Searching for "instructional technology"

Collaborative Instructional Technology Support Model

Online Course | Designing a Collaborative Instructional Technology Support Model

Part 1: March 7, 2018 | 1:00–2:30 p.m. ET
Part 2: March 14, 2018 | 1:00–2:30 p.m. ET
Part 3: March 21, 2018 | 1:00–2:30 p.m. ET

Faculty need a variety of instructional technology support—instructional design, content development, technology, training, and assessment—to name a few. They don’t want to go to one place for help, find out they’re in the wrong place, and be sent somewhere else—digitally or physically. Staff don’t want to provide help in silos or duplicate what other units are doing.

So, how can academic service providers collaborate to offer the right instructional technology support services, in the right place, at the right time, in the right way? In this course, instructional technologists, instructional designers, librarians, and instructional technology staff will learn to use a tool called the Service Center Canvas that does just that.

Learning Objectives:

During this course, participants will:

  • Explore the factors that influence how instructional technology support services are offered in higher education
  • Answer critical questions about how your instructional technology support services should be delivered relative to broader trends and institutional goals
  • Experiment with ways to prototype new services and/or new ways of delivering them
  • Identify potential implementation obstacles and ways to address them

NOTE: Participants will be asked to complete assignments in between the course segments that support the learning objectives stated below and will receive feedback and constructive critique from course facilitators on how to improve and shape their work.

Course Facilitators

Elliot FelixElliot Felix, Founder and CEO, brightspot strategy

Felix founded and leads brightspot, a strategy consultancy that reimagines places, rethinks services, and redesigns organizations on university campuses so that people are better connected to a purpose, information, and each other. Felix is accomplished strategist, facilitator, and sense-maker who has helped transform over 70 colleges and universities.


 

Adam GriffAdam Griff, Director, brightspot strategy

Adam Griff is a director at brightspot. He helps universities rethink their space, reinvent their service offerings, and redesign their organization to improve the experiences of their faculty, students, and staff, connecting people and processes to create simple and intuitive answers to complex questions. He has led projects with a wide range of higher education institutions including University of Wisconsin–Madison, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of California, Berkeley.

Learning Spaces and Instructional Technology

Special Interest Group: Learning Spaces and Instructional Technology (SIG) webinars are FREE and open to anyone. Please feel free to share this with others at your institution.

Dynamic Discussion Artifacts: Moving Beyond Threaded Discussion

Description

This session will describe an approach to online discussions that moves beyond the threaded message boards of D2L Brightspace, yet still maintained an asynchronous online delivery. Using teams, discussions were differentiated by product to allow students to turn in an artifact that represented their shared understanding during specific online course modules.  Strategies, Technology guides, rubrics, and student feedback will be shared.

Presenter: Michael Manderfeld
Senior Instructional Designer
Minnesota State University Mankato

When
Where
https://moqi.zoom.us/j/672493176 (link to virtual room)

 

 

Notes from the previous session available here:

Active Learning Classrooms

ID instructional designer job

https://jobs.ucf.edu/en-us/job/499332/faculty-administrator-instructional-design

++++++++++++++++
more on lib tech jobs: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/06/14/technology-requirements-samples/

feedback w technology

How to Give Your Students Better Feedback With Technology ADVICE GUIDE

y Holly Fiock and Heather Garcia

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20191108-Advice-Feedback

students continue to report dissatisfaction with the feedback they get on assignments and tests — calling it vague, discouraging, and/or late.

The use of technology in the classroom (both in face-to-face and online environments)

  • Rubrics: online scoring guides to evaluate students’ work.
  • Annotations: notes or comments added digitally to essays and other assignments.
  • Audio: a sound file of your voice giving feedback on students’ work.
  • Video: a recorded file of you offering feedback either as a “talking head,” a screencast, or a mix of both.
  • Peer review: online systems in which students review one another’s work.

