3. Use parental controls. Check the safety controls on all of the Android and Apple devices that your family uses. On the iPhone, you can tap SETTINGS > GENERAL> RESTRICTIONS and you can create a password that allows you enable/disable apps and phone functions. On Android devices, you can turn on Google Play Parental Controls by going into the Google Play Store settings
4. Friend and follow your children on social media. Whether it’s musical.ly, Instagram or Twitter, chances are that your children use some form of social media. If you have not already, then create an account and get on their friends list.
5. Explore, share and celebrate.
6. Be a good digital role model.
7. Set ground rules and apply sanctions. Just like chore charts or family job lists, consider using a family social media or internet safety contract. These contracts establish ground rules for when devices are to be used; what they should and should not be doing on them; and to establish sanctions based on breaches of the family contract. A simple internet search for “family internet contract” or “family technology contract” will produce a wealth of available ideas and resources to help you implement rules and sanctions revolving around your family’s technology use. A good example of a social media contract for children can be found at imom.com/printable/social-media-contract-for-kids/.
Managing Your Digital Footprint
Your digital footprint, according to dictionary.com, is “one’s unique set of digital activities, actions, and communications that leave a data trace on the internet or on a computer or other digital device and can identify the particular user or device.” Digital footprints can be either passive or active. The passive digital footprint is created without your consent and is driven by the sites and apps that you visit. The data from a passive digital footprint could reveal one’s internet history, IP address, location and is all stored in files on your device without you knowing it. An active digital footprint is more easily managed by the user. Data from an active digital footprint shows social media postings, information sharing, online purchases and activity usage.
Search for yourself online
Check privacy settings.
Use strong passwords
Update software.
Maintain your device.
Think before you post
Keep These Apps on Your Radar
Afterschool (minimum age 17) – The Afterschool App was rejected twice from the major app stores due to complaints from parents and educators. It is a well-known app that promotes cyberbullying, sexting, pornography and is filled with references to drugs and alcohol.
Blue Whale (minimum age 10) – IF YOU FIND THIS APP ON YOUR CHILD’S DEVICE, DELETE IT. It is a suicide challenge app that attempts to prod children into killing themselves.
BurnBook (minimum age 18) – IF YOU FIND THIS APP ON YOUR CHILD’S DEVICE, DELETE IT. It is a completely anonymous app for posting text, photos, and audio that promote rumors about other people. It is a notorious for cyberbullying
Calculator% (minimum age 4) – IF YOU FIND THIS APP ON YOUR CHILD’S DEVICE, DELETE IT. This is one of hundreds of “secret” calculator apps. This app is designed to help students hide photos and videos that they do not want their parents to see. This app looks and functions like a calculator, but students enter a “.”, a 4-digit passcode, and then a “.” again.
KIK (minimum age 17) – This is a communications app that allows anyone to be contacted by anyone and it 100 percent bypasses the device’s contacts list.
Yik Yak (minimum age 18) – This app is a location-based (most commonly schools) bulletin board app. It works anonymously with anyone pretending to be anyone they want. Many schools across the country have encountered cyberbullying and cyberthreats originating from this app.
StreetChat (minimum age 14) – StreetChat is a photo-sharing board for middle school, high school and college-age students. Members do not need to be a student in the actual school and can impersonate students in schools across the country. It promotes cyberbullying through anonymous posts and private messaging.
ooVoo (minimum age 13) – IF YOU FIND THIS APP ON YOUR CHILD’S DEVICE, DELETE IT. ooVoo is one of the largest video and messages app. Parents should be aware that ooVoo is used by predators to contact underage children. The app can allow users to video chat with up to twelve people at one time.
Wishbone (girls) & Slingshot (boys) (minimum age 13) – Both are comparison apps that allow users to create polls, including ones that are not appropriate for children. Many of the users create polls to shame and cyberbully other children, plus there are inappropriate apps and videos that users are forced to watch via the app’s advertising engine.
+++++++++++++++++++
Texas Teen May Be Victim in ‘Blue Whale Challenge’ That Encourages Suicide
Isaiah Gonzalez, 15, found hanging from his closet after an apparent suicide, as allegedly instructed by macabre online game
Nationally, the Associated Press reports that educators, law enforcement officers and parents have raised concerns about the challenge, though these two back-to-back deaths mark the first allegations in the United States about deaths directly linked to the online game. Internationally, suicides in Russia, Brazil, and half a dozen other countries have already been linked to the challenge.
From: Jodie Borgerding [mailto:Borgerding@amigos.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 3:07 PM To: Miltenoff, Plamen <pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu> Cc: Nicole Walsh <WALSH@AMIGOS.ORG> Subject: Proposal Submission for Privacy & Security Conference
Hi Plamen,
Thank you for your recent presentation proposal for the online conference, Privacy & Security in Today’s Library, presented by Amigos Library Services. Your proposal, The role of the library in teaching with technology unsupported by campus IT: the privacy and security issues of the “third-party,” has been accepted. I just wanted to confirm that you are still available to present on September 21, 2017 and if you have a time preference for your presentation (11 am, 12 pm, or 2 pm Central). If you are no longer able to participate, please let me know.
Nicole will be touch with you shortly with additional details and a speaker’s agreement.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
___________________
Jodie Borgerding Consulting & Education Services Manager Amigos Library Services 1190 Meramec Station Road, Suite 207 | Ballwin, MO 63021-6902 800-843-8482 x2897 | 972-340-2897(direct) http://www.amigos.org | borgerding@amigos.org
+++++++++++++++++
Bio
Dr. Plamen Miltenoff is an Information Specialist and Professor at St. Cloud State University. His education includes several graduate degrees in history and Library and Information Science and terminal degrees in education and psychology.
His professional interests encompass social media, multimedia, Web development and design, gaming and gamification, and learning environments (LEs).
