educational development

October 2023 ChatGPT Challenge

Blog, Leave a comment

I’ve decided to set myself a challenge for this month: to experiment with, and learn about, ChatGPT.

Background: I’ve been burying my head in the sand when it comes to ChatGPT. Mostly due to overwhelm…However, the enthusiasm of some of my colleagues at CTLT has finally rubbed off on me, and I’m now eager to play and learn –and see how I can apply this tool in my educational development work.

Below is a record of things I’ve tried and ways I’ve pursued my learning during this self-imposed ChatGPT #30daychallenge.

October 2: Listened to Tea for Teaching episode on ChatGPT: https://teaforteaching.com/305-80-ways-to-use-chatgpt-in-the-classroom/

  • What stood out: The guest used ChatGPT to write his book and was totally upfront about that. I didn’t expect that.

October 3: Asked it to improve an email I had composed.

  • Result was ok. Some good suggestions.

October 4: I entered in a question that was phrased in a boring manner and asked it to list 5 more creative alternatives.

  • I received fun, creative suggestions. I picked one of the suggestions.

October 5: Watched a video on how to use ChatGPT to generate descriptions for a YouTube video.

  • I have created an instructional video that is an introduction to teaching dossiers and one of my next steps is to create a description.

October 6: Entered in text and asked it to come up with some possible titles

  • Titles generated were super dull. I didn’t use the suggestions and didn’t continue to prompt it.

October 10: Generated a description for YouTube videos on Teaching Dossier

  • The text generated is cheesy, but it gave me a base to start from. I don’t think it saved me time overall.

October 11: Got help with HTML

  • I was trying to put a box around some text in WordPress and asked ChatGPT for help. Success!

October 12:  Tried out Canva’s Magic’s Design

  • It was helpful and definitely saved me time. I am not talented–at all–when it comes to design.

October 16: Attempted to put information into a 2-column table

  • I wasn’t successful with this one. I was trying to format a table of contents (from a PDF) so that the page numbers would be right justified. I wasn’t able to figure this one out.

October 17: Generated emojis for a list

October 18: Played around with getting help with session design.

  • Not satisfied with results.

October 23: Attended “Approaches to Prompting (30+30)” (CTLT online event)

  • Take away: I need to get better at prompting. I think my poor prompting strategies are the reason I’m not satisfied with many of the results I’m getting.

October 25: Played around with prompting

  • I’m quite impatient and still getting sub-optimal results. I should read the resource from the workshop I attended on Oct 23 (and apply the strategies).

October 26: Got it to revise an existing bio and then asked why it had made the suggested changes.

  • The explanations were clear and helpful. I like understanding the why behind edits!

 

My 30-day challenge is a wrap! And, there’s so much more to learn. I’m going to keep tracking some of that learning here.

A table that outlines AI tools that some of CTLT staff are using: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vJhm2VoxPTRvAApSgFgE5d0DJGOnfMpXg-7RIZYpkW8/edit?usp=sharing

Want to try still:

  • images
  • https://www.eduaide.ai/ (recommended by Jens)
people participating in a facilitated meeting

6 tips for starting a mastermind group in higher education

Blog, , Leave a comment

people participating in a facilitated meetingOver the past few years, I have participated in and facilitated several different types of mastermind groups (MMG) within and outside of higher education. (If you are not sure what a MMG is, see my earlier post here).

Most recently, I designed and co-facilitated an in-person MMG for educators in the first-year experience (FYE). The group was open to anyone who identified as an educator of students who are in their first year of an undergraduate degree. In this particular offering, there were 9 participants and the group was comprised of faculty members and staff at the University of British Columbia (Vancouver campus).

Given my positive experience with MMG, and the growing interest within the POD Network, I wanted to share some resources that will help you start your own.

