Virtual 2.2
Tracks
Track 2
| Tuesday, July 9, 2024 |
| 2:00 PM - 3:25 PM |
| Virtual platform |
Speaker
Dr Pam Draganovic
La Trobe University
Learning and teaching strategies for high student satisfaction: Subject coordinator perspectives
2:00 PM - 2:25 PMFinal abstract
Background/Context: Student satisfaction (SS) is a crucial indicator of educational quality (Kornell, 2020) and plays a pivotal role in influencing resource allocation to universities (Wong & Chapman, 2023). There is a positive correlation with SS, engagement, retention and performance (Conner, 2011). Thus, understanding and enhancing SS is essential. Whilst a range of factors have been identified as predictors of SS, the existing literature primarily relies on SS surveys (Than & Khaing, 2020), providing limited insights into specific learning and teaching practices that foster SS.
Description: This qualitative study aimed to identify the learning and teaching practices contributing to SS, as perceived by staff, whose subjects obtained high SS ratings in 2021, at an Australian university.
Method: Online semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 subject coordinators, whose subjects achieved high SS ratings. Interview questions explored the subject coordinators perspectives on the learning and teaching practices contributing to high SS. Interview transcripts were recorded, transcribed and analysed following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis process.
Evidence: The nine themes identified include: best practice in subject design/delivery, setting clear expectations for engagement, providing diverse learning resources, incorporating authentic learning experiences, scaffolding, fostering social connections, establishing genuine connections with students, sourcing quality teaching staff with appropriate training, and creating safe/supportive learning environments. A potential limitation is the use of SS ratings which can be biased by factors unrelated to teaching quality. In addition, excluding staff with lower SS ratings leaves uncertainty about whether these actionable strategies were implemented, and if implemented their level of success.
Contribution: The identified themes present actionable strategies for staff aiming to enhance SS and teaching quality. This study contributes valuable insights for higher education, from subject coordinators’ perspectives.
Engagement: Reflective questions - Which strategies are you currently using in your subject/course? Which strategies would you like to implement? Why?
Description: This qualitative study aimed to identify the learning and teaching practices contributing to SS, as perceived by staff, whose subjects obtained high SS ratings in 2021, at an Australian university.
Method: Online semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 subject coordinators, whose subjects achieved high SS ratings. Interview questions explored the subject coordinators perspectives on the learning and teaching practices contributing to high SS. Interview transcripts were recorded, transcribed and analysed following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis process.
Evidence: The nine themes identified include: best practice in subject design/delivery, setting clear expectations for engagement, providing diverse learning resources, incorporating authentic learning experiences, scaffolding, fostering social connections, establishing genuine connections with students, sourcing quality teaching staff with appropriate training, and creating safe/supportive learning environments. A potential limitation is the use of SS ratings which can be biased by factors unrelated to teaching quality. In addition, excluding staff with lower SS ratings leaves uncertainty about whether these actionable strategies were implemented, and if implemented their level of success.
Contribution: The identified themes present actionable strategies for staff aiming to enhance SS and teaching quality. This study contributes valuable insights for higher education, from subject coordinators’ perspectives.
Engagement: Reflective questions - Which strategies are you currently using in your subject/course? Which strategies would you like to implement? Why?
Biography
Dr Pam Draganovic is a teaching specialist with expertise in positive psychology, wellbeing and mental health. Pam has designed, co-ordinated and taught subjects at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level. She has a strong interest in understanding the factors that contribute to student engagement and wellbeing. Pam is also a Community of Practice Leader in Learning and Teaching for the Department of Psychology, Counselling and Therapy, La Trobe University.
Dr Jessica Gill
Lecturer
La Trobe University
Co-presenter
Biography
Dr Jessica Gill is a Lecturer and Teaching and Learning Community of Practice Leader in the Department of Public Health, La Trobe University. She teaches undergraduate students the knowledge and skills they need to deliver patient-centred care. Jess has a strong interest in the factors associated with student engagement, success, and satisfaction, and is particularly passionate about providing educational support for students with additional learning needs.
Ms Laura Petridis
La Trobe University
Co-presenter
Biography
Laura Petridis is an Associate Lecturer in the Department of Public Health, La Trobe University. She is an enthusiastic early career, teaching focused academic, with a passion for delivering a rich student-centred learning experience. With research interests in student engagement and innovative pedagogies, Laura strives to create an inclusive classroom environment where students are empowered to reach their full potential.
Dr Melinda Lewis
Senior Lecturer
University of Technology Sydney
Navigating authentic voice within an era of ‘automated telling’: A call to action
2:30 PM - 2:55 PMFinal abstract
Focus: To navigate automated telling as a form of authentic authorship within student assessment, writing, and publishing.
Background/Context: This study will report on early findings of a collaborative ethnography exploring changing views of authorship in an era of Generative AI. Our aim is to gather expert views on the changing nature of authentic voice in reflection, including teacher and researcher reflexivity, critical self-reflexivity for publishing, and all forms of assessable reflective praxis in curriculum.
Methods: Navigating voice in authorship through the ethics and politics of authenticity will be explored through a systematic literature review and interviews with thought leaders across Australian universities. Definitions of authorship and reflexivity are presented alongside the politics of authentic voice in research and teaching (Muthanna & Alduais, 2023).
Evidence: Contemporary understandings of authentic assessment and authoring are required in the current climate of Generative AI to inform pedagogy, curriculum, and research. Our analysis will be informed by principles on the power and place of voice in authentic assessment and reflective writing drawn from feminist research ethics (Ruan, 2022) and reflective writing approaches (Bouch, 2012).
Contribution: Our multidisciplinary collaborative team recognises (1) TESQA request for meaningful information on the impact of Generative AI to be reported in June 2024, and (2) Universities Accord (2024) recommendation for a stronger commitment to social justice which requires strengthening authentic voice. A reflective practice process (Finlay, 2002) at the interface between Generative AI and authentic voice offers emergent knowledge in response to national actions.
Engagement: Discuss emergent concepts of authentic voice in a turbulent higher education landscape rapidly changing in response to the integration of Generative AI. Participants will be invited to join a small breakout group to discuss the role of ‘experience and voice’ in reflexivity by engaging with key concepts, research findings, and each other.
Background/Context: This study will report on early findings of a collaborative ethnography exploring changing views of authorship in an era of Generative AI. Our aim is to gather expert views on the changing nature of authentic voice in reflection, including teacher and researcher reflexivity, critical self-reflexivity for publishing, and all forms of assessable reflective praxis in curriculum.
Methods: Navigating voice in authorship through the ethics and politics of authenticity will be explored through a systematic literature review and interviews with thought leaders across Australian universities. Definitions of authorship and reflexivity are presented alongside the politics of authentic voice in research and teaching (Muthanna & Alduais, 2023).
Evidence: Contemporary understandings of authentic assessment and authoring are required in the current climate of Generative AI to inform pedagogy, curriculum, and research. Our analysis will be informed by principles on the power and place of voice in authentic assessment and reflective writing drawn from feminist research ethics (Ruan, 2022) and reflective writing approaches (Bouch, 2012).
Contribution: Our multidisciplinary collaborative team recognises (1) TESQA request for meaningful information on the impact of Generative AI to be reported in June 2024, and (2) Universities Accord (2024) recommendation for a stronger commitment to social justice which requires strengthening authentic voice. A reflective practice process (Finlay, 2002) at the interface between Generative AI and authentic voice offers emergent knowledge in response to national actions.
Engagement: Discuss emergent concepts of authentic voice in a turbulent higher education landscape rapidly changing in response to the integration of Generative AI. Participants will be invited to join a small breakout group to discuss the role of ‘experience and voice’ in reflexivity by engaging with key concepts, research findings, and each other.
Biography
As an educator in higher education for the past thirty years, I developed my teaching style which is relational, facilitative, enabling, and productive. This style was in part drawn from earlier roles at The University of Sydney and Charles Sturt University respecting the close-up and consultative nature of inquiry, dialogue, and reflexivity. Curating my emerging teaching-research nexus, my research and scholarship approaches align conceptual framings to actionable practices. Having moved disciplines from the health sciences, learning sciences and social sciences in higher education, I am an aspiring storytelling and meditation teacher (in training). I look forward to meeting you and working together.
Dr Shaleeza Sohail
The University of Newcastle
Co-presenter
Biography
Dr Fariza Sabrina
Central Queensland University
Co-presenter
Biography
Fariza Sabrina received her Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Master of Engineering (Research) from The University of Sydney (USYD) and Bachelor of Science in Engineering (Hons) n Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Bangladesh. After completing her Ph.D., she worked as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Research Scientist in the Networking Technologies Lab at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) ICT Centre in Sydney. Currently, she is a Senior Lecturer in ICT and the Discipline Lead for Networking and Information Security in the School of Engineering and Technology at CQUniversity, Australia. Her research interests include networking and information security, artificial intelligence, machine learning, blockchain, the Internet of Things, cybersecurity, and learning and teaching. She has authored many papers in top-ranking journals and conferences. She is an active member of ACS, IEEE, ACM, AISA, and HERDSA.
