7:30am
Registration
8:00am – 9:00am
Continental Breakfast
9:00am – 9:30am
TAGSA Welcome and Community Building
9:30am – 10:50am
Supporting innovative practice in teaching and learning among GTAs: Fuller’s Stages of Concern model
Natasha Patrito Hannon, Karyn Olsen, and Aisha Haque, Western University
(See session description below)
11:00am - 11:50am
Second Teachers in the Classroom
Shelia Crooks, Marc Heller, and Aaron Richter, Saint Mary’s University
(See session description below)
12:00pm – 1:30pm
Lunch
12:30pm – 1:20pm
AGM (grab your lunch and bring)
1:30pm – 1:55pm
Not a “Real” Teacher: Undergraduate TAs’ Conceptions of Teaching
Betsy Keating, University of Windsor
(See session description below)
2:00pm - 2:25pm
Teaching Assistant (TA) Orientations: Are we laying a transformative foundation?
Cynthia Korpan, University of Victoria, and Suzanne Le-May Sheffield, Dalhousie University
(See session description below)
2:30pm - 3:20pm
Evaluating for transformation, transforming in our evaluation: How do we envision support for Graduate students and TAs?
Carolyn Hoessler, University of Saskatchewan., and Lorraine Godden, Queen’s University
(See session description below)
3:30pm - 4:30pm
Teaching Assistant (TA) Competencies: Provoking change
Cynthia Korpan, University of Victoria, and Roselynn Verwoord, University of British Columbia
(See session description below)
5:30pm – 8:00pm
Welcome Reception at the Isabel Bader Centre for Performing Arts
(390 King Street West)
This pre-conference workshop will present three innovative learning techniques that I have been practicing and publishing on over the last ten years: mind mapping, learning objects, and proverbs. Upon the completion of this workshop, the participants will learn a variety of ways of using mind mapping, learning objects, and proverbs for teaching and learning.
This workshop relates to the conference theme by suggesting different ways of transforming learning experiences to embrace diverse student needs. For example, mind mapping introduces colours and images into the learning process to engage visual learners. Foreign proverbs transform the learning process by establishing connections between new concepts and diverse cultural backgrounds of students.
In the first segment, a brief history of mind mapping, which visually depicts concepts and their interrelationships in a non-linear way, and its main rules will be discussed. I will show different ways of using mind mapping in teaching and learning based on my experience and the experiences of other instructors. I will also provide a review and summary of mind mapping computer programs, and will demonstrate the creation of a mind map with Inspiration mind mapping software. In the conclusion, participants will work in small groups to draw a mind map of the mind mapping technique. Several groups will present their completed mind maps to all participants. By the end of this segment, the participants will not only appreciate the pedagogical benefits of mind mapping, but also will be able to use this technique themselves.
In the second segment, I will define key elements of a learning object and present several learning objects developed at Brock University. I will discuss the results of my empirical study on the learning impact of a learning object. From these results, the participants will learn what type of students tends to benefit the most from the use of learning objects. Several major depositories of learning objects will be presented, and participants will explore them and identify objects for use in their disciplines. Several participants will present the identified learning objects to the whole audience.
In the final segment, I will share my experience with using English, Chinese, Spanish, and French proverbs in teaching finance to English and foreign-speaking students. I will also show different examples of using proverbs for teaching from other disciplines. The participants will practice the use of Chinese, Spanish, and French proverbs in the classroom. The participants will also learn where to find relevant foreign proverbs and how to incorporate into their teaching. In conclusion, the participants will have an opportunity to suggest English proverbs that can be used to illustrate concepts in their disciplines.
Purpose and Participant Outcomes: Two critical aspects central to transformative learning (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, 1981, 1994, 1997) are reflective practice and critical reflection. Schön (1983) describes reflective practice (RP) as “a dialogue of thinking and doing through which I become more skillful”. Murray and Kujundzic (2005) define critical reflection (CR) as “the process of analyzing, reconsidering and questioning experiences within a broad context of issues”. Learning is progressively more complex in a twenty-first century world that increasingly utilizes emerging technologies to provide expanded learning opportunities. This requires students to use educational technologies to apply knowledge to new situations, analyze information, collaborate, solve problems and make decisions and demands that educators reconsider traditional approaches to teaching practice. Today, both learners and teachers are expected to demonstrate reflective practice and critical reflection, yet all too often neither is afforded the opportunity to develop skills in these critical processes. Schön (1983) suggested that one of the defining characteristics of professional practice is the capacity to reflect on action so as to engage in a process of continuous learning. In this intensive, evidence-informed, practice-based workshop participants will engage in a collaborative process to:
1. Identify the critical components of transformative learning;
2. Discuss the benefits of, and common barriers to, critical reflection and reflective practice in a transformative teaching/learning process;
3. Experience several applied models and methods of RP and CR to promote transformative learning; and
4. Discuss how to incorporate opportunities for critical reflection and reflective practice in the design of 21st century learning.
Relevance of Proposal to Conference Theme: This workshop relates directly to several key aspects of the conference theme of transformation, including: the transformation of students from passive to active learners; the shift in the nature of classroom learning experiences; the transition in the use of physical and virtual learning spaces into integrated learning environments; single perspectives into diverse worldview perspectives and, changing professional teaching practices within and beyond the classroom.
Informed by Theory, Practice and/or Research: This workshop seeks to model evidence-based teaching and learning theories (Petty, 2009; Pitler, Hubbell & Kuhn, 2007) in a learning-centred (Tagg, 2004) manner reflective of 21st century principals of education (Shaw, 2013). Drawing on Bolton (2010), Brookfield (2005) and Cranton (2006) the construct of transformative learning will be explored by several experiential processes to promote critical reflection and reflective practice.
Contribution to the Conference and/or to the Field: This workshop reflects the conference theme of transformation by exploring experiential methods and models to promote transformative learning by developing reflective practice and critical reflection skills. This practical session contributes significantly to the conference by creating opportunities to connect with others engaged in promoting transformative learning and experience formal and informal tools that can be immediately applied in teaching practice.
Educational developers and faculty members are increasingly expected to manage programs using evidence-informed practices. They must be ready to understand and communicate the impact of their educational programs in systematic, rigorous ways that go beyond simple metrics. In addition to satisfying accountability pressures, evaluation can help improve existing program models, develop new ones, determine the effectiveness and efficacy of programs, and demonstrate end-user impact. Program evaluation draws upon social scientific methods to determine the merit, worth, significance of a program.
In this workshop, participants will progress through a crash course on the principles and practices of designing and conducting program evaluation. Specifically, we will introduce the utilization-focused evaluation framework (Patton, 2008, 2012), a dominant approach to conducting program evaluation that ensures both the process and the output can be useful and meaningful to those who have a vested interest in the program and the evaluation:
Utilization-Focused Evaluation (U-FE) begins with the premise that evaluations should be judged by their utility and actual use; therefore, evaluators should facilitate the evaluation process and design any evaluation with careful consideration of how everything that is done, from beginning to end, will affect use. Use concerns how real people in the real world apply evaluation findings and experience the evaluation process. Therefore, the focus in utilization-focused evaluation is on intended use by intended users. (Patton, 2008)
This workshop will cover the following topics:
Using practical, hands-on learning, participants will assume the role of a novice evaluator and work through a case scenario. In so doing, participants will be able to:
Participants are invited to bring to the workshop questions and issues related to program evaluation encountered in their own work contexts. Participants should have some working understanding of basic research methods (e.g. surveys, interviews, focus groups, basic quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques).
Explore the art and science of presentation design thinking and ideas from the world of storytelling. Learn how to apply principles from the “Presentation Zen” design philosophy to remake a tired presentation into something an audience can really connect with.
Let's face it. Presentation software (e.g., Microsoft's PowerPoint, Apple's Keynote, and others like Prezi) is a de facto classroom teaching technology. Publishers bundle pre-authored chapter summary PowerPoint slide decks with their textbooks, students clamour for copies of your slides, every meeting room at every conference (STLHE included) is set up with a data projector, a screen, and a computer capable of delivering a presentation. Presentation software is ubiquitous in higher education but it is rarely used as effectively as it could be. The purpose of this workshop is transform your thinking about presentations -- to give you the tools to put more "power" into your "PowerPoint"!
Using design principles from best selling authors Garr Reynolds (Presentation Zen, The Naked Presenter) and Nancy Duarte (slide:ology, resonate) plus ideas from others like Edward Tufte (The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information), we will do just that -- transform our presentations. It is important to stress that the CONTENT of the presentations doesn't change, only the DELIVERY of the content changes. Like the notion of the conservation of energy from physics: "Content is neither created nor destroyed through the presentation zenification process."
The first part of the workshop deals with the technical side of this transformation -- recasting the design of our slide materials. This is a BYOD (bring your own device) hands-on workshop. The device you bring (laptop / tablet) should be capable of editing / authoring presentations, not just displaying them. Also bring a presentation or two that you don't mind sharing with others and having dissected in the name of presentation "zenficiation"!
After introducing various design ideas and walking through the redesign of a typical presentation using a "before & after" approach, we will get into the hands-on work where participants will re-work various aspects of their presentations using the principles and ideas from the first part of the workshop. Like Miss Fizzle of The Magic Schoolbus used to exclaim: "Take chances, make mistakes, get messy." We will do just that. The technical portion of the workshop will conclude with "show and tell" where participants will share aspects of their redesigned presentations with everyone in the workshop.
The final part of the workshop will bring the "zenfied" presentation back into the larger context of a typical university course. In the course of transforming our presentations, we can also transform our lectures from places where our students are passive PowerPoint "consumers" to more active and engaged learners. To this end, I will present a case study of a management science course that has transformed from a PowerPoint-only approach to course content to an eBook + presentation approach.
Part II (afternoon) I have data; now what?
Participants will:
This 3 hour session will be a combination of plenary presentations and small group activities. Participants will learn more about methods and methodology. Depending on participant interest, various methodologies will be explored. These approaches could include traditional approaches of grounded theory and case study, the interpretive approaches, critical theory, quantitative approaches and experimental designs. Participants in small groups will have the opportunity to practice analyzing data. Participants will also be led through strategies to move from data to evidence. The session will end with a discussion of dissemination options including conference presentations and publications.
At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will be able to:
We would like to acknowledge the SoTL Canada SIG, of which the presenters are members, for generating the idea for developing this proposal.
This day-long outdoor and place-based learning workshop features a return trip excursion between downtown Kingston and Cedar Island, where we will explore this haven of tranquility in the St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Place-based learning, which considers “how people connect with places and how those connections influence…engagement with the environment” (Ardoin, Schuh, & Gould, 2012, p. 584) will offer a framework for us to consider our own engagement with our environments of learning. In turn, we will engage with the conference theme of transformation, reflecting on the role, if any, of the natural environment as a catalyst for our own transformative learning (Walter, 2011).
We will paddle canoes and kayaks to the Cedar Island destination, explore various facets of the natural St. Lawrence environment under expert guidance, prepare a communal lunch, enjoying the use of a wood stove at the picnic shelter. Participants will undertake a moderately challenging day involving physical activity and experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) consisting of active experimentation in place, reflective observation, recording impressions and drawing on personal experiences to conceptualize a sense of these activities in the context of personal pedagogies.
This unique workshop aims to make the most of the Thousand Islands environment, creating conditions designed to offer memorable individual, small group, and whole group experiences for twenty-five STLHE Conference participants.
In the words of Baldwin et al. (2013): “the common thread running through all of our teaching is that place matters because it encourages new ways of questioning and being in the world.” P. 2.
Note: Although the physical demands of the day may be described as “moderate” and no particular paddling expertise and outdoor skills are required, to take part you should feel comfortable in a kayak or canoe in varying weather conditions. The Cedar Island destination is not far from the mainland, but please be aware that the workshop will be held in a relatively isolated natural environment.
According to the 2014 Horizon Report, one of the most significant challenges to innovation in higher education is the low digital fluency of faculty. Not having a professional online presence, digital media literacy, and social networking skills makes it difficult for faculty to use the web to disseminate research, teach socially, and find collaborators. For graduate students the stakes are even higher due to the fiercely competitive job markets in several industries and sectors.
Those academics who have an established online presence, social visibility, and platform reach may have an easier time sharing research, getting published, finding professional opportunities and project collaborators, discovering funding opportunities and grant reviewers, internships or mentors, and connecting with relevant publics.
This practical, hands-on workshop is designed to help you construct or update your professional e-presence using popular social media tools you’re likely already familiar with. The workshop is organized around a 3-step strategy to assess your existing online impact, design professional content to share online, and engage in purposeful social networking. We’ll consider examples of academic social publishing, content curation, and digital networking from across the disciplines.
With its focus on the growing necessity of establishing a professional public-facing e-presence, this workshop will make one of the conference themes very personal, namely, the existence of new digital and social learning paradigms and pressures on faculty and students in higher education. It will deliver strategies and actionable ideas to inspire and help develop the professional you, online. This is a BYOD workshop -- participants are invited, but not required, to bring a mobile device to the session.
In this workshop we describe how to effectively use concept questions in the classroom and interactively help educators create concept questions for their classes. The workshop will be a mix of lecture, group work, and feedback from the presenters.
The basic method of using concept questions follows. The instructor uses lecture to teach a particularly difficult concept and answer any questions. Then, a “concept question” and a multiple-choice answer set appear on the screen. Using clickers or some other polling software, the students choose what they believe to be the correct answer from the choices presented. The instructor privately looks at the results. If fewer than 70% of the students get the answer correct, then the instructor asks each student to find a classmate who picked a different answer and try to convince that classmate that he or she is right. The poll is cleared and after a few minutes the students guess again. Usually over 90% of the students get the right answer after consulting with their peers.
Concept questions (Mazur, 2009; Crouch & Mazur, 2001) have a wide range of benefits. They break up a lecture to decrease boredom, and the discussion generates peer-learning. Instructors report increased student engagement (Mazur, 1997). It encourages deep processing of course material long before test time, which in effect forms a kind of spaced learning (Dempster, 1988) and interleaved practice, or, seeing information in multiple contexts (Carpenter, 2001). The immediate feedback provides self-regulated learning (Butler & Winne, 1995), and asking students to predict the outcome of an experiment increases their conceptual understanding of it (Crouch, Fagen, Callan, & Mazur, 2004). Further, it makes the students very interested in learning the correct answer. They also transform the learning experience by offering a novel, interactive engagement differentiated from lecture, videos, class discussion, and reading.
In this workshop, we will review the process of using concept questions and give advice, based on our own experience, on the best way to create them. We will review the efficacy of clickers, index cards, and polleverywhere.com for answer collection. We will discuss strategies for choosing which topics deserve concept questions, and how to make concept questions from difficult material (e.g., anatomy).
The workshop will be interactive. We will encourage participants to create concept questions for their own courses and as a group will give feedback to make them better. Participants will learn how to make concept questions and leave the class with at least two excellent ones for immediate use in teaching, and we will discuss the literature on the benefits of concept questions.
“Experiential learning” has become increasingly popular as a transformative pedagogical approach, with strong potential to facilitate the development of a diverse range of skills and values that are salient for citizenship and leadership at both local and global levels. However, despite its apparently obvious and commonsensical meaning, “experiential learning” is a contested term, in which various underlying philosophies are associated with different experiential methods and hence, different types of anticipated outcomes. Moreover, despite the potential benefits of experiential learning opportunities, various methods can also pose an assortment of ethical, pragmatic and risk management challenges, which sometimes go unacknowledged and therefore unaddressed. Understanding the differences among various experiential methods, being able to select the “best fit” for particular courses and learning goals, and, effectively planning for and managing the challenges inhering each method will help educators and students alike to more fully realize the transformative promise of experiential learning.
Intended Learning Outcomes:
Following completion of the workshop, participants will be able to:
Strategies for Audience Engagement:
The workshop will be highly interactive in nature and include the following:
Primary literature is known to be the best source for scientific information. It is often perceived to be inaccessible to an undergraduate audience. The jargon, methodologies and overall structure of a paper can be confusing and overwhelming, often left to senior undergraduates or graduate students. However, these perceived challenges can be used as effective teaching tools when a structure and scaffold is provided to help students understand how to navigate and digest primary literature. We encourage our students to look to the primary literature not only as a source of reference but also as a fundamental medium for conceptual exposure and understanding.
In the second and third years of the Integrated Science Program at McMaster University, we utilize primary literature as a key pedagogical method for teaching conceptual content. In the second year of the program, key articles are chosen by the instructors, which exemplify the theory and application of important concepts. Articles are discussed in a seminar format, in place of a lecture, facilitated by the instructor. Students are not asked to simply read the paper but select particular sections of the paper to focus upon and provide explanation to the class. Students must provide insight on their assigned section in the context of relevance to the topic, the discipline and society at large. For example, during our ecology module we use a paper focusing on mutualisms (beneficial interactions between two or more species). The students discuss the paper in the context of ecology and biology and also make extensions to economics and group theory. Through this exercise students learn concepts from the curriculum and also become more familiar with primary literature, its structure and receive a better understanding of scientific methodologies, experimental logistics and communication.
The foundation created in the second year provides a jumping off point for students in third year. At this point, students identify and select primary literature pertinent to their project, and lead small, peer groups in discussion. The responsibility taken by the instructor in the second year to facilitate is now placed upon the student. Students must critically evaluate the larger body of literature to identify primary sources that apply to their specific research projects. Additionally, they are tasked with helping their peers understand and appraise the concepts, methodologies and applications of the chosen paper.
Use of this pedagogy has received positive feedback from our students. It has allowed them to take more responsibility in how they learn and gain much appreciation for the communication of science. Students improve their skills in critically evaluating scientific writing and their ability to glean pertinent information from this source. Further, students practice leading others in the understanding and evaluation of sources of information.
In this session we will share the pedagogy and processes we have used as well as communicate some of the lessons we have learned from using primary literature as a key pedagogical technique. We will also challenge participants to think of situations where they can apply similar techniques in their own courses.
This session will share the insights gained about teaching during a scholarship of teaching and learning inquiry exploring student learning in an undergraduate studies course. As teachers from different backgrounds, our learning and growth began when we came together to explore a series of learning questions and reflective journals completed by students in our classes.
During data analysis, we became part of a process of transformation and growth; realizing our students were offering valuable lessons about not only the design and delivery of the course, but also about our teaching. We shared teaching approaches and styles with each other through the information we gathered for our research: student feedback within learning questions, assessments used in the course, and feedback provided to students. Our insights resulted in a powerful experience that changed the way we viewed our teaching and the course, and resulted in adaptations to course design and delivery. At times it felt like an endeavor where we were taking a risk, other times an experience of affirmation, but most importantly it developed into a unique means for learning about teaching and ourselves.
In this session, two teachers share how collaborative research impacted their future teaching experiences and delivery of an undergraduate studies course. Lessons learned from students during the research process will be explored through a description of the inquiry, the data collected and insights gained during the data analysis process. Adaptations to course assessments as a result of the research will also be shared. Finally the impact of the group research process and its data analysis process will be identified.
Participants will have the opportunity to reflect on the information presented and discuss the impact it may have on their personal growth, teaching, and course development. The lessons students teach and their opportunities for transformation will also be explored. Dialogue about the importance of these lessons and how research facilitates learning opportunities will conclude the discussion.
“If we want to grow as teachers -- we must do something alien to academic culture: we must talk to each other about our inner lives -- risky stuff in a profession that fears the personal and seeks safety in the technical, the distant, the abstract.”
This session will be about the use of individual learning plans in the classroom. Every student has their own learning style, set of interests, and schedule. To reflect this fact, I have offered a variety of options in several of my courses for the last three years (at the second and third year university level, class sizes from 40 to 140), from which students can choose to build their own individual learning plan. Students select from a series of low stake writing options (in-class activities, online engagement, critical reflection papers), higher stake writing options (various term papers), and exams that adds up to 100%.
In this session, strengths of individual learning plans will be explored, such as offering students a say over how they are going to demonstrate their understanding of course content; encouraging students to actively reflect on their own learning; fostering early engagement right at the start of the semester; forcing the instructor to clearly lay out expectations for each mechanism of assessment right at the beginning of a course; encouraging students to think ahead and plan their whole semester; creating flexibility in case of health, personal, or work issues; encouraging students to read and write; fostering peer learning without making it mandatory; allowing for the inclusion of other creative forms of assignments without forcing everyone to participate; and further justifying the pedagogical use of online learning management platforms.
This session will also discuss some of the challenges associated with the use of individual learning plans, such as choices being overwhelming to some students and helping them make good choices for themselves; difficulties associated with grading due to students’ self-selection; finding the right balance in the weight of various assignments; finding the right balance in terms of time when discussing assignments that only a portion of students have committed to complete; and this approach can be more time consuming for instructors due to an added layer of pedagogy.
Best practices associated with individual learning plans will be shared, based on my experience and the overwhelmingly positive feedback from many of the 450 students whom have taken courses with me using this approach. There will be time during this session for discussion and questions.
In most undergraduate music programs at North American colleges and universities, music majors are required to complete a core grouping of music theory courses to satisfy degree requirements. The intent of these courses is to provide foundational training in analytical, compositional and aural skill. To succeed, students must retain and build upon knowledge from one course to the next. Consequently, the need for student motivation and engagement with learning is high.
Instruction in the music theory core typically relies on lecture-style delivery of information supplemented by problem-solving assignments. In the classroom, an instructor assumes the role of expert imparting information to students, who are passive recipients of knowledge. Teaching materials published for these courses support this conventional model of instruction. They usually consist of a textbook that transmits knowledge and one or more accompanying workbooks that provide exercises for students to practice application of concepts explained in the textbook. Despite ongoing improvements to supporting texts that take advantage of technological innovation, instructors still struggle with student engagement in music theory core courses. This may come as no surprise to researchers in the field of teaching and learning, whose scholarship documents that such a conventional method of instruction does not engage students in meaningful learning.
Drawing on the scholarship of teaching and learning and reflecting the STLHE conference theme, this presentation reports on a attempt to transform passive students into engaged learners in a second-year core music theory course through integration of several educational best practices including writing-to-learn activities, peer review and reflection into a high-impact collaborative project that treats students as budding professionals in the field. It presents encouraging results of a secondary study of student reflections documenting the perceived value of the project from their perspective. The presentation offers compelling evidence of student engagement in subject learning, meta-learning, and knowledge transfer. It seeks feedback from educators interested in high-impact best practices that transform learning experiences.
Much has been written about the theoretical and abstract aspects of transformation in education. But what kinds of very specific techniques and practices (in the classroom and out) foster transformation? How do we help the adolescent learner transform into the adult learner, ready to take his or her place as critical thinker and self-directed learner throughout a lifetime?
Over the past ten years, I have experimented with an almost entirely open-ended final project, in interdisciplinary courses in the humanities. My only requirement for one project was that students must use the written word (in additional to other media if they choose) and that the projects must somehow integrate some of the things they have learned and discovered throughout the course. In another course, they were required to create 10 written reflections on our general topic, five of which had to directly integrate course material. Initially, students were astounded and even horrified by the vagueness of such a project. But the results were also astounding in the very best possible ways. This kind of open-ended project unleashed creativity and collaboration that I'd never seen so consistently in my students. In the beginning, I undertook this approach in a small, liberal arts college, where students tend to be creative and where they are quite comfortable in asking questions about assignments. We spent a great deal of class time brainstorming about aspects of these projects (essays, fiction, sculpture, painting, music, slam poetry and hybrids of these forms). More recently at a publicly funded university, I've tried the same project with similar results. A literature review of the research on student journals, summative projects and portfolios reveals that most of the research is done in the fields of clinical and experiential learning, like healthcare, engineering, education, in which students must meet demanding rubrics for professional standards.
Assessing true transformation is difficult, but we can construct assignments and atmospheres that are conducive to real change in all of our students, not just those in applied fields. Reflecting on this experience makes me realize that as postsecondary educators, we need to improve our knowledge and understanding of the principles of adult education. Androgagy (pioneered by Malcolm Knowles) suggests life experience (from which an individual may draw) as a resource for learning. The results of the projects from my recent course (on environmental literature) will show that students learned to place themselves at the centre of their learning--not in a facile way, but in a way that reflects the critical inquiry and self-reflection of the adult learner. Guided by clear course objectives, students can strike out on a path of educational discovery; rather than learning about biology and art, they can learn to be biologists and artists.
In this session, I will present a brief framework of key principles in adult education (androgagy and perspective transformation) and the results of my recent course projects (with visuals, with permission from the students). I will also invite participants to share their own experience. Why isn't this being done more frequently in non-applied fields of study? If it is, why are we not writing about it?
Due to increased post-secondary enrollment, class sizes have expanded. Studies have found large class sizes to be associated with low student engagement. Because student engagement is strongly associated with positive learning and performance outcomes, there is a growing body of research on strategies to engage students in large classes. Many active learning strategies, such as clicker questions and a think-pair-share activity, engage students momentarily in the classroom. Experiential learning activities (ELAs) may more effectively engage students in the course as a whole and improve their academic performance.
In this session, we will share the results an intervention study conducted in two large first and second year undergraduate nutrition courses at University of Guelph, Ontario, in fall 2012 and winter 2013. In the study, all students (n = 980) were invited to participate in an optional ELA involving completion of a 3-day food record, a tour of a health assessment research lab, and body composition (percent body fat) assessment using the lab’s BOD POD®. Participants completed a take-home assignment that allowed them to apply course content to interpret their diet analysis and body composition results. To examine effect of the ELA on student engagement, we compared students’ baseline and follow-up scores on the Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE), a classroom-level adaptation of the National Survey of Student Engagement (Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research). To assess impact of the ELA on course performance, we compared change in percentile rank from the midterm to the final exam among students who did vs. did not participate in the ELA. Finally, we administered a satisfaction survey to examine students’ impression of the ELA experience.
The ELA changed the way students learned, and also changed the instructors’ own teaching methods. Our results suggest that an ELA can be used to generate interest and increase overall student course engagement and performance in large undergraduate nutrition courses. Researchers should continue to explore the effectiveness of learning initiatives that target underlying motivating factors of engagement in transforming students into active learner.
This session discusses the process of providing a structured development program for faculty to implement student-centered learning strategies in a college of nursing. A call to change our teaching and learning practices in nursing comes from healthcare leaders who see the complicated healthcare environment (National Academies, 2010; Benner, et al, 2010). Also, our expected result of teaching and learning in nursing has evolved to include clinical reasoning, situated learning, and civic professionalism (Benner, et al, 2010). Higher education leaders recommend reconsidering the ideas of learning and student evaluation of learning (Bass, 2012; Bain, 2004).
Faculty are expected to manage the classroom and are responsible for learning outcomes. Faculty tend to be subject matter experts, but may not have the same expertise in delivery or facilitation of content. Developing new ways of instruction and classroom management requires preparation and support. This program is called Master Instruction and was developed to support faculty to conduct class in a student- centered approach. A discussion of the process used to prepare faculty for a student-centered focus learning environment and the roll out to faculty in a college of nursing will be the focus of this session.
The purpose of this session is to present an inquiry approach used to transform higher education teachers’ learning about teaching and learning into a cyclical process of pedagogical reasoning. Participants attending the session will be invited to discuss the approach and to reflect on how to apply such an approach to their own practice.
Designed for higher education teachers, the MPES (Microprogramme de 3e cycle en pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur) is a 9-credit faculty development program which attracts faculty and college teachers, doctoral and post-doctoral students, as well as educational and faculty developers. Learning trajectories in the MPES last over a period of one to three years and include a compulsory course (Teaching and Learning in Higher Education) and two selected courses from a list of five possible choices (Active Learning Methods; Authentic Assessment of Learning; Technology and Distance Learning; Learning in Higher Education; Innovating in Higher Education). Central to all courses are four learning outcomes, one of which is adopting a scholarly approach to teaching. In order to achieve this outcome, each course engages teachers in a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) project. Such a project is based on an iterative process of reflecting on one’s practice, gaining theoretical and evidence-based knowledge about teaching and learning in their discipline, designing tasks likely to foster learning, and planning strategies to assess teaching and learning. Adapted from the SoTL literature (Boyer, 1990; Kreber, 2002; O’Brien, 2008; Rege Colet, McAlpine, Fanghanel & Weston, 2011; Shulman, 2005; Weston & McAlpine, 2001), this inquiry approach is used to cultivate a process of pedagogical reasoning that is situated in one’s practice, informed by research, and that contributes to the advancement of their practice and the quality of student learning. The presentation will focus on the design of this SoTL approach and its use across learning trajectories in the MPES.
At the Stern School of Business, NYU, all students are required to take four courses (one each year) focusing on written communication. In the senior year, students taking the Professional Rights and Liabilities course are required to write two papers about specific ethical behavior of companies. Students have the option of a coaching session (one hour or less) for each of the two papers with professional writers either in person or via e-mail. In the latter, their papers are reviewed using Word tracking. These students also can e-mail volley with the professional writer. The students may present a completed draft or a well-defined outline.
How these sessions work, what they can do, plus ways that this type of coaching can be incorporated into other programs will be the starting point of discussion. Other issues that will be discussed include associated costs, time involved, and how the program is designed to maximize the time and skills of the writing coaches.
Peer mentoring in higher education is an excellent learning opportunity for mentors and mentees. In the literature, the common meaning of a peer mentor refers to a more experienced individual who assists a less experienced individual. In the context of nursing education, a peer mentor is a third or fourth year nursing student, who offers assistance and support to other nursing students with theory and/or skills. Research conducted using peer mentors to enhance nursing skills in health assessment showed significant benefit. Could this same benefit be seen in an experiential learning environment where students and mentors are expected to think on their feet, not in their seats?
This session will introduce a peer mentorship model used in an experiential learning setting. In this model, fourth year nursing students mentor first and second year nursing students in real-time evolving simulated scenarios. Simulation is a pedagogy which is used to promote, improve, and/or validate a participant’s progression from novice to expert. When working with students and mentors, this learning and progression not only occurs for the students in the scenario but also for the peer mentors. Benefits for the learner, peer mentor, faculty and nursing profession will be highlighted. Characteristics of the peer mentoring process such as shared learning, shared caring, reciprocity, commitment to each other's personal and professional growth are discussed. Challenges to implementing this mentorship approach including training, leveling and learning curves will also be discussed in relation to learning in the simulated setting.
A multitude of new and adapted problem-based pedagogical styles are being discussed within higher education to promote student learning through meaningful interactions and experiences with facilitators/teachers. Indeed, adult learning literature recommends that instructors accommodate a self-guided learning style, with greater inclusion of personally meaningful (i.e., focusing on an analysis of experience), problem-focused approaches designed to create autonomous and engaged learners (e.g., Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). With the popularization of these programs, facilitators should take the initiative to engage in ongoing learning to cultivate their competencies related to enabling problem-based learning. We propose to examine learners’ needs and preferences in their facilitator’s style by exploring instructional contexts in adult sport. In these sport contexts, coaches can be conceived both as leaders tasked with facilitating athlete learning and as learners themselves, acquiring competencies through their lived experiences with athletes (Callary, Werthner, & Trudel, 2012). These experiences have the potential of generating ideas for ongoing learning for facilitators in higher education, especially because they are often based on passion, engagement, and problem-solving in the process of coaching small groups (Callary et al., 2012). In our research exploring the lived experiences of adult swimmers with their coaches, we found that adult athletes want their coaches to foster accountability and integrity to learning; they want leaders who show competence, credibility, and passion, who are organized and flexible, and who know when, how, and to whom to give feedback. Athletes further discussed how their coach indirectly affected their personal development by creating motivating environments in which they wanted to continue to participate. Overall, our research underscores the diverse efforts of coaches to learn how to best work with their adult students’ needs and wants.
In this round table, we will share findings from our research in order to generate discussion for ongoing learning of facilitators in higher education who wish to develop competencies important to facilitating adult learners’ motivation and engagement in problem-based pedagogical experiences. We hope you will join us as we merge poignant pedagogical experiences from the sport context with perspectives on higher education, in an effort to explore how these experiences can aid facilitators’ ongoing learning.
Many post-secondary institutions are striving to transform education by expanding learning to outside of the classroom and across disciplines. A common book program (CBP) has become one popular mechanism that colleges and universities across the United States, and now Canada, employ to transform the first-year student experience. By reading a common book (CB) during orientation, it is hoped that first-year students can quickly get a taste of the academic flavour of the university, become involved in on-campus activities, make connections across a variety courses and disciplines, and be introduced to the critical thinking, reading and literacy in post-secondary studies (Ferguson, 2006). In this session, we share the book selection process for a CBP at X University, the lessons learned in selecting a book, and future goals of the CB selection process. Session participants who currently participate in a CBP or who are considering a CBP at their institution can benefit from our experiences and suggestions for implementation.
Despite the popularity of CBPs, there exists very little research on virtually all aspects of CBPs. While we have conducted research on participants’ satisfaction with a CBP (in press), we wanted to shed light on the book selection process. If CBPs have the potential to transform the first-year student experience, the book chosen is an integral part of the success of the program. Grenier (2007) investigated 80 American CBPs and reported the following are common criteria for book selection: readability, length, and author availability. However, we can find no published research that details the process of how these books are selected.
During the 2012-2013 year, X University’s CBP selection committee (consisting of staff, faculty, students, and administrators) narrowed the nominations, and the final book was selected using an online campus-wide vote. As researchers, we wanted to know: a) What are the criteria for book selection? b) How does the decision-making process evolve? c) What are the decision-makers' reflections on the book selection process? To answer our questions, we observed CB committee meetings and we interviewed each committee member (N = 10) after the book was chosen. This session will highlight our study’s results and reflect on the implications for future practice.
Educational research and practice indicates that students learn best when they are actively engaged with the course material and with one another in collaborative, inquiry-based learning activities. Because such learner-centred techniques require regular, time-intensive student-to-student interaction, they have been particularly challenging to implement in large classes. This session will illustrate how the traditional small-group teaching model has been adapted to a large undergraduate Psychology course using blended-format Inquiry Exercises, allowing students to collaborate on a series of case studies both face-to-face (in class) and within virtual pods (discrete online units of 3-4 peers). The exercise materials were designed to facilitate critical thinking and application of course concepts, and the iterative process (four exercises throughout the course) provided students with an opportunity to self-reflect and internalize the learning. Most importantly, students conducted independent peer reviews and assessments of one another’s work, with minimal interference (but regular monitoring) from the course instructor. By transforming students into teachers, responsible for all aspects of their own learning, the Inquiry Exercises were designed to foster a sense of increased engagement, accountability, and accomplishment among the students.
This session will present a pilot study evaluating the impact of Inquiry Exercises from the students’ perspective. At the end of the term, all students enrolled in the course were invited to complete a survey about their academic self-efficacy beliefs, learning styles, critical thinking dispositions, and experiences working on the Inquiry Exercises. In addition, participants’ grades and submissions for the four Inquiry Exercises were analysed to explore the temporal dynamics of students’ performance over time. Although results are only preliminary due to lack of a control group, they can inform further development of the design, implementation, and outcomes of this transformative blended-format approach, designed specifically to deliver the learning benefits of a traditional small-group teaching model in courses with large enrolments. The audience will have the opportunity to discuss the innovation, ask questions, and provide suggestions for further adaptation.
At many institutions teaching and learning has been transformed in the last decade through the use of educational technologies. The support of strong leadership, careful strategic planning and the development of a culture of teaching innovation, risk-taking and change are recognized as key components in this transformation (Bates & Sangra, 2011). Educational developers have a role in this transformation by providing instructors with opportunities for exploring and implementing the latest in teaching and learning practices. As online, blended and hybrid course designs have become part of post-secondary educational course offerings, a growing literature on blended learning (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008) supports the effectiveness of this model. A recent area of interest at our institution, particularly in the sciences, is a type of blended learning design called the “flipped class”, popular as a way to engage students more actively and encourage more collaborative learning in the classroom while also promoting self-directed learning in the online environment (Berrett, 2012).
In this session we will share how we have introduced instructors to the “flipped class” model and how we subsequently connected with faculty who had participated in our flipped class workshops over the past year to find out how they were integrating the model into their course designs. Participants’ feedback indicated that a small proportion of instructors had implemented truly flipped classes, where students “receive content from technology and apply knowledge with help from the instructor” (Margulieux, Bujak, McCracken & Majerich, 2012), but many had, in the words of one of our participants, created more of a “tilt” than a flip in their course. We will describe some of the “tilts” that our instructors developed and how they have increased active learning for students and will seek input from participants on their experiences with introducing technology into their teaching practices to develop “tilts”. The intended outcome of this roundtable discussion is a better understanding of whether this strategy of model adaptation and bottom-up change is an important part of how educators can create innovative and meaningful educational experiences for students and if these adaptations can have a significant impact on the transformation of teaching and learning.