Two main types of feedback — formative and summative — work together in that process but have different purposes. Formative feedback occurs during the learning process and is used to monitor progress. Summative feedback happens at the end of a lesson or a unit and is used to evaluate the achievement of the learning outcomes.

Good feedback should be: Frequent, Specific, Balanced, Timely

guide on inclusive teaching, frequent, low-stakes assessments are an inclusive teaching practice.

Time-Saving Approaches: rubrics and peer-reviews.

When to Use Audio or Video Tools for Feedback: personalize your feedback, convey nuance, demonstrate a process, avoid miscommunication

Faculty interest in classroom innovation is on the rise. Professors are trying all sorts of new techniques to improve the first few minutes of class, to make their teaching more engaging, to hold better class discussions. Buzzwords like active learningauthentic assessmenttechnology integration, and case-based learning are more and more a part of faculty discussions.

Don’t assume technology will solve every problem.

Avoid making long videos

Video and audio feedback doesn’t have to be perfect.

There is such a thing as too much information.

Have a plan.

++++++++++
more on feedback in education in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=feedback

MN summit on learning and technology 2019

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/oer/2019/07/29/oer-collaboration/

Open Community: OER Collaboration and Support

Open Community: OER Collaboration and Support, 8/1/19, MN Summit on Learning and Technology

Thursday, August 1, 11:30 AM Central Time. We stream our discussion live on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/InforMediaServices/

Rachel Wexelbaum, Assoc Prof, University Library, St Cloud State University  email@stcloudstate.edu
Plamen Miltenoff, Professor, InforMedia Services, St Cloud State University pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu
Aura Lippincott, Instructional Designer, Western Connecticut State University lippincotta@wcsu.edu

ICT information and communication technology literacy

The Role of Librarians in Supporting ICT Literacy

May 9, 2019,

https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2019/5/the-role-of-librarians-in-supporting-ict-literacy

Academic librarians increasingly provide guidance to faculty and students for the integration of digital information into the learning experience.

TPACK: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Many librarians have shied away from ICT literacy, concerned that they may be asked how to format a digital document or show students how to create a formula in a spreadsheet. These technical skills focus more on a specific tool than on the underlying nature of information.

librarians have begun to use an embedded model as a way to deepen their connection with instructors and offer more systematic collection development and instruction. That is, librarians focus more on their partnerships with course instructors than on a separate library entity.

If TPACK is applied to instruction within a course, theoretically several people could be contributing this knowledge to the course. A good exercise is for librarians to map their knowledge onto TPACK.

Large dotted line circle labelled Contexts. Inside large circle are three smaller circles overlapping to create a Venn diagram. Pink Circle: Technological Knowledge (TK). Blue Circle: Content Knowledge (CK). Yellow Circle: Pedagogical Knowledge (PK). Pink/Blue overlap: Technological Content Knowledge (TCK). Blue/Yellow Overlap: Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). Yellow/Pink Overlap: Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). Center where all 3 overlap: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK).

ICT reflects the learner side of a course. However, ICT literacy can be difficult to integrate because it does not constitute a core element of any academic domain. Whereas many academic disciplines deal with key resources in their field, such as vocabulary, critical thinking, and research methodologies, they tend not to address issues of information seeking or collaboration strategies, let alone technological tools for organizing and managing information.

Instructional design for online education provides an optimal opportunity for librarians to fully collaborate with instructors.

The outcomes can include identifying the level of ICT literacy needed to achieve those learning outcomes, a task that typically requires collaboration between the librarian and the program’s faculty member. Librarians can also help faculty identify appropriate resources that students need to build their knowledge and skills. As education administrators encourage faculty to use open educational resources (OERs) to save students money, librarians can facilitate locating and evaluating relevant resources. These OERs not only include digital textbooks but also learning objects such as simulations, case studies, tutorials, and videos.

Reading online text differs from reading print both physically and cognitively. For example, students scroll down rather than turn online pages. And online text often includes hyperlinks, which can lead to deeper coverage—as well as distraction or loss of continuity of thought. Also, most online text does not allow for marginalia that can help students reflect on the content. Teachers and students often do not realize that these differences can impact learning and retention. To address this issue, librarians can suggest resources to include in the course that provide guidance on reading online.

My note – why specialist like Tom Hergert and the entire IMS is crucial for the SCSU library and librarians and how neglecting the IMS role hurts the SCSU library
Similarly, other types of media need to be evaluated, comprehended, and interpreted in light of their critical features or “grammar.” For example, camera angles can suggest a person’s status (as in looking up to someone), music can set the metaphorical tone of a movie, and color choices can be associated with specific genres (e.g., pastels for romances or children’s literature, dark hues for thrillers). Librarians can explain these media literacy concepts to students (and even faculty) or at least suggest including resources that describe these features

My note – on years-long repetition of the disconnect between SCSU ATT, SCSU library and IMS
instructors need to make sure that students have the technical skills to produce these products. Although librarians might understand how media impacts the representation of knowledge, they aren’t necessarily technology specialists. However, instructors and librarians can collaborate with technology specialists to provide that expertise. While librarians can locate online resources—general ones such as Lynda.com or tool-specific guidance—technology specialists can quickly identify digital resources that teach technical skills (my note: in this case IMS). My note: we do not have IDs, another years-long reminder to middle and upper management. Many instructors and librarians have not had formal courses on instructional design, so collaborations can provide an authentic means to gain competency in this process.

My note: Tom and I for years have tried to make aware SCSU about this combo –
Instructors likely have high content knowledge (CK) and satisfactory technological content knowledge (TCK) and technological knowledge (TK) for personal use. But even though newer instructors acquire pedagogical knowledge (PK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) early in their careers, veteran instructors may not have received this training. The same limitations can apply to librarians, but technology has become more central in their professional lives. Librarians usually have strong one-to-one instruction skills (an aspect of PK), but until recently they were less likely to have instructional design knowledge. ICT literacy constitutes part of their CK, at least for newly minted professionals. Instructional designers are strong in TK, PK, and TPK, and the level of their CK (and TCK and TPK) will depend on their academic background. And technology specialists have the corner on TK and TCK (and hopefully TPK if they are working in educational settings), but they may not have deep knowledge about ICT literacy.

Therefore, an ideal team for ICT literacy integration consists of the instructor, the librarian, the instructional designer, and the technology specialist. Each member can contribute expertise and cross-train the teammates. Eventually, the instructor can carry the load of ICT literacy, with the benefit of specific just-in-time support from the librarian and instructional designer.

My note: I have been working for more then six years as embedded librarian in the doctoral cohort and had made aware the current library administrator (without any response) about my work, as well as providing lengthy bibliography (e.g. https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/08/24/embedded-librarian-qualifications/ and have had meeting with the current SOE administrator and the library administrator (without any response).
I also have delivered discussions to other institutions (https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/04/12/embedded-librarian-and-gamification-in-libraries/)
Librarians should seriously consider TPACK as a way to embed themselves into the classroom to incorporate information and ICT literacy.

+++++++++++++
more about academic library in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=academic+library

more on SAMR and TRACK models in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/05/17/transform-education-digital-tools/

https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/07/29/mn-esummit-2015/

Library Technology Conference 2019

#LTC2019

Intro to XR in Libraries from Plamen Miltenoff

keynote: equitable access to information

keynote spaker

https://sched.co/JAqk
the type of data: wikipedia. the dangers of learning from wikipedia. how individuals can organize mitigate some of these dangers. wikidata, algorithms.
IBM Watson is using wikipedia by algorythms making sense, AI system
youtube videos debunked of conspiracy theories by using wikipedia.

semantic relatedness, Word2Vec
how does algorithms work: large body of unstructured text. picks specific words

lots of AI learns about the world from wikipedia. the neutral point of view policy. WIkipedia asks editors present as proportionally as possible. Wikipedia biases: 1. gender bias (only 20-30 % are women).

conceptnet. debias along different demographic dimensions.

citations analysis gives also an idea about biases. localness of sources cited in spatial articles. structural biases.

geolocation on Twitter by County. predicting the people living in urban areas. FB wants to push more local news.

danger (biases) #3. wikipedia search results vs wkipedia knowledge panel.

collective action against tech: Reddit, boycott for FB and Instagram.