Dr Sweta Thakur
HOS
KOI (AIBM)
Co-presenter
Biography
Ms Dimity Wehr
University Of Technology Sydney
Co-presenter
Biography
Dimity is a Senior Curriculum Developer and Learning Designer in the Teaching & Curriculum Team, IML. I actively design and develop learning materials for the blended learning environment and facilitate a range of learning and teaching events. I have been working in Higher Education as an academic, curriculum designer and advisor for many years across five universities and two Australian states. Co-leading university-wide initiatives in authentic assessment and feedback design, engages with my passion for inclusive practice, teamwork, and work integrated learning. Research activities include the integration of reflexivity in and for course-wide assessment, involving student, self and peer assessment.
Dr Jeffrey Lim
The University of Sydney
A picture speaks a thousand words: using mind maps to reveal learner understanding and monitor progress
3:00 PM - 3:25 PMFinal abstract
Focus: An initiative to engage learners and as a mechanism to monitor progress and performance.
Background/context: Mind mapping (Buzan & Buzan, 1996) has been demonstrated to be a useful tool for both educators (Rajapriya & Kumar, 2017; Pudelko et al, 2012; Savich, 2009) and learners (Sentyawati, 2022; Mona & Khalick, 2010). Can it be re-purposed as an early feedback task to engage learners, evaluate understanding, and monitor progress (e.g. mitigate cheating)?
Description: Learners draft their initial thoughts using a mind map surrounding the group assessment. This approach allows them to individually visualise their thoughts, before discussing and finalising their idea within their group. During this exercise, the educator goes around each group to provide feedback using their mind maps as discussion tools.
Method: This initiative involves the same unit of study taught in separate semesters. Cohort A did not incorporate mind maps whereas Cohort B utilises mind maps for feedback and progress monitoring purposes surrounding the group assessment. Data from formal unit evaluations and aggregate performance in the group assessments are then analysed to better understand this approach’s effectiveness and learner performance.
Evidence: Data analyses indicate that Cohort B achieved better overall performance in grades and lower variance in their group assessment, and higher agreement in the provision of feedback at both unit and tutorial levels, suggesting the benefits of using mind maps in monitoring progress and improving performance.
Contribution: As universities are required to better support learners through pre-census assessment and feedback, mind maps appear to be a good fit. Such task can be administered to reveal learners’ initial understanding and identify those at risk while still allowing learners to engage with the task early-on where content coverage is still relatively limited.
Engagement: Discuss the suitability of mind maps as an early-feedback task, progress monitoring and implications on workload.
Background/context: Mind mapping (Buzan & Buzan, 1996) has been demonstrated to be a useful tool for both educators (Rajapriya & Kumar, 2017; Pudelko et al, 2012; Savich, 2009) and learners (Sentyawati, 2022; Mona & Khalick, 2010). Can it be re-purposed as an early feedback task to engage learners, evaluate understanding, and monitor progress (e.g. mitigate cheating)?
Description: Learners draft their initial thoughts using a mind map surrounding the group assessment. This approach allows them to individually visualise their thoughts, before discussing and finalising their idea within their group. During this exercise, the educator goes around each group to provide feedback using their mind maps as discussion tools.
Method: This initiative involves the same unit of study taught in separate semesters. Cohort A did not incorporate mind maps whereas Cohort B utilises mind maps for feedback and progress monitoring purposes surrounding the group assessment. Data from formal unit evaluations and aggregate performance in the group assessments are then analysed to better understand this approach’s effectiveness and learner performance.
Evidence: Data analyses indicate that Cohort B achieved better overall performance in grades and lower variance in their group assessment, and higher agreement in the provision of feedback at both unit and tutorial levels, suggesting the benefits of using mind maps in monitoring progress and improving performance.
Contribution: As universities are required to better support learners through pre-census assessment and feedback, mind maps appear to be a good fit. Such task can be administered to reveal learners’ initial understanding and identify those at risk while still allowing learners to engage with the task early-on where content coverage is still relatively limited.
Engagement: Discuss the suitability of mind maps as an early-feedback task, progress monitoring and implications on workload.
Biography
Jeffrey teaches at the University of Sydney Business School. He values student well-being and experience in learning, and strives to enhance relevance in his courses through industry engagements. He also strongly believes that a successful learning journey involves taking place in a caring, collective, constructive and collaborative environment where everyone can learn with each other on the same platform regardless of their background.
Chair
Kimberly Soh
Monash University, Malaysia
