Katarina Mårtensson keynote – Significant conversations in academic microcultures

Dr. Mårtensson‘s research formed much of the foundation of the plan for the Taylor Institute. Specifically, the macro/meso/micro layers within an organization, and working with each layer in various ways to draw people into the community. Her keynote at the 2017 University of Calgary Conference on Post-secondary Learning and Teaching was great, and nicely connected many …

Continue reading “Katarina Mårtensson keynote – Significant conversations in academic microcultures”

Dr. Mårtensson‘s research formed much of the foundation of the plan for the Taylor Institute. Specifically, the macro/meso/micro layers within an organization, and working with each layer in various ways to draw people into the community. Her keynote at the 2017 University of Calgary Conference on Post-secondary Learning and Teaching was great, and nicely connected many of the threads of the conference.

Ignite sessions at UofC Conference on PostSec Learning and Teaching

We tried something new (for us) this year, and had an Ignite session during the Taylor Institute’s annual conference. It was a risk, as we had never hosted that format before, and none of the 6 presenters (for 5 presentations) had ever done an Ignite. Nevertheless, we persisted. I got talked into being the (humble) …

Continue reading “Ignite sessions at UofC Conference on PostSec Learning and Teaching”

We tried something new (for us) this year, and had an Ignite session during the Taylor Institute’s annual conference. It was a risk, as we had never hosted that format before, and none of the 6 presenters (for 5 presentations) had ever done an Ignite. Nevertheless, we persisted.

I got talked into being the (humble) host for the event, introducing the format and acting as emcee between presenters. Each presenter provided their slides earlier in the week, so I had time to smush them all into one master presentation file and apply the automatic slide progression for their decks.

Photo by Susan Cannon

I have to say – I’m extremely proud of each of the presenters. They took a HUGE risk in trying the Ignite format, and they all nailed their presentations. The audience was very supportive and enthusiastic, and that led to some great presentations as the presenters fed on the energy and vice versa. I had meant to take some photos during the session, but being the emcee made that difficult. It was amazing.

I had never hosted an Ignite session, but would do it again in a heartbeat. Thankfully, I had the opportunity to give an Ignite presentation, at the Discovery Education Network’s event at the Barley Mill back in May 2016. Dean Shareski hosted that session wonderfully, and I found myself channeling my inner Dean throughout our session.

The Ignite session format worked really well – we had 5 extremely diverse presentations – some technical, some philosophical – all in a keynote-style all-hands session, with all conference attendees gathered in the Forum to participate. I have to say – I love that conference style so much more than running 7 simultaneous tracks of longer sessions, which breaks up the community and spreads it into smaller pockets. There’s a need for broad interdisciplinary coming-together, as well as deep context-specific being-together.

Photo (I think) by Jessica Snow

Production notes from this… I sent out an intro and plan by email to the presenters a couple of weeks before the conference, outlining how the session would flow, and the technical requirements. I sent a couple of follow-up emails to make sure people felt comfortable, and to see if they had questions (and, nervously, to confirm that they were aware of the Ignite format).

All decks were created and submitted as PowerPoint files, and I created the master deck as a PowerPoint file as well. I asked presenters to stick to the 16×9 HD aspect ratio, but they were free to do whatever they wanted with their 20 slides.

There were some very minor technical glitches from combining all 5 presentations into a single deck. Each had used different themes, which meant fonts and colours were wonky in the master deck (I creatively used the “Office” default white template, to keep things neutral). Also, some slides had used background image rather than inserted images. Turns out, background images don’t survive the combinification process intact. Not a big deal, but some manual futzing and recreation of images was required. I’m sure a PowerPoint expert would laugh and say “haha! Just click the ‘don’t mess up merged presentations’ button!” (or some such). Whatever. You’re not the boss of me. Copy/paste/fix/repeat/done.

For the master presentation, I had a few slides as an “Intro” section that described the plan, described what an Ignite-ma-thingy is, and then listed the 5 presentations. Then, each presentation had a title card that I added as an untimed padding to give people a chance to get set up before hitting “GO!”. When they were ready, they gave me the signal, and I nudged to the first slide of their deck. 15 seconds later, auto-progression to the next slide, etc., through their whole deck. At the end of the 5 minutes, the presentation landed on a neutral untimed padding slide (with an abstract image), and a bell gave the signal that time was up. Quick emcee duties, transition to next presenter, and then “GO!” and they’re off! Repeat until all 5 presentations are complete.

