Yesterday, was an academy only day. The various workshops
and discussions centred around the role and impact of the academy and its
members on quality teaching and learning. The day concluded with dinner with
the Australian Learning and Teaching fellows.
Today and into tomorrow, the main symposium carries through.
The event begins with a mihi whakatau (traditional Maori
welcome). Professor Charles Fleischmann who is on the conference committee
provides us with the safety and housekeeping briefing. Following on there are welcomes
from Professor Catherine Moran, Assistant Vice-Chancellor of the university and
Professor Marc Wilson, president for the Ako Aotearoa Academy of Tertiary Teaching
Excellence.
The keynote address is presented by Professor Juliet
Gerrard, academy member and recently appointed as the
Prime Minister’s ChiefScience Advisor, She presents on ’beyond the tyranny of content – reframing our
teaching using inclusive practices and critical thinking as essential
foundations for learners in the 21
st century’. Covered the
parameters of her new role; the context of a teacher; and the connection
between the two. Her current role is to be a trusted, accessible bridge between
scientists, society and government. Needs to provide advice on a useful
timescale which is rigorous, inclusive, transparent and accessible (from
Nature, June 2018 – four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for
policy). Objectives include shifting society to be excited by science; had
advice that is distilled from a diversity of thought and approach; earn trust;
be proactive; accessible and view science knowledge and approaches to increase
opportunities. Summarised her journey as a teacher to shift from content-based
to application in a context. From her portfolio, distilled learning as being a ‘coach’,
coaxing students out of their comfort zone, and creating a room in which
questioning is encouraged. Used demonstrations to engage students and then made
use of situated / contextualised learning. Facilitated an interactive Q & A
session to work through the main challenges in learning. The challenges were
how to create learning environments that support students to constructively
challenge everything (using creative thinking); and Inclusive learning.
Parallel presentations then being. There are 6 streams.
I select the ‘technology’ stream, which actually focusses on
digital learning and assesments.
First up,
Associate Professor Cheryl Brown and Niki Davis from University of
Canterbury with – engaging students in blended learning – UC student
perspectives. Presented work for the team which also included Valerie Sotardi
and William Eulatth Vidal. Began with the difficulty of defining engagement. Although
there is a lot of literature and engagement is on a wide spectrum. Resolved to investigate
the students’ perspectives. On-line engagement even more difficult to track.
Two items are presence and performance. For online – learning analytics are
visible but can be misleading. Clicking on a reading etc. does not mean they
will have read the paper! What about the invisible. Provided distance student’s
viewpoints. Flexibility makes synchronous attendance onerous, especially if
presence requirements are required (attendance, forum participation etc.). What
is not visible is the reflective learning; peer communications through social
media; physical meetings amongst some students; etc. How to bridge the gap
between pedagogical design and students’ learning needs and strategies. Suggested
ensuring there is space for students to interact with their peers; undertake
their individual learning; and work out what works for them from a range of
suggested ‘pathways’ from which they can select and be guided through.
Then,
Associate Professor Selene Mize from University of
Otago with her experiences with computer-based examining. Presented preliminary
findings. Ran through reasons for adopting computer-based examining – learner preference;
sustainability; occupational health and safety around ‘hand fatigue’; and unreadable
writing. Essay based exams are inauthentic as lawyers will never discuss ‘quotations’
in writing at work. Covered potential advantages and disadvantages. Summarised
some of the studies around computer-based exams including the aspect whereby
written examinations seem to score lightly better than word processed scripts.
Detailed the staff and student surveys – law, anatomy, surveying, info science,
tourism, political science. Low numbers of students opted in! Presented
responses on perceived advantages and challenges of writing vs typing.
Next up,
Associate Professor Jo Coldwell-Neilson from DeakinUniversity with ‘digital literacy – a driver for curriculum transformation’.
Context is ophthalmology – which is a ‘self-contained’ programme with all
courses being compulsory. Defined digital literacy in this context. For example
– the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide
range of sources when it is presented via computers (Gilster, 1997) –which needs
to be updated for the current and future needs. Shared work defining digital
skills expectations – digital muggle 9none), citizen user to find info,
communicate and purchase), worker (complex platforms) and maker (programmer).
There is work from UK JISC (6 elements – ict proficiency, digital creation, problem
solving, communication and collaboration, learning and development and info
data and media literacies – building an identity and welbeing), Belshaw’s 8 Cs (cultural
creative, constructive etc.) and Beetham and Sharpe’s pyramid (I have, I cam I
do, I am). Another model from Ireland –
www.allaboardhe.com
To assess digital literacy, needs to be in context, can be
assessed if integrated well – where it is taught, applied and assessed. Need to
match what is required – explicitly assessed when it is an implicit requirement
but not ‘taught’ e.g. use video to communicate.
Followed on by Renee Stringer - hospitality lecturer from Otago
Polytechnic on ‘assessing assessment – challenging the system by giving
students agency to assess themselves’. A focus not only on competencies but to help them become better learners beyond the Level 3 food and beverage students. over 50% move on to further study but have had little experience with tertiary education. Introduced the need to shift students from a standards based system to taking ownership of their learning and assessment. Needed to encourage students to engage with the marking criteria and to develop learning to learning skills. Authentic assessment (practical) was followed by a reflective process to evaluate their performance. Based on Mason Durie's 3 Ws or Es. Whakapiri / engagement, whakamarama / enlightenment to achieve whakamana / empowerment. When through each part of the model. Whakapiri / engagement involves setting up boundaries, be flexible and student accommodating and be in a safe and supportive environment. Whakamarama / enlightment focuses on providing information that meets students' needs by working with the whole person - physical, mental, spiritual etc. This then provides for whakamana / empowerment to be achieved along with participation within society, the Maori worldview, enjoy positive relationships and become self-managing. Discussed challenges including time required to negotiate grades with students and written reflections being less rich than f2f interactions with tutor.
