6G -
Tracks
Track 7
| Thursday, July 11, 2024 |
| 9:00 AM - 10:25 AM |
| Riverbank Room 2 |
Speaker
Dr Seb Dianati
Charles Darwin University
9:00am - 9:25am Indigenising the curriculum: Benchmarking across the Australian higher education sector
9:00 AM - 9:25 AMFinal abstract
Focus:
This study investigates the integration of Indigenous knowledges in the curriculum of Australian universities, benchmarking initiatives within the higher education sector.
Background/Context:
While all Australian universities acknowledge the value of Indigenous strategies, only a third have established specific protocols for incorporating Indigenous knowledges into their curricula. This inconsistency reveals a gap between strategic intentions and practical applications, requiring a detailed exploration of ‘Indigenisation’ methods and their effectiveness (Bullen & Flavell, 2017; 2022).
Description:
The research explores into the distinctions embedding Indigenous knowledges across Australia’s university sector, identifying that few institutions like the University of Sydney and Charles Sturt University have initiated concrete steps like seed grants, faculty-specific pilots, and comprehensive engagement with Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) (Kwaymullina, 2019).
Method:
Employing a comprehensive website audit alongside case studies from 42 universities, this paper evaluates the current state of Indigenous knowledge integration. Benchmarking was conducted by searching each university website using terms such as Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous strategy, and Indigenisation. University websites with dedicated webpages or those identifying integration of Indigenous knowledges in their strategic plan warranted further interrogation in understanding their practices and the extent of their implementation (Nakata et al., 2012).
Evidence:
Evidence from the audits and case studies demonstrates significant variation in the adoption and depth of ‘Indigenisation’ practices. Key findings include the percentage of universities integrating Indigenous knowledges, the effectiveness of school-based approaches, and the impact of targeted funding and policy frameworks.
Contribution:
The study contributes to a critical examination of ‘Indigenisation’ in higher education, offering actionable insights to guide universities in enhancing their curriculum by understanding best practices across the sector
Engagement:
Participants will be invited to share their experiences from their retrospective university in an effort to engage in an open dialogue between what is mentioned online and their experiences in reality.
This study investigates the integration of Indigenous knowledges in the curriculum of Australian universities, benchmarking initiatives within the higher education sector.
Background/Context:
While all Australian universities acknowledge the value of Indigenous strategies, only a third have established specific protocols for incorporating Indigenous knowledges into their curricula. This inconsistency reveals a gap between strategic intentions and practical applications, requiring a detailed exploration of ‘Indigenisation’ methods and their effectiveness (Bullen & Flavell, 2017; 2022).
Description:
The research explores into the distinctions embedding Indigenous knowledges across Australia’s university sector, identifying that few institutions like the University of Sydney and Charles Sturt University have initiated concrete steps like seed grants, faculty-specific pilots, and comprehensive engagement with Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) (Kwaymullina, 2019).
Method:
Employing a comprehensive website audit alongside case studies from 42 universities, this paper evaluates the current state of Indigenous knowledge integration. Benchmarking was conducted by searching each university website using terms such as Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous strategy, and Indigenisation. University websites with dedicated webpages or those identifying integration of Indigenous knowledges in their strategic plan warranted further interrogation in understanding their practices and the extent of their implementation (Nakata et al., 2012).
Evidence:
Evidence from the audits and case studies demonstrates significant variation in the adoption and depth of ‘Indigenisation’ practices. Key findings include the percentage of universities integrating Indigenous knowledges, the effectiveness of school-based approaches, and the impact of targeted funding and policy frameworks.
Contribution:
The study contributes to a critical examination of ‘Indigenisation’ in higher education, offering actionable insights to guide universities in enhancing their curriculum by understanding best practices across the sector
Engagement:
Participants will be invited to share their experiences from their retrospective university in an effort to engage in an open dialogue between what is mentioned online and their experiences in reality.
Biography
Dr. Seb Dianati, a Senior Academic Lead at Charles Darwin University, heads the Digital Learning Futures team within Education Strategy at CDU. With a background at the University of Queensland since 2018, he's served as a Senior Teaching Fellow and Director of the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Lab (CaLD Lab). His leadership has driven the widespread implementation of digital technologies through student partnerships, demonstrated by numerous institutional rollouts. Dr. Seb is lauded for his impact on digital and e-learning pedagogies, leveraging student partnerships to enhance course and curriculum design. He gained distinction for leading an expansive student partnership initiative involving over 60 student partners and 29 projects, culminating in a prestigious 2022 commendation. Dr. Dianati's collaborative approach, shaped by previous roles at Flinders University, emphasises blended, flexible, and active learning methods. His extensive publications, including research on contextualisation, critical-digital partnership, and diverse manifestations of partnership, underline his ability to conduct a variety of methodological approaches for structural equation modelling to critical participatory action research.