After the presentations were finished, Natasha took over as emcee, and masterfully led the question-and-answer and discussion. I had asked the audience to take notes of things they had questions about, were inspired by, or wanted to more about as the presentations flew by, so they would be able to remember their points during the post-discussion. This worked well – giving the prompt to remember questions led some to actually make note of things they wanted to ask, which led to a fantastic discussion.

Feedback from presenters and attendees was extremely positive. I think we’ll likely be looking at trying the format again, if not expanding it in some way. Lots of ideas already…

Lessons learned: AV systems design in the Taylor Institute

We’ve been in the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning‘s new building for almost a year now, and it’s time to step back and reflect on what we’ve learned through that first year. The building itself is a marvel of architecture, design and technology. We’re extremely fortunate to be able to go to work there … Continue reading “Lessons learned: AV systems design in the Taylor Institute”

We’ve been in the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning‘s new building for almost a year now, and it’s time to step back and reflect on what we’ve learned through that first year.

The building itself is a marvel of architecture, design and technology. We’re extremely fortunate to be able to go to work there every day. It’s been a constant source of inspiration – not the building, but the amazing things that instructors, students and staff are doing within it, together, on a regular basis.

Several key design principles were used to guide the design at every stage of the process – most importantly, transparency and flexibility. The main floor of the TI is a wide open space, with lots of glass, high ceilings, and windows. The light is amazing. It feels like a space that matters, and that instructors and students matter because it’s for them.

But, designing the audiovisual systems that power the learning studios in a way to enable that kind of flexibility and transparency was a real challenge. We couldn’t just stick large displays on the walls – because many of the walls are glass – and the ones that aren’t glass are Skyfold retractable walls that get folded up into the ceiling to combine studios.

We also couldn’t install permanent floor-mounted displays, because the spaces needed to be quickly adapted for different uses and layouts – each class can use the spaces differently, and sometimes they even change the layout of the room on the fly during a class. We needed technology that would support that kind of flexibility.

We (the broader team, led by The Sextant Group) came up with “collaboration carts” – 33 standalone units on the first floor, each with a 50″ touch display mounted to a stand with wheels. They can be plugged into floor boxes throughout the learning studios, and can be easily repositioned (or removed) as needed. We’re able to do everything from presentations to active learning sessions to collaborative project work to academic conference digital poster sessions, changing the layout quickly as needed.

Here’s a basic schematic of the bits of kit that power these collaboration carts. The carts themselves are really just the 50″ display, a webcam, and an ethernet connection that sends input data to the computer that controls that cart and sends back the video signal for display on the screen. All of the computers are on another floor in the building, in a dedicated server room.

This design gives a level of flexibility I’ve never seen anywhere. Each of the 33 collaboration carts can be positioned anywhere in the learning studios on the first floor, and the system discovers where they are and routes data accordingly. The instructor (or students) can control what happens to the room from a simple Crestron panel on the podium – switching the room from “presentation mode” where the facilitator can display content from the studio PC or their own laptop, and push it to all displays in the room (including the projector and any collaboration carts that have been deployed in that studio). Participants can see the presented content up close on the nearest collaboration cart display – and this has turned out to be a wonderful benefit in line with Universal Design for Learning.

From that Crestron panel, the studio can be switched over into “active learning mode”, turning each of the collaboration carts into a standalone unit to support small group collaboration. In this mode, participants can use the carts for Skype for Business calls (although that hasn’t actually been used, aside from demos), or launch Chrome or Firefox browsers to access any web-based content or software (including Office 365, Google Docs, Prezi, Padlet, Top Hat, and various domain-specific tools including chemical molecule viewers).

The carts also have a “present media” option, that activates a Mersive Solstice Pod for wireless presentation of media (or screen sharing) from participants’ own devices. it works on macOS, Windows, iOS and Android devices, and doesn’t require a dongle or cable for people to share their work. It’s been a really powerful tool, used pretty regularly by students.

We’ve also discovered that students love having access to the studios when there aren’t classes in session. Students have colonized every square inch of the TI, and are regularly working together in the learning studios (and occasionally watching Netflix or even dragging in a PS4 to play on the big screens…) – but by and large, they actually come together to use these amazing technologies to work on projects together. I’m really glad we decided to take the risk of leaving the studios unlocked during operating hours for the TI – our initial plan had been to leave them locked when not in use by a class. We took a risk by changing that, and so far it’s been extremely successful by letting students adapt the spaces and technologies to support their own learning.

So, what have we learned about the design of the AV systems in the first year? Mostly, everything has worked as designed. With the sheer number of units in the building, of course there were failures. Thankfully, that was covered under warranty, so we were able to get replacements quickly. But, the warranties all expire at the end of this month. Gulp.

1. Evergreening. We were in the honeymoon period during the first year, with warranty periods covering everything. That’s about to expire, and we need to plan to evergreen – replacing and upgrading portions of the system each year to make sure it keeps working as needed and we’re able to incorporate new technologies.

2. Fragility. The flexibility built into the system has been absolutely incredible – empowering people to do cool things without needing much more than a quick orientation – but, the state of the tech when the building was designed meant that the level of flexibility came with a cost. There are many points of failure – often, if a collaboration cart goes down or acts up, there are literally 15 different things to check, several trips to the mezzanine floor to reboot things and tweak configurations, and eventually the tech comes back online. But which of those 15 things did the trick? When there’s a class in session, we’re not about to methodically go through 15 trips upstairs and back downstairs to verify each step. We have time to make sure cables are seated, and reboot the smallest number of devices without bringing the rest of the studio or first floor offline in the process.

In the 2 years since the systems were designed, there are already new technologies that have the potential to greatly simplify this design, reducing the reliance on interconnected systems from different vendors (and hoping the interconnection keeps working).

3. Support. We’ve come up with what I think is an ideal support model. Instructors who teach in the building have to apply for space on the TI website, and a committee reviews applications to make sure what they’re wanting to do is feasible. Once they’re approved, we assign a staff member to be their designated first contact, who then liases with the rest of the team as needed. It’s meant we can learn much more about the courses and what instructors and students are dong, while still pulling support from the various groups in the TI as needed.

We’ve also launched a “TI Learning Technologies Coaches” program – 2 undergraduate students who are available to work with instructors and students to help brainstorm strategies before or during classes, and then pull in other team members to expand that support as needed. Drawing on the experience of students has been fantastic, helping instructors to think through some of the things they’re wanting to try from the perspective of students before trying them in an actual class.

4. Stewards. Because of the extreme flexibility of the learning studios, they can be kind of a mess at the end of each day. We have 2 student “TI Stewards” who take care of the studios, resetting technologies, clearing whiteboards, moving the tables and chairs into a common default position, and helping students clear the building before it closes. This has been a huge success.

5. Letting go of control. We had initially planned to leave the learning studios locked when there was no class in session. We let go of that, and it was a huge success. We have instructors doing weird things in the building. Our initial reaction was “is that allowed?” but we’ve always wound up responding “sure! that sounds awesome! how can we help!” and as a result, we’ve had life-sized african elephants made of newspaper, or volumetric data visualizations with a raspberry pi-powered fog machine. And lots of other weirdnesses. Let go. Amazing things happen.

UCalgary conference on post-secondary learning and teaching

Our annual conference is coming up quickly – the call for proposals is open now (closing Feb 3, 2017 – less than a month away!). This is one of the things I’m most proud about. This conference has grown from a small, mostly-internal thing, to an incredible and deep conference with an amazing community vibe. … Continue reading “UCalgary conference on post-secondary learning and teaching”

Our annual conference is coming up quickly – the call for proposals is open now (closing Feb 3, 2017 – less than a month away!). This is one of the things I’m most proud about. This conference has grown from a small, mostly-internal thing, to an incredible and deep conference with an amazing community vibe. It’s now drawing participants and presenters from across Canada, and has a surprising number of international participants as well. This has become my one must-go-to event each year (which is handy, considering I work in the building and help to organize and run it) – and I would easily rank it as one of the top conference experiences I’ve ever had.

I’m looking forward to this year’s conference – May 2-3 2017 at the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary. The theme is “Conversations that matter”, and we’re planning some really interesting things to happen throughout the conference.

Day 1 will begin with a welcome from Dru Marshall, and then an opening plenary that will include Dawn Johnston, Leslie Reid, and Jennifer Lock (all absolute rock star Associate Deans Teaching and Learning), followed by a day of awesome sessions and a digital poster session – last year’s poster session was the most active and engaged I’ve ever seen at a conference.

Day 2 starts with a keynote by Katarina Mårtensson, from Lund University, Sweden. Katarina’s work has formed a strong part of the community model we’ve designed the Taylor Institute around, and it will be great to have her on campus. Then, more awesome sessions for the rest of the day.

You should come!

Karen Bourrier – teaching in the TI

This is cool. Karen is teaching one of her Victorian literature classes in the Taylor Institute, and redesigned the course to take advantage of the flexible space and collaborative technologies. Awesome. I can’t wait to hear more about how it goes (as well as learning from the 20 other instructors and ~2000 students working in … Continue reading “Karen Bourrier – teaching in the TI”

This is cool. Karen is teaching one of her Victorian literature classes in the Taylor Institute, and redesigned the course to take advantage of the flexible space and collaborative technologies. Awesome. I can’t wait to hear more about how it goes (as well as learning from the 20 other instructors and ~2000 students working in the TI this semester, and even more queued up for W2017!)

This semester I decided to do something a little different. I have the privilege of teaching my Victorian literature class in one of the fancy new classrooms at the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary. My 40-person class has six big touch screens, and as a result we’ve been able to do a lot of hands-on work in small groups leading into discussions with the whole class.

Source: Blog – Karen Bourrier

Redesigning the UCalgary D2L homepage

It seems like a small, unimportant thing, but the D2L homepage is probably the single most important web page for students. While they occasionally use the university website, and periodically use the my.ucalgary.ca portal (to sign up for courses and pay fees), D2L is where they spend a substantial chunk of their time as they … Continue reading Redesigning the UCalgary D2L homepage

It seems like a small, unimportant thing, but the D2L homepage is probably the single most important web page for students. While they occasionally use the university website, and periodically use the my.ucalgary.ca portal (to sign up for courses and pay fees), D2L is where they spend a substantial chunk of their time as they work through their courses and programs. We’d launched D2L with a news-centric homepage, so that we could easily push notifications and support resources during the transition from Blackboard. It worked well for that, but became a dumping ground for accretion – links added, blurbs added, until it was a wall of text that everyone basically ignored.

So, we took a look at how students use D2L, and what they needed on the homepage. It’s their place, not The Institution’s, so it needs to be useful to students with a much higher priority than anyone else. The first thing students need is access to their courses. That used to be tucked into a small widget in the right sidebar. Now, it has the prime spot at the top of the main content area (where it should have been all along). Then, they need to be able to see what’s coming up – important dates on the calendar. Also, now right on the homepage. And they can enable it to show events from any of their courses as well (and then integrate it into their phones etc… through the iCal format). One thing that surprised us was the seemingly-trivial idea of having a weather widget on the homepage. Why on earth would that be needed? Clearly not necessary. But it can’t all be about need and necessity – sometimes it’s important to have a subtle reminder to go outside on a nice day (or a reminder to stay inside and study when it gets crappy outside).

I also made the decision to take many of the “Important Links” out – they were important to the people that wanted them there, but not necessarily to the students. We looked through the aggregated (and anonymized) web analytics to see which links had actually been used since January 1, 2015. Not many. So we made the call to remove several.

Also, we added a link to let students (and others) give feedback so we can hear complaints or suggestions and respond more quickly.

The Instructor-focused portions are not displayed to students – they don’t see the Instructor Resources or Grades Export sections because they’re not relevant. Students now get a pretty streamlined homepage (as it should have been from day 1), which should help them get to what they need, and to help keep organized throughout the semester.

