Format: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Topic: HERDSA Mentoring and Coaching Support for Career Advancement Program (MACS)
Background: Mentoring and coaching support is one of the powerful tools for career development. In the main, international women academics face employment barriers in Australia due to multilevel barriers categorized into meso (discrimination at workplace) and micro (individual factors) levels (Westoby et al., 2021). Therefore, international women academics need to seize mentoring and coaching opportunities to progress and be supported in academia (i.e. to gain promotion or a new position) (Bhopal, 2020; Singh, 2022).
Description: MACS is an initiative designed to provide mentoring and coaching support for women academics in Australia. The primary goal of the MACS program is to mainly support career progression (i.e. for promotion) and/or job application (i.e. for a new position). However, little is known about the experiences of women academics’ mentoring related barriers, opportunities, strategies, and successes (B.O.S.S) in navigating an academic career (Singh, 2022). Therefore, open discussion on B.O.S.S is vital to explore and assist women academics in navigating their career capital via mentoring and coaching.
Intended outcome:
The intended outcome and contribution to practice includes:
1) Open and safe discussion on women academics navigating their barriers in academia – whether teaching and/or research and/or leadership
2) Sharing of mentoring related opportunities, strategies, and successes for women academics navigating their career capital
3) Opportunity to network with women academics from Australia and around the globe
Engagement: Audience will be engaged via innovative and thought-provoking case studies, underpinned by the B.O.S.S framework initiated by Singh (2022). The round table discussion will be documented via jamboard/mentimeter and will be shared with the audience. Participants can continue to engage on the round table topic after the session.

Format: Work-in-progress

The focus :
Advancing a global framework for leadership in higher education

Context/background
Leadership in higher education takes place in many contexts and roles, from course leaders to vice chancellors and across academic and professional support backgrounds. This session will engage participants in exploring the development of a leadership framework for higher education might offer.

Rapid, and continuous change in the sector is driving the need for distributed, agile and inclusive forms of leadership. Chaffer (2022) identified that routes into leadership of Australian higher secondary education providers are often quite exclusive and there was a lack of formal leadership development opportunities for the sector. She proposed development of a leadership framework to underpin this. Neves and Parkin (2023), in a global survey of HE leadership, noted the importance of leadership context, and the perspectives of those in different HE roles of the key priorities for leaders.

Description
Advance HE is currently exploring the development of a global framework for HE leadership. This session presents initial work conducted by a steering group of international HE leaders. It will then go on to explore key questions around what is distinct in HE leadership, context and practice.

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice

To better understand how a leadership framework could meet the needs of Australasian providers, accounting for the diverse backgrounds of the HE community and reflect this in the future offering.

Engagement
Brief presentation of the work conducted to date to set the scene.
Workshop in roundtable format.
Main points captured using padlet.

Example Questions:
- Factors that make HE leadership distinct to other sectors;
- What good leadership in an HE context is;
- The challenges faced by HE leaders;
- Whether a global, sector specific leadership framework is desirable and the potential benefits of having one.

Format: Point for Debate.

Point for debate:
A recent surge of global conflicts, shifting political landscapes, and competing political narratives have arguably challenged the moral voices of universities (Sesse, 2023). This raises a critical question: how can universities continue to be the champions of moral voice amidst the increasingly polarised environment and maintain their integrity? We aim to delve deeper by examining the factors contributing to this trend.

Context/background:
While universities have long been considered bastions of intellectual inquiry and free expression (Pickus & Reuben, 2010), this ideal of academic freedom faced numerous challenges through state suppression (Schwartz, 2018) and religious pressures (Brooke, 1978) in the past. The recent global conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Palestine conflict (e.g., Gaza) have created a polarised environment where universities are increasingly expected to take sides. University leadership faces new realities involving large-scale political rallies (e.g., in support of Palestinians) or funding restrictions, as seen in a recent case at Harvard University (Meyersohn, 2023).

Description:
We know that moral leadership and academic freedom is extended to teaching, research and citizenship (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016).The main idea considered here is how universities will balance funding requirements and socio-political positions by reviewing their roles in academic freedom and as moral voices in the contemporary contentious climate.

Intended outcome:
We aim to gain insights from multiple perspectives and synthesis the strategic responses to address emerging conflicting situations in future.

Engagement:
We will distribute handouts and give a 5-minute introduction to start the discussion on the questions. Should they maintain their academic freedom or support the interests of funders? Should they give-in to political pressures under the threat of violence? What can universities do to continue as beacons of ethical leadership and agents of positive social change in an increasingly complex world?

Roundtable Format: Work-in-Progress

Focus: Peer evaluation (PE) process and students’ satisfaction in higher education (HE)

Context:
Among various types of assessments, group assessment has been a challenging task to manage for academics in HE (Obiosa, 2020). However, some students are taken by surprise by the grades and feedback they received through PE especially when conducted at the completion of the assessment. This can be particularly challenging when students identified as ‘underperformers’ by their peers are dissatisfied with the outcome (Zedda, 2017). This lack of satisfaction with PE systems and the nature of group dynamics can override the purpose of group assessments and cloud the value of the overall learning experience.

Description:
To overcome the problem of PE occurring at the completion of an assessment, I have created a formative evaluation system that encourages group members to monitor each other’s progress and provide feedback at multiple stages of the assessment process. Via early (and on-going) intervention, it is designed to enable open communication between participants to encourage a realistic awareness of their contribution and influence on the group dynamic.

Intended outcome and contribution to practice:
The purpose of this initiative is to create a PE framework that allows group members to engage collaboratively in a progressive manner to evolve their contribution to the process, so their interaction becomes more meaningful.

Engagement:
To engage the audience, I will share the current PE tools developed for this initiative and ask for feedback on their application and use in group assessment settings. I will also provide anecdotal evidence of student interaction and seek guidance for advancing the project to the next stage to ensure it follows a scholarship-informed progression. Given the initiative is still in the developmental stage, I anticipate engaging the audience in lively discussion on the merits and/or challenges of this approach.

Format: A work-in-progress round table discussion about the benefits and challenges of using a fun model to enhance collaborative interconnectivity.

Topic for discussion:
Exploring the established fun model (Hains-Wesson et al., 2023) for enhancing researchers' collaborative and interconnectivity experiences in international research endeavours.

Context/background:
Current literature lacks practical and evidence-based methods for integrating fun into educational research endeavours. This gap is noted in works by Bertolini et al. (2019), Karakowsky et al. (2020), O'Connor et al. (2022), Tynan & Garbett (2007), and Yang (2020). The incorporation of fun can enhance researchers' personal interconnectivity and support positive mental health as highlighted by Karl & Peluchette (2006), Karl et al. (2005), and Michel et al. (2019). A positive environment where researchers feel safe and connected can lead to improved performance (Edmondson, 1999; Fluegge, 2008).

Description:
We employed a group-based auto-ethnography to illustrate our "lived experiences" and to test the established fun model (Hains-Wesson et al., 2023). Our exploration focuses on the model's benefits during an international education research project. The concept of fun plays a crucial role in fostering trust amongst group members and their willingness to seek open, honest feedback.

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice:
Our process to explore the practicalities of using an established fun model through group-based auto-ethnographical underscores the significance of deliberately including fun in educational research endeavours. Validating the model aids the educational research community by setting a benchmark for good practice, emphasizing mental wellness alongside research outcomes.

Engagement:
The roundtable discussion and engagement with participants will be conducted through using the model to present the authors' lived experiences and discoveries through storytelling. The roundtable discussion will introduce participants to the model's conception, evaluation, and optimal usage across diverse contexts, and as a tool for enhancing collaborative research experiences.

