UW Bothell Learning Technologies Blog Rotating Header Image

[University of Washington]

UW Set Design Students Skype with a Playwright

Drama 210 students at the University of Washington finished their quarter projects last week. Students worked in teams to build set design models for the contemporary play Magnificent Waste by Caridad Svich. But instead of gathering inspiration from the script alone, students were able to Skype with Svich, to ask questions at the beginning of the quarter and show her the finished product at the end. For most students in the class, the interaction via Skype made a big difference in their project processes. Sarah Sutin, a pre-architecture student, had this to say about the experience:

When I first read the play I was taken aback at all the immorality and how toxic the characters seem. My picture of the story was bleak. But speaking to the playwright broke my own conceptions and let me see some soul to the story that I had been too shocked to accept. It brought the characters and their world into a more touchable reality.

Their professor, Robert Mark Morgan, has worked with numerous playwrights in the past–many of whom are always eager to be a part of the project. He makes a point to select contemporary writers who take on current issues, or what he calls “the theater of tomorrow”. Both Morgan and his students agree that there is value in this face-to-face communication, as well as extra incentive to do well on the project.

To read the full article from UW Today, click here.

UW Grad Students Test Out the Kindle DX

Photo courtesy of Jon 'ShakataGaNai' Davis (Wikimedia Commons)

The University of Washington was one of seven schools who participated in pilot studies of the Kindle DX eReader in higher education. The study was carried out by UW technology researchers in order to determine how well the eReader fits into academic reading. The results weren’t outstanding, but many remain optimistic.

The study followed 39 graduate students, who were given a Kindle DX at the beginning of autumn quarter 2009. By spring quarter 2010, less than 40 percent of the students were using the device on a regular basis.

But why? “There is no eReader that supports what we found these students doing,” says Alex Thayer, a UW doctoral student, “It remains to be seen how to design one.”

Some of the challenges encountered with the Kindle include difficulty switching between reading techniques such as skimming. Some students kept paper nearby to take notes while others used a separate computer to look up references more easily.

According to Charlotte Lee, a UW Human Centered Design and Engineering professor, “E-readers are not where they need to be in order to support academic reading.” However, she predicts that e-readers will reach that point “sooner than we think.”

Read the full article by Hannah Hickey here.

 

Everything You Need to Know About DC III ePortfolios

An article originally written for the CUSP quarterly newsletter, by Learning Technologies’ Ian Porter

Starting this quarter, students in CUSP Discovery Core III classes will design ePortfolios using Google Sites as the platform. The main purpose of these ePortfolios is to enable students to collect their curricular and extracurricular work from their first year at UW Bothell and, in a 4 to 5 page reflective essay, draw connections between these sometimes disparate activities in order to find coherence in their development as students and citizens.

Okay, but what does this really mean? Brass tacks: what do students need to know about the CUSP ePortfolio to get started?

Why an ePortfolio?

The CUSP ePortfolio is a “process portfolio,” which means that it should document the learning process of the student. For example, if a student wrote three drafts for a paper in her Discovery Core I class, she should include all of the drafts in the portfolio. From correcting simple grammatical mistakes to showing increased depth of thought in the paper revision process, these pieces of evidence help the student accomplish the goal of the CUSP ePortfolio, which is to show and reflect on her growth and development as a scholar and citizen.

While collecting the artifacts is important, the key part of the ePortfolio is the reflection process. Students must show proof of growth by linking from their reflective essay to the learning artifacts that show evidence of their development. Since these artifacts will be housed in their Google Sites, the students can draw connections conceptually and technically (using HTML hyperlinks) among their artifacts and reflection.

Supporting Students and Instructors

If this is starting to feel a little overwhelming, don’t worry. We are planning workshops for all of the students and instructors, which will take place in the DC III class. In addition, we are continuing to build great Web resources on how to use Google Sites and how to design an ePortfolio. For more information, go to the CUSP ePortfolio Model Site: https://sites.google.com/a/uw.edu/cusp-eportfolio-model-site/?pli=1 and click on “Student Resources” in the navigation bar.

Thinking Critically

In the end, the ePortfolio is simply a technology for critical thinking. Student learning is paramount in this process ‐ that is, learning about oneself, one’s own personal and professional goals, and one’s world(s). So, students should think as deeply and as broadly as possible. Ask questions like, “How did that paper I wrote last autumn change how I think about my personal goals or my beliefs about some aspect of my world? How did that video I created for a class project help me understand the CUSP Learning Goal “Critical and Creative Inquiry”? How have my academic goals changed during my first year at UW Bothell based on experiences I had as a volunteer?” If students think about and answer questions like these during the course of building their ePortfolio, then they will have accomplished the learning outcomes of the ePortfolio project. What’s more, those critical thinking skills remain vitally important throughout the remainder of a student’s personal and professional life.

Future Uses of the ePortfolio

And, if all of that doesn’t tickle your fancy, then remember the pragmatic considerations: for example, programs like Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, among others, also require ePortfolios. In addition, in the future, you might want to design a presentation portfolio of your work when you enter your profession. Taking the time now to collect your work and make your ePortfolio interesting and compelling will give you a leg up on future portfolio projects.

University of Washington: ARTStor now available

The ARTStor image database is now available through the UW Libraries. ARTstor is a digital library of nearly one million images in the areas of art, architecture, the humanities, and social sciences with a set of tools to view, present, and manage images for research and pedagogical purposes.

ARTStor is available at http://www.artstor.org, or can be accessed at http://www.artstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/index.shtml from off-campus (you must log in with your UWNet ID). ARTStor can also be found on the Libraries’ Image Collections page at http://www.lib.washington.edu/types/images/, and in the UW WorldCat and Libraries catalogs.

ARTStor images can be downloaded for use in PowerPoint or other presentation tools, or images can be used within ARTStor’s OIV image presentation tool. ARTStor offers excellent online help documents through their web site at http://help.artstor.org/wiki/index.php/Welcome_to_ARTstor_Help , including live email and phone support, video demonstrations, and printable help documents. You can also contact Jackie Belanger (jbelanger@uwb.edu), Reference & Instruction / Arts & Humanities Librarian, or Denise Hattwig (dhattwig@uwb.edu), Curator, Visual Resources, in the Campus Library with questions about ARTStor.

If you would like to receive updates about ARTStor features and content, and information about training opportunities and other support offered by the Libraries, please email dhattwig@u.washington.edu with “ARTStor update emails” in the header. You will be added to an ARTStor information email list.

2008 Surveys on Learning Technologies at UW

2008 Surveys on Learning and Scholarly Technologies: Final Report
Catalyst / University of Washington

RESOURCES

2008 Surveys on Learning and Scholarly Technologies: Final Report
2008 Survey on Learning and Scholarly Technologies: Faculty
2008 Survey on Learning and Scholarly Technologies: Teaching Assistants
2008 Survey on Learning and Scholarly Technologies: Students
2008 Survey Data Summary: Faculty
2008 Survey Data Summary: Teaching Assistants
2008 Survey Data Summary: Students

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In order for the University of Washington (UW) to provide essential technology resources and services that meet the changing needs of the UW community, it is vital to gather reliable information about evolving trends. To this end Learning & Scholarly Technologies partnered with other UW Technology units, UW Libraries, UW Teaching Academy, the Office of Information Management, the Faculty Council on Educational Technology, the School of Medicine, and the Office of Educational Assessment (OEA) to survey faculty, teaching assistants (TAs), and students in spring 2008 about their technology use and needs. This is our third triennial survey on this topic.

The data we share in this report reveal the complexities of technology and support needs at the UW, going beyond the personal anecdotes which can often dominate technology discussions. This report will be valuable to anyone who wishes to increase their understanding of technology use and users’ needs. We summarize key findings below.

  • Uniformity of Current Technology Use – We specifically designed the survey to help us capture differences in technology use. We found that technology use was much more uniform than we had anticipated: a few technologies were widely used across contexts and goals, while others were seldom used.
  • The Need for Infrastructure Improvements – The highest priorities for faculty, TAs, and students involved infrastructure. Improvements to classroom equipment and wireless access were at the top of the list for all populations. Students also prioritized enhancements to campus computer labs.
  • Point-of-Need Support – Faculty, TAs, and students all relied on sources of support that were available at the point of need. They first looked to knowledgeable peers for support then to online resources. These sources of support were among the most consistently used by all respondents and the sources rated as the most helpful.
  • Integrated and Flexible Online Technology – Faculty and TAs desired greater integration of online tools and aggregation of information about available tools and resources. Technologies supported centrally at the UW need to integrate easily with each other, as well as with other online tools or department-created solutions—since there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to meeting faculty, TAs, and students’ technology needs.
  • Unique Needs of Faculty, TAs, and Students – There were specific areas where faculty, TAs, and students had unique needs and support challenges. The main challenge going forward in supporting faculty in their use of learning and scholarly technologies is how to help them better understand their options and opportunities with the technologies available to them. For TAs, it is important to support them while they are at the UW, while simultaneously helping them develop technological knowledge that can transfer to other settings. The main challenge in student support involves understanding how they are using technologies, particularly emerging ones, to support their learning.

The data we share in the final report both confirm and challenge conventional beliefs about technology use. Our discussion reveals the complexities of technology and support needs at the UW, going beyond the personal anecdotes which can often dominate technology discussions. We briefly outline the history of the surveys, describe our methods, share key findings, and discuss the implications of this data for the UW. We not only compare faculty, TA, and students’ responses across all three surveys, but also explore differences in technology use based on discipline, technological expertise, demographics, and experience. In our conclusion, we identify unmet needs, highlight trends in the data that go against conventional wisdom, and point out needs for centralized or departmental services. This report will be valuable to anyone who wishes to increase their understanding of technology use and users’ needs.

Link: http://catalyst.washington.edu/research_development/research_projects/LSTsurvey.html