From: Miltenoff, Plamen Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:09 PM To: ‘technology@lists.mnscu.edu’; ‘edgamesandsims@lists.mnscu.edu’ Cc: Oyedele, Adesegun Subject: virtual worlds and simulations
Good afternoon
Apologies for any cross posting…
Following a request from fellow faculty at SCSU, I am interested in learning more about any possibilities for using virtual worlds and simulations opportunities [in the MnSCU system] for teaching and learning purposes.
The last I remember was a rather messy divorce between academia and Second Life (the latter accusing an educational institution of harboring SL hackers). Around that time, MnSCU dropped their SL support.
Does anybody have an idea where faculty can get low-cost if not free access to virtual worlds? Any alternatives for other simulation exercises?
Any info/feedback will be deeply appreciated.
Plamen
After Frustrations in Second Life, Colleges Look to New Virtual Worlds. February 14, 2010
—–Original Message—–
From: Weber, James E.
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:41 PM
To: Miltenoff, Plamen Subject: RE: virtual worlds and simulations
Hi Plamen:
I don’t use virtual worlds, but I do use a couple of simulations…
I use http://www.glo-bus.com/ extensively in my strategy class. It is a primary integrating mechanism for this capstone class.
I also use http://erpsim.hec.ca/en because it uses and illustrates SAP and process management.
From:brock.dubbels@gmail.com [mailto:brock.dubbels@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Brock Dubbels Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:29 PM To: Oyedele, Adesegun Cc: Miltenoff, Plamen; Gaming and Simulations Subject: Re: virtual worlds and simulations
That is fairly general
what constitutes programming skill is not just coding, but learning icon-driven actions and logic in a menu
for example, Sketch Up is free. You still have to learn how to use the interface.
there is drag and drop game software, but this is not necessarily a share simulation
From: Kalyvaki, Maria [mailto:Maria.Kalyvaki2@smsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:26 PM To: Miltenoff, Plamen Subject: RE: virtual worlds and simulations
Hi,
I received this email today and I am happy that someone is interested on Second Life. The second life platform and some other virtual worlds are free to use. Depends what are your expectations there that may increase the cost of using the virtual world. I am using some of those virtual worlds and my previous school Texas Tech University was using SL for a course.
Let me know how could I help you with the virtual worlds.
With appreciation,
Maria
From: Jane McKinley [mailto:Jane.McKinley@riverland.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:09 AM To: Miltenoff, Plamen Cc: Jone Tiffany; Pamm Tranby; Dan Harber Subject: Virtual worlds
Hi Plamen,
To introduce myself I am the coordinator/ specialist for our real life allied health simulation center at Riverland Community College. Dan Harber passed your message on to me. I have been actively working in SL since 2008. My goal in SL was to do simulation for nursing education. I remember when MnSCU had the island. I tried contacting the lead person at St. Paul College about building a hospital on the island for nursing that would be open to all MN programs, but never could get a response back.
Yes, SL did take the education fees away for a while but they are now back. Second Life is free in of itself, it is finding islands with educational simulations that takes time to explore, but many are free and open to the public. I do have a list of islands that may be of interest to you. They are all health related, but there are science islands such as Genome Island. Matter of fact there is a talk that will be out there tonight about how to do research and conduct fair experiments at 7:00 our time.
I have been lucky to find someone with the same goals as I have. Her name is Jone Tiffany. She is a professor at Bethel University in the nursing program. In the last 4 years we have built an island for nursing education. This consists of a hospital, clinic, office building, classrooms and a library. We also built a simulation center. (Although I accidently removed the floor and some walls in it. Our builder is getting it back together.) There is such a shortage of real mental health and public health sites that a second island is being purchased to meet this request. On that island we are going to build an inner city, urban and rural communities. This will be geared towards meeting those requests. Our law enforcement program at Riverland has voiced an interest in SL with being able to set up virtual crime scenes which could be staged anywhere on the two islands. With the catastrophic natural events and terrorist activities that have occurred recently we will replicate these same communities on the other side of the island only it will be the aftermath of a hurricane and tornado, or flooding. On the other side we could stage the aftermath of a bombing such as what happened in Boston. Victims could transported to the hospital ED. Law enforcement could do an investigation.