It’s a collection of many small, seemingly trivial changes, but the overall redesign should make things much less painful for students.

D2L homepage, comparing old crappy version and awesome new version.
Left: the previous version, accreting things since launch in 2013. Right: Redesign with student needs given priority.

Dee Fink’s keynote at #TICONF2015

Dee Fink, giving the opening keynote presentation at the 2015 University of Calgary Conference on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching. The theme of the 2015 conference is Design for Learning: Fostering Deep Learning, Engagement and Critical Thinking. We hadn’t planned to record the keynote, but Dee asked us if we would, so we set something up that … Continue reading Dee Fink’s keynote at #TICONF2015

Dee Fink, giving the opening keynote presentation at the 2015 University of Calgary Conference on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching. The theme of the 2015 conference is Design for Learning: Fostering Deep Learning, Engagement and Critical Thinking.

We hadn’t planned to record the keynote, but Dee asked us if we would, so we set something up that morning. The video is usable, but we’ll be producing higher quality recordings for future events…

relaunching elearn.ucalgary.ca

This has been a project within the Technology Integration Group for the last several months – redesigning the elearn.ucalgary.ca support website so that it can be more useful to instructors and students who are integrating technology into their teaching and learning. The previous site was nearly a decade old, and had been designed by accretion … Continue reading relaunching elearn.ucalgary.ca

This has been a project within the Technology Integration Group for the last several months – redesigning the elearn.ucalgary.ca support website so that it can be more useful to instructors and students who are integrating technology into their teaching and learning. The previous site was nearly a decade old, and had been designed by accretion – full of links, documents, links to documents, etc… but difficult to actually find things that are important. So, the redesign.

First, we moved from Drupal to WordPress – the new site runs on UCalgaryBlogs.ca. This gave us the flexibility to treat it like a knowledgebase, apply a more useful theme, and enable some additional functionality like tagging and live search of content.

elearn-relaunch
Previous Drupal-powered site on the left, new WordPress-powered site on the right. Both screenshots are of approximately the same square region “above the fold” on the homepage of the site.

With the knowledgebase model, content is available right away, without layers of drilling down. The search box is live, so people can just start typing what they’re looking for and it searches all content to find relevant bits. (no siri support. yet.)

I’m super proud of what my team was able to accomplish with this1 – and excited to see how we grow it from here. Now that we have more flexibility on what we can do with the site, we have lots of plans to revise some of the content, incorporate contributions from the community, and start a series of showcase articles to highlight innovative and successful applications of technology-enabled learning.

  1. and lots of other things – I need to write a post about our awesome new app for the 2015 Postsecondary Conference on Learning and Teaching!

on banning technology in the classroom

UCalgary made the national news, with this segment titled “Calgary professor bans modern technology in his classroom”1. I really don’t know what to say about this. My gut reaction is something like “if they’re tuning out and checking Facebook in class, that’s data about how the class is going, and banning technology would just hide […]

UCalgary made the national news, with this segment titled “Calgary professor bans modern technology in his classroom1.

I really don’t know what to say about this. My gut reaction is something like “if they’re tuning out and checking Facebook in class, that’s data about how the class is going, and banning technology would just hide the symptom rather than actually fixing anything.”

Also, the prof still uses her own tech in every class, with laptop and projector etc… fired up. So, it’s not about technology on its own.

This is about control, more than technology. I’m not sure what to make of that. I don’t know the prof, and have never seen her teach. She teaches linguistics and psychology – perhaps her specific subject matter or teaching style work better without “technology”?

I have a bit of a problem2 with instructors having that much control over adult students. She does allow some technology – students are using pens and paper – but bans other technologies that are deemed disruptive3. As one student says in the segment – they’re paying to be there, and they should be able to make their own decisions about what technologies they use.

Ironically, I also see instructors who fall on the other side of the spectrum, mandating that students MUST USE TECHNOLOGY because of reasons. We’re talking about adult students from diverse backgrounds and contexts, and mandating (or banning) anything may just not be appropriate.

