Program - Research Fest 2011

Events will be held in the Education Building (A35) at the University of Sydney.

Time Event Location
9:30 - 10am Registration / badge pick-up Staff Common Room (level 4)
10 - 10:10 Welcome from CoCo, CHAI & LATTE Lecture theatre 351
10:15 - 10.45 Keynote by James Dalziel, Professor of Learning Technology and Director of  MELCOE at Macquarie University. Lecture theatre 351
10:45 - 11 Morning Tea Staff Common Room (level 4)
11.05 - 11.45 2 x 40 min poster sessions with 5 min break Levels 3 & 4
11.50 - 12.30  
12.30 - 1pm Lunch Staff Common Room (level 4)
1 - 1.40 2 x 40 min Roundtable sessions Levels 3 & 4
1.50 - 2.30  
2.30 - 2.45 Awards and closing  Lecture theatre 351


Reflections on Learning Design: It’s not rocket science, it’s a lot harder.

Presented by James Dalziel, Professor of Learning Technology and Director of the Macquarie E-Learning Centre Of Excellence (MELCOE) at Macquarie University. James leads a number of projects including: LAMS (Learning Activity Management System); MAMS (Meta Access Management System; RAMP (Research Activityflow and Middleware Priorities and ASK-OSS (the Australian Service for Knowledge of Open Source Software).

While the ultimate goal of Learning Design is to propagate new and effective teaching strategies among educators in order to improve student learning, early work in the field has focussed on technical standards and software development, and more recently, the processes of describing, sharing and adapting effective teaching strategies, particularly in online contexts. This presentation will reflect on the progress of Learning Design to date, and its prospects for future theoretical development and practical adoption.


Title Chairs Room
Session 11 - 1:40pm    
Designing the Educational Design Research Studio Beat Schwendimann (CoCo) & David Ashe (Coco) 452
Designing Interfaces for Learning: Towards best practice in the multimedia design of digital learning environments Dorian Peters (CoCo), Catherine Caws (University of Victoria, Canada) 458
Sketching the outline of university learning progression: Bloom, SOLO, AQF or what...? Judy Kay (CHAI), Richard Gluga (CHAI),  Tim Lever (CHAI), Catherine McLoughlin (ACU) 459
Teaching Teachers for the Future: Exploring the different interpretations, applications and experiences of TPACK Vilma Galstaun, Shannon Kennedy-Clark & Kate Anderson (Sydney School of Education and Social Work) 461
Session 2 : 1:50 - 2:30pm    

Taking assessment online

Mary-Helen Ward (Sydney eLearning)

Analysing the architecture of productive learning networks Lucila Carvalho (CoCo) & Peter Goodyear (CoCo) 458
Touch me, listen to me, move me: learning through new multimodal interfaces. Rafael Calvo (LATTE), Judy Kay (CHAI) & Andy Dong (Design Lab, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning) 459

Session 1

Designing the Educational Design Research Studio

What tools and settings can support effective collaborative work of design teams? The educational research design studio (EDRS) aims to investigate this research question as part of Peter Goodyear’s Laureate Fellowship project. The EDRS will offer an innovative physical and virtual space for design teams. It will become a research laboratory to enable the investigation of collaborative processes of design and design teams (for example education, engineering, architecture, fashion, and software design).

The roundtable will commence with a short presentation, by Beat Schwendimann and David Ashe, outlining the goals and setting of the educational research design studio (EDRS) followed by a discussion of potential tools for, and other requirements of, design teams. Your input is welcome and will help us formulate the design of the design studio. Please join us at this roundtable if you have experience working in design teams, are interested in design, or would like to find out more about this project.

The questions opened to the floor for discussion include:

What innovative settings could improve the collaborative work of design teams?
What tools do design teams require and what tools would they like to have access to?
How do design teams work collaboratively?

Designing Interfaces for Learning

People have different requirements when they're learning than they do when they are shopping, chatting, or information-seeking on the web. HCI principles that apply to business interactions and information foraging may not always apply in the learning context. So it's time to stop pretending learners are the same as all other users and get better at the way we design for them. Furthermore, how users learn, and thus how an interface should support them, can depend on their age, their level of content expertise, their previous experience, their conceptions of learning and even potentially their learning styles. It’s a complex area and we need to start digging in. User Interface research that is specific to learning needs to take place, and the research that already exists in various fields including HCI, Education, Design and Psychology, needs to be consolidated. If we want to see digital learning experiences come of age, we need to take the digital design of them seriously which means we need to build a body of shared knowledge, encourage desperately needed user research in the area, and work towards best practice specific to the design of interfaces for learning.

Dorian Peters, Educational Multimedia Coordinator at the CoCo Research Centre, and Catherine Caws from the University of Victoria in Canada will chair the roundtable.