We have also been working with the University of Wisconsin, Osh Kosh. They have a plane crash simulation and what we call a grunge house that students go into to see what the living conditions are like for those who live in poverty and what could be done about it.
Since I am not faculty I cannot take our students out to SL, but Jone has had well over 100 of her students in there doing various assignments. She is taking more out this semester. They have done such things as family health assessments and diabetes assessment and have to create a plan of care. She has done lectures out there. So the students come out with their avatars and sit in a classroom. This is a way distant learning can be done but yet be engaged with the students. The beauty of SL is that you can be creative. Since the island is called Nightingale Isle, some of the builds are designed with that theme in mind. Such as the classrooms, they are tiered up a mountain and look like the remains of a bombed out church from the Crimean War, it is one of our favorite spots. We also have an area open on the island for support groups to meet. About 5 years ago Riverland did do a congestive heart failure simulation with another hospital in SL. That faculty person unfortunately has left so we have not been able to continue it, but the students loved it. We did the same scenario with Jones students in the sim center we have and again the students loved it.
The island is private but anyone is welcome to use it. We do this so that we know and can control who is on the island. All that is needed is to let Jone or I know who you are, where are you from (institution), and what is your avatar name. We will friend you in SL and invite you to join the group, then you have access to the island. Both Jone and I are always eager to share what all goes on out there (as you can tell by this e-mail). There is so much potential of what can be done. We have been lucky to be able to hire the builder who builds for the Mayo Clinic. Their islands are next to ours. She replicated the Gonda Building including the million dollar plus chandeliers.
I can send you the list of the health care related islands, there are about 40 of them. I also copied Jone, she can give you more information on what goes into owning an island. We have had our ups and downs with this endeavor but believe in it so much that we have persevered and have a beautiful island to show for it.
Let me if you want to talk more.
Jane (aka Tessa Finesmith-avatar name)
Jane McKinley, RN
College Lab Specialist -Riverland Center for Simulation Learning
From: Jeremy Nienow [mailto:JNienow@inverhills.mnscu.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:11 AM To: Miltenoff, Plamen Cc: Sue Dion Subject: Teaching in virtual worlds
Hello,
A friend here at IHCC sent me your request for information on teaching in low-cost virtual environments.
I like to think of myself on the cusp of gamification and I have a strong background in gaming in general (being a white male in my 30s).
Anyway – almost every MMORPG (Massive Multi-online role playing game) today is set up on a Free to Play platform for its inhabitance.
There are maybe a dozen of these out there right now from Dungeon and Dragons online, to Tera, to Neverwinter Nights…etc.
Its free to download, no subscription fee (like there used to be) and its free to play – how they get the money is they make game items and cool aspects of the game cost money…people pay for the privilege of leveling faster.
So – you could easily have all your students download the game (provided they all have a suitable system and internet access), make an avatar, start in the same place – and teach right from there.
I have thought of doing this for an all online class before, but wanted to wait till I was tenured.
Best,
Jeremy L. Nienow, PhD., RPA
Anthropology Faculty
Inver Hills Community College
P.S. Landon Pirius (sp?) who was once at IHCC and now I believe is at North Hennepin maybe… wrote his PhD on teaching in online environments and used World of Warcraft.
From: Gary Abernethy [mailto:Gary.Abernethy@minneapolis.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:46 AM To: Miltenoff, Plamen Subject: Re: [technology] virtual worlds and simulations
Plamen,
The below are current options I am aware of for VW and SIM . You may also want to take a look at Kuda, in Google code, I worked at SRI when we developed this tool. I am interested in collaboration in this area.
From: John OBrien [mailto:John.OBrien@so.mnscu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:37 PM To: Miltenoff, Plamen Subject: RE: virtual worlds and simulations
This past week, I had the privilege of introducing US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, as a guest moderator for #edtechchat, an educational Twitter chat that I founded with four members of my personal learning network (PLN). Over the course of 60 minutes, almost 2,000 people from around the world, shared about 10,000 tweets in response to the Secretary’s six questions related to being a Connected Educator. Secretary Duncan (@arneduncan) and his Office of Educational Technology (@officeofedtech) deemed October “Connected Educator’s Month” for the second straight year. To close #ce13, Secretary Duncan used the #edtechchat forum to engage in conversation with educators from all over the world.