Linear Algebra I is a large course (>200 students) offered in a live format that is traditionally very challenging to teach due to a lack of motivation from a largely indifferent population of learners who are not in the mathematics, physics, or computer science program. Students’ wide spectrum of mathematical competency created the need for an alternative course model to accommodate their diversity. In this session, we will explain the strategies we implemented and share student feedback.
Two main course problems we identified were lack of motivation in mathematics and the inefficiency of large live lectures. As a result, one section of the course changed its format to reconstruct the learning environment and incorporate several motivational strategies. A blended course model was selected for the section, keeping the best of the live course experience (tutorials) while providing lectures and activities online. Following the Keller’s ARCS model for influencing learner’s motivation through major conditions, such as Attention (5-6 videos per lecture with each about 5 minutes long, high-quality instruction, frequent student engagement via mini problems in between lecture parts with immediate feedback), Relevance (providing access to applications such as simple computer games and apps that utilize Linear Algebra), Confidence (clearly stated lecture outcomes, opportunities for frequent self-evaluation without penalty, increasing difficulty with reasonable challenge, prerequisite material provided) and Satisfaction (frequent messages from the Instructor, praise for success on weekly quizzes, absence of threats), combined with weekly graded quizzes that students could take up to five times with the highest score recorded, created a safe learning environment that motivated students and accommodated diverse learning needs (including the closed captioning of all lectures to accommodate ESL students, those with hearing impairment and everyone who prefers to read then to hear).
The goal of this project was not to create a learning environment that necessarily produced a superior course grade average than the live course; it was to create a more accessible, accommodating, functionally and visually appealing math learning experience that better suited the needs of a 21st century university student.
The Centre for e-Learning at the University of Ottawa works in collaboration with faculty to develop online and blended learning courses. Our team of instructional designers, multimedia developers, and graphic artists build learning materials customized to the needs of the course.
The University of Ottawa has recently launched a five-year initiative encouraging the development of blended learning courses. In this session, we would like to share/exchange experiences with colleagues working on similar projects and glean best practices.
E-learning is the realization of a world where distance education enables access to high quality education to those students who would not normally have it for several reasons, including geographical problems or scheduling challenges. Whereas technologies can provide accessibility to knowledge, ensuring the competence of professors and the motivation of students (Villar et al., 2006) is yet to be achieved. In order to solve this problem, some argue that programmers, technicians and instructors using e-learning should put less emphasis on the technologies than on the content, in order to meet student’s needs by focusing on the educational curriculum (The Information Revolution, 2003). Maintaining student interest and attention can also be a challenge: studies have identified that low motivation among students may arise from lacking a sense of belongingness to a community of learners. Online icebreakers (Dixon, 2006) and technologies that create 3D learning spaces to mimic the dynamics of a classroom (IsaBelle et al., 2006) can help students feel like they belong and increase student motivation.
The aim of this session is to explore the benefits and weaknesses of the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education. Discussion will be mainly based on theoretical studies on some of the consequences of the use of ICT, such as accessibility, interest of students and ICT professional development offered to professors, as well as on a case study based on issues in Military and Veteran Health Research, a webinar taught every fall term by more than 15 different lecturers to graduate students from across Canada. The effectiveness of a multimedia approach to distance learning incorporated in the webinars will be shared based on a student questionnaire measuring their motivation and perception of the usefulness of tools used during the semester.
Histology is the study of microscopic anatomy of tissues of plants and animals. To study histology, different sections are prepared and stained to examine tissues using a light microscope. Different types of stains are used during the preparation of histological slides in order to identify microscopic structures. The ability to visualize and identify these structures can be challenging and requires practice at any educational level. The laboratory component of the human anatomy and physiology course (LUSL 2105) taught in the first year of the Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BScN) degree program at St Lawrence College (in collaboration with Laurentian University) contains a significant histology component with over 60 slides of different tissues to study and learn. Throughout the years we attempted to explore and apply different teaching resources and pedagogical tools to overcome some of students’ learning challenges and to improve students’ skills and abilities to learn histology.
We performed a retrospective study to compare the effectiveness of three different tools used in the histology laboratory over the past few years. The first was the traditional tool where the instructor provided an oral explanation prior to students’ use of the light microscope. This was fortified by diagrams provided within the students’ laboratory manual. The second tool consisted of the display of electronic diagrams of standard tissue slides using power point presentations prior to students viewing the actual slides using the light microscope. The third tool involved the use of a microscope fortified with a built-in camera projecting a real-time image on a big screen prior to students viewing same slides using the light microscope. The effectiveness of these tools was evaluated on the basis of students’ grades of a structured quiz composed of 10 slides.
This session will include a discussion of the study and its results. Implications for how to teach histology effectively will also be explored.
Histology is the study of microscopic anatomy of tissues of plants and animals. To study histology, different sections are prepared and stained to examine tissues using a light microscope. Different types of stains are used during the preparation of histological slides in order to identify microscopic structures. The ability to visualize and identify these structures can be challenging and requires practice at any educational level. The laboratory component of the human anatomy and physiology course (LUSL 2105) taught in the first year of the Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BScN) degree program at St Lawrence College (in collaboration with Laurentian University) contains a significant histology component with over 60 slides of different tissues to study and learn. Throughout the years we attempted to explore and apply different teaching resources and pedagogical tools to overcome some of students’ learning challenges and to improve students’ skills and abilities to learn histology.
We performed a retrospective study to compare the effectiveness of three different tools used in the histology laboratory over the past few years. The first was the traditional tool where the instructor provided an oral explanation prior to students’ use of the light microscope. This was fortified by diagrams provided within the students’ laboratory manual. The second tool consisted of the display of electronic diagrams of standard tissue slides using power point presentations prior to students viewing the actual slides using the light microscope. The third tool involved the use of a microscope fortified with a built-in camera projecting a real-time image on a big screen prior to students viewing same slides using the light microscope. The effectiveness of these tools was evaluated on the basis of students’ grades of a structured quiz composed of 10 slides.
This session will include a discussion of the study and its results. Implications for how to teach histology effectively will also be explored.
In recent years, we have seen an explosion in the use of electronic devices such as tablets and smart phones amongst students at post-secondary institutions. These devices are popular and continue to improve with each passing generation of technology. However, research shows that reading in print still has advantages over online reading, such as improved engagement with lengthy texts, concentration and comprehension.
Given this knowledge, how can classroom activities change to help students read successfully when so many of their texts are available online? How should we advise instructors to help build comprehension and critical reading in the classroom?
Digital access to a variety of academic and popular material is changing how we teach and how our students can learn. Courses rely on a combination of print and digital media, sources that are freely available on the internet, and paid-access material from online library databases. Students must be able to engage with all of these sources.
How a teacher “presents” the task of reading may itself limit or extend good reading practice in the students. If our goal is to cultivate our students’ ability to critically read sources, we need to understand how students access and read digital media and online readings. What do they read online and how well? How can we advise our students to use technology more effectively? Can we help our students make informed choices about whether to read online or in print? What about other factors that impact on students, such as access/affordability or technical competence? With so many options and technologies available to us as teachers, we encounter new challenges. In addition to promoting critical reading skills, often we identify further goals, such as having our students connect meaningfully with disciplinary knowledges, or opening up learning environments.
In this session we explore these questions, and share from our professional teaching practices in areas of writing support, information literacy, and teaching with technology – offering strategies from in the classroom, as well as outside, online and beyond. We offer participants an opportunity to engage in discovery and discussion of the impact of online reading on student learning. In our session, we will provide opportunities to share new research, participate in activity-based learning, and discuss the application of teaching methods to address student reading.
When we tackled the challenge of teaching an undergrad online course using a problem-based learning (PBL) approach, we were confronted with the problematic of teaching to students spread over different time zones whom we had never meet. We wanted to innovate and use a problem-based learning approach, but we were aware that this type of pedagogy often makes students insecure about their performance because the learning sequence doesn’t match the classical model they have been exposed to before. We wished to design the course by imagining the student experience rather than focus on the content, like most online courses are designed. This shift of focus from content-based material to experience-based material required a different approach to designing course material. We imagined authentic ill-defined problems for which students had to provide a concrete solution. These problems were presented in the first three weeks of the course and the students had 12 weeks to provide solutions that would solve the problems, but this approach remained as dry as a content-driven course. This is when we decided to place storytelling at the forefront of our design.
In this roundtable, we will focus on four elements related to the design and the facilitation of our course: 1) the PBL model for developing professional competence we used; 2) the “toile de fond” of the stories we wrote after identifying the content of the course; 3) the affordances of the technologies we used that allowed synchronous and asynchronous (same time and different time) interactions; 4) the formative feedback loop we used to scaffold assignments. We will explain how the four elements –that is PBL, storytelling, technology affordances and formative feedback, were weaved together to create an engaging learning experience for the students. This required not only a shift in how we designed the material, but also a shift in our role as teachers and the students’ role. We will also present how students dealt with the elements of surprise that occurred in the narratives and how they helped inform the students about their own PBL experience.
Introductory undergraduate engineering classes in programming and problem solving tend to suffer from seemingly insolvably high failure rates. Few would dispute the need for problem-based or active learning for these courses. Like many other universities, in past years, lectures have incorporated peer instruction, clickers, flipped classes, early feedback interventions, hybridized online course delivery, the use of different “easier” programming languages, as well as re-organizing and even, regrettably ,removing content. Yet, little thought has been given to the laboratory, strange in a faculty of engineering where there are 1.5 hours of labs for each hour of lecture, a balance reflecting the presumed importance of applied practice in engineering education.
In the past fall semester, a new holistic perspective was taken, prompting a change in the lab environment, its space and its use of instructors and teaching assistants (TAs). Past lab practices had students work in rows of computers, working individually on prescribed programming exercises, with TAs wandering about, answering questions by random students whenever asked. The new vision was to embrace the literature on the value of collaborative and peer learning, with their positive impacts on community, engagement, skill development, and ultimately on content mastery; nicely, the vision coincided with the current direction of Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) where teamwork and lifelong learning have been defined as two of twelve graduate attributes of an engineering student. Use of small groups, seating arrangements, dedicated TAs, pre-and-post meetings and even rolling whiteboards were used to promote relationships between students. Despite the large class size, the intent was to create a community for each student, from which – with direction, training and facilitation by the TAs – would re-direct the learning to peers. The instructors – and even the TAs – were removed as the foci of learning, as the content experts and providers.
This session will include discussion about the re-organization of the labs. It will also address students’ perspectives on the new labs by highlighting results of a student survey derived from established surveys on classroom experiences and engagement. Lastly, personal reflections on the venture and a dialogue concerning the rationale and evaluation of the work will ensue.
Massive open online courses, or MOOCs, are a phenomenon that has been alternately constructed as both threat and saviour for higher education. Some see them as the demise of the traditional university, others as an exciting new learning experience that will extend education to those underserved by traditional institutions. Whether promise or peril, MOOCs are incredibly popular, with millions of participants engaged in thousands of courses. Most administrators, researchers, and academics involved in higher education agree it is likely that MOOCs will impact current practices and have the ability to revolutionise learning experiences.
It is imperative, therefore, that we have research of the highest quality to guide our understandings of, and responses to, the MOOC phenomenon. Yet most research conducted so far has been limited both in scope and methodology. There is a preponderance of research looking at drop out rates, characteristics of learners, and patterns of learners. Most of these studies rely on learning analytics and quantitative data, often automatically logged by MOOC platforms, in an attempt to numerically capture the learner experience. While such studies are valuable in establishing generalities, they are limited in their ability to provide deeper understandings of the actual experience of participants. What is missing is research that focuses on the learner as they attempt to learn through this novel technology.
This session reports on the early stages of a research project that explores how participants learn to learn in a MOOC, focusing on the experience of learners as they navigate through the complex information environment found in MOOCs. Learning in networked online environments requires different skills than are used in a traditional classroom, and previous research has identified some of the struggles learners experience: confusion over the roles of students and teachers, a lack of ability to self-regulate their learning, disorientation from working across multiple platforms, and the need for a complex set of digital and social literacies unique to the online environment. This study attempts to understand how learners negotiate these struggles while also engaging with the content of the course. Drawing on concepts of self-determined learning, sense-making, and networked learning, and combining data from surveys, learning analytics, and a virtual ethnographic approach, this research follows the paths learners take through a MOOC. By focusing on the experience of participants, we hope to identify the critical literacies, threshold concepts, and types of support that can best help learners in MOOCs successfully attain their goals. As well as providing information, this session will encourage discussion around the complexities of leaning in such massive, information rich, networked environments, with the goal of generating insights that will help educators support students in navigating and succeeding in these new learning environments.
Tuesday’s Terrific Teaching Tips (4T) is faculty sharing their best practices and tips with each other across disciplines and faculties at NorQuest College, a large Alberta college where upgrading, health and business are taught in a very diverse context. Every Tuesday, new Terrific Teaching Tips are emailed to faculty to review, discuss, comment on and use as needed. Through this process, faculty learn from each other and, more importantly, celebrate their expertise.
During this ‘Transforming our Learning Experiences’ session, the sharing process at NorQuest will be discussed briefly. Faculty will also have the opportunity to share their diverse and unique teaching strategies.
An undergraduate's university experience is often fragmented, with courses, service opportunities, and extra-curricular activities seemingly unconnected to one another. Integrative learning transcends academic boundaries, and encourages students to address real-world problems, to synthesize multiple areas of knowledge, and to consider issues from a variety of perspectives. Fostering students’ capacity to integrate their learning is one of the main goals of higher education, and is often one of the greatest challenges (Huber and Hutchings, 2004). How can we help instructors provide opportunities in the classroom to facilitate integrative learning?
Many instructors at the University of Waterloo are very good at designing courses and programs that help students actively participate in their learning and integrate their experiences. As instructional developers with the Centre for Teaching Excellence, we will highlight what instructors are already doing to help students integrate their learning and inspire other instructors to incorporate similar strategies into their teaching. To do this, we developed a model to build and support two different instructor community groups, a faculty specific community group for the Faculty of Engineering and a campus-wide community group.
At this round table, we will share how we built and supported the community groups, the dynamics of the meetings, the resources we provided and the evidence we used to measure the success of the model. We welcome feedback from the participants about the model and how can we improve it.
In 2011, UBC introduced the rank of Professor of Teaching as the highest point on the teaching stream career pathway, with equivalent status to full Professor in the research stream. Promotion to the rank was to be based on evidence of outstanding teaching performance, service and a critical third component: educational leadership. In its most concise form, one can think of educational leadership as having impact outside one’s own classroom. By focusing on three main pillars of contribution, the notion of a ‘deficit model’ sometimes associated with teaching stream positions, in which a candidate’s portfolio of achievements is lacking the equivalent comparator to research activities required of research stream faculty, is avoided.
In this round table discussion session led by faculty holding the rank of Professor of Teaching and Senior Instructor, we will describe the initial years of operation of and promotion to this rank, highlighting a range of career trajectories and portfolios of expertise amongst current Professors of Teaching. We will unpack the elements we understand to fall within the broad theme of ‘educational leadership’. This can include, but does not require, activities in the arena of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. We will describe the formation of a network comprising those who hold the rank of Professors of Teaching, and the developing purpose of this group to demonstrate educational leadership in their respective roles, be advocates for the role and the teaching stream in general, and to provide support and mentorship to colleagues on a similar career trajectory. Finally, we offer some reflections on the challenges associated with this role, which is still relatively new.
The role of Ontario college faculty has evolved considerably since the turn of the century, especially in the area of research activities. While college professors used to be hired for their content expertise, and solely to teach students, they are now often hired as much for their advanced academic degrees, and their ability to conduct what is usually referred to as applied research. From the establishment of the Ontario college system in the mid-1960s until the turn of the century, however, research as a separate and distinct activity was not part of a professor’s duties, and time for research activities was neither needed nor acknowledged.
In order to gain an understanding of how evolving expectations in terms of academic standing and research abilities are affecting Ontario’s college professoriate, and whether or not time for research is now being accommodated, a study of four Ontario colleges at various stages of applied research evolution explored the degree to which the institutions, since the advent of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act in 2000, and the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act of 2002, have included making time available to the professoriate to engage in applied research activities.
Because release time for research activity is not currently addressed in the Standard Workload Formula (SWF) as governed by the Faculty Collective Agreement that applies to all 24 Ontario colleges, professors who want to engage in their own applied research activities tend do so for the most part on their own time – after work, on weekends or during sabbaticals. In order to find time for applied research activities in the Standard Workload Formula (SWF,) it is possible for professors to have some course reduction – usually one or two courses in a semester, and/or a temporary reduction in other responsibilities - but these practices are largely contingent on the professors’ working relationship with their departmental managers. The practices in terms of finding the necessary time for applied research activities are by no means consistent within a single institution, much less across the group of Ontario colleges, with the result being that time for research activities appears to be applied on a somewhat haphazard basis.
This session will explore the evolution of applied research in the Ontario college system, how applied research activities can be incorporated into curriculum, and how by doing so, both professors and students may benefit from the applied research experience.
A unique partnership was created in 2010 between librarians and educational developers at the University of Toronto: Partnership for Academic and Student Success (PASS). This initiative was designed to provide opportunities for librarians and educational developers to collaborate and innovate, with the goal of improving both librarians' pedagogical understanding and skills, to address pedagogical challenges and to integrate the work of librarians and the work of educational developers across all three campuses. The initiative grew out of the discussions between senior leaders within the University of Toronto Libraries and the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation (CTSI)
Although a robust body of literature exists on the role, construction and efficacy of partnerships between faculty and librarians to support learning in post-secondary environments (Brasley, 2008), particularly with respect to information literacy (Mounce, 2010), comparatively little exists on the topic of aligning and coordinating the work of librarians with educational developers, with noteworthy exceptions (Colosimo, 2012; Nitecki & Rando, 2004).
The goals of the session are: 1) sharing best practices and lessons learned with other institutions interested in developing successful “cross-pollinations” between librarians and educational developers; and 2) promoting critical inquiry and discussion, and obtaining input on the confluence of perspectives and strategies required to transform university teaching and learning practices. In this session, librarians and educational developers who have been involved in the PASS initiative will share observations and best practices regarding program genesis, development, assessment, reporting, and program oversight. As well, they will pose the following key question to participants to generate additional perspectives: What are the key principles that emerge from partnerships like PASS that increase the chances of success, and what insights have you gleaned from your own experiences that would add to these principles?
Histology is the study of microscopic anatomy of tissues of plants and animals. To study histology, different sections are prepared and stained to examine tissues using a light microscope. Different types of stains are used during the preparation of histological slides in order to identify microscopic structures. The ability to visualize and identify these structures can be challenging and requires practice at any educational level. The laboratory component of the human anatomy and physiology course (LUSL 2105) taught in the first year of the Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BScN) degree program at St Lawrence College (in collaboration with Laurentian University) contains a significant histology component with over 60 slides of different tissues to study and learn. Throughout the years we attempted to explore and apply different teaching resources and pedagogical tools to overcome some of students’ learning challenges and to improve students’ skills and abilities to learn histology.
We performed a retrospective study to compare the effectiveness of three different tools used in the histology laboratory over the past few years. The first was the traditional tool where the instructor provided an oral explanation prior to students’ use of the light microscope. This was fortified by diagrams provided within the students’ laboratory manual. The second tool consisted of the display of electronic diagrams of standard tissue slides using power point presentations prior to students viewing the actual slides using the light microscope. The third tool involved the use of a microscope fortified with a built-in camera projecting a real-time image on a big screen prior to students viewing same slides using the light microscope. The effectiveness of these tools was evaluated on the basis of students’ grades of a structured quiz composed of 10 slides.
This session will include a discussion of the study and its results. Implications for how to teach histology effectively will also be explored.
It is likely that more than one-third of our students are introverted. According to Susan Cain, the author of the book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, introverts are dramatically undervalued: both inside and outside our classrooms.
This session will provide background on the introversion-extraversion spectrum, information on the learning needs of introverts and extraverts, and opportunities for participants to discuss and share teaching practices for increasing inclusion of introverts in the classroom. The session will strive to promote instructional philosophy and practice that better meets the learning needs of all students, including introverted students.
The session is an invitation to educators to engage with Cain's Quiet Revolt, where contemplation is as valued as participation, where gregariousness is optional, and where introverts are invited to do what they do best.
Inspired by our observations of the transformative moments that can happen when faculty from different disciplines break down silos and collaborate on pedagogical strategies, we found ourselves asking what would happen if educational developers did the same. At times, educational developers, both novices and more experienced developers, can feel on the margins, situated in an in-between space straddling both instructional and administrative worlds (Little & Green, 2011). In an effort to come in from those margins, what if we resisted institutional barriers and collaborated across institutions to develop programs and initiatives, all the while growing our capacity as educational developers? What sort of projects would we or could we collaborate on? What stories would we share? What research could we produce or what directions might we go in? And how would all of this affect us, the faculty we serve, the students they teach and our profession?
This session seeks to engage participants in a conversation around cross-institutional collaboration in order to hear how educational developers are or could be collaborating locally, regionally and nationally. We hope that participants will walk away inspired, connected, and ready to continue to, or start, moving beyond borders within the field of educational development. Furthermore, we hope to disrupt this sense of being on the margins. We intend this session to be mainly participant-driven, and a lively exchange of experiences and ideas.
McMaster University is committed to transforming the undergraduate student experience. The vision of the President, Dr. Patrick Deane, outlined in his letter to the McMaster community entitled "Forward with Integrity," identifies the student experience as a key area for attention as the University re-examines its mandate and mission. Having received a grant awarded to applicants proposing ways to advance the President's goals, we developed a second-year, one-semester course entitled "Explorations in Learning and Mentoring" which was offered for two hours a week from September to December, 2013.
The primary goal of this course was to identify and recruit peer mentors who could serve as student success leaders for McMaster's Learning Portfolio in the next academic year. Students’ individual goals and interests drove their explorations and they shared their discoveries with each other throughout the term. The course was facilitated rather than taught so that students could develop their own learning goals and mentoring skills.
In our session we will briefly outline key features of the course including the student-driven nature of the content and the focus on the use of the electronic portfolio platform. We will focus primarily on the issue of establishing and maintaining a viable peer-mentoring program for the Learning Portfolio in the Faculty of Social Sciences at McMaster University. The peer mentors we seek to cultivate focus on the task of supporting students wishing to develop their Learning Portfolios. Given both the benefits and pitfalls of peer mentoring programs, our main objective is to solicit feedback regarding the recruitment and cultivation of peer mentors and the ways their services are best employed.
We are especially interested in feedback on two issues as we enter the phase of preparing student volunteers to be mentors:
How can we best ensure that peer mentoring meets the needs of both mentors and mentees?
How can we overcome resistance to being a mentee and should we?
This session invites discussion on transformative learning around writing and writing pedagogies. The presenter will provide prompts so as to invite participation. Participants will leave having shared insights on methodology, theory, pedagogy and student experiences.
For years I’ve witnessed students reporting transformation in their writing and in their perceptions of themselves as writers upon taking a foundational expressive writing course. The course assumes no prior writing experience and attracts students of all disciplines. Through weekly writing practice students acquire communications fundamentals of economy, directness, detail, voice and clarity through composing and revising creative nonfiction narratives.
My in-progress research looks at three former students’ reflections on their learning experiences and at texts they wrote, in view of their frames of reference around their self-perceptions as writers, applying Mezirow’s (1997) criteria. Two students achieved high grades and one scored below average.
I found that student experiences vary and transformative learning carries different hues. As well, the teacher must be as open to transformation themselves as to searching it out. For Fenwick (2003), this is the unpredictable nature of learning. Reflecting on these cases brought me to reflect upon my role as a teacher, considering what O’Reilley (1993) calls helping a student “find her ‘sacred center,’ the place where she stands at the crossroads of human experience.”
How do we know if our students’ thinking is transformed in a meaningful way? My departmental colleagues and I feel confident that our students who major in history learn a great deal about the past. After all, they complete a broad range of courses and pass a rigorous senior assessment that involves doing primary and second source research and developing an original argument that is well-supported by evidence. But we feel less certain about whether they are actually “transformed” in the terms used by O’Sullivan, Morrell, and O’Connor in Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning (xvii): that of experiencing a “deep, structural shift in the basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions…that dramatically and irreversibly alters our way of being in the world.”
The literature about threshold concepts suggests that transformative learning often involves a shift in epistemological understanding, provoking learners to “mov[e] on from their prevailing way of conceptualizing a particular phenomenon to new ways of seeing” (Land, 2011). Threshold concepts – ones that are transformative, irreversible, foundational and also “troublesome” – differ by discipline. Although faculty in many fields (including history) have been writing and postulating about the specific threshold concepts in their disciplines, hearing from students is crucial. Students can help us identify how their thinking has changed, what impacted them the most, and how they encountered and grappled with transformative ideas and concepts. The method I will share is easily transferrable to other disciplines and quick to administer.
Based on some of the components that scholars have suggested are key to transformative learning, I and two colleagues designed five questions students were asked to free write a response to in multiple classes of our senior seminar undergraduate courses. The students wrote for 4-5 minutes on each prompt, including about how their thinking changed and what prompted it to change. We crafted a couple of other questions to explore issues of identity and identification and whether classes impacted their values and feelings.
I will share the questions we used and some results from the writings of about 40 students. Most of the students explicitly stated that their understanding of "what history is" had indeed changed - from simply a factual description of events to a more critical and interpretive approach that appreciated the evolving nature of the field. They were self-aware about and pleased with the development of their thinking. The questions related to identity provided more varied answers, but sometimes touched upon topics related to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, government policies, and the media.
The goal for this session is to spur discussion about: ways that our disciplines may be “transforming” our students; ways participants have already tried or might try assessing changes in our students’ thinking and/or threshold concepts; and the implications of our findings for pedagogy, advising, and curricular design.
In September 2013, The Business School launched two Collaborative Classrooms (each in a different campus) in order to provide students with a unique learning environment. Through a combination of structural, ergonomic and leading-edge technological adaptations, we have created a space that facilitates active peer-to-peer learning, extensive teamwork and inquiry-based learning.
While a diverse variety of courses are delivered in these classrooms, it is the new Career Advancement Strategies course that truly maximizes the wealth of resources available. Founded on more of a coaching model than a traditional teaching model, the course fundamentally alters the learning experience, better equipping students for their entry into the professional world of business. The course relies on a team-teaching approach that provides students with the opportunity to receive in-depth feedback and personalized guidance.
By focusing on the careers of their choice, learning becomes more personally meaningful for participants. Core content is delivered through a suite of custom-built e-learning modules, allowing in-class time to be devoted to the application of concepts learned. Students have the opportunity to speak with business leaders located anywhere in the world using the rooms’ advanced video conferencing facilities. Leveraging a studio model approach, students conduct extensive peer critiques of assignments, allowing them to benefit from diverse perspectives on their work and to build a true appreciation for the art of feedback. Instead of using a traditional approach to assignments, students engage in activities such as building infographics, creating videos, using social media tools, and even taking part in activities outside the classroom, such as interviews and business lunches.
In this session, participants will have an opportunity to “visit” a collaborative classroom via video conference. They will be able to review e-learning modules, watch video clips of peer critiquing sessions, see samples of student work, review several assignments, and gain hands-on experience using a Microsoft Surface tablet. They will also have the chance to find out what did not work as well as originally expected (in other words, our “lessons learned”). By the end of the session, participants will be able to apply transformative design concepts to their own learning spaces and courses.
The migration of teaching and learning in higher education from the Instruction Paradigm to the Learning Paradigm has been well-documented (Barr and Tagg, 1995). While research advocates the importance of learning spaces that optimize the convergence of the Net Generation (Long and Brown, 2006) with a pedagogy that emphasizes active learning (Graetz, 2006), surveys indicate that lecture is still the most common instructional method used in college education in the United States (Bligh, 2000). Why is there a divide between what educators know they should do to enhance student learning (based on research) and what is actually taking place in university classrooms? I suggest that teachers know the value of student involvement (Astin, 1999), but may not always be aware of the ways to structure their teaching to bring learning into focus.
The literature is replete with articles that allude to the emergence of a more social constructivist approach to learning (i.e., one that emphasizes active, group learning) in higher education and its importance to the learning paradigm (Miller, 2013). In response, Western University is constructing its first active learning space, and while there is a general level of excitement about the new furniture configuration and the affordances of the connectivity that will occur in the classroom, there is a dawning realization that significant changes in teaching must be made for instructional strategies to work effectively in the new classroom. This session explores the pedagogical skills and strategies necessary to enable active learning by students.
In this session, we report on our application of the Adaptive Mentorship© model (Ralph & Walker, 2010; 2011) to encourage a mentoring culture to facilitate the professional growth of each of us (research assistants (RAs) and faculty) whilst undertaking a collaborative research project.
The interaction between faculty and graduate students are potentially critical in a student’s educational and professional development (Girves & Wemmerus, 1988). RAships can benefit the graduate students through developing their research skills and gaining a publication record. Equally important is the potential for faculty to receive support for their research projects (Pearson & Brew, 2002). Scholars agree that meaningful research training includes opportunities to connect content of research courses with research practice (Anderson, 2003; Piercy et al., 2005). Therefore, seeking ways to provide graduate students with an RAship to develop their research skills through appropriate support has significant potential benefit.
Participatory action research (Patton, 2002) facilitated our study in three main ways: first, we examined our individual contributions to the research project; second, we considered how we supported each other to complete the research project; and, third, we reflected on how using the Adaptive Mentorship© model stimulated improved interaction and achievement within our triad. The faculty member acted as mentor for both students (the protégés), and the doctoral student acted as mentor for the master’s student.
The application of the Adaptive Mentorship© model was a valuable tool for supporting the social, competence-based, and experiential needs of the students. We used the Adaptive Mentorship© model in a multiple mentoring structure to address the three distinct levels of experience. Our findings show how the application of the model to graduate RAships with multiple participants might lead to enhancement of the working environment and professional growth due to multiple contact-points and exposures to specific tasks or skill-sets around which the work is organized. We recommend that the model should be further refined and applied in shared and or co-mentoring situations so that such benefits to mentor’s development can be further exploited.
Master of Public Health (MPH) programs were created at post-secondary institutions across Canada to address an identified shortage in graduate-trained public health professionals. Curriculum development was supported by the 36 public health core competencies which define the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are required of an effective public health professional. These competencies can be used as an assessment tool to evaluate student development.
As part of the University of Guelph MPH program, students complete a capstone business plan assignment. In the fall 2013 semester, students participated in a new collaborative learning experience with a local public health organization to develop a business plan that addressed a relevant public health issue. Although it has been shown that collaboration between public health students and practitioners creates a valuable learning environment, the effects of experiential learning in MPH programs remains largely unexplored.
A sequential explanatory mixed methods approach was used to examine whether the collaborative learning experience identified above improved student proficiency in the public health core competencies. An online survey was developed and administered to students who were enrolled in the fall 2013 Public Health Administration course (n=23) at the beginning and at the end of the business plan assignment. Students were asked to assess their proficiency in 35 of the 36 core competencies using a 10-point scale. In March and April 2014, two focus group sessions (n=6) were conducted to further explore the effect of the collaborative learning experience on proficiency in the public health core competencies. Thematic analysis was used to identify common patterns and themes in participants’ responses.
In this session, qualitative results from the study will be presented. Participants will also learn about the use of competencies as an assessment tool and consider the potential of collaborative learning experienes.
Those of us who teach in the Arts tell our students (quite rightly, I think) that a degree in Arts is transformational. One should think differently, be different at the end than at the beginning. The challenge of most Arts degrees, though, is that the variety students are offered in their course choices can make recognizing those moments of transformation difficult. To paraphrase T. S. Eliot, our students may have the experience, but miss the meaning. This session proposes skills or career portfolios for Arts students as a way to mark, understand, and document moments of transformation.
Portfolios have a variety of purposes, of course, and career or skills portfolios for students about to leave the university setting tend to focus on integrating the student’s course experience with extracurricular activities; on identifying and giving evidence of marketable skills; and generally on preparing for the transition from university life to a career. I teach a fourth-year capstone course for Arts majors, and my students have indeed found the portfolios helpful as they plan for their careers. What they (and I) have been most surprised by is seeing the difference between their first-year and their fourth-year selves. The portfolios become tangible evidence of their transformation; it is a profound and moving process to witness.
This session will start with an outline of the nature and general purposes of a skills portfolio, suggest the documentation of transformational moments as one of those purposes, and end with a discussion of other ways to help students appreciate and mark those moments.
There is a long-standing body of literature on the transformative potentials of experiential or service learning, which usually takes place outside of the walls of the classroom (Kayes, 2002; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Maudsley & Strivens, 2000; Walter, Marks & James 1981). There is little discussion, however, about the ways in which instructors can design their courses to produce authentic experiential educational experiences within the classroom. We are grappling with the question,” How effective is it to turn core classroom and learning decision making over to students?”
In this session, we discuss the process of designing and facilitating a third year course on international human rights law. In addition to having the students read about the theory of law, the instructor invited students to participate in a United Nations-style democratic process in which they co-designed the course (from assessments, to content, to classroom activities). We discuss the benefits and pitfalls of the process as identified by the students and the lessons learned by the course instructor.
Research universities around the world are increasingly drawing upon experienced practitioners in professional fields as adjunct faculty to deliver student learning experiences in diverse undergraduate and graduate program contexts. Adjunct teaching faculty provide the benefits of being immersed in the realities of practice, offer unique and rich insights into expertise and experience from the field, build valuable community partnerships with the university, and offer a cost-effective resource while freeing up many faculty members for research endeavors. Adjunct teaching faculty, while expert practitioners in the field, are not necessarily expert teachers in a research-intensive university environment.
This session will explore the development and impact of a strategic professional development initiative for field practitioners in the Faculty of Education at The University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada. A substantive portion of this Bachelor of Education program is taught by adjunct teaching faculty who are seconded to the university for three to five days a week for up to three years in duration. Heavy workloads (including responsibilities in their home districts) and limited available time create significant challenges for these practitioners to engage in formal professional development.
In response to the demands of adjunct positions, the Faculty of Education has supported a cohort-based program developed specifically for the seconded and sessional instructors. This three-year program seeks to create a supportive community in which adjunct teaching professors engage in inquiry into their teaching and learning practice through scheduled bi-monthly cohort meetings and a series of collaborative and independent classroom-based professional development assignments.
Using feedback from presentations, participant observation of and reflection on cohort meetings, and interviews with cohort participants, this project investigates to what extent inquiry based practices in teacher education has impacted the pedagogical practice of adjunct teaching professors in the Faculty of Education at UBC.
Drawing upon the literature of self-study in Teacher Education (Alderton, 2008; Barak et al, 2010; Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001; Clarke & Erickson, 2007; Craig, 2009; Jasman, 2010; LaBosky, 2007; Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2011; Williams & Ritter, 2010) and autobiographical research in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (Duarte, 2007), the session will include an explanation of the program, discussion of the participant’s inquiry projects, and reflection on the ongoing professional and academic developments for adjunct teaching faculty.
In the opening plenary of STLHE 2013 in Cape Breton, Dr. Richard Gerver said something that really struck a chord with me: “You never learn anything new by being right”. This statement at once summed up my recent efforts to incorporate formative assessment techniques into an introductory organic chemistry course using a blended (or “flipped” classroom) format. There are many definitions of formative assessment but perhaps the simplest is assessment for learning (as opposed to assessment of learning). There is much research to support the advantages of formative assessment over summative assessment for student learning (Black & William, 1998). It is okay for students to be wrong and, in fact, students should be encouraged to take risks, make mistakes and learn from them.
This session will introduce four formative assessment techniques I have incorporated into my introductory organic chemistry courses to provide students with frequent feedback on their strengths, weaknesses and progress and the incentive to make adjustments based on this feedback. These assessments are as follows: (i) an instructor-developed beginning-of-term prior learning assessment (PLA); (ii) mastery-based on-line homework; (iii) a think-pair-share approach to clicker questions; and (iv) use of the immediate feedback assessment technique (IF-AT) for the multiple choice sections of midterm tests and final exams. Each of these techniques gives students multiple opportunities to self-assess and, in so doing, play a more active role in their learning. Logistical issues, lessons learned and best practices will be discussed and students’ reaction to the use of these techniques as garnered through anonymous surveys will be presented. None of these techniques is limited to organic chemistry and it is anticipated that participants will walk away with new ideas about how to incorporate formative assessment techniques into their own courses.
In competency-based medical education, assessment of the “intrinsic roles” of CanMEDS in the clinical clerkship is challenging. Our lead faculty members for the intrinsic roles and our clinical clerkship rotation leaders needed to identify professional teaching/learning strategies and valid assessment tools that could be implemented within the context of specific clinical rotations.
