If students approach learning the same way they do video games, imagine the benefits, suggested Rachel Niemer, director of the Gameful Learning Lab at the University of Michigan. GAMEFUL PEDAGOGY and gameful course design, she added, encourage learners through support of intrinsic motivation.

Neimer spoke at OSU’s Innovate Conference held May 16.

“When gamers come (into a gaming session), they start at 0 and build learning credit for how they learn, as well as competency,” she explained. The reverse is true in the typical classroom where students start at 100 and then are penalized for errors.

Moreover, in classrooms, students often complain about content being too difficult or too complex. To the contrary, if a game is too easy, people stop playing. “Ideally, students would be intrinsically motivated to do the difficult job of learning,” she said. “… In games, people are intrinsically motivated.” There’s also a sense of play involved, which is rewarding in and of itself.

According to Niemer, gamification encompasses theories of motivation and the learning sciences. Three components of motivation, for example, are autonomy, belongingness, and competency. Application of game principles to non-gaming activities, as a result, can be powerful.

Some methods for adding gamefulness to a course include:

• Framing the course as a competition not for grades, but for indications of competency like badges that accumulate on a student’s profile page or in an application.
• Providing students with choices on how to play or earn a grade.
• Offering students the ability to design their own assessments of learning.
• Creating a method whereby students can see their own progress (not measured in grades but in tasks completed but not deadlined, for example) and compare it to other students’ progress in a course.

Allowing students the opportunity to “predict” points they will earn on activities and assess where to put their time and energy. (They already do this, Niemer said, trading off performance on one class’s assignments to study for an exam.)

Niemer and her colleagues have created a gradebook tool called GradeCraft that manages gameful courses and supports gameful course design. Instructors can purchase individual copies if their first experiments with gameful pedagogy show promise.

“Impact Student Motivation: Make School a Better Game” is available for viewing in its entirety.

Rajiv Jhangiani, Ph.D., of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and an open education advocate, spoke to Ohio State participants at the 2017 Innovate Conference this May.

Jhangiani has studied the higher education environment, and he pointed to the state of Ohio as typical of lowered state educational funding placing an increasing burden on tuitions. One of the few aspects of higher education attendance costs that faculty have control over, he argued, is related to course materials.

Since 1971, he said, course material costs have increased over 1,000%. “There’s no other consumer good – AT ALL,” Jhangiani said, “that comes close …. Not even healthcare.” He asked faculty and administrators at OSU to put themselves in the mind of a student. A study of 22,0000 students in Florida in 2012 and 2016 showed that 66.5% don’t buy all the required textbooks; 47.6% take fewer classes as a result of course material costs; and 45.5% don’t take a particular course because of high course materials cost.

Moreover, publishers who sell students materials and restrict access to the materials afterwards or don’t allow printing after the course are “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Jhangiani argued for open resources to support classes, which allow faculty to “revise and remix” content, increasing and “reclaiming” academic freedom. The number of open resources available through sites like guttenberg.org, open.bccampus.ca, open.umn.edu, openstax.org, and others “look, smell, and taste like a Pearson book.”

Thirteen peer reviewed studies of the efficacy of open resources or textbooks representing 119,720 students showed 95% of are doing the same or better when these resources are used as opposed to traditional textbooks and materials. In addition, drops, retention, and passing grades are better.

In addition, Jhangiani said, “traditional assignments suck energy. What if we grow up and fix the problem?”

For example, he said, “Wikipedia is the first port of call for students, and … if we’re honest, the first port of call for faculty.” Wikipedia always needs more articles about scientists and sciences. “What if students write them?” he asked. Moreover, “what if students write the questions for assignments? It takes a deep understanding to write distractors.”

This process moves from the concept of open resources to OPEN PEDAGOGY. Jhangiani suggested educators craft policies and delivery systems with little thought about their effect on students. He pointed to learning management systems (Blackboard, Canvas) as exemplifying that “learning is best done by management.”

“Ideology is embedded in every technology,” he explained. “What are we here for?”

According to Jhangiani, deep learning is not about content transfer. “I’m going to challenge you,” he told participants, to think more and more about collaboration and sharing and not leaving decisions about student learning to only the people in the room.

Jhangiani’s presentation is available for viewing. His slides are open resources available for use or remixing. His book, Open: The Philosophy and Practices That Are Revolutionizing Science and Education, is available for anyone to download and read.

On April 5, Dr. Maxey Wellman, Dr. Jason Stull, and Dr. Theresa Burns teamed up for a panel presentation on “Getting Started on Classroom Teaching” as part of the New Faculty Series. They provided the following observations, recommendations, and advice to participants.

On inheriting lecture materials

Because people have unique approaches in the classroom, Dr. Stull and Dr. Burns suggested new faculty give themselves plenty of time to review materials and make adjustments based on the learning outcomes/objectives for the lecture. Dr. Stull also urged them to contact the course team leader for clarification of course goals or design if needed. Dr. Wellman recommended making notes to oneself after delivering a lecture about what worked and didn’t work – a post-mortem of the lecture – and then refining presentation for the next delivery.

On appropriate level of instruction

Don’t hesitate ask a colleague or the Office of Teaching & Learning to review a lecture for appropriate content level and learning outcomes/objectives, panelists agreed. In particular, new faculty should consider the content as it assists in preparing Day 1 veterinarians.

On writing test questions

Dr. Burns said it’s critical to align test questions with learning outcomes. She also observed that tests can be viewed as another opportunity to learn material, and that students might benefit when faculty articulate this value. Dr. Wellman recommended writing the test questions before delivering a lecture “because it will remind you … to stress the topics that are important.”

While there’s no real template for writing questions, there are best practices, Dr. Stull noted. All panelists acknowledged writing a strong test question takes time and refinement, and that ExamSoft item analyses are helpful with refinement. They also recommended having interns, residents, and former students test out the questions to check for clarity. Finally, they suggested giving students an opportunity to practice what they will be tested on, and when possible reviewing tests with students to reinforce material and enhance learning.

The panelists directed participants to the Office of Teaching & Learning and University Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (UCAT) for workshops and consultations.

On finding graphics and media for presentations and keeping content current

According to Dr. Burns, each department and each section almost always has one person who photographs or records a number of cases. They are often the best resource for multimedia and images. Dr. Stull keeps lecture or topic folders, and as he comes across material during the year, he puts it into the folder for review the next time the lecture is prepared. Dr. Wellman gathers journal articles in the same way and makes adjustments to her lectures to feature the most current findings in veterinary medicine.

On teaching style and engagement

Dr. Stull advised structuring lectures to always highlight the learning outcomes/objectives first, including as many cases as possible, and bringing “your own enthusiasm” to a topic. “You have to be you,” Dr. Wellman said. She also told new faculty to chunk material for presentation and in between topics returning to the lecture’s objectives slide and checking off what’s been completed so students understand the connection between content and objectives.

Because so many people have some discomfort talking in front of 150-plus people, Dr. Burns said, “Fake it ‘till you make it.” The more new faculty lecture, the more comfortable they will become, she assured participants. She pointed out it’s possible to be entertaining and teach well at the same time; the two are not mutually exclusive. Panelists also said students understand when faculty view them as colleagues and don’t lecture down to them, and they appreciate it when they see faculty enjoy teaching.

The New Faculty Series is organized by Associate Dean Mary Jo Burkhard. Presentations occur each month and provide extended onboarding on topics faculty have questions or concerns about. All faculty members are invited to attend if they see a topic that interests them.