Magna Teaching with Technology Conference,
October 5, 2018, St. Louis, MO
https://www.magnapubs.com/teaching-with-technology-conference/plenary-sessions.html
- Thriving Minds: What’s Working, What’s Not, and What’s Next in Teaching with Technology
Michelle D. Miller, director, First Year Learning Initiative, professor of psychological sciences, Northern Arizona University
Educational technology has survived its early challenges—but is it thriving yet?
take a look at some outstanding examples of what evidence-based, engaging, technologically-enhanced teaching can look like in practice. We will then consider approaches, resources, and techniques that could help us push past some of the biggest challenges faced by our movement. These approaches include making students our allies in the fight against distraction and disengagement; explicitly considering cognitive principles when developing, incorporating and evaluating new technologies; and nurturing faculty and instructional designers as an important—perhaps the most important—source of truly useful, truly innovative ideas for teaching and learning with technology.
- What Role does/should the 3T’s of Technique, Tools, and Time Play in Modern Educational Practices?
Dave Yearwood, professor, University of North Dakota
What use are discussions about tools without some understanding about the techniques needed to maximize a tool’s effectiveness in multiple settings? What teaching and learning opportunities can educators and students take advantage of when technological tools are leveraged with proven practices to gain knowledge and understanding about what is possible? Furthermore, what factors should be considered regarding the efficient use of time in task achievement and task completion of identified learning goals in face-to-face and online settings? Tools, Technique, and Time, the 3 triplets of ePedagogy cannot be looked at in isolation. An examination of the 3t’s will be conducted with the intent of revealing through examples how the triplets can be applied/used in a complimentary fashion to help faculty and students achieve their collective identified educational objectives—increased learning and understanding with targeted applications.
- Educators as Designers and the Architecting of Learning
Remi Kalir, assistant professor of information and learning technologies, University of Colorado Denver
design and create learning environments, learning opportunities, and learning technologies.
+++++++++++
more on teaching with technology in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=teaching+with+technology
Boulder Faculty Teaching with Technology Report
Sarah Wise, Education Researcher , Megan Meyer, Research Assistant, March 8,2016
http://www.colorado.edu/assett/sites/default/files/attached-files/final-fac-survey-full-report.pdf
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)
|
Top 3 |
use in most of my classes |
have used in some classes |
tried, but do not use |
N/A: no experience |
| in-class activities, problems (via worksheets, tablets, laptops, simulations, beSocratic, etc.) |
52% |
33% |
30% |
6% |
30% |
| in-class question, discussion tools (e.g. Twitter, TodaysMeet, aka “backchannel communication”) |
47% |
8% |
13% |
11% |
68% |
| using online resources to find high quality curricular materials |
37% |
48% |
31% |
3% |
18% |
| iClickers |
24% |
23% |
16% |
9% |
52% |
| other presentation 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)
|
Top 3 |
use in most of my classes |
have used in some classes |
tried, but do not use |
N/A: no experience using |
| collaborative reading and discussion tools (e.g. VoiceThread, NB, NotaBene, Highlighter, beSocratic) |
43% |
3% |
10% |
10% |
77% |
| collaborative project, writing, editing tools (wikis, PBWorks, Weebly, Google Drive, Dropbox, Zotero) |
38% |
16% |
29% |
12% |
43% |
| online practice problems / quizzes with instant feedback |
36% |
22% |
22% |
8% |
47% |
| online discussions (D2L, Today’s Meet, etc) |
31% |
33% |
21% |
15% |
30% |
| individual written assignment, presentation and project tools (blogs, assignment submission, Powerpoint, Prezi, Adobe Creative Suite, etc.) |
31% |
43% |
28% |
7% |
22% |
| research tools (Chinook, pubMed, Google Scholar, Mendeley, Zotero, Evernote) |
30% |
33% |
32% |
8% |
27% |
| online practice (problems, quizzes, simulations, games, CAPA, Pearson Mastering, etc.) |
27% |
20% |
21% |
7% |
52% |
| data analysis tools (SPSS, R, Latex, Excel, NVivo, MATLAB, etc.) |
24% |
9% |
23% |
6% |
62% |
| readings (online textbooks, articles, e-books) |
21% |
68% |
23% |
1% |
8% |
Table 7. Do you use any of these online tools in your teaching? Which are the Top 3 online tools you would like to learn about or use more? (n = 437)
|
Top 3 |
use in most of my classes |
have used in some classes |
tried, but do not use |
N/A: no experience using |
| videos/animations produced for my course (online lectures, Lecture Capture, Camtasia, Vimeo) |
38% |
14% |
21% |
11% |
54% |
| chat-based office hours or meetings (D2L chat, Google Hangouts, texting, tutoring portals, etc.) |
36% |
4% |
9% |
10% |
76% |
| simulations, PhET, educational games |
