Posts

Earlier this year at the eFest meets Teaching and Learning Conference (hosted at UCOL), I was privileged to take part in the conference wrap up led by Lisa Emerson (Ako Aotearoa) - "Teaching for excellence: Excellence in teaching".

Lisa began by discussing the quote: “The classroom, with all its limitations, remains a location of possibility" (Bell Hooks, 1994, p. 207), and then went on by looking at the notion of excellence in tertiary teaching, referring back to the main theme of the conference. She asked how we can bring student evaluation of teaching into our teaching institutions, and teaching practice. We have clear empirical methods to research outputs; the push for this empirical data then moves to the evaluation of tertiary teaching. How do we measure excellence in teaching. Lisa listed 1) retention, 2) success rates, 3) student evaluation, 4) compliance measures, 5) willingness to engage with new technologies, 6) willingness to show commitment to teaching by engaging in PD, and 6) by willingness to disseminate good practice (e.g. by publishing in academic journals). She then went on to discuss who wants to measure excellent, including the teacher (especially for career development), the institution, political bodies (to measure value for money), and others such as Ako Aotearoa (for example there may be a desire to raise the profile of teaching within the tertiary sector).

Emerson reflected on some experiences she had working with award winning teachers, who were incredibly humble about their teaching practice. She then went on to unpack the following: “It is crucial that we challenge any feeling of shame or embarrassment that teachers who do their job well….For when we hide our light we collude in the overall cultural devaluation of our teaching vocation” (Bell Hooks).

The session included an interactive exercise that involved participation from the audience. As we went in we were given a pen and a piece of A4 paper with the words Why?, How?, A moment, and A model/metaphor on them as headings at equal intervals down the page. At the appropriate moment, Lisa asked the audience to look at the first question, gave some background behind it (why do you teach and what do you hope your learners will be able to do), and then each person wrote down their response to the question. The top of the paper was then turned over, and the audience had to swap papers with someone close by. This process was completed for the rest of the sections, swapping papers with people around the room after each one was completed. It was a really effective exercise as not only were the audience engaged and active, but it personalised the topic and the issues for them. To complete the exercise, 50% of the audience (in groups of 3) considered question 1 and selected 1 response that they felt resonated with them; 50% of the audience (in groups of 3) did the same for question 4. The microphone was finally circulated, with a nominated speaker reading out each group’s selection.

Examples of answers (all anonymous) on the sheet that I came away with were 1) Why? “I want my student to have the ability to survive the future”; 2) How? “One thing I do well is detailed instructions”; 3) A moment (of success) “Working with a group of Maori nursing students and having them tell me about the concept of Waiora, mindmapping what they shared on the board and offering it back to them as a structure for their presentation. Tutor as learner/learner as tutor.”; 4) A model/metaphor (for learning and teaching) “Reciprocal learners about life”.

I felt it was a shared reflective activity that appeared to work well. Each person had a ‘voice’ and had the opportunity to contribute to the discussion (although some people chose to opt out). Judging from the responses, people invested time and effort to respond meaningfully. The activity is one I will certainly use in Professional Development sessions with academic faculty, as well as at conferences when I present in the future!

Lisa summed up the exercise by revisiting the questions Why?, How?, A moment, and A model/metaphor. The second and third questions were designed to help celebrate who we are – to help us revalue our profession. At the heart of teaching is the relationship between a student, a teacher and a subject and this is where the models and metaphors are so useful. She suggests that metaphors do not describe reality, but that they create it. The image of the learner as consumer places the learner as passive, as a receiver…also, as a customer, the learner knows what they want, and that they are always right. Also, the metaphor suggests that the institution is the ‘shop’, and the person who sells the product rarely evaluates how the customer uses their purchase.