Mechanical Turk https://www.mturk.com/  algorithmic / human intersection

data labor: what the primary resources this companies have. posts, images, reviews etc.

boycott, data strike (data not being available for algorithms in the future). GDPR in EU – all historical data is like the CA Consumer Privacy Act. One can do data strike without data boycott. general vs homogeneous (group with shared identity) boycott.

the wikipedia SPAM policy is obstructing new editors and that hit communities such as women.

++++++++++++++++++

Twitter and Other Social Media: Supporting New Types of Research Materials

https://sched.co/JAWp

Nancy Herther Cody Hennesy

http://z.umn.edu/

twitter librarieshow to access at different levels. methods and methodological concerns. ethical concerns, legal concerns,

tweetdeck for advanced Twitter searches. quoting, likes is relevant, but not enough, sometimes screenshot

engagement option

social listening platforms: crimson hexagon, parsely, sysomos – not yet academic platforms, tools to setup queries and visualization, but difficult to algorythm, the data samples etc. open sources tools (Urbana, Social Media microscope: SMILE (social media intelligence and learning environment) to collect data from twitter, reddit and within the platform they can query Twitter. create trend analysis, sentiment analysis, Voxgov (subscription service: analyzing political social media)

graduate level and faculty research: accessing SM large scale data web scraping & APIs Twitter APIs. Jason script, Python etc. Gnip Firehose API ($) ; Web SCraper Chrome plugin (easy tool, Pyhon and R created); Twint (Twitter scraper)

Facepager (open source) if not Python or R coder. structure and download the data sets.

TAGS archiving google sheets, uses twitter API. anything older 7 days not avaialble, so harvest every week.

social feed manager (GWUniversity) – Justin Litman with Stanford. Install on server but allows much more.

legal concerns: copyright (public info, but not beyond copyrighted). fair use argument is strong, but cannot publish the data. can analyize under fair use. contracts supercede copyright (terms of service/use) licensed data through library.

methods: sampling concerns tufekci, 2014 questions for sm. SM data is a good set for SM, but other fields? not according to her. hashtag studies: self selection bias. twitter as a model organism: over-represnted data in academic studies.

methodological concerns: scope of access – lack of historical data. mechanics of platform and contenxt: retweets are not necessarily endorsements.

ethical concerns. public info – IRB no informed consent. the right to be forgotten. anonymized data is often still traceable.

table discussion: digital humanities, journalism interested, but too narrow. tools are still difficult to find an operate. context of the visuals. how to spread around variety of majors and classes. controversial events more likely to be deleted.

takedowns, lies and corrosion: what is a librarian to do: trolls, takedown,

++++++++++++++vr in library

Crague Cook, Jay Ray

the pilot process. 2017. 3D printing, approaching and assessing success or failure.  https://collegepilot.wiscweb.wisc.edu/

development kit circulation. familiarity with the Oculus Rift resulted in lesser reservation. Downturn also.

An experience station. clean up free apps.

question: spherical video, video 360.

safety issues: policies? instructional perspective: curating,WI people: user testing. touch controllers more intuitive then xbox controller. Retail Oculus Rift

app Scatchfab. 3modelviewer. obj or sdl file. Medium, Tiltbrush.

College of Liberal Arts at the U has their VR, 3D print set up.
Penn State (Paul, librarian, kiniseology, anatomy programs), Information Science and Technology. immersive experiences lab for video 360.

