Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning
Not a member yet
165 research outputs found
Sort by
Mobile learning in higher education environmental science: state of the field and future possibilities
Get PDFAuthentic, place-based learning is essential for students of ecological and environmental sciences, providing connection to the discipline and building environmental literacy (O’Neil et al. 2020). In a COVID-affected world where opportunities to provide field-based learning may be limited, evaluating how mobile technologies may be used to enhance the field-based learning experiences of students is increasingly important.
Advances in mobile technologies have seen a surge in customised applications for species identification, data collection and collation aimed at public users and citizen scientists (e.g. iNaturalist: Unger et al. 2020; eBird: Sullivan et al. 2009; FrogID: Rowley et al. 2019). With field-based learning central to ecology and environmental science disciplines, there is a clear opportunity for the expanded use of mobile tools in higher education. We evaluated recent projects through a systematic review of the use of mobile learning technologies and approaches in field-based environmental sciences within higher education over the last decade.
Our search criteria terms encompassed mobile learning, mobile devices, teaching methods, field-based learning, undergraduate students and science disciplines and identified 1613 initial records. After removing irrelevant and duplicate records, 130 studies were identified that implemented mobile learning within science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, with engineering (32/130 studies, 24.6%), geology and geosciences (17/130, 13.1%) and natural/environmental sciences (17/130, 13.1%) the most common. Narrowing this search again to field-based studies, we identified 18 records, most of which (12/18, 66.7%) were in geology and geosciences disciplines.
A range of mobile learning technologies were used in the field, spanning the SAMR continuum (Laurillard 2012) from the substitution of traditional field activities with species identification apps (Pfeiffer et al. 2009; Thomas and Fellowes 2017), and augmentation of field experiences with multimedia resources such as podcasts (Jarvis and Dickie 2010) and other apps and resources viewed on mobile devices (Welsh et al. 2015; France et al. 2016; Unger et al. 2018), through to the modification and reinvention of field-based learning by incorporating multimedia displays, visualisations, games and information hotspots (Habib et al. 2012; Fitzpatrick et al. 2012; Bursztyn et al. 2015), virtual field trips and augmented reality (Stokes et al. 2010; Howard 2011; Litherland and Stott 2012; Kingston et al. 2012; Bursztyn et al. 2017; Prietnall et al. 2019), and customised apps that allow student-generated content (Chang et al. 2012) such as data collection, analysis and reflection (Chatterjea 2012; Wang et al. 2016). Studies used both enterprise and custom-built tools, with most incorporating geolocation capabilities.
Our review criteria only identified two studies in ecology disciplines, both of which utilised an existing enterprise application for species identification (Pfeiffer et al. 2009; Thomas and Fellowes 2017). There remains ample opportunity to develop collaborative mobile learning systems that use custom-built applications for field data collection and are integrated with the learning management systems, such as those in development in collaborative international projects (Bone et al. 2020). We strongly encourage the exploration of the potential for mobile learning in these contexts, and the publication of other projects that have incorporated mobile tools in ecological and environmental sciences curricula
Second-year student perceptions and use of technology during emergency remote teaching to connect with peers and instructors
Get PDFLearning is a social experience and having meaningful connections with peers and instructors is important for student learning. The interpersonal relationships between students and their instructor can positively influence students’ well-being, motivation and self-efficacy (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020; Almendingen et al., 2021; Gillis & Krull, 2020; Kim & Sax, 2009; Marković et al., 2021; Parpala et al., 2021; Pitsick, 2018). Creating productive interpersonal relationships with peers contributes to students’ beliefs of being supported, respected, and valued, and increases the likelihood of students asking their peers for help (Mäkitalo-Siegl & Fischer, 2011). When students feel connected to their peers they are more likely to engage with their peers in ways that support their learning and deepen their knowledge as a result (Shim et al., 2013). Interaction with instructors can also positively influence learning outcomes and student well-being (Pitsick, 2018), and instructors can be a valuable source of help and guidance (Ryan et al., 2001). However, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to emergency remote teaching and learning, students’ relationship with peers was significantly impacted (Motz et al., 2022) and forcing peer-to-peer interaction through mandating camera feeds on during live synchronous video classes disproportionately affected students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those experiencing anxiety or depression (Castelli & Sarvary, 2021). As students were adapting to learn during the pandemic, they increased their reliance on their instructor and highly ranked instructor engagement as a factor that positively influenced their motivation (Nguyen, 2021). As motivation increases, so does self-efficacy, and when students feel supported, engaged, connected and valued by their peers and instructors, they are more likely to be successful students (Zepke, 2018).