In reflecting on the chat, many people asked how to get started, and how to possibly follow such a quick flow of information. For one, 10,000 tweets in an hour is by no means typical; but then again, neither is the opportunity to interact with the US Secretary of Education. Although this particular chat with the Secretary may be an extreme example of what possibilities can arise when connecting with others online, each week there are over 160 chats that occur. Virtually all topics are covered in some fashion. Whether you’re a 4th grade teacher (#4thchat) in Maryland (#mdedchat), a principal (#cpchat) in Arkansas (#arkedchat), a new teacher (#ntchat) in Rhode Island (#edchatri), or a parent (#ptchat) connecting on a Saturday (#satchat), there’s something for you.
Start small. Choose a chat that peaks your interest. Lurk, listen, and learn. When you’re ready, jump in head first. Grow your PLN and get connected through a Twitter chat this week! Your students will benefit.
A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACADEMIC LIBRARIES AND LIBRARIANS: PROSPECTUS AND OPPORTUNITIES
How InforMedia Services fits in this new structure of LRS
The old concept of book-oriented librarianship has long been taken over by user-centred librarianship (p. 133)
Academic libraries are therefore, to support the three main institutional activities teaching, learning and research of their academic community staff, students and researchers.
Table 1:
liaisons (IMS did do it, can do it)
24/7 online and virtual reference services (IMS did do it, can do it)
To support education (IMS did do it, can do it)
outreach programming (p. 135). IMS needs to transform poorly visited workshops into outreach programming.
Open and Distance Learning (ODL), learning management systems, M-Learning, online education venture, virtual campus and Flipped Classrooms (p. 136). IMS (as I repeat for years now), must be in charge of the online education, and under its umbrella, D2L and other technologies must be put, not the other way around.
Social Media (p. 137). IMS must be ahead of LRS, who needs to be ahead of the compus in social media.
If we support the second school of thought (p. 138) and the premise : “Google can bring you back 100,000 answers, a librarian can bring you back the right one” (Gaiman, n.d.),” IMS must join LRS, namely changing with the academic librarians from an old-fashioned book worm (librarians) or PowerPoint “expert” (specific IMS member right now0 to digital experts. Which means that D2L MUST BE gradually abandoned as the foremost if not only responsibility of IMS and IMS and its members must move into social media, web design and development and interactivity (versus multimedia only)
The level of personal use of social media among faculty (70.3 percent) mirrors that of the general population
55 percent of faculty use social media in a professional context (any aspect of their profession outside of teaching), up from 44.7 percent last year
Only 41 percent of faculty use social media in the classroom, but this use continues to experience steady year-to-year growth
Faculty are sophisticated consumers of social media. They match different sites to their varying personal, professional, and teaching needs
Concerns remain about privacy, maintaining the class as a private space for free and open discussion, and the integrity of student submissions
Most faculty agree that “the interactive nature of online and mobile technologies create better learning environments” and that digital communication has increased communication with students
Faculty believe that online and mobile technologies can be distracting, and that they have resulted in longer working hours and more stress
Neat Chat: It is one of the easiest and fastest ways to have online conversations with a group of friends or colleagues. It provides a clean, fast and robust chat room where you can share files, send private messages and even access conversations that happened in your absence.
Today’s Meet: Allows you to have quick conversations in private online chat rooms. It has a back channel which gives you the ability to adjust your audience’s needs and emotions. In your chat room you can use live stream to make comments, ask questions and use that feedback to tailor your presentations to address your audience’s needs
Zoho Writer: Is a powerful rich text-editor for Android devices, which allows you to create documents seamlessly with a rich feature-set. You can either save these docs in local devices or cloud devices like Zoho Docs. Zoho Docs workspace is a collaboration tool, which allows you to share work on the same doc with other people in real-time.
