Hosting educational video on YouTube
Alternatives to YouTube for educational use in this Online Community thread:
more on YouTube for ed use in this IMS blog
New York’s Lockport City School District, which is using public funds from a Smart Schools bond to help pay for a reported $3.8 million security system that uses facial recognition technology to identify individuals who don’t belong on campus
The Lockport case has drawn the attention of national media, ire of many parents and criticism from the New York Civil Liberties Union, among other privacy groups.
the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF), a nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C., published an animated video that illustrates the possible harm that surveillance technology can cause to children and the steps schools should take before making any decisions, such as identifying specific goals for the technology and establishing who will have access to the data and for how long.
A few days later, the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, in partnership with New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, released a brief examining the same topic.
My note: same considerations were relayed to the SCSU SOE dean in regard of the purchase of Premethean and its installation in SOE building without discussion with faculty, who work with technology. This information was also shared with the dean: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/10/31/students-data-privacy/
more on surveillance in education in this IMS blog
more on social media in education in this IMS blog
Today’s vocast will be broadcasted live at:
Adobe Connect | Facebook Live | Twitter (#IMSvodcast) |
and will be archived at:
SCSU MediaSpace | YouTube (subscribe for the channel for future conversations)
Student-centered learning theory and practice are based on the constructivist learning theory that emphasizes the learner’s critical role in constructing meaning from new information and prior experience.
archived session here: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/view-podcasts/
Every week, we will be presenting you in a short 5 min session with topics of your interest.
We will be providing you with information and giving you the podium to share your solutions.
This information will be broadcasted and archived via multiple channels:
The SCSU MediaSpace | On the Facebook IMS page | Twitter (#IMSvodcast) | YouTube
You can participate during the live session via
Adobe Connect: https://webmeeting.minnstate.edu/scsuteched,
Facebook and Twitter
Here is a Google form, where you can share your topics requests, issues and solutions.
By Steve Hargadon (@stevehargadon) Survey and Report: modernlearning.com |
For the purposes of this report, “educational technology” (often abbreviated as “ed tech”) is assumed to refer principally to the use of modern electronic computing and other high-tech, mostly Internet-enabled, devices and services in education.
Observation 1: There is general agreement that there are good and pedagogically-sound arguments or the implementation and active use of ed tech; and that technology is changing, and will change, education for the better.
Observation 2: There is general agreement that technology is not always beneficial to teaching and learning.
When it becomes a distraction.
● When there is little or no preparation for it.
● When just used for testing / score tracking.
● When used for consuming and not creating, or just for rote learning.
● When “following the education trends: everyone else is doing it.”
● When the tech is “an end rather than means” (also stated as, ”when I don’t have a plan or learning goal…”). We found this very significant, and it is the focus of Observation 6.
● When there is a lack of guidance in how to effectively use new ed tech tools (“when there is no PD”). This is the focus of Observation 4.
● Finally, when it “gets in the way of real time talk / sharing.” Forgetting that the tech “cannot mentor, motivate, show beauty, interact fully, give quality attention, [or] contextualize.” Also: ”outcomes related to acquiring the skills and attitudes cannot be enhanced by technology.” As mentioned in the introduction, this would be missing the “human factor.” One respondent
captured this as follows: “3 reasons tech innovation fails: Misunderstanding Human Motivation, Human Learning, or Human Systems.”
Observation 3: The benefits of ed tech to educator learning are described much more positively, and much less ambiguously, than are the benefits to student learning.
Observation 4: There is a lack of good professional development for educational technology.
Observation 5: Educational technology is prone to grandiose promises.
Observation 6: Some significant percentage of educational technology purchases do not appear to have a pedagogical basis.
Networked information technology has rendered the words “teacher” and “student” more ambiguous. YouTube tutorials and social-media discussions, just to cite a couple of obvious examples, have made it abundantly clear that at any given moment anyone—regardless of age or background—can be a learner or a teacher, or even both at once.
more on educational technology in this IMS blog
In scholarly and scientific publishing, altmetrics are non-traditional metrics proposed as an alternative to more traditional citation impact metrics, such as impact factor and h-index. The term altmetrics was proposed in 2010, as a generalization of article level metrics, and has its roots in the #altmetrics hashtag. Although altmetrics are often thought of as metrics about articles, they can be applied to people, journals, books, data sets, presentations, videos, source code repositories, web pages, etc. They are related to Webometrics, which had similar goals but evolved before the social web. Altmetrics did not originally cover citation counts. It also covers other aspects of the impact of a work, such as how many data and knowledge bases refer to it, article views, downloads, or mentions in social media and news media.
more on analytics and metrics in education in this IMS blog
04/28/2016 – 18:21 Kim Cobb
SMU’s Lyle School of Engineering will lead a multi-university team funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to build a theoretical framework for creating a computer-generated image of an object hidden from sight around a corner or behind a wall.
The core of the proposal is to develop a computer algorithm to unscramble the light that bounces off irregular surfaces to create a holographic image of hidden objects.
Similar technologies purused by MS Hololense as reported in this IMS blog entry:
MS Hololens in nursing
Beth Anna Bergsmark, Associate Vice President and Chief Enterprise Architect
For your convenience, the presentation is now available on-demand at: http://w.on24.com/r.htm?e=943162&s=1&k=EEB98B7670230B430D2C5D40A99B0E1D.You can view it at any time or share it with a colleague.
use lighweight Google tools versus heavy weight (time consuming to learn) tools. able to connect, participate online. Georgetown policy is “never close campus” and light-weight tools help faculty do that .
even faculty video service integrated with LMS (SCSU = Kaltura + D2L), faculty still are encouraged to use youTube.
migrations lose metadata. Google migration highly automated, but other modernisations, but sites older then 10 years were scrapped.
aside of Google Glass, are there other Google apps used in the medical school. Answers: Google calendar
1 2 3 … 14 Next