Format: Topic for discussion
Context/background: The HESF requires continuous evaluation for ongoing curriculum transformation. Five standards refer to scholarship. Our fellowship aimed to enhance and resource Science faculty’s capacity for quality assurance processes by adapting the Curriculum Evaluation and Research framework (Kelder & Carr, 2017), reconceptualising teaching scholarship as research-informed teaching (RiT). The framework aligns team-based RiT activities with institutional structures. Twenty workshops were conducted for 14 science faculties involving 430 participants who completed a questionnaire. The resulting data was organised into themes. Four interviews on framework were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed.
Description: A distributed leadership model will be used to conduct the roundtable, using the framework website and a handout with representative interview and survey data. Prompting questions will promote discussion of the research methodology, results, and implications.
Intended outcome and contribution to practice
The roundtable discussion will facilitate understanding of collaborative development of SOTL capability and encourage the use of the framework to implement a systematic approach to QA, embedding scholarship into routine practice. Participants will be able to conceptualise SOTL as part of the QA cycle and identify challenges to embedding SOTL into teaching practice. Our fellowship data revealed mixed opinions on the institutional environment for RiT within teaching teams. Respondents highlighted an overall lack of support (n=60), time allocation and workload issues (n=33), and a lack of engagement from academics (n=25) as the main obstacles. No faculty implemented the framework, although interviewees acknowledged using its resources for ethics applications. Barriers included institutional support, workload, and competing priorities. At the home institution of fellowship holders, resourcing barriers were removed, and course-level ethics were implemented across the college.
Engagement: Participants will be invited to articulate personal connections with the findings and collectively explore strategies to address barriers to SOTL and using the framework in their institution.

Context/background: It is challenging for units to elicit deep learning from students, due in part to the fragmentation of teaching responsibilities and the reliance on assessment tasks to determine what the students know. Deep learning emphasises learning to understand the content through critically analysis of the new information, while attempting to identify connections to their existing knowledge, where student move beyond the reproduction of knowledge (Desierto, 2018).
A second-year bioinformatics unit was redesigned to encourage the students to learn deeply, before utilising this knowledge to think critically and solve problems. This approach was scaffolded through the online lectures, in-person sessions and the assessment tasks. In particular, the case studies assessments tasks (CSAT) required the students to provide judgements, evaluate, explain and create novel approaches.
The cohort’s performance on the CSAT (average of 75% across the two CSATs) suggested that many of the students adopted a deep learning approach. To further evaluate the students’ approach to learning, one-on-one interviews were performed (n=6). Based on the requirements of the unit, the students saw the need to move away from a memorisation to a deep learning approach, which allowed them to think critically and solve problems. The students also identified the importance of identifying connections to find the meaning in what they were learning.
Topic for discussion: What strategies can we use to encourage more students to take a deep approach to their learning? How can we better communicate the value of deep learning to students?
Intended outcome: The intended outcome of this discussion is to identify practical strategies for how educators can encourage more of their students to take a deep approach to their learning.
Engagement: The discussion will include opportunities for educators to share practical tips on how to encourage students to adopt a deep learning approach.

Focus: Discussion of a review investigating healthcare academics’ experiences of moral distress.
Background/context: Academic occupational stress is propagated by many complex factors. Workforce casualisation, performance-based management, privatisation and low work-based social support are key contributors (Lee et al, 2022). Moral distress is experienced when one feels restricted from acting in alignment with their moral values. This inability to meet desired moral standards gives rise to distress.
The impacts are significant; leading to frustration, anger, guilt, helplessness, and a range of other negative feelings and emotions (Henrich et al., 2017). Healthcare academics experience occupational stress which likely includes moral components. Moral distress has been investigated extensively, however scant regard to the experiences of healthcare academics is evidenced. This review explored healthcare academics experiences of moral distress in the provision of tertiary education.
Method(s): Systematic literature search and qualitative meta-synthesis. A PIC (Population, Phenomenon of Interest, Context) approach, with four electronic databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO and ERIC) searched. Qualitative or mixed-method studies were included, with data extraction guided by the JBI QARI Data Extraction Tool for Qualitative Research. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
Evidence: The search returned 1291 articles, with 1228 removed through title/abstract screening and fifty-eight more following full-text review, leaving five for inclusion. Synthesis led to the construction of four themes: Experience of moral distress; Generating moral distress; The Impact of moral distress; and, What is needed.
Contribution: The academic environment, peer relationships, personal traits of academics and student factors contribute to moral distress. Impacts of the experience extend beyond personal feelings of distress to include alteration of academic practices, de-personalisation of teaching experiences, and withdrawal from academia.
Engagement: The session will commence with a prompting reflective question, identifying an academic situation known to stimulate a conflict with moral values.

Format: Birds of a Feather
Topic for discussion: What are the needs of neurodivergent students and how do we create meaningful inclusion?
Context/background: There is a strong emphasis on increasing participation of under-represented groups in higher education, but the disability community has been let down by the Australian Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Network on Disability, 2024). Neurodivergent students including autistic students, students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) and students with other significant learning differences, experience discrimination, poor wellbeing, and high rates of underachievement (Anderson et al., 2018; Nankoo et al., 2019; Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019; Anderson et al., 2020). These outcomes contribute to the reduced quality-of-life experienced by neurodivergent Australians across the lifespan (Select Committee on Autism, 2022; Senate Community Affairs References Committee, 2023).
Description: We invited neurodivergent students to share their experiences with us by completing an online questionnaire (n=241) or by participating in an interview (n=6, data collection ongoing). Students (18+ years old) were eligible to participate if they formally or informally identified as neurodivergent, and had studied at an Australian university within the last 5 years. Using a mixed method approach we will define the strengths and needs of this cohort and provide a framework for co-designing affirming educational approaches and supports.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: Understanding the lived-experiences of neurodivergent students is the first step towards co-designing and implementing strengths-based, heutagogical approaches that enhance their educational experiences and outcomes. Such approaches are urgently needed to support the wellbeing of this highly vulnerable student cohort.
Engagement Focus: We will present findings from our research and facilitate an activity that demonstrates neurodiversity as experienced by Australian university students. We will encourage participants to share their own experiences of supporting neurodivergent students and discuss ideas for creating meaningful inclusion.

Format: Point for Debate
Context
Higher education is experiencing unprecedented change, driven by rapid technological advancements, shifting perceptions of knowledge and expertise, evolving standards for professional conduct, and escalating demands for societal impact and interdisciplinary collaboration. This dynamic landscape raises a pivotal question: Who is responsible for cultivating and growing academics who are not only prepared for, but can excel in, this new era of change?

Description
This roundtable discussion addresses this critical issue by exploring strategies and professional development that empower academics to embrace change and flourish amidst shifts. We will discuss the evolving academic role, and the essential attitudes, skills and strategies needed to navigate the future complexities of academic work.

Through an interactive discussion, we will debate the responsibilities shared among educators, institutions, and policymakers in cultivating a thriving academic community.

Description
We will focus our discussion around the four critical themes, with key domain ‘pain-point’ examples to initiate discussion:
1. Changing academic roles: teacher, facilitator, designer, curator
2. Promoting innovative practice and scholarship:
3. Addressing equity and diversity: faculty diversity, cultural competence, recruitment, and retention
4. Designing professional development for the future: continuous professional development

Intended Outcomes:
Join us for robust debate to define the future responsibilities of educators, institution, and policymakers in nurturing a thriving community that is appropriately equipped for the future. We aim to identify pockets of innovation and success to share across institutions.

Engagement
This is an interactive session. Participants will be invited to share their lived experiences of the changing academic role and debate the issues related to each theme in response to discussion prompts.