Scriblink: Is a free digital whiteboard that users can share online in real-time. It can be used by up to 5 users at the same time. It can be used just for fun or for more practical things like layout planning, concept diagramming, or tutoring a friend.
Stinto: Is for creating free chats and inviting others to join just by sending a simple link. It allows you to share photos and images with others. You can upload photos, sketches, diagrams, etc. to your chat for others to view.
Mind42: Allows collaborative online mind-mapping and brainstorming. It runs in your browser and allows you to manage your ideas alone or while working in a group. It allows you to quickly create, manage and edit the data structure required for mind maps.
Scribblar: Offers you an online whiteboard, real-time audio, document upload, text-chat and more. It is a perfect online-tutoring platform. You can use it to revise artwork and images; create brainstorming, product demos, interviews and tests.
CoSketch: Is a multi-user online whiteboard designed to give you the ability to quickly visualize and share your ideas as images. Anything you paint is shared in real-time and can be saved and embedded on forums, blogs, etc.
Twiddla: Is a real-time online collaboration tool, which allows text and audio chat in real-time. It also allows you to review websites within the application.
Etherpad: Is an open source online editor providing collaborative editing in real-time. You can write articles, press releases, to-do lists and more along with your friends or colleagues all working on the same doc at the same time.
Tinychat: It lets you create a private chat room in an instant, the URL of which can be emailed to others to participate in real-time. It is very easy to use and also has features to support video capability.
FlashMeeting: Is an easy-to-use online meeting application. A meeting is pre-booked by a registered user and a URL, containing a unique password for the meeting, is returned by the FlashMeeting server, which is passed on to the people who want to participate.
BigMarker: It combines messaging, file sharing and video calls into one place. BigMarker communities have features for conferencing for up to 100 people, presenting PowerPoints and other docs, sharing your screen, recording, storing, exporting sessions and more.
Meetin.gs: Is a web and mobile meeting organizer which brings the benefits of online collaboration to both online and offline meetings. It provides a dedicated online meeting space for scheduling, material sharing and agenda setting.
Conceptboard: It provides instant whiteboards to create a platform for you to communicate with your team. Feedback on visual content is easy and there is support for tasks, reports and more. It simplifies and improves collaboration on visual content and accelerates collaboration processes within your team.
Speek: Allows you to simply organize conference calls. Speek uses a personal or business link instead of a phone number and PIN for conference calls. Participants can join or start a call from their phone, web or mobile browser. You can see who’s joined, who’s talking, share files, use call controls and more.
Draw It Live: Is a free application that allows you to work together with other people to draw in real-time. You can create a whiteboard and share its URL with other people to let them join.
LiveMinutes: Is an online conferencing app. A unique URL address is created for your conference that you can share with people you want to connect with. You can share audio, virtual whiteboards, documents, etc. and a feature to share videos is coming soon.
FlockDraw: Is an online whiteboard based painting and drawing tool. It makes it easy to draw online free with multiple people participation. There can be unlimited people in a room with drawing updates in real-time.
VIDquik: Is a video-conferencing platform where you can connect and talk with anyone you want. You just need to enter the Email of the person you want to call, they click on the link and the two of you are in a web-based video call.
Below is informative exchange on how to subtitle course capture (screencast):
Are we talking Camtasia Studio or Relay?
Relay no longer publishes to Flash – it was replaced with MP4 and a “Smart Player” – and the subtitling is stored in an XML file that is dynamically read by the Smart Player.
I can confirm that Studio burns the captions into an MP4, as Steve points out.
Camtasia captioning is burn-in, as far as I know (at least in Mac 2). So I don’t think Flash is an aspect of it unless that is the format you are exporting it as.
Both ScreenFlow (Mac-only) and Camtasia (Mac/Win) support subtitling. Both are excellent screencast applications but I prefer ScreenFlow because it creates MPEG-4 files whereas Camtasia requires Flash for subtitles and that pretty much rules out mobile.
If these screencastsare made with some other, less expensive apps, I suggest using free, open source apps. There are many but I prefer Jubler for creating subtitles and Subler for installing them in MPEG-4 files. These are Mac apps.