Other models that Lisa has collected from her other meetings, included co-learner, facilitator, mediators, mentors, guides, colleagues with a serious duty to care, and a co-traveller who sees things that otherwise the learner may miss. She argued that the whole dynamic between teachers and learners would change if the metaphor of consumer were abandoned and replaced with an alternative. The challenge is how this can be opened up for discussion in institutions, and unpicked with students, so that the customer model is left behind.

One analogy that a group of us discussed after Lisa’s session was that of a greenhouse (extending something that someone had written in the session about a teacher as gardener). We felt that the greenhouse idea included the notion of planting seeds, growth happening within each individual seedling, and the learning environment being safe (protecting from frosts), nurturing (the right balance of warmth and moisture, that is constantly monitored). It also allowed for differences (tomatoes not being the same as melons), and the notion that the seedling will eventually be transplanted to the outside world. Could be maybe stretching an analogy to breaking point and beyond, but it does focus on the fact that the teacher cannot do the growing for the learner, and that the learner has to be actively involved in the process.

At the recent ePortfolio Symposium hosted in Melbourne and organised by Allison Miller of the Flexible Learning Framework, there was a great range of practical tips, and thought provoking presentations.

The blurb from the site advises: "More than 140 teachers, trainers, managers and ICT professionals attended the inaugural VET E-portfolios Showcase 09 (VES09) in Melbourne on Friday 16 October, either at the actual event or by participating in free online sessions, to learn from some of the most highly regarded e-portfolio researchers and leaders. Click here to view the full program."

I went to several presentations, and the notes were taken at two that I attended.

Annelieske Noteboom & Christine Cooper, (Challenger TAFE) - The ePortfolio Landscape.

A presentation about Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), it was interesting that the presenters commented that more creative, flexible approaches to ePortfolios would be like having a cardboard box full of paperwork – as an RPL assessor you would never be able to sort through all the paperwork. She said that it was “all very nice to allow students to be creative, but it is not good to have students with an electronic ‘wheelbarrow’ full of stuff”, it needs to be organised". I certainly agree that every ePortfolio should have an element of organisation, and learners should be able to create different views from the collected and developed artefacts, planning, reflections etc. - one of which could be in line with RPL requirements, and easy for an RPL assessor to assess. The creativity is encouraged in the underlying learning and development, rather than, necessarily, in final ‘views’.

The presenters made another point around file consistency – but if the files are hosted online (and shared with only the assessor if privacy is an issue), then the files will stream, and this reduces problems with being able to view/listen to files.

Some initial reticence of participants to actually wear the camera glasses and talk their way through the processes they are undertaking. The camera glasses empower the learners though, as there is no-one there videoing them, but rather they take the video themselves, and if they are not happy with the result they can make another version…until they are happy with the result. Also have the ability to edit the video if they wish to…although I wonder if there are issues with verifiability if students are able to edit RPL videos? Does it matter? Would it not instead make it easier for learners to make sure, according to detailed rubrics that they are meeting requirements?

Gillian Hallan (Queensland University of Technology) - ePortfolio communities of practice: Local, national, global

This presentation (which can be listened to in full by clicking HERE) included highlights of the work that is required around sustainable practice and ePortfolios. Gillian also wanted to examine what was making existing CoPs work, and what stakeholders required to continue to make it successful.

The project started in December 2008 started with a literature review, and two AeP2 symposia and showcases. As part of this, ALTC was set up to as a group site, which includes an ePortfolio section. From March to July 2009 several research activities were undertaken along with a report around the research. Gillian made reference to Wenger’s definition of CoPs, before moving on to describing the CoP lifecycle, which goes through stages of inquire, design, prototype, launch grow and sustain, but many CoPs die just as they are emerging. The research Gillian was undertaking was around why some CoPs are successful, whereas others are not.

Some initial research findings suggested tat there was a 74% interest in a regional CoP, whereas there was a stronger (86%) interest in a national CoP, and reasonable interest in an international CoP (76%). Gillian mentioned that there are a number of communities formed around various aspects of ePortfolios, for example, there are some that are formed around supported learners through PDP (Personal Development Plans), and others that are formed around specific ePortfolio platforms.

The contexts for ePortfolio CoPs were: 1) pedagogy – 75%; 2) discipline based – 60%; 3) technology – 50%. Gillian went on to discuss the scope of collaboration for CoPs, in particular opportunities to collaborate, participate in special interest groups, disseminate information, and the develop further resources. Questions were posed around around whether an ePortfolio CoP should be organic or whether it should be managed. Almost 3/4 of respondents said that they felt there should be a funded CoP manager.

Some of the key factors for success that Gillian’s research identified were: “…our experience is that it needs a lot of mediation”; “Need a leader – need a community manager, without the work I do there is not a community “…a facilitator is critical – particularly around raising awareness”. The audience were surprised by the fact that a ‘manager’ was critical and cited social networking CoPs as an example of CoPs that are often not facilitated. Gillian then mentioned that respondents from the VET sector were much more in that social networking space, whereas many of the HE respondents were not in that same space – it did not form part of their day-to-day life. The large majority of the respondents in this research were from HE as this is the sector the research project was funded to support.

Success factors also included the fact that there needs to be a range of activities, and some face-to-face meetings can be refreshing. On the other hand, too much activity can be overwhelming and exhausting, and this is perhaps were a good facilitator comes in. Some of the main challenges identified included using the technology facilitator workload and community engagement. “Keeping engagement has been the largest challenge – feedback at events s generally positive but how” to measure the amount of activity?”. In a nutshell, there needs to be a balance. To achieve sustainability there are a range of internal and external drivers, including encouraging a broader interest in ePortfolios (e.g. employers), professional accreditation, cross-sectoral engagement, building, and extending national and international relationships.

Gillian concluded by saying that the final report will be a lot more detailed and will include a number of case studies that will present a richer picture of ePortfolio communities. In the meantime, it is important to continue to stimulate interactions and attract new participants, as well as a need to maximise the opportunities to build CoPs at the local, national and international levels.

I was recently at an ePortfolio symposium in Australia, organised by Allison Miller. The first evening a number of ePortfolio platforms were showcased, and these are the notes, reflections and thoughts I recorded during the session.

Concord - http://www.concord-usa.com/scioware.htm

• Use a lot of the 2nd/3rd year students as mentors to the freshers
• Use ePF throughout their time at the college
• One of the features of Concord, can package up different content

Assessment - some thoughts and questions

Not sure about the idea of locking down an artefact. How does that fit in with the notion of organic development? Is this a problem with the focus on assessment as an end product? Would learners still keep ePortfolios if they were not part of the assessment process? Perhaps one way to harness some of the key benefits of ePortfolios without tying them into summative assessment would be to have a ‘completion’ and/or participation grade. One of the things we found at Dubai Men’s College and at Unitec NZ is that it is not until learners have completed the first round or two of ePortfolio tasks, and have their heads around reflection and feedback, that they become aware of the learning benefits they are experiencing by completing their ePortfolios.

I would argue that once an artefact is locked down

1. the learner loses their sense of ownership;
2. they are dis-empowered; and
3. possible ongoing learning experiences may be lost. Some students, in our experience, do continue to polish their designs and extend their ideas.

Desire2Learn ePortfolio - http://www.desire2learn.com/ePortfolio/

• Focus on personalised learning
• Very little common understanding of what an ePortfolio is and can be – is that necessarily a bad thing? However, important for programmes who are going to use ePortfolios to agree on what they are looking for, why, and how it fits in with the general learning outcomes of the programme
• ‘Virtual collections’ – e.g. student studying vet science – take a photo; want to use it in 5 or 6 different contexts
• Web-based technology (can be installed on own servers, or hosted by the provider)
• Key areas: artefacts, collections, reflections, presentation
• Pages built on HTML – edited through a WYSIWYG environment
• Storage space – use the Web based storage facilities, and then link to it in the ePortfolio. Also enables external Web sites to be used as objects to be reflected on.
• Competencies tool = learning outcomes (can take snap shots of achievement)…I wonder what this means. Completion? Assessment / assignment grades? Quality of reflection? Progress in an ongoing project?

