Category: sharing Page 3 of 40

Invitation to contribute to the Pan-Canadian Digital Learning Survey

If you are an administrators, teaching and learning leader, or faculty member at a Canadian post-secondary institution, you are invited to participate in the 2023 Pan-Canadian Digital Learning Survey. The purpose of the survey is to explore critical issues in digital learning and to assess the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on digital learning at publicly funded post-secondary institutions in Canada. The primary objective of the research is to provide institutional leaders and key interest groups in Canadian higher education with valuable information as they develop institutional strategies.

The link above will take you to the survey. The information letter with more details about the survey is below.

CDLRA RESEARCH STUDY
2023 Pan-Canadian Digital Learning Surveys

Principal Investigator: Dr. Nicole Johnson, Executive Director, Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA)

The Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA) conducts applied research to advance knowledge about digital learning strategies, policies, and practices in close collaboration with Canadian post-secondary institutions and affiliated organizations.

To view our past reports, please visit www.cdlra-acrfl.ca/publications

There are two Pan-Canadian Digital Learning Surveys:

  • The Spring survey will be open from May 1 – June 30, 2023
  • The Fall survey will be open from September 11 – October, 13, 2023Each survey has a unique set of questions on a variety of topics related to digital learning.*Important note: In the past we’ve sent one survey per institution; however, we now send the survey to multiple individuals in different roles from our roster to understand their unique, individual perspectives. We are not able to share information about other individuals at your institution who have completed the survey or who have been sent invitations to participate.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE?

Administrators, teaching and learning leaders, and faculty at Canadian post-secondary institutions.

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

The purpose of our research is to assess and improve different aspects of digital learning across the country. The CDLRA does this by exploring emerging and ongoing trends in digital learning as they change over time. The primary objective of the research is to provide institutional leaders and key interest groups in Canadian higher education with valuable information, as they develop digital learning strategies.

WHAT WILL I BE ASKED TO DO?

Your participation in this study will involve sharing your personal perspectives through the completion of a short online survey. Participation in this study is voluntary.

HOW WILL THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE STUDY BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL?
All information that is shared with the research team will be kept strictly confidential. Only the research team has access to identifiable data. Identifiable data is stored using secure software on a password protected device. No identifying information will be shared with any other organization, including partners and sponsors.

HOW WILL RESULTS BE SHARED?

The research team intends to publish and publicly share the aggregate findings of the study in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, research reports, academic journal articles, webinars and conference presentations, and blog posts. The identity of participants and the identity of their institutions will not be disclosed in any reports, presentations, or publications.

You may also request a summary of the findings by contacting Dr. Nicole Johnson at nicole.johnson@cdlra-acrfl.ca.

WILL I BE COMPENSATED FOR MY PARTICIPATION?

No, compensation will not be provided for this study and your participation is completely voluntary.

ARE THERE POTENTIAL RISKS I SHOULD BE AWARE OF?

The research team does not anticipate any risks to participants.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING?

The findings of this study will be used to offer evidence-based suggestions for improving policies, programs, strategic plans, and digital resources for post-secondary institutions in Canada.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

Your participation in this study is voluntary and involves no foreseeable risk to you as person. You may refuse to participate or answer any questions without penalty or explanation. You are free to withdraw your consent in the study at any time; however, your data cannot be withdrawn once the analysis is complete.

Please feel free to contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Nicole Johnson, by phone at 604-825-0582 or by email at nicole.johnson@cdlra-acrfl.ca if you have any questions.

Running and hurting

With the weather in Victoria finally changing, and seemingly skipping Spring straight into summer, I’m itching to run again. I was doing pretty well for a few months in the middle of winter, but I somehow managed to hurt my back. I’ve been trying to sort that out for the last five months or so and after a series of visits to massage therapy, physical therapy, and sorts/chiro therapy I feel stronger and ready to start again. I run two slow 4kms this week, and that felt good. A bit stiff still, but good. And even though I enjoyed the fall/winter running, I can’t wait for warmer temperatures. I’d take running in 85F/30C over 40F/5C any day. Here’s to hoping for continued progress.

New paper: faculty members’ hopes and anxieties

In a new paper for the Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology (paper and citation below) we highlight the ways in which faculty members hopes and anxieties about the future are shaped by both personal and environmental factors. Importantly, we note that imagining and working towards more hopeful futures (a concept which we examined in earlier work), may be a fruitful approach in addressing the challenges that the higher education sector (and our societies) are facing.

Abstract

Higher education worldwide is facing several challenges spanning from economic, social, technological, demographic, environmental, to political tensions. Calls to rethink, reimagine, and reform higher education to respond to such challenges are ongoing, and need to be informed by a wide variety of stakeholders. To inform such efforts, we interviewed thirty-seven faculty members at Canadian colleges and universities to develop a greater understanding of their hopes and anxieties about the future of higher education as they considered what higher education may look like five years into the future. Results centred on four themes: (1) anxieties and hopes are shaped by supports and resources from various sources, (2) faculty members face anxiety over matters that negatively impact them but are beyond their control, (3) faculty members hope that “good” comes from the COVID-19 pandemic, and (4) faculty members hope for a well-rounded education that will enable students to succeed both within and beyond their careers. Implications for these findings suggest a need to direct research efforts and practices toward more hopeful futures for higher education, especially in the context of online and blended learning.

Veletsianos, G., & Johnson, N. (2023). Canadian Faculty Members’ Hopes and Anxieties about the Near-future of Higher Education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 48(3), 1-23. https://cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/28319

4th annual Speculative Education Colloquium

This is a wonderful event that pushes the boundaries of imagination and possibility. Consider joining.

