I absolutely echo Kimber’s notion that a team approach to course development can actually take longer, even when one of the team members is an instructional designer. Perhaps because faculty members are used to controlling all aspects of their course development and delivery, the division of labor concept may feel too foreign to them. An issue that is similar in nature and referred to as ‘unbundling the faculty role’ is discussed at length in the development of competency-based education (CBE) courses and it is not typically a concept that faculty embrace.
Robin
+++++++++++++++++++
I will also confirm that the team approach to course development can take longer. Indeed it does in my experience. It requires much more “back and forth”, negotiating of who is doing what, ensuring that the overall approach is congruent, etc. That’s not to say that it’s not a worthwhile endeavor in some cases where it makes pedagogical sense (in our case we are designing courses for 18-22 year-old campus-based learners and 22+ year-old fully online learners at the same time), but if time/cost savings is the goal, you will be sorely disappointed, in my experience. The “divide and conquer” approach requires a LOT of coordination and oversight. Without that you will likely have a cobbled together, hodgepodge of a course that doesn’t meet expectations.
Best, Carine Director, Office of Instructional Design & Academic Technology Ottawa University 1001 S. Cedar St. * Ottawa, KS 66067 carine.ullom@ottawa.edu * 785-248-2510
++++++++++++++++++++
Breaking up a course and coming up with a cohesive design and approach, could make the design process longer. At SSC, we generally work with our faculty over the course of a semester for each course. When we’ve worked with teams, we have not seen a shortened timeline.
The length of time it takes to develop a course depends on the content. Are there videos? If so, they have to be created, which is time-consuming, plus they either need to have a transcript created or they need subtitles. Both of those can be time-consuming. PowerPoint slides take time, plus, they need more content to make them relevant. We are working with our faculty to use the Universal Design for Learning model, which means we’re challenging them to create the content to benefit the most learners
I have a very small team whose sole focus is course design and it takes us 3-4 weeks to design a course and it’s our full-time job!
Linda
Linda C. Morosko, MA Director, eStarkState Division of Student Success 330-494-6170 ext. 4973 lmorosko@starkstate.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kelvin, we also use the 8-week development cycle, but do occasionally have to lengthen that cycle for particularly complex courses or in rare cases when the SME has had medical emergencies or other major life disruptions. I would be surprised if multiple faculty working on a course could develop it any more quickly than a single faculty member, though, because of the additional time required for them to agree and the dispersed sense of responsibility. Interesting idea.
-Kimber
Dr. Kimberly D. Barnett Gibson, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs and Online Learning Our Lady of the Lake University 411 SW 24th Street San Antonio, TX 78207 Kgibson@ollusa.edu210.431.5574 BlackBoard IM kimberly.gibson https://www.pinterest.com/drkdbgavpol/ @drkimberTweets
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello everyone. As a follow-up to the current thread, how long do you typically give hey course developer to develop a master course for your institution? We currently use an eight week model but some faculty have indicated that that is not enough time for them although we have teams of 2 to 4 faculty developing such content. Our current assumption is that with teams, there can be divisions of labor that can reduce the total amount time needed during the course development process.
Kelvin Bentley, PhD Vice President of Academic Affairs, TCC Connect Campus Tarrant County College District
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At Berkeley College, full-time faculty may develop online courses in conjunction with an instructional designer. The course is used as a master template for other sections to be assigned from. Once the course has been scheduled and taught, the faculty member receives a stipend. The faculty member would receive their normal pay to teach the developed course as part of their semester course load, with no additional royalties assigned for it or any additional sections that may be provided to students.
Regards, Gina Gina Okun Assistant Dean, Online Berkeley College 64 East Midland Avenue, Suite 2, Paramus, NJ 07652 (973)405-2111 x6309 gina-okun@berkeleycollege.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
We operate with nearly all adjunct faculty where >70% of enrollment credits are onlinez
With one exception that I can recall, the development contract includes the college’s outright ownership, with no royalty rights. One of the issues with a royalty based arrangement would be what to do when the course is revised (which happens nearly every term, to one degree or another). At what point does the course begin to take on the character of another person’s input?
What do you do if the course is adapted for a shorter summer term, or a between-term intensive? What if new media tools or a different LMS are used? Is the royalty arrangement based on the syllabus or the course content itself? What happens if the textbook goes out of print, or an Open resource becomes available? What happens if students evaluate the course poorly?
I’m not in position to set this policy — I’m only reporting it. I like the idea of a royalty arrangement but it seems like it could get pretty messy. It isn’t as if you are licensing a song or an image where the original product doesn’t change. Courses, the modes of delivery, and the means of communication change all the time. Seems like it would be hard to define what constitutes “the course” after a certain amount of time.
Steve Covello Rich Media Specialist/Instructional Designer/Online Instructor Chalk & Wire e-Portfolio Administrator Granite State College 603-513-1346 Video chat: https://appear.in/id.team Scheduling: http://meetme.so/stevecovello
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’ve worked with many institutions that have used Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to develop or provide the online course content. Most often, the institutions also provide a resource in the form of an Instructional Designer (ID) to take the content and create the actual course environment.
The SME is paid on a contract basis for provision of the content. This is a one-time payment, and the institution then owns the course content (other than integrated published materials such as text books, licensed online lab products, etc.). The SME may be an existing faculty member at the institution or not, or the SME may go on to teach the course at the institution. In any event, whoever teaches the course would be paid the standard faculty rate for the course. If the course requires revisions to the extent that a person will need to be engaged for content updates, then that can be a negotiated contract. Typically it is some fraction of the original development cost. No royalties are involved.
Within SUNY, there is some variance regarding whether a stipend is paid for development or not. In either case, since we are unionized there is policy regarding IP. IP resides with the faculty developer unless both parties agree in writing in the form of a contract to assign or share rights.
Thank you for your feedback on this issue. Our institution does does not provide a royalty as we consider course development as a fee-for-service arrangement. We pay teams of 2-4 faculty $1000 each to develop master course shells for our high-enrollment courses. Instead of a royalty fee, I think an institution can simply provide course developers the perk of first right of refusal to teach the course when it offered as well as providing course developers with the first option to make revisions to the course shell over time.
Kelvin
Kelvin Bentley, Ph.D. Vice President of Academic Affairs, TCC Connect Campus Tarrant County College District
Once upon a time, and several positions ago, we set up a google doc for capturing all kinds of data points across institutions, like this. I’m sure it’s far out of date, but may still have some ideas or info in there – and could possibly be dusted off and oiled up for re-use… I present the Blend-Online Data Collector. This tab is for course development payment.
Kind regards,
Clark
Clark Shah-Nelson
Assistant Dean, Instructional Design and Technology
University of Maryland School of Social Work—Twitter … LinkedIn —voice/SMS: (646) 535-7272fax: 270.514.0112
Hi Jenn,
Just want to clarify…you say faculty “sign over all intellectual property rights of the course to the college.” but later in the email say “Faculty own all intellectual property and can take it with them to teach at another institution”, so is your policy changing to the former? Or, is it the later and that is what you are asking about?
I’ll send details on our policy directly to your email account.
I am tasked with finding out what the going rate is for the following model:
We pay an adjunct faculty member (“teaching faculty”) a set amount in order to develop an online course and sign over all intellectual property rights of the course to the college.
Is anyone doing this? I’ve heard of models that include royalties, but I personally don’t know of any that offer straight payment for IP. I know this can be a touchy subject, so feel free to respond directly to me and I will return and post a range of payment rates with no other identifying data.
For some comparison, we are currently paying full time faculty a $5000 stipend to spend a semester developing their very first online class, and then they get paid to teach the class. Subsequent online class developments are unpaid. Emerson owns the course description and course shell and is allowed to show the course to future faculty who will teach the online course. Faculty own all intellectual property and can take it with them to teach at another institution. More info: http://www.emerson.edu/itg/online-emerson/frequently-asked-questions
I asked this on another list, but wanted to get Blend_Online’s opinion as well. Thanks for any pointers!
Jenn Stevens
Director | Instructional Technology Group | 403A Walker Building | Emerson College | 120 Boylston St | Boston MA 02116 | (617) 824-3093
Ellen M. Murphy
Director of Program Development
Graduate Professional Studies
“Hybrid learning gives us the advantage of having technology available to learn in the way that we’ve grown used to,” says Ms. Pillwein, who is also a Brock University graduate. “In the abnormal psychology course, the online component is mainly tests and quizzes that you can do in your own time. I’ve found that suits my learning style more, as opposed to doing a test in class where you’d have to memorize a lot of terms and concepts.”
Ms. Pillwein also likes that the professor uploads all of her PowerPoint presentations for students to access and review. She feels that helps get the material embedded in her brain more than writing things down word for word during the lecture.
Ms. Hotham finds that the combination of two hours of classroom lecture and then one hour of online activity for the week is an effective way of teaching the material, particularly because it gives students time to take away what has been said and digest it.
After two years of teaching the course with the online component and one year before that of teaching without it, she says the student grades are higher than when she taught only in the classroom.
