Schedule

Subscribe to RSS Feed

2019
Thursday, May 30th
8:00 AM

Breakfast and Registration Check In

Emerging Learning Design

University Hall Grand Concourse

8:00 AM - 9:00 AM

9:00 AM

Opening Remarks and Donuts and Design Kick - Off

Emerging Learning Design

University Hall 1060

9:00 AM - 9:50 AM

10:00 AM

Build Your Own Active Learning Adventure

Veronica Armour, Rutgers University - New Brunswick/Piscataway
Eliza Blau, Rutgers University - New Brunswick/Piscataway
Dena Novak, Rutgers University - New Brunswick/Piscataway
Ruth Ronan, Rutgers University

University Hall, ADP Center 1145

10:00 AM - 10:45 AM

Active learning can present unique challenges that may prevent faculty from adapting it for use in their classroom. This project seeks to build a toolbox of practical strategies and solutions to address the most common challenges that active learning instructors face. The resource guide will be in the form of an interactive set of pathways that can be explored according to each individual’s needs.

What sets this project apart is the collaborative nature of the participants. The project grew from a shared interest in active learning among several instructional designers (IDs) within one university across several schools and units. The instructional designers formed a community of practice in order to develop a shared set of resources that could meet the diverse needs of the faculty that they support. Through this joint effort, the instructional designers hope to build a model for future partnerships between IDs within and across institutions.

We begin our discussion of active learning with the following quote defining what learning is:

“Acquiring knowledge and skills and having them readily available from memory so you can make sense of futures problems and opportunities”

(Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel, 2014)

With that in mind active learning in particular can be thought of as “the process of having students engage in some activity that forces them to reflect upon ideas and how they are using those ideas.” (Collins and O’Brien, 2003) Such an open opportunity for engaging students can be overwhelming for instructors, especially when things go wrong (as they often can!) As instructional designers we are invested in identifying common challenges and solutions in active learning, synthesizing research in best practices, and building a toolbox of resources that we can share with the faculty we serve.

The format of this presentation will be a focus group. The presenters will start with an overview of the project origins, progress, and a blueprint for content / prototype. Then, the audience will be invited to share feedback and personal experiences through guided discussion questions posed by the presenters.

References:

Brown, Peter C., Roediger III, Henry L., and McDaniel, Mark A. (2014) Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Belknap Press, Boston, MA.

Collins JW 3rd and O’Brien NP (editors). (2003) The Greenwood Dictionary of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Grouping Matters: A New Way of Thinking About Group Assignment

AJ Kelton, Montclair State University

University Hall, ADP Center 1121

10:00 AM - 10:45 AM

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.

Innovation for Emerging Learning Design: Where do Academic Librarians get their ideas from?

Sergio Chaparro, Virginia Commonwealth University

University Hall, ADP Center 1120

10:00 AM - 10:45 AM

Innovation is a word concept that pervades academic library’s teaching and learning. We talk innovation, we discuss innovation, we create job descriptions and offer titles with innovation on it, and pretend that almost anything we do in the field is about innovation. However, professional literature contradicts our perception. Several authors point out to 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. So, How should we connect innovation and learning design in the current times to maximize the educational value and impact of academic instruction supports high quality education? , What should we consider then when proposing innovation in learning design, how could we build a realistic and tangible culture of innovation for learning design for academic librarians? These questions are very relevant to build up a culture of emerging learning design that speaks to the current students and educators and allows librarians to collaborate efficiently with learning and instructional.designers. This presentation delves on academic library professional development, their skills, the role of information technology in our jobs, and discusses the role of innovation in the academic librarian professional development.

The gamification of education: collaboration and identity in problem solving

Brant Knutzen EdD, The University of Hong Kong

University Hall, ADP Center 1143

10:00 AM - 10:45 AM

This project is an investigation of the factors which affect the engagement and satisfaction of learners using a multi-user virtual immersive environment. The focus is on the roles that the social construction of knowledge, and a virtual identity, play in influencing the decision of learners to continue exploring a virtual environment for solutions to problems.

Can the gamification of tasks effectively motivate learners to continue? I invite you to try my new collaborative game in the virtual world of Second Life and see what you think!

Learning Outcomes

1) Participants will be able to socially collaborate on solving problems in a virtual world.

2) Participants will be able to explore the role of identity while solving problems in a virtual world.

Participants will have the opportunity to engage with solving problems in the virtual world. The creative gamification of tasks will require the social development of teams, and the formation of virtual identities, to collaboratively find solutions in an immersive environment. This project innovatively interweaves the Moodle LMS with the Second Life virtual world to engage students with creative tasks set in exciting virtual simulations, and use the LMS to check solutions and track progress.

Participants must be able to login to a Moodle course which provides context and access to the game, and then login to a Second Life account and teleport to the SLURL provided. Participants will be expected to have basic SL skills such as walking, right-click to sit, and keeping a folder to wear a new outfit. More advanced skills such as navigation via the mini-map and using camera controls will be developed in the game. Participants should have laptop speakers or headphones to hear audio clues. Use of a microphone for in-world voice is optional.

This presentation is based on my doctoral research study, which examined how multi-user virtual worlds can enhance learning. This study extended a prior VR-based model and then refined it to include two new constructs: virtual identity, and the perception of an environment that supports the social construction of knowledge. The fit of the two models was analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM), and the results supported both the extension and the hypothesized refined model. Findings: VR features were found to indirectly impact on the learning outcomes, mediated by the perception of usability and the learning experience. The learning experience was measured by seven individual psychological factors: presence, virtual identity, motivation, cognitive benefits, agentic learning, social constructivism, and reflective thinking. These factors mediated the learning outcomes, measured by the perception of learning effectiveness and satisfaction, and may have a range of implications for the instructional design of learning activities using the virtual world.

This research blends a technology acceptance model (TAM) with the technology-mediated learning (TML) perspective to advance the development of a hybrid theoretical framework as a basis for future research into enhanced learning within a social virtual world.

The implications of this study for instructional design indicate that educators should:

  • provide students with time and training to customize an idealized avatar to represent their virtual identities

  • build on the unique affordances of the immersive virtual world to create simulations of authentic environments which engage the imagination and inspire the students

  • develop gamified environments which require collaboration to solve problems so they develop teamwork skills

  • develop gamified environments which require students to develop new learning identities so they can explore future possible selves

Examples of authentic virtual environments which require collaboration and skill-building to solve:

  1. Pirate Ship Battle game: https://youtu.be/ThPMBdtE3oQ

  2. Overview of virtual worlds for various learning outcomes:
    https://youtu.be/_j0Jev29iCE

Glossary of terms used in this proposal:

Virtual identity: a representation in the virtual world which depicts the user as an avatar through which an online identity can be developed and projected (Dickey, 2002).

VE: Virtual Environment - an environment presented by a communication medium which mediates the experience, and is not directly perceived by the five natural senses.

VE-based learning outcomes: A central purpose of learning using a virtual environment is to capitalize on the affordances of the technology to increase the acquisition of knowledge and the capability of the learner to perform effectively. The proposed new research model examines learning outcomes in both the cognitive and affective domains of knowledge.

3D VE: Virtual Environment - a virtual environment presented by visual display technology which simulates the spatial three dimensions.

VR: Virtual Reality - a virtual environment presented by some form of technology which creates a sense of presence in the perceiver. Some VR environments support the manipulation of virtual objects and changes in viewing perspective.

VW: Virtual World - a virtual environment presented by some form of technology which creates a sense of presence (or co-presence, or telepresence) in the perceiver. Generally virtual world environments support the manipulation of virtual objects and changes in viewing perspective. Virtual worlds also support two unique affordances: the creation of a long-term virtual identity to represent the user in-world, and the ability to make persistent changes to the world which remain even after the user has left. In many virtual worlds an avatar is used to visually embody the virtual identity of the user. A common alternative name for a virtual world is a multi-user virtual environment, or MUVE.

11:00 AM

A Designer’s Reflections on Designing for ‘Productive Failure’

Nilanjana Saxena, Higher Education Institution, Singapore

University Hall, ADP Center 1143

11:00 AM - 11:45 AM

Proposal:

The world is grappling with education failing to meet with industry demands for skills. We’re constantly striving to design for learning that is able to meet with the emerging societal and Industrial needs. Against this background what should the learning design strategy be?

Of particular relevance is Productive Failure (PF) a deeper learning design strategy, which runs counter to a traditional Direct Instruction methodology. In PF, challenges are designed to create failure as learning through guided failure brings about higher and deeper learning gains (Kapur, 2008 and 2010). PF replaces early Direct Instruction with real world challenges which require learners to offer potential solutions by activating their intuitive experiences, informal knowledge, and reasoning.

This session will be divided in 3 parts. First, we look at the theoretical basis of designing for failure, then I share my experience of designing learning experiences informed by PF. Finally, in groups, participants assume the role of a learner, explore and generate ideas using a NetLogo model. The session wraps up with a de-brief aimed to help participants prepare the ground to design for failure.

Author Bio:

Nilanjana, is a learning design professional, having worked on the implementation of innovative educational & training delivery solutions in a variety of settings. She started her career as a school teacher teaching Chemistry and running summer science camps. Her interest in education innovation took her to Australia where she read the Masters in Learning Sciences & Technology from the University of Sydney.

Currently, she is working as a Learning Design Professional at a Higher Education Institution in Singapore.

Nilanjana enjoys reading, traveling, cooking, rambling and trying out new experiences, the most recent being learning Street Salsa.

Collaborative and Project Based Learning: Understanding the Opportunities and Challenges in Online Learning

Maaike Bouwmeester, NYU
Trang Thi Thuy Tran, NYU

University Hall, ADP Center 1120

11:00 AM - 11:45 AM

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.

Emerge Self-Aware and Empowered through Personalized Learning

Joel Johnston

University Hall, ADP Center 1121

11:00 AM - 11:45 AM

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.

Leveling Up Your LMS-Based Course Through Gamification!

Erica H. Lucci, Rutgers University - New Brunswick/Piscataway

University Hall, ADP Center 1145

11:00 AM - 11:45 AM

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

12:00 PM

Boxed Lunch

Emerging Learning Design

University Hall, ADP Center Lobby

12:00 PM - 1:00 PM

After collecting your lunch, you are welcome to enjoy the time with existing and new colleagues in and around the ADP Center and University Hall.

OUTSIDE: If the weather is nice, the perimeter of University Hall has some nice benches. There is also the courtyard across from the ADP Center.

INSIDE: We have two Three Cohort Lunch areas UN1020 for Constructivist/Collaborative Learning UN1043 for Instructional/Educational Designers UN1045 for OTHER GROUP HERE

BOTH POKEMONGO: PSE&G Lounge - those interested in doing a PokemonGo walk around campus, making trainer friends and candyful-trades thanks to distance, grab your lunch, we’ll eat quick and plan a 30-minute circle around campus, covering #gyms and #pokestop.

1:15 PM

Donuts and Design

Emerging Learning Design

University Hall, ADP Center Classrooms

1:15 PM - 2:15 PM

2:15 PM

Expanding Opportunities for Students in IT through Participatory Service Design

Dhvani A. Toprani, Pennsylvania State University - Main Campus
Kris Benefield, Pennsylvania State University - Main Campus

University Hall, ADP Center 1143

2:15 PM - 3:00 PM

Link to a downloadable word file:

https://psu.box.com/s/9qvs0hp8ob8l2g6tsjwkxtyvm21atypo

Expanding Opportunities for Students in IT through Participatory Service Design

Abstract: The current case study aims at analyzing an undergraduate student led IT service at Penn State University called ‘Tech Tutors’. We discuss how a group of young IT professionals began working as Tech Tutors believing they would learn more about technology, but ended up learning a lot more about people. This case study also presents an example of how to enhance IT services by using a participatory design framework.

Summary

This case study germinated from a motivation to understand the relevance of the services currently provided by Penn State’s Tech Tutors services to meet the University’s technology learning needs and to understand how the experience of working as a Tech Tutor helped the student workers develop as professionals. Tech Tutors are a group of student employees within Penn State IT who support their fellow students and faculty members by providing 1-1 technology tutoring. Over Fall 2019 we conducted a multi-dimensional review of the Tech Tutors services by using a participatory design framework. We engaged the Tech Tutors directly in the process of evaluating and redesigning the service to improve either of its two key dimensions: the value it provides to them as employees and the value it provides to the University community.

This proposal aims at sharing the insights from a semester of collaborative data collection and shine a light on this group of 14 tech-savvy student employees who are eager to help their clients, but frustrated by an apparent lack of awareness of their services. Our study discusses the changes we propose to the group’s leadership and the new feedback channels we provided to the tutors which allow us to better understand the student employee experience and collect their ideas for improvement throughout the term. This study also aims to bring to the forefront the approach of participatory design framework in enhancing student employment experience.

What we largely observed in all of this data was a group of young IT professionals who started their Tech Tutors employment believing they would learn more about technology, and who ended up learning a lot more about people. Some of the specific issues we uncovered with the existing service included misalignment of client expectations, lack of just-in time software learning resources, underutilization of the services, and a lack of community awareness about the services. We will share these findings along with our specific proposals to expand opportunities for our student employees, to help them continue to grow their skills as technologists, learning professionals, and leaders while also maximizing the value and impact of the Tech Tutors service to the University community.

Context

The Tech Tutors group was established to provide technology tutoring for the University population. As the name suggests, Tech Tutors not only help their clients solve technology problems but also tutor them to become more knowledgeable consumers of the technology that they are working with. Embedded within IT learning and development, the current study assesses learning experiences for the undergraduate students who are promoting technology based learning for diverse group of student and faculty members. Analyzing their experiences, the study proposes different kinds of change at organizational level to better support their professional growth.

Student Employment: Why do we need to care?

Over the last three decades, a large number of undergraduate students have been full-time or close to full-time workers (Torres, 2017). The most challenging aspect about recruiting student workers is to create work environment that will equally benefit both the student workers and the University (Goddard, 2014). Towards this goal of achieving a balance between the University’s technological needs and the services provided by one of the student worker groups, we conducted a case study with ‘Tech Tutors’, who provided technology related individual tutoring, at the Pennsylvania State University campus. We approached the case study from a participatory design research in order to include the experiences of a diverse group of stakeholders in conceiving and implementing change within an existing system. Participatory Design is grounded in the belief that multivocality of experiences leads to the development of more meaningful socio-technical solutions (Muller & Kuhn, 1993).

Presentation Outline

The presentation will discuss two main aspects about the study. First, the organizational changes within the IT services that emerged from the proposed study. Second, the design of the study and its unique approach of involving diverse kinds of stakeholders to influence the organizational change. By focusing on the product and the process of conducting the case study, we intend to engage our audience with the idea of focusing on the ‘human’ side of technology. Through our experience of conducting this case study, we want to emphasize on the notion of enhancing people-related skills in IT services. We would tentatively achieve these goals by discussing the following:

  1. Introduction to the Tech Tutors group and its services

  1. Existing difficulties that motivated the study

  1. How we collected the data

  1. How we interpreted and analyzed the data

  1. What we found in the study

  1. How we converted our findings into organizational changes

  1. Reflections about the process

  1. How will we continue integrating research in enhancing the services

References

Torres, M. (2017, June 5). New survey shows majority of college students are working and paying their own tuition. Retrieved from https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/college-students-working-tuition-survey

Goddard, M. W. (2014). Student Workers as Library Programmers: A Case Study in Automated Overlap Analysis.

Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24-28.

Game-Based Learning in a Public Health Course

Jason Guzman, Columbia University
Ashley Kingon, Columbia University

University Hall, ADP Center 1121

2:15 PM - 3:00 PM

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.

Inclusive uses of avatars and narratives in VR biology simulations

Amy L. Pate, Arizona State University at the Tempe Campus

University Hall, ADP Center 1120

2:15 PM - 3:00 PM

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.

Mind the Gap: A Discussion on the Effects of the Generation and Technological Literacy Disparity on Innovation

Sarah Sangregorio

University Hall, ADP Center 1145

2:15 PM - 3:00 PM

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.

The Reflective Design Cycle: Plan, Execute, Reflect

AJ Kelton, Montclair State University

University Hall 1060

2:15 PM - 3:00 PM

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.

3:30 PM

Keynote Presentation - Cultivating Connected Growth and Life Change: From Immersive Worlds to Empowered Ecosystems

Sasha Barab, Arizona State University

University Hall 1060

3:30 PM - 4:30 PM

Sasha Barab is an internationally recognized Learning Scientist who has researched, designed, and published extensively on the challenges and opportunities of using innovation for impact, with a particular focus on the power of games. He is a professor in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society and the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, where he also serves as the Executive Director of the Center for Games and Impact. His research has resulted in numerous grants, over 100 published manuscripts, and multiple game-based innovations that have been engaged by over 200,000 players to support learning and transformation.

His current work extends the design boundaries from the bits and bytes of the game world to complex real-world ecosystems with the goal of helping all learners thrive in a complex, rapidly changing, digitally connected world. One recent project, My Lifelabs, is based on an invite, enable, and release learning methodology and focused on cultivating growth and impact journeys so that more people can realize their potential. Across all work is a sensitivity to factors such as ecosystem integration, stakeholder alignment, enacted agency, and achieving sustainable and scalable outcomes.

5:00 PM

Dining Groups

Emerging Learning Design

University Hall, ADP Center Lobby

5:00 PM - 7:00 PM

Montclair locals will provide information about several local restaurants that attendees can choose from to go to dinner together after Thursday's program has ended.

Game Night

Emerging Learning Design

University Hall, ADP Center 1020

5:00 PM - 8:00 PM