In creating accessible online and blended courses, one of the challenges we
are dealing with is making sure faculty created videos (narrated
PowerPoints, screencasts, etc.) are accessible. I would love to hear how
others are handling this. Do you recommend/require that these videos be
closed captioned? If so, who is responsible for creating the closed
captions? Do you have staff on campus that do this or is it the faculty
member’s responsibility? Or do you use a service? Can you recommend any
software that helps someone easily create closed captions or a service that
can provide this?
Thank you so much,
Andrea
—
Andrea Milligan
Director of Instructional Technology and Design
North Shore Community College
1 Ferncroft Road
Danvers, MA 01923
978-739-5425
NOTICE: Please be advised that I am hearing impaired and communicate most effectively via e-mail. Follow-up summaries of telephone conversations by e-mail are most appreciated.
1. Is your system proprietary as far as the handheld device and the operating system software?
The site and the service are the property of Poll Everywhere. We do not provide handheld devices. Participants use their own device be it a smart phone, cell phone, laptop, tablet, etc.
2. Describe the scalability of your system, from small classes (20-30) to large auditorium classes. (500+).
Poll Everywhere is used daily by thousands of users. Audience sizes upwards of 500+ are not uncommon. We’ve been used for events with 30,000 simultaneous participants in the past.
3. Is your system receiver/transmitter based, wi-fi based, or other?
N/A
4. What is the usual process for students to register a “CRS”(or other device) for a course? List all of the possible ways a student could register their device. Could a campus offer this service rather than through your system? If so, how?
Student participants may register by filling out a form. Or, student information can be uploaded via a CSV.
5. Once a “CRS” is purchased can it be used for as long as the student is enrolled in classes? Could “CRS” purchases be made available through the campus bookstore? Once a student purchases a “clicker” are they able to transfer ownership when finished with it?
N/A. Poll Everywhere sells service licenses the length and number of students supported would be outlined in a services agreement.
6. Will your operating software integrate with other standard database formats? If so, list which ones.
Need more information to answer.
7. Describe the support levels you provide. If you offer maintenance agreements, describe what is covered.
8am to 8pm EST native English speaking phone support and email support.
8. What is your company’s history in providing this type of technology? Provide a list of higher education clients.
Company pioneered and invented the use of this technology for audience and classroom response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Everywhere. University of Notre Dame
South Bend, Indiana
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Raleigh, North Carolina
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
San Diego State University
San Diego, California
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama
King’s College London
London, United Kingdom
Raffles Institution
Singapore
Fayetteville State University
Fayetteville, North Carolina
10. What personal data does your company collect on students and for what purpose? Is it shared or sold to others? How is it protected?
Name. Phone Number. Email. For the purposes of voting and identification (Graded quizzes, attendance, polls, etc.). It is never shared or sold to others.
11. Do any of your business partners collect personal information about students that use your technology?
No.
12. With what formats can test/quiz questions be imported/exported?
Import via text. Export via CSV.
13. List compatible operating systems (e.g., Windows, Macintosh, Palm, Android)?
Works via standard web technology including Safari, Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer. Participant web voting fully supported on Android and IOS devices. Text message participation supported via both shortcode and longcode formats.
14. What are the total costs to students including device costs and periodic or one-time operation costs
Depends on negotiated service level agreement. We offer a student pays model at $14 per year or Institutional Licensing.
15. Describe your costs to the institution.
Depends on negotiated service level agreement. We offer a student pays model at $14 per year or Institutional Licensing.
16. Describe how your software integrates with PowerPoint or other presentation systems.
Downloadable slides from the website for Windows PowerPoint and downloadable app for PowerPoint and Keynote integration on a Mac.
17. State your level of integration with Desire2Learn (D2L)?Does the integration require a server or other additional equipment the campus must purchase?Export results from site via CSV for import into D2L.
17. How does your company address disability accommodation for your product?
We follow the latest web standards best practices to make our website widely accessible by all. To make sure we live up to this, we test our website in a text-based browser called Lynx that makes sure we’re structuring our content correctly for screen readers and other assisted technologies.
