Searching for "educause faculty"

Susan Grajek at Bryan Alexander on IT and education

Susan Grajek at Bryan Alexander on IT and education

Forum takes a deep dive into higher education and technology. On Thursday, March 23rd, from 2-3 pm EST we will be joined by Susan Grajek, the vice president for communities and research at EDUCAUSE

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

Top 10 IT Issues, 2017: Foundations for Student Success

students evals online learning

The Online Discussion group for Blended and Online Learning leads an interesting discussion on course evaluations; here are the highlights:

Perceptions-of-Online-Learning–Analysis-of-Online-Course-Evaluations-tbz6om

When we first started in 1999, we included ~10 questions in addition to our standard  questions that were different for online courses.  This information was particularly useful as we grew our online offerings (i.e. Would you take another online course.  93-5% answered yes consistently. How would you rate the level of interactivity between you and the instructor?  Between you and the other students?)  These were administered via SurveyMonkey because there were no online evaluation services back then.

Now we have a single evaluation that is administered to all students regardless of the delivery format (online, hybrid, blended, F2F or intensive)  The questions were designed to be relevant regardless of the delivery format.  All of these evaluations are administered online…which has its downsides (e.g. response rate is less especially compared to what was captured in F2F classes in the past.)   We continue to explore ways to increase the response rate.

Reta Chaffee Director of Educational Technology-Academic Affairs Granite State College 25  Hall Street Concord, NH 03301 (603) 513-1350

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

On Behalf Of Krajewski, Scott
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 1:00 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Course Evaluations

Hi Hala, We have a standard online evaluation form for all courses.  We do add 3 questions to the sports courses but otherwise we’re 100% standardized.  We have a ton of info at

http://inside.augsburg.edu/ctl/resources/augsburg-resources-and-support/course-evaluations/

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

You might find this study (or the related literature) helpful — http://patricklowenthal.com/publications/Student-Perceptions-of-Online-Learning–Analysis-of-Online-Course-Evaluations.pdf

Patrick Patrick R. Lowenthal | Associate Professor Educational Technology, Boise State  University   http://www.patricklowenthal.com

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

On Behalf Of Rob Gibson
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:39 AM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Course Evaluations

 

We use the IDEA evaluation framework combined with CampusLabs as the delivery engine.

  • IDEA is a well-established evaluation process dating back to the 1970s.
  • The CampusLabs delivery process (new as of about 2 years ago) provides students with a single URL to complete their evaluations – on-campus or on-line. Mobile friendly.
  • It uses the same base evaluation criteria across the university. (That’s how IDEA is able to substantiate reliability and validity.) IDEA is matched against a national database using a CIP code. Hence, faculty can gather comparative data of their course against other similar courses in the university, or at the national level.
  • While each department uses the same basic framework, there are modification that can be made. For example, custom questions can be added to the eval (these fall outside the scope of the comparative data) and the learning objectives can be modified by course, department, school, college. We have one School that has custom learning objectives for each course in their program. Objectives are set using a 3 point Likert scale.

Very easy to set up a survey administration. Data is retrievable within 48 hours after close.
+++++++++++++
more on online learning in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+education

synchronous vs asynchronous

From the The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>

Can you recommend a peer-reviewed research article that addresses the learning outcomes/learning effectiveness of asynchronous vs. synchronous teaching approaches in online courses?

We have a program that has required weekly synchronous sessions (held via Bb Collaborate) that support the otherwise asynchronous courses in the program. The department is considering making that requirement optional to accommodate worldwide learners, but there are faculty who are concerned about the impact to the learning and transfer of knowledge to the students.

Any research that addresses the differences in these teaching modalities when it comes to learning outcomes?