We used a form of “speed dating” to facilitate interaction between clerkship course directors and “competency leads” (faculty with expertise in the CanMEDS roles). We proposed that the opportunities for interaction would lead to development and proposals for implementation of new objectives, pedagogies and assessment tools. Using 90 minutes of a half-day faculty development retreat, each lead had a station, while directors changed stations at 10-minute intervals. Leads completed a structured worksheet during the “date” and timing was strictly enforced to encourage focused dialogue.
This session will discuss our reason for using the speed dating format, the process we underwent, some tips for effective speed dating as a faculty development tool, and the results of our speed dating workshop.
In this session, the purpose and structure of an institutional SoTL strategy at a large university that included the important goal of developing learning communities is outlined. The presentation will include the following topics: the impetus for building a broad SoTL strategy through our Teaching & Learning Centre based on identified priorities through an annual planning process; an increasing Provostial focus on encouraging research on teaching; leadership for SoTL activities by award-winning faculty; and increasing requests for SoTL support by faculty. As well, our Teaching & Learning Centre has prioritized SoTL through the hiring of a .5 Research Officer dedicated to SoTL activities. The broader SoTL strategy has also built upon the success of faculty in obtaining Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) funding for projects at our institution and through their support and collaboration with us through coaching and special events.
A recent development in our broad SoTL strategy has been the creation of an SoTL Network. This Network developed from the request of community members who attended an Introductory SoTL workshop and an intensive two-day SoTL institute. In addition to the workshop and institute, the Network activities now include monthly network meetings, an SoTL journal club, and an SoTL Listserv (over 100 members). Much of these SoTL activities have stemmed from expressed needs of the teaching and learning community and our teaching & learning strategic analysis (via evaluation forms, consultations, and our inaugural SoTL network meeting that solicited direction and interest for the monthly network meetings). We refer to our SoTl learning community as a “network” that aims to draw on a broader teaching and learning community and includes the role of ‘experts’ to provide insights and guidance for network members who are seeking specific SoTL advice.
This session will allow us to gain insights from audience members regarding the assessment of an emergent SoTL network. Two key questions will guide our discussion:
Open access (OA) is a movement to make knowledge freely and publicly available, typically through unrestricted online access to research literature in the form of journal articles and books (Suber, 2012). The OA philosophy is most often associated with the dissemination of research findings, with the underlying idea that free and unrestricted access to information and greater sharing of knowledge leads to public benefits, through facilitating the transformation of knowledge into action. This session will discuss the implications of adopting an “open” approach to the creation and sharing of some of the most common classroom artifacts — syllabi and class notes. The cultural and academic transformation underway with the adoption of open approaches offers promise to change the way educators create and share these objects. Integrating the value of “freedom to build upon” from the OA movement and aligned with the tenets of learner-centredness (Weimer, 2002), we propose that the adoption of more open approaches will improve student learning.
A course syllabus is a tool that communicates course expectations and can improve student learning (Johnson, 2006). As an institutional document, it also functions to detail how a student will be assessed and the roles that students and instructors play in this process (Habanek, 2005). Yet while important, a syllabus may be seen as little more than a necessary formality. In this session we will discuss how an approach to the creation of a syllabus influenced by an open philosophy offers promise to transform students’ and instructors’ relationships with the document.
As a concrete example, we will provide an overview of how the Creative Commons license can provide a means of “opening up” course notes, with implications for both student and instructor learning. Creative Commons (CC BY-SA) “free culture” licenses explicitly allow students to share and adapt class notes as long as they provide attribution and license any resulting works with a similar “share alike” license (e.g., https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Applying CC BY-SA licenses to class notes makes it clear to students when and how they should share and attribute knowledge gained in class. The CC BY-SA license also provides a framework for collaboration among instructors, such that notes can be shared and developed more collaboratively. We will reflect on ways that OA notes can support a more collaborative teaching culture among instructors. In particular, the “share alike” concept of Creative Commons licensing may alleviate some concerns about course materials being reused for commercial purposes without attribution, and also creates a self-perpetuating cycle of open educational works. As we review these key issues, we will also seek feedback from participants about potential barriers to and facilitators of OA practices and philosophies in the classroom.
The significance of Universal Design for Learning is growing rapidly in the context of postsecondary education and pedagogy. In order to widen access to learning and create an inclusive learning environment for a diverse student population, university and college campuses in Quebec have started to work with Faculty to implement principles of Universal Design in their teaching practices. UDL promotes a proactive approach to planning a course, which can create more sustainable teaching practices reducing the need for more costly ‘retrofitting’ methods done through classroom accommodations, often used to support the needs of today’s diverse student population.
This session will present information about a UDL collaborative project between five post-secondary institutions in Montreal: McGill University, John Abbott College, Marianopolis College, Dawson College and Centennial College. Spanning a three-year process, the project culminates in the creation of a user-friendly pedagogical toolkit using a qualitative mixed method action research approach. Initial research began in the winter semester, 2014 semester and is spanning to fall, 2014.
The project’s goals are:
Generally speaking, Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC) courses are delivered in the traditional lecture method. This is natural because faculty probably learned their specialization in the same way. The lecture method is a viable instructional strategy for intrinsically motivated learners (those who think of how to use their learning to better themselves) with life experiences who are reflective or theoretical learners and is suited to subject matter best delivered according to the behaviourist philosophy (stimulus, response, reinforcement). Now, what if you must teach young people who by and large are extrinsically motivated (what’s in it for me?), who have limited life experiences, who are practical or active learners, and who must learn content that doesn’t have just one right answer? A constructivist philosophy is called for in this case: a paradigm shift from students who are passive recipients of instruction designed for them to students actively involved in determining their own learning needs are and how they can be met. Enter the field of Instructional Design. Instructional design is a method of matching learner characteristics (motivation, experience, age, attitude, learning style, background, education), to the conditions for learning, especially content.
Using the frame of constructivist conditions for learning, this session will explore a model which is an adaptation of Motivation Theory by Keller (1983) adapted by de Vincent (2003) in Weibelzahl and Kelly. It demonstrates how effort, performance and consequence are the outputs of both the learner and the organization. If students bring their own inputs (learner characteristics) and we as the learning organization supply the environmental factors (conditions for learning), then ideally the selection of instructional strategies to match the learning goals should address the output of effort, performance and consequences through increased motivation.
As outlined by Doren (1956), “[…] college is meaningless without a curriculum, but it is more so when it has one that is meaningless”(p.108).
As an increasing number of institutions in higher education are required to adhere to quality assurance standards set by governments and accreditation agencies, many post-secondary programs must now undergo some form of cyclical review process. Among the variety of approaches and tools used to review these programs, the process of curriculum mapping is emerging as a particularly helpful option. Curriculum mapping, in a large sense, is the visualization of a program’s underlying framework (Borin, 2010). It maps each course to the program-level learning outcomes, and can often map the level at which each of these outcomes is presented (introductory, intermediate, advanced), how the outcome is covered in a given course (taught, practiced, assessed), and if assessed, by what means. When complete, this data can provide a fairly accurate image of what actually occurs within a program and what the learning experience of a given student looks like from beginning to end.
Curriculum mapping is most frequently used for two main purposes in higher education: 1) to ensure the alignment and sequencing of learning outcomes and assessments across courses when developing a new program, and 2) to evaluate the current alignment and look for any gaps, redundancies and inconsistencies in order to enhance an existing program (Uchiyama & Radin, 2009; Kopera-Frye, Mahaffy & Svare, 2008).
Used as part of curriculum design and the support services offered at many Canadian universities, curriculum mapping has proven most effective when it is faculty driven, data informed and supported by curriculum design specialists (Wolf, 2007). Recently, in the pursuit of making the process of data collection easier, the Centre for University Teaching has been using FluidSurvey as a tool for data collection and analysis.
This session will provide an opportunity for faculty members, administrators and curriculum design specialists to discuss and share best practices relating to curriculum mapping and analysis. Current curriculum review questionnaires used at the University of Ottawa and sample curriculum maps will be shared.
First-year students arrive at Queen’s (and other universities) well-versed in a culture of marks, letter-grades and GPAs. Given this prevalent academic culture—and the competitive nature of its own admissions process—QuARMS (Queen’s Accelerated Route to Medical School) faculty and educational development team faced an ongoing challenge in transforming students’ expectations of the School of Medicine portion of the QuARMS learning stream.
Students admitted to QuARMS take a traditional Arts or Science honours degree program for their first two years at Queen’s while also participating in seminars and modules sponsored by the School of Medicine designed to focus on developing key skills such as critical thinking and communication as well as exploring roles of physicians in Canadian society. After successful completion of these two years, students enter their first-year of the four-year medical program. The School of Medicine QuARMS modules are developmental and team-based. The focus is on developing foundational skills for the School of Medicine’s competency framework, rather than achieving a particular grade. Students are not assigned marks, nor is their performance ranked in relation to each other.
Using a theoretical framework of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002; Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001) and transformative learning (Cranton, 1994), lead educational developer, Theresa Suart, and course director, Jennifer MacKenzie, designed learning experiences to create this non-graded environment and to help learners transform their perspectives of what it means to “achieve” and “learn”. Assessment strategies included written feedback, near-peer review and individual interviews.
An additional challenge, for both instructors and students, is that students continue to have a GPA requirement in their Arts & Science courses. The QuARMS students and faculty need to respect and adhere to the realities of the two different programs that students have. In this session, Dr. MacKenzie and Ms. Suart will identify challenges and highlight strategies that worked with the inaugural QuARMS class (2013-2014) and plans for the second year.
With a shift towards a more student-centered pedagogical paradigm, and a need to provide students with collaborative, active, and engaged learning environments, many postsecondary institutions in Canada and abroad are implementing blended model courses and programs with increased frequency. The blended model, sometimes called hybrid learning, typically combines face-to-face and online course modules, accompanied by web-based discussions, assignments, and other activities (Leger et al., 2013).
In the fall of 2013, instructor Peggy Hartwick from the School of Linguistics and Language Studies at Carleton University offered her introductory ESLA 1300 course using the blended model, where the blended portion of her class was delivered in part using Carleton’s learning management system (cuLearn) and in Carleton’s 3D Virtual campus. These environments helped increase students’ motivation as well as their confidence in a new language, and contributed to their active engagement in their own learning.
This interactive session will describe the project and the transition to the blended model, explain the online and 3D environment, reflect on the challenges the instructor of the course and educational developers faced while re-designing the course for the blended model, and highlight students’ attitudes to this online environment as well as their outcomes in this course. We will also discuss our next steps for the next offering of the same course, based on lessons learned.
As academic pressures rise and resources become more limited, many of us are concerned about how we can improve student retention rates and student success. Mentoring programs are one possible avenue for enhancing both retention and success, as they have been shown to facilitate a successful social and academic transition to university (Heirdsfield et al. 2007) and reduce stress amongst students (Mekdessi et al., 2013). While there are many models for mentoring programs, we wanted to try to transform the learning experience by fostering a positive collaborative environment based on student peer mentoring in the Faculty of Science. Science programs often involve large first-year classes with little sense of community. Furthermore, as a large number of science students vie for a limited number of spots in professional schools, there can be a heavy focus on competition. Science students were interviewed about the pressures that they faced in their transitional first year at the University of Windsor as part of a separate study; during these interviews, many upper-year students commented on how they wish they had a peer mentor to help guide them through their early years. These students were the major impetus for starting the MySci Advisors Program in the Faculty of Science, as they expressed a strong desire to provide that service for new students. The MySci Advisors Program is only in its second year so quantitative data are not abundant but some preliminary data show positive responses from mentored students and also suggest that there has been a reduction in failure and withdrawal rates in first year classes. In addition, many of the student volunteers who became mentors have also commented that they now see themselves more as an integral part of a community due to the fact that they were helping others and making a connection with new students.
One of the primary goals of our session is to allow others to envision how they may be able to start a similar peer mentoring program in their own departments, with few resources other than motivation and time. A short presentation will detail how the MySci Advisors Program was started and will present both pitfalls and successes of this type of program to aid those interested in similar initiatives. Participants will be asked to share their goals for peer-mentoring groups at their institutions. Following a discussion of these goals as a group, participants will be asked to share ideas about the resources needed to administer a peer-mentoring group. Finally, participants will be asked to consider how they might quantify the success of peer-mentoring groups. Through these interactions, the presenter will facilitate a free exchange of information between participants who are already involved in peer mentoring programs and those who are just contemplating the establishment of a program, so that together we can work to elucidate common practices for peer-mentoring success.
A recent feature article in University Affairs, “The PhD Is in Need of Revision,” highlights the growing concern that thesis completion times are increasing in almost all disciplines, placing strain on graduate students’ mental health, supervisory loads, and university budgets. Writing makes up a considerable part of master’s or doctoral studies and is often the greatest hurdle in the process of doctoral completion.
Queens’ University has responded with a series of initiatives that address some of the challenges that graduate students face in their writing. For example, the week-long Dissertation Boot Camp immerses graduate students in a dedicated, distraction-free writing community; workshops and activities address common writing barriers and help students develop positive writing habits. The Thesis Writing Support Group uses a psycho-educational approach to supporting graduate students through weekly meetings in which they discuss their writing experiences and engage in activities with the goal of overcoming personal and writing process barriers.
At this interactive workshop, participants will discuss the barriers they have experienced in their own writing, and/or the barriers experienced by graduate students with whom they work; learn about the graduate student writing supports at Queen’s and how these programs address the common writing barriers faced by graduate students; and consider opportunities for supporting graduate student writing on their own campus.
Academic dishonesty continues to present educators, administrators and students with challenges that threaten the quality of the teaching and learning experience. Meaningful learning happens when educational organizations recognize and commit to the core values of Academic Integrity (AI): honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility, even when faced with adversity. It takes courage to commit and live these values (International Centre for Academic Integrity, 2013). There is great importance to acculturating students to the values of AI with respect to their learning since evidence supports the fact that the behaviours attached to these values carry over to professional practice and benefit future service recipients, workplace organizations and society as a whole.
One School of Health Sciences (SHS) experience with shifting and strengthening a culture of AI across all programs will be the focus of this interactive workshop. This session will outline the Influencing Academic Integrity Model (IAIM) created and implemented by the School of Health Sciences at Humber College. This model served as the framework for change and provided a holistic approach in building a sustainable culture of integrity. Participants will learn about the challenges, benefits and successes of the AI initiative. Participants will have the opportunity to examine and learn practical steps in the application of the IAIM model to support their own future efforts in their educational organizations. Current literature and research will be highlighted for consideration as participants learn about the requirements to shifting or strengthen a culture of AI. The concepts of leadership, synergism, and the commitment of all teaching and learning partners both internally and externally to the academic institution will be explored throughout the presentation in an interactive approach that includes small group work exercises as well as a lively audio-visual presentation. Join us to discuss and apply the IAIM model to see how your institution can begin their transformation!
Beyond, instructing, beyond facilitating, this interactive Open Space Learning uses a self-organizing learning space to explore how you will be “Transforming (y)our Learning experiences” in your institution. Space will be created for you to interact with your colleagues and reflect on your practices and to gain insights into the experiences of others. This session will uncover your passions and through interactive open discussions, creative approaches will be discovered. We will create the agenda, we will find the right people and we will determine the outcomes. This session will stimulate an exchange of information and ideas and allow you to leave inspired, invigorated and ready to reconfigure your learning spaces and places.
Open Space Technology/Learning is an approach for organizing learning experiences around an important topic without a formal agenda. This approach relies on the principles of self-organizing groups, which envisions groups of people as living systems capable of adapting appropriately to changing environments. Self-organizing groups develop similarly to communities of practice, as knowledge sharing and learning enterprises. However, they are more often considered in the context of ongoing interactions amongst group members. Open Space Technology/Learning contains four main concepts: 1) whoever comes are the right people, 2) whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened, 3) whenever it starts is the right time and 4) when it’s over it’s over. As such, Open Space Technology/Learning takes advantage of the focus of a group designed to dissipate after only a single interaction.
This Open Space session is usually run for longer time periods, half days to many days, but the ‘50 minute Short Interactive Workshop’ will provide participants with a very ‘interactive, engaging taste’ of Open Space Learning.
According to the 2014 NMC Horizon Higher Education Report (Johnson et al., 2014), “the integration of online, hybrid, and collaborative learning in face-to-face instruction is highlighted as one of two fast trends … that will be driving changes in higher education over the next one to two years”. In one of the studies mentioned in this report, Ohio State University students felt that this method of instruction “made the subject more interesting, and increased their understanding, as well as encouraged their participation.”
Guided by Albert Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory in which learning occurs through interpersonal contexts, observation and through a combination of live modeling, verbal instruction and symbolic modeling through media such as on-line tools, the presenter will discuss Project Collaborate, in which Blackboard Collaborate is used as a tool for teaching first year College Level Technical Mathematics.
Project Collaborate is a pilot project, in which a mobile–based interactive learning environment was created to provide both synchronous (face to face streaming) and asynchronous (video recording and notes) instruction for those students who are already physically in the classroom as well as those students who sometimes need to be on-line due to geographic or economic challenges and persons living with disabilities. Mobile-based learning environments offer opportunities for transforming our learning experiences by embracing diverse student needs for both physical and virtual learning spaces. The Blackboard Collaborate tool allows most students access to their lessons almost anywhere and anytime because it offers both real-time and recorded instruction on a portable mobile device.
Similar to a Synchronous Massive Online Course (SMOC) model offered by the University of Texas at Austin (2013), Project Collaborate is a hybrid model that allows students the option to interact face to face either in a real classroom or in a virtual classroom with either the instructor or other students and includes tools such as: interactive whiteboards, audio-video-text chat, polling, quizzes, and application sharing and such. Live sessions are then recorded and archived which helps students prepare for assignments or exams and review missed lessons. Students in the pilot project have commented that their experience is more interactive and lessons are more accessible.
For this presentation, participants are encouraged to bring their tablets, iPhones and Android mobile devices to the workshop to experience first-hand a live on-line session illustrating the pros and cons of interactive mobile learning.
Engaging students in transformative learning processes is a complex task, often difficult to structure, and even more challenging to successfully achieve. Working with first year Engineering students in an integrated design and communication course, these challenges are sometimes exacerbated by a tradition of prior school education in which students are socialised by didactic teaching methods and examination based learning, as well as by the students own resistance to what they see as “learning” English. This discussion presents an innovative and evolving approach at one Australian university, aimed at creating a culture of knowledge sharing and reciprocal learning between students and tutors, tutors and lecturer, and lecturer and students. Course members are collectively involved in investigating an engineering topic through which students not only gain a strong grounding in oral, written, teamwork and graphical engineering communication but also develop skills of inquiry and self-directed learning. The method of instruction is what distinguishes this topic from others, with a scaffolded approach to reciprocal learning between the” teacher” (tutor educator) and the student forming the core of the approach. The tutor educator group is comprised of a mix of undergraduate students (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th years), post-graduate students, and the topic coordinator (lecturer). Each year, from the 1st year student cohort in communications, a number of stand-out students are invited to continue on as tutors for the following year. This ensures the continued addition of fresh ideas and perspectives to the educator group, whilst still allowing the newer tutors to benefit from the more experienced tutors. Importantly, this approach has grown out of student-led directions which include peer lecturing, tutor-led workshops, the involvement of former graduates, and a pilot course on tutoring the tutors. This presentation discusses the perspectives of the tutor educator group on the educational approach and the success in achieving transformational learning through reciprocal learning.
Participants attending this session should be prepared to engage in some democratic, active learning experiences (some of which you may be familiar with, some of which may surprise you) devised and led by members of the tutor educator group. Please, also, be prepared to contribute your own knowledge, experiences and ideas to the presenter’s on-going learning.
There is large and growing body of evidence that shows active learning can have a positive impact upon students learning outcomes such as increased content knowledge, critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, and positive attitudes towards learning in comparison to traditional lecture-based delivery (Anderson et al., 2005). Active learning facilitates greater enthusiasm for learning, in both students and instructors (Thaman et al., 2013), and the development of graduate capabilities, such as critical and creative thinking, problem-solving, adaptability, communication and interpersonal skills (Kember & Leung 2005). There is also literature which suggests that teaching spaces can have a large impact on the ability to incorporate active learning teaching strategies (Chism & Bickford, 2002; Oblinger, 2006; Walker et al., 2011). In the winter of 2014, three recently renovated classrooms at Queen’s University designed for active and collaborative learning were used for the first time. One of the primary goals of redesigning classroom space was to evaluate how teaching spaces can facilitate changes in approaches to teaching and transform student learning experiences. The purpose of this panel is to learn about the design considerations, configurations and technology available in each of the three new active learning classrooms and to hear from faculty members who have chosen to teach in them.
This session will begin with an overview of the three classrooms by the Moderator and Educational Developer responsible for the support and assessment of the new active learning classrooms. Next, each of the panelists will discuss how the classroom design and features influenced their approach to teaching and comment on the effect it had on their students’ experience. The panelists chosen for this session each used one of the new classrooms and are characterized as follows: experienced faculty members teaching a familiar course normally taught in traditional classrooms, an experienced faculty member teaching a newly designed course, and a new instructor teaching for the first time. Questions to each of the panelists will include: What influence did the space have on how your course was designed and taught? Can you give an example of what worked particularly well? What aspects of the space do you believe contributed the most to enhancing student experience and student learning? What surprised you about the space and how it influenced your class? What are some of the teaching and learning strategies that you used that you could not in other traditional classrooms? What was the reaction of your students to the space and the strategies that you used? What do you wish you had known before teaching in the active learning classrooms? What advice would you give other instructors teaching in these rooms for the first time? If you were to build another classroom for active learning to help you transform your course, what would it look like?
This panel will allow participants to hear about and ask questions regarding the design aspects of three new active learning classrooms, consider the configuration and the technology available in each room, and discuss the opportunities, advantages and challenges of the teaching strategies that were used in these spaces.
This panel discussion will explore the experiences of four new faculty members who participated in a Professional Learning Community (PLC) during their first year in an academic position. The PLC was designed to support the acclimatization of new faculty, informed by literature on new faculty support (Austin, 2003; Eddy & Gaston-Gayles, 2008; Sorcinelli, 1994), communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and mentoring in academia (Solem & Foote, 2006). The panelists, all of whom have transitioned from professional to academic life, shared a journey of ‘transforming professional teaching practices within and beyond the classroom.’ From the professional fields of nursing, education, counseling, and aviation, panelists experienced unique challenges and successes in their first year, yet some recurring conversations continued to emerge within the group. Each panelist will focus on a theme that was most salient to their experience as follows:
Robert Catena, Assistant Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery
Translating professional experience and expertise into the classroom: Nurses build upon foundational skills and knowledge through clinical practice that enables them to progress from novice to expert (Benner, 1982). However, challenges may emerge when new nursing faculty endeavor to translate professional (clinical) expertise to the academic setting. This panelist will share approaches and strategies used to facilitate student learning and bridge these two contexts.
Shannon Funk, Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Education and Recreation Studies
Transitioning geographically and theoretically to a new community: Coming from a public school teaching background, how can a new faculty member create connections within/beyond the university walls? What does ‘being new’ mean and how does one begin to network on a new geographical and theoretical/professional landscape?
Shelley Skelton, Assistant Professor, Child and Youth Studies
Navigating relationships with students and colleagues: How does a new faculty member negotiate boundaries and relationships with students? This issue is a particularly salient one for this panelist, as relationship building is foundational to counseling but must take a different form in teaching.
Deanna Wiebe, Aviation
Freedom and decision-making in a new role: How does one shift from a team environment in flight instruction, to one of isolation as the program’s only faculty member? Coming from a flight training background which focused on the in-aircraft training rather than the academic aviation training, this panelist experienced both an increase and a decrease in freedom and decision making.
Moderator: Jennifer Boman, Assistant Professor, Academic Development Centre
Jennifer is one of the two facilitators of the Professional Learning Community and will moderate the panel.
Participants in this session will be invited to discuss their experiences relating to transitioning to academia and/or being new faculty. Panelists will share strategies that have helped them transform their teaching, learning, and shifting identities as new faculty, as well as elicit participant thoughts and experiences. The intended outcome of the session will be for participants and panelists to leave with ideas and strategies to support their own learning and transition to academia and/or to have new insights to better support transitioning new faculty.
As program directors, instructional designers, faculty teachers, or educational developers, how can we prepare university students for effective professional practice? What does it mean to prepare students for professional practice? The purpose of this interactive workshop is to shed light on professionalizing teaching practices within and beyond the classroom through the lens of a conceptual framework on student professionalization in higher education. More specifically, participants will be invited to analyse instructional practices and discuss what it means to prepare students for future professional practice in a program-based approach.
Despite a growing number of curricular innovations (Béchard & Pelletier, 2004; Bédard & Béchard, 2009) in university programs focusing on preparing students for effective professional practice, the concept of student professionalization is yet rarely defined. We propose a holistic view of student professionalization as a process of becoming a professional which entails three learning dimensions: the development of professional competencies (Le Boterf, 2002; Fletcher, 2000; Tardif, 2006; Beckers, 2007), the appropriation of a professional culture (Abrandt Dahlgren, Richardson & Sjöström, 2004; Colbeck, 2008; Dryburgh, 1999; Greenwood, 1966), and the construction of a professional identity (Blin, 1997; Dubar, 2000; Gohier et al., 2001). This conceptual framework is based on previous qualitative research (Bélisle, 2011) investigating whether and how an innovative problem-based program in a mid-sized French Canadian university actually contributed to student professionalization. Although such a program led to different portraits of student professionalization, data obtained from graduated students reveal that the three dimensions are intertwined and influenced by personal features (e.g. goals, family background) as well as learning experiences provided through both academic (e.g. problem- and project-based learning, team learning, assessment practices) and professional settings (e.g. work placement). However, instructional practices mainly focused on competency development and whenever culture appropriation was considered, it was not done so in relation to competency development and/or identity construction. Throughout students’ learning trajectories, the way they professionalized was more specifically tinted by the contexts in which they evolved, the situations they encountered and the roles they engaged in. Results from this research will be briefly presented and will serve as a basis for discussing instructional practices likely to foster student professionalization in higher education. To avoid the separation of the three dimensions, participants will be invited to discuss learning situations and strategies that integrate competency development, culture appropriation and identity construction as a whole.
This session will focus on the “journeys” undertaken by faculty over the course of their careers as they take up leadership roles within their institutions and beyond. Addressing one of the general themes of the 2014 conference, the “Transformation of learning experiences” that “opens new opportunities for transforming the lives of life-long learners and leaders,” we will be exploring the relationship between teaching excellence and educational leadership. In what ways do those who learn to become excellent teachers develop interest in learning to become educational leaders? In addition to sharing the experiences that have shaped their career trajectories that led them to expand on their teaching and become educational leaders, the panelists will speak to the following key issues and questions:
Pat Rogers:
Heather Smith:
Robert Summerby-Murray:
This session features 3M National Teaching Fellows who occupy administrative or leadership positions within their respective institutions, and have cultivated a combined commitment to teaching excellence and educational leadership They will offer their perspectives on the advantages and challenges of carrying a commitment to teaching excellence into new domains of visioning, action and policy-making. This session will be of interest to those who are considering pursuing opportunities in educational leadership, and to those who currently occupy administrative or other leadership positions.
The NMC Horizon Report 2014 High Education Preview highlights that low digital literacy skills among educators is a challenge that is impeding technology adoption in education. One method of helping to address this issue is to introduce emerging technologies within Master of Education programs.
The University of Ottawa, Faculty of Education offers the majority of its Anglophone courses as face-to-face courses, with a few courses being offered in hybrid and fully online formats. The two technology courses in the program (Emerging Technologies and Learning and Integrating Technology in Education) are currently only offered as fully online courses. Many of the students in the program have low digital literacy skills and describe themselves as ‘technophobes’. It is, therefore, essential to establish and foster a supportive learning environment where students feel safe, supported, and yet challenged to develop digital literacy skills.
This research presentation describes the design of an online Masters course “Emerging Technologies and Learning” that helps educators improve their digital literacy skills while exploring the latest trends in educational technology. The presentation (1) describes the pedagogical foundations of the course, (2) describes the course design and key learning activities, (3) presents the results of the detailed course evaluation, and (4) concludes with recommended design principles.
This interactive session will demonstrate the principles of design for an innovative, integrated first-year arts, social sciences and humanities curriculum that transforms not only the traditional “silo” disciplinary model but also the community of learning that encompasses students, faculty, staff and service-providers. The Integrated Advanced Skills and Knowledge curriculum (IASK) is a suite of 6 question-based courses designed to introduce students to the culture of scholarship and inquiry. Cohort-based and emphasizing the “conversation” that is the foundation of scholarship, the curriculum helps students to understand the intellectual, social, cultural and historical “frames” that underlie disciplinary studies at university, as well as the connections between domains of knowledge and social practice. Arising out of a process of institution-wide visioning and needs-assessment, the program is grounded in key outcomes and principles. One of these, “integration of knowledge,” demanded the creation of a new model of pedagogical delivery, which in turn demanded the transformation of the relationships among faculty who now work in a fully collaborative, mutually supportive, and transparent environment. Embedded librarians, representatives from the First Nations, Academic Success and Wellness Centres, career counsellors, teaching assistants and student mentors work with faculty to provide experiential learning opportunities for students who themselves are encouraged to work collaboratively to become active participants in the scholarly “conversation.”
The session will begin with a brief “walk-through” of the first class of the three course first semester curriculum, including a hands-on experiential learning exercise, “the puzzle box,” followed by a presentation of the design and pedagogical principles that structure the curriculum. There will also be a general discussion period for all of the session participants. Three instructors will demonstrate the model of collaboration and integration by introducing “students” to the interlocking conceptual “frames” that shape their courses: “Ways of Knowing;” “People, Place and Culture” and “Foundations of Learning.”
Transforming undergraduate experiences to allow students to learn through active engagement in stimulating and relevant project work is extremely effective. A project-based approach, where students explore real-world, open-ended questions, seems to be particularly successful for women in engineering (Vaz et al., 2013) and has been proposed as a strategy for science, technology, and mathematics, as well (Grasgreen, 2013). The Honours Integrated Science (iSci) program at McMaster University focuses on student learning of science through a series of team-based, interdisciplinary research projects. Students are introduced to the tools and techniques required for effective research in their first six weeks in the program. They engage in a low stakes ‘practice’ research project during this time and by the second half of their first term they embark on their first full exploration of guided inquiry. Instructor involvement in research projects gradually decreases as students move through first year and subsequent years of the program; by fourth year, iSci students are extremely proficient in conducting both team-based and independent disciplinary and interdisciplinary research. They have been transformed into independent and creative learners.
This session will explore methods to transform the experience of all learning community members through the design and delivery of interdisciplinary research projects. Workshop participants will work in small groups (1) to identify key tools and techniques essential for effective student investigations, (2) to identify potential research project topics, and (3) to identify effective means of disciplinary integration. The focus will be on delivery to first year students. Participants will also consider ways to design and scaffold upper level research projects and how these may differ from introductory level projects. We will examine strategies for staging development of disciplinary and ‘soft’ skills as well as the acquisition of knowledge, attitudes and experiences. We will also discuss assessment and evaluation processes that are most appropriate for project-based learning.
The workshop will be informed by the experiences of instructors and staff responsible for the design and delivery of the iSci program. We will reflect on project design, the creation of experiential (lab and field) components, project assessment, and challenges we have faced during the first five years of running this program. Workshop participants will gain an understanding of the basic elements required to establish project-based learning initiatives at course or program levels.
Fundamental to a student’s understanding of organic chemistry is the ability to interpret and use its language, including molecules’ names and other key terms. Since there is an infinite number of molecules possible, molecules are named using an internationally recognized nomenclature system. Students must master three key nomenclature learning objectives to be successful in chemistry: (i) identify key parts (functional groups) of a molecule, (ii) name a molecule, given its structure, and (iii) draw a molecule, given its name. In a chemistry course in higher education, a discussion about a given reaction cannot take place if the participants in that discussion are not able, at a minimum, to identify the functional group in question. Unfortunately, students often struggle to do so (Loeffler, 1989); thus, there is a learning gap.
While there are many resources that describe the rules for naming molecules, there is a paucity of resources available to actively practice naming molecules and receive feedback; many of these resources are of low quality, especially in French. Furthermore, students often do not see the real-life applications of the molecules they are naming.
To respond to this learning gap, the lack of quality resources and link to real-life applications, our team developed a free, interactive, online, bilingual learning tool that draws from a question bank of approximately 1000 molecules on which students will (i) identify key parts (functional groups) of a molecule, (ii) name a molecule, given its structure, and (iii) draw a molecule, given its name. This online learning tool is student-driven; it allows students to tailor their learning to their needs by customizing nomenclature quizzes and provides immediate feedback.
In this session, we will describe why and how we created this tool. We will also describe the roles of our team members that included an instructional designer, chemistry professor, multimedia programmer, assistant production designer, web designer, and chemistry student, which we hope will be helpful to others embarking on such a project. Participants will work with the learning tool and discuss ways to adapt such a system for their own purposes (e.g., to address student learning difficulties by through a student-driven resource). Please bring a device (laptop or tablet) if you can! We will have a few available as well.
Over the course of four years, students spend over 1500 hours in classrooms that physically communicate universities’ values and vision of teaching and learning. Active learning spaces promote active and collaborative learning, while lecture halls perpetuate a transmission approach to teaching and learning. In the last few years, there has been a huge increase in universities’ commitment to virtual environments, from the flipped classroom to MOOCs. These virtual environments have implications for the types of transformative educational experiences that universities can offer students. While universities have been exploring the challenges and opportunities of the virtual world, for many students, Canadian universities continue to be primarily campus-based (and non-virtual) classroom experiences. Considering the virtual and physical learning environment as a coherent whole brings forward important questions related to universities’ visions of teaching and learning and implications for rethinking physical campus space.
Current campus renovations are built with the intention of lasting and meeting university space needs for the next 20+ years. What types of learning do we want to promote on our campuses, and what does this mean for physical learning spaces? Session participants will consider a number of emerging questions about the physical learning environment in light of changes to the virtual learning environment: Are we building the types of spaces that students and faculty on our campus need given the potential impact of these virtual environments now and in the future? Where will teaching and learning occur? If many courses take advantage of flipped learning, are lecture halls still necessary? Is there still a purpose of separating classrooms and teaching labs? Can our flexible spaces adapt to future needs? Will informal spaces ultimately replace the formal classroom spaces? This session will discuss the impact of virtual environments on campus learning space needs and the possibilities for addressing these needs as we move forward in the 21st century.
Aligning learning outcomes, assessment, and instruction (constructive alignment, Biggs, 1999) imbues educators with the opportunity to systematically (re)design curriculum for transformation. Recently the School of Nursing at Queen’s University has spearheaded a project using productivity and Innovation Funds (PIF) to integrate high fidelity patient simulation scenarios at 12 Nursing Schools (and their college partners) across Ontario.
In collaboration with Queen’s Centre for Teaching and Learning, the School of Nursing has conducted two large collaborative hands-on workshops to align curricula within and across institutes. Alignment has been made possible by the institutes agreeing upon a shared template, and engaging in collaboration with a willingness to share resources, both human capital and intellectual property. Prior to delving into technical aspects of simulation development, organizers dedicated a full day to the development of scenario outcomes and rubric design. Upon completion of the learning outcome component of the day, nurse educators were asked to further define outcomes through the development of rubric descriptors within a three level rubric. Although educators found this process onerous, and the learning curve steep, it was agreed that building a strong foundation was essential for the validity of scenario development. This approach to simulation development is unique and represents a student focused, and an outcomes informed approach. Whereas traditional learning outcomes are created in a “verb + instructional focus” format, learning outcomes in this collaboration have implemented a “verb + instructional focus + purpose” framework that was converted into the maxim “Do What, With What, For What?” Extending the traditional learning outcome framework allowed educators to delineate the relevant scope and context for their chosen scenario. Pedagogically speaking, the development of outcomes and their direct alignment with rubric criteria allow students to set targeted goals based on course instruction, self-evaluate their performance, and receive external feedback on focused outcomes. This is imperative in the ill-defined context of nursing simulation education where demonstration of “soft skills” such as critical thinking, problem solving, triage, and collegial communication represent the “hard competencies” that can save lives. Moreover, within the context of province wide knowledge sharing, the indexing of instructional preparation, learning outcomes, and competency metrics allow for alignment across school curriculum, and importantly decreases redundancies and gaps across simulations held within the repository.
In this workshop, participants will be presented evaluation data on the project, and be asked to engage with presenters in a discussion around the “Do What, With What, For What?” format and approach to developing outcomes and rubrics as a means of curriculum development. Finally, the longitudinal potential of this project to align educational and practical nursing outcomes will be discussed.
Writing-to-learn involves the use of low-stakes informal writing activities that help students reflect on concepts or ideas presented in a course. Writing-to-learn can be a powerful tool in helping students understand and engage with course concepts, and past research has shown that writing-to-learn activities can substantially improve performance on summative assessments (Nevid, Pastva, McClelland, 2013).
