I was lucky enough to attend the HERDSA (Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australasia) Conference 2019. At this conference I
learnt a great deal which I could not possibly capture in a single blog post.
However, there was one thing that hit home during the questions following
Professor Peter Felten’s keynote: “Relationships matter: Moving
relationship-rich experiences from the periphery to the center of undergraduate
education.” That was about office hours.
A fellow delegate mentioned a study which found that a large number of
students do not know what an office hour was for. Additionally, several
students were under the impression that office hours were for academics only
and that students should not approach
academic staff during this time.
In his keynote, Professor Felten encouraged us to reflect on the
research which indicates that many students “do not routinely experience
educationally meaningful relationships with peers and academic staff,” and
consider how we can move to ensuring that “our institutions are places of
relentless welcome, deep learning, and whanaungatanga for all students.” The
impact of two words, one term, on student’s access to a valuable student
support structure, and a way of building meaningful relationships with academic
staff, truly shocked me.
Easy solutions were readily found – altering to the term “student hours”
rather than “office hours” was suggested to place an emphasis on the student
and the relationship, not the location. But this little worm had firmly
embedded itself into my head. As I am part of the team that runs the Ako
Aronui: Pathway to HEA Fellowship, problems with office hours weren’t a new
concern. Although our participants are familiar with the purpose of the
concept, we very rarely have attendees to our virtual office hour.
Despite the title, I found three useful tips in the article:
offering a virtual office hour, by
skype, zoom or similar, for students that might not be able to come to their
scheduling office hours when their
students can attend;
and using an online scheduler for
As a result, we have just started exploring a few booking systems,
including Qualtrics and Microsoft Bookings, to see what works well with Outlook
and what is embeddable within Blackboard. Switching toward an appointment-based
system should encourage productivity and allow for relationships to flourish – watch
If you are thinking about giving this a go with your students, consider the Blackboard Booking System (found under Course Tools).
It is more than a rumour that the
university is currently undertaking a review of its Learning Management System
– known to all and sundry as Blackboard.
AUT has used Blackboard as its LMS since
2003, providing an online space for lecturers to post learning material for
students, and to also mediate online collaboration, discussion and assessment.
Blackboard has provided the digital glue that also gives access to a number of
other online platforms, including e-portfolio, video capture, feedback
interfaces and the management of student assessment.
It must be said that the current provision
of Blackboard has been almost faultless for the past five or so years – I think
I only recall one ‘outage’ in that time, since ICT upgraded some of the
internal hosting systems. The problem that calls for a review is not
performance but design and user experience. The current underlying Blackboard
software goes back to its earliest versions, from around 1997. For anyone still
in education who remembers the last millennium, mobile devices were not
invented and web design and navigation were in their infancy. I survey I
conducted with AUT staff in early 2017 suggested (by some) that Blackboard was
clunky, out of date and difficult to navigate. As a university, we have been
long overdue for another serious look into how we provide students with an
exceptional digital learning experience.
So what is this LMS review expected to provide?
It is not fundamentally an evaluation of Blackboard as a product. We know that the current experience of Blackboard (Bb Learn) is past its use-by date and will not survive far into the future. There is a new, very different offering called Bb Ultra, and one option is to simply upgrade to Ultra and stick with the Blackboard platform.
However, it is a shared view at executive
levels of the university that since it is basically twenty years since the
first LMS evaluation, we should be totally re-thinking what we want digital
learning to provide. It is also widely acknowledged that as a university we
have recently under-invested in technologies for learning, and it is time to
provide some focus on this area. In an attempt to answer that curly question ‘What
do we want a digital learning experience to be?’, working groups have been
consulting with both staff and students to gather opinions, ideas, personal
preferences and ideal worlds. A decision is expected sometime towards the end
of the year as to what our preferred direction will be.
Whatever the final decision, the rollout of
the new LMS will be seen as an opportunity to not only update our user
interface, but to provide a once-in-twenty-years chance to refocus our
engagement with online and digital learning. If the decision is to stay with
Blackboard there will still be a strong focus on enhancing learning and
teaching designs to get the best out of digital pedagogies. Our students expect
it, and as 21st Century academics we should be providing nothing
Senior Digital Innovation Advisor, Centre for Learning and Teaching & AppLab
learning technologies, i.e. technological tools capable of assisting and
supporting educational processes, have proven to enhance learning outcomes
across educational sectors and contexts. One key characteristic is that they
are continuously changing and evolving in unpredictable ways at an increasingly
rapid rate, representing an ongoing challenge to educators and practitioners.
Some of the current examples of recent digital learning technologies are the
‘immersive’ technologies and platforms, including augmented reality (AR),
virtual reality (VR), and 3D visualisation. Up until recently, immersive
digital ‘affordances’ (learning possibilities offered by technological tools)
have commonly been addressed and considered in isolation in educational practice,
probably due to their novelty and progressive evolution.
In the past
ten to five years or so, this approach started to shift towards integrating
immersive digital affordances around a particular context and/or setting, with
the aim of creating a ‘continuum’ of digital experiences based on the
combination of different technologies, tools, platforms and affordances. This
notion of ‘digital continuum’ was initially proposed as such during the mid
1990s by Milgram and Kishino (1994), and is what is known today as ‘mixed
reality’ or ‘mixed realities’ (MR) in educational practice – at least to most
mainstream practitioners. The underlying notion is that a MR digital continuum
goes from the ‘real environment’ (RE) end, where no digital immersion exists, all
the way to the fully digitally immersive VR end, where digital immersion is at
its full (see Figure 1).
and practitioners regard MR as the natural evolution of the previously isolated
use and application of immersive technologies, like AR and VR, in educational
practice. MR as a learning mode, instead, places attention on the combination
of digital tools, affordances and platforms offering integrated learning
experiences. One crucial aspect of MR learning experiences in education is that
they can offer a variety of learning ‘points’ to accommodate a range of users’
characteristics, expectations, cognitive frameworks and needs.
state-of-the-art MR literature currently expands the digital continuum view –
rooted in Milgram and Kishino (1994), to now consider MR environments including
a multi-variety of dimensions, technological tools and platforms, and embodied
user engagement modes, creating interconnected learning ecosystems (see for
example Mann et al., 2018; and Speicher, Hall & Nebeling, 2019). This new
approach is called ‘XR’, at least by some given the ongoing naming debate. Here
the ‘X’ means ‘’anything’ reality’, accounting for the existing technologies
and denoting the imminently yet-to-come emerging digital affordances. In this
view MR/XR multi-dimensional immersive environments are approached and
understood as a dynamic ‘medium’, offering targeted and flexible user
experiences leading to user-centric learning processes, as depicted in Figure
point here is that MR/XR as an educational approach opens the door to
conceptualise technology-enhanced learning from a completely different and
transformative epistemological perspective. From focusing on individual and
isolated use of immersive technologies as ‘learning tools’ that can enhance and
augment learning experiences and outcomes in education, to now going beyond
hardware and software and consider collaborative contexts (space), situations (time),
emotions, haptics, embodiment, and culture as key components of an integrated
and intertwined dynamic ‘whole’.
remains in knowing how to ground such epistemological take in contextual
practice; and most importantly, without leaving behind the importance of
considering non-technology mediated experiences fleshly lived in the real world
as a key component of MR/XR. This last does not simply means engaging with the
real environment (RE) in passive ways almost by default just because it is ‘out
there’, but on the contrary, as an actively facilitated authentic learning
strategy where experiences in the real environment and the real world are
clearly defined and complemented by the digital. This being what I call the
‘real reality’ (RR) component of MR/XR learning ecosystems.
C. (2017). AR/VR/MR & RR in learning and teaching digital projects. In Paper presented at the THETA 2017
Conference: Connecting Minds. Creating The Future, 7-10 May, Auckland, New
D., Dede, C., Huang, R., & Richards, J. (Eds.) (2017). Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education. Springer.
Mann, S., Furness, T.,
Yuan, Y., Iorio, J., & Wang, Z. (2018). All reality: Virtual, augmented,
mixed (x), mediated (x, y), and multimediated reality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08386.
P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems ,
Speicher, M., Hall, B.,
and Nebeling, M. (2019). What is Mixed Reality?. In CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings (CHI 2019), May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15 pages. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3290605.3300767
If I were being formal, I would start with explaining that my approach to designing online learning spaces is from a user experience perspective, drawing from The Universal Design for Learning Guidelines and is contextualised within the Aotearoa New Zealand context. What I really mean by this is that I want my online spaces to be ones that learners want to occupy.
Digital tools are reasonably ubiquitous, with the majority of courses having some online presence. However, frequently online spaces are a filing cabinet rather than a learning space. I like to conceptualise the online space as its own learning environment and therefore, ask myself some of the questions I ask when I am designing face-to-face learning environments, in particular in this case:
How am I practising manaaki
(hospitality, care and kindness)?
How am I welcoming my learners?
Is the space inviting from a learner
It is more
straightforward to know how to welcome and create an inviting environment in a
face-to-face context as opposed to an online one. I don’t have the answer to
making the perfect online learning space – if I did, I would be writing a
patent application rather than a blog post. So here are just five simple things
I have picked up on developing more inviting online learning spaces:
1. Always check your content from the student perspective
This first one might seem really simple, but it is often forgotten. As you are building something for your learners, it is important to see it through their eyes. It has saved me several times when I have forgotten to make a piece of content visible! On Blackboard, use the student preview feature, perhaps go one step further and see what your content looks like on the devices your students might have using the “Inspect” tool on Chrome. The Blackboard student preview tool is particularly useful as it starts you from the home screen – what the students first see when they arrive. As you can see from the test course I used in the video below, my test home screen isn’t very inviting or welcoming at the moment.
2. A stitch in time saves nine – plan your space in advance!
This planning falls into two parts – planning the overall structure of what content, activities and interactions you want your students to have, usually based on the existing course structure (e.g. lecture topics and the weeks of the semester) and then the planning of how you are going to layout this content. I do this through creating a wireframe or a storyboard –with the very high-tech paper and pencil method! Here is a quick sketch wireframe which I did to plan a particular section and how it turned out:
3. The three-click rule
The three-click rule is an unofficial rule in
web-design that every piece of information should be within three clicks of
arriving at a webpage. While there is criticism of this rule, I find it really
helps with creating clean and clear navigation. When you plan the layout of
your content, consider how many clicks your students will take to get there –
the more clicks it is, the more likely it is for your learners to get lost.
4. Mix your media, but make it accessible
As discussed in the framework for Universal Design for Learning, providing multiple means of representation and communicating using various media types has been proven to be more effective for learning. So, mix your media – include video, audio, text, images – but consider the diverse learning community you are teaching. With videos and audio, captioning and transcripts are essential so that all students have access, and are beneficial for English as an additional language learners. All images should have alt-text (this is called Image Description in Blackboard) for screen reader users. Leicester University has an excellent guide for what makes good alt-text.
5. Evaluate and Reflect
Evaluation of your online learning spaces is
critical – ask for feedback, look at the usage stats, and reflect on what these
mean. You don’t have to wait to the end of an iteration of a course to seek
feedback or evaluate how it is working, or not working as the case may be.
However, at the end of an iteration, do take the time to evaluate, reflect and
refine – and make a note of what you did, it might be useful for a teaching reflection
at a later date! In this reflection
process, I always go back to my three original questions:
How am I practising manaaki (hospitality, care and kindness)?
One of CfLAT’s main roles is to work alongside staff to help with
the design (and redesign) of papers
and programmes. We offer support and guidance on all aspects of curriculum
development such as creating a graduate profile, designing assessments and planning
evaluation strategies. In this blog post, I’m going to talk about one approach
we are using to help teams consider the design of teaching and learning
activities, using a method called ABC.
What is the ABC learning design method?
The ABC toolkit has been developed
by University College London. (ABC stands for Arena Blended Curriculum –
‘Arena’ is a strategic teaching and learning project at UCL)
ABC helps teams to visualise the range of activities they would
like their students to engage with across a paper. Around 70 international institutions are currently
using ABC to support curriculum design.
During a 90-minute workshop, teams are asked to consider the
sequence of activities across the length of the paper. Participants are given a set of cards, each
of which represents a learning activity, and they work together place these on
a timeline of the paper. The team is then asked to consider how these
activities can be supported, particularly through the use of technologies. At
the beginning of the workshop teams think about the overall balance of
activities and then review these once they have created their timeline. By the
end of the workshop, teams have a storyboard which they can use as a basis for
building their paper.
The toolkit is under a Creative
Commons licence, so can be adapted to suit an institution’s local context. Piki
Diamond, Learning and Teaching Consultant and Herewini Easton, Learning and Teaching
Advisor, have built on the existing ABC approach to encourage teams to think
about how Māori philosophies and approaches can be threaded through the
curriculum design in a meaningful way. We are using Mana (integrity, dignity,
authority) as the foundation to support this work – how can we design
activities in a way that will raise
the Mana of our papers, programmes, lecturers and learners? How can make
sure the teaching strategies we adopt embody Mana? By doing this, we can
support staff to create exciting, relevant bicultural curricula that honour our
obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi and promote AUT’s values. As Herewini
says “it’s not about embedding
Mana into the curriculum, but it’s about extracting the Mana from within the
What are the activity types and where do they come from?
There are six types of activity that staff are asked to consider:
These activity types have a theoretical foundation – they were classified
by Diana Laurillard in her research on the development of the Conversational
Framework (2012). The different strands of Mana draw on the five Strands of Te Whāriki, The Early Childhood
Curriculum (Ministry of Education 2017), and the work of Rose Pere
(1997). The principles of constructive alignment (Biggs and Tang, 2011) also
underpin the ABC approach – what kinds of activities will help learners meet
their learning outcomes and allow them to complete the assessments? As a result
of an ABC session, teams may decide that they may want to revisit the paper’s outcomes and
How have we been using ABC at AUT?
We are currently using ABC with a number of paper and programme
teams. These teams are both reshaping existing papers and designing new ones.
Feedback has been favourable – in particular participants liked:
the rapid design approach – that within 90 minutes, teams have a clear structure for their paper;
the way in which ABC encourages participants to think about how existing teaching supports Māori worldviews and how their practice can be developed to strengthen their approaches;
the support for thinking about how the blend between the classroom and online spaces could be better developed.
Would you like to try ABC?
We’d be very happy to run an ABC workshop for those teams developing an individual
paper and especially programme teams wanting to develop a suite of papers.
Working on a set of papers – for example across the first year of a programme –
ensures greater coherence in the student learning journey, supports dialogue
between teaching teams and identifies opportunities and challenges. You might
be at an early stage in your understanding of how to consider Māori worldviews.
Please don’t worry – the ABC session is intended as a way identifying the kinds
of activities you would like to build into the course and then we can support
you further to explore exactly what this means in practice.
The concept of ako describes a
teaching and learning relationship, where the educator is also learning from
the student …. Ako is grounded in the principle of reciprocity and also
recognises that the learner and whānau cannot be separated. (Ka Hikitia, 2008,
Many articles and
strategies acknowledge the conceptual notions of Ako since its published
inception as a humanistic paradigm of an effective teaching and learning
development model by Dr Rangimarie Rose Pere (1982). From the original stage as
a concept, to its re-constructing as principles (Bishop & Glynn, 1999), Ako
has become a philosophical teaching and learning framework, that eventually
encouraged the New Zealand Ministry of Education to acknowledge the importance
of Ako as a teaching and learning ‘method of reciprocity’.
What is the problem?
The problem is that many educators only see Ako as one
word and act accordingly. However, there is a vast font of knowledge resting
within that one word that needs exploring to find a deeper understanding of Ako
and its application in the learning environment.
presentation of Ako uses the art of etymology to expound the dimensions of Ako
and to expose the concepts within.
unconditional shared pathway of disseminating knowledge through teaching and
learning. It is in kaiako – teacher, akonga – learner and akomanga
– learning environment and is transferable in a range of contexts. Ako could be
described as Came et al suggest ‘transformative knowledge development’ (Came,
Warbrick, Doole, Hotere-Barnes, Sessa, 2019).
effective teaching and learning to occur, there needs to be Koa, satisfaction
and enjoyment. The kaiako needs to be satisfied and happy with their paper,
content, context and delivery. The akonga needs to enjoy the learning and
exploration of their papers and its content. They need to be reflected in the
style of delivery and at ease within the learning environment.
Kao: NO! This
is the dimension that allows the kaiako or the akonga to negate, query,
critique or disagree with content or context of knowledge development. It is a
safe space to challenge the status quo and to offer something else in its
the known to the unknown. Taking the critique from Kao, the kaiako and akonga
can collaboratively de-construct to re-construct.
Ao: Ka to ignite, Ao universal. Ka Ao,
transformation of knowledge from understanding to enlightenment to a wisedome (wisdom).
Ka Ao is when the kaiako and akonga share that moment of,” I get it now”. The
is both to teach and to learn and reflects the role-reversal and reciprocity of
teaching and learning. In understanding the dimensions of Ako, there is Koa, enjoyment and happiness to teach and
learn. There is Kao, saying no to challenge ideas and concepts, so that Oka,
can help to de-construct to re-construct. From this process comes Ka ao,
enlightenment and illumination, the Ako moment.
So, how can the dimensions of Ako support the transformation of knowledge to inform your practice?
Bishop, R &
Glynn, T. (Eds.) (1999). Culture Counts:
Changing Power Relations in Education (1st ed). Palmerston
North. Dunmore Press Limited.
H.A. Came, I.
Warbrick, C. Doole, A. Hotere-Barnes & M. Sessa (2019): He hokinga ki te
mauri: strengthening te Tiriti o Waitangi public health education in tertiary
education settings, Teaching in Higher Education, DOI:
Ministry of Education. (2008). Ka Hikitia Managing
for Success: Māori Education Strategy 2008-2012.
(p.20) Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government.
Pere, R. R. (1982). Ako: Concepts and learning in the Māori tradition. Wellington: Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board
The Centre for Learning and Teaching has provided a wide range of academic, research and technology-enhanced learning services for almost ten years, and 2019 looks like being one of our most transformational years yet.
All those involved in the academic work of
the University will perceive the shift of focus back to the quality of teaching
and the student experience, now that we can turn our gaze away from PBRF for
the next while. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s Leadership Cluster continues to
explore what we mean by ‘exceptional student experiences’, and CfLAT is
critically placed to inform and implement much of this work.
As a challenge to a teacher-centred view, I would suggest that quality teaching is not actually the ultimate objective of our work. The critical outcome is the quality of student learning – how do we make a significant difference in the capability of our graduates to be valued, respectful, productive members of our wider community? The critical component is a focus on student activity, student interactions and relationships, student engagement. While teaching staff are clearly key facilitators of this learning, quality teaching is not the desired endpoint.
In my thinking about quality learning, I am
frequently reminded of the work of Professor Diana Laurillard and her
Conversational Framework of learning. Prof Laurillard’s premise is that
learning is a change in understanding of content and concepts, and this change
develops from (often internal) dialogue, whereby a student reflects on and
challenges their current conceptual framework, and moves that framework in some
way. Providing activities and creating opportunities for that dialogue are the
bits of teaching that creates effective learning.
I am aware that my three young
grandchildren will most likely live into the 22nd Century – can we
imagine the society, the workplaces, the technologies, the leisure activities
that they will be part of through this time? Our role is to develop young
people to be resilient, to be adaptable, to be accepting of change and
difference, and to focus on their place in that society. We are in a time of
very rapid change – socially, technologically and economically. As educators we
have chosen to take a role to make a difference in our students’ lives – the
wide range of skills and experiences within CfLAT can play a significant part
in this role.
I invite you to subscribe to this series of blog posts from members of the CfLAT team on a regular basis. I trust there will be ideas and challenges here that will inspire you and your students.