#37 Technology enabled learning: Can it enhance the student learning experience?
Presenters: Pierre Breckendorff, Zofia Pawlaczek, Vicky Smart, Kathryn Coleman
These Office for Learning and Teaching Commissioned Projects in the priority area of technology enabled learning seek to investigate how student learning outcomes can be enhanced through forward thinking research and practice in emerging technologies. The three TEL commissioned grants will present potential solutions for higher education practitioners in this interactive hands-on session where participants will have the opportunity to hear from all projects and then move into a discussion on the issues, challenges and strategies of each project.
1. What works and why? Understanding successful technology enabled learning within institutional contexts
This project aims to provide forward-looking and useful knowledge about digital technology products, processes and practices that can be realistically developed across the Australian university sector to enhance student learning and the student experience of higher education. Through an in-depth analysis of two Australian universities – Monash University and Griffith University – this project aims to identify and evaluate successful uses of technology for student outcomes, and develop a realistic sense of the institutional ‘ecology’ which surrounds and supports that success. Project outcomes will inform the design and implementation of suitable and effective mainstream forms of technology-enhanced learning. The overall aim of the project is to inform systemic change in terms of technology use for learning and teaching.
Some of the emerging and key findings of the project will be presented. This will include discussion of case studies which were identified by staff and students as successful technology enabled learning in their institutions. In addition, participants will be introduced to the project website where they will be encouraged to seek further details and engage with the project in the future.
2. Curate, credential and carry forward digital learning evidence
Many higher education practitioners applaud the potential that digital technologies have to enable students to curate evidence of achievement for both personal and professional online presence. Many are keen to explore solutions for managing such evidence, creating credentialing systems to warrant students learning, or managing the pathways to and from their institutions based on such evidence or credentials. The potential of portfolios and digital badges as emerging practices for digital curation and credentialing—that is, conferring macro- and micro-credentials based on evidence of learning richer than codified marks, grades and credits is a focus of this commissioned project to assess, evidence and credential learning outcomes.
We will look at what we know about portfolios, what’s new and what the possibilities of digital badging can provide as an alternative way of thinking about how learning is validated and represented. Participants will be invited to discuss the opportunities that the curation of digital learning evidence in portfolios has unlocked for recognising skills, experiences and knowledge.
3. Enhancing Student Learning Outcomes with Simulation-based Pedagogies
This project will evaluate and promote pedagogies that enhance the learning outcomes of online simulations in business and related fields. Business simulations offer authentic learning experiences that mirror real world problems and enable students to practise and develop graduate capabilities, technical skills and strategic decision making skills. Emerging technologies along with increased bandwidth are creating new opportunities for online and cloud-based simulations and provide improved flexibility and portability for students. Simulations also hold some promise of complementing other innovations in online education, including MOOCs. However, online simulations are not effective unless they are embedded within a pedagogic framework that optimises learning outcomes.
New resources and case studies created by the project will be presented and participants will explore pedagogic challenges and solutions to enhance the learning outcomes of online simulations in university settings.
#39 Do you see what I see? Learning to see like a pathologist via collaborative annotating of clinical images
Presenters: Noelyn Hung, A.C.M. Moskal, Swee-Kin Loke
One of the objectives of medical education is to develop and progress students’ understanding of both normal and abnormal structure and function of the human body. More broadly, students learn to ‘see’ as a pathologist (Bleakley, Farrow, Gould, & Marshall, 2003). In the current local system students are tasked to solve clinical cases during topic-focused tutorials (e.g., acute inflammation, cardiovascular disease). Typically, students are shown a photomicrograph of a biopsy and asked to “describe what they see”, leading to a diagnosis.
To enhance the current case-based tutorials, we developed an interactive web-based image annotation application. Prior to each session, students respond to questions by annotating pathology images, describing what they noticed, and substantiating their conclusions. Students are paired with a peer and encouraged to post comments on each other’s annotations, building on their understanding in a social-constructivist way (Schunk, 2004). Such collaborative annotating has been shown to improve the making of relevant observations in pathology education (Helle, Nivala, & Kronqvist, 2013). During the tutorial, the tutor can address patterns of understanding (including misconceptions), refine student perceptions of what is normal/abnormal, compare macro/micro views, etc. Finally, a tutor-annotated image of relevant features is shared post-tutorial.
In this session, we will demonstrate features of the annotation software, and attendees with a laptop or tablet device will be invited to experiment with supplied example images. Following the practical component of the session, actual annotated examples from the student trial will be discussed with reference to the literature.
Bleakley, A., Farrow, R., Gould, D., & Marshall, R. (2003). Learning how to see: doctors making judgements in the visual domain. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 301–306. doi:10.1108/13665620310504765
Helle L, Nivala M, & Kronqvist P (2013) More technology, better learning resources, better learning? Lessons from adopting virtual microscopy in undergraduate medical education. (Translated from eng) Anat Sci Educ 6(2):73-80 (in eng).
Schunk DH (2004) Learning theories : an educational perspective (Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.) 4th Ed pp xii, p.532
#56 Connecting Analytics, Theory and the Organisation: Exploring a multi-dimensional model of Learning Analytics
Presenters: Simon Welsh, Philip Uys
We will facilitate an interactive discussion using our experiences in developing and piloting the CSU Learning Analytics Model, under the conference sub-theme of “Learning Analytics”.
As Learning Analytics has developed there has been a movement away from “data-driven investigation” towards approaches grounded in the learning sciences (Ferguson 2013). Learning Analytics needs to be founded in a theoretical understanding of learning and teaching if we are to do more than “count clicks”. However, Learning Analytics goes beyond just the introduction of new systems of measurement. Long & Siemens (2011) describe its potential to transform education. Diaz and Fowler (2012) subsequently argue that the successful application of Learning Analytics therefore requires the consideration of organisational change processes. We contend that to enable adaptations in learning, teaching and analytic practices Learning Analytics must be designed into the organisation.
At CSU, building on the work of authors like Tynan & Buckingham Shum (2013), the Learning Analytics Working Party has developed a comprehensive Learning Analytics Model that focuses on student success and connects analytics with both relevant theory and the organisational dynamics.
The session will have the following structure:
1. Overview of CSU Learning Analytics Model
2. Interactive element: small group work to identify student success drivers within the domains in the Learning Analytics Model and come up with broad types of relevant measures/metrics
3. Interactive element: discussion of the key features of the organisational dynamics to be addressed to embed Learning Analytics into the practice of learning and teaching. We ask participants what they see as important and why, while sharing some of our experiences/lessons learned
Bain, A., & Parkes, R. J. (2006). Can Schools Realise the Learning Potential of Knowledge Management? Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32(2).