CALIPHA part of it is xrlibraries. libraries equal education. content provider LifeLiqe STEM library of AR and VR objects. https://www.lifeliqe.com/

+++++++++++++++++

Access for All:

https://sched.co/JAXn

accessibilityLeah Root

bloat code (e.g. cleaning up MS Word code)

ILLiad Doctype and Language declaration helps people with disabilities.

https://24ways.org/

 

+++++++++++++++++++

A Seat at the Table: Embedding the Library in Curriculum Development

https://sched.co/JAY5

embedded librarianembed library resources.

libraians, IT staff, IDs. help faculty with course design, primarily online, master courses. Concordia is GROWING, mostly because of online students.

solve issues (putting down fires, such as “gradebook” on BB). Librarians : research and resources experts. Librarians helping with LMS. Broadening definition of Library as support hub.

Future of Libraries with Instructional Design

Library 2.019 virtual mini-conference, “Shaping the Future of Libraries with Instructional Design

Wednesday, March 13th, from 12:00 – 3:00 pm US Pacific Daylight Time (click https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Library+2.019+ID&iso=20190313T12&p1=283&ah=3 to see in your local time zone).

Here are the links to the recordings of the sessions:
https://www.library20.com/page/recordings-id (you must be logged in)

This is a free event, thanks to our founding conference sponsor: School of Information at San José State University.

ATTENDING: We will send links for attending the conference a day or two before the event.

If you have friends or colleagues that wish to attend, this is a free event and we encourage you to share our information widely. However, please send them to the conference registration page (https://www.library20.com/instructionaldesign) rather than giving them the above link directly as it will allow us to track participation.

https://www.library20.com/instructionaldesign

https://www.library20.com/forum/categories/library-2-019-instructional-design-accepted-submissions/listForCategory

#library2019 #libraryid

Dana Bryant

Sandy Hirsch, SJSU School of Information.

Steven Bell, John Shank – integrating ID into practice. blended librarianship.

critical mass of librarians doing ID and libraries hiring IDs.

Michael Flierl
Assistant Professor of Library Science, Purdue University

Dana Bryant
Lead Instructional Technologist for Academic Technology Services, Woodruff Library, at Emory University

Lindsay O’Neill
Faculty, California State University, Fullerton’s Master of Science in Instructional Design and Technology Program

Steven J. Bell (moderator)

Associate University Librarian for Research and Instructional Services at Temple University

https://www.library20.com/page/library-2-0-schedule-gmt-4

What is ID: ID create an environment conductive to students’ success. Thoughtful and applied design. Making faculty and instructors’ life easier. Allow faculty to do what they do best.

Lindsey: solving the instructional problem with the tools at hand.

go-to ed tech? What is the hot tech right now?

Lindsey: H5P (open source) CC – licensed, Moodle, WordPress, build online tutorials for free (Isolde), Norway, well based, VR tours. Will H5P become paid? Michael: cell phones Dana: Emory VoiceThread. From the chat: Articulate365 (pricy), Kahoot, Peardeck, Yellowdig, vidgrid, Adobe Spark, Adobe POst, padlet, Groupme instead of Canvas, Vyond, Coggle, wakelet, Phinx

Suggestions for librarians who want to build ID skills. Dana: connect with the regional community if no ID on campus. Community of practice. Using ID tools, speakers outside of campus. Lindsey: teaching myself what is most interesting to me. what technologies are important. Find a learning community. Michael: repeat the others

keep up to date on ID theory and practices: Dana – ELI, OLC (Online Learning Consortium). ELearning Heroes. Lindsay: corporate word. Michael: POD

the one-shot instruction: what is the approach (q/n from the chat); Dana – ID as a services. person dedicated following up with people requested either ID class or training, open the line of communication. summative evaluation type of activity since we are failing to evaluate how well students absorbed the information. LIndsey: one-shot for basics (e.g. freshman), build scaffold program, reserved the one shot for meeting with librarians, for hands-on. Michael: work with faculty member and rewrite a program, build assessment rather then only deliver

areas of impact: subject matter librarians, working with faculty to use of the library resources, new faculty drawn in info and if not follow up, Canvas support.  Michael: librarians and ID working directly with faculty rewriting their curricula, measure it, demonstrating library need, 3000 students – correlation. document the lib contribution to student learning directly, the teaching-learning culture change. using info and data in more authentic ways. Lindsey: disconnect the way librarian teach vs faculty teach. Coordination scaffolding.