Ms. Hotham also finds students are more engaged in the discussion the week after doing the online activities because they have more to talk about. Sometimes she posts a video, which then becomes an online discussion.
Patrick Lyons, director of teaching and learning services at Carleton University in Ottawa, visualizes online learning taking many different forms, presenting all kinds of opportunities that could not be delivered any other way. Carleton has a long history offering distance learning, first broadcasting courses on a local cable TV channel in 1978 and then offering the world’s first video podcast of a university credit course in 2006.
Asynchronous eCourse beginning November 14, 2016 and continuing for 5 weeks (includes an extension of 1 week for Thanksgiving)
Estimated Hours of Learning: 24 Certificate of Completion available upon request
Learning outcomes
After participating in this course, you will be able to:
incorporate ever-evolving definitions of digital literacy into learning opportunities
draw upon a variety of digital resources to create digital-learning opportunities
seek additional resources that you can use in your continuing efforts to keep up with new developments in digital literacy in libraries and other learning organizations
What is digital literacy? Do you know how you can foster digital literacy through formal and informal learning opportunities for your library staff and users?
Supporting digital literacy still remains an important part of library staff members’ work, but sometimes we struggle to agree on a simple, meaningful definition of the term. In this four-week eCourse, training/learning specialist Paul Signorelli will begin by exploring a variety of definitions, focusing on work by a few leading proponents of the need to foster digital literacy among people of all ages and backgrounds. He will explore a variety of digital-literacy resources – including case studies of how we creatively approach digital-literacy learning opportunities for library staff and users, and will explore a variety of digital tools that will help to encourage further understanding of this topic.
Now, who is ready to build their digital-literacy skills and help their users become digital literate as well?
eCourse Outline
Part 1: Digital Literacy: Initial Definitions and Explorations
An overview of various definitions of digital literacy
Several components of digital literacy
Exploring Doug Belshaw’s extensive work on defining and fostering digital literacy
Part 2: Digital Literacy: Crap Detection and Other Skills and Tools
Exploring Howard Rheingold’s approach to crap detection and other digital literacy/net literacy skills
Participation, collaboration, creativity, and experimentation as digital-literacy skills
Building our digital-literacy toolkit
Part 3: Digital Literacy in Learning
The varying digital literacy needs of our youngest students, of teens, and of adults
Exploring various online resources supporting our digital-literacy training-teaching-learning efforts
The myth of the digital native
Part 4: Fostering Digital Literacy: Creating Within a Digital Environment
Creating a framework to promote digital literacy
Designing workshops and other learning opportunities
Keeping up in an evolving digital literacy landscape
How this eCourse Works
The eCourse begins on Monday, November 14, 2016. Your participation will require approximately six hours a week, at times that fit your schedule. All activities take place on the website, and you will be expected to:
Read, listen to or view online content
Post to online discussion boards
Complete weekly assignments or activities
Instructor Paul Signorelli will monitor discussion boards regularly during the four-week period, lead group discussions, and will also answer individual questions. All interaction will take place on the eCourse site, which will be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It’s recommended that students log into the site on the first day of class or within a few days for an overview of the content and to begin the first lesson.
User Requirements
Participants will need regular access to a computer with an internet connection for online message boards participation, viewing online video, listening to streaming audio (mp3 files), and downloading and viewing PDFs and PowerPoint files. ALA Editions eCourses are fully compatible with Windows and MacOs.
About the Instructor
Paul Signorelli, co-author of Workplace Learning & Leadership with Lori Reed, is a San Francisco-based writer, trainer, presenter, and consultant exploring, fostering, and documenting innovations in learning. Having earned an MLIS through the University of North Texas (with an emphasis on online learning), he remains active in the American Library Association, the New Media Consortium (educational technology), and the Association for Talent Development (formerly the American Society for Training & Development).
My note: Finally ALA is addressing a huge gap. Namely, letting conservative librarians dress information literacy with the appearance of “digital literacy.”
++++++++++++++++
more on digital literacy in this IMS blog:
Faculty perceive undergraduates to be less proficient with digital literacy skills. One-third think
their students do not find or organize digital information very well. The majority (52%) think
they lack skill in validating digital information. My note: for the SCSU librarians, digital literacy is fancy word for information literacy. Digital literacy, as used in this report is much greater area, which encompasses much broader set of skills
Faculty do not prefer to teach online (57%) or in a hybrid format (where some sessions occur
online, 32%). One-third of faculty reported no experience with these least popular course types
my note: pay attention to the questions asked; questions I am asking Mike Penrod to let me work with faculty for years. Questions, which are snubbed by CETL and a dominance of D2L and MnSCU mandated tools is established.
Table 5. Do you use these in-class technologies for teaching undergraduates? Which are the Top 3 in-class technologies you would like to learn or use more? (n = 442)
usingonline resourcesto find high quality curricular materials
37%
48%
31%
3%
18%
iClickers
24%
23%
16%
9%
52%
otherpresentation tool (Prezi, Google presentation, Slide Carnival, etc.)
23%
14%
21%
15%
51%
whiteboard / blackboard
20%
58%
23%
6%
14%
Powerpoint or Keynote
20%
74%
16%
4%
5%
document camera / overhead projector
15%
28%
20%
14%
38%
Table 6. Do you have undergraduates use these assignment technology tools? Which are your Top 3 assignment technology tools to learn about or use more? (n = 432)
D2Lasa portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.)
21%
28%
18%
11%
42%
videos/animationsproducedelsewhere
19%
40%
36%
2%
22%
In both large and small classes, the most common responses faculty make to digital distraction are to discuss why it is a problem and to limit or ban phones in class. my note: which completely defies the BYOD and turns into empty talk / lip service.
Quite a number of other faculty (n = 18) reported putting the onus on themselves to plan engaging and busy class sessions to preclude distraction, for example:
“If my students are more interested in their laptops than my course material, I need to make my curriculum more interesting.”
I have not found this to be a problem. When the teaching and learning are both engaged/engaging, device problems tend to disappear.”
The most common complaint related to students and technology was their lack of common technological skills, including D2L and Google, and needing to take time to teach these skills in class (n = 14). Two commented that digital skills in today’s students were lower than in their students 10 years ago.
Table 9. Which of the following are the most effective types of learning opportunities about teaching, for you? Chose your Top 2-3. (n = 473)
Count Percentage
meeting 1:1 with anexpert
296
63%
hour-longworkshop
240
51%
contact an expert on-call (phone, email, etc)
155
33%
faculty learning community (meeting across asemester,
e.g. ASSETT’s Hybrid/Online Course Design Seminar)
116
25%
expert hands-on support for course redesign (e.g. OIT’s Academic Design Team)
114
24%
opportunityto apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards)
97
21%
half-dayorday-longworkshop
98
21%
other
40
8%
multi-day retreats/ institutes
30
6%
Faculty indicated that the best times for them to attend teaching professional developments across the year are before and early semester, and summer. They were split among all options for meeting across one week, but preferred afternoon sessions to mornings. Only 8% of respondents (n = 40) indicated they would not likely attend any professional development session (Table 10).
Table T1: Faculty beliefs about using digital technologies in teaching
Count
Column N%
Technology is a significant barrier to teaching and learning.
1
0.2%
Technology can have a place in teaching, but often detracts from teaching and learning.
76
18.3%
Technology has a place in teaching, and usually enhances the teaching learning process.
233
56.0%
Technology greatly enhances the teaching learning process.
106
25.5%
Table T2: Faculty beliefs about the impact of technology on courses
Count
Column N%
Makes a more effective course
302
72.6%
Makes no difference in the effectiveness of a course
42
10.1%
Makes a less effective course
7
1.7%
Has an unknown impact
65
15.6%
Table T3: Faculty use of common technologies (most frequently selected categories shaded)
Once a month or less
A few hours a month
A few hours a week
An hour a day
Several hours a day
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Computer
19
4.8%
15
3.8%
46
11.5%
37
9.3%
282
70.7%
Smart Phone
220
60.6%
42
11.6%
32
8.8%
45
12.4%
24
6.6%
Office Software
31
7.8%
19
4.8%
41
10.3%
82
20.6%
226
56.6%
Email
1
0.2%
19
4.6%
53
12.8%
98
23.7%
243
58.7%
Social Networking
243
68.8%
40
11.3%
40
11.3%
23
6.5%
7
2.0%
Video/Sound Media
105
27.6%
96
25.2%
95
24.9%
53
13.9%
32
8.4%
Table T9: One sample t-test for influence of technology on approaches to grading and assessment
Test Value = 50
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
In class tests and quizzes
-4.369
78
.000
-9.74684
-14.1886
-5.3051
Online tests and quizzes
5.624
69
.000
14.77143
9.5313
20.0115
Ungraded assessments
1.176
66
.244
2.17910
-1.5208
5.8790
Formative assessment
5.534
70
.000
9.56338
6.1169
13.0099
Short essays, papers, lab reports, etc.
2.876
70
.005
5.45070
1.6702
9.2312
Extended essays and major projects or performances
1.931
69
.058
3.67143
-.1219
7.4648
Collaborative learning projects
.000
73
1.000
.00000
-4.9819
4.9819
Table T10: Rate the degree to which your role as a faculty member and teacher has changed as a result of increased as a result of increased use of technology
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
shifting from the role of content expert to one of learning facilitator
12
9.2%
22
16.9%
14
10.8%
37
28.5%
29
22.3%
16
12.3%
your primary role is to provide content for students
14
10.9%
13
10.1%
28
21.7%
29
22.5%
25
19.4%
20
15.5%
your identification with your University is increased
23
18.3%
26
20.6%
42
33.3%
20
15.9%
12
9.5%
3
2.4%
you have less ownership of your course content
26
20.2%
39
30.2%
24
18.6%
21
16.3%
14
10.9%
5
3.9%
your role as a teacher is strengthened
13
10.1%
12
9.3%
26
20.2%
37
28.7%
29
22.5%
12
9.3%
your overall control over your course(s) is diminished
23
17.7%
44
33.8%
30
23.1%
20
15.4%
7
5.4%
6
4.6%
Table T14: One sample t-test for influence of technology on faculty time spent on specific teaching activities
Test Value = 50
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
Lecturing
-7.381
88
.000
-12.04494
-15.2879
-8.8020
Preparing course materials
9.246
96
.000
16.85567
13.2370
20.4744
Identifying course materials
8.111
85
.000
13.80233
10.4191
17.1856
Grading / assessing
5.221
87
.000
10.48864
6.4959
14.4813
Course design
12.962
94
.000
21.55789
18.2558
24.8600
Increasing access to materials for all types of learners
Attention: sponsored by itslearning (take information with a grain of salt)
The cloud-based learning platform itslearning will host a free tech webinar for K–12 educators and administrators at 1 p.m. EST (10 a.m. PST) Wednesday, July 27. The webinar, available on the itslearning website, will examine best practices in selecting and implementing learning technologies.
Implementation consultant Libby Lawrie will direct the webinar. She’s a former teacher and school administrator, and she frequently presents nationally on instructional technology and virtual education. She’s also a founding member of the International Association for K–12 Online Learning (iNACOL).
The webinar is designed to give education leaders the insight and tools they need to select the right tools for their tech situations. There are many products and choices out there, and Lawrie will provide strategies for choosing the best products and partners, as well as details about the discovery and implementation process. She will share insights and best practices from U.S. districts large and small.
Infuse Learning
Infuse Learning is a tablet-based student response system for learning through conversation and collaboration. Teachers can build assessments and track students’ responses. The drawing-response tool (for sketches and diagrams) is a powerful feature here. Also, there’s native-language support for English learners. Read full review.
Kahoot
Kahoot is a game-based classroom response system. Teachers can create quizzes using content from the web. Questions appear on a class screen; without needing an account, students answer in real-time on a mobile device. Kahoot is different in that it creates an engaging competition. Students can also create their own quizzes and assessments. Read full review.
Socrative
Socrative is a student response system with a variety of activities: quizzes, assessments, games, and even exit notes. Teachers control the flow of exercises; students respond in real time. It generates reports to help teachers track learning over time. Read full review.
Turnitin
Turnitin is mostly a tool for promoting originality in students’ writing (or catching plagiarism). However, it’s also a tool to support the writing process — from teacher feedback and grading to peer evaluation and review. There’s also a handy discussion forum feature, with built-in moderation. Read full review.
Poll Everywhere
Poll Everywhere isn’t just for schools, but works well as a classroom response system. Students can respond via text message, Twitter, or a Web browser; teachers can project the results on the Web, or in a PowerPoint or Keynote presentation. Read full review.
TodaysMeet
TodaysMeet is a backchannel to help an audience and presenter connect in real time. Like a closed version of Twitter, posts are limited to 140 characters. Teachers can offer students a live stream for discussion, addressing issues on-the-spot, or as an after-lecture reflective activity. Read full review.
Backchannel Chat
Backchannel Chat is just for educational use. Students don’t have to enter any personal information into the system, and teachers can save, search, and archive discussions. Teachers also get a lot of control with customizable moderation options, a room-locking feature, and filtering for unwelcome content. Read full review.
GoSoapBox
is a student response system offering teachers more than a standard quiz/poll tool. The social Q&A feature allows students to vote the most relevant questions to the top, and a “Confusion Barometer” tool lets teachers track understanding throughout a lesson. Read full review.
