Digital Support Available for Academics at a University (Pilot Study)

Saher Ali and Mark Schier.

BACKGROUND: Technology is an integral part of the education sector (Nikou and Aavakare, 2021). In addition to being a subject matter expert in their specialist area of knowledge, academics are expected to possess digital capabilities that allow them to deliver curriculum to their students (Newland and Handley, 2016). Digital literacy (DL) is defined as ‘those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society’ (Jisc, 2014).

Universities play an important role in developing the DL of academics for successful and efficient delivery of high-quality teaching. DL is also a critical component for active citizenship, social inclusion and professional identity in the 21st century university (Marín and Castañeda, 2023). Understanding the DL of academics and whether additional support is required to develop DL can provide invaluable insight in professional development of an academic during its employment at an institution.

DESCRIPTION:
This study will be conducted by;

1: Administering a survey to teaching staff to determine the self- perceived DL of participants.
2: Focus group to explore themes and gain a deeper understanding of perceived DL of academics at the university

INTENDED OUTCOME: This study will;

1. Contribute to the body of knowledge on DL amongst academics employed in higher education
2. Understand the baseline DL of its employees and whether additional support is required to develop DL
3. Identify gaps and support staff require to develop their DL.

ENGAGEMENT: Audience will be asked to complete a survey via a QR code that will allow them to reflect on their own DL. Preliminary data will also be presented, and participants will be asked to provide feedback and questions that can be added to the focus group that may benefit the study.

Format: Work-in-Progress

Focus: Core concepts

Context: Moving towards concepts-based teaching allows standardisation across curricula and ensures that students have a firm grasp of the discipline. In undergraduate programs, this also limits their exposure to information that may be too advanced or superfluous, which would otherwise increase their cognitive load. Core concepts in physiology were initially proposed by Michael and MacFarland (2011) following expert collaboration; these have since been unpacked, refined, and adapted for an Australian context by Tangalakis and colleagues (2023a, 2023b).

Description: We propose that mapping of core concepts in physiology would also benefit curricula where physiology is foundational but is not a major. Our work focuses on the intersection between core concepts in physiology and specific body systems, in a biomedical program with a systems-based (rather than discipline-based) structure. We aim to evaluate the integration of core concepts in our learning objectives (LOs), with a goal to establish a standard set of physiology LOs for each systems-based unit in our program.

Intended outcome: This work has the potential to benefit students and teachers alike, both within our institution and beyond. Concepts-based teaching of physiology will allow students to focus on salient ideas in the discipline and to recognise patterns as they experience them across the body systems. Developing a standardised set of physiology LOs will also reduce the cognitive and time burden on teachers and provide transparent expectations for students. Further, these LO sets can be adapted for biomedical programs elsewhere.

Engagement: Our work has been approached using two models: top-down (core concepts as the baseline to develop new LOs) and bottom-up (existing LOs are refined using core concepts). We invite feedback from round-table colleagues in a nominal group format (O’Neil and Jackson, 1983), where the merits of each model are brainstormed individually, then discussed and evaluated.

Format (Work-in-Progress)

Focus of the work-in-progress
Refining the trauma-informed matrix.

Context/background
The Australian Universities Accord (Interim Report) (2023) states that institutions need to provide pastoral care to students. In response, the Australian Government introduced a requirement for higher education providers to develop a support for students policy to identify students at risk of not successfully completing their programs and provide assistance. Further, the Kift and Nakano Report (2021) identified a lack of supports for students experiencing vicarious trauma.

Description
The trauma-informed matrix is organised according to five trauma-informed principles (safety; trustworthiness and transparency; collaboration, mutuality and peer support; empowerment, voice and choice; and cultural safety) and three key elements in teaching and learning (course design, teaching and assessment).

At a course level, the trauma-informed matrix provides a tool to support teaching staff, including Course Coordinators and Tutors, and is particularly useful where a course contains sensitive course content and work integrated learning.

The matrix may also be used at a faculty, school or program level, supporting Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching), Program Coordinators, or Discipline Leads (or equivalent positions) to map and monitor trauma-informed practices across a program, discipline, or school, and identify gaps or areas requiring greater attention, and in turn, to guide future curriculum planning.

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice
The discussion will be used to inform the next iteration of the trauma-informed matrix and will hopefully increase an understanding of trauma-informed teaching practice.

Engagement
Attendees will be invited to apply the trauma-informed matrix to their course/s and then discuss how the trauma-informed matrix was useful (or not), trauma-informed practices done well and where there is scope to integrate additional trauma-informed practices to support students.

Format: Work-in-Progress
Focus of the work-in-progress
The work-in-progress examines the effect of management education in fostering students’ emotional intelligence (EI). Specifically, the aims are to meta-analytically examine 1) whether participating in a university management course increases EI, and 2) how different aspects of management education are related to the development of EI.
Context/background
EI is an important attribute for being a good manager (Carmeli, 2003). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis study suggests that EI is not a fixed trait or ability but can be developed over time (Mattingly & Kraiger, 2019). This raises the issue of the role of management education in developing EI. In this regard, a literature has started to emerge that provides empirical evidence about whether participation in management courses facilitates EI (e.g., Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008).
Description
To achieve the aims of the research, the present study aggregates and meta-analyses the findings from the literature on management education and EI. I searched databases, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar up until December 2023, and conducted a manual search in management education journals, finding a total of 23 empirical articles on EI in management education. Only quantitative articles using pre- and post-test designs were included in the review.
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice
The intended outcome is to provide empirical evidence on how specific pedagogical approaches within management education can enhance EI among students. This study contributes to academic scholarship and offers practical insights for educators to integrate EI-focused strategies into course designs.
Engagement
This interactive session will explore the importance of EI for management students and the ways it can be effectively woven into classroom learning. Participants will have the opportunity to share personal experiences and deliberate on these topics, enhancing the discussion with diverse perspectives.

Format: Roundtable

Focus of the roundtable: We aim to enhance teaching practices by developing a comprehensive multimedia resource to improve the conception and delivery of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) projects by academic staff.

Context/background: Smith and Walker (2024) highlight the need for clearer frameworks and better development opportunities, such as communities of practice (Bailey et al., 2022) or academic development support (Ko, 2023), for teaching-focused staff to fully realise their scholarship activity. To address the gap in accessible, practical guidance for teaching-focused academic staff to engage in scholarly teaching as part of their career development and advancement we developed of collection of SoTL multimedia resources.

Description: We adapted an existing SoTL framework (Kirshner, Wijsman, & Meijerman, 2021) to document our journey through a SoTL project aimed at improving staff and student use of feedback (Mulliner & Tucker, 2017; Weaver, 2006; Winstone & Carless, 2020).

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: The project aims to provide academic staff with the tools and knowledge to effectively integrate SoTL into their teaching, thereby enhancing student learning experiences. Feedback on the multimedia modules is based on El Mhouti, Nasseh, and Erradi’s (2013) framework for evaluating digital learning resources: academic quality (information readability and relevance), pedagogical quality (pedagogical construction and strategies), didactic quality (learning activities and content), and technical quality (design, browsing and ingenuity). We also measured staffs’ understanding of, and confidence with, SoTL pre and post their engagement with this multimedia resource package.

Engagement: The session will engage participants through interactive discussions, demonstrations of the multimedia resources, and collaborative exploration of how SoTL can be applied in various teaching contexts. Participants will be encouraged to share their experiences and strategies for integrating SoTL into their practice.

Format: Birds of a Feather

Point for debate: The rise of generative AI, and the recent impetus to migrate to online teaching, has necessitated profound shifts in assessment in higher education (HE). With radical change to traditional assessment required, how can it both be fit for purpose and retain integrity?

Context/background: Generative AI technologies have brought new opportunities and intensified existing difficulties in the realm of assessment and instruction in higher education. The rise of AI has led to concerns around assessment reliability, susceptibilities to cheating, and the authenticity and relevance of examinations (French et al., 2023). Much is at stake as learning in higher education is not just driven through curriculum, but by how educators assess (Soledad Ibarra-Sáiz, et al., 2021).

Description: Leveraging systematic review findings (Palmer et al., 2022), this roundtable analyses the shifting practices of assessment in higher education. With traditional assessment approaches weakened by the threats posed by generative AI (Lodge et al., 2023), assurance is needed that high quality learning is taking place and assessment processes have integrity. Lodge et al. (2023) highlight that generative AI presents new opportunities and exacerbates existing challenges in assessment, including the development of non-invigilated tasks to exclude AI and AI detection in assignments.

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: The session will foster the sharing of practice and critical engagement with implications for assessment practices, academic workload, accreditation, and professional learning to build staff capabilities for AI. There will be opportunities to reimagine traditional assessment practices.

Engagement: A short questionnaire will prompt responses around existing practices, new policy direction and blue sky thinking for AI in assessment. Follow-up questions comprise: How can we ensure the authenticity of assessment without examinations in an era of generative AI? What are the implications for policy, practices and professional learning?

Format : Work-in-Progress

The topic for discussion: Embedding a heutagogical teaching and learning approach in programmatic assessment

Context: Heutagogy is a learner-centred and self-determined form of learning that fosters lifelong learning and growth. Programmatic assessment is a holistic and constructivist form of assessment that provides rich feedback and supports meaning making. Work-integrated learning (WIL) is a form of curricular experiential education that formally integrates a student’s academic studies with quality experiences within a workplace or practice setting. This session explores theoretical opportunities and challenges of combining these themes to enhance HE quality and outcomes. Currently, the literature only addresses these individually; this discussion aims to begin addressing this gap.

Description of research/initiative or practice: Firstly, a current understanding of heutagogy, programmatic assessment, and WIL will be presented, based on a literature review. Participants will then theorise implications and challenges of combining and assessing these, based on their experiences, with feedback and input from the participants refining the discussion. An agribusiness case study will be provided, but participants are encouraged to use their own practice for context.

Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship/practice: The session will provide an opportunity for the presenter and the participants to exchange ideas and perspectives on the topic, and to identify areas for improvement and further research. The session will also contribute to the scholarship and practice of heutagogy, programmatic assessment, and WIL, and to the broader discourse on enhancing teaching and learning in higher education.

Engagement: The session will use a variety of strategies to engage the audience. The pivotal strategy is via facilitated discussions- the audience will be asked to brainstorm possible heutagogical approaches to their current WIL contexts, including what role (if any) programmatic assessment could play. The session will also use interactive tools, such as informal polls, to encourage participation and feedback.

Format: Birds of a Feather

Topic for discussion:
This roundtable discussion will share learnings from the implementation of a Student Success Framework that embeds transition pedagogy at both the college and instruction levels by electronically ‘nudging’ students.

Context/Background:
Learning analytics provide an effective tool for identifying and supporting students at risk of low engagement and topic non-completion (Lawrence et al., 2019). Evidence shows that leveraging students’ analytics to inform outreach strategies effectively retains students in courses (see Ifenthaler and Yau (2020) for review). Despite evidence that learning analytics support student success, only pockets of academic communities normalise their use in everyday practice (Guzmán-Valenzuela et al., 2021).

Description:
At Flinders University, we have applied student success literature to create Student Success Frameworks at the institution- and College-levels (Kift, 2009; Lizzio, 2006; Lane et al., 2019). These student-centred and holistic frameworks include a student outreach initiative using learning analytics to identify students needing support and provide ‘nudges’ to encourage retention and student success (Lawrence et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2022). The roundtable will highlight the findings of a study on nudge effectiveness and students' perceptions of nudge helpfulness. Using examples from our experience, discussions will focus on how institutions can tailor and personalise student success frameworks to meet their own diverse missions and improve student outcomes (Kinzie and Kuh, 2017).

Intended Outcome and Contribution to Scholarship/Practice:
Participants in the roundtable will leave with a practical understanding of assessing student engagement, leveraging learning analytics for outreach, and formulating a Student Success Framework. The roundtable will contribute to the scholarship and collaborative practice of supporting student success by sharing experiences and evidence-based practices.

Engagement:
The roundtable will encourage active engagement through interactive discussions on the practical application of student success strategies, by collaboratively exploring ways to enhance student success within diverse academic settings.

Format
Birds of a feather

Focus
Moving beyond AI to enhance student learning, this discussion will explore AI tools to reduce workload pressures.

Background
Educators are expected to develop innovative teaching and learning practices despite workload increases, limited resources, and little support (Ross et al., 2022). The application of AI is rapidly advancing, and studies show successful adoption in student support and learning (Hannan & Liu, 2023). The current focus of AI has primarily been student-facing (Crompton & Burke, 2023), and it’s time we turn the conversation to educator-facing.

Description
On top of educators' already intense pressure (Kong et al., 2021), AI is rapidly changing the HE landscape, creating an even greater need for resources for work pressure relief. Integrating AI tools into work routines and developing prompts can streamline the development of competitive courses. Yet, some of the challenges recent adopters face are the lack of trust, formal training, and effective prompting (Nazaretsky et al., 2022; Ng et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021). We have developed a simple tool where you can plug in course-specific details to combat some of these challenges.

Contribution
This discussion would provide an opportunity to learn and build trust in using AI while exploring methods to reduce pressures. For example, Elicit.com and Scite.ai are tools that will search, read, connect, and synthesize the literature for you—turning one of the most time-consuming aspects of the job into one of the easiest.

Engagement
The aim is to help combat the challenges of trust and exposure in adopting and using AI. Additionally, by scanning a QR code, participants can enter course details to generate content specific to their course development needs and leave with readily available resources and easily implementable ideas. Participants will also be asked to share their own insights, tools, and practices.

Focus: Practical application of qualitative analytics for effective and sustainable course improvement.

Background/context: Asynchronous online courses training future professionals face acute challenges in improving student engagement, experience, and learning. Prior work has stressed the need for including student voices for improvement (Redmond et al, 2018; Redmond et al, 2023).

Description: We used human centred design thinking to improve a fully online post graduate law course. We gathered and privileged student voice (Redmond et al, 2023). Based on insights derived we changed course design, the substance and look and feel of topics, and added extra-curricular elements to strengthen connectivity to communities of professional practice. Changes were made for improved quality and a range of elements of online student engagement (Redmond et al, 2018).

Method: Feedback was gathered from open ended interviews, frequent surveys embedded across topics, and from unsolicited comment. We used thematic analysis to extract insights on “pain points” and potential gains in student experience. We made changes to course design and implementation to address these issues. Survey data was fed back systematically to topic co-ordinators to enable changes during delivery (contrasting with end point evaluation). We used rapid cycles of listening and acting to create a stronger sense of positive change and a cycle of improvement. This included some co-creation (Katz, 2021).

Evidence: Positive impact was demonstrated by: regular survey data; unsolicited student comment; engagement by students in course level and community building sessions; and increases in enrolment and retention.

Contribution: A practice based example that highlights methods that might be usefully translated into other fields which stresses the interconnectivity between different sub themes under the ‘Teaching, learning and the student experience’ thematic.

Engagement: Through reflective questions on the use of analytics to inform course redesign to stimulate discussion about similar approaches in other fields.

Format: Roundtable reporting and discussing a Work in Progress (WIP).
Focus of the WIP: This Roundtable shares a draft cross-disciplinary framework for authentic assessment design to generate discussion of how institutions are integrating emerging artificial intelligence tools.
Background/context: Simper (et.al. 2022) argue that changing assessment practices at an institution involves a change in assessment culture achieved through a combination of policy levers and agency for change to disrupt entrenched micro-cultures of assessment in disciplines, compliance-driven approaches and also academic resistance to change. The authors recently presented workshops on authentic assessment integrating AI across disciplines at ACU campuses in the context of a new assessment policy and the disruption of proliferating GenAI tools. A framework for authentic assessment design and implementation was developed to reflect the scholarly literature and authors’ reflections as practitioners and workshop conveners.
Description: This Roundtable reports briefly on co-author experiences of leading professional learning workshops supporting authentic AI-integrated assessment design across disciplines to stimulate Roundtable discussion. Findings from the literature and co-author reflections have informed a draft cross-disciplinary framework for authentic assessment design and implementation integrating AI that is shared in this Roundtable.
Intended outcome and contribution: Shutlz et al (2022) argue that authentic assessment needs to be aligned to discipline and target industry practices, scaffolded across a course and aligned to Graduate Outcomes. The draft framework is designed for this purpose and this Roundtable seeks to inform interested colleagues and seek their feedback to refine the framework prior to it being published for broad dissemination as a tool to guide assessment in the higher education sector in the age of GenAI.
Engagement: Examples of cross-disciplinary authentic assessments integrating AI that were developed from this framework are shared to engage diverse participants within and beyond the conference.

