Getting the Order Right, Pedagogy Before Technology

Getting The Order Right, Pedagogy
Before Technology
Professor Michael Sankey
Learning Futures
michael_sankey

Introduction
 We will look at how Griffith University is taking a ‘pedagogy first’ approach
to the application of technology to advance our L&T
 This is particularly as much of what we do has moved online
 To make these spaces more active, collaborative and authentic
 With so many tools how do we choose?
 A ‘pedagogy first’ approach can help
 But having a joined up narrative is key
michael_sankey

What is pedagogy
 If we are going to say we are taking a pedagogy first position we need to
understand what pedagogy is, and particularly in our context
 Ontological and Epistemological positions:
 showing the relations between concepts and categories in a subject
area or domain
 the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity,
and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.
 Meta understanding of what we want to achieve and why
michael_sankey

What is pedagogy
 The “interactions between teachers, students, and the learning
environment and the learning tasks.”
 Broadly it’s how teachers and students relate together as well as the
instructional approaches implemented in the classroom
 If we say ‘our curriculum shall use pedagogical approaches’, are we
talking constructivism, inquiry- based learning, reflective
practice, collaborative, and integrative.
 Effective pedagogy is having a range of different teaching and
learning tools that we can be drawn upon and use
michael_sankey

Pedagogic strategy
 Firstly, pedagogic strategies (the ones instructional designers talk about) are based on
general learning theoretical concepts: Behaviorism, Instructivism,
Cognitivism, Constructionism, Constructivism, Socio-constructivism, Situated learning, etc.
 There’s often an overlap between these theories that explain how people learn and how one
could bring people to learn. This is particularly true when we talk about Constructivism.
 Second, design of strategies draws a lot from general pedagogical theory, but also from
specialized research (heutagogy, paragogy, andragogy, etc).
 Third, educational technology has been a driving force to develop new strategies, with the
basic assumption that educational technologies can facilitate pedagogical scenarios.
Reference http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Pedagogic_strategy
michael_sankey

Some different learning strategies
Presentation Exhibits Demonstration
Drill and Practice Tutorials Games
Story Telling Simulations Role-playing
Discussion Interaction Modeling
Facilitation Collaboration Debate
Field Trips Apprenticeship Case Studies
Motivation Generative Development

The cart before the horse
michael_sankey https://collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/resource/PRG+280/1/22/337

Griffith VLE –
Learning@Griffith

The JCU Student Digital Experience Policy describes the expectations for student engagement
in the VLE.
Student Digital
Experience Elements
Statement of expectation
Subject Orientation
Students will access the introductory recording to orientate themselves to the subject during the week prior to the
study period commencing.
Students will access the subject outline to view subject details during the week prior to the study period commencing,
and throughout the study period.
Learning Design
Students will engage with learning materials that are timely, accessible and inclusive; comply with legislative
requirements; and purposefully designed to meet learning outcomes.
Media Content Students will regularly engage with digital media, recordings and interactive activities to support their learning.
Assessment
Students will use criteria or scales to guide creation of their assessment tasks and access Grade Centre to view
assessment results. Where appropriate students will use online submission and receive feedback electronically.
Communication
Students will engage in digital communication respectfully.
Essential subject communication including announcements, emails, surveys, assessment information, and where
appropriate to subject modes, staff-student and peer-peer interactions will be undertaken through the subject site.
Support
Students will have support for academic learning, technologies, careers and wellbeing via links to appropriate services
and materials, and where appropriate subject-specific resources.
Digital Self
Students will engage ethically in learning activities including maintaining data privacy and confidentiality and satisfying
academic integrity requirements. Students will develop an understanding of the digital self and maintain their online
digital safety, security and reputation.

Educators as Designers
and Leaders of Learning
Program and Lifecycle
Mindset
Educational Mindsets
Evidence-informed
Practice
Educational Principles
Partnership-Based
Learning
Engaging and
Empowering Pedagogies
Scholarly-Inspired
Curriculum
Locally and Globally
Connected
Learner-Enabling Design
Digitally-Enabled
Learning
Educational Standards
Course
Foundation (x11)
Course
Enhanced (x9)
michael_sankey
Program level

 Griffith Course Design Standards ensure that students experience a level
of consistency and quality, benchmarked against national standards
 The course design standards are iterative (regularly reviewed) to respond
to strategic priorities or emerging affordances and technologies (e.g.,
course and learning analytics, online assessment, immersive learning).
 We assume all our educators are disciplinary experts, we also know
there’s an increased focus on active and engaging pedagogies using
digital technologies. This requires our educators to extend their range of
mindsets and capabilities; e.g., the contemporary educator is focused on
‘student learning’ more than ‘teaching delivery’.
michael_sankey

 Partnership-Based Learning
 We work in partnership with our students to create collaborative learning environments.
 Engaging and Empowering Pedagogies
 We foster active, authentic and collaborative approaches to learning to build our students’
professional capability and confidence and cultivate their ability to learn effectively in work contexts.
 Scholarly-Inspired Curriculum
 We found our curriculum on evidence-informed knowledge and work to inspire our students to be
curious about the process of developing new knowledge and applying this to positively impact others.
 Locally and Globally Connected
 We infuse our learning environments with the partnerships and perspectives of the wider context of
work, culture, society and professional practice so that our students are actively engaging with, and
meaningfully contributing to, the world outside of university.
 Learner-Enabling Design
 We optimise our learning environments to build our students’ capacity to confidently and capably
manage their own learning and enable all of our students to succeed to the best of their ability.
 Digitally-Enabled Learning
 We facilitate our students to learn more flexibly and effectively through digitally-rich and
integrated learning environments.
michael_sankey

Foundation Standards
FS 1.1
Students experience a learning environment that supports them to effectively communicate, collaborate
and learn from educators and each other.
FS 1.2
Students understand that the educator continuously improves the course in response to student
feedback.
FS 2.1
Students experience an intentional and appropriate balance of active, authentic and collaborative
approaches to learning and assessment.
FS 3.1
Students are engaged in examining the research evidence and/or professional knowledge that underpins
current understanding of their discipline.
FS 3.2
Students learn critical and higher-order thinking practices in an intellectually rigorous and evidence-based
environment.
FS 4.1 Students experience a course informed by contemporary industry concepts and practices.
FS 4.2 Students are provided with opportunities to engage with international and global perspectives.
FS 5.1 Students experience a course which clearly aligns learning goals, activities and assessment.
FS 5.2 Students are supported through all stages of the assessment lifecycle.
FS 5.3 Students are provided with materials and resources that adhere to Griffith’s accessibility guidelines.
FS 6.1 Students are supported to effectively engage with digital resources to facilitate their learning.

We work in partnership with our students to create collaborative learning
environments.
Standard: The intended student experience
FS 1.1 – Students experience a learning environment that supports
them to effectively communicate, collaborate and learn from educators
and each other.
michael_sankey
1. PARTNERSHIP-BASED LEARNING
RELATIONSHIPS

 Educator engages students by providing a personalized introduction and welcome to
the course.
 Educator incorporates activities to build an engaging and inclusive learning community.
Examples: Clarifies roles and expectations. Co-develops ground rules for productive
learning and discussion. Purposefully builds peer connections. Explains course
structure, roles and working relationships. Facilitates connection and belonging by
sharing background and interests relevant to the course.
 Educator uses an appropriate mix of communication tools and channels (e.g.
announcements, online consultation, discussion tools, office hours, in-class
conversations) to optimize educator-student and student-student communication and
collaboration Examples: Peer activities requiring student-student discussions or team-
based learning. Assessments that incorporate peer-to-peer feedback. Students work in
groups to develop marking criteria for a presentation or assessment task.
michael_sankey

We foster active, authentic and collaborative approaches to learning to
build our students’ professional capability and confidence and cultivate
their ability to learn effectively in work contexts.
Standard: The intended student experience
FS 2.1 – Students experience an intentional and appropriate balance of
active, authentic and collaborative approaches to learning and
assessment.
michael_sankey
2. ENGAGING AND EMPOWERING
PEDAGOGIES

Note: Intentional design involves Educators analysing and developing session and
course plans collaboratively with their Teaching Teams, integrating appropriate
analysis and the application of scaffolded activities to meet Course Learning
Outcomes.
 Educator implements Active Learning strategies that engage students in the
process of learning and reflecting on their learning using context appropriate
strategies. Examples: Interactive lectures. Active discussions. Live debates. In-
class projects. Scaffolded problem solving. Simulations. Case-based learning.
Role playing. Peer teaching. Active review of material.
 Educator implements Authentic Learning experiences that involve students in
‘learning in context.’ Examples: Case studies designed to mimic the workplace
and professional practice. Reflections on student’s life and/or work experience
related to key ideas/construct.
michael_sankey

 Educator designs Authentic Assessment tasks to provide students with opportunities to
develop and practice capability, investigate real world challenges and problems and/or
produce professionally relevant artifacts/outputs/performances. Examples: Tasks relating
to Work Integrated Learning (WIL)/ Community based projects/placement experiences.
Learning tasks to scaffold reflection on learner experience while on placement or WIL.
Tasks to be completed while on placement. Tasks enabling student to co-create knowledge
and teach peers challenging concepts.
 Educator includes Collaborative Learning strategies in the course design to engage
students in learning with and from their peers, either face-to-face or through digital tools.
Examples: Sharing information. Exchanging viewpoints. Supporting, teaching or learning
from peers. Providing and receiving constructive feedback. Collaborating on tasks, project
teams, critical exchanges and justification of ideas.
 Educator develops students’ capacity to work and learn collaboratively. Examples:
Scaffolding group work with guidelines and resources.
Practice peer feedback methods.
michael_sankey

Standards by themselves are not enough
michael_sankey
 There has to be a joined up narrative across the institution
 Let’s take TEL for example

michael_sankey
Institution BM 1 BM 2 BM 3 BM 4 BM 5 BM 6 BM 7 BM 8
Asia Pacific International College 1 1
Auckland University of Technology 1 1
Australian Catholic University 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
ACER Institute 3 3
Australian National University 2 3 2 3 3 3
Central Queensland University 3 3
Charles Stuart University 3 3 2 2 2
Christchurch Polytechnic 1 1
Curtin University 3 1 3 3 1 3
Edith Cowen University 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Federation University 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2
Flinders University 1 1
Griffith University 3 3
La Trobe University 2 2 2
Lincoln University 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2
Macquarie University 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Monash College 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3
Murdoch University 3 3 3
Queensland University of Technology 1 1
RMIT University 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3
Swinburne University 3 2 3 2 3
The Open University 1 1 1 2 1 2
University of Adelaide 3 3 3
University of Auckland 2 3 1 2 3 2 3
University of Canberra 1 2 2 1 2 2
University of Melbourne 3 2 3 2 3
University of New England 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 3
University of Notre Dame 2 2
University of Otago 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3
University of Queensland 3 3
University of South Africa 1 2 1 2 1 2
University of Southern Queensland 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3
University of Sydney 3 3
University of Tasmania 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2
University of Technology, Sydney 1 1 2 2
University of the South Pacific 3 3 1 1 2 2
University of the Sunshine Coast 2 2 2
University of Western Australia 1 1
University of Wollongong 1 1 1 1
Victoria University 1 2 2 2 1
Victoria University of Wellington 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Western Sydney University 1 2 1 2 1 2
2014 11 8 8 10 12 9 5 6
2016 12 11 14 16 19 13 6 8
2018 15 14 10 9 15 12 5 6
Total 38 33 32 35 46 34 16 20
2014-2018
participation year:
1 = 2014;
2 = 2016;
3 = 2018.

michael_sankey
Institutions Piloting the ACODE TEL
Framework - 2019
• Griffith University (GU)
• University of Auckland (UoA)
• RMIT
• University of Canberra (UC)
• Australia National University (ANU)
• University of the South Pacific (USP) -
to be confirmed
• Monash College - to be confirmed

michael_sankey
Supporting organisation Country /Region
Benchmarks, benchmarking
framework or equivalent
Accreditation, certification of
professional development
Tool or
Checklist
Australasian council on Open Distance
and eLearning (ACODE)
Australasia
Council of Regional Accrediting
Commissions (C-RAC)
USA
European Association of Distance
Teaching Universities (EADTU)
Europe
European Foundation for
Management Development (EFMD)
Europe
European Foundation for Quality in e-
Learning (EFQUEL)
Europe
E-Learning Guidelines (eLG) Tertiary
Education Commission (TEC)
New Zealand
ISO/IEC19796-1 Standard for IT in
Learning, Education and Training
Switzerland
Online Learning Consortium (OLC)
Online Toolkit
USA
Quality Matters (QM) USA
Taking the Lead – TEC – NCTTE New Zealand
ASCILITE – TALAS (not yet finalized) Australasia

ACODE Learning Technologies Leadership
Institute (LTLI)
michael_sankey

Getting the Order Right, Pedagogy Before Technology

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Getting the Order Right, Pedagogy Before Technology

Ähnlich wie Getting the Order Right, Pedagogy Before Technology (20)

Mehr von Charles Darwin University

Mehr von Charles Darwin University (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Getting the Order Right, Pedagogy Before Technology