Blendspace
Blendspace allows teachers to collect resources from the web and create a customizable, blended-instruction experience for students. Formative assessment tools are built in, allowing multiple question types, and the ability to track students’ progress over time. Read full review.
Collaborize Classroom
Collaborize Classroom allows teachers to create an online classroom community for learning — a home-base for online discussion forums, polls, assessments, and student-driven projects. There are differentiation tools and customized learning opportunities for individuals and small groups. Read full review.
Quizizz is an alternative to Kahoot, and there’s also a lot for educators to like. It is very similar to Kahoot, with a few key differences.
Just like Kahoot, the teacher (or student host) chooses a quiz to begin. A five digit game code is provided. Players point their browsers to join.quizzizz.com and input the game code, along with their names. If players are using smartphones or tablets, I display the join link as a QR code.
Quizizz takes a different approach. No projector is necessary becauseplayers see questions and answer options on their own screens. The question order is randomized for each student, so it’s no easy for players to cheat. With Quizizz, players don’t have to wait for the whole class to answer a question before they continue to the next one.
So, Quizizz is player-paced while Kahoot’s pace is determined by the teacher or host. This is the major difference and can be a benefit or a drawback. If you want to pause after each question, then Kahoot is better. The class can stop and discuss after each question, immediately addressing misconceptions. With Quizizz, players zip through questions at their own pace, limiting all discussion to after all questions have been answered.
Where is MC 205? Per campus map, Miller Center 205 is on the second floor, direction computer lab, right-handside, pass the counter with printers on both sides. Please use this virtual reality direction map to find the room (use Google Chrome and activate QuickTime plugin).
Dreamweaver: 4 Mondays – 10-10:45AM . Jan 18, 25, Feb 1, 8 ; location MC 205. attendees cap is 5
Keywords: web development, web design, Adobe Dreamweaver
Description: Adobe Dreamweaver CC is the default web development tool on campus. In four consecutive weeks, learn the basics of Dreamweaver, web development, web design and maintaining web pages on the Web. Site map and site structure. HTML and HTML5 basics, basics of CSS, page properties, text editing, hyperlinks and images, tables, forms.
Description: In four 45 min sessions, learn the basics of image editing. A comprehensive understanding of Adobe Photoshop and its essential tools. Design and edit, adjusting images for the Internet and print outs. Learn image formats, compressions, layers. Retouching, repairing and correcting photos
Social Media in Education 9:30-10:15 AM. Feb 3, 10, 17, 24. location MC 205. attendees cap is 15
Keywords: social media, social media in education, social media and learning, social media and teaching, social media and communication, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Diigo, Delicious, Evernote, SideVibe, Pinterest, Vine, Snapchat, Google+, Zotero, Mendeley, blogs, wikis, podcasts, visuals, text
Description: In four 45 min sessions, structure your approach to social media and assess how to use in teaching and learning. What is social media and how to use it. How to discriminate between personal and professional use of social media. Amidst 180 most popular social media tools, acquire a robust structure to cluster them and orient yourself quick and easy, which tools fit best your teaching materials and methods to enable learning and communication with your students. Visuals versus text and how to combine them for effective communication and teaching. Policies, engagement of students. Expanding and improving research and organization of your research through social media and networking toward your research through social media.
Description: in 45 minutes we can start a conversation about identification of cheating practices and determination of what plagiarism is, considering generational differences, the evolution of the Internet. Identifying of “cheating” can provide robust boundaries for understanding students’ behavior and identifying practices and methods to alleviate such behavior, including change of teaching methods and practices.
10 basics steps to start social media. March 16, 11-11:45AM location MC 205. attendees cap is 15
Keywords: social media, social media in education, social media and learning, social media and teaching, social media and communication, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Diigo, Delicious, Evernote, SideVibe, Pinterest, Vine, Snapchat, Google+, Zotero, Mendeley, blogs, wikis, podcasts, visuals, text
Description: introduction to social media and its use for personal and professional purposes. Ideas and scenarios of using different social media tools in education. Hands-on exercises for using social media in teaching.
Description: Gaming and Gamification is one of the most pronounced trends in education as per the New Horizon Report. Besides the increase of participation and enthusiasm, it increases learning. Introduction to gaming and gamification by establishing definitions, learning to distinguish gaming and gamification and learning the basics of gaming and gamification in the teaching process. Hands-on exercises for introducing gaming practices in the teaching and learning process and gamifying the existing syllabi.
