[RSS] ProfHackerProfHacker - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education / Reflections on being part of the NMC HE Horizon Report Expert Panel - Hallo Pembaca Portal Berita, Berita kali ini adalah [RSS] ProfHackerProfHacker - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education / Reflections on being part of the NMC HE Horizon Report Expert Panel, Berikut ini artikelnya.

[RSS] ProfHackerProfHacker - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education / Reflections on being part of the NMC HE Horizon Report Expert Panel

Reflections on being part of the NMC HE Horizon Report Expert Panel Maha Bali This post is co-authored with Sheila MacNeill (@sheilmcn) is a Senior Lecturer in Digital Learning at Glasgow Caledonian University. She is also the current Chair of ALT (Association of Learning Technology). Both of us (Sheila and Maha) were invited to participate in the expert panel (what does it mean to be an expert?) involved in putting together the New Media Consortium (NMC) Higher Education Horizon Report for 2018, and we would like to reflect on our experience. Description of the Process Maha learned a little bit about the process earlier this year on this Virtually Connecting session discussing the NMC Horizon Report 2017, with then-newly-appointed NMC Director Eden Dahlstrom, Samantha Becker (Senior Director, Publications & Communications and coauthor of the report), Michael Berman (then-chairman of the NMC board) and Bryan Alexander (coauthor of the report). In it, Sam explains that anyone can nominate themselves to be on the panel, and she and Bryan talk about the process and the 2017 report. You can watch below: Did you know that even if you are not an expert panelist, you could have peaked into what was happening on the site at any point during the process? That is kind of cool, right? You would know the topics being considered, and see the discussion among taking place among panelists. Sheila: In August, like all the panelists, I received an email invitation to join the expert panel. I was both surprised and pleased to get the invitation.  I've always wondered how people are chosen to be on the panel, I hadn't seen the VC session! I suspected it was slightly random but related to profile and networking. In my case it was through direct contact. Last October, I had written a highly critical (aka a bit of a rant)  blog post about one of their publications which got a bit of traction in the twitter-sphere. Give NMC their due, they did contact me (and others) directly and a subsequent publication was so much better informed.  So I presume that's how I made the cut. Just shows you ranting can pay off. The process does have a logical structure – desk research, review, voting, final report. The process starts with panelists being emailed instructions to join a google community. This is where everything happens and information on timelines etc is shared. The first stage is the desk research where panellists review/comment/discuss a range of topics and relevant research. This is really interesting but I did find it a bit of a struggle to keep up with everything. The research phase is followed by 2 rounds of voting. In the first round you vote "up" topics for inclusion into a first cut. In the second round you vote "down" the topics you think are "least deserving" to be in the final report.  You can use your votes quite flexibly so if there is something you feel really passionately about you can give it more than one vote. I found the last round of voting quite challenging.  Not voting for something doesn't mean I don't see its relevance or potential impact. Conversely I also struggled voting for something just because of my personal interests, practice and the way I would like things to be. Being an "expert" I kind of know what things are going to have more impact in the short term/mid/longer term, even if I have personal issues with how they are potentially being implemented and promoted. I suppose that's the point of the process to force you to make decisions.  Hopefully the consensus vote evens everything out. I've always thought of the NMC report  as providing more of a compass than a map, with me spinning around in the middle being drawn to different parts depending on what magnet is the strongest at any given time. More often than not, it's easier for me not to use that compass at all. But I am drawn to it every year. I'm not sure if being part of the process has changed that.  Any future gazing is challenging, flawed and loaded with bias. I do think NMC have been making a concerted effort to be more diverse. I think my inclusion in the panel is part of that – with the caveat that I am hardly someone with a radically diverse world view and experience than the majority of the panelists.  Would I do it again? Definitely. Maha: Like Sheila, I think it was my critiques of a past NMC report that started my relationship with them as an organization. I also remember that Virtually Connecting hangout where I asked how they chose panelists, and Samantha Becker explained that anyone can apply, so I did. I had a strange and unfortunate experience in that something went wrong after I accepted to participate in the expert panel. I somehow did not get added to the mailing list Sheila speaks of, so I was not receiving the emails to participate in the panel until quite late in the process. However, once discovered, the organizers quickly found a way for me to squeeze in just before the first round of votes. I missed out on the conversations which I would have enjoyed immensely, but was able to participate marginally and at least read some of what others had written. I really liked knowing that report editors would read our discussions on the topic, as well as check out references we suggested. Unfortunately, I had another technical glitch that several times would not allow me to participate by adding comments on topics. This meant that I often had to backchannel with organizers to send my thoughts, and of course I ended up sending fewer thoughts than I would have if I had been able to participate fully. However, kudos to the organizers (particularly Samantha Becker and Eden Dahlstrom) for ensuring my voice got heard despite all of this. And for inviting me to write a section in the report on one of the challenges dear to my heart (you'll find out what it is soon enough!). My main concern with the report process is that we vote on what we think will be an upcoming trend in the future of education, but there is no way to know for sure why one of us chose to think and talk about and vote on a particular thing. For example, these days I'm reading a lot about AI and such, and recently wrote about some of my misgivings about its uses in education here on Prof Hacker. Maybe it really is trending, but maybe it's over-inflated in the media, and I'm just reacting to media. Kind of like the media is talking about lots of harassment scandals these days, which makes them seem as if they're more prevalent… when they've always existed, you know? Might we be voting for something because we read a lot about it, rather than because a lot of new things are happening in the area? I don't *think* that's the case, but it could be. My other concern relates to what it means to vote something up. In my case, much of what I voted up is technology which I don't think has, in the majority of ways it's used, a positive contribution to education. I have many ethical concerns over AI and adaptive learning, especially in relation to equity – and equity is itself one of the key challenges the report will bring up (and which I've been invited to write a section on). How will the report editors/writers reconcile the key technology trends with the looming challenges? Will they make a connection between how those particular technologies address or exacerbate the challenges? Also, did we as expert panelists make those connections? When we voted for equity as a challenge, were we imagining it as a difficulty based on technologies we are using now, or based on ones that we feel will become prevalent in the future? I'm looking forward to how it all comes together in the report. This is the second time I participate in an NMC report, and my first experience on the second Digital Literacy brief was a largely positive one. On a technical note, I do not understand exactly the dual system of voting. Each expert panelist is allowed to distribute their votes over several technologies, but they can distribute these votes equally, or put more weight on some technologies versus others. In the counting up process for the second round, the NMC organizers first look at the number of people who voted for something and then look at the number of votes it received. Conclusion This was an overall interesting process for both of us. On reflection, it might be useful to have some review or critique of the previous year's report as a starting point for the new report.  Each time a new report is produced, it's almost like the previous year didn't exist.  That might provide some continuity and more criticality to the whole process. For example, if something was on the horizon 5 years ago, predicted to become a thing in 5 years….did it? How often are predictions correct? What questions do you have about the NMC Horizon Report process? Tell us in the comments Flickr photo by cogdog: "Horizon Reports" flickr photo by cogdogblog http://ift.tt/2iZIsDW shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license RSS to Email Formatted

Itulah Berita [RSS] ProfHackerProfHacker - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education / Reflections on being part of the NMC HE Horizon Report Expert Panel

Sekian berita tentang [RSS] ProfHackerProfHacker - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education / Reflections on being part of the NMC HE Horizon Report Expert Panel, mudah-mudahan bisa memberi manfaat untuk anda semua

Anda sedang membaca artikel [RSS] ProfHackerProfHacker - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education / Reflections on being part of the NMC HE Horizon Report Expert Panel dan artikel ini url permalinknya adalah https://beritahubulat.blogspot.com/2017/12/rss-profhackerprofhacker-blogs_13.html Semoga artikel ini bisa bermanfaat.