Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

by Thomas Cochrane.  

Hi Tom,

One of the principles we are trying to model and encourage through the CMALTcMOOC is Open Educational Practice. Therefore the discussions forums, webinars and content are openly accessible, but contributions are restricted to enrolled and invited participants only. The webinars use Hangouts On Air, that are streamed live and archived on YouTube, but discussion participants are restricted to invitation through the cMOOC participants only - that is the reason for the signup form to be able to facilitate communication between the participants using the core tools: Moodle discussion forum, Twitter, email, and Google Hangouts. 

https://cmaltcmooc.wordpress.com/about/

Yes open education practice does modify behaviour and the sensitivity of content and discussions, we had hoped that this was explicit to participants already, and that participants only discuss issues they are comfortable to in these forums.

Scanlon, Eileen. 2014. Scholarship in the digital age: Open educational resources, publication and public engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology 45: 12-23. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12010

Catherine Cronin. 2016. Open, networked and connected learning: Bridging the formal/informal learning divide in higher education. Lancaster: Lancaster University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302975462

Costa, Cristina. 2014. The habitus of digital scholars. Research in Learning Technology 21: http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/21274

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

by Tom Worthington.  

Thomas, I just discovered a recording of today's Webinar on Twitter. I am not comfortable with having these discussions public. I had assumed this was a small group of peers supporting each other. This is not something I want to do in public.

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

by Thomas Cochrane.  

This weeks #CMALTcMOOC webinar discusses the wider context section of a #CMALT portfolio, as well as the impact of ALTMetrics and SOTEL on practice and research - view at

10:30am Friday 22 March NZ time - check back here 10mins beforehand for the link to join the live discussion! 

Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

by Thomas Cochrane.  

This weeks suggested activity includes a Blog post or VODCast discussing legislation, policies and standards, and exploring the wider impact of alternative research metrics Altmetrics and the Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning SOTEL.

We will discuss these issues in our weekly Friday Webinar.




Create and share via the Project Bank a Blog post as an embedded audio PODCast or VODCast (Video PODCast) discussing legislation, policies and standards that impact upon the use of educational technologies.

Comment and provide feedback to other participants Blog posts on the wider context.

You could use an audio or video streaming mobile App to create and share either an audio PODCast, or video via YouTube, Vimeo, or Periscope for example to create and share a VODCast. There are several simple video capture and sharing Apps that you could use on your Phone, such as Clips on iPhone, or Adobe Premier Clip for iOS and Android.

In exploring the wider context CMALT candidates should demonstrate their awareness of and engagement with wider issues that inform their practice.



Candidates must cover at least one legislative area and either a second legislative area or a policy area. That is you need to cover a minimum of two areas, at least one of which must be legislative.

a) Understanding and engaging with legislation, policies and standards

Statements here should show how relevant legislation, has influenced your work. You are not expected to have expert knowledge of all of these areas, but are expected to be aware of how they relate to your current practice. These issues will vary depending upon the country and Government policy.

In the UK you would be expected to demonstrate how you work within the context of relevant legislation such as:

Accessibility including special educational needs

Intellectual property (IPR)

Freedom of Information (if you work for a public body)

Data protection.

Child protection

Anti-discrimination law

Points Based Immigration System (PBIS)

Other related examples

In your country there may be different requirements, and you should indicate this in your portfolio. It is suggested that you pick at least two areas to discuss. In New Zealand see the Government HE strategies and policies website: http://www.education.govt.nz/further-education/policies-and-strategies/tertiary-education-strategy/

 

b) Policy

You are not obliged to address this area so long as you have addressed at least two legislative areas. Examples of policy issues you may address include:

Policies and strategies (national or institutional)

Technical standards

Professional codes of practice

You might also be expected to engage with institutional policies and, where appropriate, national policies and evidence of some of this should be provided. The kinds of evidence that would support this would include minutes of meetings with legal advisers, documentation showing how legal issues have influenced work (such as reports or data protection forms), justifications for modifications to a course to reflect new policies or a record of how technical standards have been taken into account during system development.


Posted by & filed under #ASCILITEMLSIG, #CMALTcMOOC, CMALT, The Wider Context.

This weeks suggested activity includes a Blog post or VODCast discussing legislation, policies and standards, and exploring the wider impact of alternative research metrics Altmetrics and the Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning SOTEL.

We will discuss these issues in our weekly Friday Webinar.

Create and share via the Project Bank a Blog post as an embedded audio PODCast or VODCast (Video PODCast) discussing legislation, policies and standards that impact upon the use of educational technologies.

Comment and provide feedback to other participants Blog posts on the wider context.

You could use an audio or video streaming mobile App to create and share either an audio PODCast, or video via YouTube, Vimeo, or Periscope for example to create and share a VODCast. There are several simple video capture and sharing Apps that you could use on your Phone, such as Clips on iPhone, or Adobe Premier Clip for iOS and Android.

In exploring the wider context CMALT candidates should demonstrate their awareness of and engagement with wider issues that inform their practice.

Candidates must cover at least one legislative area and either a second legislative area or a policy area. That is you need to cover a minimum of two areas, at least one of which must be legislative.

a) Understanding and engaging with legislation, policies and standards

Statements here should show how relevant legislation, has influenced your work. You are not expected to have expert knowledge of all of these areas, but are expected to be aware of how they relate to your current practice. These issues will vary depending upon the country and Government policy.

In the UK you would be expected to demonstrate how you work within the context of relevant legislation such as:

  • Accessibility including special educational needs
  • Intellectual property (IPR)
  • Freedom of Information (if you work for a public body)
  • Data protection.
  • Child protection
  • Anti-discrimination law
  • Points Based Immigration System (PBIS)
  • Other related examples

In your country there may be different requirements, and you should indicate this in your portfolio. It is suggested that you pick at least two areas to discuss. In New Zealand see the Government HE strategies and policies website: http://www.education.govt.nz/further-education/policies-and-strategies/tertiary-education-strategy/

 

b) Policy

You are not obliged to address this area so long as you have addressed at least two legislative areas. Examples of policy issues you may address include:

  • Policies and strategies (national or institutional)
  • Technical standards
  • Professional codes of practice

You might also be expected to engage with institutional policies and, where appropriate, national policies and evidence of some of this should be provided. The kinds of evidence that would support this would include minutes of meetings with legal advisers, documentation showing how legal issues have influenced work (such as reports or data protection forms), justifications for modifications to a course to reflect new policies or a record of how technical standards have been taken into account during system development.

Posted by & filed under collective writing, edtech, postdigital, publishing, schooling, writing.

In working to unpick the complex dynamics at play in the way that digital technologies have been taken up (or not) by schools, I have been exploring the concept of the ‘postdigital’ as a way to theorise what is going on.

On the one hand, there is much discourse suggesting that schools are not doing enough to equip students to work in a globalised highly-technological economy and that they need to do a better job of embedding educational technologies in schools. On the other hand, schools make a great deal of use of highly technological administrative systems, and are increasingly using educational technologies such as learning analytics, adaptive computer testing, administration packages and learning management systems. So are schools digital enough yet?

control-key

The idea that schools need a digital revolution is passe and the notion of the postdigital (i.e. the revolution has already happened and that we are now so used to the use of digital technologies that they are noticeable only in their absence) is useful here. Considering the postdigital allows for a more nuanced exploration of the use of digital technologies beyond the off/on binary logic usually encountered in this topic.

Narcisyphlis

Digital technologies are changing our relationship with the world

A new journal has been been recently launched dedicated to exploring Postdigital Science and Education. 19 scholars from around the globe, including me, have recently had a piece published in this journal in which we respond to a recent editorial which explores this notion of the postdigital.

The article is ‘Between the Blabbering Noise of Individuals or the Silent Dialogue of Many: a Collective Response to ‵Postdigital Science and Education′ (Jandrić et al. 2018)’ and the abstract appears below. [The article is currently available via open access link to the preprint version – until April 14th]

This article is a multi-authored response to an editorial ‵Postdigital Science and Education′ published in 2018 by Petar Jandrić, Jeremy Knox, Tina Besley, Thomas Ryberg, Juha Suoranta and Sarah Hayes in Educational Philosophy and Theory as a mission statement for the journal Postdigital Science and Education. Nineteen authors were invited to produce their sections, followed by two author-reviewers who examined the article as a whole. Authors’ responses signal the sense of urgency for developing the concept of the postdigital and caution about attempts at simplifying complex relationships between human beings and technology. Whilst the digital indeed seems to become invisible, we simultaneously need to beware of its apparent absence and to avoid over-emphasizing its effects. In this attempt, authors offer a wide range of signposts for future research such as ‘the critical postdigital’ and ‘postdigital reflexivity’; they also warn about the group’s own shortcomings such as the lack of ‘real’ sense of collectivity. They emphasize that postdigital education must remain a common good, discuss its various negative aspects such as smartphone addiction and nomophobia, and exhibit some positive examples of postdigital educational praxis. They discuss various aspects of postdigital identities and point towards the need for a postdigital identity theory. With these varied and nuanced responses, the article opens a wide spectrum of opportunity for the development of postdigital approaches to science and education for the future.

 

Arndt, S., Asher, G., Knox, J., Ford, D.R., Hayes, S., Lăzăroiu, G., Jackson, L., Mañero Contreras, J., Buchanan, R., D’Olimpio, L., Smith, M., Suoranta, J., Pyyhtinen, O., Ryberg, T., Davidsen, J., Steketee, A., Mihăilă, R., Stewart, G. & Dawson, M (2019). Between the Blabbering Noise of Individuals or the Silent Dialogue of Many: a Collective Response to ‵Postdigital Science and Education′ (Jandrić et al. 2018), Postdigital Science and Education, 1- 29. doi: 10.1007/s42438-019-00037-y

This article marks a starting point for me with my engagement with this concept of the postdigital and I feel that it will be a fruitful tool for my work in considering the dynamics of educational technologies and schooling.

 

Posted by & filed under CMALT, Japanese Universities, Policies, Teacher Learning.

 1. Legislation

In this first video, I discuss the issue of ‘academic integrity’  (Gray, Waycott, Clerehan, Hamilton, Richardson, Sheard & Thompson, 2010; Kimber & Wyatt-Smith, 2010; Richardson, Hamilton, Gray, Waycott & Clerehan 2012) and copyright issues. In my own practice I use online videos to teach students about referencing sources and using images and when assessing student projects I use rubrics which include a reference to citations (Cowie & Sakui, 2015; 2016).

I briefly refer to Dublin City University’s INTEGRITY project as an example of an innovative way to approach issues of plagiarism and privacy.

References

Cowie, N., & Sakui, K. (2015). Assessment and e-learning: Current issues and future trendsThe JALT CALL Journal, 11, 3, 271-281.

Cowie, N., & Sakui, K. (2016). The use of rubrics for the assessment of digital products in language learning. In M. Iguchi & L. Yoffe (Eds.) Mobile learning in and out of the classroom: Balancing blended language learner training (pp. 12-17). Proceedings of The 42nd (2015) JACET Summer Seminar. The Japan Association of College English Teachers.

Gray, K., Waycott, J., Clerehan, R., Hamilton, M., Richardson, M., Sheard, J., & Thompson, C. (2010). Web 2.0 Authoring Tools in Higher Education Learning and Teaching: New Directions for Assessment and Academic Integrity: A Framework for Field-testing and Refining Good Practice Guidelines in Pilot Projects at Australian Universities During Semester One 2010. Retrieved from http://web2assessmentroundtable. pbworks.com/f/altc-asw2a-Guidelines-draft-Feb2010.pdf

Kimber, K., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2010). Secondary students’ online use and creation of knowledge: Refocusing priorities for quality assessment and learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (5), 607–25.

Richardson, J., Hamilton, M., Gray, K., Waycott, J., & Clerehan, R. (2012, December 3–5). In what ways does policy on academic integrity, copyright and privacy need to respond in order to accommodate assessment with Web 2.0 tools? Paper presented at the Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Geelong, Australia. Retrieved from http://acis2012.deakin.edu.au

2. Policies

In the second video, I  describe how I have tried to use digital technology to implement one of Japan’s Ministry of Education’s  16 higher education policies. This concerns the Internationalization of Japanese Universities and in particular Global Human Resource Development.

References

Model United Nations

New York Model United Nations

LINE Japanese SNS app