www.laurabestler.org Open in urlscan Pro
67.205.24.129  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.laurabestler.org

<form class="searchform" method="get" action="https://www.laurabestler.org">
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="form-group live-search-input">
      <label for="s" class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</label>
      <input type="text" id="s" name="s" class="form-control" placeholder="Search">
    </div>
    <span class="input-group-btn">
      <button class="btn btn-default" type="submit"><i class="fa fa-search"></i></button>
    </span>
  </div>
</form>

Text Content

 * 

Toggle search form
Search for:

Toggle navigation

Laura Bestler

 * Home
 * Learn
   * Dissertation
   * Capstone
   * Self-Assessment Narrative
     * Self-Assessment Artifacts
 * Design
 * Third Space
 * About
   * Contact


DESIGNED TO ENGAGE

DesignedtoEngageEDUCAUSEReviewEDUCAUSE.edu.   Designed to Engage PDF Share Log
in to Recommend by Diana Oblinger Published on Monday, September 15, 20140
Comments In a world that is both online and face-to-face, engagement is not an
either-or …


EDUDEMIC: WHAT DOES GAMIFICATION LOOK LIKE IN CLASSROOMS?

By Katie Lepi on July 20, 2014
(http://www.edudemic.com/gamification-look-like-in-classrooms/) Using games or
game play elements in the classroom to drive learning outcomes is sill gaining
popularity. Though most teachers aren’t ready to embrace bringing serious games
…


IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING THE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF ONLINE STUDENTS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION

  Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration Bonny Barr Creighton
University bonnybarr@creighton.edu This paper outlines how institutions of
higher learning can prepare faculty to identify mental health needs of online
students and suggests effective administrative …


INTERNET IN REAL TIME

Click the image to open the interactive version (via http://pennystocks.la/).


IDEAS FOR QUICKCHALLENGES

Love this idea from Teaching with Technology – POD SIG: We are beginning to
crowdsource a series of “QuickChallenges,” activities designed to help
instructors and faculty developers Become familiar with a tool, Learn a way …

 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 

Previous Next

Sep 17


DESIGNED TO ENGAGE

 * By Laura Bestler in Uncategorized

DesignedtoEngageEDUCAUSEReviewEDUCAUSE.edu.

 


DESIGNED TO ENGAGE

 * PDF
 * Share
 * Log in to Recommend

by Diana Oblinger

Published on Monday, September 15, 20140 Comments

In a world that is both online and face-to-face, engagement is not an either-or
proposition—it is about how to blend the best of both worlds to engage
stakeholders. Many institutions begin by creating a digital presence, then move
to digital engagement.



Diana G. Oblinger is President and CEO of EDUCAUSE.

Colleges and universities are made of many building blocks. Bricks and mortar
are used to fashion quads, classrooms, and research laboratories. The spaces are
designed to welcome students, invite interaction, and support scholarship. With
the advent of the Internet, any space could become a learning space. The
boundaries of the campus have all but disappeared.

The Internet has ushered in an age of abundance of readily available
information. Yet no matter how quickly information can be disseminated or how
much can be stored, our institutions are driven by connections—connections among
faculty, students, researchers, disciplines, and communities.

Although the information abundance and the connectedness provided by the
Internet are critical, even greater value results from the combined use of
technology and human capabilities for engagement. In an era when technology and
human capabilities are being used combinatorially, colleges and universities
have the opportunity to use not only their traditional capabilities but also
their digital ones to design deeper engagement for higher education and society.


ENGAGEMENT

Today, all aspects of a college or university’s experience and its operations
are supported by technology. The challenge is to move the use of technology
beyond automation to engagement. Administrative and academic systems generate
data that can feed analytics tools, which in turn can help optimize campus
services, improve data-led decision making, personalize learning, and inform how
best to support at-risk students. The ability of digital technologies to
facilitate connections and interactions, and to generate observable data about
the connections and interactions they facilitate, allows institutions to
identify and capitalize on efficiencies and ways to improve effectiveness,
transforming how we work and learn. For example, well-designed system interfaces
can promote self-service, speeding transactions and reducing personnel costs
while increasing user satisfaction. In the learning context, technologies can
make activities not only more flexible across time and distance but also more
interactive and engaging, such as when social media enables learners to sustain
dialogue and share knowledge outside class and across institutions.

Engagement is critical for higher education and its many stakeholders.
Engagement implies a dynamic relationship between the individual and the
institution; the individual participates in and is more involved with the
institution. Engagement is a powerful predictor of success. For example,
increased student engagement leads to higher levels of achievement, greater
likelihood of graduation, and deeper satisfaction. More-effective alumni
engagement correlates with more giving and support. Regardless of the
stakeholder group (e.g., faculty, staff, students, alumni, the general public),
increased engagement fosters a deeper sense of being an integral part of the
institution—its mission, history, culture, values, and goals. The expanded and
enhanced vibrancy that results creates network effects that multiply the
potential benefits (personal, financial, reputational) for all members of the
institutional community.

Many new learning environments foster student engagement that transcends
memorization, immersing students in problem solving, collaboration, and active
exploration and allowing them to construct, share, and transfer knowledge, not
just recall it. Engaged and authentic learning experiences help connect learners
to scholars and researchers, to workplaces and industries, to local communities,
and to global challenges. Engagement is associated with gains in academic,
personal, and social development. Immersive learning experiences (e.g., through
augmented reality, simulations, and other tools) move beyond “teaching
information” to helping students develop the valuable skill of “transfer”—being
able to take what they know and apply it to a new area.1

Technology provides many engagement tools that go beyond what is possible
face-to-face. Mobile and wearable devices allow users to extend their
capability, memory, and interaction. According to the World Bank, 75 percent of
the world’s population had access to a mobile device in 2012.2 Just about anyone
anywhere can connect.

Mobile devices have catalyzed changes, such as voice activation, that make the
user interface more engaging. Many apps too now engage users. For example, Waze,
a traffic and direction app, combines data from street maps and GPS with
information shared by users.3 Yet engagement can go much further than inviting
users to contribute information. Distributed innovation platforms (e.g., Quirky,
Innocentive) tap the creativity and opinions of millions.

Even our computing platforms are engaging us. For example, with cognitive
computing, the computer uses natural language processing, artificial
intelligence, and machine learning so that it can learn rather than being
programmed. The goal is to augment human capability. Rather than man versus
machine, it is man and machine.4 Combing through the best that technology and
humans have to offer in higher education could bring exponentially greater value
than the status quo. Achieving that potential, however, will require us to
design for engagement—creating a design that integrates the material and the
digital.

Digital engagement could be used to describe the extent to which a college or
university uses digital technologies and systems to connect and interact with
students, faculty, and other stakeholders in ways that effectively advance
individual and institutional objectives. In a world that is both online and
face-to-face, engagement is not an either-or proposition—it is about how to
blend the best of both worlds to engage stakeholders. Many institutions begin by
creating a digital presence, then move to digital engagement. Ultimately, the
goal is digital integration whereby the physical and the virtual worlds become
seamless.


COMBINATORIAL OPPORTUNITIES

If we were to start from scratch today, much of our resulting design of higher
education might resemble our current institutions. The difference is that we
would also use technology to create digital engagement that augments, enhances,
and extrapolates what we can do face-to-face.

For example, the availability of huge amounts of data should help people better
understand complex situations. John E. Kelly III and Steve Hamm note: “The
emergence of social networking, sensor networks, and huge storehouses of
business, scientific, and government records creates an abundance of information
. . . a parallel universe to the world of people, places, things, and their
interrelationships. . . . The volume of data creates the potential for people to
understand the environment around us with a depth and clarity that was simply
not possible before.”5

Future-oriented institutions are combining the strengths of the campus with
their computing capabilities—whether analytics, visualization, social media, or
interaction—to more deeply engage their stakeholders and solve the world’s most
challenging problems. The campus and computing are coevolving. One does not
replace the other. We have the opportunity to use technology to overcome
limitations, such as our ability to gather and process massive amounts of
information or make better decisions. Likewise, we can use sensors and
pattern-recognition software to augment our senses.6

Although each institution must select its own design parameters to align with
its mission, culture, faculty, and students, design for digital engagement can
be illustrated in three areas:

 * Complex Problem Solving. Because technology has changed the nature of work,
   complex problem solving is a necessity in today’s world. Higher education
   needs tools that support the deep engagement and learning required to develop
   this skill.
 * Customization. Engagement implies personalization and individualization.
   One-size-fits-all is rarely engaging, especially with multiple student
   segments. If the institution is addressing the student’s needs, the student
   will be more engaged and more successful.
 * Clouds and Crowds. Technology has made it possible for many applications to
   live in the cloud. Access is more important than ownership, whether for
   infrastructure or service. And thanks to the global reach of technology, the
   power of millions of people can be applied to problem solving and innovation.


COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING

One of the critical skills of the 21st century is the ability to solve complex
problems that are often ill-defined and require knowledge of multiple
disciplines. Solutions to these problems require learners to use both analytical
and creative skills, often integrating mathematical, scientific, social, and
cultural elements. Digital learning experiences can be important tools for this
type of complex problem solving. However, Kurt Squire warns: “Publishing content
online is not synonymous with improving learning or performance.”7 A better
option is the use of simulations, scenarios, and serious games as experiential
learning spaces.

Game-based learning epitomizes many qualities of digital engagement and can
serve as a new e-learning model that focuses less on content and more on
designing experiences to stimulate innovative ways of thinking, problem solving,
and collaboration. Games are highly interactive; they are co-constructed by
users, whether individually or in distributed communities. As Squire adds: “With
games, knowledge is not presented to the learner but arises through activity.”8
In addition, games can be more than a learning activity: they can provide
insight into the process of learning. New technologies can capture complex human
interactions for feedback and assessment. Anya Kamenetz notes that in some
games, for example, “the telemetry can extend to logging players’ breathing,
heart rate and facial expressions.”9

One example that combines game technologies with artificial intelligence is
Crystal Island, a science mystery in which students try to find the source of an
infectious disease that has a research team stationed on a remote island. In the
role of medical field agents, students investigate the disease, manipulating
virtual objects, testing potential transmission sources with laboratory
equipment, interviewing scientists, and using other resources. Students uncover
details about the spreading infection, testing potential transmission sources of
the disease, recording a diagnosis and treatment plan, and presenting the
findings to the camp nurse. The system can provide students with a hint-centered
approach or can offer full guidance from “wizards.” The full-guidance approach
resulted in the greatest learning gains, a finding consistent with other
research showing that students who receive problem-solving guidance during
inquiry-based learning achieve better learning outcomes than students who
receive minimal or no guidance.10

Intelligent game-based learning environments such as Crystal Island use both
intelligent tutoring systems and intelligent narrative technologies to create
personalized learning experiences. Intelligent tutoring systems model one-on-one
human tutoring to individualize learning experiences; they can dynamically
customize problems, feedback, and hints to individual learners. Intelligent
narrative technologies model human storytelling and comprehension processes.
With the critical role of narratives in human cognition and communication,
interest in computational models of narrative is increasing.11

Psychometricians are also working with game designers on evidence-centered game
design and dynamic testing to assess “fluid” intelligence—that is, the capacity
to think logically and apply reasoning in novel situations. As Kamenetz
explains: “You can become more intelligent by continuously tackling new
challenges in new ways.”12 Game-based learning and simulations are thus not just
engaging; they are important because practice helps develop expertise. Combining
live and virtual environments can accelerate learning.

One example is TLE TeachLivE, a mixed-reality classroom simulator created at the
University of Central Florida. Much like a flight simulator, TeachLivE simulates
a classroom experience for teachers to learn from their mistakes in a low-risk,
virtual environment. Teachers walk into a room that looks just like a classroom,
including desks, books, whiteboards, and students; however, unlike the
brick-and-mortar setting, the lab is combination of real and virtual worlds.
Students are virtual characters with personalities typical of real-life
students: a mix of passive and aggressive and independent and dependent
characteristics. During a TeachLivE session, teachers can practice asking
content-related questions, using behavior-management techniques, and explaining
challenging content—all with virtual students who respond based on the session
objectives. TeachLivE aids teacher performance, recruitment, and retention and
has potential applications for K-12 student peer learning.13

Another example is LearningEdge, a set of simulations of complex systems—such as
renewable resources, clean energy, and commodity pricing—that allow students to
connect the dots between their decisions and the consequences. Role-playing as
senior managers in highly competitive industries (e.g., solar energy, hardware
platform producers) or as founders of tech start-ups, students explore risks and
negotiate agreements. The resources, developed by the MIT Sloan School of
Management, are freely available online.

Intelligent tutoring systems and games can be expensive. Other forms of
intervention can be effective as well. Part of the value of games and
simulations comes from repeated knowledge retrieval, practice, and feedback.
These cognitive practices can be integrated into courses in other ways. For
example, Rice University developed an assignment-intervention process that
required minimal change to the overall course. Students were provided with
repeated opportunities to retrieve and use their knowledge through a schedule of
spaced practice; they were also required to view timely feedback in order to
reinforce their knowledge and correct their errors. The process could be adopted
in any course. First, students were given homework problems; feedback was
immediate. The students did not receive credit for the work unless they viewed
the feedback. Similar problems were repeated in homework over the next two weeks
to provide additional practice and feedback. This combination of small but
important changes to standard practice boosted student learning and retention.14


CUSTOMIZATION

Colleges and universities cannot be all things to all students. Higher education
institutions have varying capabilities. Likewise, students have varying needs.
Students differ based on educational aspiration, preparation, age, motivation,
self-confidence, sense of belonging, and financial support. Students also have
many intrinsic and extrinsic needs that combine to form barriers:

 * Skepticism about the value of a college/university education
 * Inability to see a path between a college/university education, the choice of
   a major, and a career
 * Lack of a sense of belonging
 * Too much socializing paired with too little attention to coursework
 * Lack of confidence in academic ability
 * Insufficient knowledge about college/university or insufficient family
   support
 * Financial concerns15

Engagement requires close alignment between students’ needs and program design.
Examples of student profiles illustrate how needs might align with program
design:

 * Aspiring academics (24%): These “traditional” college students are
   well-prepared, academically driven, and likely to have plans for
   post-graduate work. They may engage through research experiences and close
   student-faculty contact.
 * Coming of age (11%): These students are not sure what they want to be when
   they “grow up,” but they have the time and desire to explore. They can be
   engaged through broad academic experiences.
 * Career starters (18%): These job-oriented students use higher education to
   reach their ideal career position in the shortest amount of time possible.
   They may be price-sensitive, and they value placement services.
 * Career accelerators (21%): Mainly working adults, these students aim to
   advance their career at their current company or within their current
   industry. They are likely to be interested in receiving credit for prior
   learning, and they value online delivery.
 * Industry switchers (18%): Starting a new career in an entirely different
   field is the primary motivation for these students. They are engaged through
   institutional linkages to employers and through preparation for a transition
   in careers.
 * Academic Wanderers (8%): These students don’t know what they want from higher
   education, but they believe that a degree is their path to the future. They
   tend to be unemployed, and form the most “at risk” segment.16

With personalization and individualization as the ultimate goals, specific
programs illustrate how a blend of the campus and computing can help
institutions move from broad to more customized approaches. For example, many
students need help linking college with work. Montgomery County Community
College’s Career Coach is designed to help students find a suitable career by
providing current local data on wages, employment, job postings, and associated
education and training. Students select their career of interest and are
provided information about employment prospects, job opportunities, income
potential, and the education and training available at the college.

Faculty and advisors alone cannot customize each student’s experience;
technology can help. Advising and coaching systems can help identify the support
that students need and link them to information, intervention, and coaching.
Tools can help students develop personal action plans, along with sending
reminders and setting up tracking mechanisms. Case-management tools can help
advisors, faculty, and others share necessary actions and observations.

Degree-planning services help students select courses and move efficiently
through their program of study, often reducing the time to degree, whether at
their current institution or through the transfer of credits at another
institution. Planning tools, which typically track students’ progress, can
improve the use of advisor time and can reduce errors. Sinclair Community
College’s Student Success Planning Services provide students with guidance about
how to achieve their academic goals. The software components (case management,
early alerts, action plans, reference guides for referrals, student self-help
tools, and My Academic Plan) help students, advisors, and student-support
professionals navigate successfully to program completion. Each student is given
an individualized, clear, and coherent pathway to degree completion. The system
helps prevent course-selection confusion and degree misdirection, and it
demystifies many issues, saving both the student and the institution time and
money.17

For some students, too much choice can be the enemy of success. The Degree
Compass system at Austin Peay State University analyzes hundreds of thousands of
student grades—as well as each student’s personal academic achievement,
requirements for the current program of study, and graduation requirements—to
make personalized recommendations for courses that meet degree-completion
requirements and in which the student is likely to succeed (earn an A, B, or C
grade). This information is available to advisors as they work with students not
only to register for courses but also to explore degree options. Degree programs
identify “fingerprint” courses—those courses that tend to determine a student’s
success within a discipline. If Degree Compass predicts that a student will do
poorly in these fingerprint courses, the likelihood of success within that major
is low. Advisors and students can then rank the options based on the best fit
for the student.

Data from a variety of sources can feed analytics tools, which use predictive
algorithms to identify at-risk students and trigger interventions in the form of
alerts to faculty, advisors, or students. The alerts serve as an early-warning
system to help students know when their course success (grade) may be at risk
and to advise them about available resources and suggest specific actions.
Intrusive advising systems are designed to alert students who are unaware that
their success is at risk. These analytics-based programs increase students’
awareness of their class standing and the likely outcome of the course. The
messages instigate behavior changes, with the goal to teach students how to
learn. Alternatively, alerts might provide encouraging messages to students who
are doing well.

The majority of today’s learners are nontraditional students (e.g., adult
learners); they are often first-generation college-goers, unprepared for
college, with significant financial need. For these learners, college is not a
time-out; it is an obstacle course. For example, 72 percent of U.S.
undergraduates worked while in college in 2011, with about one in five
undergrads working at least 35 hours a week year-round.18 A statistically
typical student at a public two-year college in the United States is a white
female who may have children or other dependents, who works 32 hours a week to
meet expenses, and who relies on financial aid to help fund her education.19
Changes can drive new consumption patterns, which may change what learners need
from colleges and universities. Such educational “customers” may be overserved
by the traditional higher education value proposition and may seek alternatives,
such as competency-based education (CBE).

A growing number of programs are using CBE to serve post-traditional students,
such as working adults. CBE takes advantage of the potential of online learning,
enabling models that can reduce both the cost and the time needed to earn
credentials. CBE awards academic credit based on demonstrated mastery of clearly
defined competencies, strengthening the linkage between education, employers,
and the workplace. Formative feedback is a frequent and integral part of the
learning experience, rather than mid-term or end-of-term tests. Students proceed
to new material when they have satisfied the measured learning objectives. In
CBE, learning is not structured around seat time and the credit hour. Learners
work at their own pace, taking as much or as little time as they need to
understand the material. Competency-based programs can recognize prior learning
and learning outside the scope of a course—regardless of where, when, or how
that learning took place.20

Northern Arizona University’s Personalized Learning initiative is a
competency-based approach to a bachelor’s degree in which students will be
pre-tested to ensure proper placement and will be awarded credits for prior
learning. A flat six-month fee of $2,500 and no credit accumulation restrictions
incents students to complete their degree. Students receive support from mentor
faculty, and a Personalized Learning Dashboard provides them with clear
indications of progress at any time. There are no additional charges for books
or fees. NAU was one of four institutions selected by the Higher Learning
Commission (its regional accreditor) to participate in a direct assessment pilot
group.21

Southern New Hampshire University’s College for America is a self-paced, online,
competency-based associate of arts degree program. Students develop evidence to
demonstrate mastery, documenting progress in an online Knowledge Map. After
graduation, competencies may be mapped to traditional course credits for
continued academic pursuits. The program launched in 2013 with a general studies
degree, priced at approximately $2,500 per year. The first graduates received
their degrees in June 2013; one student completed the program in under 100 days.
College for America was the first fully competency-based program to gain
approval from the U.S. Department of Education to offer federal financial aid
for direct assessment.22


CLOUDS AND CROWDS

College and university missions extend beyond the campus to local, state,
national, and international communities. The goal is to leverage the education,
research, and cultural heritage entrusted to higher education to serve the
broader community. To be effective, institutions must do more than provide
information—they must engage society more broadly. Information technology
provides the mechanism for higher education institutions to be known and
engaged, worldwide, thanks to the Internet, websites, and other applications.
“Clouds and crowds” may provide colleges and universities with efficient and
inexpensive ways to maintain and expand their value in society.

Clouds represent the ubiquitous large-scale technological infrastructure of
contemporary society. Clouds are everywhere. They can alter relationships and
organizational boundaries, as well as expectations of what is possible. They are
a part of everyday life—on and off campus.23

Clouds make scaling education possible. MOOCs, for example, use the cloud to
reach a global audience. MOOCs hold the promise of affordable education for
anyone who can connect to the Internet, worldwide. Some institutions are
investing in MOOCs to identify potential students with the most talent. Others
are motivated by extending their brand through MOOCs. Engaging with learners
through this education and enrichment tool is a more nuanced way of building
rapport and reputation with those outside the institution than a static website
or advertisements.

Clouds enable the storage and use of digital surrogates for analog resources as
well as “born-digital” resources. Being “digital” provides new methods for
scholarship and collaboration. For example, CLIR President Charles J. Henry
writes that digital surrogates for the 130 extant medieval manuscripts of the
poem Roman de la Rose “can be analyzed, read, searched for patterns, and
interpreted either as a corpus or by select collations. One generation ago . . .
these manuscripts were accessible only in analog form and were scattered across
Europe and the United States. It would have taken a scholar many lifetimes to
find and read them all.” Not only is access more convenient today, but a
different form of engagement is now possible. This kind of post-digital inquiry
“affords the scholar and the student new opportunities to test hypotheses, ask
questions, and approach the poem with a more encompassing frame of reference.”24

Digital scholarship can catalyze greater engagement because, as Middlebury
College CIO Michael Roy explains, “the products of digital scholarship are often
digital works that can be integrated into the classroom experience, offering
important access to primary-source materials and, in many cases, providing new
tools and analytical forms that can be assigned alongside traditional secondary
literature.”25 The nature of digital scholarship allows for remix and reuse not
possible before. Lafayette College President Alison Byerly notes: “It can also
uncover “patterns or information that would otherwise remain invisible.”26

The term generative scholarship describes how these digital and visual resources
can be used by researchers, instructors, and students at all levels.
“Visualizing Emancipation,” a project of the University of Richmond’s Digital
Scholarship Lab, is an interactive mapping tool that brings layers of data
together, allowing users “to explore the different places, times, and ways that
slavery collapsed in the American South.” Building on an archive of traditional
sources—including military records, newspaper stories, letters, and diaries—the
site documents various “emancipation events” that occurred between 1861 and
1865. Blue dots on a map of the United States show where the Union Army was
positioned at any given time; red dots show emancipation events. Users can click
on the red dots to see details about an event and the original source of the
data—with each dot representing one of the thousands of individual stories that
collectively recount the dramatic experience of the end of U.S. slavery.
Visualizations can represent patterns better than can words alone. They permit
users to understand how actions overlap, penetrate, and conflict with one
another, making it possible to see interaction between geographic layers of
legal enactments, military control, and shifting demography.27 An animation
feature on the map allows users to see the unique interplay and changing
patterns related to categories over a period of time—for instance, more
emancipation events between the military and enslaved people near waterways or
an increased pattern of war-related abuse of African-Americans after formerly
enslaved black men started fighting for the United States. Patterns in the data
can be explored as users filter events based on dates, keywords, or types of
primary source.

Clouds also provide access to “crowds,” meaning that the work of thousands of
people can be combined in new ways. The coauthors of The Second Machine Age
write: “The best way to accelerate progress is to increase our capacity to test
out new combinations of ideas. One excellent way to do this is to involve more
people in this testing process, and digital technologies are making it possible
for ever more people to participate.”28

Crowds have thus become potential problem-solvers and innovators—both
significant forms of engagement. In the article “Crowds, Clouds and Community,”
Cynthia Stohl notes: “Studies have shown that crowds can save organizations
money, transform research and development processes, facilitate innovation, and
create a new generation of entrepreneurs who no longer work within traditional
labor markets and the constraints of traditional labor contracts.”29

Many research institutions have a history of engaging the public in “citizen
science.” Citizen science involves amateurs who collect and analyze data,
typically through crowdsourcing. It allows the public, of all ages, to
participate in research. Volunteers partner with research teams to collect data
and learn new skills, acquiring a deeper understanding of science on an issue of
common concern. For example, the Globe at Night program is an international
citizen-science campaign to raise public awareness about the impact of light
pollution: citizen-scientists measure their night sky brightness and submit
their observations to a website from a computer or smartphone. In another
example, the citizen neuroscientists in EyeWire map neural connections by
playing a game. Players help identify the twists and turns of neurons to build
up a map of the complex connections involved with vision. Begun in 2012, the MIT
project had 100,000 players within one year.30

The power of crowds is also seen in the University of Washington’s Foldit, a
protein folding game and research project that aims to fight disease. Its goal
is to improve the speed of discovery using crowdsourcing and community
collaboration. Protein folding is highly dependent on pattern recognition—a
particular skill of humans. The tool combines distributed computing with the
power of “crowds” to solve problems. Players are asked to contribute cycles from
their computers when not in use through a program called Rosetta, which provides
additional computation cycles for these complex visualizations. Online gamers
also compete to solve scientific problems. For example, a protein causing AIDS
in rhesus monkeys—a protein structure that hadn’t been solved for fifteen
years—was resolved by Foldit players, then confirmed by x-ray crystallography.

Innocentive serves as an online clearinghouse for scientific problems using
crowdsourcing. Anyone can browse the problems, download data, or upload a
solution. In a study of unsolved scientific problems posed to Innocentive, the
“crowd” was able to solve 49 of the 166 previously unsolved problems, a success
rate of nearly 30 percent. Interestingly, those who solved the problems had
expertise quite different from the apparent domain of the problem.31


ON THE PATH TO DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT

Digital engagement promises to extend and enhance the college/university
experience. Among the conceptual challenges institutions will face is moving
beyond the tension of man versus machine, toward the goal of optimizing man and
machine. To achieve digital engagement, higher education institutions will
transition through at least three phases:

 * Digital presence. Digital presence requires that the appropriate
   technological platforms, applications, systems, and interfaces be in place.
   Transactions must be available online, and information must be readily
   available, whether on the web or via a mobile device. All touchpoints should
   provide a consistent experience of the institution.
 * Digital integration. Digital integration goes a step further, ensuring that
   the platforms, applications, systems, and interfaces are integrated. Data
   must flow from one application to another.
 * Optimization. To achieve optimization, institutions must ask whether they are
   capitalizing on the best of the physical and the virtual, leveraging the
   unique capabilities of both. Stakeholder connections and interactions should
   be designed to advance the institution’s mission and goals in teaching and
   learning, research and discovery, and outreach.

All colleges and universities have a digital presence. Many are now in the phase
of digital integration. To reach the next level, these institutions must go
beyond an institutional strategy that links to a technology strategy; they need
a digital engagement strategy to optimize the college or university
“experience.” A digital engagement strategy presents a vision for how the
institution manifests itself online and via technology-mediated functions to
assure stakeholders of seamless, successful connections and interactions—with
the institution, with other stakeholders, and with the global communities and
resources stakeholders might tap to accomplish their goals.

The collection of technology-mediated connections and interactions that define
the institution’s identity in the eyes of the stakeholders should be part of the
digital engagement strategy. Members of the campus community experience their
institution digitally—through the interconnections that institutional websites,
online and mobile applications, and technology-mediated tools and services
foster. All aspects of the institutional technology environment (e.g., live,
social, online, mobile) should complement one other. The strategy should also
consider the core needs and objectives of different stakeholder
communities—students, alumni, faculty, prospective students, and potential
donors, to name a few—and how the institution’s technology environment thwarts,
facilitates, or fulfills those needs and objectives.

Finally, a higher education digital engagement strategy must look beyond
transactions to consider how the institution’s use of “digital” uniquely enables
and motivates individuals to actively engage in a community—not only at the
institutional level but also as part of the wider academic community. The
strategy must help the institution use technology to move beyond automation to
engagement—to the connections and interactions that could not be achieved and
sustained without digital technologies.


CONCLUSION

The future of higher education is more than a digital replica of yesterday’s
campus or even today’s classroom. The building blocks of our future higher
education institutions are physical and virtual; they are human and
technological. By combining these capabilities—the best of both the traditional
(the campus) and the digital (computing), we can build colleges and universities
that are designed to engage, thus bringing us closer to achieving the mission
and goals of higher education.

Notes

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Joanne Dehoney, chief of staff,
and Karen Mateer, executive assistant to the president, for their help in
preparing this article.

© 2014 Diana G. Oblinger. The text of this article is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License.

EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 49, no. 5 (September/October 2014)

 

 1. 1.  Diana G. Oblinger and Susan Grajek, From Disruption to Design: How
        Technology Can Help Transform Higher Education (TIAA-CREF Institute
        white paper, 2013).
    2.  Maximizing Mobile 2012 Infographic. See also Maximizing Mobile : 2012
        Information and Communications for Development (Washington, DC:
        International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank,
        2012).
    3.  Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age: Work,
        Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies (New York:
        W.W. Norton & Company, 2014), 61–62.
    4.  See John E. Kelly III and Steve Hamm, Smart Machines: IBM’s Watson and
        the Era of Cognitive Computing (New York: Columbia University Press,
        2013).
    5.  Ibid., 5.
    6.  Ibid., 18, 84.
    7.  Kurt D. Squire, “Video Game-Based Learning: An Emerging Paradigm for
        Instruction,” Performance Improvement Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2013), 101.
    8.  Ibid., 114.
    9.  Anya Kamenetz, Psychometric Considerations in Game-Based Assessment:
        Executive Summary (GlassLab, February 2014), 4.
    10. James C. Lester, Eun Y. Ha, Seung Y. Lee, Bradford W. Mott, Jonathan P.
        Rowe, and Jennifer L. Sabourin, “Serious Games Get Smart: Intelligent
        Game-Based Learning Environments,” AI Magazine, 34, no. 4 (Winter 2013),
        36.
    11. Ibid., 42.
    12. Kamenetz, Psychometric Considerations in Game-Based Assessment, 3.
    13. Carrie Staub, e-mail message to author, June 17, 2014.
    14. Andrew C. Butler, Elizabeth J. Marsh, J. P. Slavinsky, and Richard G.
        Baraniuk, “Integrating Cognitive Science and Technology Improves
        Learning in a STEM Classroom,” Educational Psychology Review 26, no. 2
        (June 2014), 331–40.
    15. Vennie Gore and George Tang, “Postsecondary Success Student Segmentation
        Research: A New Lens on Segmentation and Its Use,” Grantee & Partner
        Webinar, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, July 22, 2013.
    16. Haven Ladd, Seth Reynolds, and Jeffrey J. Selingo, The Differentiated
        University: Recognizing the Diverse Needs of Today’s Students (Boston:
        The Parthenon Group, 2014).
    17. Sinclair Community College, Next Generation Learning Challenges; Russ
        Little, “Sustainability, Partnerships, Focus on Users: Lessons from
        Sinclair College’s Student Success Plan,” Next Generation Learning
        Challenges, May 17, 2013.
    18. Jessica Davis, “School Enrollment and Work Status: 2011,” American
        Community Survey Briefs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and
        Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, October 2012.
    19. Cynthia D. Wilson, “Coming through the Open Door: A 21st-Century
        Community College Student Profile,” American Association of Community
        Colleges (AACC) 21st-Century Commission on the Future of Community
        Colleges.
    20. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 7 Things You Should Know about
        Competency-Based Education (Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE, February 2014).
    21. “Grant Recipients: Northern Arizona University,” Next Generation
        Learning Challenges.
    22. “Grant Recipients: College for America,” Next Generation Learning
        Challenges.
    23. Cynthia Stohl, “Crowds, Clouds and Community,” Journal of Communication
        64, no. 1 (February 2014), 6.
    24. Charles J. Henry, “IT and the Legacy of Our Cultural Heritage,” EDUCAUSE
        Review 49, no. 3 (May/June 2014).
    25. Michael Roy, “Either/Or? Both/And? Difficult Distinctions within the
        Digital Humanities,” EDUCAUSE Review 49, no. 3 (May/June 2014).
    26. Alison Byerly, “Digital Humanities, Digitizing Humanity,” EDUCAUSE
        Review 49, no. 3 (May/June 2014).
    27. See the project’s Facebook page; Edward L. Ayers and Scott Nesbit,
        “Seeing Emancipation: Scale and Freedom in the American South,” Journal
        of the Civil War Era 1, no. 1 (March 2011).
    28. Brynjolfsson and McAfee, The Second Machine Age, 83.
    29. Stohl, “Crowds, Clouds and Community,” 5.
    30. Mark Richardson, et al., “Eye Wire,” Science, vol. 343, no. 6171
        (February 7, 2014), p. 606, accessed June 26, 2014, DOI:
        10.1126/science.343.6171.600.
    31. Brynjolfsson and McAfee, The Second Machine Age, 84.




DIANA OBLINGER

Dr. Diana G. Oblinger President and CEO of EDUCAUSE

Dr. Diana G. Oblinger is President and CEO of EDUCAUSE, a nonprofit association
whose mission is to advance higher education through the use of information
technology. The current membership comprises over 2,400 colleges, universities
and education organizations, including 250 corporations. Previously, Dr.
Oblinger held positions in academia and business: Vice President for Information
Resources and the Chief Information Officer for the University of North Carolina
system, Executive Director of Higher Education for Microsoft, and IBM Director
of the Institute for Academic Technology. She was on the faculty at the
University of Missouri-Columbia and at Michigan State University and served as
the Associate Dean of Academic Programs at the University of Missouri.

Since becoming president of EDUCAUSE, Dr. Oblinger has become known for
innovative product and services growth as well as international outreach. For
example, Dr. Oblinger created the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI), known for
its leadership in teaching, learning and technology innovation as well as
several signature products, such as the 7 Things You Should Know About series.
She also initiated EDUCAUSE’s first fully online events and its e-book series,
including Educating the Net Generation and Game Changers.

In collaboration with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation she led the creation
of the Next Generation Learning Challenges, a $30M program focused on improving
college readiness and completion through information technologies. Partners
include the League for Innovation in the Community College, the International
Association for K-12 Online Learning, the Council of Chief State School
Officers, and the Hewlett Foundation.

Dr. Oblinger serves on a variety of boards including the American Council on
Education (ACE), and DuraSpace. Previous board and advisory service includes the
board of directors of ACT, the editorial board of Open Learning, the National
Visiting Committee for NSF’s National Science Digital Library project, and the
NSF Committee on Cyberinfrastructure. She currently serves as chair of the
Washington Higher Education Secretariat. Dr. Oblinger has testified before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Employment, Safety and Training and the U.S. House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Technology.

Dr. Oblinger is a frequent keynote speaker as well as the co-author of the
award-winning book What Business Wants from Higher Education. She is the editor
or co-editor of eight books: The Learning Revolution, The Future Compatible
Campus, Renewing Administration, E is for Everything, Best Practices in Student
Services, Educating the Net Generation, Learning Spaces, and Game Changers. She
also is the author or co-author of numerous monographs and articles on higher
education and technology.

Dr. Oblinger has received outstanding teaching and research awards, was named
Young Alumnus of the Year by Iowa State University and holds three honorary
degrees. She is a graduate of Iowa State University (bachelor’s, master’s, and
PhD) and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, and Sigma Xi.



Jul 21


EDUDEMIC: WHAT DOES GAMIFICATION LOOK LIKE IN CLASSROOMS?

 * By Laura Bestler in Just Me, Technology

By Katie Lepi on July 20, 2014
(http://www.edudemic.com/gamification-look-like-in-classrooms/)


Using games or game play elements in the classroom to drive learning outcomes is
sill gaining popularity. Though most teachers aren’t ready to embrace bringing
serious games like Minecraft into their classrooms, many are willing to gamify
learning or use other types of games. That said, getting an idea of how many
teachers are (or aren’t) using gamification (or are interested in doing so) is a
somewhat difficult task: Many people define gamification in different ways, when
it may be a more accurate description to identify different levels of
gamification. The handy infographic below takes a look at gamification and more
‘serious gaming’ in organizational learning. It offers some interesting
statistics on just what types (or levels) of gamification are happening in
classrooms. Keep reading to learn more!


WHAT KIND OF GAMIFICATION IS HAPPENING IN THE CLASSROOM?

 * Of 551 people surveyed, 25% use gamification in learning
 * 20% use serious games in learning
 * Gamification is the use of game based elements to drive learning
 * Simulations are usually software based applications that serve as a
   representation of a process, event, location, or situation
 * Games are systems in which players engage in various ways towards a common
   goal or a win state. They also have added elements such as storyline, rules,
   interactivity, and feedback
 * Serious games are simulations which have the added elements of games
 * 49% felt that gamification improved learning outcomes
 * 53% felt that serious games improved learning outcomes



 

 



Jul 15


IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING THE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF ONLINE STUDENTS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION

 * By Laura Bestler in Technology

 

Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration

Bonny Barr
Creighton University
bonnybarr@creighton.edu
This paper outlines how institutions of higher learning can prepare faculty to
identify mental health needs of online students and suggests effective
administrative policies and programs to address these student needs. More…



Jul 15


INTERNET IN REAL TIME

 * By Laura Bestler in Just Me, Technology


Click the image to open the interactive version (via http://pennystocks.la/).



Mar 13


IDEAS FOR QUICKCHALLENGES

 * By Laura Bestler in Uncategorized

Love this idea from Teaching with Technology – POD SIG:

> We are beginning to crowdsource a series of “QuickChallenges,” activities
> designed to help instructors and faculty developers
> 
>  * Become familiar with a tool,
>  * Learn a way it could be used, and
>  * Create a usable learning object or a sample assignment.
> 
> Our hope is that groups of 2-3 POD members will collaborate to fill out the
> template we provide. The document will then go through a peer review. The
> final product will be posted on this site, where it will be available to the
> public.
> 
>  1.  Create a survey with a Google Form
>  2.  Make a comic with Pixton
>  3.  Draw a concept map with Bubbl.us
>  4.  Record a poem with SoundCloud
>  5.  Make a mashup with Popcorn Maker
>  6.  Create a map with Google Maps
>  7.  Mash up two images with PhotoShop
>  8.  Build an Ignite presentation with PowerPoint
>  9.  Make a video with Animoto
>  10. Make an interactive poster with Glogster
>  11. Build a word cloud with Wordle
>  12. Create a time line with Tiki-Toki
> 
> The tools suggested above could be replaced with others. There’s also no
> reason we couldn’t make two versions of the same challenge for competing
> tools.
> 
> http://sigtwt.wordpress.com/pose-challenge/



Feb 18


YOU’RE BAD AT WOW, AND SO AM I BY OLIVIA GRACE FEB 17TH 2014 AT 3:00PM

 * By Laura Bestler in Uncategorized

Blizzard Community Manager Lore recently posted a brief reply in an excellent
thread, which brought up a topic I’ve wanted to address for some time: how it’s
OK to suck sometimes. While I’m not going to copy his two posts here, he talks
about arenas, discussing how, when he and his team lose, he looks back and tries
to work out where things went wrong, and what he could have done to help. He
also discusses the merits of doing things like recording matches, to replay and
examine what went wrong.

While the option of recording your WoW play may not be open to everyone,
self-examination is. And it’s something we can all afford to do. None of us ever
play perfectly, we are not robots. But the key to becoming better is to admit
that, to see our failings, and to improve upon them.

 

http://wow.joystiq.com/2014/02/17/youre-bad-at-wow-and-so-am-i/



Feb 14


MARK BILANDZIC’S THESIS: THE EMBODIED HYBRID SPACE – DESIGNING SOCIAL AND
DIGITAL INTERVENTIONS TO FACILITATE CONNECTED LEARNING IN COWORKING SPACES

 * By Laura Bestler in Uncategorized

http://kavasmlikon.wordpress.com/phd-thesis/

 


ABSTRACT

Coworking spaces are shared spaces for people to pursue work and other
interest-driven activities. The core challenge of coworking spaces is to
facilitate their users’ need for connected learning and networking opportunities
to nourish creativity, inspiration and innovation. The objective of this thesis
is to deliver design solutions for social and ubiquitous computing technology
that achieve this.

The thesis reports research findings from a case study at The Edge – a bookless
library space at the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia that is
explicitly dedicated to connected learning, coworking, peer collaboration, and
creativity around digital culture and technology. Based on a participatory
action design research (PADR) approach, it delivers a greater understanding of
the challenges and barriers for connected learning as perceived and experienced
by everyday users at The Edge; it also informed the development of two design
interventions that were deployed and evaluated at The Edge:

Hack The Evening (HTE) – a social intervention – was initiated as a weekly
meetup group around hacking, making and Do-It-Yourself technology. Insights from
18 months of participation, ethnographic observations and in-depth interviews
with HTE group members revealed hidden factors that are crucial for the organic
growth of a community-driven, self-maintained and sustainable locale for
self-directed, connected learning.

Gelatine – a custom-developed ambient media system – was aimed at supporting
shared encounters between coworkers by allowing them to digitally ‘check-in’ at
a workspace; the system displays skills, areas of interest, and needs of
currently checked-in users on a set of public screens. Gelatine combines the
affordances of the physical and the digital towards an embodied hybrid space – a
space that is manifested in the physical world, but embodies digital information
to make invisible social aspects of a coworking space visible. The outcomes of
the evaluation show how Gelatine supports connected learning through amplifying
users’ awareness of fellow coworkers in ways that would not be possible in
unmediated physical environments.

The research outcomes of this thesis illustrate the potential of combining
affordances of social, spatial and digital space for connected learning. They
propose a future research agenda on hybrid placemaking as a new way of thinking
about the design of coworking and interactive learning spaces.


RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND AIMS

The aim of this PhD study is summarised in the following overarching research
question:

How can ubiquitous computing technology be designed to facilitate connected
learning among users in coworking environments?

My approach to provide answers to this research question was to explore and
evaluate opportunities through user-centred design, development and evaluation
of both technological and social interventions at The Edge. The Edge served as a
case study and ‘living lab’ environment throughout all stages of the research.
The study followed a Participatory Action Design Research process (Chapter 5)
and aimed at the following four research aims towards understanding relevant
aspects and finding answers to the RQ stated above:

1) Understand user attitudes and challenges of connected learning in coworking
environments;

2) Inform design strategies for social and ubiquitous computing interventions
that enhance connected learning among users;

3) Design, develop and deploy a relevant ubiquitous computing artefact;

4) Evaluate the target artefact and its implications in ‘the wild,’ real-world
context as encountered by people during their everyday visits.






Oct 17


THE GAMIFICATION OF EDUCATION

 * By Laura Bestler in Uncategorized

Created by Knewton and Column Five Media



Oct 17


THE CONNECTED AGE

 * By Laura Bestler in Uncategorized

> What’d you think of @avantgame‘s session? Here’s a link to the animated video
> you saw before the session: http://t.co/PwErWWwe62 #EDU13
> 
> — EDUCAUSE (@educause) October 17, 2013

 



Oct 17


BEYOND LETTER GRADES — AN ONLINE COURSE – BRILLIANT!

 * By Laura Bestler in Uncategorized

http://www.beyondlettergrades.com/



 * 
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * …
 * 18
 * 


INSTAGRAM


MY TWEETS @LAURABESTLER




MY MUSIC




RECENT POSTS

 * Designed to Engage
 * Edudemic: What Does Gamification Look Like In Classrooms?
 * Identifying and Addressing the Mental Health Needs of Online Students in
   Higher Education
 * Internet in Real Time
 * Ideas for QuickChallenges


MINE NOT YOURS

 * Log in
 * Entries feed
 * Comments feed
 * WordPress.org


MY ARCHIVES

My Archives Select Month September 2014 July 2014 March 2014 February 2014
October 2013 September 2013 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 April 2012
January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 September 2011 May 2011 April 2011
March 2011 March 2010 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 March 2009
February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 April 2004

© 2024 Laura Bestler.

Made with by Graphene Themes.