Not only is writing helpful for learning, but it is also a skill that students are expected to acquire during their post-secondary degree. However, it can be a challenge to provide writing opportunities that are interesting to students and easy for instructors to implement and grade, particularly in courses with more than 30 students. Reflective journaling is one method that can address these objectives.
Reflective writing can take a variety of forms. The versatility of reflective writing means that it can be adapted to suit a number of different disciplines. For example, reflective writing has been implemented in core science courses by having students reflect on how they understand a specific concept from the course, essentially giving them the opportunity to explain these concepts to themselves (Kalman, 2011). More applicable courses have implemented reflective writing by having students evaluate how the course concepts are observable in their own lives (Nevid et al, 2013). Finally, practical courses have used reflective writing as a venue for student reflection on practical experience or mock simulations so that past experiences can help inform future experiences (Sandars, 2009).
Participants in this session will first hear about the different forms that reflective writing assignments can take, and will be asked to describe which form of reflective writing might best suit their discipline. We will then describe how we implemented reflective journal assignments in two courses, a mid-sized 3rd year course at the University of Toronto in Psychology, and a small 4th year course at St. Francis Xavier University in Human Kinetics. Participants will have the opportunity to see our assignment description and marking rubric for our low-stakes assignments, and learn how each of us have implemented the assignment, taking advantage of online pedagogical technologies. We will also share our end-of-course reflections on how we might change the assignment to better suit the needs of the students and instructors. Finally, we will solicit suggestions from participants on how to improve this kind of assignment and how to scale the assignment for larger 2nd and 3rd year courses.
As the number of students with disabilities entering graduate education in Canada continues to increase, faculty, instructors, graduate departments, disability service providers, and universities as a whole are having to develop new strategies to facilitate their success. There is a critical lack of research and information about issues faced by graduate students with disabilities; as such, institutions are developing policy and practice guidelines on limited, anecdotal and local experience. No significant research on this population has been undertaken within Canada or the United States, and large, national data sets are lacking. In this environment, faculty and instructors are left with no clear practices and procedures, or any substantive knowledge on graduate students with disabilities. At the same time, universities need to be responsive to new and evolving provincial legislative landscapes in Canada. Therefore, there is a significant requirement to have a detailed understanding, both quantitative and qualitative, of the experiences of disabled students in graduate studies, in order to aid faculty in understanding their roles in working with graduate students with disabilities.
To address this knowledge gap, we undertook a multi-pronged research approach, including the following: a comprehensive online national survey of graduate students with disabilities; institutional best-practices surveys; focus groups of service providers and relevant professional populations; key informant interviews; data mining of extant relevant surveys; a detailed literature review; and the empanelment of an advisory National Taskforce on the Experience of Graduate Students with Disabilities, populated with subject matter experts drawn from sectors across the Canadian post-secondary landscape.
This presentation will highlight our research findings to date, focusing on the important role faculty have in creating a welcoming and inclusive graduate environment. At this point, there is no “fully accessible graduate environment”; furthermore, off-the-shelf accommodations may not be available in all situations. While this gap certainly poses challenges for graduate administrators and policy makers, it represents an opportunity for faculty to develop their own solutions and adapt them to their particular student’s needs. Such efforts may be aided by the deployment and use of universally designed equipment, facilities, as well as research and course materials and readings that do not require active interventions to make them accessible. However, many faculty are unsure about how to meet the needs of graduate students with disabilities. Using case study scenarios, this presentation will deconstruct the major issues faced by faculty when working with graduate students with disabilities. It will also demonstrate how collaboration, creative application of resources and critical analysis of program requirements can lead to increased success rates for graduate students with disabilities. Participants will have the opportunity to work through and discuss the scenarios, in order to develop creative ways of dealing with each issue.
An extensive amount of literature documents the improved learning gains made by interactive teaching compared to traditional lecture delivery. The challenge is how to identify what interactive approaches provide the best results and how to avoid methods that masquerade as interactive teaching but yield limited true “heads-on” opportunities? We need a simple and practical framework to determine how to best invest our (and students’) limited time.
This workshop will start with a discussion of the community of practice model that will help attendees judge the potential merits of particular pedagogies for their situation. As a case study, we will discuss our efforts to build such a community in a first-year physics course through promoting student discussion, providing frequent feedback to students, and being adaptable when students bring up challenges they are facing in the course. Through multiple teaching strategies, we found most students become actively engaged in course material and adopted a commitment to learning and to helping each other learn. These strategies, most validated in the literature but some more innovative, include peer instruction, just-in-time teaching, mini-whiteboard problem-solving, “Amazing Race” review, and two-stage exams. Workshop attendees will get to test run some of these approaches to see if they work for them and share their ideas on other approaches that would yield similar “heads-on” experiences.
The community of practice model brought our attention to a serious problem in our approach: we asked students to enter into a community of practice but prof-TA interactions still resembled a traditional supervisor/worker relationship. TA training took on a whole new light when we, as professor and lead TA, adopted some of the strategies we used to help our students learn physics and used them with the TA team to help us improve our teaching. This relatively modest intervention lead to statistically significant improvement in TAs’ self-identification as educators. Through small group discussions, attendees will have the opportunity to evaluate how such an approach to TA training could be used in their own departments, and give us feedback on how we could make ours even better.
In preparation for this workshop, please complete a quick survey online before the conference, accessible through tinyurl.com/STLHE2014. We need your responses to create a workshop that will address your concerns and questions.
How might we take the idea of engaging students beyond the traditional? Let’s start with the concepts of student-centered, social, inquiry-based learning and endeavor to engage students more deeply. Let’s build upon the idea of involving students in feedback on teaching, in learning communities, and as student representatives on curriculum committees. Is it possible to go further? Can we consider for a moment the possibility of students as co-creators of university courses?
In fact, Bovil (2013) reviews the recent calls for students as co-creators of curricula and cites from the literature many examples of students engaged as co-creators of university curriculum in the UK. She advocates for the role of educational developers to help influence change and garner support of co-created curriculum approaches.
As Canadian educational developers, we felt particularly well-situated to propose this idea within the Faculty of Science, a faculty with whom we have developed strong connections. We developed an Applied Curriculum Design course for third and fourth year students from across the faculty. The course was rather unique in that students did not just learn about curriculum or course design; they actually developed a series of learning modules for first year students. These modules, which are embedded into a new first year science course, aim to enable incoming science students to develop and practice foundational scientific research skills, adjust more easily to university, and become aware of and reflect upon the many possible programs and career paths that science has to offer. Through teaching this Applied Curriculum Design course, we found ourselves amazed by what the students developed. As the course progressed, we found ourselves transforming into learners as we enabled our students to become the teachers.
Let’s discus the idea of engaging students as co-creators of curriculum together. We will contribute our experiences in enabling students to co-create a first year science and compare these to some of the examples gleaned from the literature. Perhaps together we can develop some principles and guidelines that can enable others to transform students into teachers and teachers into learners.
How might we take the idea of engaging students beyond the traditional? Let’s start with the concepts of student-centered, social, inquiry-based learning and endeavor to engage students more deeply. Let’s build upon the idea of involving students in feedback on teaching, in learning communities, and as student representatives on curriculum committees. Is it possible to go further? Can we consider for a moment the possibility of students as co-creators of university courses?
In fact, Bovil (2013) reviews the recent calls for students as co-creators of curricula and cites from the literature many examples of students engaged as co-creators of university curriculum in the UK. She advocates for the role of educational developers to help influence change and garner support of co-created curriculum approaches.
As Canadian educational developers, we felt particularly well-situated to propose this idea within the Faculty of Science, a faculty with whom we have developed strong connections. We developed an Applied Curriculum Design course for third and fourth year students from across the faculty. The course was rather unique in that students did not just learn about curriculum or course design; they actually developed a series of learning modules for first year students. These modules, which are embedded into a new first year science course, aim to enable incoming science students to develop and practice foundational scientific research skills, adjust more easily to university, and become aware of and reflect upon the many possible programs and career paths that science has to offer. Through teaching this Applied Curriculum Design course, we found ourselves amazed by what the students developed. As the course progressed, we found ourselves transforming into learners as we enabled our students to become the teachers.
Let’s discus the idea of engaging students as co-creators of curriculum together. We will contribute our experiences in enabling students to co-create a first year science and compare these to some of the examples gleaned from the literature. Perhaps together we can develop some principles and guidelines that can enable others to transform students into teachers and teachers into learners.
How can you positively influence student learning by conducting peer review of teaching (PRT)? In what ways do you support colleagues who ask you to sit in on their classes and provide them with feedback?
Chism (2007) defines PRT as a form of evaluation designed to provide feedback to instructors about their teaching in order to foster improvement or make personal and/or career decisions. PRT occurs along a continuum from informal to formal. Informal peer review, usually conducted for developmental purposes, is often defined as formative peer review. Formal peer review, usually conducted for evaluation purposes, is defined as summative. The two terms formative and summative evaluation, first introduced by Scriven (1973) within the context of program evaluation, have now been widely adopted in the evaluation of teaching.
Classroom PRT can be a transformative process for both reviewee and reviewer. Cassidy & Johnson (2006) designed and first implemented a three-part PRT process at the University of British Columbia (UBC). The model involves a pre-observation meeting, class observation, and a post-observation meeting. Notes taken at each of the three stages comprise a report that is provided to the reviewee. They may wish to include it in their teaching dossier or application for a job, promotion and/or tenure.
Based on the Instructional Skills Workshop (ISW) model, the process is reviewee-focused and currently informs both formative and summative peer review of teaching processes at UBC. We recommend that peer reviewers participate in a 4-hour training workshop to practise techniques they will use in a peer review. Each Faculty at UBC has developed and implemented a procedure suited for their own individual needs.
In this interactive session intended for people who have conducted Peer Review of Teaching, we will begin by role-playing a typical interaction between reviewer and reviewee in the pre-observation meeting. We will then briefly describe the other two parts of the process. Using classroom peer review challenges that you contribute, the group will identify potential solutions. We’ll cap the session with a co-created list of best practices. You will leave this session having explored classroom peer review of teaching from a variety of perspectives, and will be able to help your colleagues enhance student learning.
Decades of educational research and practice have shown that students learn best when they are actively engaged with the course material and with one another in collaborative, enquiry-based learning (EBL) activities. However, increasing class sizes resulting from economic classroom re-scaling have become a major obstacle to implementing instructional methods that support these student needs, as most learner-centred techniques require regular, time-intensive student-to-student interaction. Capitalizing on current advancements in online learning technologies, Professor Sarah Keefer (National 3M Teaching Fellow, 2009 cohort) has adapted the traditional small-group EBL model to a large-class format, by allowing students to collaborate both face-to-face and within virtual Pods (discrete online units of 3-4 peers).
In this blended EBL model, several times during the term students first read and analyse a posted exercise in class (individually and in small groups), then post their inquiry notes within their online Pod, and finally peer-review and grade their podmates’ submissions, providing commentary and rationale for each assessment. The course instructor monitors student input and, where needed, comments privately on individual posts, but interferes as little as possible; thus, this learning strategy belongs entirely to the students who are responsible for all aspects of it. The exercise materials are designed to facilitate critical thinking and application of course concepts, and the iterative process provides students with an opportunity to self-reflect and internalize the learning. Most importantly, by shifting some of the collaborative activities online, the “Pod” model circumvents the limitations of large course enrolments, delivering the learning benefits of a traditional small-group EBL design.
In this discussion panel, Professor Sarah Keefer will provide an overview of her “Pod” model and describe how it has been applied for skill-work practice in her third-year History of the English Language course, as well as for specific literary studies in second- and third-year English Literature courses. Dr. Kateryna Keefer will illustrate her application of the “Pod” model to a second-year Psychology course, demonstrating the cross-disciplinary versatility of this transformative approach. The audience will have the opportunity to learn about the logistics of setting up and managing the Pods, reflect on the practical benefits and challenges of the model, ask the panelists questions, and provide suggestions for further adaptation.
This presentation addresses how both university teaching and learning experiences continue to transform in response to new learning paradigms and pressures for online instruction and service delivery. The landscape of the Learning Commons is changing. In response to a nationwide increase in the number of distance education courses and the number of commuting students, Canadian universities must explore ways that virtual learning environments can both supplement and complement on-campus support services for students. Most university writing centres in Canada already provide various types of online learning and teaching tools. Some centres also provide writing consultations via email and over the telephone. However, I argue these mediums for writing support have a tendency to be too directive and didactic. Often they mirror traditional asynchronous forms of feedback, functioning more as an editing service than as a pedagogical opportunity for students to develop as writers.
As an alternative to in-person face-to-face writing consultations, online consultations require an increased awareness of new and emerging pedagogies and technologies for online teaching and learning. Educators need to determine which strategies can be adopted and which need to be modified in order to transform their professional practices to more effectively deliver writing support and instruction using online technology.
Skype is an online face-to-face conferencing software frequently used in professional settings that allows for communication at a distance. I propose Skype needs to be studied for its potential uses in university learning commons because it offers the opportunity for online writing support to be synchronous and face-to-face.
At the University of Guelph, Writing Services has been offering online Skype writing consultations since September, 2012. First piloted for graduate students, the option now extends to any Guelph student registering for a writing appointment. Our statistics show that most Skype appointments occur during the summer months, and graduate students primarily use the service. Currently, our student feedback is minimal and mostly positive.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of Skype writing consultations at the University of Guelph as a tool for providing synchronous communication and effective feedback in the writing centre. I am interested in determining how the physical separation between the consultant and the student’s paper during Skype writing consultations instigates the use of new pedagogical strategies. Does this multimodal teaching and learning experience decrease a consultant’s tendency to edit, increase the necessity for dialogical exchanges, and prompt students to take greater ownership of their writing and consequently become more active learners?
Ultimately, this study will help us better understand how Skype and other online consultation tools can be best used in one-to-one writing instruction. This knowledge will guide our development of best practices for online delivery of writing instruction, support, and feedback.
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are online courses that are offered for free using several platforms (such as Coursera, EdX, and Udacity). While learners in these courses do not receive official university credits, hundreds of thousands of learners register for these courses. The MOOC phenomena has led to a vivid discussion regarding their impact on higher education and the job market. However, one variable that is often left out of the conversation is quality of learning. As each MOOC often has tens of thousands of students, there is only limited or no interaction between learners and the course staff. Instead, learners interact with each other via discussion boards and peer feedback. Furthermore, learners often come from diverse populations and are not traditional university students. Thus, learners have a variety of goals from these courses.
In this talk, we seek to put learning in the forefront of the MOOC discussion. After reviewing existing research on learning with MOOCs, we will propose several metrics for defining successful MOOCs. Specifically, we argue that successful courses are ones in which students persist in the course, report to achieve their personal goals, and engage with a variety of learning activities (such as quizzes and discussion boards). We will demonstrate the usefulness of these metrics and begin to establish their validity. Second, we will identify course elements that correlate with productive learning. For example, as previously shown, longer videos seem to lead to reduced engagement. However, a closer examination suggests that it is the overall length of the videos per week, and not their individual length (or overall length per course), that matters. That is, courses with several short videos per week show similar engagement levels to courses with fewer longer videos. Another one of our findings suggests that size of support team does not appear to be critical. While some courses attempt to support learning by offering extensive support, our data suggests that the available support does not improve engagement, probably due to the overwhelming number of leaners. Interestingly, and somewhat counter intuitively, it seems that geographical location matters. That is, learners tend to prefer courses from nearby institutions, even though the courses are given online with no on-site component. We intend to demonstrate these findings using data from several institutions.
Participants in the session will gain better understanding of the varied institutional goals for MOOCs and means to achieve these. Findings that will be shared in the talk will facilitate the formulation of design guidelines for MOOCs. In addition, we anticipate that our methodological contributions will help participants in evaluating their own MOOC data, whether MOOC instructors, researchers, or designers. The session will include built-in time for comments and Q&A in order to receive feedback on our suggested measures of success and productivity of course elements. We hope that encouraging additional institutions to use similar metrics will facilitate a broad set of findings that will improve our collective understanding of the MOOC ecosystem.
As baby boomers retire, Canadian universities have the opportunity to meet a growing interest in what is variously called “third age learning,” “lifelong learning” and “adult learning.” Several existing models partly meet this demand; for example, Continuing Education and Elder Colleges are firmly established at some Canadian universities.
However, not only are baby boomers more numerous and better educated than previous groups of seniors (and thus, studies show, more likely to engage with educational opportunities in retirement) they are also more diverse and, arguably, more independent. This presentation will contend that, while existing models serve some facets of the growing population of seniors effectively, Canadian universities would be wise to adopt multiple flexible platforms from which to foster lifelong learning.
Specifically, I will take a case study approach to espouse what small cities researcher Lon Dubinsky refers to as “organic collaborations” between universities and independent learning organizations. As a professor who has volunteered for, and completed primary research in the form of interviews and surveys, on such an organization, I will advocate for organic collaboration as a tool for community outreach, university- community collaboration, and faculty and student enrichment – even transformation. Universities and individual professors have much to learn from independent third age learning organizations – including how to reinvigorate their own classrooms.
Participants in this session will come away with an overview of the state of third age learning in Canada, an enhanced knowledge of the needs of independent senior learners, and a greater understanding of how working with these learners can foster innovative learning for younger university learners.
The goal of this study was to identify key competency areas that lead to success in online instruction in order to develop a framework to support professional development and self-assessment. In order to identify the key competency areas, the skills and behaviours presented within current literature were analysed to note commonly identified competency areas, identify gaps and determine levels of competence in each key area. As a result, five competency areas were identified: Classroom Decorum, Active Teaching, Instructional Design & Organization, Tools & Technology, and Leadership & Instruction. The resulting analysis produced the Online Teaching Competency (OTC) Matrix. This leveled competency matrix not only can be used to inform professional development in the online teaching environment, but can also be considered a useful guide as it relates to portfolio design and self-assessment.
This brief research paper presentation will explore the use of competencies for self-directed learning and provide insight into skills and behaviours to consider when teaching and facilitating online. The OTC Matrix provides a framework with which to guide us while discussing and exploring the learning experiences of both students and instructors in the online classroom. Participants will take part in facilitated discussions around how this framework could influence their individual learning plans and to consider other ways that this framework could be implemented within their institutions.
Learner motivation has been found to be a complex and nuanced phenomenon; at the same time, we have some fairly reliable general predictors of success (Keller, 2006; Hartnett, St. George, & Dron, 2011). For this study, a seasoned and innovative educator was interviewed to harvest qualitative observations in the context of a course development and learning design pilot project. The instructor was asked about his approach to designing online courses that support learner motivation and help passive students become active learners.
In 2011, a course design pilot was started for Athabasca University courses in the School of Computing and Information Systems (SCIS). This project built on a development pilot initiated after a program review. The goal was to share an understanding of theory and effective practice for online learning and to develop guidelines to facilitate creative design and solution finding.
At that time all SCIS courses were developed using one HTML design template. Initial changes were made to give each course its own visual identity and add course-specific resources. The next level of the design pilot looked for more effective ways to present content in the form of learning activities.
In 2013, a formative evaluation was undertaken of the content and presentation of courses and of the design process with the goal of informing improvements in both courses and process. The coordinator and course author, TerryTaylor, (who was interviewed for this study) introduced effective new ideas for presenting content, and the evaluation team wished to know more about his approach to motivating learners.
The session reports on this study and provides concrete ways to help passive online students become active learners. Participants will learn and be able to apply some of the reported strategies to increase learner motivation and engagement.
History as a discipline is transformative: it aspires to alter our views of the world by making us aware of the dynamics that have shaped it. It can even challenge our sense of place and identity. And yet, such a powerful discipline has too often been content with lectures as a way of carrying its message. Assignments as a whole have been predictable and, while sometimes intellectually challenging, they have not necessarily been met with great enthusiasm by students. In other words, history is ripe for a transformation if it is to be a true learning experience.
One way to achieve this is to refocus the expected outcomes of history courses. I am an educator in a transfer institution, where students typically complete the first two years of their undergraduate education before moving on to a university to complete their bachelor’s degree. This has confronted me with the challenge of making history transformative, especially to students who do not specialise in the discipline. And this is where information fluency (IF) came into the picture.
Students come to our courses because of an interest in and a curiosity for history, but they are rarely equipped to succeed in historical research. As a result, with the collaboration of Library staff, I have been changing my approach to teaching history. In order to unlock the research potential of students, I focused on developing their information fluency skills while also increasing their knowledge and awareness of history by weaving IF in the very fabric of the courses. This has meant new course structures, revamped assignments… and an emphasis on transferable skills that students can acquire in history courses and use throughout their chosen career.
The decision to use information fluency was one that came through an organic evolution of these courses in the environment of a transfer college; however, it has become informed by SoTL theory and is now part of a larger institutional research project on information fluency. In this session, participants will explore ways in which information fluency may apply to their own disciplines.
“Popularized by Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School, ‘disruptive innovation’ is described as change, usually technological, that causes upheaval of an entire industry sector” (in DiSalvio, 2012). This paper presentation explores leadership implications of technological and social disruptive innovations in education. In an era of increasing tuition fees, a rising cost of living, and shrinking budgets, it is understandable that questions about the value and quality of education are placing significant pressures on postsecondary institutions (DiSalvio, 2012). Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) have emerged as a widely accessible alternative learning format. Communities of practice have sprung up among college and university educators, as a disruptive innovation in response to shifting landscapes in tertiary education.
This qualitative pilot study gathers rich descriptions of leadership models and professional learning initiatives within postsecondary educational institutions in Canada. The researchers are interested in ways in which traditional academic and pedagogical leadership models are being disrupted by innovative professional learning initiatives. Specifically, the study asks:
In what ways, if any, are self-organized, informal, and non-credentialed professional learning initiatives disrupting traditional leadership hierarchies in postsecondary education?
A purposive sample of faculty, educational developers, and academic leaders in colleges and universities in Canada, known to the co-investigators through their professional networks, were invited to respond to an anonymous, online survey. Sixteen (16) people, representing sixteen (16) different institutions, responded to the online survey, a forty-seven percent (47%) response rate. Narrative data collected was subjected to thematic analysis in order to propose possible implications of the study for postsecondary educational leaders. The evolution of a teaching and learning book club was examined as an example of a disruptive innovation in faculty development.
When distributive and democratic leadership approaches are applied in postsecondary education, learning is placed at the centre. In this more open, participative environment authority and responsibility for instruction, traditionally held exclusively by teachers, is shared among a network of learners. This model promotes a shifting of roles, allowing teachers to be learners as well as experts, and learners to share their prior knowledge while they engage in relevant learning that aligns with their goals and priorities.
When learning is undertaking in this way -- as a social, interactive, and constructivist process, engaging networks of people and systems -- knowing how to access and assess information becomes a more important skill than acquisition and recall.
As postsecondary institutions re-vision their purpose and place in an information age replete with distributed learning opportunities, the researchers in this study remain curious about how traditional leadership models are evolving and responding. The more open teaching and learning become, the more they problematize the place of traditional institutions as repositories of knowledge and sources of accreditation. Participants in this session will be invited to reflect on the disruptive innovations that are taking place in their own institutional contexts, and to inquire into whether and how they are influencing the academic and administrative leadership approaches at their institutions. Participants will be invited to share their reflections and to pose questions or offer comments following the formal presentation of this paper.
This presentation reports on a study designed to understand how learning theories fit in the practice of educational developers; specifically, developers’ conceptions of learning theories, their use of theories, and, finally, factors that influence the way learning theories shape developers’ practice. To investigate these questions, a qualitative study was undertaken with eleven Canadian university educational developers. By taking an exploratory approach, while drawing upon learning theories and educational development literature, aspects of educational developers’ understanding and use of learning theories were highlighted.
The findings showed that educational developers in this study: (i) conceptualize learning theories as lowercase ‘lt’ as opposed to uppercase ‘LT’, and (ii) define learning theories based on their prior disciplines. These practitioners didn’t associate learning theories with formal academic theories aimed at understanding a situation; instead, they had formed their own synthesis of theories to help them perceive the characteristics of a particular situation. Also, the way the participants defined and conceptualized learning theories seemed to correspond to their prior disciplines and areas of study. Five definitions of learning theories were identified among educational developers: philosophy, language, educational-psychology, holistic, and neuroscience-based. In terms of how theories shape developers’ work, developers were categorized in three groups: (1) those who had a tendency to implicitly use learning theories –focusing more on practical explorations for achieving a desired outcome (seven in total); (2) developers who had a tendency to consciously use learning theories – taking more of a comprehensive approach by examining their assumptions and focusing on causes and effects that influence their practice (three in total); and, (3) one developer who had characteristics of both groups. Factors such as educational background, professional identities, and perceived audience readiness appeared to influence participants’ uses of learning theories. Seeing their work as part of a collective, and attending to the emotional needs of their audience also seemed to impact these practitioners’ work. Considering the limited research examining how educational developers conceptualize learning theories and the way theories inform their practice, this research contributes in generating discussions and future research in a community that continues to grow and situate itself within the higher education landscape.
By sharing highlights of my research, I intend to engage developers in critical thinking and help them articulate what they are trying to accomplish, how they will go about accomplishing this, and based on which learning theories. Through this process, educational developers will be able to subject their own theoretical claims and practices to analysis and thoughtfully revisit the views they hold regarding learning, knowledge, and teaching. I am hoping that the insights and recommendations discussed in this presentation will represent a vehicle for the ‘development of the developers’ and help them reflect on the relevance and effectiveness of their learning theories.
The Queen’s Joanna Briggs collaboration (QJBC) was established in 2004 as the first and only Canadian collaborating centre of the international Joanna Briggs Institute. QJBC’s mission is “To improve the quality and reliability of practice and ultimately health outcomes by enabling the use of best available evidence on patient safety.” QJBC is achieving this by synthesizing evidence based on priority topics identified by diverse partners, and by adapting synthesized evidence from one context to another. The QJBC team is comprised of academic and clinically-based faculty, library scientists, methodologists and core research staff located at Queen’s University School of Nursing.
As part of Canadian Patient Safety Week, QJBC sponsors an interprofessional event called “The Room of Horrors”. This event is run between the Schools of Nursing, Rehabilitation Therapy, Medicine and Pharmacy residents and staff. The purpose of this event is to increase students’ awareness of patient and provider safety and to engage in problem solving with health profession colleagues. The event challenges interprofessional teams to identify potential safety issues that occur in the provision of care to patients. The Faculty of Health Sciences Patient Simulation Labs are set up to provide a variety of scenarios and simulation mannequins have actors providing audio feedback to the students as they progress through the patient care activities. Some scenarios have actors role-playing as health professionals providing care to patients while the students watch and discern where the patient’s safety may be compromised. Students also complete patient safety knowledge quizzes. The first three teams scoring the highest marks for the quizzes and simulation exercises win prizes. All students receive a certificate of participation and tokens for participating.
This presentation will demonstrate how this innovative teaching event develops the skills of the healthcare students, with the following goals in mind:
We will share the opportunities and challenges involved in planning, implementing and evaluating the Room of Horrors and the potential for this type of platform to be used in various educational settings. It will also demonstrate the application of theory to hands-on practice that has occurred over the four years of running this event and identify changes that have been implemented based on evaluation of student and provider feedback.
Edited by Catherine Etmanski, Budd L. Hall, and Teresa Dawson
Forthcoming with the University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division © 2014
Community-Based Research, or CBR, is a mix of innovative, participatory approaches that put the community at the heart of the research process. Learning and Teaching Community-Based Research shows that CBR can also operate as an innovative pedagogical practice, engaging community members, research experts, and students.
This collection is an unmatched source of information on the theory and practice of using CBR in a variety of university- and community-based educational settings. Developed at and around the University of Victoria, and with numerous examples of Indigenous-led and Indigenous-focused approaches to CBR, Learning and Teaching Community Based-Research will be of interest to those involved in community outreach, experiential learning, and research in non-university settings, as well as all those interested in the study of teaching and learning.
The objective of this poster presentation is to demonstrate the importance of adapting and incorporating technology in education. Additionally, detailed examples of methods and techniques will be discussed, allowing the audience to apply these very simple methods with gadgets that almost every Canadian owns – to produce these effective learning tools.
Human anatomy education (HAE) is the cornerstone of medical professions. One hundred years ago, HAE used to account for over a 1000 hours of preclinical education. However, due to the lack of resources (space, time money), increased importance of basic sciences, and lack of body donations, HAE has faced a significant reduction in preclinical hours. Today, our future health providers undergo a mere 150 hours of anatomical education, which is shown to negatively affect health care. To combat such reduction, institutes have to do more with less. What used to be a subject taught solely with didactic lectures and dissection based laboratories faces a new era, where new teaching modalities are used to supplement this important subject.
At the University of Guelph, cadaveric based HAE is provided to undergraduate students as early as first year, all the way to fourth year research students. The biggest class consist of third year students (n = 360), which undergo two semesters of this detailed education. To provide the highest level of HAE to these students with the current limited resources, dissection-based video guides were created and utilized.
These dissection-based video guides parallel the student’s course curricula, providing the students with knowledge that will prepare them for the laboratories. Additionally, these guides are learner-centered, built on precise and measurable learning outcomes, and utilize interactive active learning techniques. These guides promote self-directed learning and problem solving, therefore allowing the students to rely more on themselves, and less on the instructor/teaching assistants. Peer teaching and team-based learning is also promoted, where students bring the information they have gained to their dissection groups. Ultimately, these guides enable students to take ownership of their learning and lead to a deep learning experience, where students will strive to learn the material for the sake of learning, as opposed to surface learning in which students just learn what they need to just to get by.
A total of seven modules (guides) were created to compliment a full back dissection. Positive informal student feedback was received – with a high agreement that these modules were very effective, allowing the students to understand the material, feel comfortable in the laboratory, and achieve the learning outcomes of the class. In conclusion, these videos were viewed in high regards by the students, and were shown to be an effective, easily employed tool to promote a deep learning experience for the students.
In September, 2013 the Learner-Centredness Project (LCP) began as collaboration between the University of Guelph Library and Open Learning and Educational Support in order to explore the community’s understanding of ‘learner-centredness.’ Since then the goal of the project has been to investigate learner-centredness with the University of Guelph community, to raise awareness about learner-centredness and to engage in conversations about learning and learner-centredness. With low-tech methods – chalk, markers, collage and conversation – the LCP asked the community questions like: “what does learning look like?” “what does learner-centred mean to you?” “what is your vision of the ideal university” and “what is learning”?
This poster will share with the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education community the philosophy and outcomes behind the LCP, the strategies for engagement and community building we employed, and the opportunities for collaboration, fun, delight, interactivity and heart that the project inspired.
Participants at the poster presentation will be invited to take part in some of the same LCP initatives we shared at the University of Guelph. In taking part in these interactive, low-tech, creative and positive activities, participants will not only gain awareness of the principles of the LCP, but will also begin to explore individually and as a collective conference community what learner-centred means.
All individuals take in information and make decisions differently according to their own “preferences” and, those two processes are crucial in education because they influence how instructors teach (Kise, 2007). Those “preferences” can be categorized and inventoried by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) tool. Indeed, this indicator identifies and describes 16 distinctive personality types based on the interactions among our preferences for each of the four dichotomies specified in Carl Jung’s theory “Introversion” or “Extroversion” according to where we get our energy to learn;“ Sensing” or “Intuition” according to how we gather information, “Thinking” or “Feeling” according to how we make decisions; and “Judging” or “Perceiving” according to how we approach life (Briggs Myers et al., 1998). As a consequence, the MTBI of course instructors will significantly contribute in shaping their teaching persona as teachers are most comfortable when they can use their own teaching preferences in the classroom and they unconsciously naturally tend to do so (Kise, 2007).
For example, it is acknowledged that “extroverts” get energized by group discussion while “introverts” do so by working alone; “sensing” persons prefer to focus on particular details whereas “intuitive” persons value the big picture; “thinking” individuals value a more analytic approach in class where “feeling” individuals value a more compassionate one; and “judging” people work better in an organized environment while “perceiving” people work better in a more spontaneous setting (Kise, 2007). Research has shown that students whose learning preferences are compatible with the teaching preferences of the instructor are more likely to (1) assimilate the course, (2) to retain and (3) to implement the knowledge and the skills longer and (4) to have a positive approach toward the course and education in general (WNC, 2013).
Although instructors cannot change their preferred style of teaching to match their students’ learning styles and vice versa, teachers can adjust the structure and the flow of their classroom to increase their ability to teach more inclusively (Kise, 2007) and to transform their students’ learning experience.
The active learning literature has long established that active learning practices are better than the passive learning practices done in traditional lecture formats (Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, D., 2003; Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, S., 1999), and as a result, active learning classrooms have become the latest solution in assisting the transition from traditional teaching styles towards active learning techniques in university classrooms (University of Minnesota ALC Pilot Evaluation Team, 2008; University of Tennessee Teaching and Learning Center, 2012). Although on a group level, students perform better in active learning classrooms compared to students in traditional classrooms, the individual cognitive processes that occur in these classrooms have yet to be the focus in this line of research. Are all students improving? Or are students with certain cognitive tendencies benefiting more than others? Similarly, studies on individual cognitive disposition (e.g. actively open-minded thinking, Stanovich & West, 2007) have yet to explore the implications of their research in the classrooms. Typically these studies provide students with scripted arguments and perspectives on a topic rather than an actual interaction among students in the classroom (e.g., Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2013).
The aim of the current study is to investigate whether the active learning activity of group discussions affects individual cognitive dispositions (e.g. actively open-minded thinking) and whether changes in cognitive dispositions occur after several classroom discussions during the course. Sixty students in a 3rd year psychology class will take part in this study. Students will be given the Actively Open-minded Thinking (AOT) scale (Stanovich and West, 1997) which measures the disposition of actively open-mindedness at the start and end of the course. The questionnaire contains 41 items where students rate on a scale of 1- disagree strongly to 5- agree strongly. The activity of group discussion takes place 5 times throughout the course. It requires students to research on a given controversial topic in modern psychology to form a position, and come to the discussion with convincing arguments to support their position. Discussions take place in groups of six for 30-40 minutes during class. Following the discussion, students write a 3-4 page critical response about the topic, their discussion, and whether they changed their position following the discussion.
It is expected that students scoring high on AOT will be more willing to accept other positions during the discussion than students who score low on AOT, and possibly change their mind following the discussion. This will lead to higher quality critical responses as students would be predicted to consider both sides of the argument. However, students who scored low on AOT are expected to move towards high AOT by the end of the course as a result of the discussion activities. The results from this study will provide further understanding of the positive effects active learning classrooms and practices have on students.
Since 2007, the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) at the University of British Columbia (UBC) has influenced the teaching of dozens of faculty and the learning of tens of thousands of students by promoting the "expertise-based classroom", where the goal is to guide students on the path from novice thinking toward expertise in the discipline. Departments were identified as the unit of change and the key factor in this change has been the addition of Science Teaching and Learning Fellows (STLFs) to each department (Wieman, Perkins & Gilbert, 2010). An STLF has deep disciplinary expertise (often a PhD) and is trained in current learning science in order to partner with faculty members as a course consultant in creating or adapting evidence-based methods and measuring effectiveness toward learning. The approach targets all four of the basic change models described by Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein (2011), with elements focusing on both individuals and institutional structures, each having both prescribed (e.g., adoption of specific teaching practices) and emergent (e.g., building some form of community) outcomes.
The CWSEI has led to extensive success in transforming undergraduate science education at UBC, with a particular specialty in high-engagement methods in large classrooms where traditional lecture had long dominated. Most of the course transformations have employed online elements in helping to maximize the value of face-to-face time in class, while personal response systems ("clickers") have become a common method to support small group discussion in large classes. Classrooms with active participation, even at the early undergraduate level, are now perceived as relatively normal by students (Welsh 2012), and feedback has been positive overall from students and faculty involved in these course projects.
Much faculty development occurs; several faculty so far have continued to implement their new strategies on their own in subsequent courses (Wieman, Deslauriers & Gilley, 2013). Within departments and across the Faculty of Science, STLFs and their partner faculty have created communities around teaching innovation -- a culture change essential to any lasting effect. Owing to this inclusion of scholarship as an essential aspect of the CWSEI, a significant knowledge base of practical resources and published evidence of effectiveness has accrued (see cwsei.ubc.ca, particularly the Resources section), and the STLF model is being adopted elsewhere.
This poster will outline the Initiative and present some of the lessons learned around the novel role of the STLF, along with key indicators of success including department activity, quantified changes in teaching practice, and research output which includes recommended teaching practices.
This poster will explore the essential qualities and features of an effective classroom supporting teaching and learning in the 21st century. Concordia University Libraries is currently embarking on a large-scale renovation and expansion project spanning the next three years. This renovated library will include three new classrooms. As a visual representation of the University’s vision and strategy for student learning, to promote student success and research capacity that addresses the changing characteristics of the entering student [and faculty] population (Concordia University Academic Plan, 2012 – 2016), the new classrooms must accommodate a range of current and evolving learning pedagogies appropriate to all University programs and types of learners.
In envisioning these new classrooms, a number of focus group consultations were held with faculty and librarians engaged in teaching, early in the winter semester of 2014. The following themes were addressed in the consultations:
To encourage focus group participants to think in a creative and unfettered way, they were asked to draw visual representations of their teaching approaches as well as their ‘ideal’ classroom. Observation of teacher and students activities in the existing classrooms in the Library was also conducted during this period.
The audience will journey with the presenter through this visual landscape towards a fresh awareness of the many inter-connected relationships in the learning experience between the student, teacher, technologies and the wider environment.
This presentation will theorize the application of social psychological theory to a specific case of change practice in a post-secondary educational context. Online administration of student ratings of instruction (SRIs) can reduce costs, environmental impact, and the time it takes to produce results and reports (Bothell & Henderson, 2003; Sorenson & Reiner, 2003). However, institutions have experienced mixed success in implementing these systems (e.g., Dommeyer, Baum & Hanna, 2002; Layne, DeCristoforo, & McGinty, 1999). Online SRI is not “one-size-fits-all”: factors like specific procedures, the nature of the student body, organizational structures, and the culture of the institution must be taken into account. Theoretical frameworks from the field of Social Psychology can be used to inform planning and guide the application of change practices.
The components of an online SRI pilot will be described through the lens of the reasoned action approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), which offers a well-established framework for the prediction and change of human social behaviour. It begins by looking at background factors, believed to determine behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs. In turn, these beliefs determine the attitude toward the behaviour of interest, the perceived norm, and perceived behavioural control, respectively. Attitudes and perceptions all contribute to the person’s intention to perform a given behaviour, and this intention predicts the person’s actual behaviour, with the person’s actual control (skills/ abilities/ environment) mediating the relationship between intentions and actual behaviour. Although this model was originally designed with individual behaviour change as the level of interest, it can be applied to change practices by treating the institutional level, including the organizational culture, as the level of interest. The poster session will apply this framework to online SRIs, creating a theoretical model that views individuals’ engagement and participation as elements of as an interacting system of elements and identifying key aspects of that system. The poster presentation will also reflect on the implications of this approach for other transformative educational initiatives in post-secondary institutions.
A general use, traditional “flat” layout classroom at the Western University has been transformed into a space to support learner-centred teaching. Drawing on the plethora of literature that describes the benefits to students and teachers (e.g., Barr & Tang, 1995; Astin, 1999; Graetz, 2006), the design created by the steering committee made-over the existing classroom into an interactive classroom that inspires learner-centred teaching.
This poster describes the parallel tracks of envisioning and building the physical space, and mapping the underlying considerations for the layering of pedagogy that occurred during planning for the WALS construction. A rationale for the furniture and technology selection is underpinned by the creation of five modules that illustrate the pedagogical thinking that must accompany any transformation of teaching areas into learning spaces.
Recently, the perspective of institutional culture (Hénard & Roseveare, 2012; Transatlantic Dialogue, 2014) for quality teaching has emerged as an important topic among policy makers, practitioners, and academics. But what is quality when we use it to refer to university education? Governments, students and their families, employers, and funding agencies increasingly demand value for their money and desire more efficiency through teaching (Hénard & Leprince-Ringuet, 2008), but others may hold differing conceptions of quality. Lee Harvey and Bjorn Stensaker (2008) have cited five ways that quality is typically defined in the literature: exceptional, perfection or consistency, fitness for purpose, value for money, and transformation. Applying a cultural theory framework to the notion of a quality culture, Harvey and Stensaker (2008) further described four types of quality cultures: responsive, reactive, regenerative, and reproductive.
This poster applies these notions of quality definitions and quality cultures (Harvey & Stensaker, 2008) to a recently developed Teaching Culture Perceptions Inventory (Wolf, Goff, Dawson, Legwegoh, Joe, Kustra, and Hughes, 2013) that is currently being pilot-tested at three Ontario universities. In addition, we present an initial review of promising practices that could provide future guidelines to support institutions in transforming their institutional culture into one that more deeply values quality teaching and promotes an innovative learning culture (Cox et al, 2011).
This poster presentation will share research findings from a pilot study with a group of undergraduate nursing students that involved a partnership with a liaison librarian and three partner hospitals. The purpose of this study was to describe how senior baccalaureate nursing students interacted with smart devices (e.g. smart phones or an iPod touch) across the curriculum and how nursing students and clinical faculty interacted with them in clinical practice. The study also examined user satisfaction with the smart device, self-efficacy, and comfort with technology before and after the use of a smart device. The goal of this project was to actively engage nursing students in their learning and ultimately in their clinical practice by enabling them to use smart devices to gather multiple sources of evidence/information in the classroom, clinical and simulation laboratory setting. It was anticipated that smart device technology and training sessions related to use of this technology and evidence-informed resources could enrich student and clinical faculty learning. Student participants used their own devices (or the device provided by the study) in a variety of learning environments. Clinical faculty used an iPad mini supplied by the study.
The Faculty research team worked with the liaison librarian and three clinical partner institutions to develop information literacy skills among the students and clinical faculty involved in the project. Nursing students need to make informed clinical decisions on the basis of evidence and smart technology can allow them to access such evidence anywhere. Nursing students and practicing nurses frequently lack the requisite skills to locate and evaluate information on which to base clinical decisions. It is important to ensure the development of strong information literacy skills which involve the ability to know when information is needed and to find, retrieve, analyse and use the needed information effectively. Study participants had training sessions and access to high-quality online library resources, current nursing software resources to support evidence-based learning and practice, and some funding to purchase additional healthcare resources or applications (apps) for their devices.
Study data was collected using several pre and/or post measurement tools, online logs to record the type and frequency of smart device resources used in the clinical area, and focus groups (student participants) and semi-structured interviews (clinical faculty). There were 24 student participants (from five clinical groups across three clinical sites) and three clinical faculty participants. The study concluded in December, 2013 and findings are in the process of being analysed. Preliminary results suggest increased engagement in seeking information and collaborative learning as well as increased use of evidence-based resources on the part of participants. This presentation will focus primarily on the data related to device use in clinical placements.
Health professionals provide care to individuals from many various backgrounds who have wide ranges of conditions and needs. Because it is so important to understand, even in small ways, the diversity of their clients’ worlds, one course in particular provides such an experience.
A majority of students in the second entry Baccalaureate Nursing Program at the University of Toronto have first degrees in the Sciences and many have not been exposed to ideas from feminism, critical theory, equity studies, phenomenology and social constuctionism. These theoretical approaches are briefly introduced to students in a course, Introduction to Mental Health Nursing, in the second term of their two year program that provides a pedagogical perspective through which students are helped to understand more fully the world of those with mental illness. During the course they are asked to see situations differently and to open themselves to other ways of knowing and seeing things through the experiences of their clients.
In this poster presentation, a particular pedagogical lens will be described along with a variety of classroom strategies to help students see those experiences through lenses of various social determinants of health. A theme of intersectionality which is interspersed through focused discussions throughout the course will also be discussed in relation to an assignment that students prepare to demonstrate their understanding of their client’s experience through this concept. Various ways in which students are asked to consider their own positionality and worldview as they encounter the illness experience of individuals through lenses of ethno-racial identity, sexual orientation, gender, poverty and homelessness will also be presented. Some of these include participation in clinical group conferences, viewing and working though content of videos and YouTube clips, and encountering voices of participants in research studies described in the literature. During these activities, students have the opportunity to reflect on, and in many cases, adjust their responses to these experiences. After some initial self-confessed struggles, students often comment that they found the course opened their minds and expanded their understanding of the experience of a wider range of individuals than that with which they had begun the course; if this is indeed the case, the course has met, in part, the expectations of those who teach it.
In 2011, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (a Tri-Council Agency funded by CIHR, SSHRC, & NSERC) launched an educational program to facilitate and enhance the dissemination of TCPS 2, the 2nd edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2010), which sets the standard for research ethics involving human research in Canada. Three educational modalities were implemented to aid participants in developing or refining their ethical understanding and practice: Regional Workshops, which brought together diverse disciplinary perspectives; the Course on Research Ethics (CORE); an online tutorial which enabled individuals to discover the various aspects and applications of the Policy; and Webinars, which provided participants with the opportunity to explore deeper dimensions of research ethics.
This poster reports on the processes and findings of a program evaluation conducted of the TCPS 2 educational program. A formative, mixed-method program evaluation employing surveys following a pre-post design, interviews, and focus groups was conducted with a national sample of research ethics stakeholders across Canada. Specifically, novice users (primarily graduate students and early-career researchers) benefitted most from CORE, through which they increased their familiarity with fundamental research ethics principles and applications, such as ethics review. Intermediate-level users (such as practicing researchers and faculty members) benefitted greatly from the Regional Workshops, in which they worked collaboratively through difficult or complex research ethics cases and further increased their familiarity by referring to the Policy. Advanced users benefitted most from the Regional Workshops, where they engaged in deep explorations of a case, and the Webinar, which provided a focused exploration of a specific research ethics subject-area. Implications arising from this study will be discussed.
Both interprofessional collaboration and adherence to evidence-based infection control practices contribute to patient safety, improved patient outcomes and decreased healthcare costs. Simulation is an educational strategy that encourages active learning, teamwork and communication. Hence an interprofessional education (IPE) simulation module on infection control skills for intermediate-level health professions students using standardized patients (SPs) was developed and trialed in 2012. Feedback was incorporated in 2013 and re-evaluated.
An innovative approach to interprofessional infection control education using SPs aimed to prepare prelicensure physiotherapy, nursing and medical students for collaborative, patient-centred practice to enhance patient safety. Students completed three online modules on chain of transmission, hand hygiene, and routine practices prior to the two-hour IPE session which included an interactive plenary session with an infection control practitioner (ICP) and four brief simulated clinical scenarios using SPs. Interprofessional teams of students interacted with SPs and were expected to select and utilize supplies and protective equipment appropriate to the level of infection control practices dictated by each unique clinical scenario. Debriefing focused on both infection control skills and interprofessional collaboration.
Major changes implemented in 2013 to improve the module were:
Perceived learning, interprofessional collaboration and the organization and content of the new learning module were evaluated by feedback from learners through a satisfaction survey and focus groups. Learning outcomes were assessed through an online survey administered before and after the sessions. Informal feedback was also provided by faculty observers and ICP facilitators.
Learners reported high satisfaction with the module and its components. Feedback supported the value of the clinical scenarios with SPs in contributing to learning of infection control skills and providing opportunities for learning from and about other health professionals. Learners also identified areas for improvement of the module including providing more practical information and demonstrations during the interactive lecture component. Learner knowledge of infection control practices increased significantly (p<0.03). Learner confidence performing all infection control skills except for hand hygiene increased significantly following participation in the sessions (p<0.05).
Despite having previous education related to infection control practices, intermediate level learners continue to have knowledge gaps and lack of confidence applying these skills. Evaluation results support the need for intermittent reinforcement of infection control knowledge and skills, with a particular emphasis on the clinical context. Identified knowledge gaps and suggestions for further improvement will be incorporated into future sessions as the IPE infection control module becomes fully integrated within the curricula of the three schools.
This poster will report on a case study involving the use of a hybrid teaching model in a fourth-year transdisciplinary capstone course in Child and Youth Studies. The structure of the course follows a predictable lecture cycle that focuses on a pedagogical continuum, consisting of four distinct but related aspects of disciplinarity. For instance, there are four cycles of lectures, each cycle focusing on one of the four aspects of disciplinarity, namely, 1) Uni-, 2) Multi-, 3) Intra-, and 4) Trans-Disciplinarity (TD). The first lecture in each cycle is presented digitally through a web-based course delivery system (i.e., Sakai), where students engage with a number of components, including, a) a 50-minute video specifically developed for this course, b) targeted readings related to disciplinarity and capstone relevant course material, and c) posted responses to instructor prompted questions to the videos and the readings. The last lecture in the cycle is held in a traditional face-to-face (F2F) classroom environment, where students are engaged in a number of activities designed to expand and review the unit.
The concept of teamwork is central in this course. Students are asked to organize themselves into teams, consisting of four members. Each member has the opportunity to lead the team twice. Teams are required to have F2F and electronic meetings, record minutes and action plans. In other words, students become fully functioning teams.
Other requirements of the course emphasize the dovetailing of the F2F and digital components. For example, a major course component involves the completion of a TD focused team wiki, which also involves the preparation of a case study and the production of a short video (5 minutes max). As well, each team has to make a presentation of their wiki in front of the entire class.
The hybrid experience is evaluated twice, namely, a Fall term initial reflection on what works and what does not, followed by a Winter terms set of reflections. This poster will report on students’ experiences with the hybrid environment. In particular, we will attempt to capture how students lived their hybrid learning, what worked and what did not work, and what particular aspect of the hybrid environment was beneficial for their learning. Also important will be students’ reflections on ways to improve future offerings.
Trends in learning space design increasingly emphasize human-centredness, a focus on active and engaged teaching and learning, and digital technologies that enhance students’ learning (Brown & Long, 2006). Active learning classrooms (ALCs) embody each of these design trends, and are increasingly being adopted in colleges and universities across North America. ALCs typically incorporate flexible seating and tables, a portable instructional console, multiple writing surfaces, select educational technologies (e.g., table designated laptops, monitors, and projection units; wireless capabilities) and interactive software (e.g., cloud applications, interactive whiteboards). The “tacit curricula” (Monahan, 2002) of ALCs foster and support a myriad of innovative pedagogies and collaborative learning experiences across disciplines (Van Horne, Murniati, Gaffney, & Jesse, 2012).
In fall 2012, Wilfrid Laurier University opened its first ALC as part of a Faculty of Arts initiative. This initiative brought together the expertise and backing of several constituent groups to design, construct, select technology, and provide training and support for the faculty and students engaged in teaching and learning in the space. Focused on the perspective of the teaching centre’s role in this project, this poster explores the professional development and support needs of faculty teaching in ALCs (e.g., administrative, pedagogical, technological, peer-to-peer), recognizing the shared role of these functions across the institution (Johnson, 2006; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006). Lessons learned and best practices are reported, highlighting the need for timely, integrated training and support that is sensitive to the varied instructional experience, overall readiness, and level of commitment and risk faculty are willing to assume when teaching in an ALC.
George Brown College is committed to ensuring its graduates understand how sustainability relates to their work and to society. In order to render visible all courses that deliver and measure student acquisition of sustainability skills and knowledge, the College undertook an audit to determine current levels of sustainability teaching and learning content within all active programs of instruction (cf. Rusinko, 2010; Bridges, 2008; Jahan & Mehta, 2007; Springett, 2005; Tesone, 2004; Bartlett & Chase, 2004).
The audit's scope included both program- and course-level learning outcomes. Program and course learning outcomes from all diploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and degree programs were individually assessed for sustainability content, based on the accepted tripartite definition of sustainability encompassing environmental, social and economic sustainability principles (United Nations General Assembly, n.d.). We now know which of our programs provide a framework for learning that emphasizes environmental, social and economic sustainability skills and knowledge, particularly as these relate to a student's own field of study. We also know precisely in which specific courses this learning takes place.
As a result of our sustainability curriculum audit we are better able to link our sustainable research mandate to broader industry productivity and graduate preparation (cf. United Nations Development Program, 2014; Sibbel, 2009; Tilbury, 2004). This is because our audit results have allowed us to identify which of our diploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and degree programs have integrated sustainability teaching and learning across the curriculum--and which are at very early stages or have not yet begun this work. Where integration of sustainability themes was found within program- or course-level learning outcomes, the results also indicate the extent of the integration: for example, whether sustainability themes appear just once within a single course in a program, or whether they appear and are reinforced multiple times across multiple locations (i.e. within both program- and course-level learning outcomes and/or within multiple courses across a program).
Using the results from this audit, we are now able to target specific programs and courses in which it makes sense to allocate effort toward the increase the integration of sustainability teaching and learning (cf. Jones et al, 2010; Desha & Hargroves, 2007; Sterling, 2004). Beginning with programs that were found by the audit to contain no or very few sustainability-related learning outcomes, we are now in a position to stage and coordinate the continued integration of sustainability themes across the curriculum in a way that is focused, logical and reflective of each program's audit results.
The Teaching Skills Workshop program was developed and piloted within a Faculty of Science at a large research-intensive university to help faculty members build their teaching skills and knowledge with a community of learners. The program was initiated in January, 2013 in response to a teaching and learning needs assessment where the need for opportunities to learn about teaching and to interact with peers across the Faculty was identified. The goals for this workshop program were:
This program consisted of two- or three-hour workshops offered monthly from September through April and biweekly from June through August. Workshop topics included student motivation, assessment, conducting mid-course evaluation, and writing a teaching philosophy statement. Topics were selected based on common teaching situations faculty members faced during the semester, as well as topics suggested by workshop participants. Workshop activities were aligned with the program goals and provided participants with opportunities to reflect on their practices and beliefs about teaching, develop teaching and/or curriculum materials relevant to their own practice, and participate in learning groups where they would give and receive feedback and discuss their ideas about teaching. Workshops were developed and facilitated by teaching experts who are also faculty members in the host Faculty. The workshop goals follow recommendations for STEM educational development programs where activities focus on developing reflective teachers and changing faculty conceptions of teaching, take into account the teaching culture and do not assume a ‘one size fits all’ model (Henderson, Beach & Finkelstein, 2011).
Preliminary findings indicate that participants in these workshops were satisfied or very satisfied with the workshop format, information, activities and facilitators. To date, 1/3 of academic staff members from the Faculty have participated in at least one workshop and 15% of those participants have attended more than five workshops. Analysis of feedback found that the most valuable aspects of the workshops for participants were: activities, discussions/feedback from peers, support materials and knowledge gains. These findings were consistent with participants across disciplines, teaching experience and workshop topics. The most commonly reported suggestions for improvement by participants were: more time, more examples and more structure to the learning group activities.
Next steps are to determine the extent to which participants transfer knowledge and skills learned in the workshops to their teaching practices and whether participants are enhancing or practicing reflective teaching. We also want to explore ways to transform the learning groups formed in the workshops to learning communities outside of the workshops where participants can receive additional support and follow-up on ideas they developed within the workshops.
A basic tenet of professional programmes is that experiential learning is critical to practice. Our hypothesis is that field learning, specifically, geological mapping, is both transformative, in that it helps students transition from learners to experts, and “future-proofing“ in that it develops the habits of mind of integrating sparse observations into meaningful models.
Queen’s students seeking degrees in Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering (GS&GE) begin with a fall term field (28 h/lab 40 h) course (GEOE/L 221), followed by a 12 day, 11 hour a day spring field course (GEOE/L 300). Fundamental to these courses is geological mapping, where the process is defined as making observations of earth materials and features in space, typically the 2D surface of the Earth, incorporating those observations and features into a 3D conceptualization (or model) of the earth system, and from that conceptualization, identifying spatial and temporal relationships among components. This type of mapping is accretive, that is, the process and product are intertwined. Students produce visual records (maps, cross-sections) and written reports to demonstrate learning. A summative oral exam is included at the end of both courses.
Biggs and Collis (1982) identified that “as learning progresses it becomes more complex”, and that students go through stages of meaning making, from the accumulation of seemingly random observations in the early stages, to the complex meaning making that results in a system or conceptualization. We contend that undergraduate students learning to map experience this progression. Furthermore, we observe that Queen’s GS&GE students appear to undergo a transformation in their learning in the latter half of each field course. We hypothesize that this transformation is when students begin to change from being novices to being experts, whereby they assemble their observations into a meaningful whole, and pass through a threshold of learning similar to that proposed by Meyer and Land (2003).
Despite financial pressures, Queen’s GS&GE has continued to offer rich field experiences for undergraduates. While our belief is that field learning is transformative and crucial, there is only anecdotal evidence of its importance to students. This prompts us to ask, “Is field learning essential to learning and practicing in the geosciences?” In order to examine this contention, we have initiated a longitudinal survey of current students and alumni about the nature of their field experiences. Initial data will form part of our poster, in addition to information about faculty attitudes towards field learning. Additional data include the nearly 20 years of success in raising funds for field learning from alumni. We take as evidence of their belief in and commitment to field learning, the numerous donations from both alumni and industry.
We contend that geological mapping stimulates and enhances theoretical learning, and that once students become adept at making and incorporating field observations into their personal conceptualization of an earth system, they pass through a threshold from novice to expert mapper. The observational, meaning-making, and synthesis skills of the adept mapper are hallmarks of the successful professional geoscientist and geoengineer. The accretive process of mapping, and all it entails, may be extended to other fields, such as nursing, medicine, and biology, to name a few, where close observation and disparate data sets are incorporated into conceptualizations.
In January of 2014, the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness (GMCTE) at the University of Saskatchewan launched the open course, Introduction to Learning Technologies. The course is being offered simultaneously to both a small blended cohort (mostly online, with five face-to-face sessions) and a much larger open group of participants. This course is designed for faculty, instructors or teachers who wish to learn more about effective uses of learning technologies. Participants explore pedagogically-informed use of blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking and a host of other tools, in addition to considering the implications of copyright and Creative Commons, digital citizenship and digital literacy for their teaching practice.
The prevailing model for most MOOCs these days involves the course being housed in a closed platform such as that used by Coursera. Participants must register to view the course content and materials cannot be used outside of that course. Participants usually only communicate with others in the course and sometimes not even then, and yet the first “O” in MOOC stands for “open”.
The open course from the GMCTE is what we consider to be a truly open online course or TOOC. The course is built on the open source blogging platform, Wordpress and all materials developed by GMCTE carry Creative Commons licenses, allowing anyone to use, remix and share them. While participants are encouraged to register to make it easier to reach those interested in completing the course as a cohort and to get an idea of who is going through the course, it is not required to access the course materials.
The open nature of the TOOC not only benefits participants directly, but also the course designer and facilitator due to the feedback that is provided by those who are not registered, but have browsed the course materials. This poster session will explore the concept of the TOOC and the benefits and drawbacks realized by the participants and facilitator.
Creative Problem Solving (CPS) as a teaching method is outside of the norm of what is generally expected in the classroom setting, hence students may be resistant to participating in something not fully understood. Incorporating active learning strategies in a way that transcends the classroom and sparks interest and passion for students is a key pedagogical ingredient for educators. While students may find CPS a challenge due to the uncertainty and ambiguity of a different teaching method, its applicability to an MSW policy course couched in a series of two small group facilitation assignments can be useful in engaging students in the learning process. Providing an opportunity for students to work collaboratively to facilitate a small group with their peers provides a forum for them to engage in problem-solving, teaching and learning, and enable them to link theory to practice in real-world settings that are meaningful and relevant to them. CPS is a powerful teaching methodology, that when cultivated within a constructivist framework, supports the pedagogical shift in the classroom that can foster both student engagement and motivation to learn.
CPS can be a transformative learning tool that can support students becoming teachers and teachers becoming learners. It supports a dialogical learning atmosphere that can transcend the traditional classroom and inspire excellence in students by linking real life experiences into education, beyond the confines of the traditional classroom setting. It supports a sense of inquiry that incorporates both experiential learning and the development of critical thinking skills.
In higher education across the country, many educators have been replacing some or all lecturing with in-class activities and formative assessments to enhance student learning and engagement. As such, it is not only important to theorize and assess the effectiveness of these movements, but also to gain an understanding of how students engage with and approach learning in these non-traditional settings. Students are key stakeholders in teaching and learning practices; therefore, their perceptions and feedback are significant to the curricular and pedagogical movements occurring in higher education within and outside of Canada (Author, 2012; Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Wieman, 2012).
In this poster presentation, we will examine undergraduate students’ perceptions of their learning strategies and experiences in an introductory organic chemistry course that encouraged active learning strategies. Organic chemistry is a challenging, cumulative course where students often struggle to develop meaningful learning strategies and easily fall behind (Grove & Bretz, 2012; Lynch & Trujillo, 2010). This particular course used a “flipped classroom” format and provided students with ample opportunity to practice/discuss their skills through in-class quizzes and worksheets, assignments, and an online discussion forum. Since this course offered a variety of interactive, formative feedback we were interested in understanding what moments, activities, or interactions students deemed as influencing (and changing) their learning strategies and experience in the course, and also why students’ held these views. Hour-long interviews were conducted with twenty-six students, which revealed a spectrum of raw and detailed feedback on their experiences in the course. While most of the students acknowledged that the course format/activities were designed to keep them engaged with the material and in contact with their peers/instructor, many of them expressed difficulty keeping up with the content and using the resources available to them. Almost every student mentioned that their lack of time management skills and reliance on “cramming” was disadvantageous to their learning. Students who were successful in the course attributed their success to their desire to take responsibility for their learning and to become more diligent in their pre-class preparation, to ask questions, and to focus on what they understood and did not understand. Students also offered advice on how the course structure could be improved and how incoming students could be successful in the course. The information presented in this poster will engage the STLHE community in discussions of how we may use students’ perceptions to inform our complex decisions about curriculum and pedagogy.
This poster presentation will share the results of a study that examined the effects of physical space on the teaching and learning environment. The literature suggests that physical space affects student privacy, performance and participation. Research also suggests that the physical environment affects how teachers view the possibilities available to them for their teaching (Jamieson, Fisher, Gilding, Taylor & Trevitt, 2000; Higgins, Hall, Wall, Woolner & McCaughney, 2005). Literature shows that space can dictate how students will interact (Jamieson et all, 2000). Studies indicate that physical space that saves time, provides comfort, and facilitates communication supports successful learning (Higgins et al, 2005). Further research in physical space and its impact on teaching and learning is needed (Temple, 2008). This research can advise universities on how best to enable collaboration, communication and interactions between students, teachers and content (Jamieson, 2003).
In this study, the enactment of three tutorials conducted simultaneously was compared. Each tutorial followed the same format and plan, but was implemented in a different classroom. The format involved a case study analysis of human physiology and a planned sequence of events. Each classroom had a separate physical configuration and different degree of technology available. This study examined how students and faculty experienced the physical space in order to provide context to how physical space affects teaching and learning. Through observation, surveys and focus groups, data was compared using qualitative analysis to understand how physical space effected the formulation of the experiences of the students and faculty involved. The results of this study contribute to the overall discussion regarding physical learning space and how it shapes one’s experience in a learning environment. This poster presentation contributes to discussions of physical aspects of learning spaces in the integrated learning environment.
A critical component of McMaster University’s educational mandate, and a focus of universities across the country, is to include undergraduate students in the research process. Student-run publications can be used as a means of actively engaging students in their education and fostering leadership skills. In the process of organizing, administering and disseminating a publication, students gain critical insight into the process through which information is collected, edited and finally distributed, as well as developing the skills to work and lead in a small-team setting. Student-run publications provide other students a means of submitting their work for publication, simultaneously allowing students to think and work beyond their curriculum.
In this session, we will share details on the inception, organization and operation of The iScientist, a student-run peer-reviewed scientific journal in the Integrated Science (iSci) program at McMaster University. The iScientist was conceived as a platform for which the scientific research being done by students could be shared more broadly, while also giving in-program students an opportunity to gain valuable editorial and reviewing experience. A key pedagogical goal of establishing The iScientist is to shift the structure of student learning away from traditional instructor-driven assignments and provide students the means to experience how the process of science is conducted outside the classroom. In the initial phase of organizing the journal, instructor input was valuable, but minimal. The student editorial board is encouraged to work independently but seek advice from instructors and faculty where necessary. By providing limited support, instructors ensure that the students involved in the journal, from editors to peer reviewers, are forced to develop academic independence. The real value of The iScientist as a means to evaluate student learning comes once a number of submissions have been published. The quality of these publications allows instructors to assess whether the curriculum has successfully prepared students for the process of academic scientific research and publication. This is especially important in a program like iSci, which has a mandate of training the scientific leaders of tomorrow. This approach has the added advantage of allows instructors to evaluate the combined outcome of the entire curriculum rather than evaluating each individual section of the curriculum piecewise. Thus, although no formal means of evaluation has been put into place for The iScientist, there is the potential for this journal to allow instructors to evaluate the learning of their students in a more holistic fashion. Complimentarily, student-run journals have the benefit of allowing students to integrate their previous learning to produce a publication-worthy piece of work. For students going forward into science and research, both serving as editors on The iScientist and submitting to the journal will serve as a valuable early experience in a process that will be central to their career.
E-Portfolios have the potential to transform students’ learning experiences through reflection on the significance of what and how they have learned; this enhances their ability to articulate their knowledge and skills to their peers, teachers, and future employers. In addition, e-portfolios can enable the assessment of teachers' and institutions' ability to inculcate students with their core learning objectives and skills. The objective of the Augustana 2012/13 pilot study was to determine the feasibility of the institutional implementation of e-portfolios focused on enhancing student learning, rather than institutional assessment. This poster presents the outcomes from this pilot.
Volunteers for the pilot were recruited from a variety of disciplines: Biology, Development Studies, Drama, Music, and Psychology. The volunteers were aware at the outset of several criteria related to e-portfolio resources: i) the e-portfolio platform must be sufficiently user-friendly such that students are able to focus on the reflection, writing, and analysis of their learning without having to spend excess energy and time on familiarizing themselves with the technology, ii) students need to feel that the platform empowers them to express their unique experience to produce a student-centred e-portfolio, and iii) affordable price. As a result, all participating faculty, with one exception, used Google Sites and found that students were able to use the freely available Google App with little difficulty.
Lessons learned during the pilot include the following: i) don’t assume students are tech savvy, ii) collect websites that can assist students with technical aspects of the e-portfolio platform, iii) always keep a clean copy of your template that is not shared with students, iv) encourage instructors to avail themselves of the resources available through teaching & learning centres to provide technical and design assistance, v) be clear about the point of the assignment, vi) be clear about the criteria for the assignment, vii) provide students with leading questions to help guide them with their critical self-reflection. The poster will further elaborate these lessons.
The results of the pilot study suggested that Augustana faculty be encouraged to consider using e-portfolios in their courses and degree programs as a teaching strategy that enables students’ self-reflection on the skills and knowledge gained during their studies at Augustana. In addition, it was recommended that students be encouraged to use whatever platform best suits them. The reasons for these suggestions will be discussed during the poster session.
Nursing students are taught the importance of research particularly with respect to the concept of evidence-based practice. They learn to critically evaluate research articles but may lack exposure to practical research that complement the theoretical learning. St Lawrence College (SLC) provides one of five Ontario collaborative college sites for delivering the Bachelor of Sciences in Nursing (BScN) degree in collaboration with Laurentian University. A number of research-based courses are offered throughout the program. Despite the value of these courses, a gap remains with respect to the practical research and laboratory exposure.
The objective of this course is to develop a model for integrating practical research in the undergraduate years that help student nurses appreciate the steps and efforts involved in generating and completing research studies that they are often required to analyze, and to expand on the laboratory exposure that may be required in their future professional practice.
This practical research/ education model (LUSL1001UN) was introduced as an elective course for the third year BScN students. The course provides an opportunity for students to explore various research initiatives. Each student completes a small research project starting with performing an extensive literature review followed by formulating a research question, writing a research proposal, conducting a well-controlled experiment, practicing data analysis using appropriate statistical methods and drawing a conclusion. Students present their data via two open mini-symposia (poster and oral presentations) and finally write manuscripts following journal specific author guidelines.
The course provided a unique experience for students to conduct their own research, raised their academic writing standards, improved their scientific communication, critical thinking and presentation skills and enhanced their motivation towards research. This course represents a new learning approach in the BScN program. A description of the course layout and delivery methods will be provided and synopsis of the students’ projects, outcomes and feedback will be presented. We recommend this course to be considered as a required rather than elective course to extend this learning opportunity to all students in the program.
Our reunion dinner follows immediately after the awards ceremony and 3M Fellows Old and New and their spouses and friends are invited to join us at the River Mill Restaurant on the shore of the Cataraqui River. Registration Deadline: June 10, 2014.
The Shuttle Bus will leave the from the STLHE Awards ceremony for the River Mill Restaurant and the 3M National Teaching Fellows Reunion Dinner. The reunion dinner will cost $55.00 including dinner, a beverage coupon, HST and gratuity. A vegetarian option is available.
Active learning techniques are widely used by instructors in face-to-face (F2F) classes in order to engage students in collaborative learning. However, the idea of employing active learning strategies in eLearning environments might feel like a daunting task to some instructors. This session will explore the adaption of F2F active learning strategies to fit eLearning environments. Specifically, the session will focus on a technique that combines Project-Based Learning (PBL) and the jigsaw method.
PBL grew from the constructivist philosophy of education. As well as being an effective philosophy employed in F2F classrooms, the constructivist approach has also been identified as an effective philosophy for eLearning environments (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995). The role of the instructor in the PBL classroom is that of a facilitator or the “guide on the side” as opposed to the “sage on the stage” model of instruction that is common in traditional higher learning lecture halls (King, 1993, p. 30). The instructor facilitates discussion and helps learners to move through the PBL process of working collaboratively to construct their own learning. In PBL, students move beyond being consumers of knowledge to becoming producers of knowledge (Hung, Keppell, & Jong, 2004). The culminating task after rigorous study, analysis, and research is the production of a final project that is shared with peers.
Like PBL, the jigsaw method also emphasizes collaborative learning. Students are divided into small groups and each group is assigned a portion of the course content (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). Each group is responsible for acquiring expertise about the assigned topic, theory, method, or reading. Then, the group works collaboratively to create a tangible result (such as a project). Finally, each group takes on the role of teacher as they share their project and their expertise with their peers.
In an eLearning environment, the two methods can be combined seamlessly if instructors can offer the right production tools to students. There are numerous eLearning teaching tools that can be used, but in this session, I will introduce four teaching tools that can be used by students to create learning objects. One tool, Zaption, makes instructional videos interactive. With Zaption students are not just passively watching videos, but instead they are engaged in responding to discussion questions or involved with other interactive functions of this application. Another tool, Educreations, offers a virtual interactive whiteboard to facilitate individualized learning. Rather than all students being expected to learn at the same pace as in a traditional classroom, with Educreations, students can manipulate the whiteboard to suit their individual learning needs. The third tool, Storyline, allows students to create interactive eLearning modules that can have numerous learning objects embedded into them. Finally, VideoScribe is a video production tool that gives the impression that a hand is drawing all the course content. The slow release of the material, as well as the engaging movement on-screen, keeps students interested in watching the module unfold.
Many students, professors, and administrators think that undergraduate research is mentored research, with an undergraduate student working alongside a professor or post-doctoral fellow or graduate student to help advance knowledge. But undergraduate research is much broader than this conception, available only to a small percentage of elite students. Healy (2005; Healy & Jenkins, 2009) describe four types of undergraduate research based on the nature of the learning environment and whether the research experience focusses on the research process or research outcomes. Brew (2006; Brew& Boud, 2009) further elaborates possible outcomes of undergraduate research, ranging from the student acquiring new knowledge and skills to the advancement of new knowledge. Beckman and Hensel (2009) present a series of continua by which to consider different types of undergraduate research.
Why do we care about undergraduate research? A large body of research, cutting across employability (e.g., Finch, Hamilton, Baldwin, & Zehner, 2013), graduate school preparation (e.g., Lopatto, 2004, 2007), and learning (e.g., Healy, 2005), indicates that undergraduate research helps students develop essential skills in written and oral communication, problem solving, creative and critical thinking, and leadership.
In this session, I will briefly present the framework that we use at the University of Alberta to describe undergraduate research (http://uri.ualberta.ca/en/DefiningUndergraduateResearch.aspx), using examples from a wide range of disciplines. Participants will then work in pairs to identify examples of undergraduate research in their own classes and interactions with students and place the examples within the framework.
Teaching in an active learning classroom has changed the way we teach and learn. Active learning could be considered a high-impact practice due to the fact that it “demands [that students] interact with faculty and peers about substantive matters…over extended periods of time” (Kuh, 2008). Active learning also exceeds the boundaries of the individual learner and permeates other layers in and outside the classroom, fostering active communication among learners. Synergies of knowledge and sharing of resources are present at all times. This is not always common in the standard classroom. Education should be seen as a situation or process which provides opportunity for individuals to come into presence, that is, to show who they are and where they stand. Active learning provides this opportunity by offering the space and time to apply knowledge through tailored engaging activities while offering the opportunity for students and instructors to reflect on the teaching and learning process (Bietsa, 2004). The end result is a more robust and transformative experience.