The 4th annual Speculative Education Colloquium is focused on Intergenerational Speculation. The colloquium will take place on Saturday May 13, 12-3pm ET.

This year’s event features the incredible children’s authors/illustrators Jarrett and Jerome Pumphrey and the inimitable Professor of Teaching and Learning at the Ohio State University, Detra Price-Dennis.

As always, this will be a free, virtual event. We are encouraging attendees to invite children and families to join in our collective dialogue and storytelling. Register here: https://tinyurl.com/speced2023

 

BC’s guidelines for digital learning strategy: inadvertent effects?

As you may or may not be aware, BC has developed a digital learning strategy. Here’s an earlier draft, and some earlier thoughts. With its release coming soon, I thought I would post a final set of thoughts that apply to this policy, but to other policies as well. I am only posting this because I saw that the University of California recently closed a loophole that allowed learners to fully complete their degree online. Such decision reminds me once again that decisions which are laser-focused on modality miss the bigger picture. Which then reminded me of the BC digital learning policy.

My reading and analysis of the guidelines coming to BC is that they raise quality standards for online and hybrid learning. This is a good thing. But, they are silent on the quality standards for in-person learning, and might therefore have inadvertent effects.

Because of the focus on a specific modality, the strategy creates a de facto level of standard for digital learning courses/programs/efforts that is higher than that for in-person courses/programs/efforts. While the document focuses on guidelines for “technology-enhanced learning,” it’s not explicit that these guidelines ought to apply to ALL courses.

In other words, the policy presumes that guidelines are unnecessary for in-person courses, or at the very least outside of the purview of the policy . As one example, note how the following important guideline specifically focuses on the digital but not the in-person context:

“Digital PSE in BC must achieve true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It should advance and implement decolonial practices, promote Indigenization, and recognize Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and learning. To achieve these goals, technology-enhanced learning should…”

What I’d rather see is this:

Digital PSE in BC must achieve true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It should advance and implement decolonial practices, promote Indigenization, and recognize Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and learning. To achieve these goals, technology-enhanced learning should…”

Or this:

Digital PSE in BC must achieve true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It should advance and implement decolonial practices, promote Indigenization, and recognize Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and learning. Technology-enhanced learning provides risks and opportunities towards these goals, and in this context, institutions should… To achieve these goals, technology-enhanced learning should…

Setting a higher standard for digital learning compared to in-person learning is a problem for two reasons.

First, a different levels of standard produces the very real possibility of stifling innovation in digital learning and prioritizing in-person learning. Institutions which are considering digital learning will need to account with these guidelines, especially if they need to highlight how they are meeting them in QA and new degree approval processes. Yet, it’s unclear whether in-person offerings need to account for them. By raising the bar for one kind of approach, we might be inadvertently guiding institutions into the alternative modality.

Second, a different level of standard will impact the sector unevenly, and will disproportionately impact institutions and disciplines which are predominantly digital/online. The impacts that the strategy will have on in-person trades programs are limited compared to the impacts that it will have on education programs, which are typically blended. The impacts that it will have on  smaller institutions which are exploring expanding their digital learning offerings are greater that the impacts it will have on predominantly in-person institutions.

What is a possible solution?

This is a difficult one. One approach might be to clarify and be explicit that these guidelines apply to all courses/offerings regardless of modality. Designing education with ethics, equity, and decolonization in mind ought not be limited by whether the course takes place in-person, online, or in blended fashion. Further, any change in QA and course approval policies at the Ministry level will need to apply to all programs – not just “digital” ones.

Special Issue on Trauma-Informed Instructional Design Practices in JAID

JAID recently published a special issue on trauma-informed instructional design practices, that you can read here. The abstract for the introduction to the special issue summarizes the effort well:

This special issue of JAID begins to bridge the gap between the theories of social emotional learning/trauma informed learning with instructional design offering specific cases of design and development projects that illustrate the confluence of these two broad areas. We share these articles with our ID community in the hopes of creating principles for “compassionate instructional design” (Thomas et al., 2019) through a collection of practitioner cases and research articles on applied instructional design practices that are responsive to trauma-affected learners, and which highlight the complexities of the learning context of the learners being served.

ChatGPT is the tree, not the forest.

“Not see the forest for the trees,” is a North American idiom that is used to urge one that focusing on the details might lead them to miss the larger issue/problem. ChatGPT is the tree. Perhaps it’s the tallest or the leafiest tree, or the one that blossomed rapidly right in front of your eyes… sort of like a Japanese flowering cherry. What does this mean for you?

If you’re exploring ChatGPT – as a student, instructor, administrator, perhaps as a community – don’t focus solely on ChatGPT. Certainly, this particular tool is can serve as one illustration of the possibilities, pitfalls, and challenges of Generative AI, but making decisions about Generative AI by focusing solely on ChatGPT may lead you to make decisions that are grounded on the idiosyncrasies of this particular technology at this particular point in time.

What does this mean in practice? Your syllabus policies should be broader than ChatGPT. Your taskforce and working groups should look beyond this particular tool. Your classroom conversations should highlight additional technologies.

I was asked recently to lead a taskforce to explore implications and put forward recommendations for our teaching and learning community. ChatGTP was the impetus. But our focus is Generative AI. It needs to be. And there’s a long AIED history here, which includes some of my earlier work on pedagogical agents.

 

Page 3 of 40

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén