I enjoy photographing wildlife and I sometimes make use of trail cams as part of this hobby. Trail cams are probably most commonly used by hunters to determine if the wildlife they seek are in a particular area. I don’t hunt, but trail cams offer a different way to see what animals inhabit the land we own.
Some years ago Cindy found a birdcam at a sale. This variant of a trail cam is intended for taking motion activated photos at close distances. The version she bought came with a mount allowing the camera to be precisely positioned to collect images of birds coming to a feeder. The camera was probably expensive when first sold – it has a provision for video or photos and settings for the distance to the target to allow better quality images. It is probably 8-10 years old now so the megapixels of data it collects is not close to what we now expect.
I recently joined a Facebook group – Grow with KARE – hosted by a local television station. The group is gardening/yard oriented and I had just found an interesting photo on my birdcam I shared with the group.
The image shows a male cardinal feeding seed to what I thought was a juvenile. Cardinals are frequent visitors to the feeder, but this feeding behavior seemed unusual. I had not witnessed it outside of a nest before. I just thought it was unusual and interesting. The photo generated a great deal of interest (at least in my experience posting to Facebook). Female cardinals are far less colorful and I had assumed that this was possibly an immature female being raised and acquainted with the feeder by the male.
Several of those responding to my post informed me that this looked like an immature cowbird. The species lays eggs in the nests of other birds and the other birds then raise the babies when they hatch. I checked out cowbird and this seems to be the case. This is likely an immature female.
I explore photography as an educational opportunity and I have definitely learned something from the group process I experienced.
Just for the record, here are photos taken by the birdcam of male and female cardinals.
While I think educator interest in Twitter chats has waned, I find an occasional group that has maintained interest in this approach and chat activity may pick up when we get past the pandemic and worrying about just getting through tomorrow. My issue with Twitter chats (ed chats) was what I would describe as inefficiency – too much time to get anything accomplished if the goal was to offer educators a personal learning network. My suggests have been focused on things like asking participants to read a common resource each week or come prepared to share a link related to the topic of the week.
Keeler is capable of deep dives on technology topics and often combines detailed knowledge of how to accomplish technical hacks with different tools with related ideas for the classroom. Her recent post and sharing of a chat template is a good example.
The template is based in a spreadsheet and includes cells set aside for the questions to be asked during a chat, cells for responses to these questions, and a cell to be used for the hashtag that keeps all chat participated connected during a chat (the first part of the Keeler post explains the basics of a chat process and so does my post on Twitter chats).
The advantage I see in Keeler’s use of a template for an educational chat would be the time saved in generating the questions (by the moderator) and responses. Too many chats (in my opinion) are seat of the pants sessions with little or no preparation and educators responding on the fly. Everyone types at the same time to generate responses with little back and forth. I assume Keeler’s proposal is that the template for a given chat be shared (the questions) and participants then prepare their initial responses. As the series of questions and responses were then relayed via Twitter during an actual chat, participants can focus more on reading the responses offered by other participants and commenting on these responses. Efficiency, preparation, and greater consideration of ideas offered by others would be the benefits.
I was curious about Keeler’s approach. She made use of a web function – =hyperlink and Twitter capabilities I was unfamiliar with (intents). As I understand a major reason for the intent capabilities, Twitter capabilities can be added in other contexts such as a web page. So, for example, I would create a URL including the intent command here that should bring up your Twitter and include a tweet. You would then send the tweet if you wanted.
You can examine what your own tweets would look like when coverted to a similar format. After you have generated a tweet, you should see the tweet contains a V shaped symbol in the upper right-hand corner. One of the options under this drop down is Embed Tweet. Twitter will generate the embed for you.
So what Keeler has done is create a script using the hyperlink function to pull data from the spreadsheet (there are some columns you will have to reveal to understand the script).
Google has a new experimental service called Google Keen. It has been described as Google’s version of Pinterest. It is a way to fashion a collection of resources and then this collection. Here is a quick demonstration. If you are Pinterest user, you probably understand it is a very versatile service resulting in recipe collections, photo collections, etc. Keen appears to offer the same flexibility. Google experiments always make be nervous because offerings I think are interesting sometimes just disappear. Experiment now. Invest heavily with caution.
My demo which is available at the end is based on a trip we were able to take nearly exactly a year ago to southern Africa. The small selection of photos shown here were from the Chobi River region.
The Keen dashboard looks like this. After connecting to Keen, I get this display after naming my creation. Google will use what I call my Keen and the description I add to offer suggestions for elements I might include. These will be displayed under Explore.
With the ADD button, I can contribute resources myself. These can be links, photos, and other types of content. For this demo, I uploaded a few images from my collection.
The collection looks something like this.
The Share button from the dashboard offers several options. I used the URL for this collection to link from the My Demo you see below.
Denis Shereen has created a chrome extension useful to educators and students who share and discuss certain kinds of content in Google Meet. Shereen demonstrates the use of his extension in a situation involving a teacher explaining how to solve a specific math problem. Annotate Meet is an annotation tool that allows the highlighting, marking, and annotating a static display shared within Meet.
When activated, the Annotate Meet extension adds a palette of tools that appear on top of the shared window [see the palette in the red square]. Tools from this palette are used to apply additional elements to what is displayed and recorded. Students with this extension installed could use the tools in response to a request from the instructor.
Richard Mayer has long applied the careful rigor of experimental design to the study of multimedia instructional variables. Some of his recent research has centered on video presentation and seems well suited to informing the presentation component of online instruction. Mayer and colleagues have pulled together several specific tactics that should be helpful.
online video
Dynamic drawing effect
This suggestion is focused on situations in which an instructor is demonstrating a procedure. The easiest example is probably the solution to a math problem. The research contrasts approaches in which the instructor draws on a whiteboard while explaining vs. instructor points to drawing completed before explanation. Mayer’s analysis of the research indicates it is more productive to display the process step by step rather than display the entire series of steps and then explain the entire process. I would be tempted to propose that this might also inform the display of bullet points in a PowerPoint-type presentation, but some other interesting research suggests this is different. This related research shows the instructor as he/she works through a problem, shows the instructor’s hand as the problem is solved, or reveals the steps only. It appears that the hand vs. no hand difference is meaningful and Mayer uses this difference to criticize the Sal Kahn style videos.
Watching the content unfold is important, but it also seems that the connection to the human is important.
2. Gaze guidance principle
The gaze guidance principle concerns the visibility of the focus of the instructor’s attention – on the audience, on the content, or switching between. Mayer summarizes the research to conclude that visible switching is important. Thinking about the way I taught in a large lecture situation, this would argue I did it wrong. I faced the students with large projected displays appearing behind me. I would see the content of the display on the computer screen in front of me, but students would not see me switch my gaze because I did not have to do this.
3. Generativity principle
This one does not surprise me. Video presentations should be accompanied by student actions – taking notes, writing summaries, attempts to duplicate an action that has been demonstrated.
4. Perspective principle
Imagine a cooking show or a demonstration of a similar type that might be generated by the instructor. Where is the best location for the camera – over the shoulder of the presenter (first person) or facing the instructor (third person). It appears that the over the shoulder shot is most effective.
I would describe Mayer’s approach as atheoretical. He starts with the examination of a logical and scientifically careful comparison of two alternatives. Determines if the alternatives produce reliable differences in learning. If so, he then tries to propose a theoretical model to explain the outcome. I tend to think in terms of cognitive explanations and motivational explanations. Mayer seems to identify what might be described as a social explanation for some of these principles which might have cognitive or motivational benefits.
A focus on data-based practice is widely proposed as the ideal way to select instructional strategies. Instructional tactics have been studied greater detail than most educators likely realize. The environment necessary to establish significant differences in impact must be controlled carefully to eliminate alternative suggestions in this research. The transition from such research to the messiness and variability of the classroom can be problematic. For example, whatever content is used as the focus on learning experiences and how understanding, retention, and application of this learning creates a complexity of application that is probably impossible to understand completely. Even if an advantage of method A over method B can be established, it is not clear if a continuous diet of method A would lose its advantage for what would commonly be described as boredom (a motivational construct). Still, it would seem valuable to identify specific practices that work in controlled settings and at least emphasize these tactics in practice.
Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., & Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-16.
Google Jamboard is an online, interactive whiteboard available from Google and integrated with other Google services (i.e., Drive). My tutorial explains the basics of use and offers some general ideas for classroom (online) use. I would suggest you click on the video and watch it in a larger size.
Educators have developed creative ways to use this service. If you find my tutorial helpful, search for Jamboard and you should be able to locate plenty of ideas.
I have been writing about layering services for several years. Layering is my effort to create a general umbrella for multiple services that allow an educator/designer to add elements to existing content with the goal of improving learner understanding and retention. The existing content could be a web page, a video (youtube video), a pdf, or a graphic. The elements could include such things as highlights, notes, arrows, questions, and discussion prompts. While what I write tends to be aimed at educators, these services can also be applied by learners. We are all learners and probably are familiar with highlighting and annotating. Layering expands such additions.
I see layering as a way to think about the design of improved flipped classroom video, online learning and studying, digital literacy and content evaluation, and efforts by educators to make greater use of noncommercial content in place of textbooks.
As I have explored more and more services and as more services have been created over the past several years. I have begun categorizing these services. My existing system appears below. I am most interested in Category 1 because this group of services and content would take advantage of the use of existing online web pages and videos in a way that I see as fair to the content creators (preserving copyright and income opportunities) and a way to develop skills relevant to the use of online content outside of the classroom (digital literacy).
Category 1 – two servers/independent content. My focus in the original edition of this book was focused on this category of content. Examples of this category involve a real time combination of content from a source with added elements layered on this content from a second server. The combination is created when requested in contrast to a stored combination of a source modified in some way. I think the difference I am describing here is important as it addresses a copyright issue and what might be concerns of the authors of the original content. The content creators may intend that their content contain ads or record hits associated with the original web site as a source of income. Content that is captured in some way and then modified to be provided from a different server would not address these concerns. So, in this approach, a request to the server providing the layering service sends a request to the server providing the original content and then adds elements on this content before sending the composite to the learner. The original content creator is credited with hits on the original server and any compensation related to clicks on embedded ads. The layering service may be free or may require payment for the addition of layered elements and other capabilities. Examples of this type of service include: Hypothes.is, InsertLearning, Scrible.
Category 2 – One server, independent purchased content. This category of service provides the opportunity for layering elements and possibly collecting and using information generated by these layered elements making use of commercial content provided by an independent source. As the eventual user, you don’t purchase the original content because the layering service collects the money and then compensates the source. It would be possible to purchase the original content, but then not have access to layering capabilities. The examples I have in mind typically involve digital textbooks. Examples of these layering services include: Glose, Perusall, Kindle/Diigo. I list Kindle in combination with Diigo because many are familiar with Kindle books, but the highlighting and annotating capabilities of a Kindle book can be extended using the capability of Diigo to offload the layered content, organize this content using an outliner, and share this content with others.
Category 3 – One company offering both a layering capability and content. In this example, a company that provides digital content and includes layering capabilities that can be used with this content. An example would be Newsela.
Category 4 – User can upload content to a service providing layering and collaboration capabilities. Examples include Google docs, Edji, Kami, PlayPosit.
Layering Primer
I have written a Primer explaining how layering services can be used to modify existing online content to be more appropriate as an instructional resource. The Primer reviews the elements most commonly available in these services and how they can be applied most productively by both educator and learner. The Primer also includes tutorials for two services appropriate for web pages and two services appropriate for online video. Both paid and free services are considered.
Reviewing this blog for earlier posts tagged with layer identifies a few services should you be interested in descriptions of several other services.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
You must be logged in to post a comment.