Searching for "information technology"

MC218 remodel

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

– the webinar ONLINE GENERATION IS TRANSFORMING LIBRARIES: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/09/22/online-generation-is-transforming-libraries/, as referred by Chris Inkster, is discussing exactly the need of pedagogical changes proposed by me.

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.

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/

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:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/03/19/recommendations-for-games-and-gaming-at-lrs/

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.

 

Thank you.

Plamen

 

 

 

first year experience: functional literacy

Digital (Re)Visions: Blending Pedagogical Strategies with Dynamic Classroom Tactics

http://praxis.technorhetoric.net/tiki-index.php?page=PraxisWiki%3A_%3ADigital_Revisions

I therefore approach that aspect of the FYW class with this baseline assumption: Most of the eighteen- to twenty-year-olds who attend The University of Arizona already communicate via digital technologies in various ways and can learn to use template-based applications with relative ease, especially if they are first given time during class to collaborate on penalty-free projects with select applications.

Beyond that initial experimentation with the capabilities and functionality of new technologies, what FYW students most need to learn in our limited time is a thing or two about conventions that span across many online publishing venues and multimodal genres (such as nonlinearity and linking) and basic design principles (such as visual organization, coherence, and impact). Also essential are multiple conversations about fair use, copyright, and other ethical concerns regarding representation of self, others, and ideas that students must consider when going public with their compositions. Such an approach builds on what Stuart Selber (2004) calls the “functional literacy” of digital technology that FYW students typically bring to these classes, challenging students to develop critical and rhetorical literacies and become questioners and producers of digital texts.

I ask my FYW students to translate their written public arguments (open letters; letters to editors, public figures, or organizations; opinion columns; perspective-forwarding creative nonfiction) into more visually and/or aurally oriented arguments (via Prezi or YouTube; through the creation of editorial cartoons, infographics, public service announcements or other multimodal texts). (For more information, see the assignment sheet

social media and critical thinking

Does social media make room for critical thinking?

social media critical thinking

social media critical thinking

Sinprakob, S., & Songkram, N. (2015). A Proposed Model of Problem-based Learning on Social Media in Cooperation with Searching Technique to Enhance Critical Thinking of Undergraduate Students. Procedia – Social And Behavioral Sciences, 174(International Conference on New Horizons in Education, INTE 2014, 25-27 June 2014, Paris, France), 2027-2030. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.871
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedselp%26AN%3dS1877042815009234%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Bailey, A. (2014). Teaching Alice Walker’s The Color Purple: Using Technology and Social Media To Foster Critical Thinking and Reflection. Virginia English Journal, 64(1), 17.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedo%26AN%3d98060385%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Eales-Reynolds, L., Gillham, D., Grech, C., Clarke, C., & Cornell, J. (2012). A study of the development of critical thinking skills using an innovative web 2.0 tool. Nurse Education Today, 32(7), 752-756. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.05.017

Baldino, S. (2014). The Classroom Blog: Enhancing Critical Thinking, Substantive Discussion, and Appropriate Online Interaction. Voices From The Middle, 22(2), 29.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedo%26AN%3d99913218%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Ravenscroft, A., Warburton, S., Hatzipanagos, S., & Conole, G. (2012). Designing and evaluating social media for learning: shaping social networking into social learning?. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 177-182. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00484.x
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d75254126%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

finding ways to capture meaningful informal learning experiences by explicitly linking these to formal structures, and providing frameworks within which informal learning can then be validated and accredited (Cedefop Report 2007).

Education is clearly a social process but it is probably much closer to an ongoing discussion or debate than an extended celebration with an ever-expanding network of friends (p. 179, Ravenscroft et al.)

the community of inquiry (COI) model developed by Garrison and Anderson (2003) and social network analysis (SNA). European Commission-funded integrated

project called MATURE (Continuous Social Learning in Knowledge Networks), which is investigating how technology-mediated informal learning leads to improved knowledge practices in the digital workplace
Fitzgibbons, M. (2014). Teaching political science students to find and evaluate information in the social media flow. In I. Management Association, STEM education: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/igistem/teaching_political_science_students_to_find_and_evaluate_information_in_the_social_media_flow/0
Cheung, C. (2010). Web 2.0: Challenges and Opportunities for Media Education and Beyond. E-Learning And Digital Media, 7(4), 328-337. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deric%26AN%3dEJ916502%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
Pattison, D. (2012). Participating in the Online Social Culture. Knowledge Quest, 41(1), 70-72. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d79921213%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
Key to using social media is the ability to stand back and evaluate the credibility of a source of information, apart from the actual content. While developing this critical attitude toward traditional media is important, the attitude is even more crucial in the context of using social media because information didn’t go through the vetting process of formal publication. Can the student corroborate the information from multiple sources? How recent is this information? Are the author’s credentials appropriate? In other words, the ability to step back, to become aware of the metatext or metacontext is more important than ever.
Coad, D. T. (2013). Developing Critical Literacy and Critical Thinking through Facebook. Kairos: A Journal Of Rhetoric, Technology, And Pedagogy, 18(1).
http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/praxis/tiki-index.php?page=Developing_Critical_Literacy_and_Critical_Thinking_through_Facebook
Many instructors believe that writing on social networking sites undermines the rhetorical skills students learn in class because of the slang and abbreviations often used on these sites; such instructors may believe that social networks are the end of students’ critical awareness when they communicate. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber (2009) contended that electronic writing forms actually require “sophisticated skills of understanding concrete rhetorical situations, analyzing audiences (and their goals and inclinations), and constructing concise, information-laden texts, as a part of a dynamic, unfolding, social process” (p. 18). It is this dynamic process that makes social networking a perfect match for the composition classroom and for teaching rhetorical skills: It helps students see how communication works in real, live rhetorical situations. Many students do not believe that communication in these media requires any kind of valuable literacy skills because they buy into the myth of how the news media portray social networks as valueless forms of communication that are decaying young people’s minds. This is why I introduced students to the passage from Invisible Man: to get them thinking about what kinds of skills they learn on Facebook. I found the text useful for helping them acknowledge the skills they are building in these writing spaces.
Stuart A. Selber (2004) in Multiliteracies for a Digital Age criticized so-called computer literacy classes for having “focused primarily on data representations, numbering systems, operating systems, file formats, and hardware and software components” rather than on the task of teaching students to be “informed questioners of technology” (p. 74). In a time when, as Sheelah M. Sweeny (2010) noted, “the ability to stay connected with others is constant,” it is increasingly important to engage composition students in critical thinking about the spaces they write in (p. 121). It is becoming clearer, as technology giants such as Google® and Apple® introduce new technologies, that critical literacy and critical thinking about technology are necessary for our students’ futures.
Valentini, C. (2015). Is using social media “good” for the public relations profession? A critical reflection. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 170-177. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.009
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d108299204%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811114001817
p. 172 there is no doubt that digital technologies and social media have contributed to a major alteration in people’s interpersonal communications and relational practices. Inter- personal communications have substantially altered, at least in Western and developed countries, as a result of the culture of increased connectivity that has emerged from social media’s engineering sociality ( van Dijck, 2013 ), which allows anyone to be online and to connect to others. Physical presence is no longer a precondition for interpersonal communication.
(Jiping) The Pew Research Center ( Smith & Duggan, 2013 , October 21) indicates that one in every ten American adults has used an online dating site or mobile dating app to seek a partner, and that in the last eight years the proportion of Americans who say that they met their current partner online has doubled. Another study conducted by the same organization ( Lenhart & Duggan, 2014 , February 11) shows that 25% of married or partnered adults who text, have texted their partner while they were both home together, that 21% of cell-phone owners or internet users in a committed relationship have felt closer to their spouse or partner because of exchanges they had online or via text message. Another 9% of adults have resolved online or by text message an argument with their partner that they were having difficulty resolving person to person ( Lenhart & Duggan, 2014 , February 11). These results indicate that digital technologies are not simply tools that facilitate communications: they have a substantial impact on the way humans interact and relate to one another. In other words, they affect the dynamics of interpersonal relations

——–Call for Papers ICEduTech 2015 (last call): submissions until 2 October 2015 ————-

International Conference on Educational Technologies 2015

30 November-2 December 2015, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil

(http://www.icedutech-conf.org/)

* Keynote Speakers (confirmed):

Professor Piet Kommers, University of Twente, The Netherlands

Professor Pedro Isaías, Universidade Aberta (Portuguese Open University), Portugal

* Conference Scope

The Educational Technologies 2015 conference (ICEduTech) is the scientific conference addressing the real topics as seen by teachers, students, parents and school leaders. Both scientists, professionals and institutional leaders are invited to be informed by experts, sharpen the understanding what education needs and how to achieve it.

The conference covers six main areas: Education in Context, Education as Professional Field, Curricular Evolution, Learner Orientation, Integrating Educational Technologies and International Higher Education. These broad areas are divided into more detailed areas, for more information please check http://www.icedutech-conf.org/call-for-papers

* Paper Submission

This is a blind peer-reviewed conference. Authors are invited to submit their papers in English through the conference submission system by October 2, 2015. Submissions must be original and should not have been published previously.

* Important Dates:
– Submission Deadline (last call): 2 October 2015
– Notification to Authors (last call): 26 October 2015
– Final Camera-Ready Submission and Early Registration (last call): Until 6 November 2015
– Late Registration (last call): After 6 November 2015

* Paper Publication
The papers will be published in book and electronic format with ISBN, will be made available through the Digital Library available at http://www.iadisportal.org/digital-library/showsearch.
The conference proceedings will be submitted for indexing to INSPEC, EI Compendex, Thomson ISI, ISTP and other indexing services.

Selected papers of best papers will be extended in order to be included in a Special Issue of JICES (http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=jices), entitled “The Impact of Smart Technology on Users and Society”. This journal is indexed by Scopus and other selected indexes.

Extended versions of best papers will also be invited for publication in journals, in an international book and in other selected and indexed publications.

* Conference Contact:
E-mail: secretariat@icedutech-conf.org
Web site: http://www.icedutech-conf.org/

* Organized by: International Association for Development of the Information Society
Co-Organized by: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina and UNISINOS

 

sociology and social media

Plan for presentation on social media impact in a “sociology and family” class.

Zuo, Jiping <jzuo@stcloudstate.edu>

“Media, Technology, Market, and Cosmopolitan Communities”

https://kahoot.it

Valentini, C. (2015). Is using social media “good” for the public relations profession? A critical reflection. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 170-177. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.009

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d108299204%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811114001817

p. 172 there is no doubt that digital technologies and social media have contributed to a major alteration in people’s interpersonal communications and relational practices. Inter- personal communications have substantially altered, at least in Western and developed countries, as a result of the culture of increased connectivity that has emerged from social media’s engineering sociality (van Dijck, 2013 ), which allows anyone to be online and to connect to others. Physical presence is no longer a precondition for interpersonal communication.