This study examines students’ experiences in using technology to connect with peers and their instructors during the COVID-19 pandemic when learning remotely. The research inquiry focusses on the second-year cohort as prior research has revealed that this group of learners tend to struggle with their learning (Kyndt et al., 2017; Milsom, 2015; Milsom & Yorke, 2015; Southgate et al., 2014; Virtue et al., 2017; Webb & Cotton, 2019) and experience higher levels of anxiety and depression compared to students in other years of university study prior to the COVID 19 pandemic (Liu et al., 2019). To examine their experience in peer-to-peer networks and their interactions with instructors for help seeking, interviews were undertaken at a large metropolitan Australian University in 2021 with 26 second-year students across different disciplines who had experienced emergency remote teaching in their first and second year of study.
The findings reveal that students resist using the discussion board in the Learning Management System because of perceptions of exposure and embarrassment in asking questions when they feel they are expected to know the answer. Students report that synchronous video classes using technology such as Zoom, increase feelings of isolation and they reach out to their peers via social media technology instead. Students are intentional in their choice of technology in connecting with peers, however in the absence of physical connections, there remains a gap in productive engagement with peers. The findings show that second-year students are reluctant to reach out to their instructor when technology is their only mode of interaction, and students report that they would have been more likely to ask for help during a face-to-face class.
PRESENTATION: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19172546.v
When industry meets academia : case studies of innovative learning practices enhanced by digital technologies
Get PDFThis presentation focuses on a transdisciplinary approach to innovative and collaborative learning practices driven by technology. It highlights two salient elements associated with industry practices and processes in relation to learning and educational contexts: empowerment of individuals and communities of practice through technology, and a broader consideration of industrial approaches to the concept of learning and teaching enhanced within a digital environment.
More precisely, this presentation will feature some of the key theoretical frameworks used in three different settings of learning and teaching in France with regards to the life-long learning approach thanks to Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (WEF, 2016). It will also discuss the positive effect of the Internet and its affordances (Southerton & Taylor, 2020) on reducing the differences between theoretical and applied knowledge via professional-focused communities (Danvers, 2003). Thus, it will briefly explain that spatial and cognitive learning proximities (Lave & Wenger 1991; Fruchter, 2001) can be reduced by virtue of technology (Anders, 2016; Antonczak, 2019; Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2019) and that ‘computer-supported collaborative learning’ methods can facilitate social and shared problem-solving (Sawyer, 2005; Levallet & Chan, 2018; Presicce et al., 2020) without the ‘restriction of time and place’ (Cheng et al., 2019, 489). Additionally, it will point out some aspects of problem-solving through ‘emancipatory learning and social action’ (Merriam, 2001, 9) through the use of ‘actual’ content and ‘actionable feedback’ (Woods & Hennessy, 2019) enhanced by digital tools and tactics.
Next, it will focus on three case studies by concisely presenting key specifics for each of the courses, including the various digital tools used and followed by some quick interim reflections.
Then it will summarise the challenges and the barriers encountered across the different practices such as virtual delivery, the size of the students' groups and some connectivity considerations. It will be followed by the principal advantages and opportunities, like the professionalisation dimension through interactive and authentic learning enhanced by affordances. And it will conclude with some managerial recommendations as experiential and practical methods (knowledge codification) thanks to industry-based teaching supported by digital technologies.