Format: Work-in-Progress. Main Point: To focus on the minutiae of how critical literacy used in higher education impacts students, especially words that connote or signify gender and sexuality. Context/background: A study was undertaken to discover the level of awareness of enabling education students during one week of a 13-week curriculum. Utilising queer and feminist pedagogies, a survey was completed by 3 different cohorts of enabling education students over an 18-month period, to gauge their awareness of specific words which connote/signify gender and sexuality. Results indicate that awareness of inclusive terminology was high for most students. Students grasped the concept that resources which were over a decade old yet contained valuable information but used out-of-date terminology to describe gender and sexuality, could still provide necessary information. Description of research/initiative or practice: Action Research provided the opportunity to discover student perceptions on the topic, and thus direction for improvement in future resources was gained. Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: When developing curriculum, the opportunity to incorporate gender neutral terminology and be aware of pronoun usage, continues to build equity bridges in Australian higher education institutions. Engagement identification: Discussion on: awareness of gender neutral terminology in present resources; importance of bridging generational differences; becoming comfortable with using gender neutral terminology (they/them); students presenting as gender fluid/non-binary/transgender and forming connections; terminology to avoid (guys, mate, dude); positive applications such as email signatures, badges, business cards with pronouns present.

Format: Point for debate
Point for debate: Although there is a consensus on the importance of authentic assessments, questions remain on challenges/opportunities. How do inherent challenges of implementing authentic assessments impact their effectiveness in preparing students for employability? In what ways can higher education institutions overcome resistance to change when transitioning from traditional assessments to authentic methods? How does incorporation of authentic assessments impact the workload of educators, and what measures can be taken to address potential challenges in terms of time/resources?
Context/background: Student employability matters to tertiary institutions as it enhances their perception of providing quality education (Molla & Cuthbert, 2015). Employers are, however, finding that these graduates are not job ready (Abbas et al., 2021), which is a cause of concern for higher education institutions (Cheng et al., 2022). Students have traditionally been assessed on ‘learning of facts’ (James & Casidy, 2018), which may not lead to desired employability outcomes (Igwe et al., 2020) as “less authentic assessments such as multiple-choice exams and other assessments that examine one level of thinking, rather than higher-order skills with a demonstration of knowledge will result in students being less satisfied” (James & Casidy, 2018, pp. 410-411) and less employable. Authentic assessments have important outcomes, such as student readiness (James & Cassidy, 2018) and employability (Gilbert & Wingrove, 2019), among others.
Description: Although there is growing evidence of the importance of authentic assessments, Ajjawi et al. (2020) note that these are not easy to administer and there may be inherent complexities.
Intended outcome: We aim to discuss ‘point for debate’ questions to learn from each other’s experiences to work on solutions for our own unique contexts.
Engagement: We will distribute handouts and provide a 5-minute introduction to ‘set the scene’ before engaging participants in an interactive discussion of ‘point for debate’ questions.

Format: Birds of a feather
Topic for discussion: Building collaborations for research, consensus-building, and advocacy on mental health and wellbeing in higher education in light of the Australian Universities Accord
Background/context: Throughout 2022 and 2023, the Australian Government has led the Australian Universities Accord (‘the Accord’) – a comprehensive 12-month review of the national higher education system (Department of Education, 2024). In their interim report, the review panel highlighted long-term institutional and systemic issues affecting mental health and wellbeing in universities – including wage underpayment, insecure employment, problematic institutional governance, sexual violence, and inadequacy and inappropriateness of university support services for some student cohorts (Australian Government, 2023). In tandem, scholarship continually reflects a crisis and epidemic of mental ill health in higher education, with urgent calls for change (Hernández-Torrano, et al., 2020; Jayman, et al., 2022; Usher, 2020).
Description: Given the delivery of the review panel’s final report to the Minister for Education in December 2023 (Department of Education, 2024), this roundtable aims to stimulate discussion and consensus-building on the question of “where to next?”. Given scholarly calls for change, institutional failures highlighted through the Accord consultation processes, and Federal Government action underway on several immediate priorities (Clare, 2023), renewed collectivisation is needed among those most affected: staff and students.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: This roundtable aims to mobilise collective deliberation, reflection, and action on how we can build better institutional and systemic conditions for mental health and wellbeing in universities. Expected outcomes include a collaborative agenda for institution- and system-level research (with potential planning of peer-reviewed outputs bringing together partners across multiple institutions) and momentum towards a sector-level consensus statement.
Engagement: This session will involve reflexive discussion, partnership-building, and consensus-building. To foreground, we aim to summarise relevant Accord findings, overview existing scholarship, and pose several reflective questions.