Diaz, V., & Fowler, S. (2012). Leadership and Learning Analytics. Educause Learning Initiative Brief, November 2012, pp. 1-4. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/leadership-and-learning-analytics
Ferguson, R., (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5/6) pp. 304–317.
Long, P & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education. Educause Review, September/October 2011, pp. 31-40. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/penetrating-fog-analytics-learning-and-education
Tynan, B., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2013). Designing Systemic Learning Analytics at the Open University. Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/sbs/designing-systemic-learning-analytics-at-the-open-university
#59 Synchronous Online Delivery
Presenters: Fiona Thurn, Carol Russell, George Karilychuk, Peter Steele
This session will demonstrate the use of Google Hangouts and YouTube Live Streaming as a means of synchronous online delivery with hands on participation from all present. We’ll be joining a Google Hangout and live streaming it via YouTube. Several workstations will be able to connect their webcams to the session. Others will be able to watch via the YouTube LiveStreaming. We’ll be demonstrating with two colleagues at the Sydney campus of UWS, how to run a synchronous session. While the number of live participants is limited, the addition of a moderator fielding questions from Twitter, and the integration of Nearpod activities, will show how interactivity is still possible even though not all students will be visible via webcam.
1. Distribution of session link
2. Connection to the session via Google Hangouts and YouTube LiveStream
3. Introduction of presenters
4. Session poll using Nearpod
5. Each presenter will show a different feature of the Hangouts space and ask participants to interact.
The Hanover Research Council (2009). Synchronous Online Course Delivery Membership. Retrieved from http://www.planning.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/20781/Synchronous-Online-Course-Delivery-Membership.pdf
Krish, P. (2008). Some Considerations In Investigating Synchronous Online Delivery Of English Courses: Interfacing Qualitative and Quantitative Paradigms. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies. 8(2). 103-125. Retrieved from http://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/article/view/173/147
Goldman, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2005). Asynchronous Learning Networks: Looking Back and Looking Forward. In Goldman, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (Eds), Learning Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks (pp. 261-280).
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2014) Blending Online Asynchronous and Synchronous Learning. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1778/2837
Moore, G. M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View. (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
#78 Learning analytics 101: Leveraging the Desire2Learning Intelligent Agent tool to enhance student engagement and retention
Presenters: Susie Macfarlane, Jaclyn Broadbent
Learning analytics offer significant opportunities to engage, teach and retain students more effectively. The promise is that the education sector will decipher trends in educational Big Data to provide high quality, personalized learning for all students (Johnson et al, 2013). While there are some early adopters in higher education and the private sector gathering learning analytics through their Learning Management System (LMS) or specialized learning analytics software, many universities are yet to track and present educational data in real time to their staff or students. In the absence of institutionally provided learning dashboards, innovative teachers are harnessing available technologies to construct basic learning analytics frameworks that track their students’ behaviour, understand their challenges, strengths and preferences and provide responsive and customized pedagogies and just in time support.
This presentation will showcase a range of practical strategies using basic data on student LMS activity and the Desire2Learning Intelligent Agent tool to track and respond to student engagement, participation and achievement. Pilot data on the impact of these strategies on student retention and attainment in a large enrolment (1700+ students), on- and off-campus first year unit will be presented. Participants will be invited to share their strategies for accessing currently available student data to enhance student learning. A discussion of the challenges of such approaches for student agency and the values these practices reflect about ‘good’ educational practice will also be facilitated.
Learning analytics data provides higher education providers with unique insight into student behaviour, demonstrating for example how few students access the materials provided in the way their teachers expect. This unprecedented view of the diversity and unpredictable nature of university students’ approaches to their learning raises important questions about teachers’ roles and their accountability for student learning and attainment (Corrin, Kennedy & Mulder, 2013). Participants will be invited to reflect on the implications of accessing educational data for how they conceptualize their teaching identity and practice.
Corrin, L., Kennedy, G. & Mulder, R. (2013). Enhancing learning analytics by understanding the needs of teachers. In H. Carter, M. Gosper and J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric Dreams. Proceedings ascilite 2013
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., and Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
#111 Virtually Enhanced Languages
Presenters: Scott Grant
This sharing practice session will provide participants with an overview of the OLT funded Virtually Enhanced Language project and its goals, objectives and rationale. They will also be shown how to access the free resources available on the VEL website and how to join and participate in the community of practice the VEL project is attempting to build. Participants will learn how networked/multiuser and standalone single user 3D virtual environments can be combined with task-based learning to enhance foreign language and culture learning in the formal tertiary curriculum environment. Examples from over five years of practical experience will be given to illustrate what is possible and findings from research into a range of factors affecting language acquisition and learner motivation will be presented during the workshop.
The workshop will also involve hands on activities where participants will enter the online multiuser VEL demonstration 3D environment and try out a range of task-based activities focusing on Chinese culture (no knowledge of Chinese language required). There will also be activities for those with Chinese language ability. A non-networked standalone single user portable version of the same environment will also be available for participants to try out. The workshop will provide working examples of interactive quizzes based on the activities carried out in the 3D environment.
Aldrich, C. (2009, 20 August). Virtual Worlds, Simulations, and Games for Education: A Unifying View. Retrieved from http://clarkaldrich.blogspot.com/2009/12/virtual-worlds-simulations-and-games.html
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
Blasing, M. T. (2010). Second Language in Second Life: Exploring Interaction, Identity and Pedagogical Practice in a Virtual World. SEEJ, 54(1 (2010)), 96 – 117.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1).
Chen, D. (2010). Enhancing the learning of Chinese with Second Life. Journal of Technology and Chinese Language Teaching, 1(1), 14 – 30.
Grant, S., & Huang, H. (2010). The integration of an online 3D virtual learning environment into formal classroom-based undergraduate Chinese language and culture curriculum Journal of Technology and Chinese Language Teaching, 1(1).
Grant, S., & Huang, H. (2012). 13. Learning a Second Language in Second Life. In T. Islam, O. Lee, J. Peterson & M. Piscioneri (Eds.), Effectively Implementing Information Communication Technology in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Grant, S., Huang, H., & Pasfield-Neofitou, S. (2013). Language Learning in Virtual Worlds: The Role of Foreign Language and Technical Anxiety. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 6(1), 1-9.
Henderson, L., Grant, S., Henderson, M., Huang, H. . (2010). What are users thinking in a virtual world lesson? Using stimulated recall interviews to report student cognition, and its triggers. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 3(1), 1-20.
