorize pedagogical innovation into six overarching themes:
“What started as a small set of basic teaching methods (instruction, discovery, inquiry) has been extended to become a profusion of pedagogies and their interactions. So, to try to restore some order, we have examined the previous reports and identified six overarching themes: scale, connectivity, reflection, extension, embodiment, and personalisation.”
Delivering education at massive scale.
Connecting learners from different nations, cultures and perspectives.
Fostering reflection and contemplation.
Extending traditional teaching methods and settings.
Recognizing embodied learning (explore, create, craft, and construct).
Creating a personalized path through educational content.
Further Reading
Follow these links to blog posts and EdITLib resources to further explore selected trends:
Interested in the Innovating Pedagogy report? Read our review of the 2014 edition, and reflect which trends are closer to becoming common practice.