Yes, there should be codes of conduct. Mute your speakers. Don’t use loud clicky keyboards. Don’t sit in the front row and watch Netflix marathons, etc…. But, is “banning” technology really a solution? Does it just emphasize that The Instructor is In Control, and that Students Must Behave? The reinforcement of the power relationship may be doing more to have students “on task” than the lack of modern technologies.

update: Dr. Siedivy wrote an article in the Calgary Herald back in September, I’m still not sold. This feels like conflation of cause and effect. Are students unengaged because they have Modern Technology™, or are they facebooking and tweetaring because they’re unengaged in the class? She talks about her sister being unengaged in her technology company meetings, and “multitasking” on mobile devices instead of being bored. Sounds familiar. But, in meetings/conferences/whatever where I’m engaged, the Modern Technology™ either a) stays closed, or more likely b) gets used to support engagement in whatever conversations are happening. Boredom begets unengagement begets “multitasking”. Banning multitasking doesn’t make people magically feel engaged and included in the activities.

  1. although it’s clear that the professor is a woman, so whoever titles segments at Global National obviously doesn’t watch the segments, and has a strong sexist bias when it comes to professors, who are certainly all men of course
  2. as the manager of the Technology Integration Group, I may have a bit of a bias
  3. Disruptive as in “causing a distraction”, or Disruptive as in “giving power to those who are not standing at the front of the room”?

on enabling innovation to enhance learning

When we work with instructors, there are 3 general groupings, in terms of their comfort level and technology integration and innovation in their courses. Reluctant There is a small group that doesn’t use much technology, doesn’t integrate much in their teaching, and don’t pursue any strategies that would be considered “innovative.” From the outside, this […]

When we work with instructors, there are 3 general groupings, in terms of their comfort level and technology integration and innovation in their courses.

Reluctant

There is a small group that doesn’t use much technology, doesn’t integrate much in their teaching, and don’t pursue any strategies that would be considered “innovative.” From the outside, this group is often labelled as Luddites or dismissed as being laggards, but that is definitely not always the case. There are important innovations happening in this group, but they may not be visible to outsiders because they aren’t using the shared language of silicon valley innovation. Not every innovation requires high technology, or even technology at all. We can learn much from the Reluctant adopters, because many of them are reluctant to adopt mainstream technology because it doesn’t do what they need.

Mainstream

There is a second, much larger, group that does integrate some technology, tries some new and changing pedagogical strategies, and basically is self-supporting as a status quo. This majority adopts technology because it’s there, and looks to their peers for guidance on what to do, and how to do it. Again, this is not a bad thing. These people are experts in their fields, and they adopt “innovation” when it suits their needs. And they ignore the new shiny when it doesn’t solve an immediate problem. And that’s fine.

Pioneers

A third group, at the “high end” of the bell curve, explores new technologies, integrates them into their teaching, and tries emerging strategies to try to engage students. This group builds stuff, finds new stuff, and tries new things. The Shiny. They take risks. Which is great, but not everyone has the time, comfort level, or experience to do that. So we need to learn from this group, give them support to help them do the stuff they’d do anyway (but maybe do it more? do it better? do it more successfully?), and learn from that.

Innovationcurve

It’s tempting to focus on the Pioneers, because that’s where new ideas are usually introduced, but we need to focus on all three groups in order to effect real and sustained innovation across the university. We need to work with all three groups, learn from what they do (and what they don’t do), and then showcase successes to help everyone adopt things that will help them in their practices.

This is basically just another way to look at Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations double-S-curve. Ron Newmann presented a version of it at the 2013 LiFT Conference. They’re looking at how to identify new innovations, and track their adoption from 0-100%, rather than trying to help foster adoption of constellations of innovation across a population, as we’re doing at the university level.

I see our job with the technology integration group as being the green arrows in the diagram. We work with everyone, and help them to enhance the learning experience. We work with them to identify, support, and enable innovation and successful integration of appropriate technologies, and to push the state of the art of teaching. That’s how we can help support and sustain real innovation broadly across the entire university.

I keep coming back to the guiding statement our group came up with:

To enable innovation and creative integration of learning technologies to continuously enhance the learning experience.

This is why we do what we do. It isn’t about shiny tech. It’s about working with everyone to help them enhance learning.