27% |
7% |
17% |
6% |
70% |
| videoconferencing-based office hours or meetings (Zoom, Skype, Continuing Education’s Composition hub, etc.) |
26% |
4% |
13% |
11% |
72% |
| alternative to D2L (moodle, Google Site, wordpress course website) |
23% |
11% |
10% |
13% |
66% |
| D2L course platform |
23% |
81% |
7% |
4% |
8% |
| online tutorials and trainings (OIT tutorials, Lynda.com videos) |
21% |
4% |
16% |
13% |
68% |
| D2L as a portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.) |
21% |
28% |
18% |
11% |
42% |
| videos/animations produced elsewhere |
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 an expert |
296 |
63% |
| hour-long workshop |
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% |
| opportunity to apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards) |
97 |
21% |
| half-day or day-long workshop |
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).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Teaching Through Technology
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 |
8.632 |
86 |
.000 |
16.12644 |
12.4126 |
19.8403 |
| Reading student discussion posts |
10.102 |
79 |
.000 |
21.98750 |
17.6553 |
26.3197 |
| Email to/with students |
15.809 |
93 |
.000 |
26.62766 |
23.2830 |
29.9724 |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2014
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1407/ers1407.pdf
Although the LMS is pervasive in higher education, 15% of faculty said that they
do not use the LMS at all. Survey demographics suggest these nonusers are part of
the more mature faculty ranks, with a tenure status, more than 10 years of teaching
experience, and a full-professor standing.
18
The vast majority of faculty use the LMS
to conduct or support their teaching activities, but only three in five LMS users (60%)
said it is critical to their teaching. The ways in which faculty typically use the LMS are
presented in figure 8.
19
Pushing out information such as a syllabus or other handout
is the most common use of the LMS (58%), which is a basic functionality of the
first-generation systems that emerged in the late 1990s, and it remains one of the core
features of any LMS.
20
Many institutions preload the LMS with basic course content
(58%), up about 12% since 2011, and this base gives instructors a prepopulated plat
–
form from which to build their courses.
21
Preloading basic content does not appear to
preclude faculty from making the LMS part of their daily digital habit; a small majority
of faculty (56%) reported using the LMS daily, and another 37% use it weekly.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Digital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/student-affairs-and-technology/digital-literacy-engagement-and-digital-identity-development
+++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
more on digital literacy in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy
Save
Does your library have exciting, innovative ways to train your patrons about
information technology?
The ALA/Information Today, Inc. Library of the Future Award honors an
individual library, library consortium, group of librarians, or support
organization for innovative planning for, applications of, or development of
patron training programs about information technology in a library setting.
The annual award consists of $1,500 and a 24k gold-framed citation of
achievement. All types of libraries are welcome to apply!
The 2017 award winner was the Muncie Public Library for their innovative
“Digital Climbers” program that motivates and inspires children ages eight and
up to experiment with technology and master skills that contribute to learning
in science, technology, engineering, art and math.
ALA is currently accepting nominations for the 2018 Library of the Future
application is to be submitted to ALA by February 1, 2018. For additional
information, contact Rene Erlandson, Award Jury Chair,
My note: where I work, such effort will be dismissed as “this belongs to public libraries.”
Does it? What does your academic library do to excel patrons in information technology.
where I work – not much. All is “information literacy” in its 90ish encapsulation.
++++++++++++++
more on information technology in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=information+technology
October 6-8 in Baltimore
Forward-thinking educators are finding that technology can enhance their teaching methods, infuse new energy into their courses, and improve student learning.
But the latest cool technology is only cool if you know where, when, why, and how to use it. Join us in Baltimore for the 2017 Teaching with Technology Conference to learn best practices for effectively integrating technology into your courses.
Topics include:
- Blended and flipped learning
- Assignments for online discussion
- Digital tools for formative assessment
- Online course design and development
- Active learning
- Media literacy
- Copyright issues
Smartphones in the classroom
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
more on teaching with technology in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=educational+technology
