In what ways might AI and GenAI tools be used to provide students in upper intermediate grades (grades 5, 6, and 7) in the K-12 system in Richmond, British Columbia, with learning disabilities and output limitations, the ability to access information and curriculum in a way that contributes to their understanding of curricular content?

Sub Questions:

1. How might AI and GenAI be used to enable authentic displays of understanding?

2. How might AI and GenAI be used and still provide opportunities for assessment of knowledge?

3. In what ways might assignments, projects, and assessments be designed for grade 5-7 students with exceptionalities to incorporate the use of AI and GenAI tools safely and effectively?

4. What criteria might be used to assess which AI and GenAI tools and/or functions are used with grade 5-7 students with exceptionalities?

Thank you so much for taking the time to watch my ARP presentation, please feel free to ask any questions you may have.

Primary Research Question

RQ1 - As a public sector agency, how might we implement the 2026/2027 L&D framework?

Sub-questions

RQ2 - What are the critical success factors and implementation barriers associated with translating the 2026/2027 L&D framework into practice?

RQ3 - What strategies and systems can be used to optimise learner experience and engagement with the 2026/2027 L&D framework?

RQ4 - How might the implementation of the L&D framework contribute to a culture of learning?

Thanks for watching the video about my ARP, and I look forward to your input and feedback.

Main Research Question: In what ways can instructional designers be supported in their use of prompt-engineering generators to enhance their competency and confidence with AI tools at Motorola Solutions?

Sub-Questions:

1. What elements are needed to effectively support instructional designers in using prompt-engineering generators in their workflows?

2. How do instructional designers apply critical thinking to evaluate and refine AI-generated outputs?

3. What criteria can be used to assess the effectiveness of supports for instructional designers using prompt-engineering generators at Motorola Solutions?

4. What factors influence instructional designers' adoption and confidence in using prompt-engineering generators?

1. How can AI-driven personalization features support Yorùbá pronunciation learning among diaspora teenagers with varying levels of language exposure and proficiency?

2. How can gamified learning strategies enhance motivation, consistency, and engagement in Yorùbá pronunciation learning among diaspora teenagers?

3. What criteria and evaluation strategies can be used to assess the potential effectiveness of AI-driven gamified platforms in improving Yorùbá pronunciation accuracy and speaking confidence among diaspora teenagers?

I appreciate the time you took to watch my ARP video presentation. I look forward to your comments and questions.

How might the design of online parenting programs build the self-efficacy of parents who are supporting the social-emotional development of their child 0 – 6? 

Sub questions:

1. What design considerations would support parental engagement in online programs to build their parenting skills?

2. How might self-reflection and metacognition activities contribute to self-efficacy development of parents in an online parenting program?

1. How might WIL programs use AI tools and adaptive technologies?

2. How do AI tools impact student learning?

Thank you for taking the time to review my ARP and learn a little about what I do. Let me know if you have any questions.

Primary Research Question:

How might assessment and student learning outcomes at Royal Roads University adapt or respond to undetectable AI use?

Sub-questions:

1. How might the design of activities and assignments influence academic integrity and rigour (with and without AI tools)?

2. How might assessment strategies and institutional policies be adapted to address AI use?

3. What strategies can be implemented to neutralise or challenge unauthorised AI use?

4. How could the philosophy and purpose of learning outcomes adapt in acknowledgement of AI use?

I am happy to hear your thoughts and will do my best to answer any questions you might have. Enjoy the rest of the symposium.

I referenced a couple of sources in the video, which are provided here:

Humble, N., Boustedt, J., Holmgren, H., Milutinovic, G., Seipel, S., & Östberg, A.-S. (2023). Cheaters or AI-enhanced learners: Consequences of ChatGPT for programming education. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 22(2), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.21.5.3154

Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X.-H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025, November 7). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. MIT Media Lab. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.

In what ways might leadership behaviours contribute to the learning conditions that support employees’ sustained use of genAI tools, like Google Gemini, within the Merchandising division at Home Depot Canada?

Sub-questions

1. How might leadership behaviours shape employees’ perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of Gemini?

2. How might leaders contribute to an implementation climate that encourages employees to integrate Gemini into core workflow practices?

3. In what ways might technostress influence how employees respond to leadership efforts intended to support the use of Gemini?

4. What strategies might be used to evaluate how leadership efforts contribute to the use of Gemini in the Merchandising division?

Apologies for the delayed post! Thank you for watching my video, and please let me know if you have any questions.