Searching for "instruction"
Most Faculty Tackle Synchronous Online Instruction Ill-Prepared
By Dian Schaffhauser 09/22/16
https://campustechnology.com/articles/2016/09/22/most-faculty-tackle-synchronous-online-instruction-ill-prepared.aspx
a new report from the Online Learning Consortium, a non-profit professional organization that aims to help educators integrate best practices into their online instruction. The OLC researchers involved in developing “What Can We Learn From Our Colleagues? A Framework for Virtual Classroom Training” solicited online responses from 733 people with “substantial” experience in teaching and “significant” experience in online.
Among the instructors who had taught using a synchronous classroom, two thirds (66 percent) had received training specifically on how to do that. A quarter (27 percent) received a month or more of training; a third (32 percent) received less than a day. A remarkable 55 percent took their training before going into a virtual classroom.
Half of the respondents were primarily self-taught; only 24 percent received formal training; and the remaining 26 percent did their learning through informal conversations with peers who teach synchronously. The training included lots of reading, video tutorials and listening to lectures — in other words, as the report’s authors noted, “sage on the stage” activities that are “antithetical to effective virtual classroom pedagogy.” Forty-one percent of people said synchronous activities “played little or no role in their virtual classroom training”; only 30 percent found that synchronous activities did play a substantial role.
What didn’t exist in training for almost four in five respondents were any of the following:
- “Shadowing” of an experienced online instructor;
- Teaching or co-teaching in a classroom being monitored by a trainer or experienced online instructor; or
- Reviewing recordings of their own performances in a virtual classroom.
Also helpful, the survey found:
- Peer coaching from colleagues;
- Reviewing recordings of the instructor’s performance; and
- Consulting with an instructional designer.
my note: another glaring proof that faculty IS needed in the process.
++++++++++++++
more on synchronous online instruction in this IMS blog
6 Hidden iMovie Features for Better Instructional Videos
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2811/2811-6135562829387804673
http://ipadeducators.ning.com/profiles/blogs/6-hidden-imovie-features-for-better-instructional-videos
1. Change the volume of a clip
2. Crop and zoom clips
3. Rotate the video
4. Add Picture-in-picture videoin-picture overlay window.
5. Fade out the sound
6. Split video to remove sections
++++++++++++++++++
more on video editing in this blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=video+editing
The deadline for proposals has been extended to September 9th, 2016. Thank you.
THE DIGITAL HUMANITIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR LIBRARIANS, LIBRARIES, AND LIBRARIANSHIP
The redefinition of humanities scholarship has received major attention in higher education over the past few years. The advent of digital humanities has challenged many aspects of academic librarianship. With the acknowledgement that librarians must be a necessary part of this scholarly conversation, the challenges facing subject/liaison librarians, technical service librarians, and library administrators are many. Developing the knowledge base of digital tools, establishing best procedures and practices, understanding humanities scholarship, managing data through the research lifecycle, teaching literacies (information, data, visual) beyond the one-shot class, renegotiating the traditional librarian/faculty relationship as ‘service orientated,’ and the willingness of library and institutional administrators to allocate scarce resources to digital humanities projects while balancing the mission and priorities of their institutions are just some of the issues facing librarians as they reinvent themselves in the digital humanities sphere.
College & Undergraduate Libraries, a peer-reviewed journal published by Taylor & Francis, invites proposals for articles to be published in the fall of 2017. The issue will be co-edited by Kevin Gunn (gunn@cua.edu) of the Catholic University of America and Jason Paul (pauljn@stolaf.edu) of St. Olaf College.
