Bored students is the least of it – the bullet point-ization of information is making us stupid and irresponsible
The genesis story runs like this: from the late 1950s corporations began to realise that, rather than going to the trouble of developing new products they hoped would meet a need, they could use marketeers to create the perception of need, then develop products to meet it (a shift brilliantly dramatised in the TV series Mad Men). To do this, different departments had to be able to speak to each other, to sell ideas internally. So while there had always been meetings, now there were meetings about meetings and – hey presto! – the modern world was born.
The presentational precursor to PowerPoint was the overhead projector, which is why PP screens are still called “slides”. The program owes most to Whitfield Diffie, one of the time lords of online cryptography, but it was quickly snapped up by Microsoft. Its coding/marketing roots are intrinsic to its cognitive style, being relentlessly linear and encouraging short, affirmative, jargonesque assertions: arguments that are resolved, untroubled by shades of grey.
It’s no coincidence that the two most famous PowerPoint presentations are: a) the one presented to Nasa managers by engineers, explaining with unarguable illogic why damaged tiles on the space shuttle Columbia were probably nothing to fret about; and b) General Colin Powell’s equally fuzzy pitch for war with Iraq. Now, blaming PowerPoint for Iraq would be a bit like blaming Darwin for Donald Trump, but the program made scrutiny of the case harder. Not for nothing did Brigadier General McMaster, of the US military, subsequently liken the proliferation of PP presentation in the military to an “internal threat”, saying: “It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems are not bullet-izable.”
According to the Team 5 meeting notes of 9/22/2015, presented to the library administration, under individual updates, e. Pedagogy, Active Learning/Interactivity/Focused Engagement, there are six points, including ‘flipped classroom,’ as proposed by Chris Inkster, but nothing about my proposal, which can be outlined as “changing the pedagogy of library instruction to fit the increased environment of mobile devices.”It makes the absence of my proposal even more bizarre considering that:
– during a meeting of Team 5 on Sept 23, I was questioned about my proposal and i delivered renewed explainations
Thus, since past proposals submitted by me were cut/ignored in a similar fashion as well as this one, I am formally entering it in a medium, which will bear the time stamp and the seal, so my proposal is not bastardized in the future and everyone can refer to the original idea, shall misunderstandings occur.
From: Miltenoff, Plamen Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:33 PM To: Inkster, Christine D. <cinkster@stcloudstate.edu>; Gruwell, Cindy A. <cagruwell@stcloudstate.edu>; Gorman, Michael S. <msgorman@stcloudstate.edu>; Hubbs, Susan <shubbs@stcloudstate.edu> Subject: Miller Center 218 – Remodel – TWO Questions
Good evening,
I will pick up from the correspondence below and share my thoughts thereafter.
Several weeks ago, Cisco announced a technology, which will allow the institutional IT to assign preference of teaching content over personal usage. In my understanding, the news signals that questions about accessibility need to be accordingly rephrased. It also craves transparency on the SCSU IT.
I have difficulties following Henry May’s ideas because of: 1. Lack of transparency and 2. Lack of didactical understanding.
The quintessential disparity (cart in front of the ox) is that from the emails below, it seems that the technology is driving didactic. If I need to prove that pedagogy drives technology, not vice versa, then there is a profound problem. I will assume that everyone agrees with pedagogy being in the center and technology is serving it. In that sense, this team and any other faculty unit trying to line up their curricular process to Henry’s vision, becomes preposterous; Henry is the one who has to be listening to the faculty and serve them.
Therefore, trying to adjust [long-term]future plans about pedagogy, by asking technology questions first, is in its best limiting. One needs to come up with a didactic frame and ask the responding questions how to furbish such frame with technology. If one assumes, as it is claimed, that this campus is moving to m-learning (mobile learning), BYOD, BYOx or any other fancy acronym, which de facto reflects the preponderance of mobile devices as main gateway to information used by students, then the pedagogy must be [re]designed for m-learning. In that sense, from a pedagogical point of view, I find perplexing focusing on MC 218 and subduing BYOD/x/mobile learning to the pedagogy, which will be exercised in a room ( MC 218). How is it mobile? Using mobile devices in room full with desktops does not make sense to me. Keep teaching a dynamic content such as library instruction in a confined room, also does not make sense to me.
Here is how I see the pedagogical reconsideration of library instruction must be considered.
In April 214, I proposed a plan, adopted from a Chicago librarian:
the plan reflects one of numerous possibilities to change the pedagogy of lecturing in a room (MC 218) to hands-on, real-life construct of knowledge by students on their own (constructivism). The pedagogical foundation is based on the use of personal mobile devices (BYOx), which renders the issue of MC 218 accessibility by wi fi as non-significant, since the hit on the wi fi network will be evenly distributed across the entire building.
The example above is only one of many on curriculum that needs to be changed by adopting gaming and gamification techniques:
the essence of library instruction needs to change from lecturing to facilitation and consultations of students’ own construct and discovery how the library works and can help them; it needs to be a F2F rehearsal of students-librarian virtual relationship, which later on can guide and help students individually then in groups.
In that sense, MC 218 can/should to be considered a hub for activities, which mostly take place across the library. MC 218 can be the center place, where in-depth exercises are performed. Exercises, which require either: 1. Stronger processing power, 2. Intensive typing, or 3. Larger screens. While it needs to be further surveyed, I believe that MC 218 needs to have prevalent presence of dock-type of stations (recharge, dongles to connect to large screens) and other peripherals which can allow students to connect their laptops, tablets and mobile devices, then desktops.
10 min of the presentation: “students are searching from devices”
this is why library instruction should slowly move from regular keyboarding exercises to utilization of mobile devices
James Hammons advocates for a mobile app geared toward accommodating students’ readiness to shift from large-screen search to smart phone search. The layout of the content being responsive to the screen size.
if the trend is to cater to students’ preference in using mobile devices, it is only logical to start gearing up to providing instruction and assistance using mobile devices.
Kathryn Silberger asserts (min 36 and forth) that the Library must let students know that it (the Library) is mobile friendly. How better to establish such feeling but by changing practices from big screen to hiding-behind-the-desktops students to gamified activities using mobile devices. Faculty have a “sticky influence” on student information habits.
Dr. Dan Siegel, clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, lays out all of the negative effects that bedtime screen viewing can have on the brain and body. WATCH THE 2 MIN VIDEO
YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, BuzzFeed, and Snapchat videos are increasingly keeping audiences glued to their small screens, opening up new greenfield opportunities in advertising.
1- Create and edit digital audio 2- Use Social bookmarking to share resources with and between learners 3- Use blogs and wikis to create online platforms for students 4- Exploit digital images for classroom use 5- Use video content to engage students 6- Use infographics to visually stimulate students
7- Use Social networking sites to connect with colleagues and grow professionally
8- Create and deliver asynchronous presentations and training sessions 9- Compile a digital e-portfolio for their own development 10- be able to detect plagiarized works in students assignments 11- Create screen capture videos and tutorials 12- Curate web content for classroom learning
13- Use and provide students with task management tools to organize their work and plan their learning 14- Use polling software to create a real-time survey in class 15- Understand issues related to copyright and fair use of online materials 16- Use digital assessment tools to create quizzesHere are some tools for teachers to develop this skill 17- Find and evaluate authentic web based content 18- Use digital tools for time management purposes 19- Use note taking tools to share interesting content with your students 20- Use of online sticky notes to capture interesting ideas