The Pew Research Center ( Smith & Duggan, 2013 , October 21) indicates that one in every ten American adults has used an online dating site or mobile dating app to seek a partner, and that in the last eight years the proportion of Americans who say that they met their current partner online has doubled. Another study conducted by the same organization ( Lenhart & Duggan, 2014 , February 11) shows that 25% of married or partnered adults who text, have texted their partner while they were both home together, that 21% of cell-phone owners or internet users in a committed relationship have felt closer to their spouse or partner because of exchanges they had online or via text message. Another 9% of adults have resolved online or by text message an argument with their partner that they were having difficulty resolving person to person ( Lenhart & Duggan, 2014 , February 11). These results indicate that digital technologies are not simply tools that facilitate communications: they have a substantial impact on the way humans interact and relate to one another. In other words, they affect the dynamics of interpersonal relations

the impact of social media on dating patterns (e.g. more like shopping around for a commodity) and dating relations (e.g. more temporary, unstable), along with many positive effects as well

1. Goal: introduce students to” a) social media b) the sociological impact of social media on family and dating issues

2. Learning outcomes: a) at the end of the session, students will have firm grasp of popular versus peer-reviewed (academic resources). b) students will be able allocate sources for information c) students will be able to evaluate [and compile? Zotero] information d) students will be able to discuss the impact of social media in general e) students will be able to discuss and evaluate the impact of social media on family and dating f) at the end of the session, students will understand the concepts of netiquette and privacy (digital citizenship, digital anthropology)

3. Possible q/s for the class:
a) why Tinder, Hinge, etc.?

These are the best pickup lines with the highest success rates, according to dating app Hinge

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-pickup-lines-with-highest-success-rates-according-to-hinge-2015-9

what other social media? Can Instagram, Twitter and FB be counted in this mix?

Is Instagram Flirting Really So Bad?

http://www.askmen.com/dating/dating_advice/social-media-dating-advice.html

b) what is so different in the dating scene? how did social media changed the scene?

If you’re single, these are the 10 best cities to find new love; http://www.businessinsider.com/zillow-best-cities-for-love-2015-9

“I’ve been surprised at what a real impact Facebook has on romantic relationships,” Galena Rhoades, clinical psychologist at the University of Denver, said in Allison McCann’s BuzzFeed article, How Facebook Ruined Dating (And Breaking Up Too). “And I do think Facebook is playing a bigger role in relationship formation and relationship disillusions.” http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/05/11/dating-and-the-impact-of-social-media/

c) how do family values change, based on the changes in [online] dating?

d) how does online dating differ across race, gender, sexual orientation, age and cultures

e) privacy, security, surveillance

f) mail brides on steroids? how does online dating apps change dubious practices?

g) does online dating impact marriages? are marriages better or weaker after online dating?

Finkel, et al. (2012).Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 13(1), pp. 3–66. http://www3.nd.edu/~ghaeffel/OnineDating_Aron.pdf
the authors say “yes” to online dating but “we see substantial opportunities for improving the way online dating is practiced. Some of this improvement can come from closer collaboration between scholars and service providers.”

4. possible collaborations. The topic of online dating, social media in particular, is of interest to specialists from Communication Studies (Usera, Fullick), Anthropology (Bocanete), Nursing (Couch), Gender Studies (Robinson), SCSU Counseling and Psychological Services (Houdet) .
E.g.:
Usera, D. (2014). Online Dating Interactions: A discursive look (Dissertation). Graduate College of The University of Iowa, The University of Iowa. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/13255554/Online_Dating_Interactions_A_discursive_look
Fullick, M. (2013). “Gendering” the Self in Online Dating Discourse. Canadian Journal Of Communication, 38(4). Retrieved from http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2647
Bocanete, A. C. (2013). All-male Mobile Dating Apps and their Users in London… After the Magic Wears Out (Dissertation). DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/12884810/All-male_Mobile_Dating_Apps_and_their_Users_in_London…_After_the_Magic_Wears_Out
Couch, D. (2006). Online dating and mating: the use of the internet to meet sexual partners (Master of Public Health). La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/12639192/Online_dating_and_mating_the_use_of_the_internet_to_meet_sexual_partners
Robinson, B. (2015). “Personal Preference” as the New Racism: Gay Desire and Racial Cleansing in Cyberspace. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 1(2), 317–330. http://doi.org/10.1177/2332649214546870 http://sre.sagepub.com/content/1/2/317
Houdet, A. (2014, August 11). Online Dating Services and McGill: A Study of Usage and Perception (POLI 311: Techniques of Empirical Rsearch Paper). Mcgill, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7935047/Online_Dating_Services_and_McGill_A_Study_of_Usage_and_Perception

bibliography:

Right swiping on Tinderellas: Exploring a mobile dating app’s regulation of identity performances from Stefanie Duguay

and https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/09/25/online-dating/

Synopsis
UWire and The Guardian have a long list of reports. Academia.edu has also plenty of serious academic research. While UWire and the Guardian are explicitly centered on the Anglo-Saxon world (with one exception of report on Iran), Academia.edu presents a great choice of cases from around the world (different cultures) in mostly serious academic research

useful definitions and comparisons here:
Digital dating: a week with Kik, Tinder and OkCupid. (2014, July 30). UWIRE Text, p. 1. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA376503724&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=873df6af8e0f1cea1a22a33ca17f2d12
about online dating:
Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating Fact From Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318067
Wong AnKee, A., & Yazdanifard, R. (2015). The Review of the Ugly Truth and Negative Aspects of Online Dating. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 15(14). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/12317015/The_Review_of_the_Ugly_Truth_and_Negative_Aspects_of_Online_Dating
Fact Sheet 37:  The Perils and Pitfalls of Online Dating: How to Protect Yourself. (2015). Privacy Rights Clearninghouse. Retrieved from https://www.privacyrights.org/perils-and-pitfalls-online-dating-how-protect-yourself
sociology peer-reviewed paper on online dating:
Rosenfeld, M., & Thomas, R. (2012). Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.

http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_How_Couples_Meet_Working_Paper.pdf

The Tinder-Is-Satan Arms Race Heats Up Further http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/08/tinder-is-satan-arms-race-heats-up-further.html

The History of Digital Desire, vol. 1: An Introduction  http://saq.dukejournals.org/content/110/3/583.short

Stampler, L. (2014). The New Dating Game. Time, 183(6), 40.  http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d94317888%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Kite, M. (2015). Click and flick: romance is being killed off by the brutal marketplace of dating apps such as Tinder. Spectator, (9729). 12.  http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedsgao%26AN%3dedsgcl.401492069%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Hobson, T. (2015). Tinder feelings: Can mobile dating apps move beyond the promise of a one-night stand?. Spectator, (9740). 22. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedsgao%26AN%3dedsgcl.411742748%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

(2015). My Tinder date wants to be friends with benefits. I want to be serious. What now? Swipe Right is our advice column that tackles the tricky world of online dating. This week: weighing the benefits of casual liaisonsGet help making your profile work: forward screenshots to askevaguardian@gmail.com for a personal critique and upgrade; Swipe Right is our advice column that tackles the tricky world of online dating. This week: weighing the benefits of casual liaisonsGet help making your profile work: forward screenshots to askevaguardian@gmail.com for a personal critique and upgrade. theguardian.com. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedsgao%26AN%3dedsgcl.409945005%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/16/swipe-right-online-dating-friends-with-benefits-relationships

Wood, M. (2015). Led by Tinder, the Mobile Dating Game Surges. The New York Times. p. 8. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedsgao%26AN%3dedsgcl.400230809%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=5F7B-R7N1-DXY4-X3K7&csi=6742&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true   http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/technology/personaltech/led-by-tinder-the-mobile-dating-game-surges.html

(2015). Tinder hooks up with Instagram to woo new users to the dating app; Dating app overhauls its user profiles with photo app integration, and extended information pulled from Facebook. theguardian.com. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedsgao%26AN%3dedsgcl.409944725%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

(2015). Brand love in the time of Tinder; Thanks to dating apps such as Tinder, relationships are changing, but does that include the ones we form with brands too?. theguardian.com. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedsgao%26AN%3dedsgcl.409800099%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

(2015). A look at modern day dating – Tinder and Match.com. UWIRE Text. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA401448144&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=4b52e991d97812282b4651b5c2276ca9

Right swipe on Tinder proves lucky for Bruin. (2015, February 13). UWIRE Text, p. 1. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA401365769&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=50627eab0b22cfef4795c03ff71f9872
Tinder isn’t just for dating — it’s also a game. (2015, February 8). UWIRE Text, p. 1. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA400682488&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=dfde7717895bda12f4d3337a0785d31c
Tinder: Matchmaker or dating disaster? (2015, March 14). UWIRE Text, p. 1. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA405561590&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=53e7a3eeae14aa02f237e1b38a7877c8
Dating app Tinder craze on campus. (2015, April 29). UWIRE Text, p. 1. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA411697728&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=c00d190c4790e2ec0b35016e676d6727
Tinder is comparable to traditional dating. (2014, September 29). UWIRE Text, p. 1. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA383934895&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=0690ccb6861c5fd27b457cbfcc221169
(2015). 42% of people using dating app Tinder already have a partner, claims report; Research firm GlobalWebIndex also claims that 62% of the app’s users are men, while hinting that Tinder’s new premium tier could catch on. theguardian.com. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/07/dating-app-tinder-married-relationship
Curington, C. V., Lin, K.-H., & Lundquist, J. H. (2015). Positioning multiraciality in cyberspace: treatment of multiracial daters in an online dating website. American Sociological Review, 80(4), 764+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA425674423&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=7fdadb5f53a7acc0219b8a37c986a8f5
PotarcA, G., Mills, M., & Neberich, W. (2015). Relationship Preferences Among Gay and Lesbian Online Daters: Individual and Contextual Influences. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 523+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA403937092&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=73d2386ffbd902de46bf3f081854fce3
(2014). Scissr dating app: the new Tinder for lesbians; It’s the latest dating app for women seeking women, but what’s the app, named after a lesbian sex position, all about?. theguardian.com.
Constructing identities on a Japanese gay dating site: Hunkiness, cuteness and the desire for heteronormative masculinity. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/12807514/Constructing_identities_on_a_Japanese_gay_dating_site_Hunkiness_cuteness_and_the_desire_for_heteronormative_masculinity
Sinclair, H. C., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Wright, B. L. (2015). Don’t tell me who I can’t love: a multimethod investigation of social network and reactance effects on romantic relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(1), 77+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA408508799&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=d06ca248fc000a2c7bc55a868815b93e
Berlin, R. (2014). The professional ethics of online dating: need for guidance. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(9), 935+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA382846474&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=PROF&sw=w&asid=c9ef33658f8c48557c2db8e5bd91a7e4
“4 ways Asian dating apps are anti-Tinder.” CNN Wire. (March 23, 2015 Monday 1:29 AM GMT ): 679 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2015/08/18. http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?oc=00240&hnsd=f&hgn=t&lni=5FK4-K601-JBSS-S0M1&hns=t&perma=true&hv=t&hl=t&csi=385157&secondRedirectIndicator=true

ROBBINS, A. (2015). Sex and the (Newly!) Single Girl. Washingtonian Magazine, 50(8), 68.

Serjoie, K. A. (2015). Iranian ‘Tinder’ Seeks to Encourage Marriage But Not Dating. Time.Com, N.PAG. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dmih%26AN%3d108327379%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Rhodan, M. (2015). Meet Willow, the Dating App That Won’t Judge You By Your Looks. Time.Com, N.PAG. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3df5h%26AN%3d100947723%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Rutkin, A. (2015). Hackers can see your dating pics and chat. New Scientist, 226(3022), 20. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dulh%26AN%3d102818153%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Grigoriadis, V. (2014). Inside the Hookup Factory. Rolling Stone, (1221), 24-26. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d98976542%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Jamie, N. (2015, July 9). London launch for US dating app that rivals Tinder. Evening Standard. p. 55. http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d103711119%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite

Internet and the Male Homosexual Identity: A Critical Reading of the Online Dating Space for Homosexual Men in Bengaluru. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/14656772/Internet_and_the_Male_Homosexual_Identity_A_Critical_Reading_of_the_Online_Dating_Space_for_Homosexual_Men_in_Bengaluru
Going Offline: An Exploratory Cultural Artifact Analysis of An Internet Dating Site’s Development Trajectories. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/14184813/Going_Offline_An_Exploratory_Cultural_Artifact_Analysis_of_An_Internet_Dating_Site_s_Development_Trajectories
Five Tips for Dating Online. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/14078925/Five_Tips_for_Dating_Online
Old and New Methods for Online Research: The Case of Online Dating. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/13924873/Old_and_New_Methods_for_Online_Research_The_Case_of_Online_Dating
Remediating the Matchmaker: Arranging Marriage Online in the South Asian Diaspora in America. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/13897347/Remediating_the_Matchmaker_Arranging_Marriage_Online_in_the_South_Asian_Diaspora_in_America
Stranger Stranger or Lonely Lonely? Young Chinese and dating apps between the locational, the mobile and the social. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/13895551/Stranger_Stranger_or_Lonely_Lonely_Young_Chinese_and_dating_apps_between_the_locational_the_mobile_and_the_social
Roeffen, C. (2014). Mobile dating: Romance is just a swipe away Tinders’ Romantic and sexual interactions (Bachellor’s Degree). Urbane Technologieen, Netherlands. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/8899473/Mobile_dating_Romance_is_just_a_swipe_away_Tinders_Romantic_and_sexual_interactions
Lemke, R. (2014). Sexual Liberation on the Internet? Sexual Internet Use of MSM in 50 Different Countries. Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/8662454/Sexual_Liberation_on_the_Internet_Sexual_Internet_Use_of_MSM_in_50_Different_Countries
Kogovsek, T., Svab, A., & Kuhar, R. (2011). Intimacy Transformed? : Perceptions of Love, Intimacy and Partnership Among On-line Daters in Slovenia. Annales, 21(1), 177–186. https://www.academia.edu/7988186/Intimacy_Transformed_Perceptions_of_Love_Intimacy_and_Partnership_Among_On-line_Daters_in_Slovenia
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(25), 10135–10140. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222447110
Fullick, M. (2013). “Gendering” the Self in Online Dating Discourse. Canadian Journal Of Communication, 38(4). Retrieved from http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2647
Phillips, J. (n.d.). Online Dating: How Culture Affects Self-Presentation of Match.com Users. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/3845104/Online_Dating_How_Culture_Affects_Self-Presentation_of_Match.com_Users
Chow, E., Coulombe, D., Garcia, V., Vuu, D., & Wade, J. (2009, May 23). Culture, Power, Cyberspace: Age and Gender in Online Dating Websites: An Analysis of User Profiles on Mingles.com. Retrieved from http://anthrocyber.blogspot.com/2009/05/age-and-gender-in-online-dating.html
Masden, C., & Edwards, W. K. (n.d.). Understanding the Role of Community in Online Dating. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 535–544). Seoul, Korea. http://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702417

Enabling BYOD

Enabling Bring Your Own Device

white paper by the Cisco

To help improve understanding of BYOD and its impacts on modern network environments, this white paper will further explore the many differences that exist between corporate and educational approaches to the technology.

In the education space, dealing with non-standard, user-managed devices has been and still remains the norm. Unfortunately, the variety of devices means a multitude of operating systems and software are encountered, with many “standards” being defined. As a result there is little consistency in the device type or the software being installed. Since the device is owned by the student and is a personal resource, it is often difficult or impossible to enforce a policy that prevents users from installing software. In addition, due to the nature of learning as opposed to a corporate environment, it is also difficult to put a restriction on certain classes of software since all may provide a worthwhile educational purpose.

providing a solution that unifies management and deployment polices across both wired and wireless devices is very desirable.

The Internet of Everything (IoE) has spurred a revolution in mobility. Collaboration anywhere, anytime and with any device is quickly becoming the rule instead of the exception. As a result it is now common for students to bring mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets and e-readers into the academic environment to support their educational endeavors.

The infrastructure supporting BYOD no longer has the sole purpose of providing a wireless radio signal within a given area. The focus is now about providing the appropriate bandwidth and quality to accommodate the ever-growing number of devices and ensure that an application provides a good end-user experience. In a sense, applications are now the major driving force behind the continuing evolution of BYOD. For example, a teacher accessing video in the classroom for educational purposes during class hours should have greater priority than a student in the same area accessing a gaming site for recreation.

A state-of-the-art BYOD infrastructure should now be capable of providing more than just generic, general-purpose wireless connectivity. In the classroom environment, the notion of “differentiated access” often resonates with faculty and staff. Once this has been determined, a policy can be applied to the user and their activity on the network.

Granular security can also be intelligently delivered.
Quality of Service (QoS) rate limiting has been available for some time, but now there are newer QoS techniques available.

Location-based services can provide their first interaction with the university. By delivering campus maps and directional information, location-enabled services can enhance the experience of these visitors and provide a positive image to them as well. As a visitor enters a particular building location, information could automatically be provided. In the case of a visiting student, information about the history of a building, departments contained within the building, or other resources could be presented to enhance a guided tour, or provide the perspective student the ability to have a self-directed tour of the campus facilities.

802.11ac Technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac)

Software Defined Networking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_networking)

 

grants for games

Jumpstarting Innovation in Education Technology through SBIR

http://ies.ed.gov/blogs/research/post/Jumpstarting-Innovation

The U.S. Department of Education’s Small Business Innovation Research program, operated out of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), funds projects to develop education technology products designed to support student learning and teacher practice in general or special education.

Recently, ED/IES SBIR announced its 2015 awards. There are 21 awards in all, covering a range of topics and forms of technology. For example, Zaption is designing a mobile app to help teachers integrate video into science instruction; Speak Agent is building an app to help students with speech disabilities to communicate; and Lingo Jingo is developing a platform to help teachers guide English learners. (To view short video demos of the eight new Phase II projects, see this playlist.)

The 2015 awards highlight two trends that have emerged in the ED/IES SBIR portfolio in recent years –games for learning and bridging the research-to-practice gap in education.

Trend #1: Games for Learning

  • Strange Loop Games to build a virtual world to engage students in learning about ecosystems,
  • Kiko Labs to develop mini games to strengthen young children’s thinking and memory skills, and
  • Schell Games to create a futuristic “ball and stick” molecular modeling kit and app to augment chemistry learning.

For a playlist including videos of these games and 19 others out of the ED/IES SBIR program, see here.

The games for learning trend echoes the movement surrounding games in the field, and is highlighted by recent ED sponsored events including ED Games Week in Washington, DC, last September and the Games for Learning Summit in New York City, in April. Both events convened stakeholders to showcase games and discuss the potential barriers and opportunities for collaboration necessary to accelerate the creation of highly effective games for learning. Stay tuned for more information and initiatives on games for learning out of ED’s Office of Technology.

Trend #2: Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap

  • Mindset Works, which built on results from prior research including a 2002 IES research grant, to successfully propose a 2010 ED/IES SBIR project to develop SchoolKit. This multimedia platform enables broad distribution of the growth mindset intervention which teaches students to understand that intelligence can be developed through effort and learning. SchoolKit is now in use in more than 500 schools across the country, including half the middle schools in Washington, DC.
  • Teachley, which received a 2013 ED/IES SBIR award to develop math game apps and a teacher implementation dashboard building on findings from prior research including a 2010 IES research grant. The intervention is now used in hundreds of schools around the country, and the apps have been downloaded more than 500,000 times.
  • Learning Ovations is building on two prior IES research grants in their 2014 ED/IES SBIR project. The prior IES funding supported the research team as they developed and evaluated an intervention to improve children’s reading outcomes,. This award is supporting the development of an implementation platform to enable large-scale use of this evidence-based intervention across settings. The project is scheduled to end in 2016, after which the platform will be launched.

The new ED/IES SBIR 2015 awards continue the research-to-practice trend. An award to Foundations in Learning furthers basic research from a 2013 National Science Foundation grant (NSF); an award to SimInsights builds on 2005 and 2008 IES research projects and a 2011 Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) research project; and an award to Apprendris advances a prior 2012 IES research project and  prior 2010 and 2013 NSF research projects.

More on Zaption in this blog:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=zaption

More on games and gamification in this blog:

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=games

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=gamification

handbook of mobile learning

Routledge. (n.d.). Handbook of Mobile Learning (Hardback) – Routledge [Text]. Retrieved May 27, 2015, from http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415503693/

Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from https://www.academia.edu/5601076/A_historical_overview_of_mobile_learning_Toward_learner-centered_education

Crompton, Muilenburg and Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
The “context”in this definition encompasses m-learnng that is formalself-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware and context neutral.
therefore, m-learning can occur inside or outside the classroom, participating in a formal lesson on a mobile device; it can be self-directed, as a person determines his or her own approach to satisfy a learning goal; or spontaneous learning, as a person can use the devices to look up something that has just prompted an interest (Crompton, 2013, p. 83). (Gaming article Tallinn)Constructivist Learnings in the 1980s – Following Piage’s (1929), Brunner’s (1996) and Jonassen’s (1999) educational philosophies, constructivists proffer that knowledge acquisition develops through interactions with the environment. (p. 85). The computer was no longer a conduit for the presentation of information: it was a tool for the active manipulation of that information” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12)Constructionist Learning in the 1980s – Constructionism differed from constructivism as Papert (1980) posited an additional component to constructivism: students learned best when they were actively involved in constructing social objects. The tutee position. Teaching the computer to perform tasks.Problem-Based learning in the 1990s – In the PBL, students often worked in small groups of five or six to pool knowledge and resources to solve problems. Launched the sociocultural revolution, focusing on learning in out of school contexts and the acquisition of knowledge through social interaction

Socio-Constructivist Learning in the 1990s. SCL believe that social and individual processes are independent in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan-Palinscar, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978).

96-97). Keegan (2002) believed that e-learning was distance learning, which has been converted to e-learning through the use of technologies such as the WWW. Which electronic media and tools constituted e-learning: e.g., did it matter if the learning took place through a networked technology, or was it simply learning with an electronic device?

99-100. Traxler (2011) described five ways in which m-learning offers new learning opportunities: 1. Contingent learning, allowing learners to respond and react to the environment and changing experiences; 2. Situated learning, in which learning takes place in the surroundings applicable to the learning; 3. Authentic learning;

Diel, W. (2013). M-Learning as a subfield of open and distance education. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.

  1. 15) Historical context in relation to the field of distance education (embedded librarian)
  2. 16 definition of independent study (workshop on mlearning and distance education
  3. 17. Theory of transactional distance (Moore)

Cochrane, T. (2013). A Summary and Critique of M-Learning Research and Practice. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
( Galin class, workshop)

P 24

According to Cook and Sharples (2010) the development of M learning research has been characterized by three general faces a focus upon Devices Focus on learning outside the classroom He focus on the mobility of the learner

  1. 25

Baby I am learning studies focus upon content delivery for small screen devices and the PDA capabilities of mobile devices rather than leveraging the potential of mobile devices for collaborative learning as recommended by hope Joyner Mill Road and sharp P. 26 Large scale am learning project Several larger am learning projects have tended to focus on specific groups of learners rather than developing pedagogical strategies for the integration of am mlearning with him tertiary education in general

27

m learning research funding

In comparison am learning research projects in countries with smaller population sizes such as Australia and New Zealand are typiclly funded on a shoe string budget

28

M-learning research methodologies

I am learning research has been predominantly characterized by short term case studies focused upon The implementation of rapidly changing technologies with early adopters but with little evaluation reflection or emphasis on mainstream tertiary-education integration

 

p. 29 identifying the gaps in M learning research

 

lack of explicit underlying pedagogical theory Lack of transferable design frameworks

 

Cochrane, T. (2011).Proceedings ascilite 2011 Hobart:Full Paper 250 mLearning: Why? What? Where? How? http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Cochrane-full.pdf
(Exploring mobile learning success factors http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893351.pdf
https://prezi.com/kr94rajmvk9u/mlearning/
https://thomcochrane.wikispaces.com/MLearning+Praxis

Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., and Cook, J. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.
(Tom video studio)

35 a line of argumentation that defines mobile devices such as mobile phones as cultural resources. Mobile cultural resources emerge within what we call a “bile complex‘, which consist of specifics structures, agency and cultural practices.

36 pedagogy looks for learning in the context of identify formation of learners within a wider societal context However at the beginning of the twentieth first century and economy oriented service function of learning driven by targets and international comparisons has started to occupy education systems and schools within them Dunning 2000 describes the lengthy transformation process from natural assets Land unskilled labor to tangible assets machinery to intangible created assets such as knowledge and information of all kinds Araya and Peters 2010 describe the development of the last 20 years in terms of faces from the post industrial economy to d information economy to the digital economy to the knowledge economy to the creative economy Cultural ecology can refer to the debate about natural resources we argue for a critical debate about the new cultural resources namely mobile devices and the services for us the focus must not be on the exploitation of mobile devices and services for learning but instead on the assimilation of learning with mobiles in informal contacts of everyday life into formal education

37

Ecology comes into being is there exists a reciprocity between perceiver and environment translated to M learning processes this means that there is a reciprocity between the mobile devices in the activity context of everyday life and the formal learning

45

Rather than focusing on the acquisition of knowledge in relation to externally defined notions of relevance increasingly in a market-oriented system individual faces the challenge of shape his/her knowledge out of his/her own sense of his/her world information is material which is selected by individuals to be transformed by them into knowledge to solve a problem in the life world

Crompton, H. (2013). A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.

p. 47 As philosophies and practice move toward learner-centered pedagogies, technology in a parallel move, is now able to provide new affordances to the learner, such as learning that is personalized, contextualized, and unrestricted by temporal and spatial constrains.

The necessity for m-learning to have a theory of its own, describing exactly what makes m-learning unique from conventional, tethered electronic learning and traditional learning.

48 . Definition and devices. Four central constructs. Learning pedagogies, technological devices, context and social interactions.

“learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”

It is difficult, and ill advisable, to determine specifically which devices should be included in a definition of m-learning, as technologies are constantly being invented or redesigned. (my note against the notion that since D2L is a MnSCU mandated tool, it must be the one and only). One should consider m-learning as the utilization of electronic devices that are easily transported and used anytime and anywhere.

49 e-learning does not have to be networked learning: therefore, e-learnng activities could be used in the classroom setting, as the often are.

Why m-learning needs a different theory beyond e-learning. Conventional e-learning is tethered, in that students are anchored to one place while learning. What sets m-learning apart from conventional e-learning is the very lack of those special and temporal constrains; learning has portability, ubiquitous access and social connectivity.

50 dominant terms for m-learning should include spontaneous, intimate, situated, connected, informal, and personal, whereas conventional e-learning should include the terms computer, multimedia, interactive, hyperlinked, and media-rich environment.

51 Criteria for M-Learning
second consideration is that one must be cognizant of the substantial amount of learning taking place beyond the academic and workplace setting.

52 proposed theories

Activity theory: Vygotsky and Engestroem

Conversation theory: Pask 1975, cybernetic and dialectic framework for how knowledge is constructed. Laurillard (2007) although conversation is common for all forms of learning, m-learning can build in more opportunities for students to have ownership and control over what they are learning through digitally facilitated, location-specific activities.

53 multiple theories;

54 Context is central construct of mobile learning. Traxler (2011) described the role of context in m-learning as “context in the wider context”, as the notion of context becomes progressively richer. This theme fits with Nasimith et al situated theory, which describes the m-learning activities promoting authentic context and culture.

55. Connectivity
unlike e-learning, the learner is not anchored to a set place. it links to Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach.
Learning happens within various social groups and locations, providing a diverse range of connected  learning experiences. furthermore, connectivity is without temporal restraints, such as the schedules of educators.

55. Time
m-larning as “learning dispersed in time”

55. personalization
my note student-centered learning

Moura, A., Carvalho, A. (2013). Framework For Mobile Learning Integration Into Educational Contexts. In: Berge and Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile Learning.

p. 58 framework is based on constructivist approach, Activity theory, and the attention, relevance and confidence satisfaction (ARCS) model http://www.arcsmodel.com/#!
http://torreytrust.com/images/ITH_Trust.pdf

to set a didacticmodel that can be applied to m-learning requires looking at the characteristics of specific devi

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nadire_Cavus/publication/235912545_Basic_elements_and_characteristics_of_mobile_learning/links/02e7e526c1c0647142000000.pdf
https://eleed.campussource.de/archive/9/3704

Creating a Library App

Creating a Library App: Things to Know Before You Go Mobile
Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11AM-12PM PDT
Registration link: http://www.cla-net.org/?861

Mobile apps are a popular topic in libraries. But what does it take to create one and what kind of programming can you do with apps? Is an app the right solution, or should you create a responsive website? What is the process like, and what resources are needed? How do you manage privacy, security, and legal concerns? Who do you need to get the job done, and what skills should they have?

These are all important questions that should be asked (and answered) before you think about creating a mobile app. Learn from expert panelists from libraries and nonprofits who have created, developed, and managed mobile apps for their organizations. Panelists will share practical advice and information based on experience, as well as helpful tools and resources.

Participants will learn:

  • The difference between a mobile app, a mobile site, and a responsive site
  • Three important considerations when deciding whether or not to create a mobile app.
  • Five tips for approaching the design of a mobile app, mobile site, or responsive site.