Thanks in advance,     Kristen     Kristen Brown     Assistant Director, Online Learning     Delphi Center for Teaching and Learning

I am happy to share my own dissertation research which specifically focused on this topic as well. Please email me and I will share. andy.black@nurs.utah.edu
My note: I emailed Andy and will attach his dissertation to this blog, if interest

final-dissertation-andy-black-asynchronous-synchronous

On Behalf Of Henri Moser
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 8:35 AM

Here is a link to my dissertation which centered on synchronous academic support for online graduate students.Best,Henri

http://dune.une.edu/theses/56/

++++++++++++++++
more on synchronous online learning in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=synchronous

student evals online courses

Discussion on the EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Group’s listserv

Question:

develop anonymous mid-course student evaluations allowing students to reflect on course and progress and informing instructor about what is working or not in the course.

Answers:

– what is working well for you in the course?
– what is not working well for you in the course?

krajewsk@AUGSBURG.EDU

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

  • What is helping you learn?
  • What is hindering your learning?
  • What suggestions do you have to make the course better for you, your peers, or the instructor?

Katie Linder Research Director Extended Campus, Oregon State University 4943 The Valley Library Corvallis, Oregon 97331  Phone 541-737-4629 | Fax 541-737-2734 Email: kathryn.linder@oregonstate.edu

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

At the University of Illinois, we have been using Informal Early Feedback as a way to gauge information from our students to help improve the courses before the end.  Here are a couple of links to our site. The first is the main page on what IEF is and the second is the question bank we offer to faculty. This is a starting point for them, then we meet with those who want to work on tweaking them for their specific needs.

* About IEF: https://citl.illinois.edu/citl-101/measurement-evaluation/teaching-evaluation/ief

* Question Bank: https://citl.illinois.edu/citl-101/measurement-evaluation/teaching-evaluation/ief/ief-question-bank

If you have any questions at all, don’t hesitate to ask.

Sol Roberts-Lieb Associate Director, Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning Pedagogy Strategy Team and Industry Liaison UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

++++++++++++++++++
more on student evaluations in this IMS blog:
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=student+evaluation

research on blended learning

Discussion on the EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Group’s listserv

Question:\

I head an instructional design unit and we’ve been noticing that instructors with no experience in online teaching seem to struggle to teach in a blended environment. They get easily confused about 1) how to decide what content is best suited for in class and what goes online and 2) they also have difficulty bridging the two modalities to create a seamless and rich learning environment.

Rema Nilakanta, Ph.D., Director of Design and Delivery   Engineering-LAS Online Learning 1328 Howe Hall 537 Bissell Rd  P      515-294-9259        F      515-294-6184        W     http://www.elo.iastate.edu 

Answers:

Oregon State University has a hybrid course design program that is a partnership between OSU’s Ecampus and our Center for Teaching and Learning. You can find quite a few resources here: http://ctl.oregonstate.edu/hybrid-learning

Shannon Riggs Director, Course Development and Training Oregon State University Ecampus 4943 Valley Library Corvallis, OR 97331-4504 541.737.2613

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

http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-quality-scorecard-blended-learning-programs/

Jennifer Mathes, Ph.D. Director of Strategic Partnerships Online Learning Consortium Office: (781) 583-7571 Mobile: (913) 226-4977 Email:  jennifer.mathes@onlinelearning-c.org Website:  http://www.onlinelearning-c.org Skype:     mathes.olc

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

You might find my recent book The Blended Course Design Workbook: A Practical Guide to be a helpful resource. Each chapter has a literature review of the relevant research as well as activities to guide faculty through the various components of blended course design. You can read the first chapter on the fundamentals of blended teaching and learning at the publisher website. The book also has a companion website with additional resources here: http://www.bcdworkbook.com.

Katie Linder Research Director Extended Campus, Oregon State University 4943 The Valley Library Corvallis, Oregon 97331  Phone 541-737-4629 | Fax 541-737-2734 Email: kathryn.linder@oregonstate.edu Twitter: @ECResearchUnit & @RIA_podcast Check out the Research in Action podcast: ecampus.oregonstate.edu/podcast

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

NMC on digital literacy

NMC Releases Horizon Project Strategic Brief on Digital Literacy

Anaheim, California (October 25, 2016) — The New Media Consortium (NMC) has released Digital Literacy: An NMC Horizon Project Strategic Brief in conjunction with the 2016 EDUCAUSE Annual Conference.

This project was launched because there is a lack of consensus across the field about how to define digital literacy and implement effective programs. A survey was disseminated throughout the NMC community of higher education leaders and practitioners to understand how digital literacy initiatives are impacting their campuses. The NMC’s research examines the current landscape to illuminate multiple models of digital literacy — universal literacy, creative literacy, and literacy across disciplines — around which dedicated programs can proliferate a spectrum of skills and competencies.

p. 8-10 examples across US universities on digital literacy organization

p. 12 Where does support for digital literacy come from your institution? Individual people

nmc-definition-of-digital-literacy

p. 13. campus libraries must be deeply embedded in course curriculum. While libraries have always supported academic institutions, librarians can play a more critical role in the development of digital literacy skills. Historically, these types of programs have been implemented in “one-off” segments, which are experienced apart from a student’s normal studies and often delivered in a one-size-fits-all method. However, an increasing number of academic libraries are supporting a more integrated approach that delivers continuous skill development and assessment over time to both students and faculty. This requires deeper involvement with departments and agreeing on common definitions of what capacities should be achieved, and the most effective pedagogical method. Librarians are tasked with broadening their role in the co-design of curriculum and improving their instruction techniques to work alongside faculty toward the common goal of training students to be savvy digital researchers. University of Arizona Libraries, for example, found that a key step in this transition required collaborating on a common instructional philosophy.

nmc-improving-of-digital-literacy+++++++++++++++

more on digital literacy in this IMS blog:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy

Save

teaching with technology

Boulder Faculty Teaching with Technology Report
Sarah Wise, Education Researcher ,  Megan Meyer, Research Assistant, March 8,2016

http://www.colorado.edu/assett/sites/default/files/attached-files/final-fac-survey-full-report.pdf

Faculty perceive undergraduates to be less proficient with digital literacy skills. One-third think
their students do not find or organize digital information very well. The majority (52%) think
they lack skill in validating digital information.
My note: for the SCSU librarians, digital literacy is fancy word for information literacy. Digital literacy, as used in this report is much greater area, which encompasses much broader set of skills
Faculty do not prefer to teach online (57%) or in a hybrid format (where some sessions occur
online, 32%). One-third of faculty reported no experience with these least popular course types
my note: pay attention to the questions asked; questions I am asking Mike Penrod to let me work with faculty for years. Questions, which are snubbed by CETL and a dominance of D2L and MnSCU mandated tools is established.

Table 5. Do you use these in-class technologies for teaching undergraduates? Which are the Top 3 in-class technologies you would like to learn or use more? (n = 442)

Top 3 use in most of my classes have used in some classes tried, but do not use  

N/A: no experience

in-class activities, problems (via worksheets, tablets, laptops, simulations, beSocratic, etc.)  

52%

 

33%

 

30%

 

6%

 

30%

in-class question, discussion tools (e.g. Twitter, TodaysMeet, aka “backchannel communication”)  

 

47%

 

 

8%

 

 

13%

 

 

11%

 

 

68%

using online resources to find high quality curricular materials  

37%

 

48%

 

31%

 

3%

 

18%

iClickers 24% 23% 16% 9% 52%
other presentation tool (Prezi, Google presentation, Slide Carnival, etc.)  

23%

 

14%

 

21%

 

15%

 

51%

whiteboard / blackboard 20% 58% 23% 6% 14%
Powerpoint or Keynote 20% 74% 16% 4% 5%
document camera / overhead projector 15% 28% 20% 14% 38%

 

Table 6. Do you have undergraduates use these assignment technology tools? Which are your Top 3 assignment technology tools to learn about or use more? (n = 432)

Top 3 use in most of my classes have used in some classes tried, but do not use N/A: no experience using
collaborative reading and discussion tools (e.g. VoiceThread, NB, NotaBene, Highlighter, beSocratic) 43% 3% 10% 10% 77%
collaborative project, writing, editing tools (wikis, PBWorks, Weebly, Google Drive, Dropbox, Zotero)  

38%

 

16%

 

29%

 

12%

 

43%

online practice problems / quizzes with instant feedback 36% 22% 22% 8% 47%
online discussions (D2L, Today’s Meet, etc) 31% 33% 21% 15% 30%
individual written assignment, presentation and project tools (blogs, assignment submission, Powerpoint, Prezi, Adobe Creative Suite, etc.)  

31%

 

43%

 

28%

 

7%

 

22%

research tools (Chinook, pubMed, Google Scholar, Mendeley, Zotero, Evernote) 30% 33% 32% 8% 27%
online practice (problems, quizzes, simulations, games, CAPA, Pearson Mastering, etc.) 27% 20% 21% 7% 52%
data analysis tools (SPSS, R, Latex, Excel, NVivo, MATLAB, etc.) 24% 9% 23% 6% 62%
readings (online textbooks, articles, e-books) 21% 68% 23% 1% 8%

Table 7. Do you use any of these online tools in your teaching? Which are the Top 3 online tools you would like to learn about or use more? (n = 437)

 

 

 

Top 3

 

use in most of my classes

 

have used in some classes

 

tried, but do not use

N/A: no experience using
videos/animations produced for my course (online lectures, Lecture Capture, Camtasia, Vimeo)  

38%

 

14%

 

21%

 

11%

 

54%

chat-based office hours or meetings (D2L chat, Google Hangouts, texting, tutoring portals, etc.)  

36%

 

4%

 

9%

 

10%

 

76%

simulations, PhET, educational games 27% 7% 17% 6% 70%
videoconferencing-based office hours or meetings (Zoom, Skype, Continuing Education’s Composition hub, etc.)  

26%

 

4%

 

13%

 

11%

 

72%

alternative to D2L (moodle, Google Site, wordpress course website) 23% 11% 10% 13% 66%
D2L course platform 23% 81% 7% 4% 8%
online tutorials and trainings (OIT tutorials, Lynda.com videos) 21% 4% 16% 13% 68%
D2L as a portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.)  

21%

 

28%

 

18%

 

11%

 

42%

videos/animations produced elsewhere 19% 40% 36% 2% 22%

In both large and small classes, the most common responses faculty make to digital distraction are to discuss why it is a problem and to limit or ban phones in class.
my note: which completely defies the BYOD and turns into empty talk / lip service.

Quite a number of other faculty (n = 18) reported putting the onus on themselves to plan engaging and busy class sessions to preclude distraction, for example:

“If my students are more interested in their laptops than my course material, I need to make my curriculum more interesting.”

I have not found this to be a problem. When the teaching and learning are both engaged/engaging, device problems tend to disappear.”

The most common complaint related to students and technology was their lack of common technological skills, including D2L and Google, and needing to take time to teach these skills in class (n = 14). Two commented that digital skills in today’s students were lower than in their students 10 years ago.

Table 9. Which of the following are the most effective types of learning opportunities about teaching, for you? Chose your Top 2-3. (n = 473)

Count           Percentage

meeting 1:1 with an expert 296 63%
hour-long workshop 240 51%
contact an expert on-call (phone, email, etc) 155 33%
faculty learning community (meeting across asemester,

e.g. ASSETT’s Hybrid/Online Course Design Seminar)

116 25%
expert hands-on support for course redesign (e.g. OIT’s Academic Design Team) 114 24%
opportunity to apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards)  

97

 

21%

half-day or day-long workshop 98 21%
other 40 8%
multi-day retreats / institutes 30 6%

Faculty indicated that the best times for them to attend teaching professional developments across the year are before and early semester, and summer. They were split among all options for meeting across one week, but preferred afternoon sessions to mornings. Only 8% of respondents (n = 40) indicated they would not likely attend any professional development session (Table 10).

