Ed & Tech must-reads 160626

Sunday Sharing: only 8% of my learners use the AI tutors I build for them, but 98% of them love my AI feedback bot from LinkedIn

This is a relatively short post from Philippa Hardman but it shows us when and where students see value in GenAI tools. In running weekly bootcamps about AI learning design, she eats her own dogfood and provides AI agents serving as tutors and one which provides feedback. While engagement with the tutors is low, students are confident that there is a human in the feedback loop, reading all generated feedback (and presumably tweaking as needed) before it is released to learners. It very much boils down to trust. There is also a pretty rich discussion thread following on from this.

Assessment 2030 Designing Lane 2 Assessments from Curtin University

The idea of two lane assessment is now reasonably well accepted, wherein in some cases we minimise or eliminate the potential use of GenAI to assure learning and in other cases it is permitted. It is permitted in these “lane 2” assessments for a variety of reasons ranging from making responsible GenAI use a part of student practice in preparation for ‘the real world’ to the more pragmatic ‘well we can’t always stop them’ view and to the even more pragmatic position of ‘lane 1 assessments are labour intensive, this lets us cut marking costs’.

Lane 1 assessments get the lion’s share of attention because assurance of learning is a high priority for accrediting bodies. Lane 2 assessments have been taken less seriously but this rich guide from the Office of the DVCA at Curtin University (Perth) puts us back on the right track (sorry). Mollie Dollinger and her team provide a straight-forward but thorough guide to designing ‘open’ assessments which in the best instances students can engage with to develop their learning.

Webinar - Centres of Gravity? Reframing the role and value of Learning and Teaching Units Thurs 25th June 12pm AEST from ASCILITE TELedvisors Network

The work, structures and value of centres for teaching and learning in tertiary education is something which has been on my mind for a while now. For all the good work that many academics do in their teaching practice, few have actually been formally trained to be an educator. Childcare educators and K12 teachers complete lengthy qualifications to educate their students but when it comes to the people expected to guide learners to the highest levels of educational attainment, a disciplinary degree and maybe some tutoring are deemed just fine. So, we have centres for teaching and learning. Often small, often optional, they nonetheless (can) employ academic developers, learning designers and educational technologists to build the capabilities of academics in a range of directions. Nobody could have a problem with that could they? Of course you know where I’m going here. According to some they ‘degrade the classroom’ using ‘pedagogical jargon’ (you mean theory?). I have previously reported the sensible responses to these.

This month the TELedvisors Network presents two leaders responsible for such centres, Ruth Greenaway from Southern Cross University and Kevin Ashford-Rowe from Queensland University of Technology. They will explore the breadth and depth of CTLs and consider how they might work best. (Hint - not by creating massive silos)

If this is an area of interest for you, the International Journal for Academic Development is now calling for articles for a special issue on Academic Development through an Organisational Lens, which will no doubt spend some time on these centres. Abstracts for this are due October 31st.