Tag: learningdesign

Two student having a conversation via video.
Creating Value & Memorable Learning Asynchronously: Dialogic Pedagogy for Dialogue Tools 

Creating Value & Memorable Learning Asynchronously: Dialogic Pedagogy for Dialogue Tools 

By |

A perpetual challenge we (instructors, instructional designers, teaching assistants, learning engineers, educational technologists, and anyone learning online) encounter with online teaching and learning occurs in the absence of live engagement: how do we facilitate and engage meaningful exchanges within the classroom when there are no classes or classroom? (For the sake of brevity, I am excluding the parallel difficulties of engaging organic dialogue in a face-to-face classroom.) 

Though we have learning technologies within our supported Loyola tools that are capable of facilitating asynchronous conversations, how might we make those exchanges memorable learning activities? Daisaku Ikeda’s Soka pedagogy might provide those of us designing engagement activities for our asynchronous learners with a compass aimed at value creation in education. 

Meeting Ikeda and value creation dialogue 

I was first introduced to Ikeda’s value-creating dialogic pedagogy as a College of Education graduate writing group facilitator at the DePaul University Center for Writing-based Learning. In our writing group meetings, doctoral candidate Melissa Bradford (now part of the DePaul College of Education teaching faculty) shared across her drafts the power of Ikeda’s dialogic pedagogy that unfolds in a mentor-mentee relationship.  

Born in Tokyo in 1928, Daisaku Ikeda was among the first generation of schoolchildren educated in the Japanese wartime indoctrination system (Goulah & Ito, 2015, p. 57). Ikeda’s experience of human loss, militant subjugation, and postwar chaos encountered surprise at the worldview of Josei Toda, an educator with a faith-based and peace-oriented opposition towards Japanese wars of conquest. After hearing Toda speak at a Soka (literally value-creating) Gakkai (Society) meeting, Ikeda subsequently became Toda’s student and mentee (Goulah & Ito, 2015, p. 58).   

Melissa’s focus on Soka, or value-creating, pedagogy emphasized the importance of dialogue between invested interlocutors. Through intentional and ongoing dialogue, building a mentor-mentee relationship also becomes possible. The underlying heritage of Soka pedagogy seeks to “engage students in learning to learn and to derive wisdom from knowledge to create meaningful value in and from any positive or negative situation” (Goulah & Ito, 2015, p. 60). To clarify, value-creating pedagogy does not signify an instructor imparting their values onto their students, but rather, value creation refers to the collaborative meaning that rises out of engaging with self and others.  

Connecting value-creating pedagogy to Jesuit values 

As a Blue Rambler (DePaul Blue Demon and Loyola Rambler, anyone?), I am in a serendipitous intersection to connect Vincentian personalism with the Jesuit value of accompaniment. Through facilitating dialogue between peers, we provide opportunities for us to recognize the dignity of our fellow colleagues in a class by cultivating community and strengthening a mentor-mentee relationships. These interrelated missions, though stated by different schools and denominations, underlie our interconnected and human-centered values.  

In Thoughts on Education for Global Citizenship, Ikeda posits that “students’ lives are not changed by lectures, but by people” (Ikeda, 1996b, p. 31 qtd. In Goulah & Ito, 2015). Though prerecorded lectures may be a central means of delivering content in an asynchronous online course, how might we consider engaging interactions between people? 

Try a learning design: Value-creating pedagogy with asynchronous dialogue tools 

One teaching and learning approach and mindset shift we can make is rethinking our student-instructor interactions, even asynchronously. Instead of simply assigning closed discussions for the sake of a knowledge check, how might we engage interactions in a class aimed at collaborative value creation? As an organic bonus, how might value creating pedagogy help students achieve learning outcomes through our learning design?  

Here are some learning design goals that might be generalizable across disciplines, paired with a possible option for asynchronous tool-based dialogue: 

  • To facilitate community amongst peers within an academic or professional field.  
  • A corresponding learning design choice could be a dialogue tool such as VoiceThread or Piazza.  
  • To cultivate a mentor-mentee relationship and/or offer higher-level thesis advising. 
  • Recurring informal checkpoints or brainstorming dialogues through native Messages or Discussions tools in Sakai. 

More to Consider 

Like any use of technology-based teaching and learning design, a tool can only take you so far: framing the purpose and context for engaging with the tool is vital to the impact of the learning design. Some student-based ideas for engagement offered by Georgia Tech might help you craft intentional prompts for meaningful dialogue.  

Finally, our Loyola Learning Technologies & Innovation team invites you to join us for more dialogue ideas at our upcoming webinar Talk It Out: Enhance Learning with Asynchronous Dialogue Tools in Sakai on Thursday, 3/20 at 11am.  

Works Cited  

“Engaging Students with Online Discussions.” Center for Teaching & Learning. Georgia Tech. https://ctl.gatech.edu/engaging-students-online-discussions 

Goulah, J., & Ito, T. (2012). Daisaku Ikeda’s Curriculum of Soka Education: Creating Value Through Dialogue, Global Citizenship, and “Human Education” in the Mentor–Disciple Relationship. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(1), 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2011.00572.x 

 

 

Teaching Strategies for “the ChatGPT wave”: Transferable Lessons from Proctoring Tools

Teaching Strategies for “the ChatGPT wave”: Transferable Lessons from Proctoring Tools

By |

Read time: 5 minutes

In my popular culture research, a cultural movement often carries the referent of a “wave.” Example: The Hallyu movement of the 1980s to 2000s (debatable depending on the scholar you consult) refers to a “wave” of Korean popular culture beyond the nation’s borders.

In my day-to-day work, I might use the referent “wave” to refer to the conversation en vogue in the fields of teaching, learning, and academic integrity: in this instance, let’s use the referent “the ChatGPT wave.”

But first, a quick blast from the past [three years] for context:

Higher education conversations about assessment in digital learning environments rarely avoid a debate on academic integrity. From my experience—and likely yours—this specific debate maps itself on a spectrum ranging somewhere from “enforcing academic integrity with the latest and most stringent means available” to “recognizing no perfect enforcement is possible and does not seem productive to ensure student learning”.

My emphasis here is on two points, to be revisited very soon: (1) that no flawless enforcement of academic honesty is possible with a tool; and (2) that a fixation on enforcement of not cheating rather than a focus on fostering student learning leads to costly outcomes for all.

Perhaps this diversity of positions on assessment with academic integrity emerged rather sharply during the emergency move to online learning per the COVID-19 pandemic. The immediate legacy might be summed up in some phases: faculty unrest for a technology-based solution to prevent students from cheating, a hasty adoption of an inadequate solution, uncomfortable and stressful assessments for both its administrating faculty and its examinee students using said inadequate solution, then a quick abandonment of said inadequate solution due to privacy violations (some of which are undergoing legal disputes, well within our region).

As we embark on the amazing frontier of AI (artificial intelligence) authoring tools, let us brace ourselves for the ChatGPT wave by remembering to prioritize student learning rather than hunting for cheaters. Here are some teaching strategies for AI authoring tools like ChatGPT, very much informed by our recent misadventures with proctoring tools:

Remember that a tool is not a human. Just like the highly touted and speedily adopted proctoring tools of yesteryear cannot guarantee or completely safeguard cheating by a human student, ChatGPT and AI tools share an obvious quality: ChatGPT is not a human student. A human demonstrates learning for a specific learning outcome, whether by sharing a sentiment or committing an error that is irrevocably human. Looking for signs of life might mean creating space for students to show their human selves, perhaps by engaging conversation about something fun to them, or posing a writing prompt that is more specific to their periphery of being, or assigning something creative or audio recorded. If you assign work that is general and without connection to your students, expect machine-like responses.

Revise your learning objectives and corresponding activities for someone who wants to learn. As an instructor, I find my essential job description, whether I am teaching professional business writing or instructional design, is to facilitate meaningful learning experiences for my students. Many times, essential charge prompts reflection and revision of my coursework and assessment designs. Rising to the occasion of facilitating meaningful learning is an easy move when students want to learn. National enrollment in higher education has seen better days, so being interesting seems like a project of mutual interest for faculty.

Find help for the things you don’t know. Since my start in the field of teaching and learning support, I have seen resources and services grow rapidly in the name of faculty teaching online and with instructional tools. It is highly likely that your place of teaching extends such resources and services to you, if only you seek them out. “Closed mouths don’t get fed,” as the saying goes, and in my experience, if you don’t ask for help, you will only fall more behind. Technologies are always updating and departments may shift in structure, but you can control your own course (pun intended) by looking for those that literally have in their job descriptions to help you.

Learn about the tool’s development and limitations, and share this with your students. OpenAI, the developers behind ChatGPT, are very transparent about its testing process and limitations as an AI authoring tool. Some key and critical limitations to note so far include a proclivity to outputs that are “toxic or biased” with made-up facts; and an English-speaking, and therefore cultural bias “towards the cultural values of English-speaking people.” Having a conversation with your students about such limitations makes for transparency in your class while addressing the serious possibilities for mis-presentations of self. Who wants to be seen as toxic or treacherous?

If we have learned anything from the Test Cheating Scare of 2020, let us brace for this ChatGPT wave with clarity of purpose as instructors, and aim for human exchanges with our students.