|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-01-07 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Notetaking; Reading Writing Relationship; Communication (Thought Transfer); Information Dissemination; Documentation; Technological Advancement; Information Technology; Electronic Publishing; Access to Information; Information Management; Educational History; Educational Psychology; Conferences (Gatherings)
Abstract:
Considering how much attention people lavish on the technologies of writing--scroll, codex, print, screen--it's striking how little they pay to the technologies for digesting and regurgitating it. One way or another, there's no sector of the modern world that is not saturated with note-taking--the bureaucracy, the liberal professions, the sciences, the modern firm, and especially the academy, whose residents, transient and permanent, have more right than anyone else to claim that taking notes is what they do. Taken, made, jotted, foot, or head: Notes are necessary interventions between the things people read and the things they write. (Contains 6 endnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Educational Technology; Feedback (Response); Media Selection; Technology Integration; Interviews; Focus Groups; Internet; Computer Software; Computers; Users (Information); Information Technology; Information Management; Delivery Systems; Information Storage; Evaluation; Usability
Abstract:
The importance of adopting technology-supported performance systems for on-the-job learning and training is well-recognized in a networked economy. In this study, we present a performance support system (PSS) designed to support technology integration for lesson design. The goal is to support educators in the development of appropriate and effective technology integration strategies for learning and training events. The system is based on the PSS design architecture created by Hung and Chao (2007) called Matrix-Aided Performance System (MAPS). MAPS was created to minimize navigational confusion and enhance users' comprehension and synthesis of information gathered from the PSS. Fifteen educators and instructional technologists were invited to evaluate the system's readiness as well as to identify potential practical constraints that might hinder its use in a real-world setting. Findings from a perception survey and focus group interviews confirm the beneficial effects of the unified interface on navigation and orientation of content materials. Feedback provided by participants to improve the system interaction and functionality are also reported to further validate the design architecture of MAPS. (Contains 2 tables and 3 figures.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Waters, John K. |
Source: |
Campus Technology, v26 n3 p21-25 Nov 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-11-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Higher Education; Educational Change; Data; Data Processing; Information Management; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Consortia; Best Practices; Information Utilization
Abstract:
In the case of higher education, the hills are more like mountains of data that "we're accumulating at a ferocious rate," according to Gerry McCartney, CIO of Purdue University (Indiana). "Every higher education institution has this data, but it just sits there like gold in the ground," complains McCartney. Big Data and the new tools people are seeing now are about mining that gold. It is about extracting real value from the data. While the quest to extract this value may not resemble the original 49er gold rush yet, many institutions have at last decided to stake a claim. Some are evaluating third-party Big Data systems; others are testing new environments for cross-institutional predictive analytics; and a few are developing their own in-house tools. In this second installment of a two-part series, the author examines how pioneering schools--either alone or in consortia--are mining Big Data in hopes of uncovering the ultimate riches: improved student learning and performance. [For the first installment of this series, see EJ991738.]
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Waters, John K. |
Source: |
Campus Technology, v26 n2 p11-16 Oct 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-10-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Electronic Publishing; Data; Information Utilization; Information Management; Information Processing; Database Management Systems; Human Factors Engineering; Technology Planning; Information Theory; Influence of Technology
Abstract:
Colleges and universities are swimming in an ever-widening sea of data. Human beings and machines together generate about 2.5 "quintillion" (10[superscript 18]) bytes every day, according to IBM's latest estimate. The sources of all that data are dizzyingly diverse: e-mail, blogs, click streams, security cameras, weather sensors, social networks, academic research, and student portfolios, to name just a few. And it's all coming at warp speed: Google alone reportedly processes 24 petabytes (that's a "quadrillion"--10[superscript 15]--bytes) every day. The industry buzz phrase for this phenomenon is "Big Data," which loosely refers to data sets too large and/or diverse for conventional tools to manage and mine efficiently. For colleges and universities, Big Data presents a challenge that will only get...well..."bigger". But approached with the right tools and strategies, Big Data also offers an incredibly rich resource for improving retention rates, fine-tuning curricula, and supporting students, faculty, and administration in myriad ways. This article, the first installment of a two-part series, explains Big Data and its potential for improving student learning and success.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Factor Analysis; Information Management; Expertise; Factor Structure; Pilot Projects; National Surveys; Student Evaluation; Educational Assessment; Evaluation Criteria; Measurement; Educational Indicators; Performance Based Assessment; Cognitive Processes; Sociocultural Patterns; Affective Behavior; Measures (Individuals); Generational Differences; Influence of Technology; Information Technology; Test Construction; Rating Scales; High School Students; Statistical Analysis; Knowledge Economy
Abstract:
Educational performance based on the learning outcomes of formal schooling in a future knowledge society could be significantly different from that of today. This study investigates the possibilities of developing an educational performance indicator for new-millennium learners (NMLs). The researchers conducted literature reviews, a meeting of experts, pilot studies, and a nationwide survey to define and refine a concept of educational performance required by a knowledge society. The study identified cognitive, affective, and sociocultural domains as core constructs of the indicator. We conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to validate the indicator. We have identified three domains with four factors in each have to measure the educational performance of NMLs. Information management, knowledge construction, knowledge utilization, and problem-solving abilities are four factors in the cognitive domain. The affective domain consists of self-identity, self-value, self-directedness, and self-accountability factors. Finally, the sociocultural domain includes social membership, social receptivity, socialization, and social fulfillment factors. (Contains 12 tables.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Copyrights; Information Management; Academic Libraries; Library Services; Electronic Libraries; Library Science; Questionnaires; Surveys; Ownership; Intellectual Property; Higher Education
Abstract:
This paper presents a policy decision tree for digital information management in academic libraries. The decision tree is a policy guide, which offers alternative access and reproduction policy solutions according to the prevailing circumstances (for example acquisition method, copyright ownership). It refers to the digital information life cycle, focusing mostly on its creation (digitized or born-digital), acquisition, copyright and availability. The resulting decision tree is based on a policy model, which was initially divided into two branches--one for digitized and one for born-digital information. The decision tree simplifies and unifies commonly adopted rules which were identified through a questionnaire survey on the access and reproduction policies of 67 digital collections in 34 multidisciplinary libraries (national, academic, public, special, etc.) from 13 countries. The results of the decision tree are used to propose alternative policies. (Contains 15 notes and 2 tables.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|