About the Presenters

  • Stacey Watson is the Senior Librarian and certified scrum Master in the Digital User Experience Department at the Denver Public Library.  She oversees the user experience and content strategy for the library’s websites, online catalog, and digital services. Most recently she and her team developed Volume, a responsive website featuring hand selected albums by local artists.
  • Anna Jaeger and her team at Caravan Studios create mobile apps that are designed in partnership with nonprofit and community-focused organizations to meet the needs of their constituents. Anna has been a frequent speaker on nonprofit and environmental technology since 2007. Prior to her work with Caravan Studios, Ms. Jaeger was a founder and co-director of TechSoup Global’s GreenTech initiative and the director of TechSoup Global’s IT Engineering department.
  • Ani Boyadjian has been a working librarian since 1990. An LAPL staffer since 1996, she is now Research & Special Collections Manager at the Los Angeles Public Library, where she also oversees the Library’s Digitization efforts. She most recently spearheaded the development of the ARchive LAPL app in a partnership with USC and app developers Neon Roots, to use augmented reality to tell stories about the historic Central Library.

LMS as a concept under scrutiny

A Blend-Online listserv thread regarding the choice of LMS and the future of LMS

Schoology HEd – Digital Learning Ecosystem (March 2015) (PDF document)

From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert Tousignant
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 1:41 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection

I’ve been reviewing this thread and thought I’d introduce a new player… Schoology is getting the attention of the analyst community and gobbling up the SIIA Codie awards for best learning platform the last couple of years.  (Please note, I am not an impartial observer and I do a horse in the race)

The attached document includes information that will explain a new paradigm for evaluating an LMS that we see being adopted more and more  – a move from a focus on utility (features and functions) to one focused standards, interoperability and the user experience (UI/UX).

Feel free to reach out directly if I can be of assistance.

Robert Tousignant

Sr. Director

Schoology Higher Education

O:  (212)213-8333 x69

M: (617)838-1366

rtousignant@schoology.com

Colorado State University’s Global Campus Announces Strategic Partnership with Schoology

From: Edward Garay <garay@UIC.EDU>
Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:27 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU” <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection

These days, I tend to favor LMS Review/Selection initiatives that take one to two years to complete, but as always, it depends on the institution, its readiness to spec the needs of their faculty/students and evaluate viable options, as well as the campus resources available to nurture a possible smooth LMS platform transition. I like pointing out to the well-executed recent LMS selection initiatives carried out by UCF, Northwestern, Indiana, Harvard and Dartmouth, although there are many others.

I am also fond of Educause Review 2014 article on Selecting a Learning Management System: Advice from an Academic Perspective available at http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/selecting-learning-management-system-advice-academic-perspective

 


— Ed Garay
University of Illinois at Chicago
UIC School of Public Health
http://www.twitter.com/garay

*** Attend the FACULTY SUMMER INSTITUTE :: Wed-Fri May 27-29 at Urbana-Champaign
#pedagogy #BlendedLearning #classroom #teaching #OnlineLearning #EdTech
http://go.illinois.edu/facultysummerinstitute

 

_____________________________
From: Hap Aziz <hapaziz@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
To: <blend-online@listserv.educause.edu>
That’s sounds like a similar timeframe to what we had at UB when we moved from Blackboard to Canvas. While LTI didn’t not play a large role in the decision-making process as we changed our LMS, it is now a central consideration as we look to acquire any new app functionality for our learning environment.

 

I’m setting up an area in the IMS forum area for LTI policy discussion. I’ll share that location with the group shortly so we can take some of the in-the-weeds discussion offline here.

 

Hap Aziz

Associate Vice President

University of Bridgeport

http://bridgeport.edu

 

Connected Learning Innovation Community

IMS Global Learning Consortium

http://imsglobal.org

 

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Sam Bachert <BachertS@sanjuancollege.edu> wrote:

Hap,

 

The selection process started in January of 2013 and the task force voted at the end of May of 2013 unanimously for Canvas so about 5 months.  By October we started training faculty in preparation for the Spring 2014 semester what was amazing about our transition to Canvas was that we had everyone moved out of ANGEL by start of Summer 14 so we only had 1 semester where we were supporting both ANGEL and Canvas.  The use of LTI integrations and Canvas makes our jobs a lot easier to support the various tools that faculty are adopting for their classes – it also makes it a lot easier for faculty to integrate other technologies and keep them in the LMS or have single sign on so it is more seamless for students.

 

Thanks, Sam

 

Samuel R. Bachert

Manager, Online Services

 

ellucian®

San Juan College

4601 College Boulevard

Farmington, NM 87402

Voice: 505.566.3310 Mobile: 505.609.0573 Fax: 505.566.3570

bacherts@sanjuancollege.edu * samuel.bachert@ellucian.com

http://www.ellucian.com

Follow us:

CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. Thank you.

From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hap Aziz
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:09 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection

Hey, Sam, long time no see! Do you know about how long your whole selection process took? Also, does LTI conformance make your job with academic technology more straightforward to deal with?

Hap Aziz

Associate Vice President

University of Bridgeport

http://bridgeport.edu

Connected Learning Innovation Community

IMS Global Learning Consortium

http://imsglobal.org

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Sam Bachert <BachertS@sanjuancollege.edu> wrote:

JeJe,

I am at San Juan College and we also recently went through the selection process for a new LMS and like others who have commented switched to Canvas (from ANGEL).  We ended up with a selection team that was primarily faculty, a couple students, and a handful of technology staff that reviewed the various LMSs and then made our final decision.  If you would like I can get you the contact information for the faculty who assisted on the selection team.

Thanks,

Sam

Samuel R. Bachert

Director of Academic Technology

ellucian®

San Juan College

4601 College Boulevard

Farmington, NM 87402

Voice: 505.566.3310 Mobile: 505.609.0573 Fax: 505.566.3570

bacherts@sanjuancollege.edu * samuel.bachert@ellucian.com

http://www.ellucian.com

Follow us:

CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. Thank you.

From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Noval, JeJe (LLU)
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:25 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection

 

Hello Colleagues,

Were any of you, faculty members, involved in the learning management selection process of your educational institution?  If so, would it be possible to interview you in the future for a research study?

Best,

JeJe Noval, MS, RD
Assistant Professor
Loma Linda University

 

1 35 36 37 38 39 40