Mahara - http://mahara.org/about/eportfolios

• Multiple, tailorable views, using the same artefacts, for specific audiences
• To set up templates for assessment use a control group (closed group, open group, control group). Can put start/stop date as part of the design when the view can be accessed
• With Mahara you can release an artefact back to the student to continue working on

Assessment - some thoughts and questions

Is there the danger that artefacts for ePortfolios are only being created for assessment – glorified essays with illustrations? Do some of the tools focus on tying-down students? I wonder if there isn’t the opportunity instead, to personalise assignments (for authenticity as well as effective learning) in a way that also mimics authentic contexts, or immerses learners in situations that encourage the application of analytical, problem solving skills to authentic problems or issues.

Pebble Pad - http://www.pebblepad.co.uk/

• Assert that ePortfolios can be restrictive, and therefore, that ePortfolios are only one part of Pebble Pad
• Pebble Pad is therefore described as personal learning space

You might like to check out these online, discipline-specific tutorials from the 'Virtual Training Suite'. The blurb on the site describes them as "a set of free Internet tutorials to help you develop Internet research skills for your university course", and goes on to say that "All our tutorials written and reviewed by a national team of lecturers and librarians from universities across the UK". The estimated time for each tutorial is one hour of self-directed study.

The other day, two colleagues asked if I knew of any videos of sound practice around students using laptops in the classroom. Actually, there appears to be a dearth of such material. I have some word pictures I could paint around the experience I have had in Dubai and at Unitec, and I am sure Thom Cochrance could do the same...but not quite as visual as videos :-)

I did however, after some hunting around come up with the range of videos:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzJDuBlIrHc
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYg5ZMo-mA
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj45RmhaCQM
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkXeNR52w_o
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m8Ax5NUHhg
   

While watching the videos, for me a number of fundamental questions arose:

• What are the assumptions around learning indicated by what is said by students and teachers/lecturers in these videos?
• What are the assumptions around teaching indicated by what is said by students and teachers/lecturers in these videos?
• Was there much evidence of 'real' collaboration and co-construction of knowledge?
• What did the educators do to facilitate 'real' collaboration and co-construction of knowledge?

I could go on, but I think four questions are about right! Thoughts, ideas, issues, concerns...?

This was a paper Vickel Narayan and I presented at the eFest meets Teaching & Learning conference, UCOL 2009. It was an interesting experience at a vibrant conference. A time for firsts, it was Vickel's first time to present and write an academic paper for a conference, and it was the first time that we had written and presented together. I felt that we both learned a lot on the way, from each other, from the feedback we gathered from the audience (see below), and from reflecting on how well it went on the day.

It was an interesting audience, and it was great to have much more of a discussion underway throughout the session. There appeared to be a lot of sharing of experiences, strategies, and problems faced, which saw the audience fully engaged. Throughout the session there was also a couple of people Tweeting about main points, and I found this was a great way, afterwards to see how people had interpreted what had been said, and what they saw as central points. It was also great to find out, for example, that the mindmap I had made building on previous work I'd done in 2006, was in fact useful and did illustrate some key factors behind why learners plagiarise.

All in all, judging from the comments, the discussion, and the feedback, I think the audience went away with some new ideas and approaches, as well as affirmation that they 'not alone'! :-)

To access the accompanying handout: http://www.scribd.com/full/20133056?access_key=key-2kh798rentwwpywxfd9l

To access the full paper: http://www.scribd.com/full/18077894?access_key=key-2d8r0452hsbwlgdffwx7

