BreakDrink, Podcast

A Throwback to the Campus Tech Connection (#CTCX) on @BreakDrink Episode No. 7

Do you miss the Campus Tech Connection (#CTCX) podcast from the ol’ skool BreakDrink? [Or perhaps just the rants?] Then @BreakDrink episode no. 7, lovingly called, The Technology Curmudgeons, is for you! Jeff Lail
joins Jeff and me to chat about how technology AND our own perspectives on technology have changed. 

If you have not read the article, Tech Bigwigs Know How Addictive Their Products Are. Why Don’t the Rest of Us?, or seen the Brain Hacking episode from a recent 60 minutes – you should. What is technology doing to our brains? How are technologies social engineering us? Are we questioning the issues around technology on campus enough? Have we even thought about Privacy, Data Survivalism, and New Tech Ethics [via Note To Self episode with Anil Dash & Julia Angwin] and where we are going as a society?

Listen and catch the rest of the show notes/links directly on the BreakDrink.com site, including the following recommended reads & listens.

@BreakDrink Reads Mentioned:

@BreakDrink Podcast ShoutOuts

If you have comments, questions, feedback, or thinks you want to hear about from this episode or future episodes, please feel free to post a comment below, or follow us on the following the “BreakDrink” podcast channels:

We welcome banter & comments there. If y’all listen to the podcast via iTunes, please consider leaving us a rating and review.

Higher Education, SAchat, StudentAffairs

Digesting the TECH Competency for Student Educators #SAtech

I have been thinking a lot about how we guide and support technology in higher education. Last year, ACPA/NASPA drafted a joint document sharing Professional Competency Areas for Student Educators [PDF], which included a new competency – Technology (TECH). As technology is woven into much the educational practices and student support field work, it is critical for student affairs educators to consider how this competency is guiding their work. Here are the basics about the TECH competency from the report:

TECH Competency Description: Focuses on the use of digital tools, resources, and technologies for the advancement of student learning, development, and success as well as the improved performance of student affairs professionals. Included within this area are knowledge, skills, and dispositions that lead to the generation of digital literacy and digital citizenship within communities of students, student affairs professionals, faculty members, and colleges and universities as a whole.

Professional Development: Professional growth in this competency area is marked by shifts from understanding to application as well as from application to facilitation and leadership. Intermediate and advanced level outcomes also involve a higher degree of innovativeness in the use of technology to engage students and others in learning processes.

TECH (page 33-35) The Technology competency area focuses on the use of digital tools, resources, and technologies for the advancement of student learning, development, and success as well as the improved performance of student affairs professionals. Included within this area are knowledge, skills, and dispositions that lead to the generation of digital literacy and digital citizenship within communities of students, student affairs professionals, faculty members, and colleges and universities.

With the 2016 ACPA Convention (#acpa16) just around the corner, I am looking forward to digging into the TECH competency further in a couple of weeks with Josie, Tony, Paul, Ed, and participants during our the Pre-Conference Workshop: Social and Digital Technology Competency Institute for College Student Educators (March 6th) in Montreal, Canada. I know that we each have some fantastic ideas and tools to share — and we are looking forward to learning from colleagues who will be joining us.

To prepare, I took another look at TECH as a competency earlier today. As a researcher, I naturally started to code these competencies into general themes, to further understand and digest the TECH competencies. Here are the categories I came up with based on themes:

  1. Trends, Research, and Knowledge Development
  2. Leadership, Governance, and Stewardship
  3. Assessment and Implementation for Education and Program Planning
  4. Information Literacy and Management
  5. Applied Skills for Using Technology
  6. Inclusion and Access
  7. Learning and Professional Development
  8. Communication and Collaboration

Many thanks to Brian Bourke for instigating this initial review of the ACPA/NASPA TECH competency last fall with the NASPA TKC Research Group (and kudos for crafting an #SAtech Research Agenda as well!). In returning to the TECH competency for the pre-conference workshop, I thought it would be a good idea to share these broad categories with participants and student affairs. Please take a gander and leave any thoughts/comments in this open google doc of what might need to be adjusted or reconsidered from this first analysis. I welcome comments here (on the blog) or directly in the document.  From this, I hope our student affairs community of inquiry, practitioners and scholars alike, can continue to work together to consider how these competencies can be applied our work with students in higher ed, and measured (as another ACPA/NASPA task force/working group is developing rubrics, etc.) to evaluate the work we do in the field. Google doc: http://bit.ly/SAcompTECH

ACPA, ACPAdigital

The #ACPA16 Genius Labs Wants YOU!