Henderson, M., Huang, H., Grant, S., & Henderson, L. (2009). Language acquisition in Second Life: improving self-efficacy beliefs. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2009, New Zealand. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/henderson.pdf
Lin, T.-J., Wang, S.-Y., Grant, S., Chien, C.-L., & Lan, Y.-J. (2014). Task-based Teaching Approaches of Chinese as a Foreign Language in Second Life through Teachers’ Perspectives. Procedia Technology, 13(0), 16-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2014.02.004
Purushotma, R., Thorne, S., & Wheatley, J. (2010). 10 Key Principles for Designing Video Games for Foreign Language Learning. Retrieved September, 2010, from http://knol.google.com/k/10-key-principles-for-designing-video-games-for-foreign-language-learning#
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching: Max Hueber Verlag.
#140 Expert in my Pocket: Creating First Person POV Videos To Enhance Mobile Learning
Presenters: Peter Bright, Bill Lord, Helen Forbes, Florin Oprescu, Nigel Barr, Terri Downer, Nicole (Nikki) Phillips, Lauren McTier, Vilma Amante Simbag, Kristel Alla
Worldwide, there has been a rapid increase in both the use of mobile technologies as a conduit for student learning and the use of wearable cameras to record sporting and recreational activities. The Expert in My Pocket project (EiMP) has combined these two technologies to produce a repository of freely available short videos and supporting materials to enhance student development of psychomotor clinical skills. These are presented from a first person point of view (1PPOV) with expert health professionals ‘thinking aloud’ as they demonstrate selected skills. (expertinmypocket.com.au)
Research indicates that students and educators overwhelmingly support the concept of EiMP videos and more importantly value the 1PPOV as an authentic view (Lynch, 2010). The use of EiMP videos when coupled with a simulated clinical environment and reflection on practice can support the development of clinical skills competence and confidence (Lynch et al, 2012). Additionally it has been demonstrated that students who have access to videos following initial clinical skill training maintain higher levels of competence (Hansen et al 2012) and value the use of multimedia and the ability to download videos on demand (Everett 2012). By merging technology and connection-making in learning activities, students are able to form the necessary connections between specialised information available in data bases and personal knowledge (Duke et al 2013).
The session will demonstrate the equipment and techniques used by the “Expert in my Pocket” project team to produce these videos and how QR codes of the videos placed on equipment assists with “just in time” learning.
Lynch, K., Downer, T and Hitchen-Holmes, D. (2010). Learning in the first-person: an initial investigation. In C.H. Steel, M.J. Keppell, P. Gerbic & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp.570-575). http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Lynch-concise.pdf
Everett, F (2012). Using multimedia to teach students essential skills. Nursing Times, 108(30), 18-19.
Hansen, M, Oosthuizen, G, Windsor, J et al (2011). Enhancement of medical interns’ levels of clinical skills competence and self-confidence levels via video iPods: pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1).
Lynch K, Barr N. & Oprescu F. (2012) Learning Paramedic Science Skills From a First Person Point of View. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 2012;10(4):pp.396-40
Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Connectivism as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Review. Special Issue 2013 (pp. 4-13)
#186 From MOOC to iBLOC: Redesigning a Non-Majors Biology Course for Returning National Servicemen
Presenters: Teck Keong Seow, Alan Swee Kit Soong
In-line with the university’s emphasis on technology-enhanced learning and capitalising on Coursera’s massive open online course (MOOC) platform, in January 2014, the National University of Singapore (NUS) initiated several internal Blended Learning Online Courses (iBLOCs) for returning National Servicemen (NSmen) who would like to spend their time prior to their matriculation into NUS by reading a course. One of the iBLOCs that was offered is a non-majors biology course, General Biology, which is also offered during the regular semesters. However, due to the unique circumstances of the returning NSmen, the course had to be redesigned.
The redesigning of the course as an iBLOC involved three aspects, namely administrative, technical and pedagogical. The administrative aspect involved the changes that arose from the different instructional period of 13 weeks in a regular semester to 5½ months for the iBLOC, and the necessity of having an online-only phase from January to March due to the variation in the dates of completion of the returning NSmen’s National Service. As a result of the online-only phase, redesigning the course involved the technical aspect of presenting the subject content in the form of online video recorded lectures and other learning activities related to online learning.
The pedagogical aspect of the redesigning of the course was probably the most crucial as it was essential that the iBLOC be educationally equivalent to the regular semester course. Recognising the importance of self-regulated learning to academic success and lifelong learning (Cassidy, 2010; Dettori & Persico, 2008), the course was pedagogically redesigned based on the principles of good feedback practice suggested by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006). Examples of how some of the principles of good feedback practice and formative assessment were incorporated into the redesigned course will be shared at the session.
The first 3 months of the course involved students accessing online lessons delivered through online video recorded lectures, supported by online reading materials together with in-video quizzes and online practice questions in order to provide feedback on how well students had understood the online video recorded lectures. In the subsequent 2½ months, students continued to deepen their learning of the various topics through face-to-face interactive tutorial classes, practical sessions and a field trip. An insight of how students’ learning were scaffolded throughout the 5½ month period will be shared at the session.
The interactive session will be conducted in three segments, with each segment focusing on one of the three different aspects involved in the redesigning of the course as an iBLOC, namely, administrative, technical and pedagogical. Each segment will begin with a short presentation, highlighting the challenges faced and the points learnt, followed by an opportunity for participants to field questions pertaining to the aspect presented.
Cassidy S. (2011) Self-regulated learning in higher education: identifying key component processes. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 989-1000, doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503269
Dettori G. & Persico D. (2008) Detecting Self-Regulated Learning in Online Communities by Means of Interaction Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(1), 11-19, doi:10.1109/TLT.2008.7
Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218, doi:10.1080/03075070600572090
#199 Moodle analytics and student engagement
Presenters: John Milne, Lynn Jeffrey
The blended learning engagement framework developed by Jeffrey, Milne, Suddaby and Higgins (2012) provides a sound approach to situate learning analytics. The framework is based on the teaching and learning within a course. By using the data available in Moodle teachers can get evidence of how students are engaging with the learning activities before any formal assessment has occurred. The engagement framework helps by focusing the data on aspects that help learning.
Learning analytics can identify student use of the learning management system associated with learning (Romero, Espejo, Zafra, Romero, & Ventura, 2013). In our study the activities students commonly used were discussion forums reading pages and quizzes. Although the analytics can provide feedback to individual students the main intention is to use the data so the teacher can challenge and provoke the students to support learning.
In this presentation I will demonstrate how learning analytics can show the level of student engagement within the Moodle learning management system and demonstrate practical ways of using this information to engage students. Participants will work in small groups to interpret data and then use the Soapbox response system to share their views on the tools and share ways of applying learning analytic data to improve engagement. The workshop will conclude with a discussion of the opportunities and limitations of using learning analytics.
Jeffrey, L. M., Milne, J., Suddaby, G. & Higgins, A. (2012). Strategies for engaging students: Help and hindrances in a blended learning environment (pp. 120). Wellington, NZ: Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/blended-approaches-learner-engagement
Romero, C., Espejo, P. G., Zafra, A., Romero, J. R., & Ventura, S. (2013). Web usage mining for predicting final marks of students that use Moodle courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 21(1), 135-146.
#200 The Grow-your-own MOOC kit
Presenters: Nicola Parkin, Angela Brown
While universities grapple with how to make sense of the affordances of MOOCs (open online massive courses) so that they are strategically positioned or fit a ‘business model’, Flinders University has developed a home-grown approach based on the premise that open online spaces can be anything you want them to be. In 2013 we played in the MOOC space by supporting three distinctly different models of MOOCs and learned that between the models, there was a skeleton of elements that they all shared but expressed in different ways (eg the platform, promotions, completion options). These 12 elements became the backbone of the Grow-your-own MOOC kit, which guides potential MOOC-makers through a range of choices and possible approaches for each element, which are mix’n’matched to create a bespoke MOOC based exactly on the intentions, resources and preferences of the MOOC-maker.
In this hands-on workshop table groups will be challenged to invent a MOOC with features drawn from the Grow-your-own MOOC kit – as realistic or idealistic as the mood suggests at the time. At the end of the session, tables will present their MOOCs to the room and discuss how the Grow-your-own elements were combined to create their unique MOOC. Participants will be provided with a handout on the Grow-your-own MOOC kit, and directed to a website where they can download the kit in its entirety
#212 By staff/ For staff: building, sustaining, and empowering a community of practice in learning and teaching for all University staff
Presenters: Rhian Salmon, Suzanne Boniface, Sue Cherrington, Marcus Harvey, Anne Macaskill, Stephen Marshall, Diane Ormsby, Sydney Shep, Beth Smith, Rohini Biradovolu, Stuart Brock, Michael Dudding, Jonathan Flutey, Kevin Gould, Tony Hooper, Jan Stewart, Jo Walton, Richard Norman
From May 2013 – March 2014, a monthly seminar series that was led ‘by staff, for staff’, focused on (a) establishment of a community of effective practice, (b) development of teaching with new technologies, and (c) evaluation of, and research into, teaching. Individual seminar attendance varied between 23 – 65 people and by the end of the series 120 academic and general staff across the University had requested to receive notifications about future events.
A survey of participants identified that successes of the series were related to the bottom-up, staff-led, design and content; pan-University attendance from academic and general staff; regular scheduling; informal setting; and support (but not direction) from senior management and the Centre for Academic Development. These factors were considered in the re-design of the seminar series for 2014, and formal establishment of the VicTeach Community of Practice. This group now meets twice monthly, has a steering committee with representation from across the University, communicates using a listserv, and is planning a cross-institutional “unconference” on educational technology. The new structure has been designed to ensure sustainability and continued response to staff needs in learning and teaching.
Following an introduction about the community of practice, and factors that have been found to lead to success, the majority of the session will be dedicated to exploring how participants can apply this concept and practice to their own institutions. This will involve small group discussions before reporting back to the larger session.
Boniface, S, Brock, S, Flutey, J, Macaskill, A, Salmon, RA, Shep, S (2013) Fostering a community of academics interested in teaching technologies and research. In M. Gosper, H. Carter, J. Hedberg (Eds.) Electric Dreams. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2013. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney13/program/posters/Salmon-Fostering-a-Community-of-Academics.pdf
#217 Educational innovation in the health setting – the use of MOOCs in medical education
Presenters: Kylie Mansfield, Lyndal Parker-Newlyn, Sarah Lambert
Phase 3 of the UOW MBBS is a 40 week regional or rural longitudinal clinical placement at nine hubs throughout NSW. The students learning experience is predominately “on the job” while at the same time being exposed to a series of case based learning modules [Spencer 2003] supported by curriculum materials delivered mostly in a PDF format delivered on-line via eLearning. These modules are aimed at strengthening the students clinical reasoning skills [Ryan et al., 2004] while also encouraging them to re-engage with the sciences [Patel and Dauphinee, 1984]. Weekly tutorials occur in the hubs delivered by local GPs and are supported by a minimal number of specialist tutorials organised on an ad hoc basis in the individual hubs. The on-line material is the only material delivered simultaneously to all students in the cohort and represents the core of the Phase 3 curriculum.
One of the biggest issues with the longitudinal placements are that the students are cut off from their class mates, which increases student anxiety about what they should be learning and leads to a perception of inequity of teaching delivery at the different sites. Students in rural locations also have limited access to scientist and clinical specialist teaching. To combat these issues we have developed innovative digital media resources to enhance the Phase 3 student experience. The delivery of targeted, short digital media files developed by scientists and clinical specialists will engage student interest while not taking too much of their time. There is good evidence that medical students consider multimedia content motivating and stimulating and their enjoyment and engagement with digital media is increased when they are on remote placements away from core faculty. (Persson et al, 2010; Ho et al, 2011; Jonassen, 2011).
This project builds on the experience of A/Prof Kylie Mansfield and A/Prof Lyndal Parker-Newlyn in developing the first UOW MOOC (with Open 2 Study) “Understanding Common Diseases”. This course first opened in November 2013 and has had just over 6500 student enrolments. Building on this experience we have developed a series of 5 to 10 minute digital media files that are relevant to the cases the students are studying and can be used to enhance the academic experience of our Phase 3 medical students.
The purpose of this session is to provide a background on the use of MOOCs as an educational model, to share experience and learnings from successfully developing and implementing MOOCs both in a free online environment and as part of an existing undergraduate curriculum and allow attendees to work through the advantages, disadvantages and pitfalls of applying a MOOC model to their own learning and teaching setting.
This session will involve an interactive question answer style, small group work and brainstorming of problems and solutions. The presenters will use real examples from their experience and authentic video examples of MOOC content for discussion.
Hardy, S. and G. Brown (2010). Virtual patients and online video resources: useful when patient availability is reduced? Clinical Teacher 7(4): 292-293.
Ho, K., A. Gingerich, et al. (2011). Remote hands-on interactive medical education: video feedback for medical students. Medical Education 45(5): 522-523.
Jonassen, D. (2011). Supporting Problem Solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 5(2): 95-112.Use APA 6th edition style for references.
Patel, V. L. and W. D. Dauphinee (1984). Return to basic sciences after clinical experience in undergraduate medical training. Medical Education 18(4): 244-248.
Persson, A.-C., A. Fyrenius, et al. (2010). Perspectives on using multimedia scenarios in a PBL medical curriculum. Medical Teacher 32(9): 766-772.
Ryan, G., T. Dolling, et al. (2004). Supporting the problem-based learning process in the clinical years: evaluation of an online Clinical Reasoning Guide. Medical Education 38(6): 638-645.
Spencer, J. (2003). Learning and teaching in the clinical environment. British Medical Journal 326: 591-594.
#219 Painless grammar for native speakers: bridging the gap between implicit and explicit understanding
Presenters: Gordon Campbell
Standard approaches to teaching English grammar tend to focus initially on learning parts of speech, identifying errors, and promulgating the rules of ‘correct’ English. This e-learning module, however, is built on the awareness that learners already have a strong intuitive understanding of the patterns of their native tongue; its aim is to provide learners with labels to describe these patterns so that this implicit knowledge can be made explicit. To do this, it focuses first on the most fundamental structures of English: clauses and the verbs that function as their heads. Unlike traditional grammar instruction, this module is highly interactive, uses minimal terminology, and takes an approach that is consistent with contemporary grammatical theory.
#240 Designing for learning in the MOOC environment: Early experiences at the University of Auckland
Presenters: Claire Donald, Elizabeth Ramsay
MOOCs have come under close scrutiny by tertiary educators, as thousands of learners enroll in hundreds of MOOCs worldwide (Shrivastava & Guiney, 2014). In 2013 the University of Auckland partnered with the Futurelearn Consortium (UK) to deliver MOOCs on a trial basis on the Futurelearn platform. During the session we will focus on the learning design of one of these MOOCs, “Data to Insight”.
In mid-July 4167 learners were enrolled for the course, which will start on 6 October 2014. By the time of the Ascilite conference, “Data to Insight” will be in its final (8th) week of delivery. We will report on its deployment, including the usage data. Participants will be invited to review the MOOC in order to a) gain some first-hand experience of being a “MOOC learner”, b) provide feedback on the learning design principles and strategies used c) review and interpret current usage data.
Shrivastava, A. & Guiney, P. 2014. Technological developments and tertiary education delivery models – The arrival of MOOCs: Massive Open Online Courses. Report of the Tertiary Education Commission, New Zealand.
Claire Donald, Elizabeth Ramsay
#244 Bringing digital literacies to students without internet access
Presenters: Helen Farley
Incarcerated students in most jurisdictions are prohibited from accessing the internet. This discussion will focus around the learnings from a number of projects from the University of Southern Queensland which have been introducing educational technologies into correctional centres for the delivery of USQ programs and courses. These projects include the OLT-funded From Access to Success project and a number of HEPPP-funded projects including the Triple ‘E’ project (eLearning, eReaders and Empowerment), Paper to Pixels and the $4.3 million Making the Connection project. Making the Connection will see the deployment of USQ’s Learning Management System and tablet computers deployed into 13 correctional centres across Australia.
This discussion will also report on the findings of research with other Australian universities around the provision of eLearning for incarcerated students and with correctional centre educational officers in regards of their capacity to assist educators. This discussion will give those educators dealing with incarcerated students some ideas and strategies for using technologies with incarcerated students, and some insights into the motivations and compounding issues when dealing with students in correctional centres.
#252 Benchmarking your capacity for technology enhanced learning: Helping you take the reigns
Presenters: Michael Sankey, Helen Carter
Many of the issues we face in our institutions today can be remediated by simply taking the time to self-assess against a set of quality indicators; like those found in the ACODE Benchmarks for Technology Enhanced Learning (ACODE, 2014). However, when we look to further extend that self-reflection, by sharing our current practice with those in similar circumstances, this provides the impetus for a truly dynamic learning activity. Facilitating something like an inter-institution benchmarking activity can not only help you and your institution understand your current practice just that bit better – by being able to view your practice within a broader sector-wide context, but it will also provide the opportunity for you to build relationships and stronger ties with your colleagues across the sector (Sankey & Carter, 2014). At the end of the day, it can provide you and your institutions with much of the wherewithal to meet the unique challenges of building a strong digital future.
However, if you’re waiting for somebody else to make this happen for you, it probably won’t. Ultimately it’s going to be up to you to take the bull by the horns and pro-actively look for ways in which you and your institution can better its practice.
This session will initially provide an overview of a recent Inter-Institutional Benchmarking Summit that was held in Sydney in July 2014, where 24 institutions came together to benchmark their capacity in technology enhanced learning, based on using the new ACODE Benchmarks. More importantly, this session will provide you with a practical way in which you can actually facilitate your own inter-institutional activity. The facilitators of this session will work you though a number of different scenarios and activities with the aim of helping you understand the many different things that will need to be considered when taking on something like this. They will ask you to identify potential partners; people/institutions that you could benchmark and network with, all with the very clear goal of helping you walk out of that session with a strong plan of action to help you and your institution enhance its capacity in the area of technology enhanced learning and teaching.
ACODE. (2014). Benchmarks for Technology Enhanced Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.acode.edu.au/course/view.php?id=5
Sankey, M., Carter, H. (2014). Benchmarking for future growth, a must for institutions with a strong regional focus: You are not alone. The Digital Rural Futures Conference. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba. 25 – 27 June. Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/michaelsankey/benchmarking-for-future-growth
#267 Using Storify to Collect, Narrate and Share Online Content
Presenters: Sarah Gallagher, Lynne Knapp, Mark McGuire, Allison Brown
Increasingly, social media tools are used in academic scholarship to network, to teach, and to share research and resources. The practice of using hashtags to create communities of practice for professionals is becoming more established (Moorleyemail and Chinn, 2014). Storify is a popular template-based tool for constructing rich media narratives. It can be used to produce learning objects have been shown to be both usable and pedagogically sound (Gaeta et al. 2014). Its ability to aggregate media from multiple social media networks and enable users to add text to create a memorable, personal story can enhance student involvement (Lairea et al. 2012). Storify also enables students to author a learning experience that demonstrates critical inquiry, analysis, and evaluation (Cohen, J., Mihailidis, 2012). In academic settings, like conferences, event participants can use Storify to aggregate online resources from different sources and create a new, comprehensive resource with value added through a helpful narration. In this way, Storify can be used to provide a meaningful context for content.
The purpose of this session is to provide a brief introduction to Storify and how to use it in academic work. It will begin with a demonstration and a short panel discussion, in which the authors will share how they have used Storify in their practice in a tertiary context. The majority of the session will involve attendees working in small groups to create a Storify archive about the conference keynote presenters and invited speakers. The session will conclude with a review of the archives that have been created and a general discussion. Participants will be encouraged to share their Storify archives using the #ascilite2014 conference Twitter hashtag. Participants are encouraged to set up a Twitter account in advance, and to bring their own laptop to the session.
Cohen, J., Mihailidis, P. Storify and News Curation: Teaching and Learning about Digital Storytelling. In Proceedings, Second Annual Social Media Technology Conference & Workshop. Howard University, Bowie State University. September 27-28, 2012. 27-31 Retrieved from http://socialmediatechnologyconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SMTCProceedingsFinal2012-1.pdf
Gaeta, M. Loia, V, Mangione, R. M., Orciuoli, F., Ritrovato, P., Salerno, S. (2014). A methodology and an authoring tool for creating Complex Learning Objects to support interactive storytelling. Computers in Human Behavior. 31, 620-637
Lairea, D., Casteleynb, J., Mottartc, A. (2012). Social Media’s Learning Outcomes within Writing instruction in the EFL Classroom: Exploring, Implementing and Analyzing Storify. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 69. 442-448.
Moorleyemail C. R., Chinn, T. (2014). Nursing and Twitter: Creating an online community using hashtags. Collegin. 21 (2), Retrieved from http://www.collegianjournal.com/article/S1322-7696(14)00031-6/fulltext
#289 The LMS and the Alternatives: the rhetoric and the reality
Presenters: Howard Errey
This session emerges out of an RMIT University funded project in 2014 called “Beyond Blackboard Course Shells: What on earth are they using?” (http://www.whatonearth14.wordpress.com) This project emerged out of low LMS usage statistics being used to justify online performance, in a context where many subjects have high online participation with students. We examine decisions educators make to go beyond the institution provided LMS platform to educate in other platforms. Interviews were conducted with practitioners who were often doing valuable innovating in isolation. As well a wider survey was conducted of lecturing staff to identify teaching and learning practices outside the recommended platform and workshops conducted on the use of some of the newer tools being used. Participants will be led through some of the new interactive methods and tools that have been uncovered during our project, to rapidly create a shared knowledge space. Collaborative online activities will be conducted with participants during the session to demonstrate some of the practices uncovered, and provide a take-away online resource from the knowledge shared during the session. Participants are invited to bring a mobile device with a 2D barcode reader such as i-nigma (www.i-nigma.com) already loaded.
Watters, A. (2012). Google Apps for Education: When will it replace the LMS? Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/google-apps-for-education-when-will-it-replace-the-lms/Staton, M. (2013). Unbundling Higher Education: A doubly updated framework. Retrieved from http://edumorphology.com/2013/12/unbundling-higher-education-a-doubly-updated-framework/
Hardison, J. (2014). Canvas by Instructure: The Perfect LMS? Quite Possibly. Retrieved from
Margid, L. (2014). Google Classroom offers Control Center for Teachers and Students. Retrieved from
#292 Presenting Without PowerPoint
Presenters: Thomas Cochrane, Vickel Narayan
Higher education is plagued by a disconnect between theory and practice, extending beyond the content of the curriculum into teaching practice, where our understanding of teaching and learning often does not line up with our teaching practice. While espousing new pedagogies and the affordances of new technologies for learning, educators often default to content delivery via PowerPoint presentations consisting of static screen captures of the subject. In this workshop we explore practical strategies for moving away from reliance upon PowerPoint in our teaching practice driven by a reconception of teaching and learning around heutagogy or student-directed learning. Based upon our experiences of facilitating curriculum redesign founded upon the integration of mobile social media the authors believe that teachers must begin by effectively modelling the pedagogical use of new technologies to their students.
The session will provide an overview of some free to use platform independent mobile web-based productivity and presentation tools for learning and teaching. The facilitators will discuss examples of pedagogical use of some of these tools (such as Google+, Storify and Twitter) within local (institutional/courses) and global contexts for learning and teaching. The session will also provide a guided hands-on opportunity for the participants to explore the following tools for learning and teaching: Evernote, Google Picasa (Web Albums), Twitter, Storify, Flipboard, and Google+. We encourage participants to BYO laptop or iOS (iPhone. iPod Touch or iPad) or Android device.
Cochrane, T, & Withell, A. (2013). Augmenting design education with mobile social media: A transferable framework. Journal of the NUS teaching academy (JNUSTA), 3(4), 150-168.
Cochrane, T, Narayan, V, & Ransom, L. (2013). Mobile social media – productivity and presentation tools for the 21st century teacher. Paper presented at the 6th annual New Zealand Shar-E-Fest, Wintec, Hamilton, New Zealand. Workshop retrieved from http://sharefest.crowdvine.com
Cochrane, T, & Narayan, V. (2013). Mobile social media – productivity and presentation tools for the 21st century teacher. Paper presented at the HERDSA 2013, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand. Workshop retrieved from http://herdsa.nz123.co.nz/pre-conference-workshop-programme-monday-1-july/
Cochrane, T, Munn, J, & Antonczak, L. (2013, 20-22 November). Design thinking for mlearning: Herding a flock of moas. Paper presented at the 3rd Mobile Creativity and Innovation Symposium, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Cochrane, T, & Antonczak, L. (2013). Modelling technology: Tack, skal, ikea. Paper presented at the Larande i fokus, Umea, Sweden. YouTube Playlist retrieved from http://larandeifokus.se/modelling-technology/
Cochrane, T, & Antonczak, L. (2013). Post web 2.0 media: Mobile social media. QScience Proceedings, 2013(3), 2. doi: 10.5339/qproc.2013.mlearn.2
#302 Learners and Mobile Devices: Sharing practice from a national project
A group of six NZ tertiary institutions are currently funded through the Ako Aotearoa National Project Fund 2014 round (NPF14) to explore questions around learners and mobile devices (LMD) – see http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/learner-mobile-devices . The aim of the project is to generate a range of practical strategies for students, teachers and leaders to utilise the affordances of mobile devices for pedagogical transformation and empowering learners. This presentation will engage participants with the initial sets of findings from the first year of the project. The central questions addressed by the project are:
Will learners’ mobile devices deliver innovation, inclusion, and transformation—the main potential benefits for learners (Traxler 2010)? If so, how? What are the possible frameworks for enhanced learning and institutional change that will deliver these benefits?
These questions, with a range of sub-questions (see e.g. Cochrane 2013, Parsons 2014), inform case studies generated by a collaborative network of practitioners consisting of 36 academic staff involved in the project—from AUT, EIT, Massey, Otago Poly, UoA and UNITEC. This collaborative network is signaled by the project hashtag #NPF14LMD. As many staff as possible from the project (current estimate 21) will be present at this 50-minute session that will be facilitated by a small representative subset of the project team. Participants will be provided with examples of emerging practice from the early findings of individual cases that involve a wide range of disciplines and institutional contexts (15 minutes), and then engage in workshop activities that will explore the extent to which these findings could contribute to their own practices around mobile learning in their own contexts (25 minutes, with remaining 10 for closing discussion and reflection). The session will cater for staff who may be in the early stages of implementing mobile learning—who will come away with examples and ideas—and also for more experienced practitioners who might want to provide informed critique and examples from their own contexts.
We will use wireless screen mirroring from mobile devices to model the use of new collaborative teaching environments using mobile devices, and the session will be enhanced with a moderated TodaysMeet online discussion that can continue after the session and contribute to other opportunities for engaging with the project under the #NPF14LMD tag. In this way we intend to extend the reach of the project to a wider network of practice across the ascilite community.
This sharing practice session is complemented by 8 posters (see separate submissions each tagged with #NPF14LMD) that describe the project in more detail through displaying the project structure and project management framework, and elaborating on the wide range of individual case studies that comprise the collaborative network.
Cochrane, T. (2013). A summary and critique of mlearning research and practice. In Z. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 24-34): Routledge.
Parsons, D. (2014). The future of mobile learning and implications for education and training. In M. Ally & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Mobile learning development for flexible learning (pp. 217-229). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning Press.
Traxler, J. (2010). Will student devices deliver innovation, inclusion, and transformation? Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET), 6(1), 3-15.
#312 Digital Learning Thresholds – developing, implementing and monitoring – a whole of institution approach
Presenters: Romy Lawson
This session will briefly explore the rationale and process behind the development of the Digital Learning Thresholds and then go on to discuss the implementation of thresholds across the whole of institution, discussing mechanisms for: (a) raising awareness, (b) up skilling staff (through resource development, consultations and training opportunities), and (c) gaining staff buy in. This will be achieved through a world cafe activity where participants review and discuss examples of good practice for each mechanism. The last part of the session will focus on governance and monitoring of the thresholds, brainstorming effective strategies for quality assurance for delivering technology enhanced learning consistently across the whole institution. Participants will be given the opportunity to consider how these ideas could be applied in their own contexts.
#315 Open source publishing in design education
Presenters: Martin Kean
This paper reflects on open source publishing in design education. It traces the author’s experience at a FLOSS manuals ‘book sprint’ in the Netherlands and subsequent integration of this learning into a classroom project in a design school context. The project takes online open source design theory and puts it into practice through the design and production and distribution of a physical, printed newspaper.
Kean, M. (2011). Open source publishing, ‘book sprints’ and possible futures. Junctures, No 15 (2012): Viral, 27-32. Retrieved from http://www.junctures.org/index.php/junctures/article/view/219
Fuzz, M., & Hyde, A. (2012). FLOSS Manuals and Federated Publishing. Libre Graphics Research Unit, Retrieved from http://lgru.net/archives/2826
Hyde, A. (2014). Adam Hyde: Book sprints and software. Interview with Kim Hill on Radio New Zealand National, from Saturday Morning on 14 June 2014. Retrieved from http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2599643/adam-hyde-book-sprints-and-software
#400 An online orientation to open, flexible and distance learning
Presenters: Mark Nichols
In 2013 DEANZ (the New Zealand Association for Open, Flexible and Distance Learning) was successful in an Ako Aotearoa Regional Hub Project Fund grant to develop a series of introductory resources for students, academic staff and education managers seeking to learn the basic ideas, concepts and theories related to open, flexible, and distance learning (OFDL). The resources form a self-paced professional development programme that will provide linkages into the global community of OFDL organisations and research. A major focus is on the application of theory, using a well-designed, self-directed series of modules. The professional development programme also links participants together through peer-based forums and reflective activities.
The starting point for the project was concern that developments in online learning have tended to overlook the valuable theoretical and design frameworks that are well-established in distance education literature. The project seeks to introduce a common theoretical base and vocabulary for OFDL practitioners, and to assist with the further development of an OFDL community. Those completing the professional development modules will be issued with a DEANZ Certificate of Completion and online badge.
The session will provide a brief overview of the initiative’s objectives and design. By the time of the conference, an initial pilot will have been concluded; lessons from this phase will be shared. Participants will be invited to discuss those elements they would consider essential for any newcomer to the field of online learning to be familiar with, as a means of further improving the orientation experience. Ideas for extending the orientation into other areas will also be canvassed.
The orientation course is available from OpenEducation: http://openeducation.blackboard.com/. Participants are invited to bring their own devices and access the course area during the session. Approximately half of the session will be dedicated to discussion and feedback.
#401 How should we quantify student engagement?
Presenters: Perry Samson
Student engagement is widely thought to be a key predictor of student motivation and achievement (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990). We all have a sense of what an engaged student looks like (Ainley, 2012; Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012; Finn & Zimmer, 2012): they ask questions, they challenge assertions and they complete assignments. Kuh, et al. (2008) define student engagement as “both the time and energy students invest in educationally purposeful activities.” Unfortunately this doesn’t identify what specific student actions to include in a measure of engagement.
This interactive presentation invites participants to consider how they would quantify student engagement using technology. The discussion will be informed from lessons learned at the University of Michigan where a rich database of student participation in class has been collected and related to student outcomes.
Ainley, M. (2012). Students’ interest and engagement in classroom activities. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 283-302): Springer.
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Boston, MA: Springer US.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131): Springer.
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540.
Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
#402 From the Big Screen to many screens – Capturing our audience
Presenters: Andrew Jamieson and Julian Lefebvre
With the advancement in video capturing technology, the availability of video content is becoming more and more of an expectation in tertiary learning (Beetham & White, 2013). At Massey University this has become our experience and feedback from students in a student experience survey in 2013 has increasingly focussed on access and the ability to watch lecture material after class in the form of video. The composition of our student cohorts has 50% of students studying at a distance. This means that the online environment, Stream, is becoming a multimedia resource with not only self directed material and static resources but also real time and asynchronous capture of teaching to maintain an equivalent experience. This approach also increases the access to teachers and potentially the opportunities to be more responsive to student needs.