Feedback

• Excellent; general overview; positive approach to manage plagiarism
• Session was great. Just enough time to have our discussion!
• Liked the suggestion: getting students to have constructive dialogue about plagiarism
• Love the handout w the links. Thanks heaps. T
• I enjoyed the session but needs longer time for discussion
• Plagiarism is a lot more than I realised
• Important - see a way to move from punitive to formative
• "Use a free tool for formative use" - this was a new idea for me! Thanks for all the links - I will use
• Good to see Turnitin as a formative tool rather than punitive
  
• Turnitin as a tool - not the answer
• Thanks for the references
• Cultural issues seem to be the main factor but I value the deterrence factor and want to improve arguments

Abstract: Plagiarism is a global issue that needs to be addressed by all educators and learners. This paper considers a simple definition of plagiarism, and then briefly considers reasons why students plagiarise. At Unitec NZ, Te Puna Ako: The Centre for Teaching and Learning Innovation (TPA:CTLI) is working closely with faculty, managers, student support services and library personnel to introduce strategies and tools that can be integrated into programmes and curricula whilst remaining flexible enough to be tailored for specific learners. The authors therefore provide an overview of one of the tools available to check student work for plagiarism - Turnitin - and describe the academic Professional Development (PD) approaches that have been put in place to share existing expertise, as well as help staff at Unitec NZ to use the tool in pedagogically informed ways, which also assist students in its use. Evaluation and results are considered, before concluding with some recommendations. It goes on to theorise how blended programmes that fully integrate academic literacy skills and conventions might be used to positively scaffold students in the avoidance of plagiarism. Conference participants will be asked to comment on and discuss their institutions' approach to supporting the avoidance of plagiarism (including the utilisation of PDS and other deterrents), describe their own personal experiences, and relate the strategies they employ in their teaching practice and assessment design to help their learners avoid plagiarism. It is planned to record the session so that the audience's narratives can be shared with other practitioners.

Please cite as: Owen, H., & Narayan, V. (2009, 29 Sept - 01 Oct). Pedagogy, Policing or Preventing Plagiarism? Experiences with facilitating Professional Development and Turnitin. Paper presented at the Teaching excellence - excellence in teaching: Teaching and Learning Conference Meets eFest 2009, Universal College of Learning (UCOL), Palmerston North.

The “The Web: End of the classroom era?” debate today at the eFest meets Teaching and Learning Conference, was well-attended. Initially the rules around the debate were established: panel of 6 people, 3 affirmative (in agreement with the statement) and 3 negative (in disagreement with the statement). Both panels were seated on the stage. The audience and a red and green voting paper. There was an adjudicator and a timekeeper. Each panel had 3 minutes each to speak.

The first speaker was from the affirmative team, and began by giving some statistics around online learning. Learners in online courses spend more time on task than in purely face-to-face contexts, and achievement of learning outcomes is higher. The second speaker from the panel in disagreement, responded by coming from the ‘human’ aspect – human teachers for human learning. It was interesting that face-to-face was seen as a positive approach for emotive factors, and being able to ‘see’ where learners were at, and what they were feeling. There appeared to be no understanding around the range of tools that can facilitate these same factors, the fact that somehow face-to-face learning is better – that there is no boredom, more engagement, more opportunities to contribute. Joyce was quick to challenge these ideas, pointing out that in face online it can be more democratic, that more learners have a voice, can create an identity. She recommends the You Tube video: Mr Winkle awakes. The Internet releases the teacher from the information transfer model and frees them up to debate.

The next speaker did not rebut any of the previous points, saying that she felt nothing had been said that needed to be rebutted! She feels that the Internet caters for the trivial, and referred to Andy Warhole’s 10 minutes of fame. The Web lets inadequate, foolish people express their thoughts, and the Web can deceive. You can’t trust the Web and there are perils and traps for young players. The next affirmative speaker chose to rebut the previous speaker’s points. He pointed that Ivan Illich foresaw the Internet. Schools and classrooms are industrial strength learning and that this is not the sort of learning we need. He quotes Illich’s book around conviviality. Learners are reliant on teachers and the system that makes education work. Learning is what happens on the Internet, and that will usher in the post-industrial age.