The issue will deal with the digital humanities in a very broad sense, with a major focus on their implications for the roles of academic librarians and libraries as well as on librarianship in general. Possible article topics include, but are not limited to, the following themes, issues, challenges, and criticism:
- Developing the project development mindset in librarians
- Creating new positions and/or cross-training issues for librarians
- Librarian as: point-of-service agent, an ongoing consultant, or as an embedded project librarian
- Developing managerial and technological competencies in librarians
- Administration support (or not) for DH endeavors in libraries
- Teaching DH with faculty to students (undergraduate and graduate) and faculty
- Helping students working with data
- Managing the DH products of the data life cycle
- Issues surrounding humanities data collection development and management
- Relationships of data curation and digital libraries in DH
- Issues in curation, preservation, sustainability, and access of DH data, projects, and products
- Linked data, open access, and libraries
- Librarian and staff development for non-traditional roles
- Teaching DH in academic libraries
- Project collaboration efforts with undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty
- Data literacy for librarians
- The lack of diversity of librarians and how it impacts DH development
- Advocating and supporting DH across the institution
- Developing institutional repositories for DH
- Creating DH scholarship from the birth of digital objects
- Consortial collaborations on DH projects
- Establishing best practices for DH labs, networks, and services
- Assessing, evaluating, and peer reviewing DH projects and librarians.
Articles may be theoretical or ideological discussions, case studies, best practices, research studies, and opinion pieces or position papers.
Proposals should consist of an abstract of up to 500 words and up to six keywords describing the article, together with complete author contact information. Articles should be in the range of 20 double-spaced pages in length. Please consult the following link that contains instructions for authors: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=wcul20&page=instructions#.V0DJWE0UUdU.
Please submit proposals to Kevin Gunn (gunn@cua.edu) by September 9th, 2016; please do not use Scholar One for submitting proposals. First drafts of accepted proposals will be due by February 1, 2017 with the issue being published in the fall of 2017. Feel free to contact the editors with any questions that you may have.
++++++++++++++
more on digital humanities in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+humanities
This year we’d like to involve a wider segment of the teaching and learning community to help us design the survey. Please join us online for one of two 30-minute discussion sessions:
Sept 14 at 12pm ET OR Sept 15 at 2pm ET
To join, just go to https://educause.acms.com/eliweb on the date and time of the session and join as a guest. No registration or login needed.
———————————————————————————-
Key Issues in Teaching and Learning 2016
http://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/key-issues-in-teaching-and-learning
1. Academic Transformation
3. Assessment of Learning
4. Online and Blended Learning
5. Learning Analytics
6. Learning Space Design
8. Open Educational Resources & Content
9. Working with Emerging Technology
10. Next Gen Digital Learning Environments (NGDLE) & Services
11. Digital & Informational Literacies
12. Adaptive Learning
13. Mobile Learning
14. Evaluating Tech-Based Instructional Innovations
15. Evolution of the Profession
Education and School Leadership Symposium 2017(September 6th to 8 th, 2017 in Zug, Switzerland):
- Education and School Leadership Symposium 2017
1.1 Theme of the Plenary Program
The theme of the plenary program will be:
Building/Education 5.0? The Future of Learning, the Future of Schools
1.2 Themes of the Parallel Program
Thursday features a parallel program with four workshop sessions and four presentation sessions, grouped according to the following themes which will be further modified in the CfP in September:
– Participation and Democracy in Education
– Learning Strategies and Instruction
– Human Resource Management / Professionalization of Educational Actors
– Health
– Leadership Development
– Migration and Education
– School Turnaround
– Governance and Educational Policy
– Collaboration, Networked Systems and System Leadership
1.4 Pre-Conference: International Seminar
As a pre-conference, the «International Seminar» takes place September 5-6, 2017. It mainly addresses international guests and those who want to network internationally in a more intimate atmosphere. Emphasis is put on the exchange of knowledge and experiences across countries and the discussion of challenges.
Groups of school leaders who participate in professional development programs are particularly welcome. As last time, we already have a few groups who signed up for 2017.
Besides a presentation of the Swiss school system(s), participants will have the opportunity to visit local schools in the canton of Zug.
You can find more information at:
http://www.EducationSymposium.net/program/pre-conference/
Additional information at:
http://www.EduLead.net
http://www.Bildungsmanagement.net
http://www.EducationSysmposium.net
http://www.SchoolLeadershipSymposium.net
Follow us on Twitter: @HuberEduLead http://www.twitter.com/huberedulead
REPORT
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), AKA drones
August 15, 2016
Sources:
- This report is based on a DVD “Drones on Campus. UAS Issues for the Higher Education Community” of February 2, 2016. The DVD contains a PDF file and flattened media file with a voice-narrated PPT based on the information from the PDF.
