Menu

ICEL Keynote Speaker Outlines

Keynote Outlines

The following are outlines for the Keynote Speeches which will take place at ICEL 2018

Hirumi

What Pokémon Go taught me about collectionism in e-learning

Dr Johannes Cronjé Cape Peninsula University of Technology

The current approach to curriculum and instructional design is still very much focused on a deficit-based model (Orr & Cleveland-Innes 2015) that holds that learners of trainees “lack” something that needs to be rectified. This is seen in most instructional design models (Branch & Kopcha 2014) where some kind of needs analysis is conducted in the initial phases of the process. The problem with the focus on needs is that it downplays the opportunity. Moreover Hiemstra & Van Yperen (2015) demonstrated convincingly that strength-based learning strategies significantly outperformed deficit-based strategies in improving students’ effort intentions. (López 2017) . This talk will share my experience in using a flipped classroom approach in which students collect assets, rather than complete assignments The talk will discuss the pleasures and the pitfalls of a gamified approach to teaching communication at undergraduate level.

Challenges of online learning for campus-based universities: Open educational practices and resources as a response

Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams,  University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa

Many campus-based universities are now offering a combination of on-campus and online tuition (often referred to as hybrid or blended learning) or even fully online courses. The reasons for this move towards technology enabled learning are as varied as the institutions employing these technology supported pedagogies.  The traditional campus-based universities face a number of challenges in this transition, one of which is how to provide access to good quality and affordable resources to students. These challenges are particularly pertinent to higher education where there is variable access to technology in economically constrained environments and where the curriculum itself is under scrutiny.  This keynote will offer some insights on the role of open educational practices and resources in higher education in the Global South drawing upon the Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project and personal experiences at the University of Cape Town.

Blending institutions: Technology as a means of uniting universities in the service of our students.

Prof Susan Geertshuis, University of Auckland Business School, New Zealand

Universities are charged with serving their nations well and with .preparing their people for successful futures. As institutions we tend to strive hard but alone in our efforts to serve our students, however, technologies offer universities the potential to collaborate in order to address our shared responsibilities.

This keynote describes a collaboration of six universities which is delivering an online Masters programme in Māoriand Indigenous Business. The thrust of my talk is the collaborative model and an exposition of the challenges we encountered and ways of working we have evolved.

Attendees will gain an insight into the potential of collaborative online programmes in enabling a small country with academic talent distributed over multiple institutions to deliver cutting edge programmes in emerging disciplines. Attendees will also gain an appreciation of the curriculum development, learning design and technological support regime developed to suit Māori and Indigenous students.

Using student data: Moving beyond data and privacy protection to student data sovereignty as basis for an ethics of care

Paul Prinsloo, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa

Higher education has always collected, analysed, and used student data for a variety of purposes, including, but not limited, to informing operational and strategic planning, resource allocation, as well as reporting to a range of stakeholders and regulatory bodies. There is, however, growing interest in how student data can inform curricula, pedagogy and student support as well as allowing students to make more informed choices. Amid the increasing digitisation of learning, access to more student (learning and personal) data than ever before, advanced software and analytical methods, there are also growing concerns about the appropriateness of our thirst for more data, the governance of data and ensuring the protection of the privacy of students. While there are concerns that legislation and regulatory frameworks are almost always lagging behind developments in the collection, analysis and use of personal data, higher education has a fiduciary duty to take cognisance of recent legislation and regulatory frameworks such as the South African Protection of Personal Information Act (POPI) (Act number 3, 2013) and the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU Regulation 2016/679, coming into effect May 25th, 2018). Complicating matters is the fact that very few higher education institutions in the Global South have the hardware, software and human resources to collect, analyse and use student data. Institutions therefore increasingly rely on commercial vendors and providers of institutional learning management systems to support, or take full responsibility for the collection, analysis and use of students’ learning data.

In this presentation I propose that compliance to legal and regulatory frameworks is not enough, but only one element in formulating institutional responses committed to the responsible collection, analysis and use of student data.  We have consider the question of whose interests are served, whose understanding of learning matters, as well as critically engage with the relationship and tensions between those who collect and control the data collection, analysis and use and those who provide the data and seek to benefit from that contribution. We have to consider the notion of student data sovereignty as central to formulating an appropriate and ethical framework for the governance of student data. Our assumptions regarding our power and authority to ‘make rules and decisions about the design, interpretation, validation, ownership, access to and use of data’ need to be scrutinised and opened up for a conversation.

In the context of the broader discourses surrounding the decolonisation of the curriculum and the urgent transformation of the South African higher education landscape, as well as international indigenous peoples’ reclamation of their right to own, control and interpret their own data, I hope to propose some pointers for an ethics of care based on student data sovereignty.

A critical discourse analysis of e-learning policies in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in a developing country context

Wallace Chigona, Department of Information Systems, University of Cape Town, South Afica

Over the past 20 years, many Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in South Africa have formulated e-learning policies. Most of these policies are based on the institutions’ dominant ideas about teaching and learning, some of which tend to be ideological. Technologically deterministic views continue to pervade much of the thinking about technologies in education.

This keynote speech will discuss a study which uses critical discourse analysis (CDA), to investigate the articulation of e-learning policies in three public universities in South Africa. The aim of the research is to understand the discourses and dominant ideas embedded in the policies. Using the three dimensional model of CDA the paper goes beyond a simple linguistic analysis of policies to understanding how the policy discourses were influenced by the interactional context and the broader social structural context. The study showed that technocratic views continue to pervade much of the thinking about technologies in teaching. The dominant narrative in e-learning policies continues to focus on educational technologies as value-neutral. What is overlooked are alternative ways of thinking that question the assumptions about e-learning technology. Technological determinism discourse is supported in subtle but persistent ways that require explication, reflection and critique in order to lead to a change in thinking and practice.