Description: this 45 min session is aimed to help you transition your F2F teaching to hybrid and online teaching. Learn about synchronous and asynchronous modes of teaching and communication to structure and organize your class materials and methods for better delivery. Hands-on exercises for improving content delivery, class discussions and communications among instructor and students.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Effective Presentations. Jan 28, 2-2:45PM. MC 205. attendees cap is 10
Keywords: presentations, PowerPoint, alternatives to PowerPoint, presentation design, presentation essentials, Prezi, SlideShare, LodeStar, Zentation, Zoho, Powtoon, Zaption, Thinglink, Haiku, Kahoot, Storify, EdPuzzle, PollDaddy, Evernote, Mammoth, SideVibe, Paddlet, Remind, Death by PowerPoint, visual literacy, media literacy, digital literacy, visuals
Description: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/01/07/effective-presentations/ . These four 45 minute sessions are aimed to introduce and orient faculty, staff and students to the opulence of alternatives to PowerPoint and revisit the basics of well-tailored presentation. Hands-on exercises for improving the structure and delivery of presentation as well as the choice of presentation tools.
Remote participation through desktopsharing at http://scsuconnect.stcloudstate.edu/ims upon registration and specific request
Death by PowerPoint. Feb 26, 10-10:45PM. MC 205. attendees cap is 10
Keywords: presentations, PowerPoint, alternatives to PowerPoint, presentation design, presentation essentials, Death by PowerPoint, visual literacy, media literacy, digital literacy, visuals.
Description: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/01/07/effective-presentations/ . This 45 minute session is aimed to introduce and orient faculty, staff and students to the basics of PowerPoint and revisit the basics of a well-tailored presentation. Hands-on exercises for improving the structure and delivery of presentation as well as the choice of presentation tools.
Contemplative Computing or Disconnect: How to Bring Balance in Your Life by Managing well Your Technology. Feb 17. 2-2:45PM. MC 205. attendees cap is 10
Description: this 45 min session introduces faculty, staff and students to the idea of regulating the use of technology in a meaningful way. Hands-on exercises and sharing good practices on balancing the use of technology in daily life.
Videos in the classroom: fast and easy. Jan 28, 10-10:45PM. MC 205. attendees cap is 5.
Keywords: video, video editing, video manipulation, visual literacy, digital literacy, MovieMaker, iMovie, Instagram, Vine, YouTube, Kaltura
Description: this 45 min session is an orientation to the resources available for delivery of visual materials in the classroom. Hands-on experience of different basics tools on different computer platforms.
Infographics: make your projects, presentations and research credible through presentable data. Feb 10, 2-2:45PM. March 29, 10-10:45AM, MC 205. attendees cap is 10
Keywords: Piktochart, Infogr, Visualy, statistics, visual literacy, digital literacy
Description: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/04/09/infographics-how-to-create-them/. This 45 min session is an orientation to the world of infographics. Short introduction to the basics of statistics and their importance in presenting a research and idea. Hands-on exercise using one of the 3 popular infographic tools.
In this rapid succession of examples, one can experience a showcase how to enhance students’ engagement by modernizing D2L experience through connection with social media. Bring your own examples and participate in a discussion, which aims finding the right tools for your class and field of study.
Audience: beginners to advanced
Prerequisite:
come with your own social media accounts: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Vine
Outcomes:
By the end of this session, the participants will have an idea about peculiarity of each of the social media tools: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Vine
By the end of the session, the participants will be familiar with the integration of each of the social media tool into D2L
By the end of the session, the participants will be able to asses to what extent each particular tool fits their field of study
By the end of the session, the participants will be able to compare the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages of the social media tools compared to D2L
D2L and Twitter
microblogging of 140 characters is often viewed as limiting. However, it can be the ultimate test how well students understand the learning material: making someone sum up in 140 characters what they learned this particular week in their class can take a lot of rewriting.
D2L allows a widget on its main page, where students can view and tweet. Students also can view and tweet from their mobile devices.
Tweeting during class is becoming mainstream in K12, also called “backchanneling.” Harnessing peers help to understand a concept discussed in class can save both time and efforts on the instructors’ side
Twitter is “making your twitter.com timeline more immersive by uncropping photos, so you can experience and present them as they were meant to be viewed.” https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/12/13/improvements-in-social-media-tools/
D2L and Vine
Vine is a social media services, which provides the ability to share 7 sec videos. Vine is becoming more popular then Instagram (15 sec videos), with the simplicity to create short videos. Students can take sequence of short videos, which amount to 7 sec to reflect the main points of a project. E.g.: chemical reaction, biology dissection, progress of engineering planning, solving a math formula.
URL to the vine can be posted in the D2L discussion area for further collaborative effort or for peers’ and instructions evaluation
Vines are a click away from a FB group page or, with the right handle and hashtag, to a Twitter discussion
The bottom-line to evaluate if fitting your field of study is: can the content be narrated or is it much better if visualized. If the latter, Vine can be your salvation. How to Create Social Videos With Your Smartphonehttps://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/01/10/social-videos-with-your-smartphone/
Per SCSU IT disclaimer: MediaSpace (Kaltura) is a free, cloud-based video repository solution for campus that allows faculty and staff to upload and distribute video and audio content for academic or administrative purposes. Facilitators will discuss potential uses of MediaSpace for campus, demonst rate how to create Webcam and screen recordings, upload audio/video, and embed or link to MediaSpace content from D2L or a web site. YouTube is owned by Google and the integration, including statistics and analytics by Google are way beyond MediaSpace. The only selling point of MediaSpace is the FERPA requirement by MnSCU to host privacy data on a MnSCU owned server
I can cover this in 5-15 minutes, just let me know what you prefer
Integrating Facebook Groups
I will show a couple of groups that I have used
I can also come up with an “exercise” that participants can do, just let me know: (1) if you want me to and (2) if participants are suppose to have a Facebook account that they can log into during the session
Title
Engage your students: gaming and gamification in the learning process.
Outline
As part of the broader discussion, a short discussion segment to form and agree on definitions and terms regarding games and gamification. Another short segment to seek consensus if this SCSU campus is ready to departure on the path of gamifying education. After several examples, of how games are used in education and gamification techniques, a discussion on how gaming and gamification can be streamlined amidst shrinking budget and increasing workload. More details and information about gaming and gamification at: http://scsu.mn/1F008Re
Audience: beginners to advanced
Outcomes:
By the end of this session, the participants will have a working definitions on play, games, serious games, game-based learning, digital game-based learning, gaming, gamification and badges. (more at http://scsu.mn/1F008Re)
By the end of the session, the participants will be familiar with the possibilities for integration of games in the educational process and for gamification of the educational process.
By the end of the session, the participants will be able to asses to what extent games and gamification fit their field of study
Plan:
Introduce each other and share the reason and interest to attend this discussion; what are the expectations from this discussion
Your Brain on Video Game http://www.zaption.com/present/566b26d4cbda6b1c1c482aa6
(use presenter, ask for mobile devices)
Work on the definitions: play, games, serious games, game-based learning, gaming, gamification and badges
Title
Present and be presented: engage your students with modern ways to share information
Outline
Two trends plague education: the swamp of PowerPoint presentations and the lack of visual literacy. In this rapid succession of examples, one can experience a showcase of various cloud-based tools, which brings visual presentations way beyond PowerPoint and align with the Millennials demand for current social interaction. A discussion on how relevant these tools are to various disciplines and details on improving the interaction among instructors and students during the presentation. Ongoing discussion about design as part of visual literacy and the difference between blended learning and technology integration.
Audience: beginners to advanced
Outcomes:
By the end of this session, the participants will have understand the movement “Death by PowerPoint” and will understand the advantage of cloud-based presentation tools to MS PowerPoint
By the end of the session, the participants will be familiar with several tools, which successfully replace PowerPoint and well beyond.
By the end of the session, the participants will be able to asses to what extent games and gamification fit their field of study
By the end of the session, the participants will be able to discriminate between technology integration and blended learning.
Plan:
Introduce each other and share the reason and interest to attend this discussion; what are the expectations from this discussion
EdPuzzle https://edpuzzle.com/ https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/02/19/edpuzzle-flipped-lessons/
crops the video so one can watch only a segment. Does not make much sense, since YouTube gives an URL to the reference point, but it allows instructor’s audio feedback. It is still too much “instructor’s proprietary” and not so much students-engaging as Zaption Presenter and Kahoot.
The bigger problem, however, is our mental limitations in both teaching and thinking visually. Most classes that “teach” PowerPoint gloss over the narrative changes that it imposes on us through its transition from a linear textual narrative to a nonlinear visual one. They also fail to examine the information transfer capacities of various media. PowerPoint is software that complements a performance and often fails as a container for information. It needs to be augmented by more persistent visual and textual media. I’ve worked around this by creating websites as a mechanism to gloss my presentation; provide background linkages; and to create a persistent, living complement to what happens live. Slideshare fails to do this because it only gives you half of the presentation, the visual part, which may or may not stand on its own. Part of visual literacy is understanding how visual media complements other media, such as audio and text.
Finally, we need to start embedding design thinking into our processes. Design thinking is, by its very nature, closely tied to the visual.