q/n from the chat. easily. how can non ID librarian can easily implement ID type:
Lindsey: new to ID? Google. Jargon and Acronyms. re framing how you see ed technology. technology as something to get the job done. no need to get fancy.
Dana: same as Lindsey. But also learning theories and learning outcomes. From ID perspective: what they will come out with by the end of the session. action words.
Michael: mindset. what students want to learn, before what I will teach. backward design – understanding by design. UDL. Grab a friend and talk through.
Tara

ed tech is not getting job done:
clickers for attendance is horrible idea.

 

from the chat:

Dee Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning1

https://www.byui.edu/outcomes-and-assessment-old/the-basics/step-1-articulate-outcomes/dee-finks-taxonomy-of-significant-learning

https://www.alt.ac.uk/

Association of Talent Development

Christy Tucker’s blog – Experiencing E-Learning

https://www.issotl.com/2019

https://e-learning.zeef.com/tracy.parish

https://www.lib.umich.edu/blogs/tiny-studies/using-pilot-study-test-and-assess-new-instruction-model

http://suny.edu/emtech

I had a really interesting role in grad school where we lived in the land between tech support and pedagogical / design support.

From Rajesh Kumar Das to All panelists and other attendees: (02:38 PM)
Good to hear from mike about affective learning. In this case, could you please focus what kind of technique is approprite for what, i.e. Didactic instruction, a low-complexity teaching technique such as a “Quiz Bowl”, or Jigsaw Method as high-complexity strategy, or both.

From Hailey W. to All panelists and other attendees: (02:36 PM)
As an ID librarian and the campus LMS administrator I struggle with getting them to see that other side of my role. That I’m not just “tech support”. Anyone else? Een jsut not being tech support?

From Vickie Kline to All panelists and other attendees: (02:44 PM)
As a librarian not formally trained in ID, I think a good entry point for exploring is Universal Design for Learning. We also need to pay attention to creating accessibility materials…

From Heather Quintero to All panelists and other attendees: (02:45 PM)
I always start with ADDIE… I am formally trained in ID and am an IT trainer for librarians. ADDIE is a framework for every class I make for both live and online classes. Don’t disregard ADDIE.

From Allison Rand to All panelists and other attendees: (02:47 PM)
The Wiggins and McTighe is a great book!

ADDIE Model

From Shane to All panelists and other attendees: (02:48 PM)
++SLIS open-source course on Instructional Design for Library Instruction

From Wendy to All panelists and other attendees: (02:49 PM)
Char Booth’s USER is also a very good model

http://www.modernlearning.com

https://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/Crouch_Mazur.pdf

From Roberta (Robin) Sullivan to All panelists and other attendees: (02:53 PM)
@Rachel, Peggy, Shane – an open source course is available. Check out the SUNY’s Quality by Design (QbD): Strategies for Effective Teaching and Quality Course Design at: http://suny.edu/qbd This course is available as a facilitated version at least once each semester and as a self-paced non-facilitated version in Blackboard’s CourseSites. After completing the course requirements you can earn a Digital Badge to show your accomplishment.

From Naomi Toftness to All panelists and other attendees: (02:55 PM)
Just heard the terms “deliberate innovation” vs. “desperate innovation” that totally speaks to my situation with wanting to adopt the new cool tech

++++++++++++++++++++++
BB screenshotSESSION LINK – https://sas.elluminate.com/d.jnlp?sid=2008350&password=LIB2019IDPart7 — If the session link doesn’t work for you, please copy and paste into your browser.

Session Title: Gamifying Instruction: Breakouts and Badges!

Your Name and Title: Dr. Brenda Boyer, Librarian & Instructor

Your Library, School, or Organization Name: Kutztown Sr. High School, Rutgers University

Your Twitter Handle (@name): @bsboyer

Name(s) of Co-Presenter(s): Brenda Boyer

Area of the World from Which You Will Present: Kutztown, PA

Language in Which You Will Present: English

Target Audience: Instructional Design Librarians

Short Session Description: Build engagement for your online library instruction using LMS features, Breakout boxes, and digital badges.

Session Strand (use the “tag”): {Session Strand (use the “tag”):}

Full Session Description: It’s time to amp up your library instruction! Gamifying instruction in research skills such as database usage, advanced searching, & more can increase engagement and drive independent learning for students of all ages. This session will describe how learning management system (LMS) features can be combined with digital microcredentials (i.e. badges) and breakout boxes to gamify instruction that can be otherwise deemed boring (for both the learners and the librarian!).

Link to Conference Site Session Proposal (full URL with http://): https://www.library20.com/forum/topics/gamifying-instruction-breakouts-and-badges

Other Websites / URLs Associated with Your Session:

Your Bio: Dr. Brenda Boyer is a librarian and instructional designer. She has developed online instruction for secondary learners in the Kutztown (PA) School District, as well as for graduate and professional development learners at Wilson College and Rutgers University. She designed and instructs the Rutgers graduate course, Learning Theory, Inquiry, & Instructional Design, and is a frequent presenter at AASL, Internet@Schools. She has published articles in School Library Journal, Teacher Librarian, and School Library Connection.

Email: boyer.brenda@gmail.com

notes from Brenda’s session:

are we getting the job done, is our instruction sticking, what evidence we do have?

differentiate: who is ready to do what” at what skill level? how to bring everybody up to speed?

3 elements of Digital Gamification: leverage LMS (set game levels); how digital badges are paired 3. using digital breakout boxes to push challenge, skills

each chat as prerequisite for the next. prerequisite in LMS. Each game level is module. completed with a quizz. if they pass the quiz, opens challenge.1. what is page (facts about a tool to learn about[ what the tool does, feature, etc.) 2. suppe rshort video tour (3 min max), talk about something unique 3. quick quiz (max 5 q/s from the intro page and video). pass the quiz (100 %) to unlock the challenge level. 4. challenge level. digital breakout box embedded in the LMS. breakout using Google Forms. various locks (words, letter, numbers)

Badges why?

Badgr, Credly, iDoceo

Breakout Boxes

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++
SESSION LINK – https://sas.elluminate.com/d.jnlp?sid=2008350&password=LIB2019IDPart8 — If the session link doesn’t work for you, please copy and paste into your browser.

Session Title: Improving Library Tutorials: The Multimedia Design Principles

Your Name and Title: Darlene Aguilar, Instructional Design Librarian

Your Library, School, or Organization Name: Loyola Marymount University

Your Twitter Handle (@name): @DarleneA_ID

Name(s) of Co-Presenter(s):

Area of the World from Which You Will Present: Los Angeles, CA

Language in Which You Will Present: English

Target Audience: Reference and Instruction Librarians, Instructional Designers, Tutorial developers, Academic Librarians

Short Session Description: This session will review Mayer’s (2001) Multimedia Design Principles to help improve instructional modules, tutorials, and videos.

Session Strand (use the “tag”): {Session Strand (use the “tag”):}

Full Session Description: Librarians are creating more online modules, videos, and tutorials to teach information literacy skills. Whether designing instruction online or in-person, research-based instructional methods are required and learning Mayer’s Multimedia Design Principles is the best place to start. In this session, I will review essential prior-knowledge on image types and working memory. I will then show learners how to minimize cognitive overload using these 12 principles: multimedia, spatial contiguity, temporal contiguity, coherence, modality, redundancy, individual differences, signaling, pacing, concepts first, personalization, and human voice.