Focus/Background:Leadership is one of the core 21st-century competencies, and providing students with leadership opportunities has become a priority in higher education institutions (Carter et al.,2016). The College of Alice & Peter Tan is a vibrant residential college that empowers students to be active leaders and members of the College community.
Description: Student leadership framework should ground the development of leadership skills in formal training in five areas (Campbell et al.,2003): intrapersonal, interpersonal, cognitive, communication, and task-specific skills. In particular, this project examines how advisors could support and train student leaders, measures leadership competencies.
Methods:It examines the development of ten students’ leadership skills in their leadership roles in the college, and the advisors’ support for student leaders. Data come from the advisor who support students, students’ self-perceptions of their leadership abilities, and peer evaluations.
Evidence:
1. how the advisor supported and trained students in developing their leadership skills in the five competencies, and students’ perceptions of the advisor’s role.
2. students’ self-perceptions of their personal growth. Evidence shows that student leaders faced challenges with task-specific skills and cognitive abilities, but they were able to develop intrapersonal, interpersonal, and communication skills.
3. peer evaluations of students’ leadership skills. Evidence shows that student leaders’ self-perception and their peers’ evaluation of leadership skills aligned, but student leaders were more critical of their own abilities compared to their peers.
Future research should examine advisors’ ability to train and support students to develop their intrapersonal, interpersonal, cognitive, communication, and task-specific skills. This study also highlights the importance of student leaders being able to receive peer feedback.
Discussion:
1.How should advisors support student leaders?
2.What platforms should we provide for students to develop leadership skills?
3.Should we measure students’ growth in student leadership? If so, how?
4.How should we conduct peer evaluations of students’ leadership skills?

Roundtable: Enhancing Educator Development through a Coaching Partnership Model
Context: The shortcomings of traditional professional development (PD) include difficulties in internalising and implementing new practices (Boud, 1999). PD is often framed in an expert-novice relationship and changes in practice as moving from ‘bad to good’ which can interfere with effectiveness (Gallwey, 2001). Educators also often struggle to identify the root causes of teaching challenges and identify appropriate professional development and approaches to enhance practice (Brookfield, 2017). At an Australian university in Southeast Asia, alongside an extensive PD ecosystem, our underutilized one-to-one consultation service is associated with underperformance, and often lacks sustained improvements in practice.
Description: The L&T unit at the university will pilot a redeveloped consultation service underpinned by a tailored coaching model centred on authentic partnership with our educators to complement existing PD and address the challenges above. Coaching can facilitate critical conversations, connect PD, peer observation, theory, and practice (Gilmore, 2021). Coaching can also act as a form of modelling and enhance PD effectiveness (Desimone & Pak, 2017). The coaching model seeks to introduce a framework that educators can use to reflect and act on practice beyond the coaching interactions. Critically, the new service seeks to move away from the current deficit lens to encourage change through active experimentation, supported risk-taking and innovation (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012), and engage educators in collective as well as individual coaching.

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: Gathering feedback and recommendations to improve the proposed coaching model which draws on the Instructional Coaching, GROWTH, TTM and COM-B models.

Engagemement: Participants will break into two groups to 1) discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed model and suggest recommendations 2) interrogate the specific coaching question sets for the Identify and Improve stages of the impact cycle and suggest recommendations.

• Format: work-in-progress

• Context/background:

Literature suggests that students from low socio-economic status (Low SES), remote and regional (RR) areas, and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds may face challenges related to belonging and engagement throughout their degree (Burke et al., 2016), are more likely to discontinue study (Harvey et al., 2017), and are more reluctant to seek academic support than their peers (Devlin et al., 2012).

Investigating the impact of different teaching pedagogies on diverse student cohorts poses significant challenges (Rivera, 2017; Orlov et al., 2021). Yet, the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework emerges as a solution, facilitating differentiated instruction and empowering students to tailor their learning journeys.

• Description:

This project aims to develop a UDL support tool for tertiary education to enhance assistance for students from Low SES, RR areas, and CALD backgrounds.

The project employed an exploratory research design, utilizing qualitative data gathered through interviews with the above-mentioned three equity cohorts. A total of 27 in-depth interviews were conducted at a university in Australia. Thematic analysis is used (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

• Intended outcome and contribution:

Expected outcomes include (i) providing recommendations on how to create engaged pedagogy that equity students value; (ii) designing an improved UDL support tool to redress inequitable educational outcomes.

For example, the UDL support tool offers various content formats (Rose et al., 2006), such as text, audio, video, and interactive multimedia, empowering students to choose based on their needs. Those from low SES backgrounds may benefit from digital accessibility, while students in RR areas gain access despite geographical barriers. Additionally, multilingual options support learners from CALD backgrounds.

• Engagement:

(1) Incorporate specific examples or case studies demonstrating the practical application of the UDL support tool.

(2) Enhance participant engagement by integrating interactive elements such as polls and Q&A sessions.

Format of the roundtable: Birds of a Feather

Topic for discussion: The Impact of generative AI on Reflective Writing in Higher Education

Context/background: This session explores the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and reflective writing within higher education settings. Reflective writing is a critical pedagogical tool, that fosters deeper learning and personal growth. However, the advent of AI poses new challenges in this domain.

Description of research/initiative or practice: Drawing on personal experiences as both a student and educator in reflective writing, alongside current research, this discussion examines the depth and authenticity of student reflections in the era of AI. It questions what constitutes meaningful reflection and how AI tools can both hinder and/or enhance this process.

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: The session aims to delve deeper into the impact of generative AI on the depth and authenticity of student reflections. Recognizing the potential for AI to both enhance and detract from meaningful reflective practices, this discussion seeks to outline specific strategies to preserve the integrity of reflective writing. An anticipated outcome is the development of a framework that facilitates the discernment of AI-assisted reflections, focusing on themes and insights that can be directly observed or corroborated by teaching staff. By promoting a nuanced approach to AI integration, the session intends to safeguard the reflective writing process against becoming a mere artifact of AI output, thus ensuring that reflections remain a vibrant tool for student growth and introspection.

Engagement: Participants will engage in a comparative analysis of a human-written reflection and one produced by ChatGPT, followed by a prompt engineering exercise for AI-generated reflective writing on an educational topic. This approach aims to deepen understanding of AI's influence on reflective writing, sparking discussions on maintaining depth, authenticity, and the potential for introspection and personal growth despite AI integration.

Format of the roundtable: Work-in-progress

Topic for discussion: This roundtable will discuss a project that focuses on a lab experiment that evaluates cheating and dishonest behaviour, aiming to understand learners' decisions regarding contract cheating.

Context/background: In 2018, it was reported that one out of every seven recent graduates may have engaged in paid contract cheating internationally, and this ratio is expected to increase in the post-pandemic environment (QAA 2022). To understand students’ behaviour and what drives them to engage in contract cheating, survey research has been the main methodology for the analysis (Ahsan, Akbar, and Kam 2022). However, relying on self-reported data from students can introduce bias as they may have different interpretations of dishonest behaviour, leading to biased responses.

Description: This project uses lab experiments, unlike surveys, to offer a more objective approach to investigating the cause-and-effect of student choices in contract cheating by placing them in a controlled environment. During a pilot study, we collected data from 110 student participants. We found preliminary evidence on the potential factors that drive students to cheat, including time pressure, their level of self-competence, their relative ranking among the cohort and their understanding of the consequences of cheating.

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: This project could provide guidance on how academics can set their assessment considering the factors that drive students' incentive to contract to cheat. At a higher level, the generalisation of the experiment's outcomes to the associated population is crucial for the development of institutional policies and procedures aimed at deterring contract cheating, and it also offers the potential to provide valuable insights to the Australian Tertiary Education and Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA).

Engagement: The project is actively seeking feedback from participants to enhance the experiment, discuss potential factors that contribute to contract cheating, and exchange ideas.

Format: Birds of a Feather

Topic for discussion
What areas of skills development will have the greatest impact on student experience? How can we embed this into their work? How can we foster collegiality and leverage the team’s experiences and diversity?

Context/background
Casual teaching staff are often responsible for working closely with small groups of students. These student-staff interactions can be highly variable in large teaching teams and significantly impact the student experience. Staff training is often limited, with University-level training often being short and focused on theory in a broader context. Luft et al. (2004) described the need for specialised training and challenges of time and financial constraints. Therefore, training needs to be embedded into their work and contextualised into practice.

Description
We developed resources for tutors to prepare for class and sample feedback to be adapted for marking. Sample feedback focuses on process as described by Hattie and Timperley (2007), with the aim for markers to adopt these approaches in their written feedback and in-person interactions. We also provide opportunities for experienced staff to share their experiences and resources with colleagues.

Intended outcome
Teaching staff have sent unsolicited positive feedback about the helpfulness of communication and resources. We aim to gain insights from participants about their experiences and empower everyone to improve their development of teaching staff to enhance the student experience. This discussion is timely as staff need to be capable of identifying and supporting at-risk students as described in the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill 2023.

Engagement
Participants will briefly discuss areas they believe are most important to develop. After identifying these, we will focus on brainstorming strategies to embed training into their work, including how experienced casual staff can take on leadership roles. All discussions will be recorded on Padlet for future reference to participants.

Format
Work-in-Progress

Focus
To share emerging findings and discuss what innovative educational leadership looks like and how emerging and established educational leaders can be better supported in higher education.

Context/Background
This session presents a work-in progress research project that has been funded by an Australasian professional body in higher education. The project explores the identities of educational leaders at all career stages through semi-structured interviews in 2024.

Description
The project views educational leadership as the act of influencing others in educational settings to achieve quality learning and teaching (Connolly et al., 2019). This innovatively broad definition sees leadership as an identity and not a role. Through semi-structured interviews, the identities of educational leaders at all career stages (including casual staff) will be explored, allowing the identification of contextual factors that may contribute to the formation, development, and attrition of educational leaders in Australasian universities.

Intended Outcome
Attendees will reflect on their conceptualisations of educational leadership and identify actions they can apply to their own institutions. This aligns to the HERDSA 2024 theme Together We Innovate, as by questioning assumptions of leadership, this session will foster the seeds of a broader, more innovative lens to future academic development.

Engagement
The session will maximise engagement, conversation, and reflection through:

A. A think and pair activity, using a prompt adapted from a project interview question: What does an educational leader look like to you?
B. Attendees share reflections with facilitators, who create a concept map of these responses, consolidating major themes.
C. Facilitators share initial project themes regarding who educational leaders are and their support needs. Attendees respond to expected or unexpected themes.
D. Group discussion about actions that attendees can take to support emerging and established educational leaders. Attendees craft an action statement they can apply after the conference.

Format-roundtable-Birds of a Feather

Focus/ Topic for Discussion
“OMG, how did I get this mark?” The student perspective on marking. Students appreciated clear assessment expectations that did not alter, unambiguous marking criteria, word counts that were achievable, feedback and feedforward that taught and encouraged. Referencing that was explained and clear, examples of assessment expectations were valued and supports for students. All factors renowned for variability in marking and outcomes (Bloxham et al., 2011; Brookhart, 1999; Carless & Boud, 2018; Medland, 2016; Singh et al., 2020; Valentine et al., 2021).

What do staff think, having been a student themselves, and now as an academic?

Context/ Background
In 1889, marking variability was observed at Oxford University, remarkably, not much has changed since (Rowntree, 1996). Marking, a crucial facet of assessment, involves students as the recipients of assessment evaluations. The objective of this research is centered on marking, with a focus on enhancing the process, minimizing variability, and promoting improved student learning.

Description
Exploring assessment marking experiences of students in an undergraduate program

Intended Outcome and contribution to scholarship/ practice
Discuss the staff perspective on marking practices, feedback, referencing-what are academic experiences and responses to the student experience? Thoughts, own practices, alternative options? What is the goal of our assessments? I wish to improve marking practices, reduce variability, ensure assessments make students future job ready and be outcome focused so that students engage in learning as it is practical, logical and memorable. The addition now of AI, also contributes strongly to needing to review practices in both assessments and marking.

Engagement
Discussion on the results will allow a table debate and collaboration on academic experiences and perspectives on what works in marking.

Format: Birds of a Feather

Topic for Discussion:
What are the impacts on staff and students in the implementation of a standardised LMS template?

Background/context:
The Covid-19-induced shift to ‘emergency’ online teaching substantially impacted higher education (Hodges et al, 2020), but also resulted in increased engagement with e-learning design. Best practice learning design considers specific learners, processes, and demonstration of learning outcomes (Phillips et al, 2012). While technology can enhance design, inconsistent or overuse results in ‘online engagement fatigue’ (Maloney et al, 2023). Templates can particularly benefit student learning (Scutelnicu et al, 2019) and allow students to focus on ‘real learning’ (Skulmowski and Man Xu, 2022).

Description:
A review of LMS sites across the College of Business, Government and Law (‘CBGL’) found significant differences in location of documents and site structure. For students, this meant additional navigation time and a consequent reduction in learning capacity (Skulmowski and Man Xu, 2022). Flinders University’s move from Moodle to Canvas in 2023 provided an opportunity to create a practice-informed online template for CBGL undergraduate topics, providing a scaffold to guide and house academic content. This roundtable will highlight the challenges and benefits to implementing the template, as reported by staff and students, including unexpected emotional and learning experiences (Liu, 2022).

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice:
The session fosters dialogue on how best practice learning design can inform the development of technological tools to enhance learning and teaching. The session presents the rationale, key features, and challenges related to the development and implementation of the template.

Engagement:
This roundtable will facilitate discussion and participant engagement through guiding questions and comments, drawing from the authors’ experiences and challenges. This will include collaboration to identify, and problem-solve, difficulties faced in this process, and tips related to using simple e-learning design to reduce extraneous cognitive load.

Focus: Presenting evidence-based teaching practices that enhance the problem-based learning method (PBL).

Background: PBL has stirred debates on its effectiveness in student learning (Colliver, 2000; Marcel & Mahon, 2019). Our redesigned PBL initiative, in collaboration with industry, community groups, and student societies is tailored to instill intrinsic motivation to effectively convey the significance of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), cultivating the growth of future responsible leaders.

Description: Purposely designed as a co-curricular initiative it seeks to free students from exam pressures, cultivating a genuine enthusiasm for learning about global issues using the tripartite teaching (academics, industry, students).
Its success lies in three strategic partnerships, distinguishing it from other PBL initiative. Collaborating with community groups instills empathy in students, linking them with real-world challenges and sparking intrinsic motivation for excellence. Partnerships with student societies are pivotal in crafting and executing initiatives, utilizing peer-led learning for enhanced development (Feld et al., 2019). Ongoing collaboration with industry leaders like Google for mentoring, enrich the student learning journey and further foster intrinsic motivation.

Method: Several measurements are in place to evaluate effectiveness, including the number of students participating in these voluntary activities, the longevity of partnerships with student societies and industry, and stakeholder feedback. More formal data collection is currently underway.

Evidence: This initiative has successfully run for four consecutive years, consistently attracting over 100 enthusiastic participants, thereby demonstrating its effectiveness-especially when compared to the attendance of other co-curricular activities. Stakeholder feedback, along with continued sponsorship from companies and the adoption of solutions proposed by students by community groups, further validates its success.

Contribution: This innovative teaching approach serves as an outstanding model, showcasing how tripartite teaching collaboration elevates learning, bridging the theory-practice gap. Furthermore, society benefits from this teaching practice, as the proposed solutions offer valuable insights for community groups.

Engagement: Video, polls, roundtable