- The report takes into consideration the opulence of materials gathered during the last 4-5 years in the IMS blog: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=drones
Narrative / synopsis:
The DVD is a commercial product for sale for the Higher Ed. It is the recoding of a commercial seminar for Higher Ed, led by a lawyer (Lisa Ellman, lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com, Twitter handle @leelellman) from the legal practice Hogan Lovells and by employee from FAA.
The information below represents the main points from the PDF / PPT presentation, as well as additional information with clarifications, which I added while working with the PDF and PPT files.
Discussion topics:
- How and when UAS can be approved for flying at SCSU
- The effect on SCSU of the domestic UAS legal framework
- Protection against rogue drones on campus
- Policymaking around UAS
FAA Modernization and Reform Act (P.L. 112-095) Reports and Plans Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/modernization/media/Sec.332(a).pdf
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Comprehensive Plan (Section 332 (a)(5))
https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/modernization/media/Sec.332(a)(5)2.pdf
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Privacy Requirements (Section 332 (a)(5))
https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/modernization/media/Sec.332(a)(5).pdf
section 333 exemptions
http://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/beyond_the_basics/section_333/333_authorizations/
Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/021515_suas_summary.pdf
The term “unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements (including communication links and components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.
Federal Gov’t UAS Policymaking. FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012, FAA Rulemaking process, Federal Interagency Process, Agency-Specific Processes
UAS categorization:
- Model aircraft
- Public – UAS owned and operated by government agencies and organizations, such as public university
a public COA (certificate of waiver of authorization) is issued by the FAA to a public agency/organization for public aircraft operations
most aspects of public aircraft operations are not subject to FAA oversight
If we are a public university… can we operate UAS under a public COA?
in order to operate under a public COA< the UAS must be operated by the university for a “core governmental function, which is defined as:
“… and activity undertaken by a government, such as national defense, intelligence missions, firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement (including transport of prisoners, detainees, and illegal aliens), aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management.
In an FAA Office, it was clarified that “aeronautical research” must be focused on the development and testing of the UAS itself, rather than the thing being observed and monitored using the UAS.
- Civil
- Any private sector (non-governmental) operation of a drone for purposes other than recreation or hobby is considered a “civil” operation
- This category covers all commercial use of UAS, including use by private universities and colleges
Summary Grant Exemption / Blanket COA conditions and COA conditions and limitations:
- Below 200 feet
- Within visual line-of-sight of the pilot and visual observer
- At least 500 feet from nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, or structures, unless certain conditions met
- Over private or controlled access property with consent
- Visual observer required
- Pilot must have an FAA issues pilot certificate and a medical certificate or DL
- Mussed give a way to all manned aircraft
SCSU must apply for section 333 exemption – FAA has granted 3.129 out of 4500 applications. FAA current goal: 50+ exemption grants per week
QA regarding exemption / blanket COA requirements
Small UAS Rule: June 2016 (IMS blog)
- Must be < 55 lbs
- Max altitude speed 500 feet / 100 mph
- Minimum visibility 3 miles
- UAS always yield right-of-way to other aircraft
- UAS cannot be operated recklessly
- Registration and marking required
- Hobbyist operators: December 21, 2015
- All UAS >.55 pounds and less than 55 pounds must be registered either using the new online system or the FAAs existing paper-based registration system before the UAS can be operated outdoors
- UAS within that right range purchased prior to December 21, 2015 must be registered by February 19, 2016
- Hobbies required to submit basic contact info, such as name, address email. Costs $5 to register hobbyist owner’s entire fleet of UAS. The FAA will issue a single CAR (certificate of aircraft registration) with one registration number that can be used for and should be put on each UAS. Every 3 years, renewal.