Format
Work-in-Progress

Focus of the Work-in-Progress
The roundtable focuses on an observation of students’ use of Gen AI in a first-year undergraduate business communication course.

Context
The pilot study took place in a non-university higher education provider (NUHEP) with an entirely international student cohort. Participants comprised three first-year Bachelor of Business students undertaking the subject Language in Business. The business communication course doubles as an EAP course and is divided into three topics: communicating within the organisation, communicating the message of the organisation, and communicating across cultures. Assessments for each topic varied in the extent to which students were permitted to use Gen AI.

Description
The project involved surveying students’ perceptions towards Gen AI as a tool for undertaking business studies in higher education and allowed them to co-create ways to integrate Gen AI into the subject content and assessments, while opening up discussions around ethical use of these tools. Data were collected in the form of student surveys, reflective assessments that accompanied the use of Gen AI, class observations, and interviews with the lecturer. This combination allowed us to collate the findings into some amount of quantitative data, but with the main focus on qualitative reflection, discussion, and evaluation.

Intended Outcome and Contribution to Practice
We were able to gain insight into students’ concerns about what constitutes ethical use of AI, evaluate how tools could be integrated into curriculum design, and understand which Gen AI platforms were at a higher risk of unethical use by students. While still in pilot form, this data makes a useful contribution to informing activities and assessments designed to educate students on ethical use of Gen AI.

Engagement
Discussion will focus on how students’ voices can be utilised as a resource for addressing both challenges and untapped potential of Gen AI in higher education.

Format
Work-in-Progress.

Focus
The shift to asynchronous learning in higher education is a generational change in university pedagogy. With fewer traditional lectures, educators are looking to draw inspiration from emerging media. Podcasts are highly successful in attracting and retaining audiences, offering initiatives and formats for engaging students in new learning environments.

Context/background
During the Covid-19 pandemic, universities pivoted to online teaching. Initially these were lectures delivered live online. Subsequently, the flipped classroom model has become widespread in the tertiary sector (Diaz et al, 2021). Course coordinators are increasingly expected to provide engaging, informative content for students in lieu of traditional lectures (Diaz et al, 2021). Simultaneously, the number and variety of podcasts available has exploded, with dedicated, self-motivated listeners (Lundström & Lundström, 2020; Chan-Olmsted & Wang, 2022). The challenge for academics is to provide academically rigorous content in ways that retain students’ attention and interest.

Description
Successful podcasts use innovative techniques and a conversational, rather than research-heavy, approach to engage their audiences (Berg, 2021). My initiative redevelops traditional lectures for the online environment, drawing on the best examples of podcasting. Early feedback from students indicates that they are enjoying a more positive experience. Further, accessibility, representation and student expression are all increased without sacrificing academic rigour. These outcomes are consistent with recent research in the field (Gunderson & Cumming, 2023; van der Keylen et al, 2020).

Intended outcome / contribution to practice
The roundtable aims to share and exchange ideas about reframing learning materials as podcasts to improve asynchronous teaching practices and enhance student engagement. Potential for collaborators for future research in asynchronous learning methodologies.

Engagement
Beginning with some short examples from successful podcasts and from my current course recordings, the session is intended to share my progress on reimagining asynchronous content, discuss student feedback, and reflect on others’ practices.

Context/Background. Much has been written of the experience of the higher education community in the Covid-19 pandemic. The quick pivot to online teaching, alongside burn-out and redundancy packages (Tulaskar & Turunen,2022; van der Ross et al, 2022). The entire world has experienced significant social, cultural and digital change with real-time impact that extends to learning practices. A challenge for students and teachers returning to the in-person classroom is the escalating normalization of digital multi-tasking. The disruptive impact of off-task multi-tasking on learning was discussed pre-pandemic (Lee et al 2012; Alkahtani et al. 2016; Wood et al 2012; Kushniryk & Levine, 2012). Emerging literature published post 2020 reported that off-task multi-tasking has a negative relationship with self-regulation in a learning environment and thus adversely impacts students’ participation and academic performance (Alvarez-Risco et al, 2021; Aivaz & Teodorescu, 2022). In 2023, the teaching team of a large (600 students) first-year health subject noticed more overt and frequent displays of off-task multitasking behaviours which impacted in-person participation-based learning activities. Description of initiative. New workshop slides were added to the weekly workshop teaching material. This ‘signposting’ content was designed from reflective practice pedagogy (Page & Meerabeau,2000). It was intentionally not punitive with a perspective of learning promotion. These were designed to bring students’ awareness to participation/learning behaviours and coach them in awareness practices (device multi tasking) that aim to best facilitate their learning. Intended outcome and contribution to practice. This approach was implemented late in subject delivery (Semester 1 2023). In 2024, this approach will be in place from the beginning of subject, with student and staff feedback mechanisms established and ready for synthesis and reporting. We’re collaborating across other course-wide subjects for wider implementation to explore impact on a wider scale across the learning cohort with consistency of communication.

This study initiates a discourse surrounding the active role of international students as contributors to knowledge within educational contexts. It challenges the conventional portrayal of international students as passive recipients, advocating for a shift in perspective that recognizes them as active participants in knowledge exchange. Through a qualitative examination of cultural and religious responsiveness in international programs, the study underscores the importance of integrating participants' prior cultural and religious knowledge, referred to as Funds of Knowledge. Drawing on a phenomenological qualitative approach, the research involves ten diverse participants who completed the program in both Indonesia and the host country. It reveals a range of experiences among participants, highlighting the program's partial responsiveness to cultural and religious needs while critiquing the perception of participants as passive knowledge recipients. The study aims to offer insights into effective approaches for engaging with international students, particularly those from Asian and religious backgrounds, fostering dialogue and understanding of their role as active agents of knowledge within educational environments

Teaching the teacher: How do we know our graduate certificate in higher education is effective?
Point for Debate
Topic for Discussion: For institutions offering a Grad Cert of Higher Education, the promise for our participants is ‘enhance your understanding of teaching and learning and become ready to meet the needs of diverse learners’. However, the benefits can become obscured for staff who might feel time-poor or pressured to complete further qualifications amid responding to other institutional expectations. Further, it is often unknown how successful completion influences practice.
Context/Background: We need to know how institutions evaluate the experience of those who have completed a Grad Cert, in addition to documenting subsequent outcomes and impacts over time (Peseta, Barrie, & McLean, 2020). Our round table will investigate how to encourage staff to enrol and discuss what needs measuring in ways that minimise time requirements – for short and long term impacts alike.
Description: Survey and interview data have been drawn on among other evaluation methods (Chadha, 2015; Kandlbinder & Peseta, 2009), but what might define a best-practice evaluative approach?
Intended outcome and contribution to scholarship and practice: Given Australian data is under-represented in published studies, this session is a timely opportunity to share our insights and perspectives on how we determine the impact of these programs and inform scholarship and practice. A summary of discussion findings will translate into recommendations and feed into a larger, collaborative Grad Cert evaluation study.
Engagement: Questions and subsequent sharing during this round table have the potential to forge ongoing Grad Cert evaluation discussions, collaborations and research agendas. Handouts for data collection will be provided noting the round table’s central questions, to be returned after the session or later via email to the presenters.

Mciver S 1 , Panther B 1
1 Deakin University, Burwood Victoria, Australia