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

Teaching Through Technology
http://www.maine.edu/pdf/T4FinalYear1ReportCRE.pdf

Table T1: Faculty beliefs about using digital technologies in teaching

Count Column N%
Technology is a significant barrier to teaching and learning. 1 0.2%
Technology can have a place in teaching, but often detracts from teaching and learning. 76 18.3%
Technology has a place in teaching, and usually enhances the teaching learning process. 233 56.0%
Technology greatly enhances the teaching learning process. 106 25.5%

Table T2: Faculty beliefs about the impact of technology on courses

Count Column N%
Makes a more effective course 302 72.6%
Makes no difference in the effectiveness of a course 42 10.1%
Makes a less effective course 7 1.7%
Has an unknown impact 65 15.6%

Table T3: Faculty use of common technologies (most frequently selected categories shaded)

Once a month or less A few hours a month A few hours a week An hour a day Several hours a day
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
Computer 19 4.8% 15 3.8% 46 11.5% 37 9.3% 282 70.7%
Smart Phone 220 60.6% 42 11.6% 32 8.8% 45 12.4% 24 6.6%
Office Software 31 7.8% 19 4.8% 41 10.3% 82 20.6% 226 56.6%
Email 1 0.2% 19 4.6% 53 12.8% 98 23.7% 243 58.7%
Social Networking 243 68.8% 40 11.3% 40 11.3% 23 6.5% 7 2.0%
Video/Sound Media 105 27.6% 96 25.2% 95 24.9% 53 13.9% 32 8.4%

Table T9: One sample t-test for influence of technology on approaches to grading and assessment

Test Value = 50
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
In class tests and quizzes -4.369 78 .000 -9.74684 -14.1886 -5.3051
Online tests and quizzes 5.624 69 .000 14.77143 9.5313 20.0115
Ungraded  assessments 1.176 66 .244 2.17910 -1.5208 5.8790
Formative assessment 5.534 70 .000 9.56338 6.1169 13.0099
Short essays, papers, lab reports, etc. 2.876 70 .005 5.45070 1.6702 9.2312
Extended essays and major projects or performances 1.931 69 .058 3.67143 -.1219 7.4648
Collaborative learning projects .000 73 1.000 .00000 -4.9819 4.9819

Table T10: Rate the degree to which your role as a faculty member and teacher has changed as a result of increased as a result of increased use of technology

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
shifting from the role of content expert to one of learning facilitator  

12

 

9.2%

 

22

 

16.9%

 

14

 

10.8%

 

37

 

28.5%

 

29

 

22.3%

 

16

 

12.3%

your primary role is to provide content for students  

14

 

10.9%

 

13

 

10.1%

 

28

 

21.7%

 

29

 

22.5%

 

25

 

19.4%

 

20

 

15.5%

your identification with your University is increased  

23

 

18.3%

 

26

 

20.6%

 

42

 

33.3%

 

20

 

15.9%

 

12

 

9.5%

 

3

 

2.4%

you have less ownership of your course content  

26

 

20.2%

 

39

 

30.2%

 

24

 

18.6%

 

21

 

16.3%

 

14

 

10.9%

 

5

 

3.9%

your role as a teacher is strengthened 13 10.1% 12 9.3% 26 20.2% 37 28.7% 29 22.5% 12 9.3%
your overall control over your course(s) is diminished  

23

 

17.7%

 

44

 

33.8%

 

30

 

23.1%

 

20

 

15.4%

 

7

 

5.4%

 

6

 

4.6%

Table T14: One sample t-test for influence of technology on faculty time spent on specific teaching activities

Test Value = 50
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Lecturing -7.381 88 .000 -12.04494 -15.2879 -8.8020
Preparing course materials 9.246 96 .000 16.85567 13.2370 20.4744
Identifying course materials 8.111 85 .000 13.80233 10.4191 17.1856
Grading / assessing 5.221 87 .000 10.48864 6.4959 14.4813
Course design 12.962 94 .000 21.55789 18.2558 24.8600
Increasing access to materials for all types of learners 8.632 86 .000 16.12644 12.4126 19.8403
Reading student discussion posts 10.102 79 .000 21.98750 17.6553 26.3197
Email to/with students 15.809 93 .000 26.62766 23.2830 29.9724

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

Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2014

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1407/ers1407.pdf

Although the LMS is pervasive in higher education, 15% of faculty said that they
do not use the LMS at all. Survey demographics suggest these nonusers are part of
the more mature faculty ranks, with a tenure status, more than 10 years of teaching
experience, and a full-professor standing.
18
The vast majority of faculty use the LMS
to conduct or support their teaching activities, but only three in five LMS users (60%)
said it is critical to their teaching. The ways in which faculty typically use the LMS are
presented in figure 8.
19
Pushing out information such as a syllabus or other handout
is the most common use of the LMS (58%), which is a basic functionality of the
first-generation systems that emerged in the late 1990s, and it remains one of the core
features of any LMS.
20
Many institutions preload the LMS with basic course content
(58%), up about 12% since 2011, and this base gives instructors a prepopulated plat
form from which to build their courses.
21
Preloading basic content does not appear to
preclude faculty from making the LMS part of their daily digital habit; a small majority
of faculty (56%) reported using the LMS daily, and another 37% use it weekly.

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

Digital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/student-affairs-and-technology/digital-literacy-engagement-and-digital-identity-development

igital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

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

 

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

more on digital literacy in this IMS blog

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy

Save

Key Issues in Teaching and Learning 2016

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

Key Issues in Teaching and Learning 2016

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

students and technology

2015 Student and Faculty Technology Research Studies

https://library.educause.edu/resources/2015/8/2015-student-and-faculty-technology-research-studies

Report: https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2015/8/ers1510ss.pdf?la=en

Infographic: ECAR_2015

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

Study of Students and Information Technology, 2014

https://library.educause.edu/resources/2014/10/2014-student-and-faculty-technology-research-studies

report: https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2014/10/ers1406.pdf

Infographic: ECAR_2014

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

Higher Ed: EDUCAUSE Releases ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology 2013

http://www.infodocket.com/2013/09/16/higher-ed-educause-releases-ecar-study-of-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2013/

Direct to Full Text Report (49 pages; PDF)

students and technology 2013

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

ECAR 2011

students and technology 2011

Free Tech Instruction (About Us)

>>>Fall 2019 workshops IMS instruction technology sessions<<<

Student’s relationship with technology is complex. They recognize its value but still need guidance when it comes to better using it for academics. Educause’s ECAR Study, 2013

InforMedia Services

IMS faculty would be happy to meet with you or your group at your convenience.
Please request using this Google Form: http://scsu.mn/1OjBMf9 or
by email: pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu | informedia@stcloudstate.edu
Here is the evaluation form: http://bit.ly/imseval

How you can reach us:

Services we provide:

  • Instruct and collaborate with faculty, staff and students on specific computer, Cloud and mobile applications
  • Assist faculty in course design and instruction to incorporate SCSU’s resources
  • Join faculty in the classroom instructional design to assist students with learning technology application for the class
  • Consult with faculty on instructional design issues, particularly those that use the World Wide Web, multimedia techniques and interactivity
  • Collaborate with faculty, staff and students on technology-related projects
  • Work with campus units in technology planning and acquisition
  • Respond to faculty, staff and students requests and technology developments

wordpress


twitter
facebook1google2 copyyoutubeadobe connect2

Desire2Learn (D2L), Digital literacy, digital photography, e-learning, educational technology, gamification, gaming, image editing, interactive apps, learning, lecture capture, Millennials, mobile apps, mobile apps, mobile devices, mobile learning, MOOC, online learning, Photoshop, podcasting, programming languages, smartboard, social media, teaching, technology, technology literacy, video editing, virtualization, web conferencing platform, web development, web editing

Save

Save

Save

Save

1 4 5 6 7 8