Digital Literacy for St. Cloud State University
Augmented Reality + Videoconferencing: meet together virtually in the same place, collaborate and communicate as if you were there. Demo below, links to try it yourself to follow! pic.twitter.com/AbZAof0cJ5
— SpatialFirst (@SpatialFirst) April 8, 2020
++++++++++
more on augmented reality in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=augmented+reality
With the pandemic boosting its videoconferencing business, Zoom more than quadrupled its annual revenue from $622.7 million to $2.7 billion in the 12 months ending January 31, 2021.
+++++++++++++++
more on Zoom in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=zoom
https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2021/06/8-tips-educators-dealing-digital-fatigue
Feeling mentally exhausted from videoconferencing? Take these steps to stay sharp.
++++++++++++
more on burnout in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=burnout
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/microsoft-teams-is-getting-a-new-feature-and-zoom-should-be-worried
+++++++++++++
more on video conferencing in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=videoconferencing
A review of digital tools and ideas for teachers to support formative assessment in online classrooms
https://medium.com/the-faculty/digital-tools-for-online-student-engagement-2faafbbd0b44
+++++++++++++
more on engagement in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=engage
Did you wish #GoogleMeet had a grid view to see more than just a few people at a time? Check out this #Chrome extension to make your dreams come true https://t.co/fpmphaco1a #EdTechTeam #DistanceLearning #VirtualLearning #EdTech #GSuiteEDU pic.twitter.com/zLE3haOzPe
— EdTechTeam Canada (@EdTechTeamCAN) March 26, 2020
I just don’t understand why Zoom is the de facto videoconferencing solution instead of Google Meet or Hangouts or Duo or Allo or Talk or Hangouts Chat or GTalk or Buzz or Wave or Messages or Spaces or Voice or…
— Corey Quinn (@QuinnyPig) March 25, 2020
++++++++++++
more on econferencing tools in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=econferencing
a tech catalog for students to explore and choose from, partially based on Georgetown’s enterprise suite, including a learning management system (Canvas), blogging (WordPress or other), student-run web domains, web annotation (Hypothesis) https://web.hypothes.is/, collaborative writing (Google Suite), discussion boards (Discourse), and videoconferencing (Zoom).
Neil Selwyn’s excellent Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Before there were podcasts, there was pirate radio, rogue broadcasters flinging unusual sounds over borders and adding new music to cultures. And before that there was the “theater of the mind,” harnessing radio’s deep power to inspire listeners’ imaginations.
Then we advanced to podcasting’s second wave—the one we’re enjoying now—the one sparked by Serial’s massive success in 2014. When you consider audiobooks in the mix, it’s clear how varied and mainstream portable digital audio is today.
+++++++++++++++++++
Digital video has taken the world by storm. Netflix is busy changing television and movies. YouTube may be humanity’s largest collaborative cultural project, aggregating an astonishing amount of user-generated content. The Google-owned service is widely used that it may already soak up more than a third of all mobile traffic.
Unsurprisingly, we increasingly learn from digital video. The realm of informal learning is well represented on YouTube—from DIY instruction to guerrilla recordings of public speakers. Traditional colleges now rely on digital video, too, as campuses have established official channels and faculty regularly turn to YouTube for content. And new kinds of educational institutions have emerged, like the nonprofit Khan Academy,
We also explored the rise of teaching via live video. More colleges are using it for online learning, since it can make students and instructors more present to each other than most other media. We also saw videoconferencing’s usefulness in connecting students and faculty when separated by travel, illness or scheduling challenges.
Our readings—Zac Woolfitt’s “The effective use of video in higher education,” and Michelle Kosalka’s “Using Synchronous Tools to Build Community in the Asynchronous Online Classroom”—and discussion identified a range of limitations to video’s utility. Videoconferencing requires robust internet connection that not all students have access to, and even downloading video clips can be challenging on some connections. People are not always comfortable appearing on camera. And some content is not well suited to video, such as mostly audio conversations or still images.
1. Technology that Increases Access Hits the Slow Lane
Innovations in videoconferencing and lecture capture technologies have allowed universities to provide flexible learning experiences to students no matter their location. However, if internet service providers are allowed to create “fast lanes” and “slow lanes” of access, experts worry these learning experiences will be in jeopardy.
“slow lanes” of internet access could make it difficult for students to access cloud software or applications without hitting data caps.
2. Inhibit Ability to Research and Access Materials
a 40-page commentary to the FCC explaining how a repeal would hurt universities, eCampus News reports.
“Institutions of higher education and libraries depend upon an open internet to carry out their educational and civic missions, and to serve their communities,” reads the commentary.
“almost everything” relies on the internet in higher education. Students use it for research, to take courses and turn in assignments while faculty use it for research and to create lesson plans. Roberts says his library needs it to archive and preserve materials. Slower internet could inhibit research and access to library resources.
high cost of attending a university might see a bump without net neutrality.
slower internet access would actually degrade the quality of education offered for a higher cost.
++++++++++++++++
more on net neutrality and education in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=net+neutrality
By Dian Schaffhauser 05/22/17
a recent research project by Quality Matters and Eduventures, the “Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE)” offers a “baseline” examination of program development, quality measures and other structural issues.
95 percent of larger programs (those with 2,500 or more online program students) are “wholly asynchronous” while 1.5 percent are mainly or completely synchronous. About three-quarters (73 percent) of mid-sized programs (schools with between 500 and 2,499 online program students) and 62 percent of smaller programs are fully asynchronous.
The asynchronous nature of this kind of education may explain why threaded discussions turned up as the most commonly named teaching and learning technique, mentioned by 27.4 percent of respondents, closely followed by practice-based learning, listed by 27.3 percent of survey participants.
Blackboard and Instructure Canvas dominated. Audio- and videoconferencing come in a “distant second,” according to the researchers. The primary brands that surfaced for those functions were Adobe Connect, Cisco WebEx, Zoom, Kaltura, Panopto, TechSmith Camtasia and Echo360.
While the LMS plays a significant role in online programming, the report pointed to a distinct lack of references to “much-hyped innovations,” such as adaptive learning, competency-based education systems, simulation or game-based learning tools. (my note: my mouth run dry of repeating every time people start becoming orgasmic about LMS, D2L in particular)
four in 10 require the use of instructional design support, three in 10 use a team approach for online course design and one in 10 outsources the work. Overall, some 80 percent of larger programs use instructional design expertise.
In the smallest programs, instructional design support is treated as a “faculty option” for 53 percent of institutions. Another 18 percent expect faculty to develop their online courses independently. For 13 percent of mid-sized programs, the faculty do their development work independently; another 64 percent may choose whether or not to bring in instructional design help. (my note: this is the SCSU ‘case’)
Among the many possible quality metrics suggested by the researchers, the five adopted most frequently for internal monitoring were:
++++++++++++++++++++++
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+learning
http://www.colorado.edu/assett/sites/default/files/attached-files/final-fac-survey-full-report.pdf
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).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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% |
| 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 |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1407/ers1407.pdf
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
more on digital literacy in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy