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
Blended learning is in one dimension broadly defined as “The convergence of online and face-to-face Education” as in the study by Watson (2008). At the same time it is important to also include the dimension of technology and media use as it has been depicted in the multimodal conceptual model in Figure 1 below. This conceptual model was proposed and presented in an article published by Picciano (2009). Critical Factors for Implementing Blended Learning in Higher Education.
online face to face hybrid
Several studies that argue for the need to focus on pedagogy and learning objectives and not solely on technology (Hoffinan, 2006; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Al amm ary et al., 2014; McGee & Reis, 2012; Shand, Glassett Farrelly & Costa, 2016). Other findings in this study are that technology still is a critical issue (So & Brush, 2008; Fleming, Becker & Newton, 2017), not least in developing regions (AI Busaidi & Al-Shihi, 2012; Raphae1 & Mtebe, 2016), and also the more positive idea of technology as a supporting factor for innovative didactics and instructional design to satisfy the needs in heterogeneous student groups (Picciano, 2009). Critical Factors for Implementing Blended Learning in Higher Education.
Critical factors:
technology
didactics – pedagogy, instructional design and the teacher role
Course outcomes – learning outcomes and learner satisfaction
collaboration and social presence
course design
the heritage from technology enhanced distance courses
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
The New York Times VR app (available for iOS and Android) we can now experience parts of Antarctica in virtual reality. As a part of their Antarctica series The New York Times has published four short films (9-15 minutes) that can be viewed in virtual reality.
Request from Plovdiv University faculty and teachers from the Plovdiv school district for literature on the issue of online reading for K4 students
Putman, S. M. (2014). Exploring Dispositions Toward Online Reading: Analyzing the Survey of Online Reading Attitudes and Behaviors. Reading Psychology, 35(1), 1-31. doi:10.1080/02702711.2012.664250
Research continues to emerge that pro-vides us with information about the cognitive skills and strategies relevant to the proficient use of the new literacies of the Internet, but conclusions regarding dispositions and affective variables are notably limited. For this reason, it is important that researchers begin to focus concurrently on both areas to inform the educational community regarding how to meet the rapidly changing needs of our current and future students.
Coiro, J. (2011). Talking About Reading as Thinking: Modeling the Hidden Complexities of Online Reading Comprehension. Theory Into Practice, 50(2), 107-115. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.558435
Hutchison, A. C., Woodward, L., & Colwell, J. (2016). What Are Preadolescent Readers Doing Online? An Examination of Upper Elementary Students’ Reading, Writing, and Communication in Digital Spaces. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 435-454. doi:10.1002/rrq.146
he performance of 1,262 fourth and fifth graders on the Survey of Internet Use and Online Reading.
(c) despite reporting a preference for using the Internet, preadolescent students believe that it is more difficult to use it than to read a book, and believe that they would learn
more from a book than from the Internet;
Huang, S., Orellana, P., & Capps, M. (2016). U.S. and Chilean College Students’ Reading Practices: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 455-471. doi:10.1002/rrq.144
My note: this may seem peripheral study to the request in terms of age, but the cross-cultural study can help the Bulgarian research
Due to the impact of the Internet on reading resources, students’ reading patterns today are different from how they were in the past. College students’ reading practices have moved to different venues with the advent of Internet technology, and the modality has migrated to online reading.
Naumann, J. (2015). A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement, navigation, and performance in digital reading. Computers In Human Behavior, 53263-277. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.051
model of online reading engagement is outlined. This model proposes that online reading engagement predicts dedication in digital reading. Dedication in digital reading according to the model is reflected in task-adaptive navigation, and task-adaptive navigation predicts digital reading performance over and above print reading skill. Information engagement is assumed to positively predict task-adaptive navigation, while social engagement is assumed to negatively predict task-adaptive navigation. These hypotheses were tested using OECD PISA 2009 Digital Reading Assessment data from 17 countries and economies ( N = 29,395).
Alvermann, D. E., & Harrison, C. (2016). Are Computers, Smartphones, and the Internet a Boon or a Barrier for the Weaker Reader?. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(2), 221-225. doi:10.1002/jaal.569
If boys are spending nine hours a day media multitasking and prefer computers to books, shouldn’t they be successful at online learning? Online learning requires online reading, which means that boys, who are significantly poorer readers than girls in every nation in the world, may well be struggling to keep up. an online student may not have access to the learning that can come from group interaction, nor to the social and emotional support that can come from peers or a teacher, and the online reader could be heading for a learning apocalypse
Park, H., & Kim, D. (2017). English language learners’ strategies for reading online texts: Influential factors and patterns of use at home and in school. International Journal Of Educational Research, 8263-74. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.01.002
five fourth and fifth-grade English language learners’ (ELLs) strategy use when they read online texts at home and in school. We also identify factors that play a role when these learners read online texts, as well as similar and different patterns in reading strategies at home and in school. The findings show that three factors influence the ELLs’ selection of online texts and use of reading strategies. In addition, the ELLs used nine reading strategies to enhance their reading online texts. Based on these findings, we discuss (a) the ELLs’ online reading strategies in different contexts, (b) the multidimensional zone of proximal development, and (c) collaboration between parents and teachers.
Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Timbrell, N., & Maykel, C. (2015). Seeing the Forest, Not the Trees. Reading Teacher, 69(2), 139-145. doi:10.1002/trtr.1406
a primary goal is to develop the ability to read in order to learn with online information. Technologies that support this goal, especially the Internet, and instructional practices that support the development of online reading should be our primary consideration for reading and literacy education, beginning in the primary grades.
Brynge, E., Case, H., Forsyth, E., Green, G., & Hölke, U. (2015). Libraries: Sustaining the Digital Reader Experience. Scholarly & Research Communication, 1-10.
My notes: this is a 1997 article
the explosion of information is not accompanied by understanding of information.
p. 337 However, if one accepts a definition of information as a process rather than as a thing, then such policies can at best form a framework for the creation of mean- ing by the individuals or groups who are creating information by bring- ing their knowledge to bear on the data available to them
Data acquisition, maintenance and delivery are a vital part of organisational life, but problems arise when we fail to recognise the necessary links to knowledge.
p. 338 However, just teaching users the practi- calities of applications has been seen to be deficient. It leads to an exces- sive focus on ‘how’ to use a particular application rather than on ‘why’ it should be used 13.
p. 379 Information literacy is a stage above computer literacy, the latter usually implying the ability to use a personal computer . My note: some librarians assume that “computer literacy” is the same as “digital literacy” and were trying to convince me that information literacy is succeeding digital literacy, where it is the other way around
p. 380 There are those within the LIS community who warn that librar- ians should not stray into areas that are not appropriate. Behrens points out that the future is likely to see an increased emphasis on a part- nership between librarians and educators. My note another glaring discrepancy between myself and the librarians at SCSU
p. 386 The phrase information literacy has some value in expressing what might need to be done if the aims of information policies are to be made concrete. It points to the need for an emphasis on the awareness of the individual using data of a range of issues. These are not, it has been argued, to be limited to issues of storage and retrieval but have, centrally, to be concerned with issues of definition and meaning. These issues might be tackled in this order: what are the issues in this field surround- ing the nature of knowledge (i.e. how do we formulate questions); how might data be best acquired, stored, etc. in order to answer these ques- tions? (this might well best be paralleled by training in computer literacy); and what factors, both social and individual, place constraints on our ability to use the data?
some of the findings in Kahoot!’s first-ever EdTrends Report : Google is gaining a stronghold in United States classrooms, with Chrome OS expanding its presence on school computers, while Apple’s iOS has been on the decline since the first quarter of 2015 among students and teachers.
Chromebook had the highest number of users among teachers (44 percent) and students (46 percent), when they were asked about their top devices used. Google’s Productivity Suite (G Suite or Classroom) was the most widely used productivity suite in U.S. classrooms, with 57 percent saying they used it, compared to 23 percent saying they used Microsoft Office 365.
a majority of educators (more than 60 percent) said the purpose of adopting education technology was to increase student productivity and efficiency. Their key educational priorities for 2017-18 are “to improve student learning and outcomes” (88 percent), and to “better leverage available time and motivate students” (71 percent).
Educators saw the top ed tech trends in the next school year as:
Digital platforms for teaching, learning and assessment;
Personalized learning;
Computational thinking, coding and robotics;
Increased understanding of data; and
Gamificiation.
Some other key findings in the report include:
A majority of U.S. public school educators surveyed said they are challenged with budget restraints and lack of resources when it comes to implementing education technology;
A majority of U.S. private school educators said they lack training to understand or adopt new technology;
Many public and private school educators said they saw the adoption of “technology for the sake of technology” as a challenge;
Educators in California struggle with lack of training and “technology for the sake of technology,” while teachers in Texas struggle with bureaucracy, budget constraints and a lack of resources.
MPS students will be receiving devices that come with 3GB of high-speed LTE data (with unlimited data available at 2G speeds if usage exceeds that amount). Students can keep their device up to four years while they are in high school no cost, according to initiative site. Additionally, devices are equipped with filters to block adult content that cannot be disabled and are Free Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) compliant.
Personalization is often used in the ed-tech community to describe a student moving through a prescribed set of activities at his own pace. The only choice a student gets is what box to check on the screen and how quickly to move through the exercises. For many educators that’s not the true meaning of “personalized learning.”
Diana Laufenberg, director of Inquiry Schools and a former teacher at Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia: personalization only comes when students have authentic choice over how to tackle a problem.
“We often say we want creativity and innovation – personalization – but every mechanism we use to measure it is through control and compliance,” Laufenberg said. “Those things never come together as long as that is the overriding moment.”