Link to Conference Site Session Proposal (full URL with http://): https://www.library20.com/forum/topics/improving-library-tutorials-the-multimedia-design-principles

Other Websites / URLs Associated with Your Session: https://linkedin.com/in/darlene-aguilar/

Your Bio: Darlene Aguilar is an Instructional Design Librarian at Loyola Marymount University where she designs and develops video tutorials and online modules on information literacy and library related topics. Additionally, she provides “best practices” training in instructional design to other LMU librarians. She graduated from the University of Southern California with a Master’s in Education for Learning Design and Technology and previously worked at LAUSD for 7 years. She strives to remove learning barriers that are embedded in instruction and curriculum and make learning accessible to all learners.

Email: darlene.aguilar@lmu.edu

notes from Darlene Aguilar session: spacial contiguity, temporal contiguity. Modality: animation + narration better then animation + text, redundancy: animation and narration then animation + narration + text

boolean operators

 

 

instructional design books

instructional design and models

Instructional Design Models and Theories

https://elearningindustry.com/instructional-design-models-and-theories

Instructional Design Models and Theories History*

  1. 1903 – Ivan Pavlov discovers Classical Conditioning Theory, while conducting research on the digestive system of dogs.
  2. 1910 – Thorndike introduces its Laws and Connectionism Theory, which are based on the Active Learning Principles.
  3. 1922 – Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Köhler introduce Gestalt Psychology.
  4. 1932 – Psychologist Frederic Bartlett proposes the Schema Theory.
  5. 1937 – B.F. Skinner introduces the Operant Conditioning Theory.
  6. 1937 – May and Doob publish Competition and Cooperation, where the Cooperative and Collaborative Learning Theory is launched, discussed and analyzed.
  7. 1950s – The Information Processing Theory emerges.
  8. 1950s – Computer-based Instruction is used in educational and training environments.
  9. 1954 – Skinner introduces the Programmed Instruction Educational Model.
  10. 1960s – The Inquiry-based Learning Model is developed, based on constructivist learning theories.
  11. 1961 – Jerome Bruner introduces the Discovery Learning Model.
  12. 1960s – Howard Barrows introduces Problem-based Learning (PBL) in the medical education program at McMaster University in Canada.
  13. 1963 – David Ausubel publishes his findings on the Subsumption Theory.
  14. 1962 – The Keller Plan revolves around the Individualized Instruction Model and is used in educational environments throughout the United States.
  15. 1971 – Allan Paivio hypothesized about the Dual Coding Theory; a theory of cognition.
  16. 1974 – Merlin Wittrock publishes the Generative Learning Theory.
  17. 1978- Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Learning Theory influences the West.
  18. 1979 – Charles Reigeluth introduces the Elaboration Theory.
  19. 1980 – Reginald Revans introduces the Action Learning Model.
  20. 1983 – David Merrill introduces the Component Display Theory and Instructional Model.
  21. 1983 – J. M. Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivation is published.
  22. 1988 – Spiro, Feltovich, and Coulson introduce their Cognitive Flexibility Theory.
  23. 1989 – Brown, Collins, Duguid and Newman introduce their Situated Cognition Theory and the Cognitive Apprenticeship Model.
  24. 1990 – The Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt University develops the Anchored InstructionEducational Model.
  25. 1990s – Multimedia and CD-ROMs are introduced in educational environments.
  26. 1991 – Lave and Wenger introduce the Communities of Practice Model and the Situated Learning Theory in “Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation”.
  27. 1991 – Hudspeth and Knirk publish the case-based Learning Model in Performance Improvement Quarterly.
  28. 1992 – Roger C. Schank releases a technical report, introducing the Goal-based Scenario Model.
  29. 1993 – The first Computer-supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILEs) prototype is used in a university setting.
  30. 1995 – Saltzberg and Polyson publish Distributed Learning on the World Wide Web, which outlines the Distributed Learning Model.
  31. 1995 – Dodge and March develop WebQuest.
  32. 1996 – Professor Joseph R. Codde publishes a report that outlines Contract Learning.
  33. 2007 – M. Lombardi publishes a report, outlining the Authentic Learning Model.

+++++++
more on ID in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=instructional+design

1 2 3 17