Tips for the set-up phase

Here is a list of tips I have compiled to make the facilitator’s life easier in the setup phase:

1. Be as clear as possible about the purpose of the MMG when you advertise it. See here for how we articulated the purpose and structure for the MMG for FYE. In your introductory text, you may wish to:

  • define what a MMG is and isn’t (and, possibly, address some people’s aversion to the term?)
  • briefly explain what a spotlight is since it is a key feature of MMG

2. Once you have determined the purpose of your MMG, decide on the number of meetings and frequency of your meetings. We found that 4 meetings, every 2 weeks, worked well for this MMG. Meeting every 2 weeks allow the group’s energy to be sustained without overwhelming people with weekly commitments.

3. Set meeting dates/times ahead of time if (like me) you have an aversion to Doodle polls and to spending a lot of time trying to accommodate multiple people’s schedules. I found it easier to have the dates/times (and room bookings) pre-determined so that potential participants could easily ascertain whether they were available.

4. Begin to advertise the MMG approximately 2 months before the start date. This will give you a chance to promote it, answer questions from interested parties, and will augment the chances that people can block off the time in their calendar.

5. Consider a 2-step application process. For the MMG for Educators in the FYE, the first step asked potential participants to confirm that they could make 3 of the 4 meetings and that they were, in fact, actively involved in the FYE. The second step allowed me to reach back out to people and clarify anything that needed clarification and/or to immediately “accept” their application. See here for the wording/messaging that appeared on the CTLT website.

6. Specify whether the group is closed or open and who (if anyone) has permission to invite other participants. My preference is for a closed group that is consistent throughout the duration of the MMG.

I will be sharing more in a future post. If you have any questions, please reach out to me at isabeau(dot)iqbal(at)ubc(dot)ca. I am sure I’ve forgotten some details that would be helpful to others.

Book cover for Connected Teaching by Harriet Schwartz

Connected Teaching (short book review)

Blog, Leave a comment

This post was written for “What we’re reading“, a feature in the UBC Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology’s Dialogues newsletter.

It is a short review of “Connected Teaching” by Harriet Schwartz, PhD.

Book cover for Connected Teaching by Harriet Schwartz

****

In post-secondary teaching and learning, relationships matter.

They matter as much as (and possibly more than) course design, proper use of technology and other elements we typically associate with promoting understanding and “good teaching.”

Given my interest in the role of emotions in teaching and learning, I was eager to read Connected Teaching by Harriet Schwartz, PhD.

This book addresses the significance of the connection between students and faculty members and explores “teaching as a relational practice.” Drawing from Relational Cultural Theory (a theory Schwartz helps her reader learn about throughout the book), the author argues that “we are at our best when we have the capacity to engage and maintain growth-fostering relationships”. These relationships need not be long-term and can occur even in a single meaningful interaction.

Connected teaching, Schwartz describes, consists of five elements: energy, knowledge, sense of worth, action and desire for more connection. She proposes that care, presence, invitation and enthusiasm are essential elements of connected teaching because they convey to students that they matter and that their challenges are real.

What I especially appreciated about this book is that Schwartz does not depict connection as an easy process or a given. She writes honestly about disconnection, power, shame, blind spots and boundaries. That is, she is upfront about the challenges involved as we aim to build connection(s) with our learners.

What remains most with me about this book is Schwartz’s compelling messages about mattering and how it is central to connected teaching. Her work echoes other scholars’ work (see, for example, The Undergraduate Experience: Focusing Institutions on What Matters Most by Felten et al.), who have highlighted the importance of creating a sense of belonging to student learning. To “matter,” reminds Schwartz, is to feel we have a place in others’ lives, and our presence makes a difference to them.

If you are keen to explore the role of connection in teaching and learning, I recommend Connected Teaching.

Interested in learning more about Connected Learning before reading the book? Listen to this Teaching in Higher Ed podcast episode where Harriet Schwartz discusses her book.

Schwartz, H. L. (2019). Connected Teaching: Relationship, Power, and Mattering in Higher Education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Evaluating the Course Design Intensive

Blog, , Leave a comment

Rainy Days and Mondays

As do several other teaching and learning centres, ours offers a Course Design Intensive (CDI). During this 3-day course, participants make progress on the design or redesign a course for post-secondary students.

Since 2015, I have been leading a program evaluation of our CDI. The process and methodology have been messy and inconsistent…and have taught me a lot about program evaluation. In this blog post, I share on the retrospective pre-test (RPT), one of the approaches I have used as part of our multi-faceted evaluation [for a 2-page description of our program evaluation, see here].

Retrospective pre-test

The retrospective pre-test is a survey that is administered at the same time as the post-test. Learners are asked to answer questions about their level of understanding, confidence or skill after an intervention. They are then asked to think back to their understanding prior to the intervention and to answer the same questions, but from the perspective of the present moment. See here for more information, including a brief description of strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

What we used to do before

Prior to December 2016, we did the following:

Before the CDI

The survey asked participants to consider the learning outcomes for the CDI and, using a Likert Scale, rate: (1) how important is this skill in course design?; (2) how confident are you in your current skills in this area? [see here for pre-CDI program evaluation survey].

On day 3 of the CDI

On the last day of the CDI, participants would complete a survey that had the same questions as above (#1 and #2) and this question: (3) how helpful has the CDI been in learning this skill? [see here for post-CDI program evaluation survey]

What we do now: Retrospective pre-test and post-test

Instead of administering two surveys at two different times, we now administer the retrospective pre-test and post-test at the same time. After consulting different articles about the benefits and disadvantages of one method over another, I surmised that the main advantage, in the case of the CDI, was mostly practical: one survey vs two.  To access our survey, see here.

Additional resources on the retrospective pre-test

The Retrospective Pretest: An Imperfect but Useful Tool (Harvard Family Project, 2005)

The Retrospective Pretest Method for Evaluating Training (Evaluate Webinar, 2015)

 

Notes:

  1. Thanks go to Dr. Chris Lovato for introducing me to retrospective pre-test.
  2. Photo credit: Bill Dickinson “Rainy Days and Mondays” https ://flic.kr/p/oMKxVd

 

 

 

Educational developer skills, knowledge and competencies

Blog, , , Leave a comment

Lavender Field (Beauty of Simplicity)
Over the past few days, I have re-read a few texts that address the skills, knowledge and competencies of educational developers. (The texts are listed at the bottom of this page).

Rather than re-hash the details here (and because I can’t reproduce the useful [copyrighted] visuals), I want to point you to specific sections of these resources as they are useful for helping educational developers articulate, assess and reflect on the skills, knowledge and competencies that we bring to our work.

To see figures that visually depict competencies of entry-level, senior and director-level educational developers, go to pages 19, 20 and 21 of the McDonald, Kenny, Kustra, Dawson, Iqbal, Borin, & Chan (2016) publication (similar visuals are in the Dawson et al. paper).

For example, a look at Figure 3.2 on p.20 of the Educational Developer’s Portfolio Guide (McDonald et al., 2016) shows:

Senior Educational Developer: Competencies

Educator, Course Design, Instructional Strategies, Program Development Strategies, Educational Strategies

Senior Educational Developer: Skills, Abilities and Knowledge

Interpersonal skills, Conflict Resolution, Mediation, Diplomacy, Trust, Listening, Empathy, Educational Leadership, Self Reflection, Peer Mentor/Coach, Model, Consultation, Formal Education in Pedagogy, Organizational Behaviour, Literacy

(I am highlighting the senior level because this is where I position myself)

Want to rate/assess your own skills, knowledge and attributes? –> Go to Appendix C (pages 67 and 68) of the Educational Developer’s Portfolio.

To read more about skills, knowledge, competencies and threshold concepts in educational development, see:

And though I haven’t written directly about Dr. Julie Timmerman’s work in this post, her paper is excellent and well worth the read:

  • Timmermans, J. (2014).  Identifying threshold concepts in the careers of educational developers.  International Journal for Academic Development, 19, 305-371. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2014.895731