18. Does your software limit the number of answers per question in tests or quizzes? If so, what is the max question limit?
No.
19. Does your software provide for integrating multimedia files? If so, list the file format types supported.
Supports image formats (.PNG, .GIF, .JPG).
20. What has been your historic schedule for software releases and what pricing mechanism do you make available to your clients for upgrading?
We ship new code daily. New features are released several times a year depending on when we finish them. New features are released to the website for use by all subscribers.
21. Describe your “CRS”(s).
Poll Everywhere is a web based classroom response system that allows students to participate from their existing devices. No expensive hardware “clickers” are required. More information can be found at http://www.polleverywhere.com/classroom-response-system.
22. If applicable, what is the average life span of a battery in your device and what battery type does it take?
N/A. Battery manufacturers hate us. Thirty percent of their annual profits can be contributed to their use in clickers (we made that up).
23. Does your system automatically save upon shutdown?
Our is a “cloud based” system. User data is stored there even when your computer is not on.
24. What is your company’s projection/vision for this technology in the near and far term.
We want to take clicker companies out of business. We think it’s ridiculous to charge students and institutions a premium for outdated technology when existing devices and standard web technology can be used instead for less than a tenth of the price.
25. Does any of your software/apps require administrator permission to install?
No.
26. If your system is radio frequency based, what frequency spectrum does it operate in? If the system operate in the 2.4-2.5 ghz. spectrum, have you tested to insure that smart phones, wireless tablet’s and laptops and 2.4 ghz. wireless phones do not affect your system? If so, what are the results of those tests?
No.
27. What impact to the wireless network does the solution have?
Depends on a variety of factors. Most university wireless networks are capable of supporting Poll Everywhere. Poll Everywhere can also make use of cell phone carrier infrastructure through SMS and data networks on the students phones.
28. Can the audience response system be used spontaneously for polling?
Yes.
29. Can quiz questions and response distributions be imported and exported from and to plaintext or a portable format? (motivated by assessment & accreditation requirements).
Yes.
30. Is there a requirement that a portion of the course grade be based on the audience response system?
No.
Gloria Sheldon
MSU Moorhead
Fall 2011 Student Response System Pilot
Summary Report
NDSU has been standardized on a single student response (i.e., “clicker”) system for over a decade, with the intent to provide a reliable system for students and faculty that can be effectively and efficiently supported by ITS. In April 2011, Instructional Services made the decision to explore other response options and to identify a suitable replacement product for the previously used e-Instruction Personal Response System (PRS). At the time, PRS was laden with technical problems that rendered the system ineffective and unsupportable. That system also had a steep learning curve, was difficult to navigate, and was unnecessarily time-consuming to use. In fact, many universities across the U.S. experienced similar problems with PRS and have since then adopted alternative systems.
A pilot to explore alternative response systems was initiated at NDSU in fall 2011. The pilot was aimed at further investigating two systems—Turning Technologies and iClicker—in realistic classroom environments. As part of this pilot program, each company agreed to supply required hardware and software at no cost to faculty or students. Each vendor also visited campus to demonstrate their product to faculty, students and staff.
An open invitation to participate in the pilot was extended to all NDSU faculty on a first come, first serve basis. Of those who indicated interest, 12 were included as participants in this pilot.
Pilot Faculty Participants:
Angela Hodgson (Biological Sciences)
Ed Deckard (AES Plant Science)
Mary Wright (Nursing)
Larry Peterson (History, Philosophy & Religious Studies)
Ronald Degges (Statistics)
Julia Bowsher (Biological Sciences)
Sanku Mallik (Pharmaceutical Sciences)
Adnan Akyuz (AES School of Natural Resource Sciences)
Lonnie Hass (Mathematics)
Nancy Lilleberg (ITS/Communications)
Lisa Montplaisir (Biological Sciences)
Lioudmila Kryjevskaia (Physics)
Pilot Overview
The pilot included three components: 1) Vendor demonstrations, 2) in-class testing of the two systems, and 3) side-by-side faculty demonstrations of the two systems.
