Jumping onboard to a new industry trend with insufficient planning can result in your initiative failing to achieve its objective and, in the worst case, even hinder the learning process. So which hot topics should you treat with care?
1. Virtual Reality, or VR
Ultimately, the key question to consider when adopting anything new is whether it will help you achieve the desired outcome. VR shouldn’t be incorporated into learning just because it’s a common buzzword. Before you decide to give it a go, consider how it’s going to help your learner, and whether it’s truly the most effective or efficient way to meet the learning goal.
considering introducing an interactive element to your learning, don’t let this deter you—just ensure that it’s relevant to the content and will aid the learning process.
3. Artificial Intelligence, or AI
If you are confident that a trend is going to yield better results for your learners, the ROI you see may well justify the upfront resources it requires.
Again, it all comes down to whether a trend is going to deliver in terms of achieving an objective.
The theory behind microlearning makes a lot of sense: organizing content into sections so that learning can fit easily with modern day attention spans and learners’ busy lifestyles is not a bad thing. The worry is that the buzzword, ‘microlearning’, has grown legs of its own, meaning the industry is losing sight of its’ founding principles.
Respondents on the 2016 POD Membership Survey indicated a strong need for learning center management and leadership skills. This session, facilitated by four center directors from very different institutions, responds to this need. Session participants will examine: 1) management and leadership responsibilities, especially in the context of continual change; 2) strategic alignment of the center’s work with institutional mission; and 3) evaluation of center work and demonstration of impact. Participants will leave with an individualized professional development plan, practical tools, and guiding questions that enable them to seek out relevant sessions and colleagues during the conference.
In this workshop, we explore powerful model (Symposium) for engaging faculty in campus initiatives and supporting them to take a more active role in leading during times of change. We have successfully used symposium to broaden faculty participation in change initiatives, connecting this work to what matters most to faculty and providing avenues for more inclusive collaboration across disciplines and divisions. Much of the workshop will be devoted to helping participants (1) identify areas where they can lead change on their campuses and (2) develop a draft plan for using symposium to increase faculty engagement in these efforts.
Faculty are often unable to complete a proper learner analysis because they know little about the students that comprise their classlist. At our university, we have been surveying incoming students for five years to collect enhanced demographic data and for the past two years have been sharing aggregate, anonymous data with faculty. Resources have been provided on how to make sense of the data for teaching purposes. In this study, we conducted focus groups with faculty to learn how they have used the data and resources and also to find out what additional data would further support their teaching. (My note: big data in education, as discussed by Nancy Sims keynote at LITA Nov, 2018)
Summative peer review of teaching (SPRT) is used in many higher education institutions. Unfortunately, the evaluative “power” of SPRT for making high-stakes career decisions can be limited due to lack of meaningful criteria and faculty resistance (Chism, 2008). To address this situation, our teaching and learning centre engaged in a collaborative culture-change initiative to develop a rubric for SPRT that would serve the University-wide committee with responsibility for final recommendation on matters of promotion and tenure. In this session, we discuss our collaborative process, debrief challenges and how we addressed and/or anticipated these, and share the SPRT rubric. (My Note: CETL)
This session will introduce participants to the gamification of faculty development through an interactive small group design scenario that asks participants to take a traditional faculty development experience and then gamify it using the gamification design framework . Gamification involves the use of game design elements and experiences in non-gaming environments. When applied in faculty development settings, gamification has the potential to encourage faculty engagement and motivation and can lead to behavioral change that can impact their teaching. (My note: ask me; i have been trying to educate CETL directors for the past four years on this opportunity)
If you are not a Kahoot user yet, please consider: a) the Kahoots (quizzes) can be an excellent conversation starter (vs. assessment tool) b) the Kahoots can be modified to your liking (you can change the content)
here some screen-sharing capture to get a taste of the excitement:
Geocaching, Travel Bugs, Toy tourism, Toy Mobility, Gamification, Social play
This study explores emerging types of mobile and social play patterns through theobject-based, but technologically enhanced practices of toy tourism. As our case studiesdemonstrate, object play practices in the digitalizing world are not only becomingincreasingly social in nature, but even more mobile than before. As illustrated by ourstudy focusing on Travel Bugs in the context of the international game of geocaching,toys become mobile through different practices partaken by players, willing to either become involved in toy tourism with their playthings. Our study consisted of 45 survey responses from geocachers traveling with Travel Bugs. According to the results, mobileand social object play practices enabled by the platform of Geocaching become gamified
i.e. more perceivable, goal-oriented and measurable.
Our main contributionis a conceptual framework in which the relations between the digital, the physical andthe social dimensions of toy tourism are modelled
Badges are more than just participation trophies. Design them to commensurately represent the knowledge and skills gained.
While many institutions have used digital badges as an alternative way to recognize the skills and knowledge developed by students, some are also starting to use this approach in their in-house professional development programs – especially in faculty development programs.
By offering well-designed badges that accompany these programs, you can boost both participation and impact. Join us for this online training and learn how to design your badges to encourage deeper engagement that goes beyond “showing up”. Our instructor, Lindsay Doukopoulos, will share best practices for badging criteria at Auburn University, where 82% of participants chose to earn badges at annual professional development workshops.
indsay Doukopoulos Ph.D.
Assistant Director, Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, Auburn University
Lindsay’s teaching expertise includes experiential, active, and team-based learning in small and large lecture formats. Her research interests include instructional technologies and the use of digital artifacts (e.g., badging, ePortfolios, etc.) to assess and enhance integrated learning, gameful learning, and metacognition for students and faculty.
After a brief overview of our instructor’s faculty development badging program, we’ll walk through several badges Auburn has implemented for faculty. For each badge collection, we’ll address the following:
How was it designed, and what elements were considered in the design process?
What are the criteria for earning the badges? Why?
Who has earned the badges to date?
What impact did badge earners self-report?
What kind of data or artifacts did faculty submit to earn this badge / badge constellation? What did these show about how faculty were using what they learned?
We’ll close with a brief exercise that will let you start designing your own badge criteria for a program on your campus.
“Shifts in students’ learning style will prompt a shift to active construction of knowledge through mediated immersion.”-Chris Dede
The theory of constructivist-based learning, according to Dr. Seymour Papert, “is grounded in the idea that people learn by actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information ‘poured’ into their heads.”
Moreover, constructionism asserts that people learn with particular effectiveness when they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful artifacts (such as computer programs, animations, 3D modeling, creating spatial environments in virtual reality or building robots).”
Technologies like virtual reality, especially for Gen Z students’, provides avenues that allow them to engage in a social, collaborative, and active learning environment.
Virtual reality, especially when combined with powerful storytelling, allows the student to participate in the story, develop empathy to experiences outside their current realm of understanding and allows them to be fully immersed in their own exploration and learning.
Overview of Crisis Management SG focused on their learners ’ assessment and evaluation capabilities. This synthesis can help researchers and gamecreators by enlighten the main criteria and techniques for learners ’ assessment andevaluation. The described benefits and limitations of each technique may facilitate thechoice of the most adequate way to evaluate a particular SG.