Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning
Not a member yet
165 research outputs found
Sort by
Should Machine Translation have a role in language classrooms or not?
Get PDFPresentation: https://www.pechakucha.com/presentations/sotel-2023-neil-cowie-and-keiko-sakui-machine-translation
Machine translation (MT) of languages has been around nearly 30 years but the importance of its role in language learning has grown exponentially in recent years. This paper summarizes recent research on teacher and learner attitudes to MT, and suggests ways that MT can be used in language classrooms.
Studies in the 2010s (Pym, 2013) suggest that teachers were against the use of MT because of its poor quality. However, the level of MT dramatically improved from 2016 when Google Translate adopted a neural-network system. As a result, teachers’ attitudes shifted to more acceptance of MT. Even so, teacher views about MT tend to fall into two camps: those who feel it is a form of cheating (Carré et al., 2022) and those who see it as an appropriate teaching tool. The former take the general approach of “detect, react and prevent”, whilst the latter wish to “integrate and educate” (Jolley & Maimone, 2022).
Research has shown that students use MT in different ways according to their level. More advanced students tend to check words and phrases rather than translating a whole report. They understand the limits of MT but at the same time they believe it can help learn a language (Godwin-Jones, 2022; Jolley & Maimone, 2022). Research suggests that training in the use of MT can increase chances for such students to reflect on their language learning (Pellet & Myers, 2022) and that they can become aware of and correct MT errors (Zhang & Torres-Hostench, 2022). On the other hand, lower level students use MT differently as they may lack confidence in their language abilities (Organ, 2019). There are studies that claim lower level students can be linguistically overwhelmed in trying to notice and compare their own translations with MT; therefore, they do not correct the output of MT and submit it as their own work (Lee, 2022: Niño, 2020).
In general, the accuracy of MT has improved so quickly that many teachers who previously dismissed MT as poor can no longer ascertain whether their students have actually used it or not (Jolley & Maimone, 2022). This creates doubt in how to assess student work fairly. Furthermore, as teachers vary in their attitudes towards the use of MT for learning, students can be very confused as to whether they are allowed to use MT in different teachers’ classes; and, if they are allowed, in what ways can they do so appropriately. In order to overcome this uncertainty and confusion, it is suggested that, after Reinders (2022), institutions, students and teachers become partners in exploring MT to find the best way to use it for learning. This will vary according to each educational context, particularly concerning student level, but it is vital to create commonly accepted guidelines, approaches and practices so that MT can be best used for language learning and not just as a tool to complete tasks with little or no educational meaning.
References
Carré, A., Kenny, D., Rossi, C., Sánchez-Gijón, P. & Torres-Hostench, O. (2022). Machine translation for
language learners. In D. Kenny (Ed.), Machine translation for everyone: Empowering users in the age of
artificial intelligence (pp. 187–207). Language Science Press. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6760024
Godwin-Jones, R. (2022). Partnering with AI: Intelligent writing assistance and instructed language learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 26(2), 5–24. https://doi.org/10125/73474
Jolley, J. & Maimone, L. (2022). Thirty years of machine translation in language teaching and learning: A
review of the literature. L2 Journal, 14(1). Doi: 10.5070/L214151760
Lee, S.-M. (2022). Different effects of machine translation on L2 revisions across students’ L2 writing
proficiency levels. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1–21. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73490
Niño, A. (2020). Exploring the use of online machine translation for independent language learning. Research in
Learning Technology 28, 2402. https://dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2402
Organ, A. (2019, July 5). L’éléphant dans la salle / la pièce / le salon? Student use of Google Translate for L2
production: Student and staff attitudes, and implications for university policy. [Conference presentation
abstract]. Translation Technology in Education – Facilitator or Risk? University of Nottingham, UK.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/conference/fac-arts/clas/translation -technology-ineducation%E2%80%93
facilitator-or-risk/videos/conference-videos.aspx
Pellet, S. & Myers, L. (2022). What’s wrong with “What is your name?” > “Quel est votre nom?”: Teaching
responsible use of MT through discursive competence and metalanguage awareness. L2 Journal, 14(1). Doi:
10.5070/L214151739
Pym, A. (2013). Translation skill-sets in a machine-translation age. Translators’ Journal, 58(3), 487–503. Doi:
0.7202/1025047ar
Reinders, H. (Host) (2022, September 7). A conversation with Jim Ranalli and Volker Hegelheimer [Audio
Podcast Episode]. In Voices from LLT. https://www.lltjournal.org/media/voices-from-llt/
