Accessibility evaluation of chats and forums in e-learning environments

Proceedings of: 2013 International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science & Computer Engineering (FECS'13): WORLDCOMP'13, July 22-25, 2013, Las Vegas, Nevada (USA)Collaborative learning is useful for students in their learning process. Nowadays, most e-learning systems include Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) tools like chats and forums; however, are they accessible for everybody? This paper presents a heuristic evaluation of accessibility of two CSCL tools (chat and forum) in four web-based, open-source Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS): Moodle, ATutor, dotLRN and Claroline. The evaluation results show that the CSCL tools evaluated present accessibility barriers which are a handicap for many students who want to use the LCMSs Moreover, some recommendations are offered in order to improve the accessibility of the evaluated tools. Considering these recommendations in the development of the evaluated tools, all students could participate actively in the collaborative tasks proposed by teachersThis research work has been supported by the Regional Government of Madrid under the Research Network MA2VICMR (S2009/TIC-1542) and by the Spanish Ministry of Economy under the project MULTIMEDICA (TIN2010-20644-C03-01)Publicad

PM Me the Truth? The Conditional Effectiveness of Fact-Checks Across Social Media Sites

People use multiple social media daily. Some platforms feature public interactions like Facebook, others emphasize private communications such as Line. Although misinformation is rampant on all platforms, literature on fact-checks (FC) focuses primarily on public ones. This article provides an integrated psychological model and argues that FC is less effective on private platforms. People expect to encounter “unwelcome” FCs (incongruent with their beliefs) on public platforms, but selectively approach the “welcome” FC on private platforms. An experiment (n = 601) and a national survey (n = 1060) were implemented to test these hypotheses in the 2020 Taiwan Presidential Election. The experiment shows that respondents prefer FC on Line, which helps their party, but prefer FC on Facebook which disadvantages their party. The survey shows that consuming FC with more private platform usage has lower media literacy, while is the opposite on public platforms. Future work should focus on both FC and how it is consumed

2015 Grizzly Football Yearbook

Annual yearbook of the University of Montana’s Athletics Department. This volume covers the period from fall 2015 through spring 2016.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/grizzlyfootball_yearbooks/1065/thumbnail.jp

2016 Grizzly Football Yearbook

Annual yearbook of the University of Montana’s Athletics Department. This volume covers the period from fall 2016 through spring 2017.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/grizzlyfootball_yearbooks/1066/thumbnail.jp

2013 Grizzly Football Yearbook

Annual yearbook of the University of Montana’s Athletics Department. This volume covers the period from fall 2013 through spring 2014.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/grizzlyfootball_yearbooks/1060/thumbnail.jp

Policy 15.02.2 of the NCAA Regulation Handbook: An Impact Analysis

In January 2015, the Power Five Conferences of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) passed a new policy to change the procedure by which the amount of athletic financial aid is calculated and provided to student athletes (Sherman, 2015). Policy 15.02.2 of the NCAA Regulation Handbook states that institutions can provide athletic financial aid based on the cost of attendance rather than the cost of living (National Colligate Athletic Association, 2017). The previous policy allowed for institutions to provide cost of living aid, including total cost of tuition, books, supplies, and meals (National Colligate Athletic Association, 2012). The new ruling adds transportation, childcare, disability costs, and miscellaneous personal expenses in the calculations when figuring the total amount of athletic financial aid to be provided to student athletes (National Colligate Athletic Association, 2017). University financial aid offices are responsible for calculating the full cost of an athlete’s attendance (New, 2015). This allows each institution to interpret the policy and decide how much financial aid to provide to the student athletes. San Jose State University’s (SJSU) Athletic Department implemented Policy 15.02.2 for the 2015/2016 academic year using funding from the university. This initial funding was provided as a one-time allotment, with subsequent monies for full cost of attendance being the responsibility of the Athletic Department (Murray, 2015). San Jose State Athletics has been responsible for funding cost of attendance following the one-time allotment (Poch, 2017). With a limited athletics budget, does offering cost of attendance packages to student athletes benefit the university through improved athletic performance and more winning games or events? Does the higher cost-of-attendance financial support promote financial fairness and just compensation to the student athletes receiving this aid? Does the university receive any downstream deliverable benefits that justify the increased cost, such as increased freshman enrollments following a winning season, or increased donations to the Spartan Foundation and the Athletic Department to support the increased cost of athletics

Grizzly Football Game Day Program, September 13, 2008

Program created for a Grizzly football game.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/grizzlyfootball_programs_asc/1063/thumbnail.jp

Title IX Compliance: A Comparison of Division I Equality

The passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 has had a significant impact on college athletics. However, there is still a large disparity between opportunities offered for men and women. This study determined the true gender equality within Division I athletics. Inequalities were assessed in the areas of athletic participation, athletically related student aid, recruiting expenses, and total expenses. Data from these areas were gathered from the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Analysis Cutting Tool. Ratios and the difference between the ideal and current values were calculated for each category. Institutions were ranked in each category, as well as by total composite score. It is believed that schools will meet Title IX, but will not be equitable in all areas. Based upon the data and results, based on both strict proportionality and proportionality within five percent, Division I athletics are not equitable in the assessed areas