The virtuality of privacy and security on the modern campus:
The role of the library in teaching with technology unsupported by campus IT: the privacy and security issues of the “third-party software” teaching and learning
Abstract/Summary of Your Proposed Session
The virtualization reality changes rapidly all aspects of learning and teaching: from equipment to methodology, just when faculty have finalized their syllabus, they have to start a new, if they want to keep abreast with content changes and upgrades and engagement of a very different student fabric – Millennials.
Mainframes are replaced by microcomputers, microcomputers by smart phones and tablets, hard drives by cloud storage and wearables by IoT. The pace of hardware, software and application upgrade is becoming unbearable for students and faculty. Content creation and methodology becomes useless by the speed of becoming obsolete. In such environment, faculty students and IT staff barely can devote time and energy to deal with the rapidly increasing vulnerability connected with privacy and security.
In an effort to streamline ever-becoming-scarce resources, campus IT “standardizes” campus use of applications. Those are the applications, which IT chooses to troubleshoot campus-wide. Those are the applications recommended to faculty and students to use.
In an unprecedented burgeoning amount of applications, specifically for mobile devices, it is difficult to constraint faculty and students to use campus IT sanctioned applications, especially considering the rapid pace of such applications becoming obsolete. Faculty and students often “stray” away and go with their own choice. Such decision exposes faculty and students, personally, and the campus, institutionally, at risk. In a recent post by THE Journal, attention on campuses is drown to the fact that cyberattacks shift now from mobile devices to IoT and campus often are struggling even with their capability to guarantee cybersecurity of mobile devices on campus. Further, the use of third-party application might be in conflict with the FERPA campus-mandated policies. Such policies are lengthy and complex to absorb, both by faculty and students and often are excessively restrictive in terms of innovative ways to improve methodology and pedagogy of teaching and learning. The current procedure of faculty and students proposing new applications is a lengthy and cumbersome bureaucratic process, which often render the end-users’ proposals obsolete by the time the process is vetted.
Where/what is the balance between safeguarding privacy on campus and fostering security without stifling innovation and creativity? Can the library be the campus hub for education about privacy and security, the sandbox for testing and innovation and the body to expedite decision-making?
Abstract
The pace of changes in teaching and learning is becoming impossible to sustain: equipment evolves in accelerated pace, the methodology of teaching and learning cannot catch up with the equipment changes and atop, there are constant content updates. In an even-shrinking budget, faculty, students and IT staff barely can address the issues above, less time and energy left to address the increasing concerns about privacy and security.
In an unprecedented burgeoning amount of applications, specifically for mobile devices, it is difficult to constraint faculty and students to use campus IT sanctioned applications, especially considering the rapid pace of such applications becoming obsolete. Faculty and students often “stray” away and go with their own choice. Such decision exposes faculty and students, personally, and the campus, institutionally, at risk. In a recent post by THE Journal (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/06/06/cybersecurity-and-students/), attention on campuses is drawn to the fact of cyberattacks shifting from mobile devices to IoT but campus still struggling to guarantee cybersecurity of mobile devices on campus. Further, the use of third-party applications might be in conflict with the FERPA campus-mandated policies. Such policies are lengthy and complex to absorb, both by faculty and students and often are excessively restrictive in terms of innovative ways to improve methodology and pedagogy of teaching and learning. The current procedure of faculty and students proposing new applications is a lengthy and cumbersome bureaucratic process, which often render the end-users’ proposals obsolete by the time the process is vetted.
Where/what is the balance between safeguarding privacy on campus and fostering security without stifling innovation and creativity? Can the library be the campus hub for education about privacy and security, the sandbox for testing and innovation and the body to expedite decision-making?
Discuss and form an opinion about the education-pertinent issues of privacy and security from the broad campus perspective, versus the narrow library one
Discuss and form an opinion about the role of the library on campus in terms of the greater issues of privacy and security
Re-examine the thin red line of the balance between standardization and innovation; between the need for security and privacy protection a
chat – slide 4, privacy. please take 2 min and share your definition of privacy on campus. Does it differ between faculty and students? what are the main characteristics to determine privacy
chat – slide 5, security. please take 2 min and share your definition of security on campus regarding electronic activities. Who’s responsibility is security? IT issue [only]?
poles: slide 6, technology unsupported by campus IT, is it worth considering? 1. i am a great believer in my freedom of choice 2. I firmly follow rules and this applies to the use of computer tools and applications 3. Whatever…
chat – slide 6, why third party applications? pros and cons. E.g. pros – familiarity with third party versus campus-required
pole, slide 6, appsmashing. App smashing is the ability to combine mobile apps in your teaching process. How do you feel about it? 1. The force is with us 2. Nonsense…
pole slide 7 third party apps and the comfort of faculty. How do you see the freedom of using third party apps? 1. All I want, thank you 2. I would rather follow the rules 3. Indifference is my middle name
pole slide 8 Technology standardization? 1. yes, 2. no, 3. indifferent
chat slide 9 if the two major issues colliding in this instance are: standardization versus third party and they have impact on privacy and security, how would you argue for the one or the other?
Dr. Steve Albrecht, author of Library Security: Better Communication, Safer Facilities, manages a training, coaching, and management consulting firm, using a dedicated and experienced team of subcontractor specialists. He is internationally known for his consulting and training work in workplace violence prevention training programs, school violence prevention, and high-risk human resources. Dr. Albrecht provides HR consulting, site security assessments, coaching, and training workshops in supervisory improvement, workplace violence prevention, harassment prevention, drug and alcohol awareness, team building, and more. He holds a B.A. in English, B.S. in Psychology, M.A. in Security Management, and a doctoral degree in Business Administration (D.B.A.). He has been a trainer for over 26 years and is a certified Professional in Human Resources (PHR), a Certified Protection Professional (CPP), a Board Certified Coach (BCC), and a Certified Threat Manager (CTM).