After exploring several systems, Instructional Services narrowed down to two viable options—Turning Technologies and iClicker. Both of these systems met initial criteria that was assembled based on faculty input and previous usage of the existing response system. These criteria included durability, reliability, ease of use, radio frequency transmission, integration with Blackboard LMS, cross-platform compatibility (Mac, PC), stand-alone software (i.e., no longer tied to PowerPoint or other programs), multiple answer formats (including multiple choice, true/false, numeric), potential to migrate to mobile/Web solutions at some point in the future, and cost to students and the university.
In the first stage of the pilot, both vendors were invited to campus to demonstrate their respective technologies. These presentations took place during spring semester 2011 and were attended by faculty, staff and students. The purpose of these presentations was to introduce both systems and provide faculty, staff, and students with an opportunity to take a more hands-on look at the systems and provide their initial feedback.
In the second stage of the pilot, faculty were invited to test the technologies in their classes during fall semester 2011. Both vendors supplied required hardware and software at no cost to faculty and students, and both provided online training to orient faculty to their respective system. Additionally, Instructional Services staff provided follow-up support and training throughout the pilot program. Both vendors were requested to ensure system integration with Blackboard. Both vendors indicated that they would provide the number of clickers necessary to test the systems equally across campus. Both clickers were allocated to courses of varying sizes, ranging from 9 to 400+ students, to test viability in various facilities with differing numbers of users. Participating faculty agreed to offer personal feedback and collect feedback from students regarding experiences with the systems at the end of the pilot.
In the final stage of the pilot, Instructional Services facilitated a side-by-side demonstration led by two faculty members. Each faculty member showcased each product on a function-by-function basis so that attendees were able to easily compare and contrast the two systems. Feedback was collected from attendees.
Results of Pilot
In stage one, we established that both systems were viable and appeared to offer similar features, functions, and were compatible with existing IT systems at NDSU. The determination was made to include both products in a larger classroom trial.
In stage two, we discovered that both systems largely functioned as intended; however, several differences between the technologies in terms of advantages and disadvantages were discovered that influenced our final recommendation. (See Appendix A for a list of these advantages, disadvantages, and potential workarounds.) We also encountered two significant issues that altered the course of the pilot. Initially, it was intended that both systems would be tested in equal number in terms of courses and students. Unfortunately, at the time of the pilot, iClicker was not able to provide more than 675 clickers, which was far fewer than anticipated. Turning Technologies was able to provide 1,395 clickers. As a result, Turning Technologies was used by a larger number of faculty and students across campus.
At the beginning of the pilot, Blackboard integration with iClicker at NDSU was not functional. The iClicker vendor provided troubleshooting assistance immediately, but the problem was not resolved until mid-November. As a result, iClicker users had to use alternative solutions for registering clickers and uploading points to Blackboard for student viewing. Turning Technologies was functional and fully integrated with Blackboard throughout the pilot.
During the span of the pilot additional minor issues were discovered with both systems. A faulty iClicker receiver slightly delayed the effective start date of clicker use in one course. The vendor responded by sending a new receiver, however it was an incorrect model. Instructional Services temporarily exchanged receivers with another member of the pilot group until a functional replacement arrived. Similarly, a Turning Technologies receiver was received with outdated firmware. Turning Technologies support staff identified the problem and assisted in updating the firmware with an update tool located on their website. A faculty participant discovered a software flaw in the iClicker software that hides the software toolbar when disconnecting a laptop from a second monitor. iClicker technical support assisted in identifying the problem and stated the problem would be addressed in a future software update. A workaround was identified that mitigated this problem for the remainder of the pilot. It is important to note that these issues were not widespread and did not widely affect all pilot users, however these issues attest to the need for timely, reliable, and effective vendor support.
Students and faculty reported positive experiences with both technologies throughout the semester. Based on feedback, users of both systems found the new technologies to be much improved over the previous PRS system, indicating that adopting either technology would be perceived as an upgrade among students and faculty. Faculty pilot testers met several times during the semester to discuss their experiences with each system; feedback was sent to each vendor for their comments, suggestions, and solutions.
During the stage three demonstrations, feedback from attendees focused on the inability for iClicker to integrate with Blackboard at that time and the substantial differences between the two systems in terms of entering numeric values (i.e., Turning Technologies has numeric buttons, while iClicker requires the use of a directional key pad to scroll through numeric characters). Feedback indicated that attendees perceived Turning Technologies’ clickers to be much more efficient for submitting numeric responses. Feedback regarding other functionalities indicated relative equality between both systems.
Recommendation
Based on the findings of this pilot, Instructional Services recommends that NDSU IT adopt Turning Technologies as the replacement for the existing PRS system. While both pilot-tested systems are viable solutions, Turning Technologies appears to meet the needs of a larger user base. Additionally, the support offered by Turning Technologies was more timely and effective throughout the pilot. With the limited resources of IT, vendor support is critical and was a major reason for exploring alternative student response technologies.
From Instructional Services’ standpoint, standardizing to one solution is imperative for two major reasons: cost efficiency for students (i.e., preventing students from having to purchase duplicate technologies) and efficient utilization of IT resources (i.e., support and training). It is important to note that this recommendation is based on the opinion of the Instructional Services staff and the majority of pilot testers, but is not based on consensus among all participating faculty and staff. It is possible that individual faculty members may elect to use other options that best meet their individual teaching needs, including (but not limited to) iClicker. As an IT organization, we continue to support technology that serves faculty, student and staff needs across various colleges, disciplines, and courses. We feel that this pilot was effective in determining the student response technology—Turning Technologies—that will best serve NDSU faculty, students and staff for the foreseeable future.
Once a final decision concerning standardization is made, contract negotiations should begin in earnest with the goal of completion by January 1, 2012, in order to accommodate those wishing to use clickers during the spring session.
Appendix A: Clicker Comparisons
Turning Technologies and iClicker
Areas where both products have comparable functionality:
Setting up the receiver and software
Student registration of clickers
Software interface floats above other software
Can use with anything – PowerPoint, Websites, Word, etc.
Asking questions on the fly
Can create questions / answers files
Managing scores and data
Allow participation points, points for correct answer, change correct answer
Reporting – Summary and Detailed
Uploading scores and data to Blackboard (but there was a big delay with the iClicker product)
Durability of the receivers and clickers
Free software
Offer mobile web device product to go “clickerless”
Areas where the products differ:
Main Shortcomings of Turning Technology Product:
Costs $5 more – no workaround
Doesn’t have instructor readout window on receiver base –
This is a handy function in iClicker that lets the instructor see the %’s of votes as they come in, allowing the instructor to plan how he/she will proceed.
Workaround: As the time winds down to answer the question, the question and answers are displayed on the screen. Intermittently, the instructor would push a button to mute the projector, push a button to view graph results quickly, then push a button to hide graph and push a button to unmute the projector. In summary, push four buttons quickly each time you want to see the feedback, and the students will see a black screen momentarily.
Processing multiple sessions when uploading grading –
Turning Technologies uses their own file structure types, but iClicker uses comma-separated-value text files which work easily with Excel
Workaround: When uploading grades into Blackboard, upload them one session at a time, and use a calculated total column in Bb to combine them. Ideally, instructors would upload the grades daily or weekly to avoid backlog of sessions.
Main Shortcomings of iClicker Product:
Entering numeric answers –
Questions that use numeric answers are widely used in Math and the sciences. Instead of choosing a multiple-choice answer, students solve the problem and enter the actual numeric answer, which can include numbers and symbols.
Workaround: Students push mode button and use directional pad to scroll up and down through a list of numbers, letters and symbols to choose each character individually from left to right. Then they must submit the answer.
Number of multiple choice answers –
iClicker has 5 buttons on the transmitter for direct answer choices and Turning Technologies has 10.
Workaround: Similar to numeric answer workaround. Once again the simpler transmitter becomes complex for the students.
Potential Vendor Support Problems –
It took iClicker over 3 months to get their grade upload interface working with NDSU’s Blackboard system. The Turning Technology interface worked right away. No workaround.
Very short video of Bryan Alexander, senior fellow at the National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education, discussing the issues and opportunities facing mobile technology, badges, flipped classrooms, and learning analytics:
