Thursday, May 30th, 2019

Group work is the bane of most students' academic experience, yet it is an integral part of many courses. Working well on a team (read: group) is one of the most highly sought after skills in the modern workforce. It would be impossible to think that a boss at some huge corporation would walk out into the staff area and create a team from every fourth employee, clump people in the nearest five carrells, or go through the HR rooster alphabetically to create a group. Yet, this is what many instructors do when they assign students into groups. Conventional wisdom used to be that it doesn't matter, or that the teams will "figure it out". Research shows that in some cases, this is far from true. Group membership has a direct impact on student and project success, should be reflective of the assignment, and should be included in the reflective process instructors already go through on a regular basis. This session will demonstrate three primary grouping types (random, self-select, and purposeful), discuss the pros and cons of each, and will introduce an online tool designed to make grouping based on criteria (purposeful) easier on the instructor. A demo will be included, as will hands-on time with the application.

Arizona State University’s mission is that we are measured not by whom we exclude, but rather by whom we include and how they succeed. This mission normally focuses on classroom faculty using inclusive language and equitable teaching practices.

In 2017, we embarked on creating a fully online biology degree, which included developing three virtual lab courses. ASU faculty and staff partnered with developers at Google and Labster to create real-life narratives walking students through a variety of laboratory experiments.

During testing, the ASU team realized that students were completely immersed in the stories, and emotionally influenced by the avatars and situations. Although, we were excited to see students engaged in the content, we also faced additional challenges:

• Mirroring our classrooms with a variety of ethnic backgrounds and diverse people
• Creating a professional environment that was more inclusive than a typical research lab in today’s science industry
• Preparing students for emotional responses to stories in the simulations.

The School of Life Sciences has now formed a team to review all simulation content with a lens of “inclusion”. The team was diverse in discipline, experiences, physical attributes and social influences. They developed a “Framework for Language” to guide discussions, and presented multiple examples of simulations and how they could be refined to be more inclusive.

In this presentation, we will share our process, challenges and early success as a case study. We’ll go over our “Framework”, and then give participants opportunities in small groups to review some content and make suggestions based on the framework We’ll also facilitate a dialogue on the issue of stereotypes in multimedia educational materials, and how we can develop an inclusive mindset to be aware of potential issues.

Innovation is a concept that pervades academic libraries’ teaching and learning. We talk innovation, we discuss innovation, we create job descriptions and confer titles with innovation in them, and we find that almost anything we do in the field is about innovation. However, professional literature contradicts our perception. Several authors (Jantz, 2017) (Neal, 2006) point out the fact that innovation is actually counter-cultural among academic libraries, and that actual innovation is scarce, mismanaged, and limited by the intrinsic iron cage structure of our organizations. How should we connect innovation and learning design in the current times to maximize the educational value and impact of academic instruction to support high quality education?, What should we consider then when proposing innovation in learning design, and how could we build a realistic and tangible culture of innovation for learning design for academic librarians? These questions are relevant to build up a culture of innovation that speaks to the current students and educators and allows librarians to collaborate efficiently with instructional designers. This presentation discusses the role of innovation and its challenges in academic libraries.

Jantz, R. C.,. (2012). Innovation in academic libraries: An analysis of university librarians' perspectives. Library & Information Science Research, 34(1), 3-12. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/10.1016/j.lisr.2011.07.008 Neal, J. G. (2006). The research and development imperative in the academic library: Path to the future. Portal : Libraries and the Academy, 6(1), 1-3. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/10.1353/pla.2006.0007

The benefits of collaborative and contextualized learning are strongly supported by learning theories such as constructivism, social learning models and experiential learning.

However vital we might think these approaches are, in the online learning context they are often perceived as too difficult to achieve and therefore scrapped altogether, despite their value of this approach to learning. Students and instructors often cite negative outcomes such as feelings of isolation, team work challenges, self-regulation issues and lack of motivation (Gomez, 2010; Lin, 2016).

In this presentation, presenters will share examples of collaborative, project-based learning in three very different learning contexts including graduate level coursework as well as a MOOC course, including how these were set up and strengths and weaknesses of each. We will synthesize key challenges and share research supported strategies to overcome them. These include issues and questions such as:

1. Creating a sense of belonging and individual identity. How do individuals in a group project establish a sense of identity while still a sense of connectedness among group members? “The idea of being an individual is an intrinsic part of human nature. We all have the need to feel as if we belong even as we have a need to be unique” (Leonard A. Annetta, 2010, p. 106)

2. Self-regulation and group awareness. Just bringing students together does not ensure productive learning. Strategies that promote (or at least make students aware of) the important self-regulation and group awareness, can positively influence group dynamics (Lin, J, 2010, Bodemer & Dehler, 2011).

3. Providing spaces and tools to work collaboratively. What types of tools, and specifically what features (or ‘affordances’) of these tools, support the visualization and iteration of collaborative work (e.g. write, brainstorm, ideate, and provide feedback on early drafts and representations of ideas)? What types of activities support divergent and convergent thinking (e.g. ideation activities, affinity diagrams, collaborative authoring)?

1. Maintaining engagement, motivation and volition. While project based learning can initially spark a great deal of enthusiasm, it is harder to sustain that engagement over time, especially in an online context where it may be more difficult to detect and respond to frustration, concerns or communication issues within the project. What are techniques and strategies to keep people on track and engaged and working productively over time?

Each of the questions above will be answered through discussion with audience about their experiences and ideas as well as a set of evidence-based strategies that emerge from the literature. The presenters will also demo a few communication and collaboration tools that have potential to be useful with these approaches.

Participation and engagement

To engage the audience, the presenters will use a variety of techniques including

• Asking audience to share their experiences and questions

• Using a storytelling approach including how the presenters experienced each of the cases they are presenting- what they encountered and what they perceived as the primary strengths and weaknesses of each. Visuals and interactives will supplement these cases.

• Using ‘how might we.. ‘ questions to frame a design challenge, presenters will group audience and emulate a mini-project based learning activity highlighting a few of the strategies that have been discussed.

References:

Annetta, L (2010). The “I’s” Have It: A Framework for Serious Educational Game Design

Bodemer, D. (2011). Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1079e1086.

Gomez, A, Wu, Passerini (2010), Computer-supported team-based learning: The impact of motivation, enjoyment and team contributions on learning outcomes, Computers and Education, Volume 55, Issue 1, August 2010, Pages 378-390

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & O’donnell, A. M. (2014). Introduction: What is collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver et al. (Eds.). The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning (1st ed., pp. 27-62 ). New York: Routledge.

Lin, J.-W., & Tsai, C.-W. (2016). The impact of an online project-based learning environment with group awareness support on students with different self-regulation levels: An extended-period experiment. Computers & Education, 99, 28–38.

Eleven years ago, Ken Bain of Montclair State University published his research emphasizing the importance of 1) connecting with students as learners; 2) building trust and understanding between instructor and student; and 3) teaching students how to learn the subject matter using self-awareness, metacognition, and personalized strategies.

Fourteen years prior to Bain’s research, U.S. and European instructors researched and developed an advanced learning system that operationalizes what Bain sought:

1. helping the learner and instructor identify personal learning behaviors using a learning inventory,

2. authoring a personal learning profile sharable with peers and instructors,

3. establishing and using a common language conveying internal learning operations,

4. developing a process for deconstructing assignments and course expectations, and

5. developing personalized strategies to complete course assignments or prepare for exams.

This session equips participants to connect with learners in a more authentic manner and help students personalize their learning—empowering them to reach the summit of their potential.

Participants will:

1) complete a web-based learning inventory,

2) develop a Personal Learning Profile,

3) discuss how to use the outcome of each to foster a dialogue between the instructor/tutor and student and enhance communication during team-based tasks, and

4) learn how to decode an instructor’s assignment and generate personalized learning strategies carefully directing them in completing the assignment.

This holistic advanced learning system assesses learning behaviors and catalogues one's metacognition and accomplishes two things simultaneously: 1) focuses students on the classroom instruction; and 2) feeds the student's need to be connected to some type of technology (phone, tablet, or laptop) while engaging in learning. This session engages participants in using this advanced learning system and its support technology to develop and practice the very things Ken Bain introduced to the higher education learning community ten years ago.

Canvas has recently been selected as the official LMS of Rutgers University. Given this recent development, in concert with my personal experience assisting instructors in both a training and instructional design capacity, I have created this presentation in the spirit of moving beyond the basic Canvas course shell in favor of a more interactive, game-based learning experience for students.

According to The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), 64% of US households own a gaming device; there are an average of 2 gamers in every household; the average age of female gamers is 36, while the average age for males is 32. 45% of gamers are women. Nevertheless, despite these statistics, there are no guarantees that students who are gamers will be interested in gamified course content. Moreover, it is a mistake to think that one can simply re-label traditional grading mechanisms and assignments with more gamer-friendly terms and expect the students’ motivation and engagement levels to increase.

Gamification of any course needs to be done deliberately, involving a significant amount of preparation on behalf of the instructor prior to the start of the course. The more front-loading that is done to explain the course structure and progression, the less likely it is that students will be confused about the change from a more traditional Canvas course format.

This conference presentation will be based upon my personal experience gamifying a hybrid course offered during the Spring 2019 semester. I will share how I went through the gamification process for my Canvas LMS course shell and the resources I used along the way, including helpful tips and tricks from the online Canvas Community, blog posts from educational technology experts, journal articles, and gamification guide books, in combination with my personal research background in quest-based learning, gamification, and game-based learning techniques. It is important to note here that while I am currently utilizing the Canvas LMS platform for my teaching, the techniques I am introducing in this interactive presentation can be adapted for other LMSes as well!

A tentative outline of my presentation is as follows:

1. Inspiration for gamifying my course
2. Getting started & Doing my research
3. Testing the waters, Getting started in my Canvas shell
   
   a. Technical set up of in-course buttons; quest access; etc.
4. Creating quests and side quests
5. Determining XP schema (a.k.a. grades/points)
6. Student reactions
   
   
7. Making changes for future iterations of the course
   
   a. GoFundMe; Amazon Wish List; Grant opportunities
   
   i. Attempting to gain additional materials to analyze in relation to the
   content I'm covering in this course (and future courses)
   
   
8. Questions/Discussion

Game-based learning can enhance learning in a variety of ways, but creating these experience can seem out of reach for many university instructors (Lepper & Malone, 1987). Paired with instructional design best practices, an authoring tool like Articulate Storyline allows instructors to quickly develop game-based activities and interactions, create branch logic, embed a variety of media, assess performance and push this data to an LMS. This presentation looks at a case of game-based learning in a masters level public health course and more broadly at the trend to create this type of interactive online content in health sciences schools.

In partnership with two Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health professors, the Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) created a game-based assessment and study tool. Preliminary data has shown positive student satisfaction and user experience. In this presentation, we will review current research on game-based learning and discuss functionalities of authoring tools, UX consideration, workflows for developing content, the use of SCORM to pass scores to an LMS, and the ways CTLs can support faculty in their own efforts to create this kind of content. Participants will be given the opportunity to plan a learning object and develop a storyboard/wireframe.

Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction. Conative and Affective Process Analysis, 3.

I would like to moderate a discussion, based on a number of peer-reviewed and popular sources (Forbes, Pew Research Center), on mitigating the generational and technical issues surrounding not only technology adoption but also innovation.

The way Generation Y, Z and beyond communicate and perceive technology is fundamentally different from their professors, most of whom span the Baby Boomer generation and Generation X.

Effective adoption of technology and future bleeding edge innovations hinges on adoption from both a generational standpoint and a technical standpoint.

Much of the literature is in agreement that there is an issue, but there isn't as much discussion as to how to bridge that gap. How can we foster both sides in pursuit of successful adoption? How can we look at it in a holistic matter as opposed to focusing only on the learner or the educator?

Discussion will be supplemented with videos and written experiences of representatives from different generations to ensure balanced perspectives.

Current student voices will be included in the discussion by including videos in the presentation. In-person student perspectives may be available pending scheduling.

In 1983 Donald Schon introduced his concept of reflective practice of professional service-based careers in his book The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Schon places reflection at the core of an informed professional practice (1983). He posits that professional practitioners (doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.) are unique in three ways:

• there are generally multiple approaches to a solution of their problem

• identifying the problem is often as much a part of the process as solving it

• they “can recognize phenomena…for which he cannot give a reasonably accurate or complete description” (1983, p. 49).

The first part of this session will briefly overview Schon’s concepts of “reflection-in-action”, “reflection-on-action”, and “frame analysis”, and provide examples of each from contemporary education research.

The second part of this session will provide for open discussion on how Schon’s practices can be applied to learning design and examples will be provided of each. The final portion of this session will look at the issue of student group formation and process and applying the practices of Schon’s work on reflection. (Kelton, 2018)

Professional practitioners identify solutions by reflecting on them in order to make sense of problems (1983, p. 50). In this reflective process Schon differentiates between the immediate reflection one performs while actions take place (reflection-in-action) compared to reflecting in retrospect (reflection-on-action).

The temporal immediacy of reflection-in-action can be exemplified by structural changes a teacher might make during a class when the planned activities do not yield the desired result. The timing of reflection-in-action allows for an impact in situ. For example, for one class most of the students did not read the required assignment. Instead of the planned class discussion on a central theme in the reading, the instructor decides to use group work to reinforce the theme.

Reflection-on-action takes place after an event, thus giving the practitioner a gap, or pause, after the event for the reflective process (Schon, 1983, Vagle, 2006) . Building on the above example, in response to a shrinking percentage of students not completing readings assigned outside of class, the instructor decides, post-course, to replace the class discussion of readings with an in-class group assignment that takes the same amount of time as the discussion, but fosters engagement with the students.

Schon refers to reflection-on-action research, formal or otherwise, as including a process called “frame analysis” (1983, p. 309) He defines frame analysis as “the study of the ways in which practitioners frame problems and roles”, believing that the embarking on the activity alone opens practitioners up to the possibility of, and practice of, change through reflecting on the ways in which s/he (the practitioner) frames things (1983, p. 309).

Schon’s work on reflective practice has been cited with ongoing and growing consistency since its publication and is increasingly being used as a theoretical lens for pedagogy (Vagle, 2006). From studies on phenomenology of practice in middle schools (Vagle, 2006) to sports coaching (Collins & Collins, 2015), Schon’s call-to-action on reflection both in- and on-action continues to resonate.

Although no formal theoretical name has been applied, any search for “reflective theory” returns to Schon’s work and reflective practice. Research has been done on the use of reflection for school improvement in Singapore (Tan, 2008) and to improve individual student learning for English as a Second Language teachers in Iraq (Noormohammadi, 2014). A group of grade school teachers used reflective practice as a means of personal professional development (Glazer, Abbot, & Harris,2000) and a librarian used reflective practice to examine the role of the librarian in today’s academic economy (Macdonald, 2009)

Teachers are reflective in their practices already, fitting into Schon’s definition of Reflective Practice (1982). Reflective theory, as seen in this dissertation, as well as the examples above, uses Schon’s Reflective Practice as a lens through which to examine an issue, or problem. The results of these research projects shed light on individual small areas of a growing research agenda focused on the effectiveness, and importance, of reflection in the assessment and evaluation cycle, irrespective of the discipline. (Kelton, 2018)

Collins, L. & Collins, D. (2015). Integration of professional judgement and decision-making in high-level adventure sports coaching practice, Journal of Sports Sciences, 33:6,622-633, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2014.953980

Glazer, C., Abbott, L., & Harris, J. (2004). A teacher‐developed process for collaborative professional reflection, Reflective Practice, 5:1, 33-46, DOI: 10.1080/1462394032000169947

Kelton, A.J. (2018). Formation and Composition of Student Groups as a Teaching Methodology (Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and These database (UMI No. XXXXXXX)

Macdonald, K. (2009). Out of the boot camp and into the chrysalis: a reflective practice case study, The Australian Library Journal, 58:1, 17-27, DOI: 10.1080/00049670.2009.10735832

Noormohammadi, S. (2014). Teacher reflection and its relation to teacher efficacy and autonomy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1380-1389.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tan, C. (2008) Improving schools through reflection for teachers: lessons from Singapore, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19:2, 225-238, DOI: 10.1080/09243450802047931

Vagle, M. D. (2006). Dignity and Democracy: An Exploration of Middle School Teachers’ Pedagogy, RMLE Online, 29:8, 1-17, DOI: 10.1080/19404476.2006.11462031

Vagle, M. D. (2010). Re‐framing Schön's call for a phenomenology of practice: a post‐intentional approach. Reflective Practice, 11(3), 393-407.