The presentation will close with the overall conclusion in relation to digital technology and some of the key 21st-century career skills. In general, the findings will be of interest to academics, practitioners and policymakers. The added value of this transdisciplinary investigation is that it improves research on collaborative innovation and collective knowledge by creating a bridge between the fields of Education and Business.
Bibliography
Anders, A. (2016). Team communication platforms and emergent social collaboration practices. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), pp. 224-261.
Ananiadou, K. & M. Claro (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing.
Antonczak, L. (2019). Scaling-up collaborative practices through mobile technology. The 25th International Conference on Engineering/International Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC), June 17-19, Nice.
Askay, D. A. & Spivack, A. J. (2010). The multidimensional role of trust in enabling creativity within virtual communities of practice: A theoretical model integrating swift, knowledge-based, institution-based, and organizational trust. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 1-10.
Cairns, L. (2000). The process/outcome approach to becoming a capable organization. In Australian Capability Network Conference, Sydney, 1-14.
Cheng, E. W., Chu, S. K., & Ma, C. S. (2019). Students’ intentions to use PBWorks: a factor-based PLS-SEM approach. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(7/8), 489-504.
Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Guinibert, M., Mulrennan, D., Rive, V., & Withell, A. (2017). A framework for designing transformative mobile learning. In Mobile Learning in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region ( 25-43). Springer, Singapore.
Danvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisional notes on learning and teaching in art & design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 47-57.
Dewey, J. (1991). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 12 (1-5). Carbondale, IL: SIU Press. [Originally published in 1938]
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16.
Fruchter, R. (2001). Dimensions of teamwork education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), 426-430.
Glazewski, K. D., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2019). Scaffolding and supporting the use of information for ambitious learning practices. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(1/2), 39-58.
Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111-119.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levallet, N., & Chan, Y. E. (2018). Role of Digital Capabilities in Unleashing the Power of Managerial Improvisation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 1-21.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology, 3(1), 197-211.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97-100.
Makri, S., Ravem, M., & McKay, D. (2017). After serendipity strikes: Creating value from encountered information. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 279-288.
Mascheroni, G., & Vincent, J. (2016). Perpetual contact as a communicative affordance: Opportunities, constraints, and emotions. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 310-326.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13.
Pont, B. (2013). Learning Standards, Teaching Standards and Standards for School Principals: A Comparative Study. Rapport no. EDU/WKP(2013)14. Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE). Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2013)14&docLanguage=En (accessed December 31, 2020).
Presicce, C., Jain, R., Rodeghiero, C., Gabaree, L. E., & Rusk, N. (2020). WeScratch: an inclusive, playful and collaborative approach to creative learning online. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(7/8), 695-704.
Reeves, T. C. (2005). Design-based research in educational technology: Progress made, challenges remain. Educational Technology, 45(1), 48-52.
Southerton, C., & Taylor, E. (2020). Habitual disclosure: Routine, affordance, and the ethics of young peoples social media data surveillance. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/205630512091561
Implementing technology in science teaching – what are the gains?
Get PDFWhen new technologies arrive they come with promises to solve our problems. Technology has offered ways to get information faster, to communicate and collaborate synchronously, asynchronously. In our teaching we have crafted online learning modules to affords flexibility for students so that they can engage with our disciplines outside of the confines of physical classrooms. Smart phone technology allows us to ‘google’ information (and misinformation) from anywhere - provided you have a smart device, a WIFI connection and a service provider that covers your location. In short, technologies have allowed us to work faster, and facilitated the expansion of the digital asset realm, and they have served as catalysts for innovation and thinking differently about education. With the adoption of each technological implementation I ask both “what are the gains?” and “what are we losing?”. I offer my reflections on three technologies.