Format Topic for discussion
Topic for discussion Governance – Regulation: Scholarship
Background In 2021, the University of Notre Dame, Australia (ND) used Boyer’s model of scholarship (1990, 1996) to create and implement an innovative Scholarship Framework to demonstrate a systematic approach for organising scholarly activities as required by TEQSA (2022).
Description Initial reporting ascertained challenges of identifying, collecting and collating evidence of scholarship practice/outcomes and led to a formalised reflective process for the five leaders (Ls) responsible for the implementation of the framework. While recognising the need to evaluate the institutional impact of academic scholarship on student learning outcomes, they identified a paucity on clear guidance on the practical steps involved in doing this at an institutional level. The Ls sought to address this by asking: What did the framework show about scholarship at ND? What challenges were faced in evidencing the scholarship categories in the framework?
Using recognised collaborative autoethnography, this study aimed to capture a deeper understanding about the scholarship framework. Responses to the two research questions (RQs) were continually sought by focusing on each leader’s critical reflections and revisited by the group with these reflections at the forefront. Each leader then shared their comprehensive answers to the RQs in recorded and transcribed interviews on Teams. The Ls pooled their stories to find commonalities and differences; at the same time wrestling with these to discover the meanings of their combined lived experiences - their epiphanies made possible through retrospection, discussion and writing about them.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice Our framework offers an opportunity for reflective practice that can enhance and promote scholarship processes and practices across the higher-education sector.
Engagement Share the framework and discuss evaluation of scholarship.

Format: In this roundtable discussion, we invite “Birds of a feather” to discuss findings that disrupt dominant ideas about the role of lectures in higher education.
Focus: The session will share recent research findings on students’ perceptions of lectures and will open for discussion the implications of this for teaching and learning.
Context/Background: The merit of lectures has long been debated; some see lectures as outdated and passive, offering little benefit for student learning (Bajak, 2022; Devlin, 2019; Laurillard, 2013). Others view well-executed lectures as critical to quality learning (French & Kennedy, 2017; Marin, 2020; Nordmann, Hutchison, & MacKay, 2021).
Description: In 2023, our team conducted student focus groups to better understand perceptions of lectures post 2020. When we asked students to position the lecture in the context of their learning ecosystem, we were intrigued to see that it took centre stage – serving as a central node in their conceptions of learning.
Aware of declining attendance rates, this ran against expectations. Whilst we might have dismissed the findings as an anomaly, recent UK student surveys (Advance HE & Higher Education Policy Institute, 2022, 2023) suggest that lectures remain a marker of learning quality. In concert with recent research arguing for the critical role of lectures in building foundational knowledge (Harrington & Zakrajsek, 2017), the implications for teaching and learning may be significant.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: The intention is to contribute to the debate on quality learning in higher education; inform the lecture’s context in a changing environment; and support professional development that is contemporary and aligned with these findings.
Engagement: The session will draw on participant expertise to work through the findings and their potential implications. Participants will engage with a project snapshot before discussing activities focused on their conceptions of lectures and enhancing student experiences.

Format: Work-in-Progress
Focus of the work-in-progress: This roundtable discusses the implementation of an Academic Integrity Ambassador Program at the University of Adelaide as an example of a student-staff partnership approach in the context of academic integrity with a focus on student participation in the program development process.
Context/background: More recently, joint efforts between staff and students have been identified as a successful way to create academic integrity programs (Gravett, Kinchin & Winstone, 2020). In this context, Students as Partners initiatives emphasise the importance of establishing collaborations with shared responsibility between staff and students, as it promotes a supportive learning environment and improves the quality of education (Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2020).
Description: Our institution has developed a student leadership program aimed at promoting a culture of academic integrity through engaging student ambassadors in peer-to-peer educational activities. Taking on diverse roles, student leaders are involved in endeavours such as, course visits, pop-up stalls, student-led workshops and panels, conferences, collaborations with academic/teaching staff, social media and marketing strategies, quizzes, educational artwork, and more.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice
This program exemplifies an innovative Students as Partners approach around academic integrity in the higher education sector. The success of the program can be evidenced by a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data on the high number of students reached through activities and events, survey data and positive testimonials and narratives of student ambassadors and staff. It has led to the establishment of an Academic Integrity Student Champion Network between three institutions in the UK, Nigeria and Australia and has formed the basis for the creation of three similar programs in the UK and Australia.
Engagement: The presenter will stimulate a discussion to encourage contemplation on the development of student-staff partnership initiatives and will offer an opportunity to share ideas and best practice examples.

Format: Birds of a feather
Topic for discussion – Discussion will focus on the implications of increased equity and access for online teaching and student engagement in higher education. How should teaching and online engagement strategies be nuanced to accommodate and support equity students better?
Context/background: Key documents, including the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report (Australian Government, 2023) detail significant themes associated with equity’ and ‘access’. However, while the goal of ‘widening the doors in higher education’ is commendable, and online learning has become an increasingly attractive option for underrepresented students (Stone, 2022), many authors (Artze-Vega et, al. 2023; Estefan et, al. 2023; Hogan et, al. 2023) caution that a range of considerations need to be embraced. This includes the nuanced ways to accommodate and support equity students, and implications for students, teachers, and learning designers in terms of increased equity and access to learning and online engagement.
Description of the initiative: This initiative seeks to start the conversation and gain audience insight and perspective regarding the implications of increased equity and access to online teaching and student engagement in higher education.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: The intent is that this roundtable will be the impetus for stimulating a broader conversation, potentially a series of HERDSA think tanks supported by the HERDSA Online SiG, to explore this important issue. Insights from broader consultation and conversations will be disseminated through the development of a summary paper for subsequent work, as well as a range of outputs including blogs, conference presentations, and papers.
Engagement: Participants will be invited to share ideas in a ‘Collaborative - Y chart’ in response to the following question: What would it ‘look like’, ‘sound like’, or ‘feel like’ for our teaching and online engagement strategies to be nuanced to accommodate and support equity students better?

Format: Birds of a Feather
Topic for discussion: Virtual Branching Scenarios (VBS) are used within most disciplines, but are yet clearly defined or comprehensively researched. Using knowledge generated from a scoping review participants will explore emerging concepts around development and use of VBS in Higher Education.
Context/background: VBS are a tool where students can use higher order thinking and decision-making skills to solve authentic scenarios (Dabney et al., 2020). They provide an opportunity for immediate feedback to the student (Rababa & Masha'al, 2020) and help students learn to apply knowledge rather than simply rote learn facts (Rababa et al., 2022). Despite this knowledge there is relatively little research into the use of VBS in Higher Education.
Description: A scoping review was undertaken with the selection of articles that met the criteria of primary research on Virtual Branching Scenarios in Higher Education since 2010.
Due to the diverse use of language in VBS a broad search strategy was employed drawing from the EBSCO, Scopus and Web of Science data bases. Refined using Covidence the resulting 15 papers were then used for citation searching and Connected Papers exploration. Following these 17 papers were included in the final review for analysis. The strongest emergent theme was authentic critical thinking.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: VBS provide an opportunity for educators to provide authentic learning experiences and assessments for their students. Given the strong potential to impact learning and the considerable time commitment needed to create them further research and discussion into these activities by academics with the aim to create a supportive and structured approach to their design is needed. Knowledge of current state of information in the use of VBS provides a strong foundation for future research.
Engagement: Group engagement supported with an exemplar VBD accessed via QR code.

Format: Work-in-progress.
Focus: The presentation will share emerging findings from my investigation into the impacts of relational pedagogy on educator well-being in higher education (HE).
Background: Relational pedagogy, which refers to educators’ intentional fostering of meaningful relationships with students to improve learning and teaching, has been well-covered in the HE literature. Studies highlight its positive impacts on students, including grade improvements (Parnes et al., 2020), student satisfaction (Bell, 2022), and well-being (Trolian et al., 2022).
Relational pedagogy is built on the notion of teaching as an “interactive, mutual, situated process” (Aspelin, 2021, p. 594) between educator and student. However, there is a dearth of research into the impacts of relational pedagogy on the other agent in the teaching and learning process—the educator. This research focuses on this issue.
Description: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews will be held between May and June 2024 with 15-20 educators at a Sydney university to understand how relational pedagogy impacts their well-being. Participants will be permanent academics whose role includes a teaching component. Interviews will be transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Emerging themes will be shared with the Roundtable participants.
Contribution: Educators in contemporary HE face unprecedented pressures, including increased workload, growing cohort sizes, the imperative to publish, and job insecurity (Gravett et al., 2021; Salimzadeh et al., 2017). Should the research show that relational pedagogy positively impacts educators, this could form the basis for academic development initiatives and policies that support educator well-being and contribute to overall resilience and thriving in universities.
Engagement: The session will be highly participatory. Participants will be asked to share an instance of relational pedagogy in their practice and to reflect on how this has impacted their well-being. The session will conclude by discussing how these ideas could be practically applied to promote educator well-being.

Format: Point for debate
Topic for discussion: Fostering student connection at scale - is it possible?
Context/background: There is increasing recognition of the complex entanglements present in the student experience of learning in higher education (Carvalho and Yeoman, 2018; Fawns, 2021). The practice of networked learning design has been developed to leverage such entanglements (NLEC, 2021), and seeks to foreground the processes of learning rather than content delivery. To what extent can learning design foster student engagement in this context? How much of this still works in a large cohort?
Description: A range of educational interventions, designed to foster student engagement with content, learning activities and peers, were trialled in a large undergraduate course (N=590) with a diverse student cohort. The success (or otherwise) of these in fostering engagement was analysed using aggregated student data and student focus groups.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice
The focus on student engagement and how best to promote it steers the focus of learning design away from content delivery mechanisms and foregrounds learner agency (NLEC, 2021). Robust research around the educational conditions for strong student engagement is still required (Gravett & Winstone, 2020)
Engagement: The same range of education interventions as in the research outlined above will be tabled for debate on their utility in promoting student engagement in large cohorts: tutorial participation marks, discussion boards, peer review, weekly reflections. The presenter will seed the discussion with her own findings and invite practice sharing to ideally start a map of the conditions needed in these interventions to stimulate learning-focused student engagement at scale, but also potentially finding what is too challenging to implement at scale.

Focus: Higher education students might require diverse supports across their studies. Universities implement different support services (Ryan, et al., 2023), but there is a lack of clarity of what is available, particularly for large HE institutions. The University of New South Wales (UNSW) Education-Focussed (EF) Student-Wellbeing-Community-of-Practice (SWCoP) SW stakeholder mapping project will be presented as an example process to improve clarity of services and key staff who support wellbeing.
Context/background: Wellbeing and a sense of belonging is essential to students’ success (Crawford et al., 2024). UNSW has >63K students and >7K staff. UNSW has made substantial investments in enhancing student wellbeing support services. The SWCoP recognised in 2021 that due to the evolution of services, and stakeholder numbers throughout UNSW, staff may become overwhelmed and disengaged in supporting student wellbeing.
Description: Enhancing institution-wide connections will facilitate a stronger sense of community, enabling all staff to find support and validation for their valuable contributions to student wellbeing. We are identifying and gathering information from stakeholders to create a searchable digital student-wellbeing-network, to facilitate easy access to supports and resources for students and staff. By identifying all stakeholders at UNSW our aim is to build communities, partnerships and networks of staff and students centred around student wellbeing.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice:
Open discussions comparing challenges and successes with other institutions that have undertaken similar stakeholder mapping projects, and/or created digital maps of their student support services. Facilitate collaboration to develop a framework for institution-wide student wellbeing stakeholder mapping.
Assessing how well the map promotes services and connections via survey.
Engagement: We will outline progress made in our project and discuss the challenges, providing opportunities to discuss our approach. Structured questions will be formulated to foster discussion around institutional approaches to supporting student wellbeing and the challenges faced in different contexts.

Format: Work-in-Progress
Focus of the work-in-progress: will be on discussing the essential ‘tools’ needed for educators and administrative staff to provide adequate supports and/or resources that assist students with mental health issues to manage their academic studies.
Context/background: Prevalence of mental illness among university students is increasing and continues to impact on students’ academic progression. We initiated a study to investigate the uptake of university-provided resources among undergraduate students with anxiety, depression, ADHD. It was found that the needs of these students varied by their mental health conditions, and the different combinations of mental health conditions (Goldberg 2023, unpublished thesis).
Description: Our study indicated that ADHD students need counselling services as much as students with anxiety and depression. Meanwhile, safe space on campus is more needed by students with anxiety and depression (35%) than students with ADHD (27%). Small studies conducted in silo is inefficient in equipping staff with the best toolkit to provide timely assistance to support students with diverse mental health issues manage their academic studies.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: is establishing a community of practice to contribute towards developing a toolkit/best-practice guide accessible by educators and administrative staff to assist these students manage their academic studies, progress towards completion and maintain their wellbeing.
Engagement: by asking the audience questions:
- What prompts do you use to establish that a student in the classroom (and virtual learning environment) has unmet needs to manage their studies?
- What has worked (and not worked) in supporting students who have mental health issues in the classroom? How about students in the virtual learning environment? What tool(s) will you add to the toolkit; destigmatising mental health issues training and/or time-efficient strategies to co-design effective personalised study plan with students of varied mental health issues?

Format: Birds of a Feather
Topic for Discussion: The discussion revolves around the theoretical framework for integrating educational technology (EdTech) to meet pedagogical needs while considering operational aspects.
Context/Background: Current research on EdTech adoption primarily focuses on assessing its effectiveness within specific pedagogical contexts, which offers limited theoretical insights. This gap leaves educators with an incomplete understanding of the complexities involved in adopting EdTech for teaching.
Description: In response to Hew et al.’s (2019) call for EdTech theorization, our research team developed a typological matrix scale to evaluate EdTech in the context of higher education. Participants were drawn from a science faculty at an Australian university, comprising 209 undergraduate students, 24 tutors, 10 course convenors, one program director, and one head of school, spanning 16 different courses. We examined their experiences with electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) over 18 months from 2020 to 2021. Within the science faculty, three ELN tools were employed: Benchling, Lab Archive, and OneNote, with OneNote serving as the focal point due to its broad disciplinary applicability. Employing a mixed-method sequential explanatory research design, we utilized peer-debriefing and triangulation to ensure data reliability. Our approach involved administering a survey adapted from Guerrero et al. (2019), followed by 10 rounds of focus group interviews with willing participants, conducted separately with students and academics. Qualitative data analysis employed a six-step thematic analysis, with themes discussed among research team members.
Intended Outcome and Contribution to Scholarship/Practice: Our model provides a visual representation of an EdTech's life cycle, facilitating comparisons between different EdTech options for teaching and informing educational policy discussions regarding EdTech adoption.
Engagement: I aim to illustrate the pitfalls of adopting EdTech without a comprehensive understanding of pedagogical and operational considerations, drawing from real experiences. The model seeks to empower academics to navigate the complexities of EdTech adoption effectively.

Format: Work-in-progress
The focus of the work-in-progress: This session presents a theoretical framework for the design of educational escape games in higher education.
Context/background: Communication and decision making are essential skills amongst nursing team members and are paramount to safe practice. Escape games are an activity where participants work together to solve puzzles within a time frame (Nicholson, 2018). As an education strategy they provide students a safe environment to learn from each other and make mistakes (Morrell & Ball, 2020) while receiving valuable feedback. Escape games provide students with an engaging activity that builds teamwork, communication (Friedrich et al., 2020) and decision-making skills (Kubin, 2020). Escape games can occur in the simulation environment, in the classroom or virtually.
Description: This framework brings together several concepts and theories into a practical format to guide academics in escape game design. The framework is underpinned by Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory. Built in a linear design, the framework is anchored by Constructive Alignment theory (Biggs & Tang, 2007) and includes game elements drawn from characteristics as outlined by Whitton (2012).
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: This session will draw from current research on escape game design and presenter’s lived experience to provide a practical framework for developing escape games in higher education. As a work-in-progress participants can question, provide feedback, and practically apply the framework.
Engagement: An interactive session using audience participation and networking with peers to brainstorm your own escape games design

Engaging Educators in Peer Review of Teaching

Format

Birds of a Feather

Topic for discussion

Engaging academics in peer review of teaching: program design, implementation, challenges, and support for success

Context/background

Peer review of teaching (PRT) is a common approach to enhancing teaching excellence in an educational institution through feedback from peers, complementing student surveys which have limitations (Gelber et al., 2022). However, it is challenging to design a program that authentically engages educators, especially in the higher education setting where participants face competing priorities. This round table is an opportunity for those considering, designing, implementing, or participating in PRT programs to share strategies to engage educators.

Description

We have designed a PRT program by adapting recommendations in the HERDSA guide on Peer Observation Partnerships in Higher Education (Bell, 2012). The program was developed iteratively with stakeholders. Goals are to foster a culture of teaching excellence, encourage conversations about teaching, improve educators’ critical reflective skills, and improve student outcomes.

In our pilot, forty-five of approximately 100 eligible educators participated in workshops to prepare for a peer review. Seventeen reviews were held, and 25 people participated as reviewer and/or reviewee. Sources of resistance to participating include lack of confidence in peer expertise or validity of the review, fear of judgment and impact on career, perceived infringement on academic autonomy, time constraints or lack of recognition of work, and general anxiety towards being observed (Bell, 2012).

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice
Round-table participants will learn from each other’s experiences about challenges and successes engaging educators in PRT, and establish relationships for future collaborations.
Engagement
Discussion prompts will include: “What barriers to participation have you observed when implementing a PRT program?”, and “What initiatives have you found most successful to foster positive engagement in the program?”. A shared workspace will be used.

Format
Work-in-progress

Focus of the work-in-progress
This project aims to investigate the impact of implementing gamification elements in an undergraduate course on students' engagement and academic performance.

Context/background
Contemporary educators grapple with declining student interest (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). Gamification, integrating game elements into education, is a potential remedy (Kapp, 2012). Game design features like points, badges and leaderboards enhance student engagement (Dicheva et al., 2015), with positive associations to improved learning outcomes (Rivera et al., 2021). Engagement correlates positively with academic performance (Lei et al., 2018). Studies show gamification boosts student motivation by tapping intrinsic drivers (Dicheva et al., 2015; Hamari et al., 2014).

Description
Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, this project aims to develop a gamified learning intervention aligned with desired outcomes. Using Rivera and Garden's (2021) framework, the study systematically designs gamified experiences, evaluating their effectiveness (Landers, 2014).

Method
This study, employing an experimental design, investigates gamification's impact on student performance and engagement. Gamification elements are introduced in a first year on-campus management communication unit with approximately 300 students. Data collected through questionnaires, surveys, Moodle reports, and analytics assess the effects, using scales like HESES and GAMEFULNESS measuring student engagement and gameful experience.

Evidence
Outcomes indicate increased student engagement and enhanced academic performance, with gamified interventions motivating self-regulating behaviours. The impact assessment evaluated changes in motivation, engagement, satisfaction, and assessment results between gamified and non-gamified environments.

Contribution
This study contributes by systematically designing and evaluating the effectiveness of a gamified learning intervention, grounded in Self-Determination Theory. Employing an experimental design, it investigates the impact on student engagement and performance, informing the development of design principles for future gamification interventions, benefiting educators across disciplines.

Engagement
Reflection question - Consider the impact of gamification on student engagement. How might it enhance motivation and collaboration, influencing educational practices and future interventions?

Format: This roundtable focuses on an in-progress research regarding higher education practices in ensuring a) a climate of institutional ethical mindedness and b) ensuring ethical mindedness becomes a graduate disposition and ethical imagination is developed as a graduate capability.
Context/background: Mere compliance with ethical requirements by staff and student researchers is not enough. Researchers require ‘ethical mindedness’ to identify novel ethical dilemmas in research designs and practice and to exercise their ‘ethical imagination’ in generating solutions to ethical dilemmas. Therefore, an ethically minded institutional climate is needed as well as attention to curriculum spaces that develop students' ethical literacy and capabilities. We have explored the theoretical constructs of ethical mindedness and ethical imagination. We now seek to identify their place in higher education’s leadership and teaching roles in the curriculum and practices that engender them.
Description: This round table follows qualitative research project engaging with academic leaders, supervisors and students regarding what influences their identification of ethical dilemmas and choice of solutions. Subsequently, a quantitative analysis of the qualitative data, convergent and discriminant validities will verify the two constructs in an explanatory scale.
Intended outcome and contribution to practice: We seek to uncover institutional practices and curriculum implications for fostering an ethical institutional climate and practices that contribute to graduate capabilities for recognising ethical dilemmas and generating ethical solutions rather than merely to complying with ethical rules.
Participant Engagement:
1. Brief introduction of the key concepts,
2. Provision of an ethical scenarios exported first in pairs and then by the group addressing the following questions:
- What ethical questions does the scenario raise ?
- What potential solutions were identified?
- What influenced your choice of action.
3. What are the challenges and barriers? Whole group critique of the concepts' feasibility in practice.