Come join us as we put some of these questions on the table...
Which current literature and fields of research could contribute to a body of shared knowledge for Learning Interface Design?
Should interfaces be designed to support specific pedagogical theories.
Could Educational Design Patterns be used to develop guidance for professionals in this area?
What avenues are there that could help launch thinking and research in this interdisciplinary area (eg. conference workshop, a special issue, etc.)?
What guidance could we give professionals already working in this area?

Sketching the outline of university learning progression

The need for effective ways of visually capturing and communicating the learning progress achieved in university study grows continuously with rising expectations of university learning quality and transparency at individual and community level. This workshop provides a forum for reviewing a variety of old and new curriculum visualisations from a cross-disciplinary perspective, and for clarifying some of the underlying communication requirements that need to be addressed in representing a university curriculum to a broad educational audience. Participants will be able to explore the limits of cross-disciplinary communication in curriculum matters, develop a critical appreciation of existing methods and tools of curriculum visualisation and stretch their visual imagination in attempting to conceive better alternatives.

Judy Kay, Richard Gluga and Tim Lever will guide participants in reviewing a set of alternative visual representations of university learning progression and determine their own preferred model from the perspective of their different discipline teaching environments and a basic set of common curriculum communication requirements. Participants will take away a substantial collection of old and new curriculum visualisations and a clearer appreciation of the needs and opportunities on the curriculum visions in current use. Participants are asked to bring their own pencils and rubbers. Sharpeners and paper will be supplied.

The questions opened to the floor for discussion include:

How to best define learning progression at whole-program level
How to ensure comparability/continuity of student learning attainment across different years/levels within the same program
How to ensure comparability and continuity between learning attainment in different disciplines – is a common approach with common standards a feasible proposition?
How important is it to differentiate between the expectations of a bare-pass vs. top-decile students at the curriculum design level?

Teaching Teachers for the Future

As part of the national Digital Education Revolution (DER) all pre-service teachers need to develop both understanding and competency in embedding information and communication technologies (ICTs) into the content areas through a TPACK framework (Department of Education, 2008). A Government scoping study indicates that the most common forms of ICT currently used in classrooms are PowerPoint and basic internet searches (Education Services Australia, 2010). These forms of ICT do not make best use of the potential learning possibilities of ICT. This project is aimed at developing the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers via sustainable integration of ICT in pre-service teacher education programs for both primary and secondary teachers.

TPACK is a framework that is used to describe teacher knowledge for the integration of technology into a classroom environment (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The framework can be used to provide a technological solution to a pedagogical problem. TPACK is an extension of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1986). While pedagogical content knowledge focuses on the development of understanding of how students learn specific content areas – their perceptions of the content being learned, common misconceptions that they have about the content, and teaching approaches that can maximize students learning; TPACK focuses on the “the connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints between and among content, pedagogy, and technology” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 125). Other researchers have suggested similar ideas to TPACK including integrating literacy, ICT related PCK and electronic PCK (Schmidt et al., 2009). TPACK emphasizes a teacher’s understanding of how technologies can be used effectively as a pedagogical tool (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

However, TPACK is a relatively parsimonious framework, which is flexible in terms of the types of ICTs used, the content areas within a subject discipline, the degree of collaboration, the pedagogical approach, the learning outcomes, the extent of ICT integration and the role of the teacher. In this roundtable we hope to unpack TPACK in order to provide different examples how we are developing pre-service teachers’ knowledge of TPACK both in terms of theory and practice. We hope through this roundtable to involve the audience in generating discussion on TPACK.

Vilma Galustan and Shannon Kennedy-Clark will open the roundtable with a background of TPACK and curriculum redesign in core ICT units of study. The questions opened to the floor for discussion include a) How is TPACK interpreted in curriculum redesign, b) How can ICT be embedded to develop TPACK in units of study, c) How can Faculties sustain this type of systemic change?

Session 2

Taking assessment online

This Roundtable aims to discuss some of the ‘new frontiers’ of assessment – why you might want to think about using new tools to assess student learning, and what the pitfalls might be.

Universities make many tools available for assessing student work online – quizzes, discussion boards, blogs, and eportfolios. In addition, the technology we’re carrying in our pockets can be used by students to take photos, make videos or audios, or even undertake ‘treasure hunts’ or other structured activities. In this roundtable we can share ideas about creating assessment tasks that get students actively involved.

May-Helen Ward, Education Design Manager of Sydney eLearning will chair the roundtable.
Some of the following questions might come up:
Has anyone asked students to use their mobile devices (phones, ipads etc) to create assessable material other than text? Can you tell us what you did, why, and what happened?
What would stop you doing this? Are there any pitfalls or downsides to students creating assessable material that isn’t primarily text-based?
What about getting students to keep video or text-based diaries for assessment? Why would you do this, and what outcomes might you expect?

Analysing the architecture of productive learning networks

What characterises a ‘productive learning network’? What are the key structural relations involved in ‘productive learning networks’? Our research aims at identifying the essential elements existent in learning networks (which can include physical, digital, human; tools, texts, artefacts; explicit or implicit rules and others). By capturing and analysing these key elements, we hope to explain how such structures realize the functions necessary for learning to occur, within learning networks.

In this roundtable Lucila Carvalho and Peter Goodyear will show some examples of learning networks, discuss why they think these are interesting and how they may help us to understand ‘key elements’ of productive learning networks.

The questions opened to the floor for discussion include:

What are the key elements in these examples?
What features seem to work well? Or do not seem to work well?
What is an example of an interesting learning network?

Touch me, listen to me, move me: learning through new multimodal interfaces.

Until recently digital technologies used to provide one form of contact: keyboard and screen. The digital and physical worlds had clear media differences, and these differences influenced learning strategies. Now new technologies are reducing the gap. We can use movement, touch, speech, even facial expressions and physiological sensors to improve the way we communicate with the computer.
In this round table we will discuss different perspectives on the physicality of technology-enhanced learning.

Rafael Calvo will outline the aims of the roundtable and describe research on how these new interfaces can be used to understand better our students, for example, by detecting their affective states.
Judy Kay will describe research on new interfaces such as tabletops, and range cameras that can be used to recognize gestures and enable new Human-Computer Interfaces.
Andy Dong will investigate aesthetic uses of tangible interactions and ways in which they can help students understand data.

The questions opened to the floor for discussion will include:

Can these interfaces provide new actual benefits? Like what?
What is valuable in an interface?
How do we make sure these new interfaces are used?
How do we make sure they benefit student learning?


Download posters abstracts for more detail.

  1. Pre-service teachers' views of science: Coherence and consistency across context
    Anindito Aditomo
  2. Learning in and out of the classroom: The activation of productive mental resources
    David Ashe
  3. Understanding Teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Higher Education: The mental resource perspective
    Shaista Bibi
  4. Social Networks in e-Learning Systems
    Daniel Burn
  5. Examining Writing Phases and Revision Types from the Group Online Collaborative Writing Google Docs: What can We Learn from Them?
    Nani Handayani
  6. Patterns of Collaborative Convergence in a Scenario-Based Multi-User Virtual Environment
    Shannon Kennedy-Clark
  7. Technical and Vocational Education (TVE) teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to ICT supported teaching learning
    Shahadat Khan
  8. Who are these kids? Identity in online community language schools
    Janica Nordstrom
  9. The Impacts of Integrating Online Discussion Forums into F2F Reading Classes on High School Students’ Reading Comprehension
    Yahya Qenaey
  10. Towards a paradigm of slow: Applying a slow pedagogy to ICT-rich learning
    Miriam Tanti
  11. An empirical study of the characteristics of contributions made to multidisciplinary Instructional Design team meetings when aided by visual representations
    Dewa Wardak
  12. A Framework Supporting “Forgetting” in Personal Lifelong Informatics
    Debjanee Barua
  13. Brainstorming at a Tabletop
    Andrew Clayphan
  14. Unravelling The Curriculum Conundrum
    Richard Gluga
  15. Collecting and analysing information from collocated collaborative learning settings
    Roberto Martinez
  16. Towards a Generic Framework for Automatic Measurements of Web Usability Using Affective Computing Techniques
    Payam Aghaei Pour
  17. Fusion approaches of detecting affect from multichannel physiology
    Md. Sazzad Hussain
  18. Question Taxonomy and Implications for Automatic Question Generation
    Ming Liu
  19. Detecting Affective States from Head Movements in a Naturalistic Human Computer Interaction
    Hamed Monkaresi
  20. Making a Difference – Innovation in Assessment
    Belinda Allen, Kate Coleman & Adele Flood
  21. Adaptive eLearning – an Intelligent Medium for Assessment and Feedback
    Dror Ben-Naim, presenting, Andrew Wilshire
  22. Learning Technology by Collaborative Design and Evaluation
    Vilma Galstaun, presenting, Chun Hu and Wai Yat Wong
  23. Supporting Quantitative Research In Creative Fields: The Myth (?) Of The 'Lone Statistician'
    Sue Gordon, presenting, Anna Reid and Peter Petocz
  24. The Virtual Eye Clinic: A new vision for teaching in the medical curriculum
    Tony Succar & John Grigg
  25. Looking at the whole picture: a simple solution to improve students’ understanding of research
    Rachel Thompson and Rosanne Quinnell presenting
  26. GLUE!: An Architecture for the Integration of External Tools in Virtual Learning Environments
    Carlos Alario-Hoyos
  27. Video Feedback in Quizzes - Making Lectures Relevant to Assessment
    Nonie Politi
  28. Productive Networked Learning: Meeting Literacy Challenges
    Ana Pinto
  29. Process mining to support collaborative writing
    Vilaythong (ToTo) Southavilay