MeMyself&I

Archive for the ‘design-based research’ Category

And so my research journey continues with an amazing reward that I never dreamed of getting.

I am relatively new to research and getting my paper reviewed is always the aim when I submit. I figured that even if the paper doesn’t get accepted there remains significant learning to be had – the reviewers’ feedback is often very enriching. But getting a paper accepted at a prestigious conference gives me a different level of buzz. To me it means a possibility of getting a fair hearing for what I have to say and share, as well as getting valuable feedback.

I have a 100% acceptance rate to date, as I said I am very new to all this so this outcome alone I find overwhelming. One of my ‘critical friends’ advised me to “enjoy it while it lasts” that the longer my acceptance record keeps, the worst the feeling of the first rejection. I brace myself  every time and am always preparing for the worst. Well now I am throwing caution to the wind… as noted in my earlier post, I want to share this journey. Let this be the small beginning of my sharing.

My recent submission with a collaborator was at ED-MEDIA. When the reviewers suggested to consider submitting the paper to the International Journal of eLearning I was ecstatic because up until this point, I had been too scared to submit to journals. I have always been envisioning failure not success! 

Recently, I have been celebrating the paper’s selection to receive the Outstanding Paper Award, which will be presented in Honolulu, Hawaii the day before the allocated presentation slot at ED-MEDIA 2009. I have just finished preparing for the presentation, see the slides below or download the presentation notes pages version.

Advertisements

Being passionate about my belief is one thing, finding a reliable source for validation about such belief is quite another.  The wisdom of Punya Mishra goes a long way when convincing others about the value of contextual learning:

Teachers learning to use technology for pedagogy is best achieved by situating them in contexts that honor the rich connections between technology, the subject matter (content) and the means of teaching it (the pedagogy). This led to a pedagogical approach we have called Learning Technology by Design.

I have been a follower of the TPACK approach for sometime but can only manage to apply it in a one-to-one project-based situation, e.g. when involved in major course redesign projects. The TPACK framework has become intrinsic in my practice, so much so that I no longer think about it, it just happens. Time and again I’ve observed the holistic development of those with whom I collaborated, becoming advocates and mentors themselves. Reconnecting with Punya’s writing tonight reinforced once again why we need such a framework.

In the coming weeks, my goal is to continue the journey that I’ve started, collaborating with academic staff to learn technology by design. This time though there are opportunities to foster community of practice.

I felt it important to record my thoughts here about approaches to academic development as I take part in an institutional-wide project , a big component of which is shifting existing mindsets about the use of learning management systems and associated tools and features.

Grades have been finalised and are about to be released for T2 2008, with pleasing results and important points for reflection that are critical to future implementation of the auditing course. One important point in particular is the frequency of course offering. Attrition rates and performance-related issues are significantly higher in T2 for off-campus students historically. One of the possible links might be high demands in the workplace with end of financial year reporting and planning activities for many working students.

In the second cycle of implementation of our design-based research in the auditing course, preliminary data suggests the need to revisit the timing of course offering for off-campus students. Currently, the course is offered every term, i.e. Term 1 – AICs, Regional, Flex; Term 2 – AICs, Flex; Term 3 – AICs. 

The design of the auditing course is such that it requires a minimum of 12 hours in-depth participation with the course material, with teaching staff and with other students to complete course work. One of the inherent weaknesses in the design is the prescriptive-nature of the activities which suits one cohort of students but problematic for another particularly those who are working full-time.On the one hand, some teaching staff at AICs report that the design is effectively helping students’ active engagement in the course. Some off-campus students also report that the design of the course gives them focus and is helpful to their time management for work, home and study. However, on the other hand, some off-campus students report that they just want to complete assignments on their own, prepare for the exam without the need to interact with others, and that they can manage their time better this way.  The latter was the approach used in previous offerings of the auditing course, where the failure rate was significantly higher and a great number of students were failing the course multiple times.

Should we consider embedding choices for students in the design of learning and assessment? What might be the implications for practice, and the quality of student learning experience? One of the tacit design aims for the auditing course is to develop capacity for students to become better learners, many approaches for which require time investment on the part of the students. But many in the off-campus cohort are time-poor students whose motivation for enrolling in a degree is not always intrinsic.

It is perhaps worthwhile to survey both 2008 T1 and T2 off-campus students to determine future improvements to the auditing course that meet the needs of different cohorts of students.

It has been a while since I posted, which can only suggest that I’ve been busy elsewhere. Indeed I have been pre-occupied, implementing and evaluating the first cycle of design-based research involving the machinima initiative. But I should have been formatively sharing the research journey here… no excuses in the second cycle of implementation 🙂

This project is funded by CQUni Learning and Teaching Grants in which the aim is to:

investigate ways in which a particular model of learning, namely cognitive apprenticeship may be embedded in traditional pedagogical approaches such as lectures and tutorials. The key objectives of the study are threefold: identify learning and teaching strategies based on the principles of cognitive apprenticeship; develop teaching and learning resources that support this model of learning within the accounting education context; and evaluate the impact of this pedagogical approach with a group of students in an auditing course. An increased value placed on teaching and quality of student learning outcomes is the core aim of the research.

We have disseminated preliminary findings at a couple of internal forums at CQUni available here: Presentation 1 – Cognitive Apprenticeship in Accounting Education, Presentation 2 – Second Life Machinimas.

A refereed paper will also be published at the proceedings of ascilite Melbourne 2008 Conference, titled Bringing ‘second life’ to a tough undergraduate course: Cognitive apprenticeship through machinimas.


Blog Stats

  • 10,573 hits

My Tweets

RSS My Links

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Flickr Photos

Advertisements