Concordia University | Page 2

Concordia University

Top 10 things a library does for you

I brainstormed this a while ago about the Concordia University Libraries when tkinking about presenting the library. Maybe it is useful?

** Top 10 awsome things your library does for you **
1. We buy all your textbooks and required readings (Reserve Room)
2. Computers, laptops, tablets, print, scan and internet
3. Open 24hrs, 7 days a week
4. 15 group study rooms
5. 5 million dollars – that’s how much we spend every year on stuff
6. Get stuff from us, but also any Library in Canada and the world (Colombo/Crepuq Card)
7. Forget Google & Wikipedia, we’ll teach you how to search for real
8. Use RefWorks and avoid plagarism
9. Talk to a person – our staff cares and will help you
10. Get all this FOR FREE !

Concordia University Critical Thinking Gamification Information literacy

Experiential Learning and the InterPLAY Model from prof. Hirumi

Prof Hirumi I learned so much from the e.SCAPE conference at Concordia – but professor Hirumi inspired me to look into grounding the curriculum I am developing for business information literacy in proven theories.

Professor wrote a book in 2010 on this model:

Call Number LB 1029 S53P53 2010
Title Playing games in school : video games and simulations for primary and secondary classroom instruction / edited by Atsusi “2c” Hirumi
Edition 1st ed
Publisher Eugene, Ore : International Society for Technology in Education, c2010

He also wrote a book chapter in 2006:
Atsusi Hirumi — Designing interaction as a dialogue game : linking social and conceptual dimensions of the learning process
Call Number LB 1044.87 I548 2006
Title Interactions in online education : implications for theory and practice / edited by Charles Juwah
Publisher London ; New York : Routledge, 2006
Prof. Hirumi’s chapter in this book is available here.

In addition, prof. Hirumi offered some great summaries of contemporary proven learning theories For example, see this 30 page summary I found on a conference website (title: Grounding e-Learning Interactions to facilitate Critical Thinking
& Problem Solving)
.

During the conference, he presented his InterPLAY model, as seen here from a few of his slides:

20130409-155748.jpg

He also presents it as such in the pdf document linked above (title: Grounding e-Learning Interactions to facilitate Critical Thinking
& Problem Solving )
. On page 19, he describes it as such:

Interplay Strategy
(Stapleton & Hirumi, 2011; Hirumi, Atkinson, & Stapleton, 2011)
Based on the belief that the learning of facts, concepts and principles occurs best in context of how they will be used, the Interplay strategy evokes emotions and sparks imagination, based on cognitive neuroscience research, to enhance experiential learning theories by addressing three primary conventions of interactive entertainment and their related elements (i.e., Story – characters, events, worlds; Game – rules, tools, goals; Play – stimulus, response, consequences).
1. Expose – Exposure provides the back-story to entice empathy for the character or player, and orients the audience into the same reference point or point of view. Exposure sets up specified learning objectives in a meaningful way to invite the student to contribute, to engage and to achieve the challenges set before them.
2. Inquire – Inquiry validates Exposure. If exposure sets a desire to learn, then inquiry is automatic. Inquire provides a response to student’s curiosity with something to do that showcases different elements that will be used later.
3. Discover –Discovery provides the personal reward, achievement, and the “ah ha” moment. The consequences of discovery, whether negative or positive, provide feedback to inspire further exploration to the next level of achievement.
4. Create – Transforms the experience from being merely reactive to truly interactive. Instead of responding to cues, the learner contributes to the content by applying the elements of the subject matter in novel ways.
5. Experiment – Provides an opportunity to assess learning and provide feedback without losing or winning. The goal is less about the hypothesis being right or wrong, but rather setting up the elements of the subject matter so that new knowledge can be gained. Failure should be fun.
6. Share – The sharing of personal experiences and feelings is facilitated at the end of the lesson or unit, to seal the memory of the learning experience. Sharing compels learners to put lessons learned in their own perspective as well as others.

He presented the context of the InterPLAY model as such:

20130409-155807.jpg

Bibliography
In addition to the books references above, here are some works prof. Hirumy contributed to:
Crippen, K. J., Archambault, L., & Kern, C. (in press). Using Scaffolded Vee Diagrams to Enact Inquiry-Based Learning. In A. Hirumi (Ed.). Grounded Designs for Online and Hybrid Learning: Practical Guidelines for Educators and Instructional Designers. Eugene, WA: International Society for Technology in Education.

Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich, learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal for Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537.
Hirumi, A. (1998, March). The Systematic Design of Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments. Invited guest presentation given at the first Education Graduate Students and Academic Staff Regional Meeting, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Hirumi, A. (1996, February). Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning environments: A cognitive-constructivist approach. Concurrent session held at the Association for Educational Communication and Technology Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Hirumi, A. & Stapleton, C. (in press). Designing InterPLAY Learning Landscapes to Evoke Emotions, Spark the Imagination, and Foster Creative Problem Solving. In A. Hirumi (Ed.). Grounded Designs for Online and Hybrid Learning: Practical Guidelines for Educators and Instructional Designers. Eugene, WA: International Society for Technology in Education.
Hirumi, A., Atkinson, T., Stapleton, C. (2011). Interplay: Evoking Emotions andSparking Imagination through Story, Play and Game. Concurrent Session presented the annual Association for Educational Communication and Technology conference, Jacksonville, FL. Nov. 8-12.
Stapleton, C. & Hirumi, A. (2011). Interplay instructional strategy: Learning by engaging interactive entertainment conventions. In M. Shaughnessy & S. Fulgham (eds). Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching (pp. 183-211). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Concordia University Information literacy Open access Outfind.ca

e.SCAPE Conference

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8so2aBH7uEI&w=640&h=360]
I gave a talk at the e.Scape conference at Concordia University on the topic of :
The unexpected journey from a 60 minute lecture to a MOOC: a librarian’s mid-way report
Here is the description:

Information Literacy can be understood as the curriculum Librarians must curate without a classroom. Traditionally, this has meant organising library services as well as in-class lectures to advise students on research skills and strategies. But two factors have moved me to explore a new approach. Firstly, the Internet and open education offer incredible opportunities to disseminate knowledge and collaborate with colleagues worldwide. Secondly, as one of the Business Librarians working closely with the John Molson School of Business, my community is broad and their needs are as deep as their passion for their field. In order to meet this challenge, I’ve implemented a series of training videos in order to test a new curriculum deployment strategy.

Learning objectives for the session
Determine the resource implications of designing a MOOC, in terms of effort (time), technology and skill
Evaluate the relevance of the MOOC model for one’s teaching

I briefly discuss MOOCs. More on MOOCs here (this is the video I show in my lecture):
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc&w=560&h=315]
I position MOOCs as the extreme end of the elearning continuum – both in terms of structure and pace. I may never achieve this end-game in my development of curriculum and learning objects. In fact, I realistically envision that I will develop a series of learning objects that will be embedded in various courses throughout the undergraduate experience at the John Molson School of Business. Taken as a whole, these learning objects may constitute enough content to be called a MOOC or an online class. But for now, I am focussing on developing my curriculum and building meaningful learning objects from that.

Concordia University Information literacy Lectures and conferences Open education

Talking at the e.Scape conference today

I will be giving my talk shortly this morning at the e.Scape conference at Concordia University on the topic of :
The unexpected journey from a 60 minute lecture to a MOOC: a librarian’s mid-way report
I’ll be talking about how my use of technology has changes my professional practice.
I’ll briefly discuss MOOCs also, positioning them as the extreme end of the elearning continuum – both in terms of structure and pace. More on MOOCs here:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc&w=560&h=315]
Mostly, I’ll discuss my training videos as well as the development of a business information literacy curriculum as part of my employment, most of which are in various stages as pilot projects or drafts.

Concordia University Lectures and conferences

Open Access debate tomorrow

Access to knowledge SCPA event 2013-03-12 Here is the poster for a debate I am participating in tomorrow from 6PM to 8PM at Concordia University’s Bronfman Center:

Concordia University
School of Community and Public Affairs
Concordia to Hold Panel Discussion on Open Access to Intellectual Property and Collective Rights Management in Canada

MONTREAL, March 12th, 2013, 18h00-20h00. The School of Community and Public Affairs, Concordia University, will host a panel discussion on open access to intellectual property and collective rights issues. With the recent passing of Bill C-11 by the Federal government and various proposed bills in the United States that enhance copyright law, this topic has garnered much attention in recent years. Advocates for limited copyright restrictions believe that easier access benefits education and research, while opponents argue that without clear and concrete regulation, this will result in a significant loss of revenue for creators and publishers. The event will feature five panelists from both sides of the spectrum. This discussion will take place on Tuesday, March 12, 2013, from 6:00-8:00 p.m. at Concordia University’s Samuel Bronfman building, located at 1590 Dr. Penfield. A small reception will follow the discussion.

Concordia’s School of Community and Public Affairs is one that has implanted itself deeply into the Montreal community and for decades has been at the forefront of public affairs, community concerns, policy evaluation, and has presented an environment for discussion, debate, and discourse on all related matters. The School is sending an open invitation to all students and faculty from the Concordia community and neighboring universities, as well as the general public and all media to take part in this event and to contribute to the discussion in order to educate and inform the public about the current debate.

Panelists for this event include; MP Charmaine Borg, NDP Digital Affairs Critic; Dr. David Lametti, professor and researcher for McGill University’s Centre for Intellectual Property Policy; Mr. Olivier Charbonneau, librarian for Concordia University; Me. Frédérique Couette, Legal Counsel for Copibec; and Mr. Philip Cercone, Executive Director of McGill-Queen’s University Press. Moderator: Me. Jonathan Levinson, Executive Director Institutional Planning and Analysis, Concordia University.

There is no admission fee, but places are limited.

The Facebook page of this event contains additional information.

Concordia University Lectures and conferences

My presentation for the e-Scape

Here is my proposed lecture for the e-Scape Conference at Concordia University:

1. Presentation Title:
The unexpected journey from a 60 minute lecture to a MOOC: a librarian’s mid-way report

2. A 100-word description of the session
Information Literacy can be understood as the curriculum Librarians must curate without a classroom. Traditionally, this has meant organising library services as well as in-class lectures to advise students on research skills and strategies. But two factors have moved me to explore a new approach. Firstly, the Internet and open education offer incredible opportunities to disseminate knowledge and collaborate with colleagues worldwide. Secondly, as one of the Business Librarians working closely with the John Molson School of Business, my community is broad and their needs are as deep as their passion for their field. In order to meet this challenge, I’ve implemented a series of training videos in order to test a new curriculum deployment strategy.

3. One to three learning objectives for the session
Determine the resource implications of designing a MOOC, in terms of effort (time), technology and skill
Evaluate the relevance of the MOOC model for one’s teaching

4. A bio about you, between 75 and 100 words
As an Associate Librarian at Concordia University, Olivier Charbonneau is primarily interested in copyright issues as well as questions of open access and social media (Web 2.0). He is a doctoral student at the Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal. He has over 15 years of professional involvement in library and cultural communities. He holds two masters degrees from Université de Montréal, one in information sciences and another in law, as well as an undergraduate degree in commerce from McGill University. He has kept a research blog since 2005 in French at www.culturelibre.ca and a work blog since 2011 in English at OutFind.ca.

Concordia University Information Technology Read Me

So… how do students and profs use technology anyway?

Last May, CRÉPUQ published the results of a study on the attitudes of university students and professors towards technology. The association of Quebec university presidents sponsored the study, which sought to obtain statistically valid information on a broad sample.

University Affairs, a trade publication, interviewed Concordia University’s own Vivek Venkatesh last November and this January about the study, in which he was involved as a researcher. For example, he mentions that:

Our study was not designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of any one (or set of) instructional technique(s) over others. We set out to – and have succeeded in creating – robust, generalizable and predictive models of factors that impact attitudes towards university course effectiveness. Prior research (for example, Wright and Jenkins-Guarnieri, 2012) has analyzed the findings of 11 meta-analyses (193 studies) on student evaluations of teaching, or SETs, with a specific focus on their construct validity, susceptibility to bias, practical use and effective implementation. Their research provides support for the use of SET measures in evaluating instructor skill and teaching effectiveness.

We strongly believe that with a large enough representative sample and a probabilistic sampling strategy, which we have used in our study, gathering students’ perceptions on course effectiveness is a valid measure because it can reflect the reality of what is happening in the classroom – or, dare we say, what should be happening in the classroom. There have been various comments, both as a response to the UA article, as well as in the larger web sphere regarding the generalizability of our results due to a purportedly biased sample and the fact that our research was designed to reach specific conclusions. These assertions are simply untrue and bear very little logic.

You can also listen to a full interview of Vivek Venkatesh on CBC’s Spark.

A further paper will be submitted to the Journal Computers & Education.

Blended Learning Concordia University Information literacy

Thoughts on a university library’s role in blended learning

We had a very interesting meeting today with Concordia’s Center for Teaching & Learning. The goal of the presentation was to explore partnership ideas, but we also discussed how the Library could contribute to a blended learning initiative at our institution.

Here are some thoughts about the blended learning environment (I purposefully use the environment paradigm, which I borrow from systems theory as posited by Luhmann)

Firstly, the main point brought was the idea of a “learning object” – a concept that we did not quite hammer out. I would offer this personal definition : a learning object is a type of document that presents information or knowledge to enable a learner to achieve a specific outcome. A learning object may (recursively) contain one or many other learning objects. Templates are useful tools to present this information or knowledge in a structured way. A learning object repository is a collection of curated learning objects, with associated metadata.

Secound, I would like to point out that there are many agents in this environment : the learners (obviously), the instructor or their assistant, the content owners and the system administrators. Each one of them has a role to play in the conception, organisation and provision of learning objects to learners.

Of course, the goal would be to identify all the learning objects and all the agents that are relevant in this environment. It may be easier to start with all the distinct templates of learning objects (as there may be too many learning objects).

Which now brings me to this conceptual model:
Collaborative Document Management Framework

I devised this model during the course of my graduate degree in law (I’ve explained it on this blog post) and I’ve presented it at an IFLA Pre-Conference.

Now, this model tries to map out the Web 2.0 environment – I will make the claim that “blended learning” is functionally equivalent to Web 2.0 on a conceptual level (sorry for not prouving this point thoroughly – more on that later perhaps).

It is defined as 2 elements, documents and agents, interacting through 4 generic relationships: linking (document-document); conversations or intermediations (agent-agent); using (document-agent); and contributing (agent-document). This is meaningful in a discussion of a library’s role in a blended learning environment as is helps define exactly where it may be useful.

Specifically, I find that the priority is to identify areas where librarians may be contributing content – creating learning objects, followed closely to linking these learning objects to form paths through the knowledge base. Finally, librarians may play a role in the conversations that may happen in the environment between the various agents (focussing, as a priority, with the conversations that happen with the gatekeepers of knowledge: instructors and their assistants).

Of course, this is an off the cuff exploration of a complex topic, where I pin some broad concepts on a simplification of the real world. But it makes sense ! Please feel free to share comments or questions below…

Special thanks to Pamela Carson and Vince Graziano, two colleagues from Concordia University Libraries, for our very interesting conversation that was instrumental in organizing this post.