Boggs v Meredith. How high do airspace rights extend over private property
- Up to 83 feet in the air
- Other legal liability issues:
Mitigating UAS Legal Liabilities
- When hiring a UAS server provider
- Seek to shift and limit liability through contract
- Vendors operating UAS on university property should sing a written agreement
- Ensure the UAS service provider has adequate insurance
- When selecting a UAS model:
Who is in charge
- University should have a UAS operations manual with policies and procedures
- Permission to fly on campus (who, how and when)
- UAS operation, maintenance and inspection procedures
- Emergency procedures, accident / incident notification, reporting
- FAA recordkeeping requirements
- UAS flight activity (when, where, duration)
- Incidents/accidents involving personal injury or property damage
- Lost-link events (AKA fly-aways)
- UAS maintenance and inspection
- UAS flight crew training / qualifications
- Participant / property owner consent
- Faculty/staff/student qualifications and training
- Privacy policies, data management, retention
- Consent and notification requirements for operating near people and structures
Outline of immediate tasks:
Based on the information above:
- SCSU, LRS in particular, must decide what drone’s certificate to apply for: a. model; b. public; c.civil; or d. hobbies
- After selection of certificate type, SCSU, LRS in particular, must register the drone[s].
- SCSU, LRS in particular, must develop policies for service, operation and maintenance.
- SCSU, LRS in particular, must assign person[s] in charge of the training, maintenance and operation.
Suggestions and recommendations:
- Hosting a drone in the library.
If to adhere to the ALA call for the librarians to be the forefront of technology on campus, LRS can use the drone purchased in April 2014 to train and lend the drone for research on campus.
If LRS continues the policy of the previous dean, further suggestions below can be waved off.
- Training, maintenance and operation
Shall LRS keep the drone, the best person to conduct the training and service of the drone will be an IMS faculty. As per email correspondence attached below, please have again the rational:
– hosting the drone with Circulation (staff) does not provide the adequate academic/research services. It is expected that the foremost users will be faculty, students and then staff and the foremost use will be academic and then leisure activities. While IMS faculty can meet the “leisure activities” for all three constituency, as it has been provided by the Circulation staff until this point, the IMS faculty can also provide the research and academic service, which Circulation staff is not educated neither trained for. With that said, the point made is not against staff not participating in the effort to train and service campus with the drone; it just makes the point that charging staff with that task is limited and against the best interest of the faculty and students on campus.
– blocking the effort of IMS faculty to lead technology-oriented services on campus, LRS in particular.
Upon hiring of a “technology” librarian, previous dean Mark Vargas blocked any technology-related activities by IMS faculty: e.g. 3d printer AKA makerspace, gaming and gamification, drones, etc.
If I am to understand well, the “technology” librarian’s charge must be toward automated library systems and similar, rather than educational use of multimedia and interactivity. Blocking IMS faculty to do what they do best by freezing any of their efforts and reserving “technology” for [unknown] future leadership of the “technology” librarian is a waste of IMS faculty expertise and knowledge.
Gaming and Gamification (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/03/19/recommendations-for-games-and-gaming-at-lrs/) charge by previous dean Mark Vargas to the first-year “technology” librarian revealed as obvious that giving the preference to junior faculty to “lead” an effort can become a dangerous tool in the hands of the administration to manipulate and slow down efforts of educational trends of time-sensitive character. While, as from the beginning, the collaboration of the “technology” librarian has been welcomed and appreciated, it does not make sense from any cultural or institutional perspective, to put in charge a new faculty, who does not have the knowledge and networking of the campus, less the experience and knowledge with multimedia and interactive tools as the rest of the seasoned IMS faculty. Decision and consequent refusal of the “technology” librarian to work with the IMS faculty did not contribute to improvement of the situation.
A very important point, which goes against the “consensus” efforts of the previous dean, is the fact that now the library faculty is using the newly-hired “technology” librarian to hinder further the integration of the IMS faculty as part of LRS by using her as a focal point for any technology initiative in LRS, thus further excluding the IMS faculty from LRS activities. It will help: 1. delineate the expertise parameters of the “technology” librarian and 2. have the librarian faculty think about their work with the IMS faculty, which has been a thorny issue for more than 10 years now (pretty much since the hire of the bulk of the reference librarians).
If there are questions, or the need of more information, please do not hesitate to request.
Plamen Miltenoff, Ph.D., MLIS
Professor
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Miltenoff, Plamen
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:44 AM
To: Banaian, King <kbanaian@stcloudstate.edu>
Subject: request to release the library drone
Dr. Banaian,
My name is Plamen Miltenoff and I am faculty with the InforMedia Services of the SCSU Library. I have worked in the last 15+ years with faculty, students and staff on educational technology and instructional design. I hold two doctoral degrees in education and four master’s degrees in history and Library and Information Science.
I have extensive background in new educational technologies, which is amply reflected in the following blog: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/. Shall more proof of my abilities is needed, here is detailed information about publications, presentations and projects, which I have accomplished: http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/faculty/
In the spring of 2014, Mark Vargas purchased a drone. As per my job description and long experience working with faculty across campus with other technologies, I immediately alerted SCSU faculty who have strong interest in applying drone’s technology in their studies, research and teaching, assuming that the newly-appointed library director (Mark Vargas) will support my years-long efforts.
Due to complications with FAA regulations the drones across the country were grounded.
Mark Vargas “stationed” it with the library Access Services, a unit, which is comprised of staff only. When I approached the library staff from Access Services, they chose to not collaborate with me, but rather deflect me to Mark Vargas.
As per my email to Mark Vargas of July 21, 2015 (attachment 1), I requested an explanation and shared my feeling that SCSU faculty are being left in disadvantage after I witness the drone being used. I also asked my immediate supervisor Mark Vargas about the policies and release conditions. Unfortunately, my repeated requests remained unanswered.
As of yesterday, FAA has finally released the last version of the regulations:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/06/22/faa-final-rules-drones/
Here is extensive information on how drones can be used in education, which I collected through the years: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=drones
I am turning to you as the appointed administrator-in-charge of the library (attachment 2), with the request that you share the amounted paperwork regarding the drone. Mark Vargas did not share that information, despite numerous requests, e.g., if the drone is registered, etc.
I am seeking your administrative approval to pursue the completion of the paperwork and secure immediate usability of the drone, so it is available also to all interested SCSU faculty with or without my participation (as per regulations). The request is timely, since such technologies are aging quickly. Besides the depreciation of the technology, SCSU students and faculty deserves being kept with the times and explore a technology, which is rapidly becoming a mainstream, rather than novelty.
Please consider that I am the only library member with terminal degrees in education as well as extensive experience with technologies in general and educational technologies in particular. I am also the only library member with extensive network among faculty across campus. I am perceived by colleagues across campus more often as a peer, collaborator and research partner, then merely a service provider, as most of the library staff and faculty consider themselves. I am the only library member, who sits on theses and doctoral committees and the invitations to these committees are greatly based on my experience in educational technologies and my research and publishing skills. Leaving the drone in the Access Services, as appointed by the previous administrator, will result in a dormancy of technology as it has happened with numerous other technologies on this campus. It is a waste of equipment, which this university cannot afford in the respective financial times. Letting me take the lead of the drone project will secure active promotion and better application of this technology and possibly other venues (e.g. grants) to pursue further endeavors.
Thank you and looking forward to your approval.
Plamen Miltenoff, Ph.D., MLIS
Professor
320-308-3072
pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/faculty/
Attachment 1
From: Miltenoff, Plamen
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:09 PM
To: Vargas, Mark A. <mavargas@stcloudstate.edu>
Cc: Quinlan, Jennifer M. <jmquinlan@stcloudstate.edu>; Prescott, Melissa K. <mkprescott@stcloudstate.edu>; Hergert, Thomas R. <trhergert@stcloudstate.edu>
Subject: LRS drones
Mark,
Last week LRS staff was handling the LRS drones.
Did I miss email correspondence informing about the change in regulations? If so, I would like to have a copy of it.
If not, I would like to know your rational for your selective choice releasing this technology.
