Skip to main content

Home/ Education & Policy/ Group items tagged accessibility

Rss Feed Group items tagged

George Bradford

Accessibility and Video Captions According to Google and YouTube - 0 views

  •  
    "Why Google Captions Video Google's mission is to make all information universally accessible. Ellis and his team have embraced this directive by attempting to remove barriers to video captioning. Whether using captions to assist those with hearing disabilities, or because translated captions help international audiences, video accessibility is a priority to YouTube from the top down. Building Accessibility into YouTube YouTube has more than 1 billion unique visitors each month. So how does YouTube approach captioning on such a mind-numbingly large scale? "The captions team at YouTube doesn't actually go in and type in captions for anything. But we build a platform that allows anybody to upload captions in 20-plus different formats and then display those captions on all YouTube players," says Ellis. "We also build tools for people who are creating captions for their content on their own to easily and quickly create captions for their videos. Our goal is simply to make every video understandable to every user. A very long-term goal, but that's what we're aspiring to.""
George Bradford

Technology-Enhanced Learning in Developing Nations: A review | Gulati | The Internation... - 0 views

  •  
    Abstract Learning 'using' technologies has become a global phenomenon. The Internet is often seen as a value-neutral tool that potentially allows individuals to overcome the constraints of traditional elitist spaces and gain unhindered access to learning. It is widely suggested that online technologies can help address issues of educational equity and social exclusion, and open up democratic and accessible educational opportunities. The national governments and non-governmental agencies who fund educational endeavours in developing countries have advocated the use of new technologies to reduce the cost of reaching and educating large numbers of children and adults who are currently missing out on education. This paper presents an overview of the educational developments in open, distance, and technology-facilitated learning that aim to reach the educationally deprived populations of the world. It reveals the challenges encountered by children and adults in developing countries as they attempt to access available educational opportunities. The discussion questions whether, in face of these challenges, developing nations should continue to invest money, time, and effort into e-learning developments. Can technology-enhanced learning help address the poverty, literacy, social, and political problems in developing countries?
George Bradford

Copyright vs. Accessibility: Captioning Videos You Don't Own - 0 views

  •  
    "We recently hosted a webinar exploring copyright and fair use of captioning third-party educational video. The event featured legal expert Blake Reid, Assistant Clinical Professor in Technology Policy and Telecom Law at Colorado Law. Blake has worked on captioning regulations with deaf and hard of hearing interest groups and the FCC, earning a reputation for expertise in copyright law. Copyright and captioning are a major concern for educators. A poll of webinar participants revealed that, while only about a quarter of respondents encountered copyright issues with their captioned video, over half worried that they would run into trouble down the road."
George Bradford

Quality Framework - OLC - 0 views

  •  
    "BECAUSE QUALITY AND EXCELLENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING MATTER The drive behind the Online Learning Consortium In 1997, Frank Mayadas, President of the Online Learning Consortium (renamed OLC), affirmed that any learner who engages in online education should have, at a minimum, an education that represents the quality of the provider's overall institutional quality. Any institution, he maintained, demonstrates its quality in five inter-related areas - learning effectiveness, access, scale (capacity enrollment achieved through cost-effectiveness and institutional commitment), faculty satisfaction, and student satisfaction. These five have become OLC's Five Pillars of Quality Online Education, the building blocks which provide the support for successful online learning. The intent of the quality framework, which is always a work in progress, is to help institutions identify goals and measure progress towards them"
George Bradford

Early Computing's 'Deal With the Devil' - Technology - The Chronicle of Higher Education - 0 views

  •  
    July 9, 2012 Early Computing's 'Deal With the Devil' Victoria StoddenGeorge Dyson, son of the physicist Freeman Dyson and author of Turing's Cathedral, grew up playing with discarded bits of early computers at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study.Enlarge Image By Marc Parry In 1936, the British logician Alan Turing imagined a universal computing machine. In the wake of World War II, at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, a team of mathematicians and engineers built one. The machine stood roughly the size of four refrigerators. People called it Maniac, for Mathematical and Numerical Integrator and Computer. At its heart was "a 32-by-32-by-40 bit matrix of high-speed, random-access memory-the nucleus of all things digital ever since," writes George Dyson in a new book, Turing's Cathedral (Pantheon Books). How that computer came to be, he says, is the story of "a deal with the devil." Mathematicians built a machine that helped create the hydrogen bomb. In exchange, they got a new breed of computer that enabled incredible scientific progress.
George Bradford

Faculty Development Programming: If We Build It, Will They Come? (EDUCAUSE Quarterly) |... - 0 views

  • Designers of faculty development programs typically rely on commonly held assumptions about what faculty need to know—a constant guessing game regarding what topics to cover and what training formats to use. The resulting seminars, workshops, training materials, and other resources are typically hit-or-miss in terms of faculty participation and acceptance.
    • George Bradford
       
      This is a statement without warrants - Carol should know better.
  • Research Question 1: With which aspects of teaching online do faculty need assistance?
  • With regard to designing and developing online courses, faculty were most interested in the following topics: Choosing appropriate technologies to enhance their online course (55.9 percent). Converting course materials for online use (35.3 percent). Creating effective online assessment instruments (35.3 percent). Creating video clips (33.8 percent). Determining ways to assess student progress in an online course (33.8 percent). Course delivery topics that held the most interest included: Facilitating online discussion forums (47.1 percent). Building and enhancing professor-student relationships in the online classroom (39.7 percent). Facilitating web conferencing sessions (35.3 percent). Increasing interactions in an online course (35.3 percent). Managing online teaching workloads (33.8 percent). Providing meaningful feedback on assignments (32.4 percent).
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • High-quality interaction and being there for the students is the best way to combat the commonly held misconceptions that online education is impersonal and that online instructors are unplugged from their students.
  • Research Question 2: What format do online faculty prefer for professional development experiences?
  • The format most faculty preferred was informal or self-paced learning. Self-paced materials were requested most often (42.6 percent), followed by informal face-to-face events (41.2 percent) and informal online events (33.8 percent). Requests for formal face-to-face training programs (30.9 percent) and online programs (29.4 percent) lagged behind the other formats. In addition, faculty indicated that the most helpful aspects of professional development events related to teaching online included opportunities to share real-life experiences with their colleagues, to use various technologies including the university's course management system, and to access specific examples and strategies.
  • Research Question 3: Do online faculty prefer certain lengths of professional development experiences?
  • The optimal length of time faculty are willing to spend in professional development for online teaching ranges between a series of short (less than one day) workshops over several weeks (preferred by 20.6 percent) to a single one-day workshop (19.1 percent) and self-paced materials that can be used on an as-needed basis (16.2 percent). When faculty were asked when they would prefer to participate in a professional development experience, they gave a similar range of responses to interest in attendance during the summer semester (preferred by 38.2 percent), the fall semester (33.8 percent), and the spring semester (33.8 percent). The break before the summer semester was also a popular choice (30.9 percent), while the responses for all other breaks between or during semesters ranged between 11.8 percent and 16.2 percent.
  • Research Question 4: What barriers inhibit faculty from participating in professional development experiences related to teaching online?
  • The barrier to participation in faculty development for online teaching cited most often was limited time to participate (61.8 percent). Another barrier was a lack of recognition toward promotion and tenure (26.5 percent). Other barriers to participation included a lack of incentive or reward (20.4 percent), a lack of awareness about professional development opportunities related to teaching online (18.4 percent), and little or no access to these opportunities (12.2 percent).
  • Research Question 5: What incentives do faculty wish to receive in return for participating in professional development experiences related to teaching online?
  • no single incentive captured a majority's interest.
  • Faculty require flexibility to fit professional development into already busy schedules. Of faculty surveyed, 86 percent reported having limited time, which precludes them from participating in some professional development experiences. They are concerned about the time it takes to design, develop, and manage online courses. They are also guarded about the time required to develop their abilities to complete those tasks more effectively.
  • Faculty responses indicate a desire for informal learning opportunities, flexible scheduling, short sessions, and one-on-one support for anytime, anywhere professional development.
    • George Bradford
       
      Again, unsubstantiated statement (ie without warrants): no argument is made that supports how the responses "indicate" these development venues.
  •  
    Faculty Development Programming: If We Build It, Will They Come? © 2008 Ann Taylor and Carol McQuiggan. The text of this article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3 (July-September 2008) A faculty development survey analyzed what faculty want and need to be successful teaching online By Ann Taylor and Carol McQuiggan The number of courses offered online grows every year, resulting in an increasing number of higher education faculty entering a virtual classroom for the first time.1 It has been well documented that faculty need training and assistance to make the transition from teaching in a traditional face-to-face classroom to teaching online.2 Faculty professional development related to teaching online varies widely, from suggested readings to mandated training programs. Various combinations of technological and pedagogical skills are needed for faculty to become successful online educators, and lists of recommended competencies abound.
George Bradford

http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCDraftAccessibilityFeaturesandAccommod... - 0 views

  •  
    DRAFT PARCC ACCESSIBILITY FEATURES AND ACCOMMODATIONS MANUAL Guidance for Districts and Decision-Making Teams to Ensure that PARCC MidYear, End-of-Year, and Performance-Based Assessments Produce Valid Results for All Students  FIRST EDITION Produced by: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) Pre-decisional. Updated June 19, 2013
George Bradford

Quality Framework narrative, the 5 pillars | The Sloan Consortium - 0 views

  •  
    "Quality Framework narrative, the 5 pillars In 1997, Frank Mayadas, President of Sloan-C, affirmed that any learner who engages in online education should have, at a minimum, an education that represents the quality of the provider's overall institutional quality. Any institution, he maintained, demonstrates its quality in five inter-related areas - learning effectiveness, access, scale (capacity enrollment achieved through cost-effectiveness and institutional commitment), faculty satisfaction, and student satisfaction. These five have become Sloan-C's Five Pillars of Quality Online Education, the building blocks which provide the support for successful online learning. The intent of the quality framework, which is always a work in progress, is to help institutions identify goals and measure progress towards them."
George Bradford

Moving Teaching and Learning with Technology (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE CONNECT - 0 views

  •  
    Information technology has been an important part of higher education since the development of the lantern slide in the mid-1800s. However, occasions in which the academy has been transformed by technology are rare. Viewed in a historical perspective, these occasions can be considered as a series of three epochs: the online public-access catalog epoch; the personal computer, Internet, and web epoch; and the enterprise systems (ERP, CMS) epoch. Certainly, developments are continuing, but for most colleges and universities, these three epochs no longer represent technological frontiers. Looking forward, those of us in higher education are now focusing our attention on technology applications for teaching, learning, and research-or what can be viewed as the epochs of teaching and learning with technology, and cyberinfrastructure. In this commentary, I'll be confining my comments to teaching and learning.
George Bradford

Are Emails, Texts, Tweets, And Other Digital Communications Student Records Under FERPA... - 0 views

  •  
    "In a 2002 case, the United States Supreme Court suggested that Congress envisioned FERPA applying only to files kept in a central file by a records custodian designated by the school, not to every record that might be generated across the school district by which a student can be identified. In Owasso Independent School Dist. No. I-011 v. Falvo, the Supreme Court found that students' assignments are not educational records under FERPA. 534U.S. 426. In so doing, the Court clarified that not every record in a school concerning a student is an education record. The Court looked to a provision in FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(4)(A), which requires that a record of access be kept when a request for student records is made. That record must be kept "with the education records" of the student. The Court found that this suggested that Congress intended that education records would be kept in one place. Moreover, FERPA requires that a "school official" and "his assistants" are responsible for the custody of the records. The Court indicated that this implies that "education records are institutional records kept by a single central custodian, such as a registrar, not individual assignments handled by many student graders in their separate classrooms."  534U.S. at 434-435."
George Bradford

Q&A with authors of book arguing that learning is waning in higher ed | Inside High... - 0 views

  • the agenda focused on the quality of learning
  • Richard P. Keeling and Richard H. Hersh, longtime scholars and administrators
  • complain that institutions have overemphasized rankings and enrollment growth and sports and research
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Instead, they make the case that too little of what happens in institutions of "higher education" deserves to be called "higher learning" -- "learning that prepares students to think creatively and critically, communicate effectively, and excel in responding to the challenges of life, work and citizenship."
  • most have focused on the rising price of college tuition and the declining productivity of the U.S. "system" of higher ed. Yours zeroes in on whether students are learning enough. Why is that the most important issue in your eyes?
  • A. There’s no question that high costs are a problem. But low value is a bigger problem. No matter what the cost is, higher education is overpriced if it fails to deliver on its most basic promise: learning.
  • We are facing a national crisis in higher learning, or, rather, in the lack thereof. Improving efficiency and lowering costs are just not enough; we need to improve value. And we can only improve value by increasing the quality and quantity of learning in college.
  • A: We know from both research and experience that the greater the amount of time, effort, and feedback, the greater the amount of higher learning. Logically, then, we want more students to stay in and complete college, and we would agree that promoting retention and completion are appropriate and needed public policy. But just being in college and getting through, accumulating enough credits to get a degree, are not sufficient. Access, retention, and completion are not -- or, at least, should not be -- considered ends in themselves. We should not uncouple them from the primary purpose of college, which is higher learning. So we suggest focusing on learning, because in fact the more success we have in promoting significant learning, the greater will be retention and completion.
  • Faculty were educated to be masters of a discipline and producers of new knowledge. Few were required in their graduate programs to learn about learning and teaching, or to practice and improve their teaching skills.
  • So faculty are behaving exactly as they have been educated, acculturated, and reinforced to do. The culture of higher education generally does not elevate teaching, and its intended purpose, learning, to high priority.
  • In our consulting work we regularly encounter dedicated faculty members who are interested in students, focused on learning, motivated to improve their teaching, and struggling to balance those commitments with the demands of promotion and tenure. On most campuses, faculty and institutional culture provide counter-incentives to faculty who want to hold students to higher standards, raise their expectations for student effort and work, and provide abundant and timely feedback. As we argue in our book, what is then needed is a fundamental cultural change on most campuses and in the field of higher education. Faculty must both lead and be at the center of such change.
  • Our concern is about how implementing a three-year undergraduate curriculum and degree would affect the quality and quantity of learning. Maintaining current curriculums, pedagogy, and levels of student effort, but compacting undergraduate education into three versus four years, might increase certain efficiencies, but will not improve educational value.
  • We know that achieving the key desired outcomes of higher learning is a cumulative, collective process that takes time and demands integration and synthesis from the learner.
  • Students come to college inadequately prepared for college-level work as it is; even four years may not be adequate for many to learn enough.
  • If reduction of time to degree is implemented, it will be essential to determine how it affects the efficacy of higher learning.
  • Q. The undergraduate program you outline for producing a true culture of "higher learning" includes a lot of elements -- across-the-board first-year seminars, comprehensive exams, capstone courses/experiences -- that can be costly to institute as broadly as you recommend. How big an impediment are institutional finances to your agenda, especially in an era of diminishing (or at least flattening) resources?
  • A. Budgets express institutional priorities. As it is, too many budgets reflect priorities that have little to do with learning -- high-priced varsity athletic coaches and programs, expensive and elaborate facilities, and, often, reduced teaching loads to allow professors to spend less time with undergraduates and more time on research.
  • what we are proposing should not be seen as additions to a currently dysfunctional system, but as reallocations of resources toward learning. More is not necessarily better; better is more.
  • Still missing, though, are two things: first, operational definitions of these outcomes adapted to the missions, contexts, and student bodies of individual institutions, and second, ways of knowing such learning when we see it. These needs speak to the imperative for appropriate assessment of learning -- not necessarily done by common exams across all colleges and universities (although doing so would allow for some useful peer-campus benchmarking) but certainly by diligent, rigorous assessment practices that document what learning is taking place on each campus.
  • We think it is reasonable to expect that each institution assess students’ learning of commonly agreed learning goals and make public how such assessment is taking place and what the results are. Over time, we would learn which learning and assessment methods are most effective. Without serious assessment, the establishment of core learning outcomes will be futile and unproductive.
  •  
    With most critics of higher education focused on rising prices or on whether American colleges and universities are producing enough degree and certificate holders with sufficient skills to keep the U.S. economy vibrant and competitive -- the latter known in shorthand as the "completion agenda" -- a few analysts are homing in on the quality and rigor of what students are learning (or not) en route to those credentials. Last year's Academically Adrift set the tone, providing data suggesting that many colleges are imposing relatively minimal academic demands on their students and that, perhaps as a result, many students do not appear to gain in some measures of cognitive abilities as they move through college. The authors of We're Losing Our Minds (Palgrave MacMillan) add their own clamoring to the agenda focused on the quality of learning. Richard P. Keeling and Richard H. Hersh, longtime scholars and administrators, describe themselves as "friendly critics" of higher education, and unlike many of academe's naysayers, they don't spend a lot of time trashing the faculty as overpaid and underworked or bashing administrators as fat-cat corporatizers (though they do complain that institutions have overemphasized rankings and enrollment growth and sports and research -- take your pick depending on institution type).
1 - 11 of 11
Showing 20 items per page