Email: When I first started as an associate lecturer there was time to have a tea break in a tearoom. Email – now so ubiquitous - replaced the ‘memo’. Something that was implemented for efficient communication has become overtly time consuming and administratively burdensome. The need for rich free-flowing incidental conversation in academia remains but the spaces in time to have these conversations has vanished. On balance: initially a gain, more recently a loss.
Internet: The WorldWide Web started to gained traction in higher education in the mid-late 1990s. Teaching became ‘blended’ as many of us starting to create digital learning resources for our students in ‘flexible’ learning environments. Hours were invested in converting analogue images and sound to digital assets. Analogue assessments were changed to fit the digital environment. Having students record their observations in scientific drawings was problematic. With Web 2.0 (~ 2000) came rise of Learning Management Systems and it became easier to create, deliver and manage online quizzes. Scrutinising how students interacted with online resources became popular. Twenty years on and I rely on the online environment to teach, however I still cling to face-to-face teaching as I crave the conversations I have in class. On balance: undecided.
mApps: In 2012 I partnered with an undergraduate student and professional staff on a mApp – CampusFlora; we hit the AppStore in 2013 (Author et al., 2014). Designing an app in partnership with students (aligned with students-as-partners approach Healey et al., 2014) allowed us to become ‘collaborators’ rather thana ‘students’ and ‘staff’ (Author et al., 2019). Here, technology acted as a collaboration catalyst shifted from academic-led learning design to student-staff co-design. On balance: a gain.
Developing digital literacy in our students is important - not just being able to use technology, but by contributing to resource creation. Co-creating with students is now where I like to spend my time
A literature review on the use of retrospective LMS data to investigate online Teaching and Learning practices
Get PDFAccess to high quality education is a cornerstone of social, cultural, and economic recovery after any crisis. This is also true of the global COVID-19 pandemic which has disrupted the pedagogical practices of higher education institutions around the world (Butler-Henderson, Crawford, Rudolph, Lalani, & Sabu, 2020). Digital learning has become the new-norm, and tertiary education institutions have been propelled to innovate their teaching methods by integrating digital learning through the adoption of cost-effective (Al-Maroof & Al-Emran, 2018) and adaptable (Bhat et al., 2018) Learning Management Systems (LMS) (Bervell & Umar, 2017; Cigdem & Ozturk, 2016). In these systems, pedagogical technologies are embedded in an infrastructure that enables administration and management of learning contents, communication, assessment, and collaboration (Washington, 2019). Due to the fact that the fundamental task of LMS is to support digital teaching and learning (El Bahsh & Daoud, 2016), they are some of the most extensively used learning technologies in higher education (Abazi-Bexheti, Jajaga, & Abazi-Alili, 2018). LMS technology is now widely adopted to support face-to-face, blended, and online pedagogical practices. In this context, LMS data provides large-scale capture, processing, and analysis of students’ interactions with the system, with each other, and with their teaching support within the system (Chung, 2014). LMS data provides a rich resource through which to investigate online learning technologies and behaviours (see, for example, Chung, 2014). Such work is increasingly being done across multiple domains, however no systematic review has yet been conducted which surveys such work - specifically examining retrospective LMS data. This is the goal of the present paper.
A literature review was conducted to examine what data analysis methods have been used to better understand online pedagogy. The review focused specifically on the use of tertiary level retrospective LMS data and was not limited to a specific academic domain. The review was conducted from January - December 2021, with searching being conducted in January 2021. A total of 97 full text articles were included in the literature review. The literature review aimed to identify the kinds of research questions retrospective LMS data is being used to answer, the analytical techniques used to analyse this data, and the types of study designs used in this field of research. The number of students represented in the data and the academic domains were also considered. Quality of data and analytical reporting was assessed in order to interrogate the opportunities and challenges of reproducible research in studies using retrospective LMS data. Finally, the review considered the degree to which the analysis of retrospective LMS data met the needs of the research question.
Understanding how retrospective LMS data has been used to examine pedagogical practice in previous research equips us to reorientate Teaching and Learning in the immediate aftermath of COVID-19. This will become increasingly important as we move towards a future characterised by an escalation of remote and online learning opportunities. Through surveying previous research in this area, this paper provides an important foundation for future work utilising retrospective LMS data to understand online Teaching and Learning in the peri-COVID era.
References
Abazi-Bexheti, L., Kadriu, A., Apostolova-Trpkovska, M., Jajaga, E., & Abazi-Alili, H. (2018). LMS solution: Evidence of Google classroom usage inhigher education. Business Systems Research, 9(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2018-0003
Al-Maroof, R. A. S., & Al-Emran, M. (2018). Students acceptance of Google classroom: An exploratory study using PLS-SEM approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 13(06), 112. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i06.8275
Bahsh, R. El, & Daoud, M. I. (2016). Evaluating the use of Moodle to achieve effective and interactive learning : A case study at the German Jordanian University. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on open source software computing (OSSCOM 2016) (pp. 16–20). Beirut, Lebanon: IEEE
Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2017). A decade of LMS acceptance and adoption research in sub-Sahara African higher education: A systematic review of models, methodologies, milestones and main challenges. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7269–7286. https://doi. org/10.12973/ejmste/79444
Bhat, S., Raju, R., Bikramjit, A., & Souza, R. D. (2018). Leveraging e-learning through Google classroom: A usability study. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 31(3), 1–7
Butler-Henderson, K., Crawford, J., Rudolph, J., Lalani, K., & Sabu, K.M. (2020). COVID-19 in Higher Education Literature Database (CHELD V1): An open access systematic literature review database with coding rules. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 3(3), DOI:https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.2.11
Chung, G. K. W. K. (2014). Toward the Relational Management of Educational Measurement Data. Teachers College Record, 116(11), p. 1-16
Cigdem, H., & Ozturk, M. (2016). Factors affecting students’ behavioral intention to use LMS at a Turkish post-secondary vocational school. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2253
Kumar, J. A., Bervell, B., & Osman, S. (2020). Google classroom: insights from Malaysian higher education students’ and instructors’ experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), pp. 4175-4195. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-020-10163-x
Washington, G. Y. (2019). The learning management system matters in face-to-face higher education courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/004723951987403
No More Kidding about iKids : It’s Time to Take Digital Citizenship Seriously in Higher Education
Get PDFIf COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that even students born in the 21st century are not quite the digital natives we give them credit for being. Whilst the overarching concept of the digital native as proposed by Prensky in 2001 has been hotly contested for many of its generational assumptions over the last 20 years, it’s clear anecdotally that until recently, many still believed that students of the 21st century are very comfortable with technology and how it is used.
It’s only in the last few years, as the pandemic has forced learning online, that we’ve realized that perhaps students digital skillset might not be what we think it is. What’s more, stories abound of students turning cameras off, or behaving inappropriately in chat, that suggest that the problem is wider than skills, and a more holistic view of what it means to be a digital citizen is needed.
This presentation will take time to understand this trend towards digital citizenship, and what it means for us as scholars of technology enhanced learning. Looking back on past practices, it will make the argument the digital citizenship going forwards need to encompass more than just skills and needs to be more holistic in focus. In doing so, we can really understand how we might construct our curriculum into the future.
First, this presentation will break down the way we’ve traditionally thought about digital skills (Sturgess, Cowling, & Gray, 2016). Building on recent research, it will help understand what competencies need consideration in this space going forward, and how skills such as social networking or messaging might translate into our classroom.
It will then discuss screen time, and how students approach this aspect of digital citizenship (Orlando, 2021). Rather than talking about banning technology and removing it from classrooms, we will discuss how technology can be used to enhance the classroom experience, whilst also ensuring that students do not get addicted to using it inappropriately. Thoughts on how best to build balanced digital citizens will also be shared.
Concepts of digital safety will also be discussed (Walsh & Pink, 2021), and how this idea compares to our traditional ideas of student safety. Work by the Australian Federal government on cyber safety will be visited to understand how we might enhance this concept with a more holistic mindset.
Finally, student self-control will be touched on (Cowling, 2015). Students of the 21st century face a venerable plethora of possible resources that they can access, with little in the way of age restrictions, or clear indicators of their quality. We will discuss fake news and information overload, understanding how these concepts might fit into the broader narrative.
Through interrogating each of these ‘four S’s’: Skills; Screen Time; Safety; and Self-Control, we will propose a new way to look at the digital native that will set a trend going forward, moving us from digital natives to a clearer, more specific model that suits the iKids emerging out of the post-COVID world
Technology-enhanced learning in designing for uncertainty
Get PDFIn this talk, we discuss the affordances of digital technologies to facilitate student-determined learning when delivering practical or ‘hands-on’ courses. We also examine the constraints that affect the learner experience when courses designed for face-to-face classes suddenly move online.
We use a case study of how a practical multimedia undergraduate journalism paper was moved from face-to-face to online delivery mid-way through the semester after an outbreak of Covid-19 in New Zealand led to a sudden imposition of a level-4 lockdown in 2021.
The case study demonstrates how the delivery of courses designed within a heutagogical frame work can successfully be adapted at a time of crisis while maintaining the learning outcomes required. Our experience provides empirical discussion points on teaching a practiced-based activity such as journalism, where restricted mobility can in fact lead to student-initiated opportunities for growth rather than being a hindrance.
Our approach from the start of the academic year was to develop our students’ digital capabilities and guide them towards being agents of their own learning (Hase & Kenyon, 2007; Blaschke & Hase, 2019). We were aware that the situation with the Covid-19 outbreak was evolving in New Zealand, and government instructions could require our university to move courses online at short notice. Therefore, this case study should not be considered as a pure example of “emergency remote teaching” (Hodges et al. 2020).
The design took a social constructivist approach (Lockey, Conaghan, Bland & Astin, 2020; Vygotsky, 1930-34/1978) that included experiential learning and reflection to increase students’ independence and preparedness. It then built on this using connectivism principles (Siemens, 2004) to link the individual to the class, including employing collaborative peer learning.
Our planning took account of less successful attempts to engage students online (Cowie & Sakui, 2019) as well as the lessons we learned during the lockdown in 2020. We considered student engagement, student access to the required technologies and their level of digital competence would be our greatest challenges (Greenhow & Lewin, 2021).
Learning strategies we employed included mirroring the culture and emerging practices professional journalists were applying under Covid-19 lockdown. Strategies were developed in an online classroom environment that fostered expert-like thinking that enabled student-determined activities, founded upon small group collaborations and play-based learning. We encouraged a high level of flexibility in our student-lecturer interactions, and regular discussions around wellness evolved organically. We found students sought increased opportunities to engage with others, as many students were away from home and without a social support system.
When designing the course, we conceptualised our role as “designers of learning experiences” (Cochrane & Munn, 2020, p. 2). Hence we modelled emerging journalistic practices through the increased application of social media technologies, and embedded critical analysis via peer review in a way that achieved a higher level of engagement among the students than had been experienced in previous journalism papers. Practical outcomes included the production of weekly multimedia news bulletins \modelling broadcasting industry newscasts that were published on a purpose-built website, and student e-portfolios supported by multimedia exegeses.
Presentation Slides: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19172453.v
PJTEL Editorial 2019-2021
Get PDFIn this first editorial for the Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, PJTEL, the lead editors reflect upon the first three years of the journal and explore the impact statistics. We also explore future directions and themes for the journal particularly in light of the impact of COVID19 on education
Enhancing coding skills with CloudStor SWAN
Get PDFCloudStor SWAN (AARNet, 2022) is a research-focused web service for running analyses that is available to staff and students at many research institutes and Universities across Australia and New Zealand. In 2021, we used SWAN as a teaching tool in the master-level subject, Computational Genomics (COMP90016) at The University of Melbourne. This subject aims to teach students how to analyse large genomic datasets using best practices software tools, pipelines and student-written, custom code.
Although CloudStor SWAN was not conceived as a teaching tool, we worked with their technical staff to tailor the service to our use case. This innovative use of existing research infrastructure allowed us to effectively transition the subject to remote learning. Students and staff could log in to the service using their existing University credentials, from anywhere in the world, without the use of a VPN. The ability to access the platform from a web browser allowed for a consistent computing environment for all students regardless of operating system, and without having to worry about software installations on local machines. This presented a significantly improved experience from the custom servers that had been used in the past.
We used SWAN for weekly workshops during semester and for assessment in the form of assignments and an exam. It allowed us to format subject material in Jupyter notebooks where we could seamlessly integrate text, graphics and code. Additionally, assessed code questions can incorporate automatic marking and written submissions can be checked for plagiarism. SWAN also allowed us to introduce students to the UNIX command line, an important skillset that was not previously taught in the University of Melbourne Master of Science (Bioinformatics) program.
From a student perspective, SWAN allowed for a practical skillset to be developed alongside theoretical knowledge from other aspects of the course. The platform was simple to learn and allowed students to focus on the subject content and the tasks asked of them, rather than on the interface. From a teacher’s perspective, having a unified platform allowed for a single set of clear instructions, improved troubleshooting and clearer management of tool versions and software dependencies. The use of Jupyter notebooks simplified lesson plans and assessments by integrating multiple elements into single documents. This element also made the lessons more easily sharable between colleagues and collaborators.
Our integration of this technology into our tertiary teaching has served as a model for a similar use at a different Australian university. We hope to share the lessons learned from this subject, the advantages of using CloudStor SWAN in a teaching environment for both staff and students and provide some advice for others who may want to adapt it to fit their own teaching needs.
Presentation link: https://youtu.be/8tutCO1hd9c
References
AARNet. (2022). CloudStor: Access, store, share and work with your data in one place. https://www.aarnet.edu.au/network-and-services/cloud-services/cloudsto
The Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Cheating
Get PDFThe Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, and the Scholarship of Learning and Teaching more broadly, tends to focus on positive stories of things that work (Dawson & Dawson, 2018). We have an interest in learning and want to share strategies we have found to be successful. A similar parallel can be drawn with the field of academic integrity, in that it too is a field with a focus on a positive thing: students’ capabilities and actions that demonstrate they can and do act in the way we want them to.
Delving into the negative is unpleasant. It can require an adversarial mindset (Dawson, 2021), similar to the type used in cybersecurity (Craigen et al., 2014). Scholars of cheating can be portrayed by the media as undercover sleuths (e.g. Cook, 2018). On the flipside, those who question the technologies used to detect or deter cheating can face legal action by vendors. In my own work I have had to step very carefully, having been warned that studies where I try to empirically check if anti-cheating technologies work may not be legal without the support of their vendors. Cheating and anti-cheating scholarship is a charged, risky place to be.
This presentation explores cheating and technology. Drawing on a recent synthesis of research from cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and game studies (Dawson, 2021), it discusses what the current state of cheating is, and where it is likely to be in the near future – as well as the types of scholarship that we need to address the problem of technology-enhanced cheating.
References
Cook, H. (2018, 13 November 2018). Academics go undercover to spot the telltale signs of a cheater. The Age. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/academics-go-undercover-to-spot-the-telltale-signs-of-a-cheater-20181113-p50fng.html
Craigen, D., Diakun-Thibault, N., & Purse, R. (2014). Defining cybersecurity. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(10), 13-21.
Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge.
Dawson, P., & Dawson, S. L. (2018). Sharing successes and hiding failures: ‘reporting bias’ in learning and teaching research. Studies in Higher Education, 43(8), 1405-1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.125805