Per the IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=drones&submit=Search
and direct oral and written communication with you, I have expressed strong academic interest in research of this technology for educational purposes. I have the educational background and experience for the aforementioned request.
I am asking you for access to this technology since early summer of 2014.
I would like to be informed what your plan for this technology is and when it will be open to the LRS faculty. I also would like to know when preference to LRS staff is given when technology is concerned, so I can plan accordingly.
Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Plamen
—————-
Plamen Miltenoff, Ph.D., MLIS
Attachment 2
From: lrs_l-bounces@lists.stcloudstate.edu [mailto:lrs_l-bounces@lists.stcloudstate.edu] On Behalf Of Vaidya, Ashish K.
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 2:08 PM
To: lrs_l@stcloudstate.edu <lrs_l@lists.stcloudstate.edu>
Subject: [LRS_l] Interim Leadership for LRS
Dear LRS Faculty and Staff,
As you are aware, Mark Vargas has submitted his resignation as Dean of Learning Resources Services. Mark’s last day on campus was Friday, June 10, 2016.
I want to assure you that any decision about interim leadership will be made after careful consideration of the needs of the Library and the University. I will continue conversations with various individuals, including the President, to ensure we have strategic alignment in both support and oversight for LRS. LRS is committed to providing excellent services to our students, faculty, and staff, creating opportunities for knowledge, and serving the public good. I look forward to working together with you to accomplish these goals.
I expect to identify an interim dean shortly and to begin a national search this fall with an appointment to begin July 1, 2017. I have asked Greta to schedule a time for me to visit with faculty and staff in Learning Resource Service next week. In the meantime, Dean King Banaian will serve as the administrator-in-charge of LRS until June 30, 2016.
Sincerely yours,
Ashish
7 Best Practices for Deploying Lecture Capture Campuswide
Technology leaders from universities with large lecture capture implementations share their advice for rolling out the technology at scale.
By Leila Meyer 08/03/16
https://campustechnology.com/articles/2016/08/03/7-best-practices-for-deploying-lecture-capture-campuswide.aspx
1) Automate the Recording Process to Make It Effortless
The Department of Instructional Technology
Echo360 lecture capture appliances and some Sonic Foundry Mediasite appliances. While lecture capture appliances are “not cheap,” according to Lucas, they reduce the complexity for faculty and staff.
Sonic Foundry Mediasite appliances with CollegeNET 25Live scheduling software to automate the lecture capture process.
2) Focus on Implementation in Large-Capacity Classrooms
installing lecture capture appliances and high-definition cameras in the large lecture halls at UMass Lowell has helped reduce DFWs (drop, fail, withdrawal rate) in high-enrollment classes such as Calculus 1.
3) Establish Relationships with Leadership and Early Adopters
4) Ensure High-Quality Audio Recording
“You might be able to get by if you don’t see the instructor, of if they step outside the viewing angle of the camera, but if you can’t hear them, the capture is wasted. It’s critical that they pay attention to audio.”
5) Offer Flexibility for Instructors to Record Lectures Anywhere/Anytime
6) Ensure Adequate Storage and Processing on Servers
7) Engage with Other Colleges and Universities
++++++++++++++++++++
more on lecture capture in this blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=lecture+capture
Free Webinar for K–12 Educators and Administrators to Cover Best Tech Practices
https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/07/19/free-webinar-for-k12-educators-and-administrators-to-cover-best-tech-practices.aspx
Best Practices for Effective Curriculum Management (Vimeo)
PowerPoint Slides (PDF)
Attention: sponsored by itslearning (take information with a grain of salt)
The cloud-based learning platform itslearning will host a free tech webinar for K–12 educators and administrators at 1 p.m. EST (10 a.m. PST) Wednesday, July 27. The webinar, available on the itslearning website, will examine best practices in selecting and implementing learning technologies.
Implementation consultant Libby Lawrie will direct the webinar. She’s a former teacher and school administrator, and she frequently presents nationally on instructional technology and virtual education. She’s also a founding member of the International Association for K–12 Online Learning (iNACOL).