Zhang, H., & Torres-Hostench, O. (2022). Training in machine translation post-editing for foreign language
students. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1–17. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/7346
A Human Learning Ecosystem For Our Times: Bringing simplicity and system to the learning business
Get PDFTrendsetter Presentation: https://doi.org/10.26188/23031968.v1
This talk discusses the creation and development of The Common Ground Curriculum. The Common Ground Collaborative (CGC) is a global non-profit network of schools and individuals united in a common purpose expressed in our simple mission: Everybody Learns. We work together in schools and school systems to build an interconnected human context for learning, comprising Learning Cultures and Learning Communities. Within that human context, we create a complete, connected Learning Curriculum, framed by Five Elements that together build towards a fully coherent Learning Ecosystem, designed to provide a school with everything it needs for consistent, high-quality planning, teaching, leading and assessing for learning. We co-create with every school a shared Learning Culture supported by all learning stakeholders in an inclusive Learning Community. Within this very human context we co-create a coherent Learning Curriculum. Everything is connected. It’s a Human Learning Ecosystem for Our Times. We are flexible and friendly and radically non-bureaucratic. We don’t compromise on quality and we are guided unfailingly by our Mission, Everybody Learns and by our Principles.
We set out to develop learning experts. Experts have a deep understanding of the central concepts of their field and the relationships among them. Experts are highly skilled in the competencies of their field. More than ever, we surely need expert human beings with strong, positive moral character. These insights led to our Definition of Learning as the consolidation and extension of Conceptual understanding, Competency and Character. Three kinds of learning, always interacting. A triple helix, the DNA of learning. W.Edwards Deming said, ‘ If you can’t explain what you are doing as a process, then you don’t know what you’re doing’ (Common Ground Collaborative, (n.d.)). We agree, so our definition focuses on the process of learning, so that it can drive the process of teaching. We provide, for each of our ‘3Cs’ , a simple, accessible, 3-stage learning/teaching process supported by a comprehensive toolkit for teachers. These processes are embedded in our Learning Modules and have field-tested, proven success in supporting deep learning.
In this session I will talk about how schools are notoriously complex, compartmentalized and slow to change. This interactive professional learning conversation suggests that the reason we frequently fail to make sustained progress is that we tinker with the parts instead of re-imagining a new 'whole'. The Common Ground Collaborative (CGC) is co-creating change with schools all over the world by building a new, coherent Learning Ecosystem. The system is driven by 5 Questions, each of which drives the development of one key element in the system:
DEFINE: What is learning?
DESIGN: What's worth learning?
DIVERSIFY: How does everyone access learning?
DELIVER: How do we build learning cultures?
DEMONSTRATE: How do learners provide evidence of learning?
As we unpack this system together, we'll also be learning about how this approach builds and sustains culture, curriculum and community. In case this sounds like 'theory', the CGC is led by practitioners. Everything we discuss today is working 'in the field'. CGC is grounded in practice.
Common Ground Collaborative. (n.d.). Purpose: Practices. Retrieved February 12, 2023, from https://www.commongroundcollaborative.org/purpose/practices-clon
Understanding students’ views on the efficacy of video technology to promote engagement in higher education.
Get PDFThis article examines student engagement with video technology in a large undergraduate university subject. Drawing on a mixed methods study that included a survey and focus groups with students, we analyse students’ experiences with and perspectives on the videos to gain insights into their effectiveness in supporting student engagement and learning. By analysing engagement along three distinct, yet interconnected, dimensions – cognitive, behavioural and affective – our study highlights differences in the ways in which students engage with videos as one key form of technology enhanced learning. We find that videos can promote cognitive engagement by helping students to understand key concepts and making them more relatable, and that they can foster affective engagement, especially by creating an increased sense of teacher presence. However, while the students in our study largely perceived the videos to be engaging and beneficial to their learning, behavioural engagement was inconsistent across the cohort and often lacking. Student concerns about investing time in engaging with video resources suggest that communication from educators on their role in the curriculum is especially important. These findings contribute important insights into students’ video technology use which in turn can inform the pedagogical use of technology in teaching and learning.  
Transforming Energy and Pedagogy: An Authentic Learning Example
Get PDFEngineers ultimately work in multi-disciplinary workplaces, yet degree structures and siloing of subjects typically prevent students from interacting with those outside of their own discipline. As products and technology become increasingly complex, engineers can no longer do design in isolation. Learning designs need to mirror real world complex team projects. In this project we provide an example of how Design-Based Research can be used as a meta methodology to design a learning experience that is implemented through a design-based collaborative student team project. An important part of the design process is to understand the interface with other disciplines of engineering and be able to specify appropriate requirements and verify that those requirements are being met. If these groups of students do not interact while at university, they are ill-prepared to do such design across disciplinary boundaries in the workplace. Moreover, if they are incapable of being able to formally specify what they require from other engineers, then they would not be able to verify that the design meets those specifications. This capstone project seeks to address these issues through the following objectives:
Develop a multi-disciplinary team design project that can be rolled out to two core, candidate subjects in different departments in the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology (FEIT);
Develop appropriate learning activities that support the project and promote cohort interaction outside of traditional discipline / departmental boundaries;
Design relevant feedback and evaluation mechanisms in order to monitor student team progress and gauge the effectiveness of the approach in building cohort, enhancing student graduate outcomes and employability skills;
Enhance students’ communication and project management skills;
Expose students to real-world engineering practices through the involvement of an industry partner in the scoping and design process.
The project takes a Design-based Research (DBR) (McKenney and Reeves, 2019) approach that aligns
with the four stages of DBR that is mirrored in both the design of the learning experience and in the student design project itself:
Analysis – problem identification (Threshold Concepts: transdisciplinary collaboration, authentic learning), literature review, establishment of a collaborative learning design team
Design prototype intervention (design of authentic learning environment)
Evaluation (implementation of prototype with stakeholders – students/industry partner) - Re-Design / Evaluation Iterative Loop
Development of Transferable Design Principles for designing authentic (real world) transdisciplinary learning environments in collaboration with industry
Designing a speaker system, which contains electrical and mechanical systems that interact in a complex transfer of energy from electrical to mechanical to acoustic energy, is an inherently multidisciplinary endeavour consisting of both electrical and mechanical engineering concepts. This project will be completed by two capstone teams, one with a mechanical engineering focus and one with an electrical engineering focus, that will closely interact with each other in order to produce a working speaker system that will be tested and evaluated by an industry partner, creating an authentic learning experience (Herrington et al., 2014).
A particular speaker application will first be chosen by the project teams (e.g. PA speaker, bookshelf speaker, instrument speaker, studio monitor), with corresponding design goals to be determined by the team. Teams will be required to select appropriate speaker drivers, supplied by the industry partner, to form the basis of electrical and mechanical design of the (minimum) two-driver speaker system utilising established design principles (Theile, 1971a, 1971b; Small, 1972, 1973a, 1973b).
The Speaker System Design (Electrical) project team will focus on designing the electrical / electronic side of the speaker system, including modelling, building and testing both passive and active types of crossovers in order to achieve the required performance for the chosen application and consider aspects such as frequency domain performance, power, heat and cost. The electrical project team must interface with the mechanical project team to understand the mechanical characteristics of the enclosure that the speaker is being placed in to design their crossovers.
The Speaker System Design (Mechanical) project team will focus on designing the mechanical / acoustic side of the speaker system, including designing, modelling low frequency response, building and testing a suitable enclosure to minimise vibrations and diffraction and ensure suitable performance characteristics for the chosen application consider aspects such as exterior construction materials, geometry of the design, high frequency diffusion patterns, venting and interior absorption materials to minimise resonances. The mechanical project team must interface with the electrical project team to understand the characteristics of the speaker-driving circuitry to design a suitable enclosure.
The main pedagogical outcomes of the project are to give electrical and mechanical engineering students a real world experience of transdisciplinary collaboration. We will use pre/post student questionnaires and post project focus groups to evaluate the impact of the project on the student learning experience. University ethics consent will be applied for, involving participant consent and information forms, and anonymous data collection.
This presentation will introduce the first two phases of the Design-Based Research project as an example of implementing DBR to design authentic learning – the pedagogical problem analysis, and the proposed prototype educational design capstone project.
References
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic Learning Environments. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 401-412). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_32
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642
Small, R. H. (1973). Vented-Box Loudspeaker Systems--Part 1: Small-Signal Analysis. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 21(5), 363-372.
Small, R. H. (1973). Closed-box loudspeaker systems-part 2: Synthesis. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 21(1), 11-18.
Small, R. H. (1972). Closed-box loudspeaker systems-part 1: analysis. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 20(10), 798-808.
Thiele, N. (1971a). Loudspeakers in vented boxes: Part 1. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 19(5), 382-392.
Thiele, N. (1971b). Loudspeakers in vented boxes: Part 2. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 19(6), 471-483
How do the 4E approach and actives methodologies contribute to rethinking creativity in teacher training?
Get PDFCreativity is considered one of the skills crucial for 21 Century to face the challenges proposed by the 2030 education agenda (Frey & Osborne 2013; OECD, 2018, Reimers & Chung 2019). In our reading, active methodologies such as project-based learning and design thinking are often seen as fundamental in favoring creativity together oriented towards individual, social, and planetary well-being (UN, 2022). A persistent problem for the training of 21st century skills, in which creativity, intellectual openness and computational thinking are essential in teacher training, is the adherence to cognitivist foundations and conventional methodologies. The traditional cognitivism has reduced the notion of creativity in processes and products. In our proposal, we want to redirect the question about what happens in the head (process) or in the world that makes people creative (world), rather, we invite creativity to be considered as a skillful experience embedded in a context and that arises from sensorimotor engagement and distributed perception (Varela, Thompson & Rosch, 1991; Hutchins 1995; Kalaydjian et al 2022).
In this sense, we propose the 4E cognition approach (embodied, enacted, embedded, and extended) as a necessary theoretical and empirical framework to guide the understanding of creativity in contexts of active methodologies. Project-Based Learning and Design Thinking teacher education often fosters creativity as a deep experience that emerges in engagement with artifacts and interaction with others, opening unprecedented possibilities for capturing emerging understanding and enhancing skillful performance in challenging tasks (Videla, Veloz and Pino, in press). However, active methodologies such as project-based learning and design thinking are hardly linked to contemporary paradigms of cognition that are anti-representationalist, embodied, and situated in sociocultural contexts. The 4E approach argues that cognition is intertwined with the world because of a history of structural couplings, that is, the contingent relationships that stage skillful performance in response to the situational sense of sensorimotor engagement with artifacts and people (Dreyfus, 2002). We assume that creativity is a skillful experience of kinesthetic 'knowledge' (Penny, 2022).
In teacher training, these ideas for cultivating creativity are overshadowed by conventional static methodologies and cognitive notions that reduce creativity to final products and internal mental processes (Guilford 1967; Torrance 1972; Sternberg & Grigorenko 2001; Gardner 1994; Kaufman & Beghetto 2009). Although these notions have contributed to understanding the phenomenon of creativity, in this article we relate to collective, distributed, and embodied notions of creativity that escape individual and cognitive bias (Glăveanu 2014; Ihde & Malafouris 2019; Malinin 2019). Our approach is in tune with Vygotsky's ideas about perceptual ontogenesis, in which perception is reconfigured from naive to cultural forms within dedicated cultural settings designed for exploratory activity (Vygotsky, 1926/2001). Considering the above, we present some didactic experiences through ethnographic participant observation, we observe students of pedagogies engaging in creative activities suggested by our theoretical approach. We use these observations to illustrate how Project-Based Learning and Design Thinking allow us to understand creativity from the point of view of experiential becoming, as argued by Tim Ingold (2014). That is, rethinking the creativity inherent in practice and paying attention to the development of contingent relationships, which emerge learning by doing from designing and prototyping with technologies.
References
Dreyfus, H.L. (2002). Intelligence without representation - Merleau-Ponty's critique of mental representation. The relevance of phenomenology to scientific explanation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 367-383. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021351606209
Frey, C., & Osborne, M. (2013). The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerization? University of Oxford.
Gardner H. (1994) The creators' patterns. In: Boden M. (ed.) Dimensions of creativity. MIT Press/Badford Books, London: 143-158.
Glăveanu V. (2014) Distributed creativity: What is it? In: Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Springer, Berlin: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05434-6_1
Guilford J. P. (1967) The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hutchins E. (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001
Ihde D. & Malafouris L. (2019) Homo faber Revisited: Postphenomenology and material engagement theory. Philosophy & Technology 32(2): 195-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0321-7
Ingold T. (2014) The creativity of undergoing. Pragmatics & Cognition 22: 124-139. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22.1.07ing
Kalaydjian J., Laroche, J. Noy, L. and Bachrach, A. (2022) A distributed model of collective creativity in free play. Front. Educ. 7:902251. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.902251
Kaufman J. C. & Beghetto R. A. (2009) Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of creativity. Review of General Psychology 13: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
Malinin L. (2019) How radical is embodied creativity? Implications of 4E approaches for creativity research and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02372
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Paris: OECD.
Penny, S. (2022). Sensorimotor debilities in digital cultures. AI & Soc 37, 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01186-0
Reimers F. M. & Chung C. K. (2019) Teaching and learning for the twenty-first century: Educational goals, policies, and curricula from six nations. Harvard Education Press.
Sternberg R. J. & Grigorenko E. L. (2001) Guilford's structure of intellect model and model of creativity: Contributions and limitations. Creativity Research Journal 13(3-4): 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_08
Torrance P. (1972) Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior 6(4): 236-252. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00936.x
Varela F. J., Thompson E. & Rosch E. (1991) The embodied mind. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001
Videla, R., Veloz, T. and Pino, C. (in press). Catching the Big Fish from STEAM Education: Approach to Creativity from 4E Cognition. Constructivist Foundations. https://constructivist.info/special/edu21/
Vygotsky L. S. (1926/2001). Educational psychology (R. H. Silverman, Trans.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC
Teaching and learning with innovative technologies and practices at primary school level.
Get PDFPresentation: https://doi.org/10.26188/22597162.v1
The introduction of computer science to primary schooling age is relatively new, as traditionally it was primarily set aside for secondary and tertiary level learning (Heintz et al., 2016). Experts agree that even young children can understand fundamental concepts of computational thinking (CT), and that it is important to develop skills related to CT from a young age (Boccini et. al, 2016, p.48).
Increasingly computer science is becoming a compulsory area of curriculum for many countries across the world, as reported by Bocconi et al. and there has been a recent increase in the integration of CT and computer science in mandatory education, as evidenced by the recent changes in educational curricula (p9., 2016). In New Zealand, the Technology curriculum was recently refreshed with the main revisions being the addition of CT and designing and developing digital outcomes as technological areas (Ministry of Education, 2017a). The intention of digital technologies curriculum content is to “significantly contribute to students developing the knowledge and skill they need as digital citizens and as users of digital technologies across the curriculum” (Ministry of Education, 2017b, p.3).
There is also an expectation that all teachers are responsible for building capacity in digital fluency and literacy. It is the teacher's responsibility to effectively use these tools, and to in turn educate students on how to take advantage of these tools for their learning (Wright, 2010, p.46). The main rationale for introducing CT in many countries is to promote the development of 21st century skills necessary for full engagement in the digital realm (Bocconi et al., 2016, p.8).
ByteEd, a New Zealand based educational resource company, have recently developed a new approach to the teaching of computer science at a primary school level that incorporates 21st century skill development. The Play Code Learn series of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) kits utilise an unplugged-to-digital methodology and explore future-focused technologies of Augmented Reality (AR) and programming.
Based on the research of Bell and Vahrenhold (2018), who state unplugged activities for students engage them with lasting ideas in computer science. Integrating physical digital tasks along with unplugged tasks proves to be more beneficial for learning. The kits enable students to learn and understand digital concepts before transitioning to putting skills and knowledge into action in a digital environment.
This presentation delves into the impact of the first Play Code Learn kit, Dinosaur Steps, on teaching and learning in two New Zealand classrooms. The use of an unplugged approach has proven to be advantageous to learners and highlights a significant shift in knowledge retention and the understanding of concepts, skills and literacy after using the Dinosaur Steps kit and related teaching resources during Term 4 2022
BSL Case Study: Criminology - Drugs and Justice
Get PDFThis Master of Criminology subject has a mix of postgraduate students with a wide range of learning strategies, skillsets, and experiences. Half the students were physically located on campus and the other half were online in a Blended Synchronous Learning (BSL) environment. Although the subject suffered technology failure across the first seven weeks of the 12-week semester, and subsequent changes to the structured learning experiences, the students kept turning up for class. The student cohort worked out ways to engage even when the technology prevented them from engaging in the intended way. In response to the technology fail, the subject coordinator, (me) reverted to a more didactic approach, reducing risk associated with learning, proportional to the risk associated with the technology. Unfortunately, the most important element of the subject design, was also the first technological component to be dropped. The lessons learned included thinking carefully about the vulnerability of the pedagogy in the BSL subject; always have fall back options for interactivity and protect the most essential features of the pedagogy. The deeper lesson however, was that the technology fail allowed for a new set of relationships to emerge in the learning environment. Within the knowledge ecology of the space the cohort responded and adapted through their personal knowledge networks in ways not previously envisioned. The student experience is important – by keeping a focus on the experience (rather than the content), the students will remember it and have a better learning experience
Generative AI and education ecologies
Get PDFWhat role can generative AI have an art and design education? Given that we are in a year of change as open-source Open AI systems shift how we teach, learn, and assess in times of question-answering chatbot and personal assistance tools. Applying a post-human approach (Blaikie, et al, 2020) to education might help us rethink pedagogy (Wessels, et al, 2022), knowledge creation and scholarly publication for knowledge sharing. In this SoTEL Symposium presentation/discussion with the ASCILITE MLSIG I propose a move away from a humanist world view that continues to shape our thoughts around the binary of teacher-learner within our walled disciplinary and consider how we might Incorporate generative AI tools in the curriculum to foster interdisciplinary collaborations with the more-than human. What if we shifted teaching and learning to facilitate new ways of being on the planet, so that we prioritised ourselves, one another as well as non-human and more-than-humans in our educational ecologies. Building the digital literacies and computational thinking capabilities (George-Reyes, et al, 2021) to learn with GAI will create opportunities to thinking about the world and all its space and places, as interconnected and entangled.
In this trendsetter webinar I pose a series of questions and prompts that I had in conversation with Chatty G (ChatGPT) to consider how we might imagine and understand the world in different ways so that we might integrate generative AI and into our education ecologies in higher education.
Presentation: https://doi.org/10.26188/2228168
Developing online teaching and learning: An ongoing process
Get PDFTrendsetter Presentation https://doi.org/10.26188/22106807.v1
As an enthusiastic online teacher for more than two decades, I have learned a great deal over the years. This presentation will highlight a few selected lessons, from early realisations to covid-inspired learning. I will share a little of what I have learned from working with esteemed collaborators, including a glimpse of university students’ online learning experiences, and insights into developing online teaching in higher education through continuing professional learning.
On the basis of research and experience, this presentation will draw parallels between learning online and learning to teach online. Key themes discussed will include diversity, agency, social learning, creativity, and continuity.
Participants will be invited to reflect upon their own experiences and epiphanies as online teachers and learners
Professional Development in Online Teaching and Learning at Tertiary Level During Pandemic: A Quest for Student's Care
Get PDFThis article explores the developments of educators' knowledge and practices in online teaching and learning as their professional development during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study begins with the question, "How do I improve my online teaching and learning knowledge?" The research is grounded in two models: the CRASP model (teachers' Critical attitude, Research into teaching, Accountability, Self-evaluation leading to Professionalism) proposed by Zuber-Skerrit (1992) and Fuller’s (1969) Concerns Based Model of Teacher Development (CBMoTD. The educators' critical attitude and skills towards their own knowledge of online teaching and learning were identified as areas that required professional development to support students' achievement at tertiary levels. Participants were two educators working with tertiary students (N=250) in the Initial Teacher Education in New Zealand. Data were collected through observations and collaborative discussions. The educators' investigation of their own practice highlighted the need for developing insights in their own professional development, including online teaching and learning, maintaining the objectives and quality of the course, and quality assessment. Interpretive Phenomenological data Analysis and Inductive methods were utilised to analyse the data. The findings highlighted students' accomplishments when a caring approach was implemented instead of a traditional task-driven approach. The findings will benefit course developers, educators, and students in online teaching settings by prioritising student care as the core of any educational settings