The final person from the disagreement panel, Colin Cox made a comment about the fact that he had not heard the previous speaker as he was Tweeting. He than gave an overview of his flight from Auckland to Palmerston North, pointing out that pilots who had learned in a simulated environment would not have the skills to really fly a plane.

Next stage was to throw things open things open to the audience for questions and comments. The first person from the audience made the point that simulators have been used to train medical professionals and pilots for years; that dentists were being trained in second life. The rebuttal made the point that the classroom is as big as the world – which played directly into Joyce’s hands – who pointed to the title of the debate!!

A question from the audience asked why eFest took place in a classroom on Tuesday. It was argued that eFest in fact had started months before in wikis, through Twitter, in Skype meetings – in a collaborative, globally diverse participants. The one laptop per child initiative enables children to connect to each other, even if they are not able to connect to the Internet.

One of the audience pointed out that she felt nervous about contributing to the discussion, but if she were online she would be able to contribute more comfortably. She poses the question – are teachers motivated by popularity, and their ‘ego’, when students appear to ‘love’ them?

A final comment from the audience pointed out that he could’t imagine his kids picking up the skills they currently have in an online environment…like kicking a ball.

A final vote from the audience was requested after a  humorous summary of the main points made in the debate. It was a close call. The adjudicator declared the debate a draw given the quality of the debate and the spirit behind it!!!

I heard the people behind me say that it had been the best part of the conference. It certainly provoked passionate responses that showed the depth of commitment and feeling educators invest in their ‘calling’.

“If people knew how hard I had to work to gain my mastery, it would not seem so wonderful at all” Michelangelo

This post describes a session given by Colin Cox at the eFest meets Teaching and Learning 2009 on October 1st 2009. It focussed on talent, motivation and myelin! It posed the questions: do you do what you do because you have natural talent? Mystery about how to people have talent, what is it, and where does it come from?

A session that explored what the components that make talent and how you ‘grow’ talent. It was a quite interactive session, which involved for example speaking to the person sitting next to you and asking what they felt talent is, and then collecting some of the responses from the audience verbally. Only about 30 seconds per question was given, but the replies indicated that it was just long enough for people to formulate ideas and replies. The answers indicated quite a cross-section of opinions around the subject of talent, its source, and how/if it can be enhanced. Some key ways that were seen as effective ways of enhancing the potential of learners in education, including coaching, self-belief, practice, mentoring, commitment, opportunity.

Some examples of people with talent were Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Jerry Rice, Shane Cameron, and this then moved to a discussion of ‘nature or nurture’. If it isn’t nature then the conclusion was that it would exclude a lot of people. The question was also raised about excellence or mastery in any endeavour and if it was about innate talent, IQ, memory, physical prowess, motivation, practice or a combination.

The example of Tiger Woods was unpicked, and the notion of the fact it was hard work and role models that made the difference as opposed to genetics (although genetic potential does determine height, weight, and muscle mass). By his first major competition at the age of 17 he had already been practising golf since he was 1 ½ years of age.

The next area that was explored was short-term memory (cited the 1978 Carnegie Mellon University study). Cox role=played the part of SF who was able to remember 22 digits after hearing them only seconds before – 1 per second. The amount of effort was physical and emotional. With 250 hours of practice SF was able to recite back 88 digits having only heard them once – 1 per second. The short-term memory is something that can be expanded and extended with practice. The records are now being broken regularly, from 102, to 3 card decks (52 cards in a deck). It was emphasised that SF had average ability.

IQ was the next subject to be put under the spotlight. A study around sales people and horse racing was cited, and looked at who was the most successful, given the information that they have, at predicting results. IQ was not a predictor of success – the lawyer (IQ 118) was not as successful as a construction worker (IQ 85), with the construction worker using more complex formulae, and a success rate double that of the lawyer.

Cox gave an overview of the ‘Myelin secret’ – it’s not about neurons and synapses it’s about Myelin, the neuron insulator. The more you do an activity, the more it insulates the neuron, which takes a neuron from basic functionality to ‘super’ functionality that enables quick responses, thinking and interconnections. Neurons are stimulated by outside actions and influences; the first time you do something neurons fire slowly and are relatively ‘uncoordinated’ – the more something is done, the more the myelin insulates the neurons, and the better the performance of the neuron. Einstein’s brain was the same size as the average person but it had a lot more white matter – myelin.

As an overview, Cox concluded with a discussion of:
1) passion; passion maximises talent because talent requires effort and time, and is not always fun; Where talent meets talent, the person becomes unstoppable. Initially, the passion is not there; there is the requirement for a role model who encourages people to try something. Once a person tries something and realises that they are quite good at something, then this can translate to passion that helps you overcome difficulties and hardships. It helps when the role model is also passionate.
2) practice; it is not any old practice that makes the difference, it is ‘perfect practice’. The elite don’t just practice, they do deliberate practice that is designed to improve performance, and helps the individual identify specific elements for improvement. What meaning has this for students? The comfort zone is not your friend! Life needs to include challenge, things that push you outside of your comfort zone – things you do not know how to do. However, the ‘panic zone’ is also a negative space where a person is pushed too far, which often results in an individual giving up and/or withdrawing. Each student has a different range of comfort, learning and panic zones, so learning experiences need to be tailored to the individual. Practice is the ‘mother’ of skills and includes observation, imitation and repetition. It includes focussed work that builds myelin. Anders Ericsson says the 10-year (10,000 hours) rule appears to be consistently accurate – i.e. it takes 10 years to master something, whether it is playing a musical instrument, playing a sport, excelling in a career.
3) Feedback is vital when you are practising.

A thought-provoking session, with a lot of application for education, and helping learners meet their potential.

Not only are the conversations on the Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence-based Learning (AAEEBL) site lively, but there are some great resources being shared that members have developed. For example, this list of resources around reflection for learning compiled by Helen Barrett. The particular focus is ePortfolios, and it is a good place to start if you are looking for ideas and would like to join in the conversation.

Bettina Schwenger and I recently presented at The student experience: HERDSA 2009 in Darwin. As part of the presentation we asked participants to add details to the mindmap pictured below - the original mindmap only included the nodes that have images. Participants collaborated in pairs or small groups to add to the mindmaps, and we collected all of their contributions at the end of the session. The results have been collated and added to the original mindmap, which has created an insightful visual resource into beliefs around Professional Development and the embedding of Literacy, Language and Numeracy into programmes.

At the end of the presentation we asked for evaluation of our session via sticky notes that were left on the door as people left, and received some very positive comments which have been collated below. In particular, it was reassuring to see the comments about the transferability and generalisability of the model in particular, and the approach to PD as a whole.

Resources

• Link to our presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/hazelowendmc/supporting-academic-development-to-enhance-the
• Link to our handout: http://www.scribd.com/share/upload/13811344/16po9clq1zj2zeys7rrp
• Link to the full paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17624375/Supporting-Academic-Development-To-Enhance-The-Student-Experience-Handout-of-resources-HERDSA-2009

Feedback from the participants at the session:

• Well presented and food for thought in dealing with resistant teaching staff. Thank you
  
• Great project. Well done
  
• Great model (transferable to any T& L context or group) for meaningful PD engagement of academics. (Could be replicated with students)
  
• Generalisable model. Thanks
  
• Inspiring. Good stuff
  
• Provoking. Thanks for some great ideas
  
• Thought provoking.
  
• Breaking down barriers
  
• Interesting pictures on slides
  
• Nice symbolism
  
• Used accessible terminology
  
• Excellent. Good job. Well done.

Mindmap
Link to the 'live' mindmap (pictured below): http://www.mindmeister.com/23798819/building-capability (you will need to access the online version to be able to view the full mindmap :-) )