The webinar is designed to give education leaders the insight and tools they need to select the right tools for their tech situations. There are many products and choices out there, and Lawrie will provide strategies for choosing the best products and partners, as well as details about the discovery and implementation process. She will share insights and best practices from U.S. districts large and small.
While not mandatory, registration is recommended. Visit itslearning’s webinar site to sign up.
Education in the ‘Fourth Wave’ of Science-Driven Economic Advancement
By David Nagel 07/06/16
https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/07/06/education-in-the-fourth-wave-of-science-driven-economic-advancement.aspx
fourth wave, one driven by nanotechnology, biotechnology and artificial intelligence.
In at least one presentation, he referred to the American education system as “the worst educational system known to science.”
Although there will be a “perfect” and direct transfer of information to everyone with or without educators, students will still need to come to class to benefit from the wisdom and experience of their teachers.
“So in the future, there’s going to be a balance, a balance between ‘e-instruction’ and mentoring. And teachers, more and more, will be in the business of mentoring [and] personal experience because you cannot get that on the Internet.”
Those aspects of “mentoring” and “career guidance” are especially important to Kaku, who said that teachers must push students to where the jobs will be in the future.
doctoral cohort student’s request for literature: “I am looking for some more resources around the historical context of teacher evaluation.”
pre-existing bibliography:
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. I., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of Effective Teacher-Student Interactions in Secondary School Classrooms: Predicting Student Achievement With the Classroom Assessment Scoring System—Secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76–98.
Alonzo, A. C. (2011). COMMENTARIES Learning Progressions That Support Formative Assessment Practices. Measurement, 9, 124–129. http://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2011.599629
Baker, B. D., Oluwole, J. O., & Green, P. C. (2013). The Legal Consequences of Mandating High Stakes Decisions Based on Low Quality Information: Teacher Evaluation in the Race-to-the-Top Era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(5), 1–71. http://doi.org/http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1298
Benedict, A. E., Thomas, R. a., Kimerling, J., & Leko, C. (2013). Trends in Teacher Evaluation. Teaching Exceptional Children. May/Jun2013, 45(5), 60–68.
Bonavitacola, A. C., Guerrazzi, E., & Hanfelt, P. (2014). TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF THE McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM ON PROFESSIONAL GROWTH.
Charlotte Danielson. (2016). Creating Communities of Practice. Educational Leadership, (May), 18 – 23.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher Evaluation in the Organizational Context: A Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285–328. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053003285
Darling-Hammond, L., Jaquith, A., & Hamilton, M. (n.d.). Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching.
Derrington, M. L. (n.d.). Changes in Teacher Evaluation: Implications for the Principal’s Work.
Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn Elementary’s Innovative Teacher Evaluation System: Are Teacher Evaluation Scores Related to Growth in Student Achievement? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 79–107. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7904_5
Hallgren, K., James-Burdumy, S., & Perez-Johnson, I. (2014). STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR TEACHER EVALUATION POLICIES PROMOTED BY RACE TO THE TOP.
Hattie Helen E-Mail Address, J. T., Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. [References]. Review of Educational Research, .77(1), 16–7. http://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hazi, H. M. (n.d.). Legal Challenges to Teacher Evaluation: Pitfalls and Possibilities in the States. http://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2014.891898
Ingle, W. K., Willis, C., & Fritz, J. (2014). Collective Bargaining Agreement Provisions in the Wake of Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Legislation. Educational Policy. http://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814559249
Marzano, R. J. (2012). The Two Purposes of Teacher Evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14–19. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=83173912&site=ehost-live
Moskal, A. C. M., Stein, S. J., & Golding, C. (2016). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Can you increase teacher engagement with evaluation simply by improving the evaluation system? Can you increase teacher engagement with evaluation simply by improving the evaluation system? http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1007838
Quinn, A. E. (n.d.). The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin Looking a t th e B igger Picture w ith Dr. R o b ert M arzan o : Teacher E valuation and D e v e lo p m e n t fo r Im p ro ved S tu d en t Learning.
Riordan, J., Lacireno-Paquet, Shakman, N., Bocala, K., & Chang, C. (2015). Redesigning teacher evaluation: Lessons from a pilot implementation. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/
Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (n.d.). Evidence of systematic growth in the effectiveness of midcareer teachers Can Teacher Evaluation Improve Teaching?
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (n.d.). The problematic implementation of teacher evaluation policy: School failure or governmental pitfall? http://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502188
Wong, W. Y., & Moni, K. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of and responses to student evaluation of teaching: purposes and uses in clinical education. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.844222
my list of literature:
Avalos, B., & Assael, J. (2006). Moving from resistance to agreement: The case of the Chilean teacher performance evaluation. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(4-5), 254-266.
Cowen, J. M., & Fowles, J. (2013). Same contract, different day? an analysis of teacher bargaining agreements in Louisville since 1979. Teachers College Record, 115(5)
Flippo, R. F. (2002). Repeating history: Teacher licensure testing in Massachusetts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(3), 211-29.
Griffin, G. (1997). Teaching as a gendered experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(1), 7-18.
Hellawell, D. E. (1992). Structural changes in education in England. International Journal of Educational Reform, 1(4), 356-65.
Hibler, D. W., & Snyder, J. A. (2015). Teaching matters: Observations on teacher evaluations. Schools: Studies in Education, 12(1), 33-47.
Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 371-384.
Hines, L. M. (2007). Return of the thought police?: The history of teacher attitude adjustment. Education Next, 7(2), 58-65.
Kersten, T. A. (2006). Teacher tenure: Illinois school board presidents’ perspectives and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 37(3-4), 234-257.
Kersten, T. A., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: Principals’ insights and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 36(1-2), 47-67.
Korkmaz, I. (2008). Evaluation of teachers for restructured elementary curriculum (grades 1 to 5). Education, 129(2), 250-258.
Lamb, M. L., & Swick, K. J. (1975). Historical overview of teacher observation Educational Forum.
Maharaj, S. (2014). Administrators’ views on teacher evaluation: Examining Ontario’s teacher performance appraisal. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (152)
Naba’h, A. A., Al-Omari, H., Ihmeideh, F., & Al-Wa’ily, S. (2009). Teacher education programs in Jordan: A reform plan. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(3), 272-284.
Ornstein, A. C. (1977). Critics and criticism of education Educational Forum.
Pajak, E., & Arrington, A. (2004). Empowering a profession: Rethinking the roles of administrative evaluation and instructional supervision in improving teacher quality. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(1), 228-252.
Stamelos, G., & Bartzakli, M. (2013). The effect of a primary school teachers, trade union on the formation and realisation of policy in Greece: The case of teacher evaluation policy. Policy Futures in Education, 11(5), 575-588.
Stamelos, G., Vassilopoulos, A., & Bartzakli, M. (2012). Understanding the difficulties of implementation of a teachers’ evaluation system in greek primary education: From national past to european influences. European Educational Research Journal, 11(4), 545-557.
Sullivan, J. P. (2012). A collaborative effort: Peer review and the history of teacher evaluations in Montgomery county, Maryland. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 142-152.
Tierney, W. G., & Lechuga, V. M. (2005). Academic freedom in the 21st century. Thought & Action, , 7-22.
Turri, M. (2014). The new italian agency for the evaluation of the university system (ANVUR): A need for governance or legitimacy? Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 64-82.
VanPatten, J. J. (1972). Some reflections on accountability Journal of Thought.
Vijaysimha, I. (2013). Teachers as professionals: Accountable and autonomous? review of the report of the justice Verma commission on teacher education. august 2012. department of school education and literacy, ministry of human resource development, government of India. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 10(2), 293-299.
Vold, D. J. (1985). The roots of teacher testing in America. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 4(3), 5-7.
Wermke, W., & Höstfält, G. (2014). Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 58-80.
Ydesen, C., & Andreasen, K. E. (2014). Accountability practices in the history of Danish primary public education from the 1660s to the present. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(120)