Mr Simon Loria
Lecturer
The University of Sydney
9:30am - 9:55am New insights into tutor team-teaching: What helps or hinders its success
9:30 AM - 9:55 AMFinal abstract
Focus
Team - Teaching is becoming more common in Higher Education (HE) (Dang et al., 2022). By sharing educator experiences of Tutor Team-Teaching (TTT), we inform better teaching practices by identifying what helps and hinders successful TTT implementation and refine our understanding of ‘Team Teaching’ models in the contemporary HE context.
Background/context
TTT, where two or more tutors with little agency over content, assessment or team composition, teach two or more groups in one space, is not widely explored. Most research on Team-Teaching focuses on the educators who are academic teachers collaborating "in the planning, delivery and/or evaluation of a course" (Baeten & Simons, 2016, p.95) or Co-Teaching in K-12 (Cook & Friend, 1995), where instructors may choose to teach together and have control over content (Clancy et al., 2015).
Description
We look at the implementation of TTT in a large Post Graduate cohort, where team-teaching was an imposed “activity” (Minett-Smith & Davis, 2020) due to insufficient room availability (Williams et al., 2010) and show how our research enabled us to take a more pedagogically informed approach.
Method
We undertook detached classroom observations, semi-structured tutor and subject coordinator interviews and conducted a student focus group.
Evidence
The data provided insights into how room layout facilitates or inhibits TTT, how to give tutors more agency in the process, how different teaching models need to be employed to accommodate different tutor teaching styles and how institutional factors such as timetabling, and room availability impact successful TTT outcomes.
Contribution
This research helps fill a research gap by focusing on the tutor perspective in addition to the academic perspective. It also helps clarify how current institutional constraints impact the design of TTT models.
Engagement
We will co-present utilising two different team teaching strategies to practically demonstrate what helps and hinders successful delivery.
Team - Teaching is becoming more common in Higher Education (HE) (Dang et al., 2022). By sharing educator experiences of Tutor Team-Teaching (TTT), we inform better teaching practices by identifying what helps and hinders successful TTT implementation and refine our understanding of ‘Team Teaching’ models in the contemporary HE context.
Background/context
TTT, where two or more tutors with little agency over content, assessment or team composition, teach two or more groups in one space, is not widely explored. Most research on Team-Teaching focuses on the educators who are academic teachers collaborating "in the planning, delivery and/or evaluation of a course" (Baeten & Simons, 2016, p.95) or Co-Teaching in K-12 (Cook & Friend, 1995), where instructors may choose to teach together and have control over content (Clancy et al., 2015).
Description
We look at the implementation of TTT in a large Post Graduate cohort, where team-teaching was an imposed “activity” (Minett-Smith & Davis, 2020) due to insufficient room availability (Williams et al., 2010) and show how our research enabled us to take a more pedagogically informed approach.
Method
We undertook detached classroom observations, semi-structured tutor and subject coordinator interviews and conducted a student focus group.
Evidence
The data provided insights into how room layout facilitates or inhibits TTT, how to give tutors more agency in the process, how different teaching models need to be employed to accommodate different tutor teaching styles and how institutional factors such as timetabling, and room availability impact successful TTT outcomes.
Contribution
This research helps fill a research gap by focusing on the tutor perspective in addition to the academic perspective. It also helps clarify how current institutional constraints impact the design of TTT models.
Engagement
We will co-present utilising two different team teaching strategies to practically demonstrate what helps and hinders successful delivery.
Biography
Simon Loria is teaching focussed academic in the Discipline of Business Analytics at The University Sydney Business School, who lectures in Decision Making, Operations and Project Management. Prior to teaching he spent 20 years in industry, firstly in consulting and then in construction and logistics. He is an alumnus of both UNSW and Macquarie University with degrees in Finance and Business Administration. He has a teaching philosophy that seeks to make his student's learning experience both authentic and engaging with the aim of developing within them, many of the graduate qualities that The University Sydney promotes.
Ms Joanne Nash
Educational Developer
The University of Sydney
Co-presenter
Biography
A Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA), Joanne Nash is an experienced Educational Developer with Business CoDesign at the University of Sydney. She brings a practical and strategic approach to educational design with extensive experience in unit coordination and lecturing. Before academia, Joanne had an extensive career in marketing, advertising and strategy with Nestle, Johnson & Johnson and Beiersdorf, which included leading consumer divisions of major companies. She has won multiple awards for both marketing and teaching. Her areas of expertise include the codesign of units to improve learning and teaching outcomes, team teaching and ways to enhance academic integrity whilst simultaneously improving student learning.
Dr Stephanie Wilson
Senior Lecturer, Deputy Director, Business Co-design
The University of Sydney Business School
10:00am - 10:25am Design patterns for connected learning at scale
10:00 AM - 10:25 AMFinal abstract
Focus: Educational design patterns systematically capture and share solutions to common problems (Goodyear, 2004 & 2005). This showcase describes our practice of developing a set of design patterns associated with a large educational innovation initiative at The University of Sydney.
Background: The higher education sector has few systematic methods to support educators to share best practice. Emerging from the field of architecture (Alexander, 1979), design patterns have appeared in the higher education literature over the past decades to capture and share solutions to educational challenges (Goodyear, 2005; Mor et al., 2014; Nicolettou & Soulis, 2014; Mouasher & Lodge, 2016).
Description: The design patterns are the dissemination strategy of a project aimed at transforming teaching and learning in the School’s largest courses. The project team developed a set of patterns for sharing outcomes in a structured way. We will share the design patterns development process and a website to support participants in addressing their own teaching and learning challenges at scale: clasdesignpatterns.com
Method: The project team engaged in collaborative inquiry throughout the following development stages:
- Understanding the patterns landscape
- Defining problems
- Identifying ‘pattern candidates’
- Developing/using a patterns template
- Sharing patterns and engaging community
- Building a pattern language
- Capturing stories of use
Outcomes: The website has been accessed by 2959 unique visitors across 77 countries, with 8496 views, and patterns presented at Faculty and University workshops and other national and international institutions.
Contribution: Our website is open access to share our design solutions with the broader educational community. Through research, we have developed a framework to support other educators implementing design pattern projects.
Engagement: Participants will be introduced to our design patterns and have the opportunity to consider how they might help solve particular challenges associated with large class learning and teaching in their contexts.
Background: The higher education sector has few systematic methods to support educators to share best practice. Emerging from the field of architecture (Alexander, 1979), design patterns have appeared in the higher education literature over the past decades to capture and share solutions to educational challenges (Goodyear, 2005; Mor et al., 2014; Nicolettou & Soulis, 2014; Mouasher & Lodge, 2016).
Description: The design patterns are the dissemination strategy of a project aimed at transforming teaching and learning in the School’s largest courses. The project team developed a set of patterns for sharing outcomes in a structured way. We will share the design patterns development process and a website to support participants in addressing their own teaching and learning challenges at scale: clasdesignpatterns.com
Method: The project team engaged in collaborative inquiry throughout the following development stages:
- Understanding the patterns landscape
- Defining problems
- Identifying ‘pattern candidates’
- Developing/using a patterns template
- Sharing patterns and engaging community
- Building a pattern language
- Capturing stories of use
Outcomes: The website has been accessed by 2959 unique visitors across 77 countries, with 8496 views, and patterns presented at Faculty and University workshops and other national and international institutions.
Contribution: Our website is open access to share our design solutions with the broader educational community. Through research, we have developed a framework to support other educators implementing design pattern projects.
Engagement: Participants will be introduced to our design patterns and have the opportunity to consider how they might help solve particular challenges associated with large class learning and teaching in their contexts.
Biography
Stephanie Wilson is a Senior Lecturer in Educational Development and Deputy Director of Business Co-Design at the University of Sydney Business School. She leads a team of educational developers working on a strategic educational project called Connected Learning at Scale. Stephanie is a Senior Fellow of Advance HE (SFHEA). Her research spans the areas of networked learning, co-design, sonic pedagogies, and the designed environment in higher education.
Dr Dewa Wardak
The University of Sydney Business School
Co-presenter
Biography
Dewa Wardak is a Lecturer in Educational Development with the Business Co-Design unit at the University of Sydney Business School. With a background in Learning Sciences and technology, Dewa co-designs engaging and authentic learning experiences for students. Dewa is a Senior Fellow of Advance HE (SFHEA). Her research interests span networked learning, pattern languages, object-based learning, multimodality, undergraduate research, and research ethics.
Dr Alison Casey
The University of Sydney, School of Business
Co-presenter
Biography
Alison Casey is a Lecturer in Educational Development with the Business Co-Design team at The University of Sydney Business School. Originally a scientist, she has developed and taught curriculum in both quantitative and qualitative subjects and is a qualified high school science and maths teacher. A previous role at the University of Notre Dame involved developing quality teaching support at an individual, faculty, and institutional level, winning a team AAUT teaching citation for this support in 2021. Her expertise is in active learning pedagogies, digital affordances, students as partners practice, and authentic assessment.
Chair
Bev Rogers
Flinders University