Recently the introduction of rich media technologies has provided the opportunity for user generated content and this has brought about a change in practice for early adopters at Massey. For our teachers this has meant a rethink into how they teach and how the students engage with material. The ‘flipped classroom’ approach has focussed on the increased use of video (Pearson, 2012), and in combination with the Blended learning ethos at Massey, has meant a change from the traditional approaches to teaching that includes the possibility of lecture capture and rich media resources created by the teacher. Discussions around redesigning lectures to be more of a facilitated discussion, the watching of rich media material before, during and after class, is becoming more common through the introduction of this technology. Students have reported positively about the addition of rich media resources in online courses. Online teaching has had to adapt to the affordances of the new technology and the design of courses have in some instances, radically changed. This is in respond to the growing need to present
material in a different way to cater for the different learning needs of the students. This change in practice is not simply adding video but includes how the videos are integrated into the whole teaching approach and what is most effective (Tucker, 2012). The inclusion of video introductions to topics and modules has meant the the learning experience is more interactive and has seen a reduction in instructional text in some areas.
This presentation will look at the journey from lecture capture to including rich media, user content generation and the pedagogical considerations that inform what we do and the challenges to meet the expectations of our internal and distance students. We will ask the participants to participate in a discussion around the affordances of this type of technology.
Beetham, H., & White, D. (2013). Students’ expectations and experiences of the digital environment literature review. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/blog/students-experiences-and-expectations-of-the-digital-environment-23-jun-2014
Pearson, G. (2012). Biology teacher’s flipped classroom: a simple thing, but it’s so powerful. Education Canada, 52(5). Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/issue/theme2012
Tucker, B. (2012). The Flipped Classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.
#403 Application of immersive and blended learning in a nursing curriculum
Presenters: Linda Kinniburgh and Elizabeth Ditzel
The Bachelor of Nursing at Otago Polytechnic is a 3 year degree that integrates theoretical learning with practical laboratory sessions and clinical placements. Revision of the curriculum has allowed us to develop eLearning and blended learning methods for student engagement.
In year 2, the students learn through lectures, online learning opportunities, tutorials, and by practicing clinical skills in a simulation setting, and in clinical placements. By integrating the use of different technologies; LabTutor Online, case studies and video with clinical simulation using high fidelity life-like mannequins; we have created an immersive learning environment. We call this the Immersive Learning Model. This approach is designed to link the student’s knowledge and understanding of physiology with clinical assessment and nursing management in order to develop clinical decision-making skills in a simulated clinical environment. We are using Reierson et al.’s (2013) micro-cycle approach that allows the research team to plan, act and observe, gather data by way of focus groups, and reflect upon the implementation of the new teaching method at the end of each immersive learning session.
Berragan (2011) discusses the role of simulation in nursing of bringing together theory and practice in a supportive environment allowing the development of skills and a professional identity Feedback indicates that LabTutor is an effective technology that enhances student learning experience, improves their understanding of disease processes and allows them to apply and integrate their developing nursing knowledge. These factors work together to improve clinical practice (Hogarth 2013).
Key challenges to designing and developing the immersive learning environment were how to:
*blend theory and practical learning experiences cohesively?
*measure student outcomes?
*work with commercial partners?
The session will present the development process, the Immersive Learning Model solution, student outcomes and invite the audience to discuss their potential or proven solutions to the above challenges.
Berragan, L. (2011) Simulation: An effective pedagogical approach for nursing? Nurse Education Today, 31: 660-663. Hogarth, K. (2013) Implementation of LabTutor into nursing bioscience teaching. Australasian Nurse
Educators Conference, Wellington 2013.
Reierson, I. A., Hvidsten, A., Wighus, M., Brugnot, S., & Bjork, I. T. (2013). Key issues and challenges in developing a pedagogical intervention in the simulation skills center – An action research study. Nurse
Education in Practice (13); 294-300.
#404 Bringing it all together: integrating first year biochemistry curriculum in an online learning environment
Presenters: Tony Zaharic
The Foundations of Biochemistry course is a 100-level paper catering to 1400 students. It integrates theoretical learning with hands-on laboratory sessions, with students attending four lectures and one practical each week. The recorded lectures, lecture notes, additional tutorial videos and quizzes are made available on Blackboard for students to revise at any time. However, because each of these study materials exists online as a discrete item, the cognitive load placed on students is high – students are forced to switch focus between the different sources. It is also relatively passive; the quantity of interactive content is low. We also wished to encourage independent learning skills in the students; anecdotally, we have found that first year students who have mostly received didactic teaching in K12 can struggle with changes in study expectation. To improve the student experience, we aimed to provide an integrated solution. In developing this integrated solution we faced the following challenges. How to:
*successfully integrate disparate parts of the curriculum
*adapt content for successful online learning
*measure student engagement
*work with commercial partners.
The solution was developed using kuraCloud learning delivery software with the assistance of instructional designers employed by ADInstruments. The solution integrated and adapted the course materials into single online lessons which presented the recorded lecture alongside relevant lecture notes and formative assessment. The solution employed content chunking around a specific concept within the lesson to enable reduced cognitive load and targeted revision. Significant formative assessment and immediate feedback was provided throughout to encourage students to independently test their knowledge and have multiple attempts. A variety of media was used to appeal to different learning styles. Reflection points at the end of each lesson provided recall exercises to improve performance in future summative assessments. To measure student engagement a short, qualitative survey based on existing student engagement indices was used. It was considered unethical to split students for comparison purposes as the course is part of highly competitive entry standards for students wishing to study Medicine and other health professions.
The session will present the development process, the integrated solution, student survey outcomes (which are not yet received). Sample content will be available during the session. Polling (via Socrative) of audience members and free discussion around the above questions and challenges will occur. A 15 minute presentation is anticipated with 10 minutes for audience participation.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and
Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
de Fatima, W.R., de Espindola, M.B., Struchiner, M., & Giannella, T.R. (2012). Blended learning in biochemistry education. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(4), 222-228. Gallagher, S., Swan, J. & Gulliver, L. (2014). eCases for blended delivery in a medical curriculum. Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Association for Health Professional Educators (ANZAHPE) Conference: Connecting Science and Theory with Learning for Clinical Practice, (pp. 170). Adelaide,
Australia: ANZAHPE. doi: 10.13140/2.1.4624.1929
Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the science of learning to medical education. Medical Education, 44, 543-549. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Some limits on our capacity for processing
information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
O’Brien, H.L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
Sorden, S. D. (2005). A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia learning. Informing Science
Journal, 8, 263-279.