Category: sharing Page 13 of 40

Searchable directories relevant to educational technology

Contact North | Contact Nord keeps a number of non-exhaustive searchable directories relevant to educational technology leaders, practitioners, and researchers that are really useful, especially because they can be downloaded in csv format. Below are links to the ones I could find on their website:

ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2018

Last week, EDUCAUSE released its 2018 study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology. I served as a subject-matter expert on this project and I’m excited to see the report appear in public. The EDUCAUSE team did a fantastic job on this. The sections entitled Experiences with Instructors and Technology and A Day in the Online Life of a Student are really interesting, the former for its highlighting that banning technology in the classroom is an equity issue and the latter for providing a glimpse into students’ self-reported online activities.

The key findings are provided below, drawn directly from the report:

  • Practically all college and university students have access to the most important technologies for their academic success. US students reported near-universal access to a desktop, laptop, tablet, or smartphone, with no systematic differences in access based on ethnicity, gender, age, and socioeconomic status. However, students reported low levels of access to newer, more expensive technologies such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) headsets and 3D printers.
  • While laptops, hybrids, desktops, and smartphones continue to be rated as very to extremely important to student success, the importance of these devices differs considerably by student demographics. Generally, women, students of color, students with disabilities, first-generation students, students who are independent (with or without dependents of their own), and students who come from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds see their devices as significantly more important to their success than do their counterparts. White students are significantly less likely than non-white students to think desktops, tablets, and smartphones are important to their success.
  • Students’ overall technology experiences continue to be correlated with their evaluation of campus Wi-Fi reliability and ease of login.Students’ evaluation of campus Wi-Fi in various locations has remained largely flat in recent years, but significant gaps remain in terms of the quality of connectivity in dormitories/student housing and outdoor spaces, as well as ease of network login.
  • LMS use remains prevalent across higher education institutions, with continued high rates of use and student satisfaction. Three-quarters of all students reported being either satisfied or very satisfied with their institution’s LMS, and more than three-quarters of students reported their LMS was used for most or all of their courses. This likely reflects satisfaction primarily with the functional aspects of their institution’s LMS.
  • A majority of students continue to express preferences for learning environments that fall somewhere on the “blended” continuum (from mostly face-to-face to mostly online). While a plurality (38%) of students prefer fully face-to-face classroom environments, students who have taken some fully online courses are significantly more likely to prefer blended environments and less likely to prefer purely face-to-face courses.
  • Although a majority of students said their instructors use technology to enhance their pedagogy, improve communication, and carry out course tasks, there are limitations when it comes to personal device use. Instructors encourage students to use their laptops more than smartphones, but nearly a third of students are not encouraged to use their own devices as learning tools in class, suggesting that many students take courses in which faculty discourage or ban the in-class use of students’ technology.
  • Nearly three-quarters of students (72%) who live off campus reported their internet connections at their home/off-campus residence are either good or excellent, and only 2% reported having no internet access at home. Students who live off campus have a stronger preference for online and blended courses than do their on-campus counterparts. This preference may reflect how online learning can benefit those who need to juggle work schedules and family responsibilities.
  • The typical student is fairly serious about doing the work of being a student, spending 1 to 4 hours per day online doing homework and conducting research. Contrary to popular belief, students do not appear to spend most of their time using social media, watching TV, or playing video games. Indeed, the typical student spends 1 to 2 hours on social media and another 1 to 2 hours streaming video; more than half of students reported that they do not play video games.
  • A plurality of students who self-identify as having a physical and/or learning disability requiring accessible or adaptive technologies for their coursework rated their institution’s awareness of their needs as poor. According to students, larger and DR public institutions tend to have poorer awareness of disabled students’ needs than do smaller and AA institutions. In addition to institutional limitations, students’ fears of being stigmatized or penalized for disclosing their disabilities and engaging disability services to receive the aid they need may be contributing to low rates of awareness.
  • Students continue to view student success tools as at least moderately useful. Students view success tools that help with transactional tasks related to the work of being students (e.g., conducting business, tracking credits, planning degrees, conducting degree audits) as slightly more useful than those that help them academically (e.g., early-alert systems, academic resources, course recommendations, improvement of academic performance).
Joseph D. Galanek, Dana C. Gierdowski, and D. Christopher Brooks. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2018. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR, October 2018.

AI is coming for your instructional and learning design jobs, apparently

For the most part, the early morning is my favorite time of the day. I like having a cup of coffee or tea, running, reading, writing, and just pretty much doing anything at 6am, than at 10am. This is not a productivity tip. You do what works for you.

What would have worked better for my productivity this morning was to have waited until later in the day to read Donald Clark’s predictions of AI radically transforming instructional design* jobs and replacing instructional designers (“adapt or die” he says). I don’t disagree with everything that he writes. We agree that in a largely interdisciplinary and complex endeavor as online learning designers need to make sense of AI/machine learning/etc, and developers need to make sense of how learning works. We also agree that most of online learning offerings could be amazing, but are often unexciting. And I really like some of his writing, such as his critique of the hole in the wall experiments.

 

That’s not where the problem lies. The problem is within this snippet:

 

AI is here. Few argue that is will change the very nature of employment and therefore it will change what you learn, how you learn and even why you learn. We are, at last, emerging from a 30 year paradigm of media production and multiple choice questions, in largely flat and unintelligent learning experiences, towards smart, intelligent online learning, that behaves more like a good teacher, where you are taught as an individual with a personalised experience, challenged and, rather than endlessly choosing from lists, engage in effortful learning, using dialogue, even voice. As a Learning designer, Interactive designer, project Manager, Producer, whatever, this is the most exciting thing to have happened in the last 30 years of learning. Make the leap!

The talk about AI “behav[ing] more like a good teacher” offering “typical cost reductions of 85-90%” is incompatible with the claims that AI isn’t aiming to replace teachers or designers (a claim that Clark also makes in 2016 here, even though he later notes that the time may not be 2018, but soon). If you develop software to do the job that a designer does, you are, to a degree, working toward substituting people with software. There may very well be good reasons to do that, but don’t call upon designers to “adapt or die.” The message sounds more like this: We have developed software to change the functions of your job and we want you to develop a different skill set. If you don’t, we’ll replace you.

We haven’t yet reached the point where an independent AI decided to take on the job of the instructional designer.

I work with instructional designers, and train them. Are there parts of their job that would be better automated? Yes. But here’s the issue: That sort of work is not really instructional design work. That sort of work rarely involves the conceptualization and design of empowering, equitable, engaging, and rich learning environments. If Clark’s notion of the work that the instructional designer does envisions a person who enters text into pre-determined templates, and does similar work, then we aren’t talking about the same professional

Finally, I agree with Clark that it’s prime time for instructional design to undergo a process of transformation. Not for the reason Clark sees (AI), but because instructional designers are now, more than ever, necessary to support the design and development of rich and equitable learning environments. To do so, they need to be empowered more, not relayed to conduct the work that machines could do more efficiently. The preparation of instructional designers needs re-envisioning to support this goal, and that requires not only an understanding of technical phenomena (similar to what Clark calls for), but also a truly critical engagement with what ID is and what it should do. To that end, I am increasingly turning to feminist practices, which is a topic that probably deserves it’s own post.

Now, I’m going to go back to enjoying my coffee.

* Clark calls it learning design, I call it instructional design. The nomenclature varies between the UK (where he is) and North America (where I am), even if there are more similarities than differences between what learning and instructional designers to. For the purposes of this post, the differences are insignificant.

Video, tapes, histories of educational technology, and growing up in Cyprus

One of the courses I teach examines the foundations and histories of the field. Writings about the histories of educational/instructional technology/design predominantly identify and examine particular technologies that were in vogue at particular periods of time.  For instance, Martin Weller discusses the use of streaming video in his 25 years of edtech series. One might do the same with radio, overhead projectors, mySpace, and so on. Here, I want to share with you a personal story, a story about a particular VHS cassette.

VHS tape – By Evan-Amos – Own work, Public Domain

My Twitter bio identifies my location as Canada and Cyprus. Cyprus is where I grew up, and where I tell people I am from when they ask me the seemingly innocuous but loaded question “Where are you from?,” as if people can be from just one place. Growing up in a divided country like Cyprus, I was constantly reminded of conflict, war, occupation, fleeing, and loss. I grew up with textbooks emblazoned with the slogan Δέν Ξεχνώ, a nod to a national policy aiming to convince GreekCypriot children to “never forget” the occupied areas of Cyprus. It wasn’t just the not-so-hidden national curriculum. I know of many people who were and are refugees and people who were directly or indirectly impacted. Friends. Friends’ parents. Uncles and aunts. My parents. My maternal grandparents.

In the 1980’s my grandparents were given a tape. Someone – an acquaintance of an acquaintance of a family member – visited the occupied areas and drove for hours, recording what they could from their car. I don’t remember the details. I do remember that the video was grainy and mostly uninteresting to a pre-teen. But, it brought us together to discuss issues more important than the roads, farmlands, and abandoned villages depicted in the tape: war, coup d’état, peace, borders, the “other.”

My aunt and uncle owned a video store in the 80’s. I spent many days in the summers there and watched my fair share of tapes. But that tape, that grainy tape, is forged in my memory. The impact of video on education reveals a worthwhile pedagogical story because it often culminates in how video replaces other media and rarely causes pedagogical change. Particular artifacts though, in particular situations, at particular times, with particular participants, do. That may not be the norm in formal educational environments, but I can at least point to one instance where a tape had impact.

Do you have any similar stories?

My neighborhood

I live in a blue-collar, rapidly gentrifying neighborhood.

That’s not completely accurate.

The neighborhood I live in defies my penchant for classifications. It’s the home of a “west coast fusion” taco truck and a new pizza place that serves curry coconut pizza. It’s also the home of a graffiti-adorned high school, a vibrant skate park, a few community gardens, and countless little libraries. It hosts decrepit houses surrounded by chain-link fences and many newly-built townhomes. Three of my neighbors have lived here, in the same houses, for twenty-plus years. Same houses, somewhat-same neighborhood.

A friend who lives in Austin, Texas called the townhomes “progress.” It’s what happened to Austin, too, he said. He scoffed at the taco truck though.

The neighborhood I live in is a reflection of the paradoxes, binaries, tensions, and contradictions of the city.

I walked toward downtown last night. I walked past condos that still being build a few weeks ago. They’re fully occupied now. I walked past people who are homeless and congregate close to downtown. Past Magic – the most gentle and loving dog I met. “She’s friendly” her owner said. That was an understatement. Past a soup kitchen. Past the bike lanes. Past two paramedics on bikes – a frequent sight given the city’s overdose crisis.

I walked past, until I stopped.

The bowtie-wearing bartender chiseled away at a block of ice. I skimmed the menu: Southwest-spiced grilled shrimp cocktail, marinated in chipotle peppers and fresh lime juice with fresh mango salsa fresca… flash fried Humboldt squid, creole dusted with fried banana peppers and remoulade sauce.

I order a craft beer made by one of the many local breweries, and reflect on progress. And contradictions.

 

Our (mostly) changing social media practices

I was tagged in doing the black-and-white photo-a-day-for-a-week Internet meme this week. I don’t usually participate in these things (I know, I know… life of the party right here), but this one was interesting because of the current research that we are doing on understanding how and why faculty social media practices change or don’t change over time. Back in 2009, 2010, 2012 even, a few colleagues used to take a photo a day, and share those photos online, usually in flickr groups. Some still do that, but a lot has changed since then. Over the last week of taking and sharing these photos on Twitter, some of my thoughts included the following:

  • Nowadays, my Twitter feed is scrubbed biweekly. These photos will eventually get deleted (to the extent that photos posted online do, I supposed)
  • I paused each and every time I thought about tagging someone. I am more and more cognizant of what we’re asking each other to do online these days.
  • I don’t have a flickr account any more.
  • The online conversations I used to have circa 2008 are much different than the conversations I am having in 2018. The volume is much less and the topics are more constricted. The tone has changed too, and not for the better. Perhaps that’s a reflection of my social media circles. Perhaps it’s a reflection of broader shifts.

A comment on “tips and resources for instructional designers entering the field”

What advice and resources would you offer to early-career instructional designers? That’s the question Inside Digital Learning asked practicing instructional designers. There’s many worthwhile insights for aspiring designers in the piece. I enjoyed reading it, and you might like it, too.

I’d like to add three points:

The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) is the flagship organization for instructional designers in North America. The organization’s annual convention is usually in October. Members participate in one or more divisions of interest (e.g., Distance Learning, School Media & Technology, etc), and divisions often offer free webinars. For example, here’s Dr. Patrick Lowenthal discussing the use of live meetings in asynchronous online courses. [Disclosure: I have been a member of AECT since 2005, and at one point I was the president of the Research & Theory division. In other words, I’m biased]. Other organizations that may be of interest to IDs, but don’t necessarily focus on ID as much as Educause, OLC, and ALT (UK).

Instructional design is about problem-solving. Are you interested in helping others solve instructional and learning problems? You’re in the right field. You might be asked to collaborate with others in order to improve learning outcomes, reduce dropout rates, improve course participation rates, convert face-to-face courses to online courses, and so on. Be warned though: Some problems may be more interesting than others, and even though instructional designers should be working collaboratively with faculty members and others(e.g., media developers, data scientists, etc), that doesn’t always happen (unfortunately).

Problem-solving is not just about technology. The best way to illustrate this is to use a problem from the list above, so let’s pick the wicked problem of “improving learning outcomes.” Novice instructional designers might gravitate towards exploring what technologies might help them address the problem, in what Tanya Joosten describes as the act of throwing spaghetti on the wall hoping that it will stick. Instructional design involves analysis: Why are learning outcomes poor? Might it be that they are not well-defined? Are objectives, instruction, and assessment well-aligned? Perhaps enrolled learners don’t have the pre-requisite knowledge coming into the course? Could it be that learners are facing significant challenges that have nothing to do with the content of the course, but which nonetheless conflict with the design of the course? Solutions to these (and a slew of other problems) can be found in redesigning courses, policies, and practices without necessarily adding/removing technology to/from the mix. In our Master’s program, we highlight design – sometimes coupled with technology, often without – as central to innovation.

What other advice do you have for aspiring instructional designers?

Page 13 of 40

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén