Technology and Social Media

Photo by ThisIsEngineering of a woman with computer screen image superimposed

Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology. Ain't got time to make no apology.

Iggy Pop and The Stooges (Search and Destroy)

Opportunities for applying technology to the learning support center abound. Here are some new and some old technologies that LSC administrators may find useful. Please send examples of how you are using these or other technologies to acraig5@gsu.edu

For an overview of some key areas of technology that may benefit learning assistance professionals, see the white pager published by the National Center for Developmental Education: Technology Considerations and Opportunities in Higher Education.

Also see the EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition for a broad overview of trends, challenges, and developments in technology for higher education anticipated over a one-to-five year period.

SpringerOpen publishes the "International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education," which includes a wide range of topics of interest including AR/VR, intelligent tutoring systems, learning analytics, pedagogical issues in technology, and much more. Articles are freely available.

The Journal of Computing in Higher Education focuses on the role of instructional technology in increasing access, success, and affordability in postsecondary education.

LRNASST-L is the primary listserv for learning assistance and developmental education.
Archives with messages beginning in January 1995 are available.

FYI—LRNASST is the only listerv designed specifically for LSCHE. It began in 1994 at the University of Arizona’s Winter Institute for Learning Assistance Professionals.  It was created in order to provide learning assistance practitioners and developmental educators a way to share information via email. The CLADEA member organizations (ACTP, ACTLA, CRLA, NCDE, NCLCA, and NOSS) regularly use LRNASST to announce conferences, workshops, and other activities of interest to learning support centers.

SI-Net is a forum for the exchange of ideas among those interested in Supplemental Instruction. To date, faculty and staff from over 1000 institutions in 13 countries have participated in SI Training trainings. So when you email the SI-Net, you are emailing SI supervisors, Certified Trainers, faculty members, and SI leaders around the world!

FYE

FYE, the First Year Experience listserv, enables discussion of "college transitions, how they impact student success, and interventions designed to maximize student success."

eAIR is the monthly newsletter of the Association for Institutional Research (AIR). From its start in October 1987 to today, eAIR remains one of the most important tools for providing news to the higher education community. This valuable resource includes web-based resources which are available at any time. eAIR is typically delivered on the third Thursday of each month.

Learning Center Tech, a site developed by NCLCA Professionals Lisa Adamo-Weinstein, Craig Lamb, and Tracy Holliday. This is the major social media source for learning center professionals as stated on its home page: “Students today are wired, wireless, online and on facebook — learning centers need to meet students in real and virtual spaces — this site is designed to help learning center professionals leverage current technology in teaching, training, managing staff, creating resources, delivering services and evaluating programs.”

Lisa D'Adamo-Weinstein of SUNY Empire College won the 2012 NCLCA Innovative Use of Technology Award for her submission that described how the distributed learning center staff collaborated and provided virtual assistance to students via "Academic Support on Demand" utilizing many of the technologies discussed in Learning Center Tech.

Because most distance learning today is online, please see Online Learning here on LSCHE.

Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality
Photo by ThisIsEngineering of Woman Using Laptop Computer With VR Headset. Source: Pexels

What is VR/AR?

PC Magazine explains the difference between AR and VR in its online Encyclopedia: "Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality refers to computer-generated simulations that integrate the real world (AR) or are entirely self-contained (VR). AR applications let you move around in the real world. With VR, you have to remain in the same location because you cannot see your surroundings."

Intel provides a good discussion in Demystifying the Virtual Reality Landscape.


VR/AR in Higher Education

Many learning and tutoring centers have provided students with a variety of models, skeletons, molecular blocks, math manipulatives, etc. for use in learning biology, chemistry, anatomy, mathematics, and similar subjects. Virtual reality is another option for helping students learn, especially if the faculty are using VR in the classroom or lab.

If your learning center is using VR/AR technology, please let us know what you are doing. Send information to the webmaster contact (in the footer of every page in LSCHE).

Craig, E., & Georgieva, M. (2018, August 22). From VR and AR to our XR future: Transforming higher education. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/8/from-vr-and-ar-to-our-xr-future-transforming-higher-education

This article provides an overview of a series of posts and webinars EDUCAUSE presented over the course of a year on VR/AR with a focus on higher education. Topics included ethics and accessibility issues in addition to the many ways that VR/AR can be used to improve student learning.

Hauze, S. (2019, April 23). VITaL: The future of immersive learning at SDSU. Retrieved from https://its.sdsu.edu/vital-the-future-of-immersive-learning-at-sdsu/

This article describes the ongoing work at San Diego State University on the Virtual Immersive Teaching and Learning (VITaL) initiative since 2017. Hauze lists courses taught using AR/VR/MR, research initiatives, VITaL student organizations, events, press, and awards.

Gerup, J., Soerensen, C. B., & Dieckmann, P. (2020). Augmented reality and mixed reality for healthcare education beyond surgery: an integrative review. International Journal of Medical Education, 11, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5e01.eb1a

An example of AR/MR from medical education.

Schaffhauser, D. (2019, May 15). 9 amazing uses for VR and AR in college classrooms. Campus Technology. Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2019/05/15/9-amazing-uses-for-vr-and-ar-in-college-classrooms.aspx
The nine amazing uses are

  1. Grasping Concepts
  2. Recreating Past Experiences for New Learners
  3. Stagecraft for Theater Students
  4. Virtual Reconstruction of History
  5. Going on Space Walks
  6. Reimagining the Future
  7. Practicing Clinical Care
  8. Hands-on Railroading
  9. Feeling the Impact of Decisions
The article briefly discusses these uses at various colleges and universities.

Thompson, S. (2020, February 5). VR in higher education: With examples. Retrieved from https://virtualspeech.com/blog/vr-education-example-use-cases. This blog post provides a number of use cases for VR in higher education. These include

  • enhancing learning and soft skills
  • distance learning
  • bring learning to life
  • Improved collaboration and group learning
  • prepare students for the workplace and for jobs
  • student recruitment
  • reduce the cost of training students

Social media have exploded since this section was first written. Defining social media is a challenge. Social media is interactive, making use of Web 2.0; users generate the content of social media (e.g., texts, posts, photos, videos); and users create social networks through their interactions. Social media most frequently used by learning centers:

Rowan‐Kenyon, H.T., Martínez Alemán, A.M., Gin, K., Blakeley, B., Gismondi, A., Lewis, J., McCready, A., Zepp, D., & Knight, S. (2016), Social media in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(5), 7-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20103

MOOC - Massive Open Online Courses have gained momentum since the first MOOCs in the mid-2000s. Many prestigious institutions such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, University of Texas, Duke, University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon, Emory, and Columbia are partners in MOOCs. Major MOOC providers:


The first two are more oriented to postsecondary institutions and degrees or progress toward degrees. The latter two are more focused on career education and training.

MOOCs Directory: Directory of MOOC Providers by Market Served & Free Tuition Programs by State

If your learning center is involved in any way with MOOCs, please send us a note.

Ferguson, R., Sharples, M., & Beale, R. (2015). MOOCs 2030: A future for massive open online learning. In: C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 315–326). Routledge.

Wintrup, J., Wakefield, K., & Davis, H. (2015). Engaged learning in MOOCs: A study using the UK Engagement Survey, Higher Education Academy.

Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS)

Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) usually have three primary parts or models: the domain model, the tutoring model (or the similar pedagogical model), and the student model. Some also consider the user interface as a model. The domain model comprises the knowledge about a subject to be learned. The tutoring model controls what and when specific domain material is presented to the learner as well as the strategies and mechanisms for responding to learner questions or errors. The student model develops and maintains information on each learner's abilities, past successes and errors, and how the learner approaches the task of learning.

Carnegie Learning and ALEKS are two of the more well known purveyors of ITSs for higher education (although some categorize ALEKS as computer-aided instruction rather than an ITS).

Fadel, C., Holmes, W., & Bialik, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign

This book is an inexpensive primer on several areas of artificial intelligence in education and includes a chapter on intelligent tutoring systems.

Akkila, A. N., Almasri, A., Ahmed, A., Al-Masri, N., Sultan, Y. A., Mahmoud, A. Y., Zaqout, I., & Abu-Naser, S. S. (2019). Survey of Intelligent Tutoring Systems up to the end of 2017. International Journal of Academic Information Systems Research, 3(4), 36-49. Retrieved from http://dstore.alazhar.edu.ps/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/124/AKKSOI-2v1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

This article briefly describes the architecture of intelligent tutoring systems comprising a knowledge model, student model, pedagogical model, and user interface model. The remainder of the article then provides an overview of 55 intelligent tutoring systems in existence through 2017.

Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315581420

This articles reports the results of a meta-analysis of 50 studies on the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems. The main conclusion:

Overall, the message from what we judge to be fair comparisons of ITS and conventional instruction seems clear. The evaluations show that ITSs typically raise student performance well beyond the level of conventional classes and even beyond the level achieved by students who receive instruction from other forms of computer tutoring or from human tutors (p. 70).

VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369

when compared to No tutoring, the effect sizes of answer-based tutoring systems, intelligent tutoring systems, and adult human tutors are believed to be d = 0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 respectively. This review did not confirm these beliefs. Instead, it found that the effect size of human tutoring was much lower: d = 0.79. Moreover, the effect size of intelligent tutoring systems was 0.76, so they are nearly as effective as human tutoring (p. 197).

Ying, F., Ren, Z., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. C. (2019) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ALEKS on learning, Educational Psychology, 39(10), 1278-1292, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1495829

This article is a meta-analysis of ALEKS. Results differed from that of Kulik and Fletcher (2016) listed above for ITSs. In this research, "our results revealed that ALEKS was as good, but not better than, traditional classroom teaching" (p. 1248). This difference in results of the two meta-analyses may be explained by the fact that ALEKS is an answer-based ITS, and the Kulik and Fletcher meta-analysis excluded answer-based ITSs because they classify those not as true ITSs but rather as computer-aided instruction.

photo by Timur Saglambilek of the word Analytics spelled with moveable cream-colored letters on green background. Source: Pexels

The Society for Learning Analytics Research offers this definition: Learning analytics "is the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimising learning and the environments in which it occurs."

The Society publishes the "Journal of Learning Analytics."

Learning Center Example

Breslin, J. D., & Wallitsch, K. N. (2018, October 2-5). The more you know: Using predictive analytics for good in student success [Conference presentation]. NCLCA 33rd Annual Conference, Niagara Falls, NY, United States. [Available on the NCLCA website in the Members Only Section https://nclca.wildapricot.org]

The objectives of this conference session were to

  • Develop a strong understanding of 'predictive analytics'
  • Identify ways of integrating predictive analytical models into participants' student support programs
  • Discuss ethical issues
  • Identify ideas for participants to implement some form of predictive analytics at their institutions

Other Examples

Most learning management system (LMS) vendors have implemented learning analytics tools that harvest student data from the LMS and combine the data with that from other institutional systems such as the student information system. Blackboard Analytics for Learn and D2L's Brightspace Performance Plus are examples. The open source LMS Moodle has an Engagement Analytics plug in and the commercial product Intelliboard.

eAdvising analytical systems mine data from the student information system and other sources. Degree Compass, developed at Austin Peay State University, is now in use at several other institutions. Degree Compass provides support for students and advisors on appropriate courses to take based on a student's goals, desired degree, and success in past courses. Institutions cn use it to develop optimal course offerings. This infographic from the New York Times shows how Degree Compass works.

EAB's Navigate is another eAdvising analytical system in use at Broward College. See the article in this section by Colver.

The following resources provide a good introduction to the topic of learning analytics in higher education:

Lester, J., Klein, C., Rangwala, H., & Johri, A. (2017). Learning analytics in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 43(5), 1-149. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20121

Zilvinskis, J., & Borden, V. (Ed.s). (2017). Learning analytics in higher education. New Directions for Higher Education, 2017(179), 1-113. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15360741/2017/2017/179

Williamson, B., Bayne, S., & Shay, S. (Eds.). (2020). The datafication of teaching in higher education: Critical issues and perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 351-540. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cthe20/25/4?nav=tocList

James, T. (2018). Empirical results using learning analytics in the classroom. College Quarterly, 21(2). Retrieved from http://collegequarterly.ca/2018-vol21-num02-spring/empirical-results-using-learning-analytics-in-cthe-classroom.html
Provides an example of using learning analytics to improve instruction in an introductory college statistics course.

Jones, K. M. L. (2019). Learning analytics and higher education: A proposed model for establishing informed consent mechanisms to promote student privacy and autonomy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(24). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0155-0
Privacy concerns prompted the author to argue for students' informed consent and implementation within learning analytic systems of the World Wide Web Consortium's Platform for Privacy Preferences model.

Kwet, M., & Prinsloo, P. (2020). The ‘smart’ classroom: A new frontier in the age of the smart university. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 510-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1734922

Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30–40. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2011/9/penetrating-the-fog-analytics-in-learning-and-education

Pistilli, M. D. (2017). Learner analytics and student success interventions. New Directions for Higher Education, 2017(179), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20242

Selwyn, N. (2019). What’s the Problem with Learning Analytics?. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.63.3

Watanabe, H., Goda, Y., Shimada, A., & Yamada, M. (2021). Estimating learning assistance skills using learning analytics. In D. G. Sampson, D. Ifenthaler, & P. Isaias (Eds.), 18th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2021) proceedings (pp. 197-204). IADIS Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=ED621325

As data from more and more sources (e.g., social media, biometric data, geolocation data) flow into learning analytics systems, privacy and ethical issues arise. For a discussion surrounding these issues and possible solutions, see

Arriba Pérez, F., Santos, J. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2016). Analytics of biometric data from wearable devices to support teaching and learning activities. Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management, 1(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.20897/lectito.201608

Colver, M. (2019, December 9). Augmented intelligence and ethics of care in 21st-Century advising practice. EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2019/12/augmented-intelligence-and-ethics-of-care-in-21st-century-advising-practice
This article describes Broward College's implementation of EAB's Navigate advising analytics product, including lessons learned.

Johnson, J. A. (2017). Ethics and justice in learning analytics. New Directions for Higher Education, 2017(179), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20245

Jones, K. M. L. (2019). Learning analytics and higher education: A proposed model for establishing informed consent mechanisms to promote student privacy and autonomy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(24). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0155-0
Privacy concerns prompted the author to argue for students' informed consent and implementation within learning analytic systems of the World Wide Web Consortium's Platform for Privacy Preferences model.

Wintrup, J. (2017). Higher education’s panopticon? Learning analytics, ethics and student engagement. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0030-8
From the abstract: "If the potential of analytics is to be realised in terms of meaningful quality improvement, questions remain concerning ethics, trust, its role in engagement in learning, and the ways in which policy might effectively safeguard the longer-term individual and collective interests of students."

MUVE - Multi-User Virtual Environment

Second Life, perhaps the leading MUVE, can be used to create effective virtual learning environments for postsecondary institutions. Here are some examples.


However, MUVEs have not gained much traction beyond niche uses in postsecondary institutions.

Burgess, M. L., & Caverly, D. C. (2009). Techtalk:” Second Life” and developmental education (EJ868673). Journal of Developmental Education, 32(3), 42-43. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ868673

Hawkridge, D., & Wheeler, M. (2010). Tutoring at a distance, Online tutoring and tutoring in Second Life. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2010(1), Article 395. Retrieved from https://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2010/Hawkridge_Wheeler.pdf

Webliography of Web Site Design & Development

A Learning Support Center web site is a useful marketing tool to let students, faculty, and administration know about its programs and services. Below are some references that may assist center staff and administration to develop, improve, and maintain their web site. In addition, You can find many more sites, more than you ever can use, by simply typing the phrase, “‘web site design,” in the search bar for any search engine (Google, DuckDuckGo, etc.) that you prefer.

Accessibility: Making the Web Accessible from W3C.org provides resources for web designers, developers, content writers, and more.

Archives of the annual NCLCA – LSCHE Website Excellence Awards are on the LSCHE Professional Development page under Achieve, select the Website Excellence tab.

Build accessible websites with CAST Figuration, an open source CSS/Javascript framework for creating accessible, cross-device, interactive websites.

Color Logic for Web Site Design: Color Matters.

From the U.K. Home Office: Designing Accessible Services for people with anxiety, dyslexia, low vision, physical of motor disabilities and for people on the autism spectrum, people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and for screenreaders. Includes an excellent poster set of 'Do' this and 'Don't' do that for each area.

Differences Between Print Design and Web Design from the Nielsen Norman Group.

Fonts - Only a few fonts are likely to be on most devices viewing the web. These are called 'web-safe fonts.' (See articles on typography listed later in this section). However, the developer can choose from a wide array of fonts if the fonts are embedded in or requested by the web page. Google Fonts provides an extensive collection of free fonts. Other vendors, such as Adobe, have fonts for purchase.

How Users Read on the Web from the Nielsen Norman Group. (Hint: They don't!)

HTML Tidy Library Project

Lucy MacDonald's presentation Enhancing Great Learning Centers with Technology at the NCLCA Institute, 2011

Nielsen Norman Group focused on the user experience (formerly Jakob Nielsen’s Website on usable information technology)

Muter, P. (1996). Interface Design and Optimization of Reading of Continuous Text. In H. van Oostendorp & S. de Mul (Eds.) (1996), Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing. Ablex.

Serif vs. Sans-Serif Fonts for HD Screens from the Nielsen Norman Group.

Ten Good Deeds in Web Design from the Nielsen Norman Group.

Usability 101 from the Nielsen Norman Group.

Typography in Web Design from WebFX

10 Tips On Typography in Web Design by Nick Babich

University Web Developers is a social network is for anyone involved with implementing and maintaining web sites in a University environment.

What and Why of Usability from usability.gov

Writing for the Web from the Nielsen Norman Group.

"Tech Talk," a column created by Frank Christ (Coordinator, Learning Assistance Support Systems, California State University Long Beach) first appeared in the Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education in 1983. Setting the theme and tone of this column was Frank’s favorite phrase “Pedagogy before Technology”. Although Technology has changed over the years, Pedagogy has remained constant, making these columns as relevant today as when they were first written.

Frank wrote the column for four years (1983-1987). Then he handed the column over to the team of David Caverly at Texas State University and Bill Broderick from Cerritos College. Bill brought both technical knowledge and a practioner’s point of view.

David and Bill published "Tech Talk" in the Journal of Development Education for another 10 years from 1987 – 1997, when Bill Broderick passed the torch to Lucy MacDonald from Chemeketa Community College, who brought the perspective of online learning having started teaching online in 2002 BW (before the web).

David Caverly continued to provide the theoretical and research point of view for "Tech Talk" from 1997 – 2011. In the next phase, Caverly broadened the scope of topics to include mathematics with Scott McDaniel from East Tennesee State University, developmental writing with Ann Wolf from New Mexico Highlands University, and mobile learning with Jodi Holschuh from Texas State University.

Note (1): The Journal of Developmental Education and its predecessor are available on JSTOR from 1978 (Vol. 2) to 2016.
Note (2): Departing from APA Style in that these TechTalk references are in chronological order.

Christ, F. (1983a). Techtalk: Choosing a computer for instruction. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 6(2), 10-30. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774404

Christ, F. (1983b). Techtalk: Selecting software for instruction. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 6(3), 12-13. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774416

Christ, F. (1983c). Techtalk: Using a computer for instruction. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 7(1), 26-27. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774444

Christ, F. (1984a). Techtalk: Computer competency for developmental educators. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 7(2), 26-27. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774456

Christ, F. (1984c). Techtalk: Managing information for developmental educators. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 7(3), 28-29. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44945185

Christ, F. (1984b). Techtalk: Improving knowledge of computers on your campus through user groups. Journal of Developmental Education, 8(1), 22-23. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774302

Christ, F. (1985a). Techtalk: Computer accessories for increased power and versatility. Journal of Developmental Education, 8(3), 28-29. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774655

Christ, F. (1985b). Techtalk: Telecommunications research and working with your computer. Journal of Developmental Education, 9(2), 26-26. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774504

Christ, F. (1986b). Techtalk: More accessories to expand computer usefulness. Journal of Developmental Education, 9(3), 28-29. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774549

Christ, F. (1986a). Techtalk: Junk mail, periodicals, and computer usage. Journal of Developmental Education, 10(1), 24-24. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774678

Christ, F. (1987b). Techtalk: Some observations on professional use of personal computers. Journal of Developmental Education, 10(3), 30-30. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774703

Christ, F. (1987a). Techtalk: Computer technology: Its challenges are our opportunities. Journal of Developmental Education, 11(1), 28-28. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774716

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1987). Techtalk: A system for choosing developmental education courseware. Journal of Developmental Education, 11(2), 28-29. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774727

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1988a). Techtalk: Types of courseware and how they can be used. Journal of Developmental Education, 11(3), 28-29. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775448

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1988). Techtalk: The computer as a tool. Journal of Developmental Education, 12(1), 30-31. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774750

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1988b). Techtalk: The computer as tutor. Journal of Developmental Education, 12(2), 32-33. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775462

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1989). Techtalk: The computer as tutee. Journal of Developmental Education, 12(3), 30-31.JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775472

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1989b). Techtalk: Starting up with computers. Journal of Developmental Education, 13(1), 28-29. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775485

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1989a). Techtalk: Moving on with computers: Telecommunicating. Journal of Developmental Education, 13(2), 32-33. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774801

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1990b). Techtalk: Masters in the use of computers in developmental programs. Journal of Developmental Education, 13(3), 32-33. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775500

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1990). Techtalk: Creating your own courseware with authoring programs. Journal of Developmental Education, 14(1), 34-35. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774829

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1990a). Techtalk: Hypermedia for developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 14(2), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775515

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1991b). Techtalk: Learning through hypermedia. Journal of Developmental Education, 14(3), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775527

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1991a). Techtalk: A holistic or skills computer lab. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(1), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42785277

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1991). Techtalk: Choosing IBM for your computer center. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(2), 36-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42785074

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1992). Techtalk: Choosing Macintosh for your computer center. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(3), 40-41. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774580

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1992a). Techtalk: Another look at the computer as a tool. Journal of Developmental Education, 16(1), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774594

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1992b). Techtalk: Another look at the computer as tutor. Journal of Developmental Education, 16(2), 34-35. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774617

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1993). Techtalk: Choosing and purchasing software. Journal of Developmental Education, 17(1), 40-41. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774632

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1993). Techtalk: Telecommunications for improving developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 17(2), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774606

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1994). Techtalk: Advanced internet for developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 17(3), 52-53. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774266

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1994a). Techtalk: Creating your own courseware. Journal of Developmental Education, 18(1), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775542

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1994b). Techtalk: Creating your own tutorial courseware. Journal of Developmental Education, 18(2), 30-31. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775551

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1995b). Techtalk: Roadside attractions along the internet. Journal of Developmental Education, 18(3), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775566

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1995a). Techtalk: Developmental education in the future. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(1), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775577

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1995c). Techtalk: World wide web and developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(2), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775589

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1996). Techtalk: On-Line developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(3), 34-35. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775611

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1996b). Techtalk: Creating world wide webpages. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(1), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775705

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1996a). Techtalk: Advanced webpage design. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(2), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775716

Caverly, D., & Broderick, B. (1997). Techtalk: Professional development through the WWW. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(3), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42774963

Broderick, B., & Caverly, D. (1997). Techtalk: Websites for developmental students. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(1), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42785263

MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D.C. (1997). Techtalk: Distance education and developmental educators. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(2), 37-38. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775726

Caverly, D.C., & MacDonald, L. (1998a). Techtalk: Distance developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(3), 37-38. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42785287

MacDonald, L. & Caverly, D.C. (1998). Techtalk: Technology for developmental writing. Journal of Developmental Education, 22(1), 37-38. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775760

Caverly, D. (1998b). Techtalk: GAP, A reading strategy for multiple sources. Journal of Developmental Education, 22(2), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775748

MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D.C..(1999). Techtalk: Technology for developmental math. Journal of Developmental Education, 22(3), 33-34. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775007

Caverly, D.C., & MacDonald, L. (1999b). Techtalk: Designing online developmental education courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(1), 34-35. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775021

Caverly, D.C., & MacDonald, L. (1999a). Techtalk: Asynchronous distance developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(2), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775885

MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D.C. (2000). Techtalk: Synchronous distance developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(3), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775783

Caverly, D.C., & MacDonald, L. (2000). Techtalk: Teaching writing online. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(1), 42-43. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775795

Caverly, D.C., & MacDonald, L. (2000). Techtalk: Teaching reading online. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(2), 40-41. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775737

MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D.C. (2001). Techtalk: Delivering study skills face-to-face at a distance. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 44-45. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775836

MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D.C. (2001). Techtalk: Engendering online discussion. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(1), 42-43. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775847

MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D.C. (2001). Techtalk: Expanding the online discussion. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(2), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775099

Caverly, D.C., & MacDonald, L. (2002). Techtalk: Online learning communities. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 34-35. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42784362

Caverly, D.C., & MacDonald, L. (2002). Techtalk: Access to distance education. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(1), 34-35. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775600

MacDonald, L., Vasquez, S., & Caverly, D. (2002). Techtalk: Effective technology use in developmental mathematics. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(2), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775118

Peterson, C.L., Caverly, D.C., & MacDonald, L. (2003). Techtalk: Developing academic literacy through WebQuests. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775129

Caverly, D., & MacDonald, L. (2003). Techtalk: How technology has changed developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(1), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775866

MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D.C. (2003). Techtalk: Implications of changing storage needs in developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(2), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775805

Caverly, D. C., & MacDonald, L. (2004a). Techtalk: Developing tech-knowledge. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775160

Caverly, D. C., & MacDonald, L. (2004b). TechTalk: Keeping up with technology. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(2), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775908

Caverly, D. C., & MacDonald, L. (2005). TechTalk: Wireless networking. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(3), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775193

Peterson, C. L., & Caverly, D. C. (2005). Techtalk: Building academic literacy through online discussion forums, Journal of Developmental Education, 29(2), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775917

Peterson, C. L., & Caverly, D. C. (2006). Techtalk: What students need to know about online discussion forums, Journal of Developmental Education, 29(3), 40-41. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775928

Caverly, D. C., & MacDonald, L. (2006). Techtalk: Integrating mapping software. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(1), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775824

MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D. C. (2006b). Techtalk: Word processing from adoption to innovation. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775622

MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D. C. (2006a). Techtalk: Screen capturing. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775249

Caverly, D., & Fitzgibbons, D. (2007). Techtalk: Assistive technology. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775633

Caverly, D. (2008). Techtalk: Assistive technology for writing. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(3), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775643

Caverly, D., Nicholson, S., Battle, J., & Atkins, C. (2008). Techtalk: Web 2.0, blogs, and developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(1), 34-35. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775654

Caverly, D., & Ward, A. (2008). Techtalk: Wikis and collaborative knowledge construction. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(2), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775300

Burgess, M. L., & Caverly, D. C. (2009). Techtalk:” Second Life” and developmental education (EJ868673). Journal of Developmental Education, 32(3), 42-43. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ868673

Caverly, D., Ward, A., & Caverly, M. (2009). Techtalk: Mobile learning and access. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(1), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775675

Gregory, K., Steelman, J., & Caverly, D. (2009). Techtalk: Digital storytelling and developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(2), 42-43. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775685

Holschuh, D., & Caverly, D. (2010). Techtalk: Cloud computing and developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(3), 36-37. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775695

Burgess, M., & Caverly, D. (2010). Techtalk: An online framework for developmental literacy. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(1), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775939

McDaniel, S., & Caverly, D. (2010). Techtalk: The community of inquiry model for an inverted developmental math classroomh. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(2), 40-41. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775363

Wolf, A., Gilmer, C., & Caverly, D. (2011). Techtalk: The Community of Inquiry Model for a Developmental Writing Classroom. Journal of Developmental Education, 35(1), 38-39. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775856

Caverly, D. (2012). Techtalk: 13a-Mobile learning and the knowledge age. Journal of Developmental Education, 36(1), 32-33. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775415

Caverly, D. (2013). Techtalk: Mobile Learning and Literacy Development. Journal of Developmental Education, 37(1), 30-31. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42775957

Hoang, T., & Caverly, D. (2013). Techtalk: Mobile apps and college mathematics. Journal of Developmental Education, 37(2), 30-31. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24613988

Holschuh, J., Scanlon, E., Shetron, T., & Caverly, D. (2014). Techtalk: Mobile apps for disciplinary literacy in science. Journal of Developmental Education, 37(3), 32-33. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24614035

© 1998-2024 Learning Support Centers in Higher Education | Contact Webmaster

Site built with Foundry for Rapidweaver

All LSCHE website pages have all rights reserved under Creative Commons License: