1. Challenges around the undergraduate experience: Designing programs, units and classes for student engagement A/Professor Mark Freeman A/Dean (Learning and Teaching) [email_address]

6. Baby boomers and Millennials Oblinger & Oblinger (2005) Negativity Hype Turning 50 Anything slow Red tape Laziness Dislikes Parents Work-life balance Can-do attitude Latest technology Multitasking Work ethic Public activism Freedom Responsibility Likes Determined Skeptical Workaholic Hopeful Independent Optimistic Attributes Millennials Latchkey generation Me generation Description 1982–1991 1965–1982 1946–1964 Birth Dates Net Generation Generation X Baby Boomers

7. Millennials at a glance Visual Digital Connected Immediate (gratification) Multi-task Experiential Social Peers What’s needed? Crave interactivity What matters? Global Oblinger & Oblinger (2005) Internet=Oxygen

13. TBL class 1

14. TBL class 2

15. UQ collab class

16. MIT class

17. Caledonian flexible space

18. Caledonian informal

19. Caledonian informal

24. How does SPARK work? Rating scale: 0 = no contribution 1 = less than team average 2 = contribution per team average 3 = above team average

25. How will SPARK affect marks? Aggregate factors produced by SPARK system SAPA factor 1.1 indicates overrate own contribution to team by 110% SPA factor Team C: 15/20 15 x 0.9 = 13.5 15 x 1.16 = 17.4 15 x 0.75 = 11.3 15 x 1.25 = 18.8 Team B: 12/20 12 x 0.9 = 10.8 12 x 1.16 = 13.9 12 x 1.25 = 15.0 12 x 0.75 = 9.0 Team A: 12/20 12 x 1.0 = 12

26. Designing for active learning Bassey 68

27. More on designing for active learning Bligh 71

29. (Hake, p.4, 1998)

31. Model of student learning (Prosser 06) Model of Student Learning (Prosser, 06)

33. Impact of L&T activities varies with approach Teachers perception of context ) ccfffcc Approaches to cccc teaching hhhddddddddddddddd Approaches to learning hh (Prosser & Trigwell, 96; Ramsden 97) • Class size • Workload • Control • Students • Dept value of teaching versus research hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Teachers prior experience ) Teachers perception of uni/dept Model of Academic Teaching Impact of interaction design decisions varies with approach to teaching Information transmission views of teaching sface surface) Conceptual change views of teaching hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Teacher focussed design and teaching (eg. passive) Student focussed design and teaching (eg. interactive) Surface approach to learning sffface surface) Deep approaches to learning hffffffffhhhhhhh

35. Map & assure program-level outcomes X X X X X Unit 5-23 X X X X X Unit 24 (Capstone) X X Ethical, social professional understandings X Communication X X Information literacy X Research & inquiry X X X Personal autonomy Unit 4 Unit 3 Unit 2 Unit 1 Bachelor of Commerce

37. Intercultural competence domains Alexander et al. (2006)

38. Taxonomy DIC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Knowledge Identifies cultural foundations of own and others’ norms, values, experiences and interactions Analyses how diversity influences interaction (and how culture manifests itself in interaction) Reflects and self-evaluates one’s own and others’ capabilities and limitations in interactions in varying cultural contexts Attitudes Acknowledges the practical significance of own and others’ cultural identity (beliefs, values, norms and biases) and their impact on behaviour and interactions Values intercultural interactions and experiences with those from other cultures to further one’s own understanding and interactions Adapts to differences between oneself and others in interactions in varying cultural contexts Skills Implements appropriate processes and behaviours for interactions with different cultural settings and audiences Selects or creates complex skill sets in interactions under conditions of uncertainty, risk and change in professional business situations Applies basic skills or directions to routine tasks and interactions to accommodate (a) specified cultural difference/s Awareness Understanding Autonomy Ridings, Simpson, Leask et al. 2008

40. acctg

42. Convey Unit Concepts Apply unit Concepts Traditional class Team-Based Class Readiness Test Readings Lecture In Class Out of Class In Class Out of Class

44. Student perceptions survey 7% 80% Overall recommend TBL next year 6% 78% Prefer both indiv & team quiz (not one) 7% 80% Team quiz developed team skills 1% 94% Indiv. test ensures all contribute to team 1% 99% In-class indv. test encouraged preparation 6% 80% Team problems helped apply quiz learning 7% 81% Regular testing helped progressive learning Disagree Agree

45. Flexibility with TBL