Are you going to the 2016 ACPA Convention in Montreal (#ACPA16)? Are you interested in getting involved in #ACPA16? Consider contributing to a quick demonstration presentation at the #ACPA16 Genius Labs! With the ACPA/NASPA Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Educators latest edition, which includes Technology as one of the competencies, I think it is a critical time to educate and support our profession. The Technology Competency description:

Focuses on the use of digital tools, resources, and technologies for the advancement of student learning, development, and success as well as the improved performance of student affairs professionals. Included within this area are knowledge, skills, and dispositions that lead to the generation of digital literacy and digital citizenship within communities of students, student affairs professionals, faculty members, and colleges and universities as a whole (pp.33-35).”

The #acpa16 Technology Program team are looking for 30-minute technology-based presentations related to the general themes from the Technology Competencies for our profession. This may include (but not limited to):

  • Applied and/or soft skills for using technology (i.e. “how to” ____)
  • Digital literacy and identity development
  • Assessment of technology in student affairs
  • Training and learning approaches for professional development using technology
  • Communication and marketing strategies
  • Implementation of an online/blended student affairs program, course, etc.
  • Trends and research for technology in higher education
  • Leadership, organization, and infrastructure for planning with technology
  • Information and data management

geniuslab_text4

The Genius Labs sessions will be presented in the Palais Convention Center on Level 5 near Room 510 & the Westin Hotel entrance. Here is the schedule for Genius Labs at #ACPA16: 

  • Sunday, March 6th: 12 pm – 3:00 pm
  • Monday, March 7th: 9:00 am – 3:00 pm
  • Tuesday, March 8th: 9:00 am – 3:00 pm

Our team is gathering the best and brightest ideas, examples, and resources around emerging technologies to share with other Student Affairs Educators in Montreal. The convention’s Genius Labs are 20-minute skill-building workshops in the main thoroughfare of the Convention Center offers a prime location with great visibility! Workshops will be highlighting a number of practical technology-based activities designed for participants to learn about, experiment with, and implement immediately. You can select any technology topic or resource to share, with the intention to have meaningful conversation directed at all skill levels. Think about a digital tool you can present in 15-20 minutes, and then offer an applied experience for attendees to get hands-on, tinker, and/or discuss for your Genius Labs session. We are also accepting ONLINE Genius Lab session presentations for those individuals who might not be able to make it; however they have an excellent idea/concept they want to share. We would like to offer a select number of web-based sessions via an online conference platform and co-facilitated on-site by a member of our volunteer team. 

 Do you have an idea? What sort of technology resource can you share? If you are interested in presenting a Genius Labs session please SIGN UP HERE:

For further questions, please feel free to reach out to the Genius Lab Coordinator, Erica Thompson (@EricaKThompson). Thanks!

EdTech, Learning Technologies

Checklist: Selecting Technology for Learning

With so many possibilities for digital learning, selecting media and technologies for appropriate course instruction is a very complex process. Although there are a wide range of options in the ed tech realm, pedagogical considerations should always come first. Instructors should reflect on the learning objective and desired outcomes for their subject matter before identifying identifying technological applications for the course.

The SECTIONS model, developed by Tony Bates (2015), is a pedagogical framework for determining what technology, specifically how this technology will be appropriate for instructional approaches. This might include identifying and determining pedagogical characteristics of text, audio, video, computing, and social media. With this framework, Bates (2015) asks five critical questions for teaching and learning for technology and media selection:

  1. Who are the learners?
  2. What are the desired learning outcomes from the teaching?
  3. What instructional strategies will be employed to facilitate the learning outcomes?
  4. What are the unique educational characteristics of each medium/technology, and how well do these match the learning and teaching requirements?
  5. What resources are available?

In thinking about the interplay of technology and learning, higher education courses will need to consider how this design process is developed. In this book chapter, Bates shared an alternative approach to the ADDIE model for instructional design – Learning + Technology Development Process Model (Hibbitts & Travin, 2015).

Learning + Technology Development Process Model (Hibbitts & Travin, 2015)

Regardless of the model for learning design, it will be important to assess how technology will impact the pedagogy. The SECTIONS model is an effective framework to best inform instructors when deciding what media or technology to use for face-to-face, online or blended learning courses:

  • Students
  • Ease of use
  • Costs
  • Teaching functions (including the affordances of different media)
  • Interaction
  • Organizational issues
  • Networking
  • Security and privacy

I would encourage you to utilize Bate’s (2015) Questions to Guide Media Selection and Use, to support your learning design when consider technology adoption for teaching. This open, shared educational resource will provide you with a broader reflection on issues and considerations for your digital pedagogy. Here is an abbreviated checklist for selecting technologies for learning I adopted for a learning module. It was developed for faculty who would like to consider the broader issues for teaching with technology, and how to navigate this course planning process for digital/media inclusions.

Checklist: Selecting Technology for Learning

STUDENTS

___Review accessibility mandate or policy of your institution, department or program.

___Determine demographics of the students and appropriateness of technology.

___Consider student access to technologies, both off campus and on campus.

___Determine digital skills and digital readiness of your students with learning expectations.

___Justify students’ purchases of a new technology component (if needed) for learning.

___Assess prior learning approaches & how technology can support student learning.

EASE OF USE

____Select the technology for ease of use by instructor and students.

____Identify technology that is reliable for teaching and learning.

____Verify the technology set up, maintenance and upgrade is simple.

____Confirm the technology provider/company is stable to support hardware or software use

____Outline strategies to secure any digital teaching materials you create should the organization providing the software or service cease to exist.

____Locate technical & professional support, both in terms of the technology and with respect to the design of materials.

____Determine technologies to best support edits and updates of learning materials.

____Outline how the new technology will change teaching with to get better results

____Assess risks and potential challenges for using this technology for teaching and learning.

COST & YOUR TIME

____Consider media selection by the length of time and ease of use during course development.

____Factor the time it takes to prepare lectures, and determine if development of digital learning materials will save time and encourage interaction with students (online and/or face-to-face)

____ Investigate if there is extra funding for innovative teaching or technology applications; if so, determine how to best use that funding for learning technologies.

____Assess the local support from your institution from instructional designers and media professionals for media design and development

____Identify open educational resources for the course, e.g. an open textbook, online videos, library page of articles, or other potential OERs.

TEACHING & EDUCATIONAL FACTORS

___Determine the desired learning outcomes from the teaching in terms of content and skills.

___Design instructional strategies to facilitate the learning outcomes.

___Outline unique pedagogical characteristics appropriate for this course, in terms of content presentation and skill development, specifically for:

____Textbook, readings, or other online text materials;

____Audio, such as podcasts, streaming audio from news, etc.;

____ Video, such as slide presentations, lectures, tutorials, and screencasts; and

____Social media, such as blogs, wikis, microblogs, photo sharing, curation, etc.

____Plan learning aspects that must be face-to-face (in-person or online).

INTERACTION

___Identify the skills for development and interactions that are most to determine the best type of media or technology to facilitate this learning.

___Determine the kinds of kinds of interaction to produce a good balance between student comprehension and student skills development.

___Estimate the amount of time the instructor will be interacting personally or online with students, and the type of medium for this interaction. 

ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES

____Determine institutional support in choosing and using media or technology for teaching.

____Identify if the institutional support is easily accessible, helpful, and will meet the needs for the learning technologies for the course.

____Determine if there is funding available to ‘buy me out’ for a semester and/or to fund a teaching assistant so I can concentrate on designing a new course or revising an existing course.

____Locate institutional funding or resources for any learning technology or media production.

____Review the ‘standard’ technologies, practices and procedures for teaching and learning, to verify requirements for utilizing institutional technology resources, i.e. the learning management system, lecture capture system, etc.

____Determine if the institution will support trying a new technological approach to learning, and will support innovative media or digital design.

NETWORKING

____Outline the importance for learners to network beyond a course, i.e. with subject specialists, professionals in the field, and relevant people in the community

____Identify how the course or student learning can benefit from networking and learning from external connections.

____Determine the appropriate network and/or social media space to integrate for your learners to network with each other and connect with external community members.

____Integrate these networking mediums with standard course technology.

____Delegate responsibility for its design and/or administration to students or learners. 

SECURITY AND PRIVACY

___Determine the student information you are obliged to keep private and secure.

___Identify the institutional policies for security and privacy for teaching & learning.

___Outline potential risks and challenges of using a particular technology where institutional policies concerning privacy could easily be breached.

___Identify who at your institution could best advise you on security and privacy concerns, with regards to learning and teaching technologies.

___Itemize the areas of teaching and learning, if any, available only to students registered in the course.

___Identify the types of technologies to best restrict or limit access to course materials (if any) for my registered students.

 

Interested in reviewing your own learning design further? DOWNLOAD the Checklist: Selecting Technology for Learning

Reference:

Bates, A. W. (2015). Chapter 8: Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model. From Teaching in a Digital Age. A Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Hibbitts, P. D., & Travin, M. T. (2015). Learning + technology development process model.

AcAdv

Implications for Use of Technology in Advising @NACADA 2011 National Survey

In Fall 2011, I was asked to review data collected from a national survey sponsored by The Global Community of Academic Advising (NACADA) and contribute to the chapter on advising technology. The survey posed a few questions about technology in advising, such as assessment of institutional advising types (e.g. online, on-campus, and blended), communication with advisees, and student information management practices. The entire 2011 NACADA National Survey results and chapters can be found in the NACADA Clearinghouse; and my chapter, “Implications for use of technology in advising 2011 National Survey” are available to read online.

One final sentiment I shared in the conclusion, was to push higher education administration to consider how they assess technology in advising as holistic process connected to other campus divisions:

“When assessing technology usage, postsecondary leadership must also consider future significant challenges such as economic pressures and new modes of scholarship (Johnson et al., 2012). Through researching these technological trends and challenges, conducting campus-wide assessments, and establishing strategic plans, advising stakeholders can effectively integrate technology in advising practices that support both advising units and institutional goals” (Pasquini, 2013).

I did include a few recommendations and guiding questions to consider when considering and  evaluating technology for advising:

“Many students bring expectations about using technology to campus, and therefore, many institutions participate in community advising approaches in which technological solutions provide seamless support and communication for academic planning and progression. When advising units address the use of technologies for both managing student information and communicating with students, they may impact student support and retention initiatives on campus. Higher education institutions, who deploy technologies for communication and information management, benefit from having both the data and ability to effectively connect to their student populations” (Pasquini, 2013).

What was key from this data analysis, was that the advising and a number of student service providers lack specific information about the WHY, WHAT, and HOW technology is being used in the advising profession. With the 2011 NACADA survey and encouragement from the NACADA Executive Office, development of the 2013 Technology in Advising Use in Higher Education Survey (which is still OPEN FOR RESPONSES until March 4, 2013 at 11:55 pm CDT) was initiated. I hope that this instrument helps us critically evaluate HOW the field of advising IS using technology at colleges and universities around the globe.

#AdvTech Use in #HigherEd Survey… Launches on 02-18-2013

In developing this instrument, our working group discovered that, overall, any assessment of technology in advising was lacking. The last time information about advising and technology was collected was circa 2002, and a number of the instrument items are already obsolete (e.g. overhead projectors, Netscape web browser, and Palm Pilots). Needless to say, information about where the advising community and technology stood was missing, and the overarching idea about use, perceptions, and  the current state for technology in advising.

Here are the objectives for the 2013 Technology in Advising Use in Higher Education survey:

  1. Establish what the current use of technology in advising among the advising profession – student management, regular use, applications, software, etc.
  2. Understand how technology in advising is being used for communication purposes with students, professionals and faculty
  3. Identify the relevance of technology for advising on a global scale for the advising profession
  4. Understand the current perspectives and perceptions of how technology in advising is being utilized in the profession today

So far we have 523 responses to the survey. The data collected will help to better inform the advising profession beyond anecdotal assessment, and critically evaluate how technological solutions effectively support our advising practice.  Without any real assessment for technology use in advising, how can we determine what direction we should move forward? I hope that survey responses and data analysis can provide some of these answers. More to come…

Reference:

Pasquini, L. A. (2013). Implications for use of technology in advising 2011 National Survey. NACADA Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Implications-for-use-of-technology-in-advising-2011-National-Survey.aspx

BreakDrink, CTCX, Social Media, StudentAffairs

#CTCX No. 71: Tech News, Reddit & Updates

On Monday (10/22/12), the @BreakDrink Campus Tech Connection (#CTCX) discussed the latest technology gadget announcements, privacy on the Interwebz and challenges with Reddit, and diving into social media guidance in an upcoming assessment. Here is the video podcast:

And here are the show notes via Storify for your reading and linkage pleasure.

For those of you interested in giving your #SocialMedia Guidance in Education — please take some time to provide myself and Dr. Tanya Joosten (a.k.a. @tjoosten) feedback and information about “Guiding social media at YOUR institution” in a current survey: https://milwaukee.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9HmS8C37kqKWyOh This SURVEY will take about 30 minutes to complete, and will close by Sunday, October 28, 2012 at midnight PST. Thanks!

This blog post is cross-posted at BreakDrink.com