Session Description: Libraries don’t always need to hire a consultant to review the level of facility security. Using a structured assessment process, librarians can create a report that will help to make their building, staff, and patrons safer.
Chris Markman, MSLIS, MSIT Public Services Librarian Worcester Public Library
a learning management system (LMS) is never the solution to every problem in education. Edtech is just one part of the whole learning ecosystem and student experience.
Therefore, the next generation digital learning environment (NGDLE), as envisioned by EDUCAUSE in 2015 … Looking at the NGDLE requirements from an LMS perspective, I view the NGDLE as being about five areas: interoperability; personalization; analytics, advising, and learning assessment; collaboration; accessibility and universal design.
Interoperability
Content can easily be exchanged between systems.
Users are able to leverage the tools they love, including discipline-specific apps.
Learning data is available to trusted systems and people who need it.
The learning environment is “future proof” so that it can adapt and extend as the ecosystem evolves.
Personalization
The learning environment reflects individual preferences.
Departments, divisions, and institutions can be autonomous.
Instructors teach the way they want and are not constrained by the software design.
There are clear, individual learning paths.
Students have choice in activity, expression, and engagement.
Analytics, Advising, and Learning Assessment
Learning analytics helps to identify at-risk students, course progress, and adaptive learning pathways.
The learning environment enables integrated planning and assessment of student performance.
More data is made available, with greater context around the data.
The learning environment supports platform and data standards.
Collaboration
Individual spaces persist after courses and after graduation.
Learners are encouraged as creators and consumers.
Courses include public and private spaces.
Accessibility and Universal Design
Accessibility is part of the design of the learning experience.
The learning environment enables adaptive learning and supports different types of materials.
Learning design includes measurement rubrics and quality control.
The core analogy used in the NGDLE paper is that each component of the learning environment is a Lego brick:
The days of the LMS as a “walled garden” app that does everything is over.
Today many kinds of amazing learning and collaboration tools (Lego bricks) should be accessible to educators.
We have standards that let these tools (including an LMS) talk to each other. That is, all bricks share some properties that let them fit together.
Students and teachers sign in once to this “ecosystem of bricks.”
The bricks share results and data.
These bricks fit together; they can be interchanged and swapped at will, with confidence that the learning experience will continue uninterrupted.
Any “next-gen” attempt to completely rework the pedagogical model and introduce a “mash-up of whatever” to fulfil this model would fall victim to the same criticisms levied at the LMS today: there is too little time and training to expect faculty to figure out the nuances of implementation on their own.
The Lego metaphor works only if we’re talking about “old school” Lego design — bricks of two, three, and four-post pieces that neatly fit together. Modern edtech is a lot more like the modern Lego. There are wheels and rocket launchers and belts and all kinds of amazing pieces that work well with each other, but only when they are configured properly. A user cannot simply stick together different pieces and assume they will work harmoniously in creating an environment through which each student can be successful.
As the NGDLE paper states: “Despite the high percentages of LMS adoption, relatively few instructors use its more advanced features — just 41% of faculty surveyed report using the LMS ‘to promote interaction outside the classroom.'”
But this is what the next generation LMS is good at: being a central nervous system — or learning hub — through which a variety of learning activities and tools are used. This is also where the LMS needs to go: bringing together and making sense of all the amazing innovations happening around it. This is much harder to do, perhaps even impossible, if all the pieces involved are just bricks without anything to orchestrate them or to weave them together into a meaningful, personal experience for achieving well-defined learning outcomes.
Making a commitment to build easy, flexible, and smart technology
Working with colleges and universities to remove barriers to adopting new tools in the ecosystem
Standardizing the vetting of accessibility compliance (the Strategic Nonvisual Access Partner Program from the National Federation of the Blind is a great start)
Advancing standards for data exchange while protecting individual privacy
Building integrated components that work with the institutions using them — learning quickly about what is and is not working well and applying those lessons to the next generation of interoperability standards
Letting people use the tools they love [SIC] and providing more ways for nontechnical individuals (including students) to easily integrate new features into learning activities
My note: something just refused to be accepted at SCSU
Technologists are often very focused on the technology, but the reality is that the more deeply and closely we understand the pedagogy and the people in the institutions — students, faculty, instructional support staff, administrators — the better suited we are to actually making the tech work for them.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Under the Hood of a Next Generation Digital Learning Environment in Progress
The challenge is that although 85 percent of faculty use a campus learning management system (LMS),1 a recent Blackboard report found that, out of 70,000 courses across 927 North American institutions, 53 percent of LMS usage was classified as supplemental(content-heavy, low interaction) and 24 percent as complementary (one-way communication via content/announcements/gradebook).2 Only 11 percent were characterized as social, 10 percent as evaluative (heavy use of assessment), and 2 percent as holistic (balanced use of all previous). Our FYE course required innovating beyond the supplemental course-level LMS to create a more holistic cohort-wide NGDLE in order to fully support the teaching, learning, and student success missions of the program.The key design goals for our NGDLE were to:
Create a common platform that could deliver a standard curriculum and achieve parity in all course sections using existing systems and tools and readily available content
Capture, store, and analyze any generated learner data to support learning assessment, continuous program improvement, and research
Develop reports and actionable analytics for administrators, advisors, instructors, and students
Indiana University’s Brad Wheeler explains how his institution is ditching the college textbook and replacing it with digital alternatives that are accessible to students from day one.
it’s taken a long time for textbook publishers to own up to the “fundamental flaw” of their industry: “They are obsessed with counting their gross margins on the things they actually do sell.” And, he added, they ignore the enormous amounts they lose through the other 75 percent of the market made up of used and rented books and other kinds of substitutes. Because of those blinders, the publishers have “long pursued a model that has been failing, year over year.”
Starting in the mid-1990s, the price of educational books rose faster than just about any other measure, including healthcare. Something had to give. Wheeler has seen a “constellation of things” forming to bring about change. First, the e-reader software has matured, he said. “It works on your phone, your tablet, your laptop.”
Second, students are “increasingly digital.” They’re “comfortable with interacting with digital information [and] electronically marking it up.” After all, he noted, “some of them went through high school with digital books and materials.”
Third, familiarity is growing among faculty too. “They see e-texts not just as a substitute for paper, but as a teaching and pedagogical tool. They can go in and annotate that paragraph in the textbook and point to classroom materials or go online and correct something,
Fourth, the printed textbook-first philosophy has stopped paying off for publishers.
The three biggies — Pearson, McGraw-Hill and Cengage — weren’t first in line to sign on, even as additional universities piled onto Indiana U’s project. As a result, their reticence to promote textbook alternatives hit their bottom lines. Eventually, Pearson’s shares took a hit, hovering currently around $8; McGraw-Hill’s education division was peeled off and sold to Apollo Global Management in 2013; and just months later Cengage filed for bankruptcy, emerging a year later with $4 billion less debt.
Unizin. This is the organization created by Indiana U and other large institutional partners to develop services that could replace major paid third-party applications, such as learning management, digital textbook and data warehouse platforms. The goal: to enable higher ed to own its data.
MEL Science aims to release more than 150 lessons covering all the main topics included in K–12 schools’ chemistry curriculum. Later this year, MEL Science also aims to add support for other VR platforms, including Google Cardboard and Samsung Gear VR.
95 percent of larger programs (those with 2,500 or more online program students) are “wholly asynchronous” while 1.5 percent are mainly or completely synchronous. About three-quarters (73 percent) of mid-sized programs (schools with between 500 and 2,499 online program students) and 62 percent of smaller programs are fully asynchronous.
The asynchronous nature of this kind of education may explain why threaded discussions turned up as the most commonly named teaching and learning technique, mentioned by 27.4 percent of respondents, closely followed by practice-based learning, listed by 27.3 percent of survey participants.
While the LMS plays a significant role in online programming, the report pointed to a distinct lack of references to “much-hyped innovations,” such as adaptive learning, competency-based education systems, simulation or game-based learning tools. (my note: my mouth run dry of repeating every time people start becoming orgasmic about LMS, D2L in particular)
four in 10 require the use of instructional design support, three in 10 use a team approach for online course design and one in 10 outsources the work. Overall, some 80 percent of larger programs use instructional design expertise.
In the smallest programs, instructional design support is treated as a “faculty option” for 53 percent of institutions. Another 18 percent expect faculty to develop their online courses independently. For 13 percent of mid-sized programs, the faculty do their development work independently; another 64 percent may choose whether or not to bring in instructional design help. (my note: this is the SCSU ‘case’)
Measuring Quality
Among the many possible quality metrics suggested by the researchers, the five adopted most frequently for internal monitoring were:
Student achievement of program objectives (83 percent);
Student retention and graduation rates (77 percent);
A new survey from Extreme Networks aimed to answer this question by polling nearly 350 schools within higher ed and K-12. According to the results, 23 percent of respondents have tested VR, while 77 percent have not (40 percent of schools polled still aren’t sure if they’ll use the technology in the future). Meaning that although virtual reality has an important and growing role in education, it may take several years to get all institutions on board.
The survey notes that one challenge to implementation is that nearly two-thirds of schools are “somewhat or not sure” their IT infrastructure can currently support VR technology.
Respondents also had concerns about the lack of VR content available, as well as a lack of student resources, with 43 percent of respondents saying that VR is too expensive or difficult to implement. However, one respondent is taking this approach to providing VR to students at low or no cost: “We are putting out a call for old smartphone donations in our [community for those] who no longer need them. With the donations, we’re making sets of Google Cardboard and phones to create traveling VR stations for classes in all of our buildings.”
1. For new research: According to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Jeremy Bailenson, founding director of the Virtual Reality Human Interaction Lab at Stanford University, is using a state-of-the-art “haptic” floor of aeronautic metal that vibrates and moves to stimulate the physical world for research on how VR has the potential to change the way users feel and behave. For example, spending time flying around the world like Superman in virtual reality has been shown to increase participants’ altruistic actions outside of the lab. There may also be implications for confronting racism, sexism, and aiding in empathy and humanitarian efforts, says Bailenson. (see more in about empathy and VR in this IMS blog: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/11/18/immersive-journalism/)
2. For coding and 3D design:
a class on virtual reality that gives students the opportunity to design their own interactive world, work with 3D audio and experiment with immersive technology through a combination of hands-on learning and case studies. Also, the University of Georgia is offering similar classes where students design and explore applications for VR.
3. For anatomy and dissection:
4. For engagement: A whopping 68 percent of survey respondents said the major benefit of using VR in education is to excite students about the subject matter. 39 percent said it’s great for encouraging creativity.
I absolutely echo Kimber’s notion that a team approach to course development can actually take longer, even when one of the team members is an instructional designer. Perhaps because faculty members are used to controlling all aspects of their course development and delivery, the division of labor concept may feel too foreign to them. An issue that is similar in nature and referred to as ‘unbundling the faculty role’ is discussed at length in the development of competency-based education (CBE) courses and it is not typically a concept that faculty embrace.
Robin
+++++++++++++++++++
I will also confirm that the team approach to course development can take longer. Indeed it does in my experience. It requires much more “back and forth”, negotiating of who is doing what, ensuring that the overall approach is congruent, etc. That’s not to say that it’s not a worthwhile endeavor in some cases where it makes pedagogical sense (in our case we are designing courses for 18-22 year-old campus-based learners and 22+ year-old fully online learners at the same time), but if time/cost savings is the goal, you will be sorely disappointed, in my experience. The “divide and conquer” approach requires a LOT of coordination and oversight. Without that you will likely have a cobbled together, hodgepodge of a course that doesn’t meet expectations.
Best, Carine Director, Office of Instructional Design & Academic Technology Ottawa University 1001 S. Cedar St. * Ottawa, KS 66067 carine.ullom@ottawa.edu * 785-248-2510
++++++++++++++++++++
Breaking up a course and coming up with a cohesive design and approach, could make the design process longer. At SSC, we generally work with our faculty over the course of a semester for each course. When we’ve worked with teams, we have not seen a shortened timeline.
The length of time it takes to develop a course depends on the content. Are there videos? If so, they have to be created, which is time-consuming, plus they either need to have a transcript created or they need subtitles. Both of those can be time-consuming. PowerPoint slides take time, plus, they need more content to make them relevant. We are working with our faculty to use the Universal Design for Learning model, which means we’re challenging them to create the content to benefit the most learners
I have a very small team whose sole focus is course design and it takes us 3-4 weeks to design a course and it’s our full-time job!
Linda
Linda C. Morosko, MA Director, eStarkState Division of Student Success 330-494-6170 ext. 4973 lmorosko@starkstate.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kelvin, we also use the 8-week development cycle, but do occasionally have to lengthen that cycle for particularly complex courses or in rare cases when the SME has had medical emergencies or other major life disruptions. I would be surprised if multiple faculty working on a course could develop it any more quickly than a single faculty member, though, because of the additional time required for them to agree and the dispersed sense of responsibility. Interesting idea.
-Kimber
Dr. Kimberly D. Barnett Gibson, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs and Online Learning Our Lady of the Lake University 411 SW 24th Street San Antonio, TX 78207 Kgibson@ollusa.edu210.431.5574 BlackBoard IM kimberly.gibson https://www.pinterest.com/drkdbgavpol/ @drkimberTweets
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello everyone. As a follow-up to the current thread, how long do you typically give hey course developer to develop a master course for your institution? We currently use an eight week model but some faculty have indicated that that is not enough time for them although we have teams of 2 to 4 faculty developing such content. Our current assumption is that with teams, there can be divisions of labor that can reduce the total amount time needed during the course development process.
Kelvin Bentley, PhD Vice President of Academic Affairs, TCC Connect Campus Tarrant County College District
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At Berkeley College, full-time faculty may develop online courses in conjunction with an instructional designer. The course is used as a master template for other sections to be assigned from. Once the course has been scheduled and taught, the faculty member receives a stipend. The faculty member would receive their normal pay to teach the developed course as part of their semester course load, with no additional royalties assigned for it or any additional sections that may be provided to students.
Regards, Gina Gina Okun Assistant Dean, Online Berkeley College 64 East Midland Avenue, Suite 2, Paramus, NJ 07652 (973)405-2111 x6309 gina-okun@berkeleycollege.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
We operate with nearly all adjunct faculty where >70% of enrollment credits are onlinez
With one exception that I can recall, the development contract includes the college’s outright ownership, with no royalty rights. One of the issues with a royalty based arrangement would be what to do when the course is revised (which happens nearly every term, to one degree or another). At what point does the course begin to take on the character of another person’s input?
What do you do if the course is adapted for a shorter summer term, or a between-term intensive? What if new media tools or a different LMS are used? Is the royalty arrangement based on the syllabus or the course content itself? What happens if the textbook goes out of print, or an Open resource becomes available? What happens if students evaluate the course poorly?
I’m not in position to set this policy — I’m only reporting it. I like the idea of a royalty arrangement but it seems like it could get pretty messy. It isn’t as if you are licensing a song or an image where the original product doesn’t change. Courses, the modes of delivery, and the means of communication change all the time. Seems like it would be hard to define what constitutes “the course” after a certain amount of time.
Steve Covello Rich Media Specialist/Instructional Designer/Online Instructor Chalk & Wire e-Portfolio Administrator Granite State College 603-513-1346 Video chat: https://appear.in/id.team Scheduling: http://meetme.so/stevecovello
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’ve worked with many institutions that have used Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to develop or provide the online course content. Most often, the institutions also provide a resource in the form of an Instructional Designer (ID) to take the content and create the actual course environment.
The SME is paid on a contract basis for provision of the content. This is a one-time payment, and the institution then owns the course content (other than integrated published materials such as text books, licensed online lab products, etc.). The SME may be an existing faculty member at the institution or not, or the SME may go on to teach the course at the institution. In any event, whoever teaches the course would be paid the standard faculty rate for the course. If the course requires revisions to the extent that a person will need to be engaged for content updates, then that can be a negotiated contract. Typically it is some fraction of the original development cost. No royalties are involved.
Within SUNY, there is some variance regarding whether a stipend is paid for development or not. In either case, since we are unionized there is policy regarding IP. IP resides with the faculty developer unless both parties agree in writing in the form of a contract to assign or share rights.
Thank you for your feedback on this issue. Our institution does does not provide a royalty as we consider course development as a fee-for-service arrangement. We pay teams of 2-4 faculty $1000 each to develop master course shells for our high-enrollment courses. Instead of a royalty fee, I think an institution can simply provide course developers the perk of first right of refusal to teach the course when it offered as well as providing course developers with the first option to make revisions to the course shell over time.
Kelvin
Kelvin Bentley, Ph.D. Vice President of Academic Affairs, TCC Connect Campus Tarrant County College District
Once upon a time, and several positions ago, we set up a google doc for capturing all kinds of data points across institutions, like this. I’m sure it’s far out of date, but may still have some ideas or info in there – and could possibly be dusted off and oiled up for re-use… I present the Blend-Online Data Collector. This tab is for course development payment.
Kind regards,
Clark
Clark Shah-Nelson
Assistant Dean, Instructional Design and Technology
University of Maryland School of Social Work—Twitter … LinkedIn —voice/SMS: (646) 535-7272fax: 270.514.0112
Hi Jenn,
Just want to clarify…you say faculty “sign over all intellectual property rights of the course to the college.” but later in the email say “Faculty own all intellectual property and can take it with them to teach at another institution”, so is your policy changing to the former? Or, is it the later and that is what you are asking about?
I’ll send details on our policy directly to your email account.
I am tasked with finding out what the going rate is for the following model:
We pay an adjunct faculty member (“teaching faculty”) a set amount in order to develop an online course and sign over all intellectual property rights of the course to the college.
Is anyone doing this? I’ve heard of models that include royalties, but I personally don’t know of any that offer straight payment for IP. I know this can be a touchy subject, so feel free to respond directly to me and I will return and post a range of payment rates with no other identifying data.
For some comparison, we are currently paying full time faculty a $5000 stipend to spend a semester developing their very first online class, and then they get paid to teach the class. Subsequent online class developments are unpaid. Emerson owns the course description and course shell and is allowed to show the course to future faculty who will teach the online course. Faculty own all intellectual property and can take it with them to teach at another institution. More info: http://www.emerson.edu/itg/online-emerson/frequently-asked-questions
I asked this on another list, but wanted to get Blend_Online’s opinion as well. Thanks for any pointers!
Jenn Stevens
Director | Instructional Technology Group | 403A Walker Building | Emerson College | 120 Boylston St | Boston MA 02116 | (617) 824-3093
Ellen M. Murphy
Director of Program Development
Graduate Professional Studies
Library marketers crave media attention and coverage, but most don’t know how to get it. The first step is having a Press Room as part of your library’s website. This workshop, led by a member of the media who’s also a library marketing expert, shows you how to build a Press Room that works. It includes how your library benefits from having an online Press Room, even if you don’t have a marketing department; where it belongs in your website hierarchy; what content members of the press expect to find there; SEO basics and PR tactics to lead reporters to your online Press Room; why building relationships with the media is vital; how press coverage affects your library’s usage, funding, brand recognition, and position in the community. Help ensure positive coverage by adding this strategic tool to your website.
In this half-day workshop, a former advertising executive and trainer of strategic storytelling in marketing shares secrets on how to create video that has an impact on your community. Join her to shoot, edit, and polish a video while gathering tips, techniques, and strategies to create your own video-a medium which grabs communities in exciting new ways!
W10: Implementing an Internet of Things Infrastructure & Apps
9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
May Chang, Assistant Director, LibraryTechnology, East Carolina University
Mehdi Mohammadi, Graduate Assistant, Western Michigan University
The Internet of Things (IoT) is becoming widespread in academia as well as industry. It refers to connecting smart objects with built-in unique identifiers and sensors to communicate with each other autonomously. This enables actionable insights and ultimately makes the environment around us smarter. This workshop looks at how libraries can incorporate the IoT and reviews different aspects of developing an IoT infrastructure and creating your own application. It is based on four layers of IoT application architecture: the physical layer, the communications layer, application and services layer, and data analytics. Speakers discuss the potentials and challenges of IoT applications, including the footprint of IoT applications, i.e., a high volume of sensory data, the tools and methods for data analytics. As a case study, they focus on location-aware applications using iBeacons and smartphone sensors to show how all the IoT elements work together. Gain a better understanding of the usefulness of IoT in libraries, learn the main elements and underlying technologies of IoT applications, and understand the difference between a wide range of IoT devices, protocols and technologies to choose the right ones for your IoT application. Get budget and resource estimates and more. Come with a basic understanding of JavaScript/ HTML5/ CSS and your laptop for hands-on development practice. An instruction document will be provided for the attendees to prepare their system before the workshop.
W15: Tech Trends for Libraries in 2017 & Beyond
1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
David Lee King, Digital Services Director, Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library and Publisher, davidleeking.com
Technology has changed the face of libraries and is continuing to change how we work and how we deliver services to customers. This workshop introduces emerging technology trends and shows how those trends are reshaping library services. Examples are provided of how to incorporate these evolving trends into libraries. Attendees learn what trends to look for, find out the difference between a technology trend and a fad, and get ideas on how their library can respond to technology as it emerges.
W16: UX Design for Broader Discovery
1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Stephanie Rosso, Principal Web Developer, Hennepin County Library
Amy Luedtke, Senior Librarian, Information Programs and Services, Hennepin County Library
While patrons have embraced using online technology to access their public library, most of these interactions are limited to borrowing transactions. If libraries are to be truly relevant in the digital world, we need to nudge patrons out of the well-worn pattern of log-in/transact /log-out and find ways to get them to linger long enough to discover the richness the library has to offer beyond borrowing items, while offering them opportunities to add their own voice to the library’s online community. This workshop explores design patterns and techniques for introducing content to patrons at appropriate moments in their learned workflows. It considers how to encourage patrons to add their voice to the library community and overcome concerns about privacy and security. It shares research and experience from BiblioCommons and Hennepin County Public Library’s efforts and looks at analogs from other domains. Workshop participants will be asked to participate actively in a hands-on session to solve a specific design challenge in teams.
My note: Ha. Even the public library understands that service goes beyond “borrowing items” and must have “patrons to add their voice.” Only in the academic library, prevails the opinion that librarians are those omnipotent and all-knowing lecturing types.
B103: Website Redesign: Techniques & Tools
1:15 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Dana Haugh, Web Services Librarian, Stony Brook University
Roy Degler, Associate Professor, Digital Library Services, Digital Resources and Discovery Services, Oklahoma State University
Join three web experts to learn about tips, tools, and techniques for taking the pain out of website redesigns. Haugh provides advice on the visual design of your next site and shows some examples of library web redesigns. Degler takes a look at why many libraries are using popular, free, CSS-based frameworks such as Bootstrap; explains how the grid layout works; and shows how the built-in responsive design layouts can deliver a site that works on desktop, smartphones, and tablets.Often the biggest challenge in redesign isn’t the visual design, content management system or coding. It’s the people and politics. Everyone thinks they know what the library website should look like, but no two people—let alone groups—can ever agree. How do you move ahead with a library redesign when you’re facing conflicting demands from the administration, co-workers, users, and stakeholders? Mitchell tackles this challenge head on and points out the weapons that we have at hand—from data to documentation; and discusses how to wield those weapons effectively to win (almost) any fight in order to build a great website. Grab lots of insights and ideas from this experienced panel.
C102: Digital Literacy & Coding Program Models
11:15 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Karen Walker, E-Services & Digital Access Manager, Jacksonville Public Library
Brandy McNeil, Associate Director – Tech Education & Training, The New York Public Library
Steven Deolus, Technology Training Program Coordinator, TechConnect (Technology Training Program Department), The New York Public Library
This session looks at how one library created a technology class and programming model that spans a 21-branch, 844-square-mile library system. It discusses mobile classrooms and how Chromebooks, MacBooks, tablets, and other equipment are used to create “classrooms” throughout the system. It shares how the library is focusing on members and programming for the community, for instance, the development of Spanish language, 50+ and immigrant/refugee programming. It looks at developing new programs and instructors using the 3D model from printer to pens, from tablets to coding, from core expertise to everyone. NYPL speakers discuss how coding is the new black! They discuss how to launch a coding program at your library, how to expand the age range of current coding programs, how to promote events related to your program to gain participants, how to get staff buy-in, how to educate staff, and how to create partnerships with some of the biggest names in the game. The NYPL Tech- Connect program will help you plan out all your needs to take your existing or non-existing coding programs further.
My note: one more proof that digital literacy is not “information literacy dressed in the new verbal cloth” of “digital literacy,” but entails way more topics, skills and knowledge. Information Literacy is a 1990s concept. Time to upgrade to 2016 concepts and recognize that digital literacy requires skills beyond handling information. Moreover, information today is way more complex then the skills being taught, since information from social media is more complex then information from news media and it entails technology skills, which one does not have to preside upon for handling news media
E104: From Textbook to Activism: Engaging Students in Social Issues They Care About
2:15 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Janie Pickett, Head Librarian, Eureka High School, Eureka, Mo.
Anna Gray, Social Studies Teacher, Eureka High School, Eureka, Mo.
recent collaborative effort between a high school social studies teacher and a school librarian transformed a “same-old” unit on social movements in the 20th century into a dynamic study of effective social activism—and how students can become effective activists. Using both primary and secondary resources, students learned to analyze social issues, then to identify the type of activism that proved effective for those issues. Next, students selected social situations important to them, analyzed the changes they sought to effect, and determined a means of activism to effect that change in practical—and often surprising—ways. The project’s design and implementation is straightforward and replicable. This session provides concrete steps to follow, specific patterns for locating learning resources, and reproducible forms that educators can carry back to their own campuses.
B202: Managing Tech & Innovation
11:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Jen Baum Sevec, Senior Metadata and Acquisitions Librarian, Library Of Congress
Brett Williams, Systems & Liaison Librarian, University of Toronto Mississauga
Sevec offers leaders at any level the opportunity to up their game by learning current management strategies for technology and innovation. Library leaders and constituents engage in the nearly constant interplay of enabling technology and innovations to explore a wealth of information and greater depth of data in the Information Age. A framework for managing this interplay is provided as well as an understanding of the dynamic lifecycle inherent in technological innovations and constituent demands. Williams provides an introduction to Wardley Value Chain Mapping, an innovative IT planning processes discussed by Simon Wardley on his blog Bits and Pieces. He shares specific examples of how this tool can be used by systems librarians, library administrators, and library IT decision makers.
B203: Finding Your Social Media Voice
1:45 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Meghan Kowalski, Head, Preservation, The Catholic University of America
Kirsten Mentzer, Technology Specialist, Northern Virginia Community College’s Medical Education Campus
Alexandra Radocchia Zealand, Web Editor, New Media Developer and Video Producer, Web Team, Arlington Public Library PLA, VLA, ALA, LLAMA
Lennea R. Bower, Program Specialist, Virtual Services, Montgomery County Public Libraries
This session provides an in-depth look at how to speak in social media. Each institution and organization’s social media accounts has a personality. How you say something is just as important as what you say and why you say it. Your voice on social media says a lot to your followers. If done well, your tone will help to attract and keep an audience. The wrong kind of voice will turn people away. Finding the right voice can be difficult and involves a lot of trial and error. Speakers provide tips for finding the right voice and presenting the best personality for your intended followers. Social media is no longer the “new kid on the block,” and the panel highlights the best ways to communicate content, being real, tone, and more. They showcase what kinds of tones can be used and how to find the “real voice” for your accounts, why those voices are (or are not) successful for those accounts; and how to make your chosen voice sustainable and consistent across your accounts.
C203: Migrating & Developing With Drupal
1:45 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
June Yang, Senior Librarian, International Monetary Fund
Linda Venable, Systems Librarian, International Monetary Fund
Elizabeth Zoby, Information Specialist, PAE, National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Billy Mathews, Web Developer, PAE, National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
Migrating to a new ILS system is not easy, and it is even more challenging when faced with a very tight deadline. Presenters share the recent experience of migrating from SirsiDynix Symphony to Alma within 5 months: what worked, what didn’t, lessons learned, and what to prepare in advance of the migration. They also share some insight about post migration work related to data cleanup, workflows review, etc. Zoby and Mathews share their development of the NIC micro-sites using Drupal, an open-source content management software, to create dynamic websites that make accessing material easy and user-friendly. Instead of having to download and shift through large PDF documents, users can access the content on easily searchable websites which can be edited by authorized users. See how the NIC Information Center is using these sites to help customers and the public access information in innovative ways.
D202: Funding Opps for Digital Library Initiatives
11:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Trevor Owens, Digital Archivist, Office of Strategic Initiatives, Library Of Congress
Nicole Ferraiolo, Program Officer, Scholarly Resources, Council on Library & Information Resources
Joel Wurl, Senior Program Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities
Discovering and deciphering guidelines for grant programs is a daunting and challenging process. This session provides an opportunity to directly hear from and ask questions about grant opportunities for digital libraries’ initiatives to program officers from different government and private funders. Following brief overviews of the relevant funding opportunities at their organizations, panelists discuss the kinds of projects that best fit their specific programs. Get suggestions on how to develop a competitive proposal and insights on the application and review process. Panelists consider themes and trends from the digital library projects that have received funding, such as digitization, open educational resources, linked data, crowdsourcing, open access publishing, emulation and virtualization, and data visualization. By bringing together representatives from different funders, this session offers a unique opportunity to connect directly with program officers and identify new opportunities and approaches for funding.
A301: Augmented Reality & Learning
10:45 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
Ashley Todd-Diaz, Head, Special Collections & University Archives, Towson University
Earl Givens, Head, Systems & Technology, Catawba College
Art Gutierrez, Head, Technical Services, Emporia State University
Bethanie O’Dell, Virtual Learning Librarian, Emporia State University
Just when you thought the battle of augmented reality (AR) was over with Pokémon GO, libraries across the nation have been exploring additional AR options in order to meet the needs of the mobile learners walking through their doors. With the use of free AR software, four individuals team up to become the ultimate masters of AR. Hear from a panel of closely networked professionals, each with a unique story of embedding AR into specific library services directed for higher education. These stories range from embedding AR with liaison departments to incorporating AR into information literacy sessions (both online and face-to-face).
A304: Multimodal Learning: From Textbooks to Playlists
Colleges, universities, and libraries are considering adding video making, or visual literacy, as a core skill. Preparing individuals for a highly visual communication landscape requires critical thinking to offset consumerism as well as multimodal learning and cognitive skills. Researching, creating, and sharing video playlists are important ways to create personalized learning pathways and promote continuous learning. Explore a number of case studies that demonstrate the positive learning outcomes of multimodal learning in academic and corporate settings and discover how to create playlists that can be annotated, edited, and shared across teams.
B304: Raspberry Pi
2:45 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
David Bennett, Systems Librarian, Robert Morris University
Raspberry Pi is an inexpensive computing tool that is ideal for new projects within libraries. It’s a powerful single board computer that plays high-definition video, yet it’s only the size of a credit card. The Raspberry Pi 3 was released in February of 2016, and the built-in networking options make it an exciting fit for library applications. Learn how Raspberry Pi can be used as a people counter, a dedicated OPAC, a social media tool, and more.
D302: Upping Our “Gamification”: Speaking Millennials’ Language
11:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
David Folmar, Emerging Technology Librarian, Main Branch, Richmond Public Library Author, Game It Up! Using Gamification to Incentivize Your Library
Be tech-smart and culture-savvy by using game-design thinking and gaming activities to connect with current users in a fun way and draw in new ones. Hear from a library communicator who literally wrote the book on this topic. Online games are incredibly popular; libraries, book apps, and learning institutions are leveraging this to bring in new audiences and engage with existing ones in new ways. Why are they doing this, what is the benefit, and how do you make it work to promote your library? Get the answers here!
Video is a powerful, emotional storytelling medium that plays well in social media, and its use is still fast-growing. Video can spread your library’s story, and you can do it without hiring an expensive pro. A tech-savvy info pro shares basic video facts, along with her favorite tools, tips, and techniques that almost anyone can use for creating short, compelling videos to promote library services, staffers, and resources.
My note: my mouth ran dry to repeat this to the SCSU library. In vain. 1. make a low-cost social-media type of movie of 30 sec each week/month. 2. post on a prominent place on the library web page. 3. Have web form harvest info from patrons on the issu[s] reflected in the video 4. mirror video on the social media 5. aim as ultimate goal patrons (students, faculty, staff) furbishing the video footage instead of library staff
Why is it soooo difficult to comprehend?
E302: Zero to Maker: Invention Literacy & Mobile Memory Lab
11:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Dominique China, Information Services Librarian, Brampton Library
Colleen Dearborn, Adult Services Librarian, Alsip-Merrionette Park Library, Alsip, Ill.
Invention literacy is not just about understanding how a thing is made or how it works; it is also the ability to use that knowledge to bring one’s own ideas into reality. China gives examples of how one public library is empowering children, teens, and adults to become “invention-literate” through its maker programming. Find out how a combination of high- and low-tech equipment, safe and accessible learning environments, and a unique community partnership is nurturing invention, creative confidence, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Sparked by the CIL 2016 Hawkins and Mears talk about personal digital archiving and the DCPL Memory Lab, Dearborn shares her library’s inexpensive journey to create a mobile memory lab program. She discusses the acquisition of equipment and technology, the demo classes, lesson plans about personal archiving, outreach to other community organizations, and providing classes on related topics, such as saving and uploading images, backing up files and using cloud storage, writing and self-publishing memoirs, conducting oral interviews with veterans and other family memories, coding and saving memories on a website, etc. Future plans include digitizing local history documents, a community website with links to these documents, as well as to our patrons’ digitized images, videos, interviews and memoirs.