This workshop will offer the opportunity to explore a variety of teaching and learning activities in an active learning classroom applied in two different disciplines, History and Languages and Literatures, that could be applicable to any field. Samples will be presented and we will reflect on how the crafting of these activities and their implementation has not only changed the students’ learning experience but has also impacted and transformed the teaching process. Handouts and course outlines will be shared.
While faculty development benefits from a large literature, including peer-reviewed papers, books, and edited volumes, the question of whether the design process of a faculty development unit affects its acceptance and use remains open. This is a prospectively important question, as what is known about professional learning suggests that it is effective when project work, personalized interest of the learner, collaboration, multiple perspectives and a focus on important problems are emphasized.
But most CTLs are designed differently - top-down or centre-out, rather than end-user up. Does that process affect the willingness of faculty to participate? Do existing CTL offerings really match underlying faculty needs? Is there a better process of design that could yield a suite of services which more beneficially serve genuine faculty needs?
This session explores whether using a design methodology for services could improve the faculty learning and development experience. Service design is a technique used often in commercial settings as well as the public sector. It relies upon creating meaning from the surveyed preferences of end users, and using that meaning as input into the generation of alternative ideas. Such ideas are winnowed, prototyped, refined, tested, and if successful, ultimately implemented.
In this session, participants will learn about the major elements of the service design process, and discover how it was implemented at a Canadian university. Ample reference materials will be provided, so that participants will be able to consider using this method at their own institutions based on the material delivered and referenced in this session.
The purpose of this workshop is to share current research on academic development initiatives and to engage participants in discussion about effective strategies to bring about institutional change that will promote a culture of teaching and learning in higher education.
Recent research supports the need to re-conceptualize the work of academic development (Boud & Brew, 2013; Salter, 2013). In addition, changes in approaches to how we measure the success of academic development initiatives is called for to ensure a scholarly approach is taken to the work of academic development units (Stefani, 2010). In this workshop, participants will be asked to critically reflect on changes in approaches to teaching and learning, and changes in approaches to academic development, at their institutions, and how these changes impact support for faculty and for the support units.
Two “teaching focused” institutions in British Columbia are carefully ‘rethinking’ how activities of their learning and teaching centres can be better aligned with both the missions of the respective institutions and the changing landscape in higher education. Leaders from these two institutions will share innovative approaches that are being initiated to build upon past work at the respective institutions to enhance a culture of a renewed ‘teaching and learning community’ with an ultimate goal of enhancing the quality of student learning experiences.
With government mandates to focus on teaching as part of their mission, how do such institutions provide leadership for others while attempting to redesign how the culture of learning and teaching is promoted, supported and communicated across campus?
Participants will be asked for their feedback on these approaches and engage in conversation about changes happening provincially and nationally. How are we ensuring our centres are aligned with institutional missions? How are we ensuring faculty are aware of these changes and how do we share with them the rationale for a new model for supporting them? How are we promoting and sharing innovation and new learning methodologies with students, administration and the community? What do these activities look like? How are we moving teachers to think of themselves more as learners and undertake rich inquiry questions into their practice and into how student learning can be improved? How can faculty be moved to lead from within and change the culture through their own initiatives and activities? How are we measuring the success of our initiatives? How can we share and learn from each other?
During this session, participants will be made aware of changes happening in other institutions and share some changes in their own institution. They will also have the opportunity to share ideas as to how they are approaching the changes and have considered next steps for their own practice.
In his 1969 book, The Ideal of the University, Robert Wolff reflects on the function and value of the university in his contemporary moment. He considers four principle functions for the university: a setting for the contemplation of great intellectual debates; a “training camp” where students are accorded professional certificates in disciplines sought after by the market and/or government; a way station in the maturation of a nation’s youth; and, finally, an institution to be rebelled against for its traditions. This workshop will not focus on Wolff’s categories; rather, Wolff’s categories present a launching point for a focused conversation about the idea and the ideal of the university in 2014.
This workshop is, perhaps, unconventional in that it does not present a specific research question or report, does not present a classroom strategy or practice and does not seek to explicitly “transform” or “innovate.” What this workshop will do, however, is step back and discuss some of the central questions we ought to be asking as members of the higher education community: What is the goal of higher education? What is our vision for the ideal university? If transformation requires a moving from one state to another, this workshop proposes first stepping back to ask ‘where are we now’ before answering ‘where might we go’?
The outcome is as simple as it is ambitious: in this workshop participants will discuss the idea(l) of the university in 2014. In fifty minutes we will generate and debate the possible functions of the university; we will interrogate our existing assumptions about the purpose of higher education; and, we will articulate individual visions of what the goal of the university might be. We will collectively leave the conversation more confident of the kinds of questions we might ask about the purpose of and the direction for higher education. These are questions we might fruitfully take back to our home institutions to foster and facilitate change; or, these questions might simply serve as reminders to reflect on the role we individually and collectively play in the university. The discussion will be informed by an introduction to the history of the university, but will principally draw on the expertise and experiences of those participating in the discussion in order to determine functions, assumptions and visions.
The aim of this paper is to explore the benefits and weaknesses of the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education. Discussion will be mainly based on theoretical studies on some of the consequences of the use of ICT, such as accessibility, interest of students and ICT professional development offered to professors, as well as on a case studies based on issues in Military and Veteran Health Research, a webinar taught every fall term by more than 15 different lecturers to graduate students from across Canada.
E-learning is the realization of a world where distance education provides access to high quality education to those students who would not normally have this access for several reasons, including geographical problems or scheduling challenges. Whereas technologies enable accessibility to knowledge, insuring the technological competence of professors and motivation of students (Villar et al., 2006) is yet to be achieved. In order to solve this problem, some argue that programmers, technicians and instructors using e-learning should put less emphasis on the technologies than on the content, in order to address students’ need of educational curriculum (The Information Revolution, 2003). Maintaing student’s interest and retention can also pose a problem: studies have identified that the low motivation among students arises from the lack of sense of belongingness to a community of learners. It has been suggested that technologies should incorporate online icebreakers (Dixon, 2006) and create 3D learning spaces to mimic the dynamic of a classroom (IsaBelle et al., 2006) to create a sense of belonging for online learners and to reach out all types of learners, both intrinsic and extrinsic.
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the distance between the implementation of high quality e-learning using ICT and the degree of its realization, through the study of some targeted issues: accessibility of information, training of professors, and student motivation. To give some practical dimension to these reflections, different venues suggested by researchers who created real-life experiments in order to overcome these problems will also be explored. A case study will be used as a live example in order to assess the effectiveness of a multimedia approach to distance learning. Effectiveness of a multimedia approach to distance learning will be assessed based on a questionnaire measured by the assessment of the motivation of students when undertaking this webinar, as well as on their perception of the usefulness of the tools used during the semester.
Advances in technology have enabled educators to transform online teaching beyond the voice-over presentation. Newer software allows for the development of innovative and interesting online modules that successfully blend face-to-face and online components with an aim to enhance the student learning and experience.
This presentation will showcase an interactive online learning module pertaining to chronic wounds that was developed as a pilot for undergraduate nursing students in the Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing (LSBFoN) at the University of Toronto. Background information, development, successes and lessons learned will be discussed. Session participants will have the opportunity to navigate through a portion of the module on their own electronic devices to gain an understanding of the student experience. Copies of the planning documents that were used during development will be shared.
This learner-centred module was developed to transform the student experience from a formal didactic lecture format to a blended learning module with the aim of enhancing the students’ knowledge and understanding of caring for patients with chronic wounds. Prior to its development, students attended two in-class lectures and completed readings and learning guides. Within the new blended module, students continued to receive a traditional in-class lecture pertaining to acute wound care but also had access to an asynchronous online module that focused on chronic wound assessment and treatment. This module presented students with content using audio, video, text, and animations. Low-stakes in-line interactive assessments assisted the students to confirm knowledge transfer. The highly interactive multi-modal approach allowed for an engaging, active learning experience.
The adoption of a computer adaptive licensure examination challenges those involved in the education of future nurses to consider new modalities for testing to ensure that graduates are well prepared for the variety of question types that may be present on the exam. Completing this module allowed students to practice various types of questions including hot spot, drag and drop, matching, and case studies.
To enhance understanding of the value of the module from a learner perspective, students were invited to complete a short, online survey through the course portal. An overview of these results will be shared within the presentation.
The creation of this interactive, online module allowed students to access content that was formerly offered within the walls of the face-to-face classroom. In the future, the module could be offered to students in other courses, programs, faculties, and institutions, as it is designed to be adaptable and reusable. Suggestions for further investigation of the impact of this type of online teaching tool on learning and knowledge translation will be discussed.
This presentation will provide an overview of a three-year project that is funded under the Mental Health Innovation Fund (MTCU) and is a joint venture between St. Lawrence College and Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. Over the last five years, the number of students registered in Disability Service/Access Offices in the post-secondary sector in Ontario has increased by 32%. Over the same period, the number of students with mental health disabilities has increased by 67%. The current model of accommodating students with disabilities being used across the province faces major challenges in accommodating those with mental health disabilities. For example, the episodic nature of some mental health conditions and the variability in guidelines for documentation both create difficulties in providing an equitable accommodation process. As well, members of faculty and staff lack adequate information regarding how they can support students with mental health disabilities.
The goals of the project are: (a) To develop province-wide documentation standards, taking into consideration the specific needs of students with mental health disabilities (b) To develop training for students, faculty and staff on how best to accommodate students with mental health disabilities (c) To develop an information and resource handbook for students with mental health disabilities.
In the winter of 2014, the research team carried out a provincial environmental scan, gathering input from a range of stakeholder groups – students with mental health disabilities, faculty, disability advisors, administrators and campus physicians. Stakeholder input was collected via (i) a series of focus groups held in five sites in the province and (ii) an on-line survey. Both methods of data-collection focused on stakeholders’ experiences in seeking, recommending or providing academic accommodation, as well as their suggestions for improvements to the current system. The researchers will share preliminary data from the environmental scan and discuss emerging themes and their implications for developing best practices in accommodating students with mental health problems and disabilities.
The purpose of this panel discussion is to present three different disciplinary perspectives and lessons learned from a creative teaching experiment in both individual and team-based teaching. In the fall of 2013, three courses in different disciplines at the University of Toronto Scarborough – History, Women’s and Gender Studies, and City Studies - were offered simultaneously, with the shared focus on ‘oral history and urban change’. The courses were designed as community-based research with a strong emphasis on place-based learning. The goal was to provide student researchers with the opportunity to engage directly with community members in retelling the story of Scarborough from within.
Students were organized into interdisciplinary groups of three (one student from each course.) They were trained in oral history methodology, and conducted their interviews with community members. The final project was a digital compilation of their findings, presented to a broad audience from the campus and community. The result was an example of teaching and learning alone (separate classes, assigned readings specific to the discipline, individual assignments) and teaching and learning together (shared class meetings on common themes, group assignments, multidisciplinary field research teams and a process of collaboration that required the understanding and appreciation of difference).
The outcome of this initiative demonstrates the transformative power of new and creative ideas generated from diverse people connecting and collaborating both within the academy and community. The learning from the multidimensional partnerships that developed throughout the course were profound -- for students, faculty, community partner organizations, and community members who shared their stories.
In their final reflections, students described their transformative experience on both personal and intellectual levels. As one noted, “community-based research gives voice to those who are rarely heard, but have the most important and telling social commentaries to offer… my experience has been amazing.. I plan to reach out and hear more voices because I have grown a stronger passion for listening.”
Panel members are the three instructors. They will focus on the following within the context of the shared process:
Ahmed Allahwala (City Studies) will explore learning spaces reconfigured - how breaking down the boundaries between the university classroom and the community fundamentally transforms our traditional understanding of learning space.
Christine Berkowitz (History) will explore how passive students can become active learners - how community-based research provides opportunities for transformational learning for students of History as they come face to face with the real world practice of their discipline, including grappling with the political and economic issues involved in public history and preservation.
Connie Guberman (Women’s and Gender Studies) will explore strategies for transforming inquiry into a dynamic framework for learning and how everyone becomes a learner when engaging in community -based research. She will discuss opportunities for learning from difference and the transformative impact of bringing together different ideas, people, learning cultures, work modes and ways of knowing.
This panel of experts, some authors for an upcoming special issue of New Directions in Teaching and Learning (anticipated 2015), will outline ways in which post-secondary institutions in Canada develop and sustain programs around the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning that impact the institutional pedagogical climate.
This work is of ongoing importance: Poole, Taylor, and Thompson (2007) discussed how scholarship of teaching and learning at various levels (institutional, disciplinary, and national) could improve quality, but little work has assessed whether their recommendations have been implemented. According to Wutherick and Yu’s (2013) mapping of SoTL in Canada, much is happening, often supported by grants, staff, and collaborative research groups. There is little evidence, however, of the impact of SoTL on teaching and learning quality at the institutional level (or on professors and their students). As Christensen Hughes and Mighty (2010) noted, “researchers have discovered much about teaching and learning in higher education, but … dissemination and uptake of this information have been limited. As such, the impact of educational research on faculty-teaching practice and the student-learning experience has been negligible” (p. 4). More recently, Poole and Simmons (2013) identified the continuing need for assessing SoTL’s impact on institutional quality.
Nicola Simmons, as panel moderator, will provide an overview of SoTL history in Canada, including national and provincial organizations, and then introduce panellists’ five minute case studies:
In summary, we will discuss what can be learned from these case studies in small and large groups, drawing parallels and exploring distinctions, outlining challenges, and suggesting recommendations for synthesized models.
The Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education is pleased to announce the 2014 Alan Blizzard Award for distinguished collaboration in Canadian university teaching and learning. Congratulations to the team from the University of Toronto for their collaborative project, “Curricular and Co-Curricular Leadership Learning for Engineering Students.” This exemplary project involves a large, collaborative team from Engineering, Social Science, Education, Student Life, Corporate, Research and Academic Administration.
Motivated by the belief that leadership education enables engineering graduates to contribute more effectively in the workplace and society, this year’s winning team introduced the Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering (ILead) in 2010. The ILead engineering leadership program offers engineering students intentional, structured and meaningful leadership development opportunities that integrate leadership theory and application. The program addresses the four realms of leadership (self, team, organization and society) through curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular experiences including presentations in large classes, seminars, certificate programs, retreats and courses. To date, the program has reached thousands of students.
The Alan Blizzard Award was established by the Society for Teaching and Learning to encourage, identify, and publicly recognize those whose exemplary collaboration in university teaching enhances student learning. The concept for the Alan Blizzard Award was developed by a committee including Chris Knapper (President, 1982-1987), Alan Blizzard (President, 1987-1995), Pat Rogers (President, 1995-2000), and Dale Roy (Coordinator, 3M National Teaching Fellowship). The Award honours Alan Blizzard in promoting the vision and practice of collaborative teaching for deep learning.
“Academia is wonderful: your life is so flexible – you can work those 80 hours a week anytime you want.”
A career as an academic was never a 9-5 Monday to Friday endeavour. Today, however, as the pace of our world moves increasingly faster and greater responsibilities are assigned to members of the academy, the need to pay attention to personal health and wellness, and to be mindful of how we engage with others has become more pressing. Students, faculty members and administrators are often stressed, struggling with attempts to balance the personal and the professional. In transforming our learning experiences, whether our own or those of our students, we need to first focus on transforming ourselves. Mindfulness offers opportunities to do so.
In this session, a faculty member and an educational developer discuss their own attempts to be more mindful in the academy with attention to mindfulness practices in the classroom as a way to foster community and deepen learning. Mindfulness and meditative practices in teaching and learning can result in greater psychological well-being for students, a greater degree of concentration, and improved academic performance (Shapiro, Brown, & Astin, 2008).
We will also share our experiences of creating a community of practice (Cox & Richlin, 2004) focused on mindfulness - a new initiative at our institution for faculty and staff. In monthly gatherings, the group both practices mindfulness through meditation exercises, and engages in discussions about related resources and readings. In this session, we are interested in learning about similar initiatives at other institutions, and to facilitate a conversation about both the impetus for, and the outcomes of, such groups.
To date, much of the research and practice in mindfulness and education has been focused on K-12 teachers and students. Following our discussion, we will compile a list of shared resources on mindfulness in post-secondary education which will be distributed to all participants.
Designing a teaching space requires that you put your current pedagogical needs down on paper while also including plans for future growth. The construction of that space begins with simple demolition tools but can require the creation of complex solutions to address unforeseen issues. Utilization of a new space effectively begins when the doors are opened and you can observe how students really function in the facility. This session will examine the pedagogical and operational factors that should be considered when designing, constructing and utilizing an interdisciplinary teaching laboratory. The Honours Integrated Science (iSci) Program at McMaster University recently opened such a facility and is currently evaluating the success of their design.
The process for developing a new lab to complement the unique pedagogy of the iSci program began five years ago with the acquisition of space and funds. Many obstacles had to be overcome during the design and construction phases of the project and we are currently reflecting on the multitude of decisions made during the process. We wish to share our experience with other educators considering a similar undertaking.
Our short, interactive workshop will break participants into small groups that will be tasked with designing an interdisciplinary lab space that meets specified pedagogical needs. Groups will be assigned different lab configurations, space requirements, and budgets, as well as various safety considerations and technology upgrades. Participants will have to balance flash and novelty versus cost and proven effectiveness while creating a pedagogically-driven design. After a period of design process, groups will present their challenges and insights. This will all be in context of the experiences of the iSci program, including reflections on our decisions based on observed current lab utilization. Workshop participants will gain an understanding of the basic factors involved with creating an interdisciplinary experiential lab environment.
Central to achieving the transformational goals of individual growth, teaching development, and innovation in teaching and learning, is the hard work of instructors who are supported through teaching consultations. Successful consultations are rooted in the rapport needed for trust, openness and willingness to risk and change. The methods used to build rapport during consultations constantly shift - evolving over time with experience, and adapting to each individual’s goals and needs.
Rapport-building in consultations is a dynamic process that takes two: the faculty, instructor or graduate student seeking the consultation, and the mentor or educational developer facilitating the conversation. These roles may be distinct or may be blurred with educational developers who teach undergraduate courses, faculty who offer consultations, and others. This STLHE session is aimed at growing our shared understanding of rapport-building through open conversation where individuals attending share their experiences and insight in providing and seeking consultations.
Our recent interview study with instructional/educational developers offers initial insights that we look forward to sharing, clarifying and expanding through continued discussions. Previous research had examined the expanding role of educational developers (e.g., Gillespie, Robertson, & Associates, 2010; Stanley, 2001) and the importance of interpersonal skills (e.g., Berquist & Phillips, 1975; Wright & Miller, 2000), however we were missing a deep understanding of rapport-building in teaching consultations from both the educational developer and faculty/instructor perspective.
The primary purpose of this session is to share and discuss existing findings and receive feedback about our research project. We invite educational developers, administrators, faculty, instructors, graduate students and any member of the community interested to join in the discussion. We look forward to the conversations!
This workshop will describe a New Zealand qualitative research project that explored and identified two threshold concepts (TCs) in doctoral research writing – the point(s) at which students can become “stuck”. A key goal has been to use the research findings to develop effective strategies for building a doctoral research and writing community, while also extending “traditional” supervisory practices. The workshop will describe one such strategy, the “4x4” (four by four), which provides a flexible framework for considering topics, processes, outcomes, and required resources to help students become successful scholars. Workshop participants will be guided through a practical 4x4 session in which they will work in pairs or small groups to identify a problem in their own research or practice, articulate it (in layman’s terms), discuss it with their partner or group, and then together plan how to address the issue. Participants will then discuss how the framework could be adapted to their particular learning contexts.
Kiley (2009) argues that doctoral candidates face a number of challenges and that surmounting them both requires, and facilitates, personal transformation. Similarly, TCs have been linked to ontological shifts (Meyer, Land, & Baillie, 2010), changes in identity, and hence understanding of what it means to become an academic scholar. Students need to successfully cross intellectual thresholds and until they do so, they are unable to solve new problems or address different situations. In a conceptual sense, students are lost (“stuck”) – wandering in a mental space of incomplete understanding.
Drawing on survey and interview data with doctoral students in New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, two threshold concepts (TCs) related to doctoral research writing were identified (Johnson, 2013). The first, “talking to think”, encompasses the idea that academic writing includes more than the mechanical presentation of words on a page. Until one has clarified one’s thinking (and has something to say), meaningful writing is difficult and can contribute to feeling lost. The second TC, “developing self-efficacy”, is closely related. Writing includes the ability to understand research practices, extract meaning from data, clearly articulate ideas (talk), and then present, shape, and reshape text on the page. Writing also includes a belief that understanding will emerge as new ideas are discussed, clarified, written, and refined.
Identification of the TCs has influenced how we structure a weekly, cross-disciplinary writing program (Doctoral Writing Conversations (DWC)) and the range of activities we use to help students engage in a collaborative, peer-learning environment. One such activity (the “4x4”) helps students step back from the written page, and through conversation develop and plan with an “educated other” the organizational writing structures needed to bridge from the spoken to the written. Engaging in such critical conversation in small groups and then reporting back to the entire group has afforded students opportunities to clarify their thinking. In addition, the collegiality of the discussions has created a physical network of social support and learning development for higher degree students at our university that extends what supervisors can provide.
Participants in this interactive session will learn about the best practices of the teaching faculty of the long-standing University 100 Program at the University of Prince Edward Island. Additionally, session participants will have the opportunity to share their own best practices with other session participants. Everyone will go home with some classroom practices, student assessment approaches and celebrating student success ideas that can be easily implemented into any discipline or program of study.
Engaging students through active learning and exposing them to diverse learning experiences that have been shown to increase student success and retention, while continually transforming our curriculum and teaching and learning practices is a priority of the University 100 Program. One of our flagship exemplars of celebrating student success is the annual UPEI Stories Showcase of student project work.
Our Showcase of first-year students’ project work from our University 100, UPEI103 and University 203 classes gives individual and student teams/groups an opportunity to present one of their course work projects to fellow students and members of the UPEI campus community. Students vie for invitations to the Showcase to highlight the “best of the best” of our students’ work.
Students engage in active and collaborative learning while completing projects (research, service learning and leadership development) and presenting their results. The Showcase provides an enriching educational experience for both student presenters and audience members. The Showcase provides a wonderful opportunity for student-faculty interaction both in the project work and during the event.
Through Showcase participation students actively experience UPEI’s supportive campus community through interacting with other students, faculty members, administration and alumni. The Showcase concludes with awarding presenter certificates and the presentation of the annual Verner Smitheram & Andy Robb Excellence in Leadership & Innovation Awards.
As students learn that their work can have a positive impact on themselves and those around them, they gain increased confidence and a greater sense of purpose and belonging at the University and this has proven to be “transformative” for some of our UPEI students.
With immigration and internationalization, the linguistic and cultural diversity among the student population has increased significantly on many campuses in the Western world. This diversity represented by many English as a Second (or Subsequent) Language (ESL) students has often been perceived as problematic in that these students are said to be unable to participate in their courses and in other aspects of student life as well as students who do not face linguistic and cultural barriers. However, the very diversity in their backgrounds and experiences make these students an underexplored resource that can contribute to improving critical thinking, problem-solving and other sociocultural aspects of the student experience for all. How do we help transform these students from being “outside” or on the periphery to becoming active members of the academic community? What changes in roles can support this transformation? What needs to be in place so that these students feel capable of being an active agent of change? What can we learn from the students’ perspectives to make these transformations sustainable, given the large populations of students who need such support? These are some of the questions we would like to explore with the participants from the framework of academic integration.
To make learning an inclusive and enriching experience for all students, we need to facilitate opportunities for integration that intertwines the uniqueness of each student at different levels (e.g. academic and social needs, motivations, background experiences, and aspirations). Since academic integration is essential for achieving effective learning communities where all students can engage effectively, this session will first describe a program developed at University of Toronto Scarborough that had been continually evaluated and improved in an endeavor to achieve a more efficient model of academic integration. On one level, this program focuses on fast-tracking students’ ability to write successfully for academic purposes. On other levels, it addresses the affective and sociocultural dimensions of students’ other transitions issues. In this session, we will present data collected from a larger and continuing study obtained from (a) pre- and post- support tests (b) comparison of students’ self-examination of their fears/anxieties, motivation and aspirations at the start of the support program with students’ responses to a post-support survey (c) interviews and (d) quality and quantity of students’ writing. We will invite participants to examine and interrogate conclusions drawn on the data from the perspectives of questions presented above and draw pedagogical insights for transforming the learning experiences for ESL students in their respective teaching contexts. Participants will also be invited to identify key components of this program that could be deconstructed and customized to meet the different demands of their various teaching contexts.
Do you use metacognitive learning practices in your classroom? Do you assist students with learning how to learn and learning how to think?
To move students to be better self-regulated learners, we need to support students in learning how to learn and learning how to think. Metacognitive teaching and learning strategies offer students opportunities to learn at a deeper and more meaningful level – to move from passive to active learners in using learning strategies that help their brains make learning stick!
Metacognitive strategies change classrooms into a place where students are teaching each other how to learn and sharing with peers strategies that deeply integrate and encode the learning experience. Teachers are part of this new experience of learning how to best use metacognitive strategies to create experiences for students to really think about thinking. Teachers need to use a meta-teaching lens to assist students in understanding how learning is constructed and organized for optimal meaning and relevance.
This session is intended to help teaching faculty, graduate assistants and administrators learn a bit more about how to integrate simple and short metacognitive teaching strategies into every class (online, blended or face-to-face) to support students in learning how to learn. This session will allow participants to share strategies that they currently use, as well as explore other strategies used in higher education. A collection of metacognitive strategies will be presented for participants to take back into their practice and implement with relative ease. Examples of metacognitive learning strategies include test wrappers, focused journaling, concept mapping, and think-alouds . Participants will be given a resource list of best books, articles, websites and videos to learn more about metacognition.
Students completing online courses that include research assignments can benefit from an “inquiry toolkit”. Research projects are a standard part of post-secondary curricula and involve determining a research focus, gathering and evaluating evidence, and using it to create arguments. However, inquiry-based learning in virtual environments may pose significant challenges. Project Information Literacy, a large-scale study of student search behaviour in higher education, documents that the majority of first-year students cannot meet the research demands of university courses (Head, 2013). They struggle with conducting effective searches in academic databases and interpreting the content of scholarly information. In online learning environments, where students may not have orientations to research tools and academic writing, there is an even greater need for a formal infrastructure to support inquiry-based learning.
An inquiry toolkit addresses the need to identify and measure learning outcomes within a quality assurance framework and meets the standards for best practice in information literacy programs (ACRL, 2012). It provides consolidated research support crafted by a librarian-faculty team and brings together the following components:
Learning outcomes articulate academic skills aligned to course assignments. Queen’s University advocates development of a set of academic literacies: critical reading, effective writing and communication, numeracy, inquiry, critical thinking, problem solving, information literacy, academic integrity, effective collaboration, and intercultural literacy. Stating inquiry outcomes orients students to these parallel course expectations.
Learning objects such as tutorials, guides, and videos support the development of academic literacies. Examples include the Queen’s Sociology 122 online research skills tutorial designed for first-year students, a video-clip series showcasing strategies for locating online lesson plans for Queen’s teachers on Aboriginal reserves, and online tutorials for medical students as part of blended learning opportunities. These objects are created by librarians and would target online resources for use in virtual learning environments.
Research assessment tools give feedback on research competencies before and after the inquiry assignment making the connection with learning objects that reinforce development of inquiry skills. Results can be analyzed to identify gaps in learning support. Marking rubrics may be used by librarians, peer students, or faculty to evaluate the research assignments but also to guide the students while preparing their work.
Reference tools provide subject-specific context in content areas new to the student. Academic handbooks and encyclopedias provide conceptual frameworks and background information. Finding “context” is identified as the most difficult aspect of inquiry for graduating students according to Project Information Literacy research (Head, 2009). Selected research databases provide better starting points than general web searches for retrieval of scholarly articles. Few research assignments direct novice researchers to recommended information tools (Head, 2010) resulting in a frustrating inquiry experience.
Participants in this session will discuss student information search habits and how they impact assignment design and support in online courses and explore components of an inquiry toolkit drawing on successful examples at Queen’s University. They will also be invited to share inquiry toolkit components that they would recommend.
A report by the US National Academy of Sciences1 lists four attributes for science education: (1) know, use and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world, (2) generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations, (3) understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge, and (4) participate productively in scientific practices and discourse. Although targeted at the K-8 level, a similar set of graduate competencies has been recommended for post-secondary education. However, post-secondary science education is still mostly lecture-based, particularly in the introductory courses, and really only emphasizes the first attribute.
In this presentation, the new O-COP (Outcome: challenge-opportunity-process) framework for transformational change will be presented and compared to each of the SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, threat) method components and the grieving process to show how transformation in science learning can be compared to higher education cultural transformation. Examples employing the O-COP method will be shown from pedagogical initiatives in novel courses in the Faculty of Science at the University of Alberta, including Science Citizenship (a novel community-service learning course) and Science 100 (an interdisciplinary Science program). Qualitative student and instructor feedback suggests that initiatives which holistically incorporate active- and discovery-based learning from a student-centered perspective are more effective at transformational learning than when each is used individually. The O-COP framework will also be extended to programmatic and institutional cultures with examples of certificates as new programmatic tools for higher-level learning competencies and outcomes and for developing teaching communities.
Workshop participants will be taken through exercises to map transformational examples in learning and institutional culture in the three different frameworks. Examples of transformational experiences and best practices for encouraging transformation in the teaching and learning culture and environment will be discussed amongst participants at the course, program, and institutional level. Potential pitfalls will also be discussed. Participants should leave with a well-formed, proven strategy for a process to institute change in their classroom and at their institutions.
A central theme in recent pedagogical literature is the need to transform the higher education landscape by engaging students more actively as partners in teaching and learning initiatives (Cook-Sather et al., forthcoming; Felten et al., 2013; Werder & Otis, 2010). Moving beyond calls to attend to student voices, such work seeks to position students as change agents or co-inquirers who contribute actively to shaping teaching and learning research, educational development, and curriculum design (Dunne & Zandstra, 2011). The potential benefits of such a shift are multiple, and include the creation of transformative learning experiences for both students and those with whom they partner (Mihans et al., 2008; Partridge & Sandover, 2010) and the enhancement of teaching and learning initiatives via the integration of multiple perspectives (Cook-Sather, 2013). Nonetheless, such work is not without its challenges, foremost amongst which are the difficulties attached to dismantling entrenched structures of authority and developing means of sharing power meaningfully amongst students, faculty and others (Delpish et al., 2010). Establishing such partnerships is hard, and the democratizing potential of the students as change agents movement can thus, at times, be overstated (Weller et al., 2013).
Against this backdrop, the McMaster Institute for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching and Learning (MIIETL) named enhanced partnerships with students as one of four central goals in its recent strategic plan. The institute has begun to re-envision its relationship with students, beginning by developing a novel ‘student scholar’ program that employs 16 undergraduates as full members of institute project teams. Students have also been involved in renovating the institute space, in staff retreats, in meetings and in other aspects of core business.
This panel will share the perspectives of students, faculty, and institute staff involved in this initiative. We will provide a brief account of projects in which students have become partners, mapping these on to established models of student engagement (e.g., Healey et al., forthcoming) and testing those models in the process. Drawing from Cook-Sather’s (2013) sense of student-faculty partnerships as a threshold concept, we will also share the challenges we have experienced navigating these new pedagogical relationships, as well as our individual perspectives on transformational learning that has resulted. Particular attention will be paid to the question of re-thinking traditional power relationships amongst students and faculty/staff, and we will discuss our various responses to our initial attempts to translate this imperative into practice.
Attendees will learn about the existing literature on students as partners and about one case study that builds on that scholarship, and will be encouraged, through structured discussion, to identify challenges, opportunities and possibilities for engaging students as change agents in their own contexts.
This session will be led by senior academic administrators who have collaborated on multi-institutional research and development projects supported by the Productivity and Innovation Fund (PIF) in Ontario. This year the PIF process distributed $45 million to colleges and universities to support projects designed to enhance educational offerings and to increase efficiencies across the vast network of institutions. Since one half of the funding was earmarked for multi-institutional submissions, universities were encouraged to band together to design projects with a positive potential impact beyond their own institutions.
Session facilitators will point to their involvement on two of the major projects funded under this program to describe the opportunities, challenges, and potential benefits of the process as well as the projects themselves. The two major projects involve the first steps towards the creation of a teaching evaluation toolkit designed to build the basis for better teaching across the province and an exploration of the mechanisms for the development of shared, modular university credit courses. The session will use these two projects to raise the issues around inter-institutional collaboration and the opportunity for academic administrators, such as vice-provosts and associate vice-presidents, to take a leadership role in funded educational development projects. Participants will be invited to identify what they believe to be the significant obstacles and barriers as well as pathways and incentives for increasing inter-institutional collaborations in the essentially competitive higher education environment.
Transformation often requires a shift from one set of perceptions or beliefs to another. While many post- secondary educators value teaching and endeavour to support and promote it, the teaching culture at our institutions can be perceived quite differently by various stakeholders. What do these stakeholders believe about the culture of teaching in our institutions, and how can we help shift the way our institutions, faculty, staff and students think about teaching?
Institutional culture helps define the nature of reality for the educators and learners within the institution. It provides a lens through which its members assign value to the various events and efforts of their institution (Berguist & Pawlak, 2008). Documenting institutional culture with respect to teaching and the support of teaching can provide benchmarks for institutions to work towards in their ongoing enhancement of teaching and learning.
This workshop provides an overview of a project currently under development by eight Ontario institutions working collaboratively to identify a set of indicators that help define the value placed on an institutional teaching culture. We have adapted a survey tool (Teaching Culture Perception Survey) from “Fostering Quality Teaching in Higher Education: Policies and Practices: An IMHE Guide for Higher Education” (Hénard & Roseveare, 2012). The Teaching Culture Perception Survey (TCPS) aims to assess educators’ current perceptions of their institutional teaching culture, as well as their perceptions of the importance of various components that comprise a teaching culture.
The survey, currently being piloted by three Ontario universities, examines the perceptions of different groups, such as faculty members, administrators, and students. The survey responses are used to help develop a profile of the institutional culture with respect to teaching, allowing comparisons between different stakeholders’ perceptions, as well as a comparison of any changes over time. Institutions might also use the survey to choose and develop practices that will enhance their teaching culture. Ultimately, this project aims to raise the profile, recognition and value of teaching in universities.
Following an overview of the different phases of the project, as well as data collated to date, participants in this workshop will engage in a group discussion about additional ways to identify, document and enhance institutional teaching cultures.
With increasing pressures for evaluating the quality of higher education in Canada, individuals within institutions are increasingly engaging in processes to assess programs across curricula. Best practice in curriculum review advocates that curriculum improvements be based on systematic, evidenced based approaches, which rely on data collected from multiple sources using multiple methods (Wolf, 2007). Although most curriculum processes are considered outside of the purview of the 2nd edition of Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2, 2010), the same ethical challenges remain with many methods applied to curriculum review. Further confounding this challenge are recent developments in the field of the Scholarship of Curriculum Practice (SoCP), which advocates for the dissemination of the results of curriculum review for the broader benefit of academe and program reform (Hubbal & Gold, 2007). This shift towards the SoCP represents an on-going transformation within the context of higher education. Collecting curriculum data informed by ethical practices will help to ensure curricular transformations and improvements are based on sound data that better-informs decision making processes.
Building on the principles described in the TCPS 2 and the four ethical guidelines presented by MacLean & Poole (2010), this interactive workshop will provide participants with an opportunity to explore how ethical principles for conducting research on human subjects apply to curriculum review. By the end of this workshop, participants should be able to assess the risks and ethical challenges to participants associated with typical curriculum review processes.
For sustained and sustainable engagement with student learning, SoTL must be woven into the fabric of our institutions rather than relying on individuals operating in isolation. Unfortunately, the current global climate of fiscal austerity means that there are fewer faculty and these faculty have increased administrative and teaching responsibilities. SoTL champions are needed in order to bring about a change in institutional culture. By institutional culture, we refer to the entrenched behaviors of individuals working within organizations as well as the common “values, assumptions, beliefs or ideologies that members have about their organization or its work” (Peterson and Spencer, 1991, as cited in Kezar and Eckel, 2002, p. 142).
In order to effectively weave SoTl into institutional cultures, SoTL champions need an awareness of how to weave SoTL into institutional cultures. To support this, we have developed a multi-level model for integrating SoTL into institutional cultures (Williams, Verwoord, Beery, Dalton, McKinnon, Pace, Poole, & Strickland, 2013) describing how SoTL can become embedded institutionally and thus increase its impact. The model features networks and communities of practice, working within and across three levels of the institution (micro, meso and macro) and how SoTL practices get disseminated across these levels. To apply our model, we propose the use of three necessary and inter-related processes: (1) dissemination/ communication; (2) network development; and (3) sustained support. In our latest exploration of our model, we build on the work of Roxa & Martensson (2009, 2012) in the area of significant networks, to look more closely at the nature of networks and how their impact can be maximized to weave SoTL into institutional cultures.
In this workshop, participants will be invited to bring their institutional contexts to our models to determine what aspects of our model “hold true” across diverse institutional contexts and which aspects may need conceptual clarification. In this session, participants will work in small groups to discuss the realities of how well SoTL is woven in to their institutional cultures and where they place themselves in relation to the levels within organizations. Through small group discussion, they will be invited to apply Roxa and Martensson’s (2009) notion of significant networks to the model in order to maximize the impact of networks operating at the micro and meso levels. By the end of the session, participants will have a deeper understanding of how to weave SoTL into institutional cultures and will be able to articulate the components of one model to support the weaving of SoTL into their institutions.
Despite its overwhelmingly supportive research base, the use of Cooperative Learning by Professors in face-to-face and online environments is still in its infancy. Use of Cooperative Learning has been shown to increase retention in school, improve effort and conceptual achievement, increase the acknowledgement of the benefits of diversity, and promote the development of 21st century skills (Millis, 2010), yet relatively few faculty implement it well or regularly. Cooperative Learning student teams are relatively permanent, heterogeneous small teams created by the professor that actively engage in classroom learning activities. When this approach is used thoughtfully and in a well-structured way students grow as critical thinkers, effective problem solvers, and effective communicators. Diversity becomes a strength and teamwork and communication become valued skills while conceptualized learning for applied purposes becomes the norm.
In this session, advice to educators who are trying to assist change efforts in regards to Cooperative Learning will be highlighted. As the session develops, much will be made of the role SoTL can play in the assessment and dissemination of efforts by Professors to experiment with CL.
Health and well-being are positively correlated with academic success and learning; however, this is rarely addressed within the learning environment. Student well-being and particularly mental well-being, are increasingly important concerns for Canadian post-secondary institutions. Not only are students experiencing higher rates of mental health problems, institutions have higher expectations to consider whole students, their diverse needs and prepare them for life in an ever-changing world.
In partnership with the SFU Teaching and Learning Centre, SFU Health Promotion is taking a forward thinking approach to enhance student learning experiences by recognizing the important impact of learning environments on well-being. This is in line with widely accepted health promotion theory that suggests the setting in which students learn plays a crucial role in their health and well-being. Through literature reviews with a foundation in Universal Instructional Design, and soliciting feedback from instructors, education consultants and students, an on-line resource has been created which highlights key conditions within learning environments that support well-being. These include opportunities for personal development and social interaction among students, within a positive classroom culture. Additional conditions for student well-being include making a valued contribution, experiencing an optimal level of challenge and feeling supported by instructors, among others. This new online resource is part of the SFU Well-being in Learning Environments initiative which aims to transform learning environments so they are more supportive of student well-being and whole-student development while equipping students for success in higher education and beyond.
This session will increase understanding about how post-secondary classroom conditions impact well-being. It will also provide examples, tools and resources for educators to recognize well-being within their teaching practice whether it be through course design, course delivery or student assessment. Participants will be invited to share their own practices and experiences that relate to the conditions for well-being, and contribute to furthering knowledge exchange and practice in this area.
In this WTMC session, I will showcase for attendants the opening class of Personality Theory and Research (a 3rd year class at the University of Windsor). Throughout the semester, the class explores the philosophies and perspectives of various personality theorists (viz. Freud, Jung, Allport, Rogers, Maslow, etc.). Because the class includes a high experiential component (personal self-analysis), it is important for students at the start of the year to uncover and explore their own implicit philosophies of human nature so as later to juxtapose them to more formal theories – are we basically good or evil, is behaviour the result mainly of genetics or the environment, are we the product of our past (early childhood experiences) or our future goals? Questions students discuss in small groups include:
What is personality?
What is the self?
What is a healthy personality?
What is an unhealthy one?
What makes us distinctly human?
What gives life purpose or meaning?
What makes us similar to each other?
What makes us essentially different from each other?
Can our personalities change?
Are our selves chosen or handed to us?
After class discussion related to these basic questions, students are ready to explore more formal perspectives on human nature, since the same questions have been asked (and answered) by various personality theorists. For instance, Jung will emphasize spiritualism as the road to mental wellness, whereas Adler will endorse volunteering and social interest). By juxtaposing their current thoughts with more formally espoused philosophies, students should hope to see their views of human nature from a new perspective. This exercise will transform students’ single perspectives (of personal philosophies) into more diverse worldview perspectives. Participants in this session will partake in activities similar to those experienced by students.
As opportunities for educational innovation and technology evolve, how can we be sure that student learning is improving and truly transformed? Are the learning experiences we create aligned with the program outcomes and broader degree level expectations that we desire in our students? How do we develop and implement program plans to assess student learning and continually enhance student experiences?
This session will provide participants with an assessment planning framework that outlines a process for (a) ensuring that courses and learning activities are aligned with broader course, program, institutional or provincial learning outcomes, (b) selecting, implementing and analyzing the results of assessment methods to determine the extent of student learning or achievement of outcomes, and (c) using this information to enhance teaching and learning within the program.
During this hands-on workshop, participants will be introduced to the assessment planning framework, and apply the concepts to generic case scenarios in a variety of disciplines. The workshop will cover how to use both direct and indirect measures as part of the program assessment process. Opportunities will also be provided for participants to consider how these concepts can be applied within their own program.
This workshop is based on the “Program Review and Enhancement Guidebook” that was developed at McMaster University as part of the Paul R MacPherson Fellowship in 2013. The guidebook includes background information on developing and implementing program assessment plans, templates for application of concepts within the participants’ discipline, and a variety of resources for each topic covered. All participants will be provided with a copy of the guidebook.
This session will describe how teacher candidates in a pre-service language arts course experience the integration of educational technology throughout the 50-hour program. Samples of student work will be shown including infographics, collaborative inquiry unit plans incorporating blended learning, and various applications of technology in daily language arts activities. The use of the course Learning Management System will also be described briefly.
Workshop participants will use iPads to explore two popular apps used in the course. They will create an avatar and brief message with Tellagami, and convert a tweet to an illustrated haiku poem using Pic Collage. Participants will also explore a selection of word study apps for spelling, grammar, and vocabulary and will receive a list of recommended apps, websites, videoclips, and webcasts from the course.
In light of the increasing diversity of college and university students, the importance of creating inclusive and equitable educational experiences has been recognized frequently in recent years (e.g., Jabbar & Hardaker, 2013; May & Bridger, 2010; Redpath et al., 2013). All individuals have complex, intersecting identities, and teaching and learning environments that respect and value these identities have been shown to enhance students’ learning and success (Burgstahler & Cory, 2009; Longstreet, 2011; Smith, 2012). However, in spite of a growing body of literature on the subject (e.g., Guo & Jamal, 2007; Gurung & Prieto, 2009; Ouellett, 2005), many instructors remain uncertain about how to teach inclusively (Caruana 2010; Cook, Rumrill & Tankersley, 2009; Grace & Gravestock, 2009). Both increased professional development focused on inclusion and ongoing research about students’ lived experiences are, thus, required.
In response to these imperatives, the authors are currently undertaking a study designed to collect qualitative data about students’ experiences of inclusion and exclusion in their educational programs at one Canadian university. Students from across the university, including women, LGBTT2SIQQA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender, Two Spirit, Intersex, Questioning, Queer, Asexual)-identified students, students of diverse faith backgrounds, racialized students, First Nations, Métis and Inuit students, students with visible and invisible disabilities, international students, students from a range of socio-economic backgrounds and students of a diverse age range, were invited to participate in an interview or a focus group during Fall, 2013 or Winter, 2014. Participants were asked to share their perceptions and experiences of inclusion and exclusion in their courses and programs, and to offer any ideas they might have for enhancing the inclusivity of teaching and learning on campus. Data analysis is ongoing, and will be used to inform the development of teaching resources and professional development activities for instructors.
Drawing from and building upon this work, this session aims to provide participants with an opportunity to consider the relative inclusivity of teaching and learning within their own classrooms and institutions. By presenting preliminary data from our ongoing research and engaging attendees in structured discussion, we will explore common barriers to and facilitators of inclusive education, and encourage participants to brainstorm ways of translating these findings into effective pedagogical strategies and professional development programs. By such means, session attendees will engage actively with issues related to the conference theme of transforming classrooms into learning experiences that embrace diverse student needs. Participants will come away with ideas for enhancing the inclusiveness of their teaching practices and/or advocating for equitable teaching and learning on their campuses.
Offering excellent first-year transition programming can be a challenge, often because the transition is delivered concurrent to students' first university courses. While students become accustomed to living in a new city, creating study schedules, or writing essays, they can be too overwhelmed to take in a workshop or go to an orientation. Transformation from high school to university cannot take place overnight.
In 2012, the University of Saskatchewan piloted a face-to-face, for-credit transition course, “Learning to Learn: Strategies for Academic Success.” This College of Arts and Science course covers reading and note taking strategies, writing, research, metacognition, memorization, test taking, and critical thinking. It is writing intensive, and includes experiential learning and reflective practice. To date, 465 students in 25 sections have taken the face-to-face course, including students in local high schools, mature students, at-risk students, and students in the college's Aboriginal Student Achievement Program. By May 2014, the first online section will have been piloted to rural high school students.
Briefly, the facilitator will review the course's objectives, structure, activities, and assessment. The course was developed with extensive research into the literature around first-generation learners with limited social and educational capital, and learners disadvantaged in Eurocentric educational models.
Participants will be led in a discussion about early transition at a distance, and whether the transformative powers of a face-to-face course can be replicated online. Participants will come away with ideas for implementing transition elements into their individual classes or programs, and with some considerations for matching the delivery of transition programming to diverse student realities.
Students arrive to the university campus in their first year bringing with them a wealth of knowledge, experience, and cultural capital. Most importantly, they bring energy, idealism and a playful confidence. But as university staff, faculty, and administrators, we typically receive these students with an agenda of "filling in the gaps" of what they do not know about university life. Our assumption is that high school did not prepare them for the rigors of university and our job is to provide them, through orientations programming, with as much information as possible before class starts to compensate for their deficits in understanding.
What if we were to approach an orientation program as a rehearsal space? What if, to get the most out of this rehearsal, the actors (first-year students) would need to bring as much of their knowledge, risk-taking idealism, playful energy, and vulnerability as possible to ensure success in the 'performance' of their first week of classes? What if classrooms, theatres, lecture halls, and faculty offices were presented as 'sets' where, for two weeks, freshman students from around the world could rehearse the actions, scripts, relationships and motivations that we know (based on years of theory, research on teaching and learning, and emergent neuroscience) lead to increased academic engagement and achievement?
This workshop will explore the interactive, embodied, and performative approach that the UBC Jump Start (www.jumpstart.ubc.ca ) program takes to introducing and inviting first year students into the campus community of academic scholarship. Through this presentation, the workshop facilitator will lead the participants through simulations of the experience (through lived experiences in the session and through multi-media presentations) and connect the various approaches to timely, recent pedagogical and psychological research and theories.
This interactive workshop is an opportunity for delegates to learn through an interactive exercise how to transform reality-based television into a high-value undergraduate learning experience through the strategic use of taxonomy. Dragons' Den is a Canadian television reality show, in which aspiring entrepreneurs pitch business ideas to a panel of venture capitalists in the hopes of securing business financing. The show debuted on October 3, 2006 on CBC Television. Over the past seven years, approximately 300 entrepreneurs have presented their business ideas to over 2 million viewers weekly. Despite the show’s popularity, it has been openly criticized for its lack of educational value.
The primary question to answer in this learning project is: How can the educational value be separated from the entertainment value of CBC’s Dragons’ Den in a way to help teach entrepreneurship to undergraduate business students? At a general level, my teaching goal is to provide the optimal learning environment for undergraduate students to rapidly advance from novices to experts in the domain of evaluating early stage business ideas.
I strive to achieve these teaching goals by breaking down the informational clutter, allowing student entrepreneurs to use a focused framework (in the form of taxonomy) for opportunity assessment and venture investment decision-making. The overall method used to answer the teaching development question was fundamentally taxonomic.
Classification of knowledge using taxonomy provides building blocks with which to construct understandings (Stefik 1995; Saracevic and Kantor 1997). The practice of taxonomy reflects the human instinct to organize and classify our experiences and perceptions of the world (Grove 2003: 2270). An essential contribution of taxonomy to a discipline is its ability to disambiguate terminology by representing the relationships between concepts and providing context in which to understand and use domain-specific vocabularies (Maity, Bhattacharya et al. 1992; Grove 2003: 2276).
Utlizing Dragons’ Den in an educational manner involved 24 teams of undergraduate students focused on classification and comparison of 81 Dragon’s Den deals from archived video clips on the CBC website. The learning activity was to classify each Dragon’s Den deal as a prelude to systematic comparison of their dominant, salient attributes.
There are only a few examples in the literature of using Reality TV in the undergraduate classroom. Slater (2012) used the Realty TV show Survivor to teach Prisoners’ Dilemma Strategies in economics. Burr, Vivien and King, Nigel (2011) document teaching research ethics through reality TV in Big Brother.
There doesn’t seem to be any discussion in the literature (to date) focused on the benefits of applying taxonomies to Reality-TV in the undergraduate classroom. The last part of this workshop will focus on discussing how other disciplines may benefit from this project as a model suggesting the use of: (1) Survivor in the Psychology Classroom, (2) Antiques Roadshow in the Fine Arts Classroom and (3) America’s Next Top Model in a Gender Studies, Fashion Design or Media Studies Classroom.
With increasing enrollment and financial pressures on institutes of higher education, it is clear that high-enrollment courses are not going away anytime soon. Traditionally, the preferred mode of instruction for these courses was the lecture, which presents itself as an efficient way to teach large numbers of students. However, research shows that students often have low levels of engagement in traditional lectures and, thus, do not learn effectively (Deslauriers, Schelew and Weiman, 2011; Crouch, Fagen, Calan & Mazur, 2004), whereas small group active learning has been found to improve learning (Prince, 2004; Springer, Stanne & Donovan, 1999). The question is, how can we engage students and provide opportunities for active learning as large courses proliferate?
This challenge has led the panelists in this session to reconsider the design of their large, introductory courses, focusing particularly on the role of the tutorial. In past practice, tutorials were treated as supplemental, but they are often the best (and only) small-group learning opportunities available to students in large courses. As concerns about declining student engagement grow, the panelists believe we need to rethink the role of small-group learning experiences within these large classes.
Our panel discussion will examine several ways in which tutorials can be transformed. Each panelist has recently redesigned a large lecture course, endeavoring to increase student engagement by incorporating active learning into a blended model. The “tutorial,” rather than being supplemental, has moved into the very heart of effective course design. Small group learning opportunities now play a central role in increasing student engagement and deepening learning, and have become venues not only for active exploration and application of course concepts, but also for the acquisition and practice of new skills and knowledge.
Audience members attending the panel discussion will be stimulated to reconsider the relationship between lectures and tutorials. They will expand their conception of the role of the tutorial in course design, gain insight into effective ways to use small group contact time in their courses, and develop strategies for managing small group facilitation.
Each panelist will briefly present their perspective on re-visioning the small group learning experience, followed by a moderated audience discussion.
Grahame Renyk (Drama) will focus on reconsidering traditional relationships associated with tutorials: using lectures to explain what happened in tutorials (rather than the other way round), and inviting students to discover a concept first through active experience, followed by explanation.
Jill Atkinson (Psychology) will focus on developing effective approaches to small group facilitation: designing, administering and managing small group opportunities, selecting, training and supporting facilitators, and using facilitators to close the feedback loop between students and the instructor.
Alan Ableson (Mathematics) will focus on ways to design tutorials as places where students strive to connect mathematical theory with real-world applications. Approaches include using tutorials for larger-scale problems than those seen in lectures, and enabling engagement through personal interest by allowing students to choose their subject of application (e.g. choosing a tutorial stream in Math & Finance or Math & Biology).
The traditional lecture is very efficient for presenting a large amount of information in a short period of time. How much do students learn from the lecture? Although more conjecture than empirically derived (notable exceptions include Baddeley, 1981; Giles, Johnson, Knight, Zammett, & Weinman, 1982; Johnstone & Percival, 1976; Weiland & Kinsbury, 1977), most experts agree that students have limited recall for information presented in lectures, calling into question the efficacy of the lecture for student learning. The research literature now abounds with demonstrations and reviews of active learning, experiential learning, and constructivist learning (e.g., Biggs & Tang, 2011).
How much information should students learn anyway? Given that information (“bad” information as well as “good” information) is widely and easily accessible, shouldn’t we be helping students develop information literacy skills so they can find and critically evaluate information for themselves (cf. Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000)? Given the relationship between information literacy and academic readiness and performance in first year courses (Smith, Given, Julien, Ouellete, & deLong, 2013), developing information literacy strategies is an important goal for university instruction.
In this interactive workshop, I will first model implementing information literacy skill development into a lecture and then engage the participants in a discussion on helping students develop information literacy skills to foster active, personally-motivated, life-long learning. The course I will use is AN SC 496, Research on the Human-Animal Bond, a fourth year lecture and lab course on social science research methods taken mainly by students in agriculture (the Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Alberta). I have chosen this class because fuzzy animals tend to evoke emotion over critical thinking and because most STLHE participants will be able to relate to the topic. However, I use the same approach in very large (500 student) introductory psychology classes and the approach is relevant to a wide range of introductory and upper level lecture and seminar courses.
MacEngaged is an undergraduate based, student-led, in-class initiative created at McMaster University (Ontario, Canada). Its aim is to serve as a possible solution to overcome increased student apathy to course material, educators, and academic institutions as a whole (Fredrick et al., 2004). It is based on the idea of empowering students to collaborate and innovate early in their academic careers and within the classroom environment (Kezar, 2005). Its major goal is to connect knowledge about community engagement to content learned during the course with the hopes of ultimately creating an impactful educational experience (Zhao & Kuh, 2004).
Using the example of a second year neuroscience course titled Basic and Clinical Neuroscience with an enrolment of 145 students, workshop participants will learn how MacEngaged has been implemented in a classroom environment containing a large student body. Participants will work in pairs to strategize a concrete plan for how they can incorporate a civic engagement assignment into a selected course they could be teaching in an upcoming semester. They will also explore how the assistance of senior (volunteer) student facilitators is useful in helping junior students work in small groups to create, develop, and implement a project under a course-specific theme that will help contribute to the betterment of their local, neighbouring, and/or global community (Kezar, 2005). This workshop will involve a brainstorming session about how to create a guideline for accessing senior students on their campuses and/or networks. Participants will be introduced to an electronic platform called the Learning Portfolio that many institutions use as a record of skill attainment and personal reflection that could be presentable for graduate school and/or employment purposes. The usefulness of using reflections in an academic setting will be discussed. Finally, since students are assessed on their ability to successfully create and implement a unique project directly related to course content that can be implemented and completed within a 4-month period, a discussion about the specific challenges with this timeline and how to overcome them will ensue.
The purpose of this workshop is to not only introduce its audience to the MacEngaged initiative but to demonstrate through active participation how to get students involved in meaningful civic engagement without compromising course content regardless of academic discipline. The workshop will end with feedback from the audience on how to manage a civic engagement assignment without losing focus on academic content. Three undergraduate students that have served as facilitators in the MacEngaged initiative will lead parts of the workshop.
The study of visual art demands intense looking and honing of observation skills. Students of Occupational Therapy must develop such skills so they can objectively assess in clinical situations, and communicate effectively with clients, in systems and on inter-professional teams. The two practices mesh in an innovative, inter-disciplinary, ongoing program at the Agnes Etherington Art Centre. The interactive seminar, co-developed by Dr. Wendy Pentland, Associate Professor, School of Rehabilitation Therapy, and Pat Sullivan, Public Programs Manager at the Art Centre, brings approximately 68 students in the Master of Occupational Therapy program to participate in an intensive two-hour session. They examine and discuss representational paintings and other works to practice acute observational skills and to develop an awareness of the diversity of stories, meanings, frames of reference and perspectives each of their peers bring to the same images. The session manifests active engagement of students in learning particularly at the level of attitudes and self and interpersonal awareness; learning outside the classroom; a collaborative strategy of inter-disciplinary learning; a strategy for engagement of large numbers of students; and a method of motivating and challenging students.
The two presenters will alternate in demonstrating how the program works in the gallery setting, by showing images of some of the works of art used and describing student feedback and adaptations. Session participants will experience aspects of the seminar through offering their own comments and responses to the works of art shown. The presenters will place this approach in a broader context, by assessing the development of this teaching method from its start at the Yale Center for British Art, Yale University, to other art galleries across the USA and Canada. Published case studies document this growth.
Many of the growing STEM-based careers in today’s changing economy require at least the completion of a first year university chemistry course. As opportunities in technical and medical fields continue to grow, all students—including persons with disabilities—need strong educations in science, in order to achieve their career goals.
Students with disabilities are not well represented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Perceived and actual barriers play a large role in deterring students with disabilities from pursuing careers in the sciences. Obstacles experienced by these students often include: a lack of mentors in the field; inaccessible laboratories and course material; negative attitudes of instructors and others in the educational setting; and, a knowledge gap about how to instruct a student with a disability.
To address these barriers, and to create a unique, comprehensive resource for faculty and instructors to use in planning and implementing accessible science laboratory environments at all levels of post-secondary education, we undertook a multi-pronged research approach. This approach included a detailed review of the academic and grey literature, as well as key informant interviews with faculty, service providers and representatives of scientific professional societies/associations. We reviewed the major elements of enhancing the accessibility of science labs in graduate and undergraduate education, irrespective of discipline.
This presentation will focus on our research findings and the unique series of resources we have assembled to aid faculty and instructors in enhancing the accessibility of science labs on campus. In particular, while the literature has previously focused predominantly on physical accessibility concerns, we will highlight the importance of creating a culture of accessibility within the sciences, and present an inclusive accessibility framework that is designed to ameliorate physical, attitudinal, technological and communication barriers in the sciences.
Throughout this presentation, participants will have opportunities to engage with the presenters and other participants by sharing their experiences in accommodating students with disabilities in the sciences, and discuss strategies implemented in the science laboratory.
As noted in the call for proposals, teachers are “no longer mere conveyors of static information, teachers are increasingly entrusted with the responsibility to foster and develop life skills in students. Fostering global citizenship calls for the development of leadership skills.” Such development will require a transformation of both pedagogy and content to develop leaders and the effective exercise of leadership. Unfortunately, attempts to create leaders have failed for a variety of reasons including lack of conceptual clarity (e.g., Bennis, 2012) and that while courses “might be useful in transmitting knowledge about leadership, they stop short at developing leadership per se” (Antonacopoulou & Bento, 2004, p. 81).
This interactive workshop is based on a model that gives students access to being leaders and exercising leadership effectively. Participants will engage in meaningful activities and discussions around the topic of being a leader and exercising leadership effectively. We will focus on the foundational skills of how leaders listen effectively. In this context, leadership depends on shugyo, or self-cultivation. Leaders cultivate the self in order to serve others better (Strozzi-Heckler, 2007). Effective leaders are always learning and they understand “the need for individuals to learn to take a mindful approach to understanding their own development needs, which will ensure a healthy relationship between leaders and their teams” (Rezek, 2012, p. 33). The development of that relationship depends on communication and is grounded in the abilities to distinguish what gets in the way of one’s listening and to provide relevant parties with an experience that their concerns have been heard.
Participants will distinguish between the concepts “already-always listening” and “authentic listening” and identify examples of each as they relate to their current educational roles and practices. They will also have the opportunity to demonstrate basic skills in authentic listening
Assessing the impact of programs in post-secondary education has increasingly caught the attention of larger audiences as the demand for quality, accountability and transparency increases. What impact have the 288 3M National Teaching Fellows had, if any, on Canadian higher education? And how would one know?
We are in the midst of conducting a three-year study to document the impact of the 3M National Teaching Fellowship program. During the first two years we have collected data through focus groups and a survey that targets 3M Fellows, educational developers, faculty, students, and representatives from 3M Canada. We have also collected several “artifacts” that have been created over the 29 years of the Fellowship. In this session, we will give a brief “mid-term” report on our study and discuss ways of moving it forward.
This session asks the question,” How can one transform ‘evidence of the activity’ of the Fellowship into ‘evidence of impact’? ” Since 1986 with only 10 Fellows to today with 288, the work of the Fellows has created a corpus of “artifacts,” which speaks to evidence of their activities across Canada and beyond. For example, Fellows have produced 3 books (Making a Difference, Silences, and Students Speak), a national “Thank-Your-Teacher” campaign in The Globe and Mail, numerous sessions at STLHE and on their campuses. They have also participated in generating considerable publicity through the STLHE Newsletter, in campus newspapers, in Macleans, etc.
Can these “artifacts” be used to make a compelling case to your colleagues and institutional leaders that the 3M Fellowship has had an impact? How? What’s missing? What needs to be added? More generally, how can we assess and document the impact of our work on our students and colleagues, on our institutions, and beyond?
Multiple-choice testing is becoming ever more common as student populations rise and instructional resources dwindle. Multiple choice testing is easy to deploy, reliable, and inexpensive, yet there is often a sense that the format is somehow deficient in validity. The knock on multiple choice testing is that it easily assesses superficial knowledge but hinders assessment of deeper cognitive processes. In almost every discipline we would like to find inexpensive and streamlined ways to test deeper levels of understanding or knowledge integration than is typically afforded by multiple-choice tests. We have recently applied immediate-feedback assessment tools to enable the development of “integrated testlets”—a group of multiple choice questions that share a common stem, but which may build one upon another to assess higher echelons of learning. Furthermore, the immediate-feedback tool allows for straightforward (and demonstrably valid) grading of partial credit. With integrated testlets, conceptual scaffolding is both tested and, if needed, assembled during the assessment. Thus, an integrated testlet that utilizes immediate feedback serves both summative and formative purposes.
In this workshop, we will take the time to introduce both the immediate feedback assessment technique and examples of integrated testlets in disciplines such as biology, art history, modern literature, physics, and chemistry. Participants will actively engage with one or two testlets of their choosing to gain experience with both the technology and the workings of integrated testlets. Time will then be devoted to unpacking these experiences and to highlighting the pedagogical implications of being able to assess integration of knowledge with multiple-choice tools. Finally, we’ll sample key sentiments from a trove of student evaluation feedback to show how at Trent University integrated testlets in introductory physics courses are already transforming our students’ learning experiences.
Technology and transmission-based mass learning may take us away from the opportunity for empathetic and engaged learning. One aim of this workshop is to attempt to regain some insight into a less performative and more communicative teaching style. While theatre may be called performance art, an engaged audience is understood to be a product of the actors’ engagement with the material, their co-actors, and their audience (Fancy, 2007) on a level that transcends a declarative performance style.
In this session, we focus on a “relational perspective” (Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999, p. 409) to examine the classroom interactions between instructor and students. Drawing on exercises and principles from drama theory (Murray, 2010), we will explore increased engagement through instructor-student interactions. Our thesis is that the instructor’s authentic ‘activity’ or engagement is what will move passive students to become active learners.
For example, Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse (1999) showed that students choose their approach to learning (deep or surface) according to the instructor’s approach to teaching; students thus vary their learning approaches across courses. The authors note “the results complete a chain of relations from teacher thinking to the outcomes of student learning” (p. 57). Transmission teaching is more likely, the authors find, to result in surface learning approaches, while “conceptual change/student-focused” teaching is more likely to encourage students to take more deeply engaged approaches to learning.
Specifically, we will apply three principles from dramatic arts theory (Murray, 2010) that can be used to increase instructor engagement in teaching, leading to transformed student engagement. We draw on the notions of lightness, or movement and intent rather than emotion and content; le jeu, or playfulness, intellectual and otherwise; and complicité, or the unseen but critical connections between and amongst the instructor and class participants. Lightness is hindered by tensions in the body and mind; play helps us move beyond these tensions. Complicité takes those impulses and translates them into moments of connection. The resulting dynamic has the potential to transform the classroom and its teaching-learning interactions.
Following a short theory explanation, we will engage in large group activities to invite participants to experience and explore lightness, le jeu, and complicité, (one example is ‘quiet energy ball’). Whether your context is small or large class settings, you will come to see that simply choosing to be engaged can in turn result in authentic engagement – for both you and your students. You will experience greater insight about your limitless capacity to grow engagement: with your students, the material, and with yourself.
The Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities requires Ontario College Diploma students to complete a minimum of two general education elective courses as part of the curriculum. The purpose of general education courses is to broaden students’ perspectives beyond the students’ field of professional study. However, developing a relevant and interesting general education elective course that serves this purpose has a few challenges including student motivation, flexible course delivery, and the inclusion of students from year one to year three from a wide range of range of professional fields of study. The “Social Spaces” course was developed as an innovative approach to meeting these challenges while providing an authentic learning experience that would encourage students to become interdisciplinary thinkers of various social spaces.
The purpose of this workshop is to highlight and explain the innovations used (hybrid learning design, field-based learning experiences, and critical reflection) in the delivery of this general education elective course. Both the professor and students from the course will be on hand in this workshop to share their perspectives of the course’s successes and (epic?) fails to challenge our thinking about where, when, and how students learn. Participants in this session will be inspired to consider the advantages of a hybrid learning design to encourage students to move outside of the traditional classroom to explore authentic, field-based learning experiences.
The teaching and learning centre and the Faculty of Law at our large, research-intensive university have developed a series of Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) as a response to the Faculty’s desire to “open their classroom doors” and offer a safe environment (framework, space and time) in which dialogue about specific teaching and learning themes of mutual interest can occur amongst colleagues at all career stages, and where innovative educational practices can be developed. These FLCs have provided an opportunity for participants both to foster and develop excellence in teaching and learning, as they have shared and documented existing teaching practices, designed new learning activities and forms of evaluation, exchanged feedback with peers, and considered next steps for tangible pedagogical change. By grouping diverse instructors together in a true learning community, these FLCs have helped transform the teaching and learning experiences in the Faculty of Law.
During the conference workshop, we will use two examples of FLCs that we have facilitated and in which we have participated to illustrate to session participants the process in which we engaged. The first FLC, “Rethinking your course”, focused on course re-design and has become a regular offering in the Faculty of Law. The second FLC, which was proposed by the instructors themselves, addressed the broader academic issue of how best to integrate and advance teaching and research.
Following an overview of the literature on FLCs and a short explanation of how this influenced our approach, we will explain the ways in which our FLCs were both similar to, and different from, the “traditional” approach. In each case, we will explain why we chose to emulate or differentiate our approach in terms of group composition [interdisciplinary versus faculty-specific], organization, and outcome.
During this session, our team (composed of FLC facilitators as well as a participant from the Faculty itself) will share critical reflections and lessons learned, illustrate the positive effects resulting from the rich conversations that occurred, and emphasize the potential transferability of these FLC experiences to other disciplines and institutions.
Imagine your middle of the road student, and you’re trying to build her communication skills, but you just don’t have enough time with each individual to make a real difference, and she seems to get contradictory advice in each of her courses. Now imagine that same student going to her next class, where she has the same expectations for communication skills, uses the same communication rubric, and receives consistent feedback in every class. In which instance do you expect greater improvement?
Outcomes-based education (Biggs & Tang, 2011) has been with us for some time, and assessment of discreet content in courses is commonly defined by learning outcomes. As essential as this knowledge is, it doesn’t always lead to higher-order thinking (Lewis & Smith, 1993), or provide your students with the ability to apply this knowledge in new settings. However, higher-order thinking and the ability to apply and transfer skills in new settings are some of the attributes defined as key employability skills (Essential Employability Skills (n.d.)), known as transferable learning outcomes. Creating an environment for a transformative learning experience isn’t just about what, where, or how you teach; it’s also about setting the goal posts to align with the “big picture”.
Queen’s University, University of Toronto and the University of Guelph are part of a HEQCO-funded consortium of institutions engaged in a three-year pilot project studying the implementation and assessment of transferable learning outcomes. These three institutions are at different stages in the articulation process, and are working with outcomes to suit their context. Each brings its own share of successes and challenges, and as with any stimulus for change, building common understandings is not always a smooth endeavor. Each of the three panelists from the participating universities will specifically address questions related to the use of standardized measurement instruments, the use of data to effect course improvement, implications for a wider-scale rollout, and the challenges of changing the culture in higher education. At the conclusion of the presentation, panelists will engage the audience in a discussion of these issues.
Typically, college faculty begin their teaching careers with a considerable amount of subject matter and industry expertise, but do not often possess well developed knowledge of the theories and practices that support transformational post-secondary teaching and learning. For over 20 years, the six Western Region Ontario colleges have collaborated to develop and deliver a 10-day, multi-phase faculty development program for new full-time faculty entitled “College Educator Development Program” (CEDP). This program provides new full-time faculty in the Western Region with opportunities for skill and knowledge development in a wide range of teaching and learning areas, such as assessment, teaching strategies, and curriculum design.
CEDP is greatly valued by the participating colleges, and there is interest among the six Western Region Ontario colleges to evolve the model further – specifically to create a faculty development program that is based on clear learning outcomes. Such a project would leverage our innovative cross-college approach to faculty development and it would produce more skilled faculty who are able to effectively lead a wide range of learning opportunities for our students. This year, the six Ontario western regional colleges were awarded a Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Productivity and Innovation fund (PIF) grant to create a framework which will revitalize and further enrich new faculty development in the Western Region.
This discussion panel will provide an opportunity for members of the STLHE community to hear about the objectives, scope, methodology and progress to date on this collaborative initiative to review and further develop the College Educator Development Program. Members of the project team, which consists of college administrators and faculty as well as external consultants, will share our experiences with the review and redesign of the existing CEDP program and will use an interactive question and answer format to foster discussion on the three major objectives of our project:
Effective teaching with technology, for both online and blended learning classrooms, often depends on committed instructors, educational developers, and sound ePedagogy (Li & Akins, 2005). In an innovative course offered by our Educational Development Centre, nine faculty members, from diverse disciplines, academic ranks, and practical experience levels, worked together bi-weekly using the topic of e-Pedagogy as a starting point for enhancing student learning through the use of educational technologies. Over the course of eight months, our group has transformed into a faculty learning community (FLC) that has shared a variety of discussions and experiences: evaluating ePedagogy, articulating learning outcomes, encouraging student motivation, learning educational technologies, challenging traditional assessment methods, developing online learning modules, and collaborating as a support system for each other. Our goal has been to create online learning modules for our courses to engage students actively with technology and thoughtful well-considered pedagogy supported by research.
After a brief introduction to the FLC, participants will divide up into small groups with members of the ePedagogy FLC to explore the process of becoming a community in this interactive session. Participants will share insights on the benefits and challenges of ePedagogy for online learning and have the opportunity to test out the learning modules in a hands-on manner.
How can instructors transform the writing assignments typically given in a course into something a student might actually want to write? This workshop will begin with a short summary of research describing the range and type of writing assignments typically given to students at Canadian universities, categorized by discipline. In studies of writing assignments given in faculties of arts, science, engineering, nursing, physical education and recreation, pharmacy, and education (n=2011) we have found that the 10 most popular assignments account for 70% of all writing assignments given to undergraduates, with “papers” (27%), “presentations” (11%), and “essays” (7.6%) leading the way. Almost half of all writing assignments are nested or linked (44.6%), and more than half are worth 10% or less of the final mark in the course. More than 50% of all writing assignments are four pages or shorter. When we look at these statistics by discipline, however, we find that the genres of writing instructors ask students to write varies remarkably across disciplines. Students in nursing courses, for example, write very different kinds of assignments than students in political science courses.
With this data as a background and a context, we will work (either individually or as small groups) through a series of exercises to transform one of these typical assignments (or one that the participant uses in one of their own courses) into an assignment both students and instructors find more engaging. We’ll examine an assignment with a series of questions:
We’ll use the answers to these questions to make changes to the assignments each participant or group is revising. At the end of the workshop we’ll talk as a group about the issues that arose as we made changes to the assignments, and we’ll end with information sheets that offer more guidance on how instructors can continue this work beyond the workshop and the conference.
Dans le domaine des études littéraires, les situations d’évaluation sont généralement ancrées dans une tradition dont les outils se résument la plupart du temps à l’exposé oral, la dissertation et l’examen sur table. Bien que ces trois situations d’évaluation aient démontré leur efficacité à mesurer la maitrise des concepts à l’étude et la capacité d’analyse de l’étudiant, nous souhaitons intégrer de nouvelles situations d’évaluation autrement adaptées à notre objet d’étude et ratta-chées à une approche davantage participative. Nous avons décidé de tenter l’expérience d’une mise en situation, à savoir une stratégie d’évaluation inspirée du concours « Votre soutenance en 180 secondes », dont le principe consiste à faire la présentation des éléments les plus importants d’un cours en trois minutes. Cette stratégie sera introduite dans deux cours différents offerts aux étudiants de troisième et quatrième année au premier cycle en Études françaises au semestre d’hiver 2014, soit Fren 325/425 Tendances avant-gardistes et post-modernes au XXe siècle et à l'ère actuelle, ainsi que Fren 327/427 Le cinéma aujourd’hui: Études thématiques.
Si l’exposé traditionnel et la dissertation mobilisent principalement des compétences analytiques et explicatives, la mise en situation que nous proposons d’introduire ici devrait permettre d’évaluer des compétences de synthèse et d’apprentissage actif. Cette communication propose ainsi de rendre compte de l’expérience de cette nouvelle approche dans les deux cours en question et de partager nos réflexions avant, pendant et après l’enseignement de même que son impact sur notre pratique d’enseignement en les rattachant entre autres plus spécifiquement aux questions portant sur la transformation d’élèves en professeurs et de professeurs en élèves ; de professeurs en mentors qui enseignent comment être leader et d’étudiants passifs en étudiants actifs.
As a part of the Flexible Learning Initiative at the University of British Columbia, departments have been encouraged to employ Teaching and Learning Fellows (TLFs), postdoctoral fellows with a strong disciplinary background and an interest in teaching and learning. TLFs are embedded within a department where they engage with faculty and support a wide variety of evidence-informed transformation. Unlike traditional professional development models, which often focus on individual faculty and short sessions with limited follow-up, TLFs provide on-going support to faculty seeking to transform learning experiences. The model has been inspired by the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI; cwsei.ubc.ca) in the Faculty of Science, which has met with considerable success in pairing faculty with such fellows.
As most TLFs enter their roles with limited expertise in teaching and learning, early and sustained support to develop this expertise is critical. To meet this need, a professional development series was formed through a strategic partnership between the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology (CTLT) and the Faculty of Science. The series builds on the success of the CWSEI model and integrates a learning community model to “create connections for isolated teachers, establish networks for those pursuing pedagogical issues, meet early-career faculty expectations for community, foster multidisciplinary curricula, and begin to bring community to higher education" (Cox, 2004). As research is an expectation for all post- doctoral fellows, the development series also includes a scholarship component to help prepare TLFs to be SoTL champions in their departments.
In this session, we will describe the TLF role (illustrated with stories from current TLFs), review the collaborative TLF Development Series used to build TLF expertise in teaching and learning (which could easily be adapted for new faculty, especially those in a teaching-stream position), discuss early examples of challenges and successes, and review recommendations for the role from current TLFs. Participants will leave the session with an idea of how the TLF role might be adapted to fit their own institutional requirements and will be provided access to development series resources including outlines, a reading list and examples of activities.
This study investigates the potential application of an alternative approach to externally mediated self-reflection. Typically, the self-reflection process occurs through a consultation process by an educational developer. The project explores the potential of Advanced Learning Technologies (ALT) in prompting reflection on action. The focus on quality teaching has serious implications for the way we conceptualize, deliver, and support teaching development in our universities. Reflection on action is an inherent and necessary process for ameliorating teaching. Self-reflection is typically mediated externally; by peers, educational and faculty developers and/or consultants. This is because individuals may not be able to observe and assess their own shortcomings or offer an honest and objective evaluation of themselves (Barber, 1990). However, there are disadvantages to this model. For instance, it might lead to an unbalanced relationship between the learner and mediator. Being observed by someone may lead to embarrassment in discussing apparent areas of weakness, especially if there is lack of confidence in teaching.
To address this potential shortcoming, our team has been exploring the use of ALTs for self-reflection. ALTs and Computer Based Learning Environments (CBLE) are currently used to foster student learning about complex topics in science, math, computer literacy, and medical procedures (see Azevedo, Johnson, Chauncey, & Burkett, 2010; Graesser, Chipman, Haynes, & Olney, 2005; Lajoie, 2007; 2008; Leelawong & Biswas, 2008; White, Frederiksen, & Collins, 2009) and have been used effectively to scaffold self-regulated learning, metacognition, and decision making. Their successes in these contexts make them a potentially effective environment for fostering self-reflection on teaching. Some CBLEs use a pedagogical agent as a means of strengthening the social element for invoking cognitive processes, rendering the context more authentic to teaching and learning (Baylor, 2005). To date, the use of a CBLE with a pedagogical agent to scaffold self-reflection has not been explored despite empirical evidence that learners interacting with pedagogical agents can demonstrate higher motivation and deeper learning (Atkinson, 2002; Baylor, 2002; Driscoll et al., 2003; Moon, 2004; Moreno et al., 2001). We have developed a prototype of a CBLE with a Pedagogical Agent to foster self-reflection.
To generate a blueprint for the scope of such a CBLE, we used a two pronged approach. We first generated a framework for reflection based on the existing empirical literature. We then asked 15 faculty members to plan and deliver a 10 minute micro-teaching, which was video-taped. Faculty were asked to view their video and think aloud as they reflected on their teaching. We also elicited detailed feedback on their potential use of an ALT system for the purpose of self-reflection. Data generated in this way was used to complement what we had compiled from the literature. The prototype CBLE was then built based on these data. During the paper presentation, we will demonstrate the prototype and engage the audience in a discussion about the value and usability of such an environment.
In 2012, Queen’s University established the Master of Science in in Healthcare Quality [MSc(HQ)] program. Combining both synchronous and asynchrony web learning, independent study and face-to-face encounters, the MSc(HQ) is at the cutting edge of delivering high quality distance higher education. The MSc(HQ) program offers students a unique mix of both theoretical study and practical, real world, application. Students from disciplines as wide ranging as architecture, nursing, engineering, and data management are taught by faculty from the disciplines of law, policy studies, nursing, and medicine. Facilitated by a successful collaboration with the Centre for Teaching and Learning, the MSc(HQ) has been built on solid educational pedagogy. Further, this program will offer Canadian and international perspectives on quality, risk, and safety in healthcare. After the implementation of the MSc(HQ), it is imperative that an evaluation of its core components is completed in order to ensure that the philosophy under which it was developed is being upheld. We have evaluated student and faculty responses to the core curriculum, the student experience, flow of information (given it is a part-time, distance program) and the effectiveness of the community of knowledge we have built.
The research questions underpinning this study include the following:
Answering these questions will aid in the development of new curriculum, new interdisciplinary programs, and the development of other online distance courses. The concepts of online distance education, interdisciplinary studies, and creating new curricula which meet the needs of today’s changing workforce are at the forefront of issues in higher education. The knowledge generated from these research questions will help guide future university programs (both graduate and undergraduate) develop distance courses by providing a template on how to successfully build an engaging distance program, promote interdisciplinary cooperation, and develop a curriculum that is interdisciplinary in nature.
This presentation will demonstrate the evolution of the program from conception to delivery and evaluation. It will highlight the benefit of building the program on strong pedagogy and with collaboration between faculty, educational developers, students, library support and administration. Participants will have the opportunity to engage in an extensive question and answer session.
Measuring learning dispositions is one step in fostering and developing life skills in students, and it is one of the goals of a HEQCO-funded three-year pilot project studying the implementation and assessment of generic learning outcomes. The Task Learning Orientation (TLO) tool was developed to provide a sustainable and reliable self-assessment method specific to the research goals. The TLO combines existing self-report measures, rubric descriptors and qualitative responses, and is used to measure motivation, learning beliefs, self-efficacy, transfer, organization and self-regulation.
In this research, we randomly sampled students from three first year University courses, from the Faculties of Arts and Science (n= 176) and Engineering and Applied Science (n=216). We used scales from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) to derive our initial data. Analysis of results, together with feedback from faculty was used to develop the TLO. The TLO was piloted within the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science (n= 426) with partial success, and has been improved based on those results. Presented here is the TLO, and associated Learning Orientation/ Self-Regulation rubric. Also demonstrated is how the qualitative component of the tool guides student reflection, focuses on strengths and weaknesses, thus informing instructors on areas for course improvement. Testing is continuing with alternate populations to further refine the tool, and audience members will be encouraged to reflect on measurement of learning dispositions within their own context. The longitudinal use of this tool is designed to track learning orientations and self-regulation of students through their undergraduate program, with the desire that they become more intrinsically motivated and develop self-regulatory life skills as they progress to become highly employable graduates.
A textbook or course reading pack is a requirement of most first- and second-year undergraduate science courses. Instructors in these courses expect and encourage students to complete the assigned readings, and guides for student success promote textbook reading as a way for students to improve their academic performance. In spite of the general assumption that textbook reading enhances student learning, student-reported reading compliance is low. Perhaps even more surprising, in the few instances where it has been studied, there are conflicting results about whether textbook reading is correlated with improvements in student grades. If there is truly little or no correlation between textbook use and grades, what’s the point in even assigning one?
Given the ubiquitous use of textbooks, their expense and the possibility that textbook reading might not improve student performance in some instances, we surveyed students in several large undergraduate science courses about how they used their course textbook and examined whether there was a correlation between textbook use and performance in the course as measured by final course grades. We also surveyed the course instructors about their use of course textbooks in order to assess whether a textbook was truly required (i.e. if quizzes/tests/exams/assignments contained questions drawn solely from the textbook). Surprisingly, we found that students who reported “never” or “rarely” reading the textbook earned better course grades than those who read “sometimes”. Those who read “often” also did better than those who read “sometimes”. In addition, the timing of textbook reading (i.e. before class, after class, etc.) had no bearing on final course grades. In conclusion, our study suggests there are different subgroups of learners in courses; some read “often” to do well, while others do not rely at all on the textbook to do well. This presentation will feature an audience engagement opportunity to brainstorm and design methods to increase textbook reading compliance in courses, including identifying the types of courses that most benefit from textbook reading.
The conference theme of classrooms as learning experiences that embrace diverse student needs will be explored in this session through a grant-funded research project recently begun. The significance of Universal Design for Learning is growing rapidly in the context of postsecondary education and pedagogy. In order to widen access to learning and create an inclusive learning environment for a diverse student population university and college campuses in Quebec have started to work with Faculty to implement principles of Universal Design in their teaching practices. UDL promotes a proactive approach to planning a course, which can create more sustainable teaching practices and reduce the need for more costly ‘retrofitting’ methods done through classroom accommodations, often used to support the needs of today’s diverse student population.
The project is a collaboration between five post-secondary institutions in Montreal: McGill University, John Abbott College, Marianopolis College, Dawson College and Centennial College. Spanning a three-year process, the project culminates in the creation of a user-friendly pedagogical toolkit using a qualitative mixed method action research approach. Initial research began during the winter semester of 2014 and will conclude in the fall of 2014.
The project’s goals are:
The audience will engage in exploring access and barriers to learning through an interactive exploration of the topic of UDL (for those unfamiliar with it). A questions and answer period will follow the presentation.
Learner diversity has become the norm in many academic learning environments internationally. This has been accompanied by increased recognition and prominence of intercultural learning and teaching. All learners bring with them individual cultural experiences and skills which, if acknowledged and enhanced, can lead to successful further learning, as well as more culturally competent communities. The provision of opportunities in the formal learning environment that enable individuals to engage in meaningful interactions which foster awareness and encourage comparisons of experiences can lead to positive and transformative outcomes.
This presentation describes the development and implementation of an intercultural education program model designed to enhance the settlement process for newcomers. It also includes discussions on teacher attributes and skills that are required for implementing the program. Preliminary findings from the research highlight the importance of incorporating teacher-learner as well as learner-learner interactions within an environment of inclusiveness, power-sharing and critical enquiry. The pedagogical approach and flexible features of this intercultural education program model can be effectively adapted for different learning and teaching programs to suit learners at a range of levels and needs. The presentation concludes with recommendations and suggestions for similar intercultural education programs and further research.
The purpose of this research study was to investigate if and how an inquiry-based approach to digital technology integration could be utilized in a pre-service teacher education program. All students enrolled in an educational technology course during the winter 2013 and 2014 semesters completed an inquiry-based learning project related to the integration of digital technologies in their future teaching practice. Through blog postings, an online survey, and a face-to-face focus group, the study participants indicated that this approach to technology integration is useful when teachers provide a big picture orientation, use clear guidelines, scaffold the process, ensure that students make informed question for inquiry selection, facilitate weekly technology instruction related to the project, and incorporate digital storytelling to convey the results.
This session will begin with an overview to the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework and Practical Inquiry (PI) Model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000) that were used to guide the inquiry-based learning process for the students’ projects about digital technologies. A brief summary of the findings from this action research study will be provided. Recommendations and strategies for utilizing the CoI framework and PI model to guide an inquiry-based approach to learning through the use of digital technologies will be discussed.
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is an important international movement, which contributes to the quality of teaching and learning in higher education, as well as to a growing body of educational literature (Hubball, Pearson, & Clarke, 2013). With a focus on student learning in diverse educational contexts, SoTL encompasses a broad set of practices that engage educational leaders in examining curriculum and pedagogy in a methodical and rigorous way (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Hutchings, Huber, & Ciccone, 2011). Providing a literature informed, peer reviewed justification for program and policy changes, SoTL is a practical and complementary undergirding for research in teaching and learning. However, many institutions lack internal SoTL expertise to effectively develop and evaluate curriculum and pedagogical practices (Hubball, Lamberson, & Kindler, 2012). There is a need for better and more integrated theoretical work in designing SoTL programs (Gurung & Schwartz, 2010; Hutchings, 2007; Kandlbinder & Peseta, 2009). Recent studies illustrate that threshold concepts have proved useful for initiating cross-disciplinary discourses (Carmichael, 2010), acting as a starting place for curriculum making (Carmichael, 2012).
The purpose of this session is to share recent research conducted to identify the threshold concepts in SoTL in order to (re) consider how educational leaders approach the SoTL and engage the audience in conversation around the areas of engagement and key challenges that they face as they begin work/study in the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Theorization in threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003; 2005; 2006) works as a lens with which to investigate SoTL and as a frame to consider curriculum for SoTL programs. Focusing on the ‘stuck places’ in SoTL programs, this research considers the experience of faculty members previously and currently enrolled in a SoTL program at a research-intensive university in Canada. Semi-structured responsive interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 2005) were conducted with 10 current SoTL program members and 20 past graduates to explore their experience of learning the ways of thinking and practicing SoTL. These interviews revealed a variety of troublesome concepts and coping strategies to navigate within a liminal space. In preliminary analysis, potential threshold concepts include the challenging epistemic shift required when designing and conducting SoTL research in an educational frame, the uncertainty of working across disciplinary boundaries, and the openness of participants’ to make their teaching public.
In light of the potential institutional benefits afforded by the adoption of SoTL for pedagogical and curricular investigations, an understanding of SoTL that includes threshold concepts will help to facilitate the requisite cultural shift within departments and institutions. And yet, the troublesome nature of threshold concepts in SoTL provokes the uncomfortable, liminal spaces that are a feature of learning to do SoTL. It is hoped that participants at this session engage in rethinking their SoTL experience and consider the troublesome nature of aspects of enculturation into scholarship in teaching and learning; how do we develop and support SoTL scholars?
The summative course evaluation process represents an important feedback mechanism in a course learning space: here, students, as members of this space, provide information, more formally, about their learning experiences to their instructors, institution, and in some cases, their peers. With the continuing integration of technological facilitators that expand the learning space to outside the physical classroom (i.e. online course evaluation systems), the course evaluation mechanism has expanded as well, offering students the opportunity to provide their perceptions about their learning experiences on their own, unconstrained by time set aside in the classroom. Indeed, the movement to a flexible, online, and reflective course evaluation process has been met with concern by some: instructors are wary of students’ participation rates (Crews & Curtis, 2011), the quality of students’ responses (Hardy, 2003), and the perceived reduction in control over how and when the information is collected (Morrisson, 2013).
Whereas extensive research has investigated instructors’ perceptions of effective communication mechanisms to encourage student participation in online course evaluations (Ballantyne, 2013), research on students’ actual perceptions of what motivates them to respond in this online course evaluation feedback space is limited. Thus, in the present study, we surveyed a large sample of undergraduate students (N > 10,000) across a number of academic divisions about their perceptions of not only the extent to which our institutional communication strategies effectively educated students about course evaluations, but also about the strategies that they felt motivated them personally to complete a course evaluation for their course(s). In addition, we asked students to list factors they feel motivate students generally to complete online course evaluations on their own as well as factors that motivate them personally. Results demonstrated that students felt institutional messages from the online system, which encouraged them to participate, were educationally effective; however, students also indicated messages from their instructors were also effective. When these factors were statistically regressed onto actual online course evaluation response rates (controlling for various course demographic variables), results demonstrated messages from the course instructor were more strongly associated with student participation than were messages from the online system. Moreover, qualitative themes from students’ written responses confirmed that the instructor, and his or her level of engagement in communicating the importance and meaning of course evaluation feedback, played a key role in student willingness to provide feedback online. Taken together, results suggest that although the online evaluation experience creates a more open and flexible feedback experience for students, student participation remains highly influenced by the instructor’s communicated value of the course evaluation to his or her teaching and course development.
Based on the data presented in this paper presentation, participants will have an opportunity to ask questions. As well, using our results as a guide, presenters will ask participants to generate ideas for how instructors can best communicate the importance of course evaluation feedback to students when this feedback occurs outside of the classroom.
Cocktails: 6:00pm
Dinner: 7:00pm
Transportation: Buses will be provided from the campus Residences and a pick-up/drop-off spot close to the downtown hotels.
Parking: There is ample parking for those who wish to take their vehicles.
Dress for outdoor location.
Fort Henry National Historic Site is perched on a promontory overlooking Lake Ontario, Royal Military College of Canada and the historic downtown of Kingston, Ontario. The nineteenth century British fortification was named part of a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 2008. The setting is an incredible venue for hosting this year's banquet which will be catered by Jessup Food & Heritage, Ltd.
Guests will be served by soldier servants in uniforms from the nineteenth century in the historic setting of Fort Henry which dates from 1832 and will be treated like guests of the Officer's Mess during the reign of Queens Victoria. True to the situation at the time -- don't say please or thank you to the servants!
This venue features a outdoor tent located in the parade square of the fort. The evening will end with a surprise that is sure to delight us all!
Developing teaching award nominations is an important way to ensure that excellent teaching gets the recognition it deserves. But it’s also an intensive professional development opportunity for the faculty members and nominating team involved, crystallizing a narrative of teaching identity that can act as a transformative catalyst through which exceptional teachers re-envision their roles and spheres of influence within the Academy. It's a process of discernment that gets at the true value of teaching, at the individual and the institutional level.
At this interactive session, members of the University of Windsor’s external teaching award nomination team, along with an award winning professor, will lead participants through the processes of:
choosing the right award and understanding its basic requirements;
identifying teaching strengths and working with them; and
helping people write about teaching, whether they’re letter writers, nominees, or nominators.
The session will interweave the how with the why – through activities and discussion. Participants will explore the impact and value of collaboratively documenting their lives in teaching, as well as of the impact of public recognition on those lives.
Malaria. Sustainable agriculture. Bees and pollination. These and other complex issues facing biologists today can rarely be solved in the isolation of a single perspective. In recognition of this, science academies have made a clear call for interdisciplinary integration in undergraduate education, and strongly encourage early introduction of these strategies. However, while much focus has been placed on linking biology with math and the physical sciences, the “equally important connections within biology” are often overlooked. Furthermore, increasing student numbers in first year classes can pose significant challenges to successful implementation of interdisciplinary teaching practices.
At the University of Guelph, we have transformed the first-year biology experience to include a novel, interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning using a linked, tri-course model. Briefly, students enrolled in Biological Concepts of Health, Discovering Biodiversity and Introduction to Molecular and Cellular Biology (approximately 3000 students in total) combine during the last three weeks of a given semester to form interdisciplinary research teams. Together, students use a problem-based learning approach to address a real-world problem from their discipline-specific perspectives and use a concept map to deliberately identify linking concepts and principles between disciplines. Their findings are then presented at a scientific poster session open to the university community.
In this session, we will describe the successes and challenges of our course structure and assignment design. The educational philosophy supporting our approach, the resources required for its implementation, our experiences with the logistics of the exercise as well as the response to formal pre-post student surveys will be discussed. Session participants can expect a useful ‘nuts and bolts’ description of how to execute a similar or modified version at their home institution. Tangible resources will be provided so that participants can adapt the project design to suit their own educational requirements. Furthermore, session participants will be asked to engage in an interdisciplinary brainstorming session, designed to mimic the preparations that course facilitators undertake each semester to prepare the ever-changing ‘real-world problems’ assignment. Over the past four years of delivery, the assignment has evolved and now represents a sustainable design to bring interdisciplinary learning to large number of students in a low-stakes environment.
Game-based learning is currently a hot topic intended to motivate students who are not engaged in a traditional classroom to become engaged with learning material that involves playing a game. Many departments at Humber want to try some form of game-based learning, yet they lack the skills necessary to design and implement games themselves. We will demonstrate how we are approaching this problem and outline the projects we currently have in progress. We will run an interactive workshop to help participants develop games they can use to teach their own material. We will provide feedback on the suitability of the games as well as the resources necessary to build the games.
We are in the Game Programming advanced diploma at Humber College and train students to build computer games. The diploma requires that the students produce a game for their capstone project. While some of our students have well-developed ideas of a game they want to build, other students have poorly conceived ideas that will not be suitable for the capstone project. We are assigning these students to work on a series of educational games that we have devised within our department as well as game ideas across the college.
When the words educational games are mentioned, our students flee. This is based on having seen educational games on the internet that are often some form of glorified flash cards. The game programming students see these games as boring to play and not exciting to build. We believe that a game has to be fun as well as educational. We also believe that the skills being conveyed should be a natural part of the game and should not be overly contrived.
We currently have three game-based learning projects in production. All of these games can be extended by adding levels or capabilities so that these projects can continue over a period of years. Participants will learn more about these games and reflect on their suitability for different disciplines.
As any professor who teaches a course with an essay component is pointedly aware, students in the first years of undergraduate study often struggle in their writing assignments, and no more so than with the (much-dreaded) essay. In this interactive workshop, participants will be invited to consider a potential model for teaching writing that I, in my capacity as an English instructor tasked with improving student writing for majors and non-majors alike, have been developing over the last seven years of teaching. Employing worksheets, peer reviews, self-assessments, and follow-up reflection pieces, the model is highly scaffolded without adding substantially to the instructor’s workload. Founded on practice, it aims to transform passive learners into active ones by putting the student in the position of the teacher at various stages throughout the process.
Session participants will take part in a series of brainstorming, think-pair-share, and group activities at various stages (pre-assessment, participatory learning, and post-assessment) that ask them to identify common struggles they have detected in student writing, as well as to access the potential advantages of and troubleshoot potential problems raised by the model. Upon completing the workshop, educators will be able to identify the options that the model raises for addressing student struggles with writing as well as to elaborate on the value of alternate forms of assessment that the model incorporates (formative, self-, and peer) with respect to the writing process.
Finding ways to enhance student engagement is a challenge that most of us face today as university educators. This workshop is designed to contribute to our evolving and deepening understanding about student engagement.
What is student engagement in a university class room? In my own terms, I define student engagement as the product of synergistic interaction between students’ curiosity and intrinsic interest to learn.
This workshop will provide opportunities for the participants to actively engage in discussion around the following topics: a) importance of student engagement, b) effective teaching methods to create intellectually stimulating learning environment to ignite students’ intrinsic motivation to learn, and c) methods to assess student engagement. My research study results on some of the teaching strategies I have implemented successfully in the year of 2013 to encourage student engagement in introductory and advanced level chemistry courses will be presented.
This session tells the story of the transformation of an interactive lecture class into a flipped classroom course supported by blended learning. The story of change will be told in a way that models the blended learning experience. Participants will view a short sample web module, the content of which is designed to help them learn about our process of developing web modules for the course content. Much of the rest of the session will model part of a face-to-face class experience in this hybrid mode of instruction by focusing on interactive activities about other aspects of the course (e.g., supporting student accessibility, use of resources, how to make use of the face-to-face class time, and using assessment tools that encourage engagement and overall retention of the course content).
This story of transformation describes the renovation of professional teaching practice and turns its attention to the conversion of somewhat passive learners into more self-directed, active learners. Participants will leave the session with a deeper understanding of what blended learning and a flipped classroom are, and what developing a hybrid course can entail. They will gain a sense of how blended learning can support student accessibility and promote active learning.
In the fall of 2011, Curriculum and Faculty Development at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) launched an eLearning Pilot Project. This project intended to initiate a shift in curriculum to a blended learning format, lead to new Faculty Development programming, and increase activity in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Two years later, we have made many gains with our project, including the development and implementation of a variety of eLearning processes, implementation of Faculty Development session training on our Learning Management and Classroom Response Systems, creation of institutional guidelines on the use of these technologies, and changes to annual processes such as Course and Faculty Evaluations that maximize efficiencies. We have received positive response from faculty and students alike to our efforts, have many ongoing eLearning and Educational Technology projects, and have successfully begun a transformation to meaningfully integrate technology enabled learning into teaching practice.
The purpose of this research-informed, practice-based session is to demonstrate CMCC’s curricular transformation and facilitate a collaborative discussion on the successes and challenges facing academic institutions - their administration, faculty and those involved in education development - in the transition to a more technology enabled learning curriculum. We will present lessons learned to date from the CMCC eLearning Pilot Project and lead a process by which participants will discuss and represent the development and implementation of varied eLearning projects.
The concept of “built pedagogy,” defined as “architectural embodiments of educational philosophies” (Monahan, 2002) suggests that the physical layout of classrooms conveys a great deal about the types of teaching and learning activities that can take place within. As Monahan (2002) notes, classrooms possess a “tacit curricula” that can either inhibit or support innovative pedagogies and collaborative learning experiences. Acknowledging the potential of and connection between classroom design and student and faculty engagement, Wilfrid Laurier University’s Faculty of Arts initiated a process that saw the institution’s first active learning classroom (ALC) open in September, 2012. The space was purposefully designed to leverage the latest educational technologies and research on classroom design, bringing together various stakeholder groups to fund the project and share their expertise toward its design, construction, and support. Now in its second year, there is growing evidence to suggest that the ALC is achieving its intended goal of inspiring and motivating greater faculty and student engagement, and as well as interest in, and commitment to, establishing other like spaces across Laurier.
A panel of Laurier faculty from diverse disciplines who have taught in the ALC will share and discuss how the classroom inspired a transformation of their teaching and, as a result, their students’ learning. Each panelist will comment on a different and unique aspect of the classroom’s transformative potential, reflecting how they re-imagined their role in and use of classroom space. Staff from Laurier’s Teaching Support Services (TSS) will join the conversation to provide context and discuss the role support units like TSS and IT play in the success of such collaborative institutional projects.
Canadian teachers, researchers, and educational developers have played a major role in national and international discussions regarding the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Tangible evidence of the progress that has been made in Canada is The Canadian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, the recently launched SoTL Canada website and the many institutional supports of SoTL research.
A panel of distinguished leaders in the field will share their insights about where we have been, where we would like to go, and what it will take to increase the presence and impact of SoTL in Canadian higher education institutions. Drawing on their own experiences facilitating SoTL work, the panelists will discuss how various approaches to SoTL can influence faculty engagement from different programs and disciplines. They will also explore the gap between what has been accomplished and SoTL's potential capacity for a more powerful and sustaining future impact. After sharing their views, panelists will invite comments and questions from the audience.
Fieldwork, also referred to as an internship or practicum, is one of the most fundamental aspects of professional education programs. The core objective of fieldwork is to provide students with the opportunity to test ideas and concepts and apply theory to real life. Lave and Wenger (1991) present provide a theoretical foundation for fieldwork education, where learning is viewed as an experience shared by novices and experts in a practice context. In this model, communities of practice provide students with opportunities to interact and share experiences as both a way to construct and apply knowledge (Kim & Hannafin, 2008; Wenger, 1998).This social interactive process, with the explicit use of feedback and reflection, has been found to be crucial in promoting deep learning in fieldwork (Richard, 2008; Drummer et al., 2008; Walsh, 2007).
As fieldwork can occur across time and space, providing opportunities for students to engage in discussion and reflect on their growth of expertise is vital, but logistically challenging. Innovative approaches to fieldwork such as online communities can bring students and mentors together to explore ideas, reflect and collaborate in learning (Palloff & Pratt, 2007).
The Clinical Education Integration (CEI) Program was developed to facilitate the application of theoretical knowledge during real time fieldwork education in an occupational therapy program. Online learning communities were created to provide a collaborative approach to learning and allow students to explore new ideas, reflect and develop these ideas in a safe place. Faculty mentors were assigned to each online community that was comprised of four to six students. Weekly themes were developed where students drew on their fieldwork experiences to describe theory in practice, identify and share resources around the themes and engage in asynchronous discussion groups. Weekly synchronous discussions were led by faculty mentors and served to consolidate the learning.
Three cohorts of onsite fieldwork preceptors and students have completed an online survey to describe the impact of the CEI on their leaning. Students reported a number of benefits including: (a) learning from their peers (b) increased confidence to ask questions on placement (c) opportunity for reflection, (d) connection with university faculty. Onsite preceptors reported that students were able to ask more specific questions and reported the CEI offered additional educational support.
Participants will have the opportunity to engage in a demonstration of the CEI program and the learning platform in which the CEI is hosted. They will also be invited to share their experiences with on-line communities of learning.
In this paper presentation, I will discuss the first stage of a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) project that is based on my experiences of designing and teaching a university student success course (SSC) for students who are on academic probation. The purpose of this paper is to build a case for the benefits of higher education (HE) instructors working with students to develop classroom communities of practice as a context for cultivating potentially transformative learning experiences. According to Wenger (2006), a community of practice exists when a group of people “engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavour... [and they] share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (para. 4). In this paper, I give a brief history of the original SSC, discuss the rationale of my redesign, elaborate on the theoretical framework for the new course curriculum, outline some of the key processes behind planning the course (including engaging key stakeholders), provide an overview of the course guide, and briefly touch on the next phase of my SoTL project.
The original course that prompted my research and curriculum design work was developed by the Office of Student Experience of a small university within which I worked. The objective for this course was to support students in developing the personal and academic skills that they need in order to increase their GPA and maximize their experiences at university. In 2011, I redesigned the curriculum of this course. I aimed to change its modular design, based predominantly on a cognitive understanding of learning, to a more emergent design that supports learning in a community of practice. I started with the assumption that through fostering a sense of community in the classroom, it could be possible to increase the shared value and relevance of academic content and cultivate a feeling of belonging among learners. In short, I saw the importance of providing a curricular framework to support open and safe contexts where students feel trust, respect, and openness to explore ideas together (Cranton, 2002).
A persistent gender and minority gap in the STEM fields—particularly in both conceptual understanding and retention in programs—has concerned educators and policy makers for decades. Though women make up the majority of undergraduate students, in our particular context of physics, they represent only 20% of undergraduate degrees. We found that in a study of 790 students from our institution, physics *identity* plays a significant role, distinct from prior knowledge, in mediating the gender gap in conceptual understanding and intention to continue in a physics program. This result suggests the optimistic viewpoint that interventions that help students develop their physics (or STEM) identity could yield important gains, opening STEM fields to a wider diversity of perspectives and viewpoints.
But how can an instructor foster identity development in the context of a large first year class? The community of practice model is a well-validated framework shown to foster identity growth. Highly interactive courses that help students to work together in a positive environment show many of the characteristics of this approach. Could the well documented positive gains in learning achieved by highly interactive courses compared to traditional lecture be a result not only of successful engagement of students in the material but in successful engagement of students in developing their STEM identity? Previous work based on stand-alone single institution studies yielded contradictory results suggesting that not all interactive approaches are equally effective at overcoming the gender gap. Here we use three different models of equity to complete a meta-analysis of results from 26 classes from 9 institutions to answer this question, examining pretest and posttest measures of fundamental conceptual understanding. We found that while collaborative, community-building instructional strategies did not completely eliminate the conceptual understanding gender gap, courses that applied community-building teaching strategies reduced the direct gender gap (p = .025, d = 1.27), normalized gender gap (p < .001, d = 1.24), and gender gap effect size (p = .009, d = .63) in only one term. Contrary to a zero-sum perspective on the gender gap, we found that increased equity through community-building instructional strategies benefited both genders. This presentation will include an overview of both identity mediation and meta-analysis studies, as well as practical approaches that instructors can adopt to help their students build a community of practice in their first-year STEM course.
Current higher education research literature encourages faculty members to transform their teaching and assessment methods as a means of improving student learning, but these methods have not been widely adopted, making them instructional innovations (Christensen Hughes & Mighty, 2010). These innovative methods are typically learner-centred, requiring students to be more involved in and responsible for their learning than in traditional lecture-and-exam courses. Given that these methods are often new or not expected for students, not all students willingly engage with them (Pepper, 2010). Students’ resistance to engagement can discourage faculty members from trying new ways of teaching and may detract from educational developers’ credibility with their clients when their recommended methods that are not well received by students.
An exploratory, qualitative research study was conducted to investigate why students may resist engaging with instructional innovations as a first step in determining how such resistance may be mitigated. An embedded case study design was employed (Yin, 2009), with questionnaires (n=229) being used in two sections of one course and follow-up interviews with 17 students serving as individual cases. Classroom observations, document analyses, and interviews with the course instructor were also data sources. The course employed four instructional methods that were innovative for second-year Economics courses: interactive lectures, extensive group work (80% of course grade), choice of group assignments, and random attendance checks. It also had large enrolments of students from different years of study and programs and had an experienced faculty member who had witnessed student resistance to the instructional methods over the past few years. Data were coded according to an initial codex based on an extensive literature review, and the codex was modified as needed to better represent the data collected. The findings revealed eight thematic barriers on what discourages students from engaging with innovative instructional methods.
One key barrier involved students’ conceptions about instruction. One variable that appeared to affect this theme was the academic discipline of a course. Students were asked in the interviews whether the innovative methods would work in courses in their own discipline. Overwhelmingly, students from “hard” disciplines (Biglan, 1973) indicated that one or more of the methods would not work in their discipline. In this conference session, the data and analyses behind this finding will be shared and connected to existing literature after a brief overview of the research study. Time will be left to discuss the possible implications of this finding on transforming students into active learners in different types of disciplines.
Universities are expected to be instrumental in transforming young people into highly knowledgeable, skilled, motivated academics and professionals. Students, particularly those studying business degrees, need to quickly appreciate that whilst at University they are developing an academic and professional identity that will be used by others to make judgements about them. During the first year, they need to acquire the knowledge and skills to ensure these identities are developed as they would wish. They also need to know how to appraise their development and become reflective professionals.
The learning experience offered to students needs to reflect a world where information about the individual is made readily available through interactions with social media and the internet in general. Students need to learn how to deal with their exposure and, often unintended, lack of privacy.
At Plymouth we have themed our personal development modules (first and second year undergraduates) to take into account the responsibility students have to develop academic and professional identities and to minimise the risk of these being contaminated by their internet publicised social and personal identities.
We are conducting research to consider how effective we have been and will present our progress. We hope that this will stimulate discussion not only about our choice of methods but our findings to date.
Whether students acquire basic learning skills through special workshops or in the classroom, research shows modules on time management, exam strategies, and both reading and note-taking techniques increase student success in their coursework (e.g., MacCann, Fogarty, & Roberts, 2012; Miranda, Webb, Brigman, & Peluso, 2007). These skills create a framework from which students can learn effectively. There is reason to believe that students will make use of resources provided to them (Peat, Taylor, & Franklin, 2005), and that students who acquire these modular skills prior to the midterm will be able to apply them to the present evaluation, though they may not be especially motivated to learn the skills. Conversely, students who have already received a course’s performance evaluation should be more motivated to learn the materials presented in the modules and, thus, perform better. We evaluated whether learning modules could transform students’ learning experience and incorporate them into their learning framework for improved performance. Two preliminary studies were conducted to examine the usefulness of learning modules for students in a first year course. We compared students’ midterm and examination scores across those who received two modular skill sets (text reading and exam strategies) before or after the midterm. Relative motivation, interest, and perceived effectiveness were measured. Results from these studies will be presented in this session.
We are presently undertaking steps to offer and track online learning modules (e.g., time management, note taking, study skills, and test taking skills) across several years of university, beginning in the first year. Longitudinal student progress will be monitored to track student performance from their entry to university through to graduation. This program (once demonstrably successful) would offer many future opportunities to educational institutions across the country by transforming the learning experiences of all students embarking on post-secondary studies for the first time. These students attend their classes with a variety of educational foundations and skills; this program will ensure these students are given a rich educational skill set to learn effectively in today’s context of higher learning. This presentation will include an introductory scenario, questions and answers, a survey of learning modules, and a discussion section for audience engagement.
Participants will be acquainted with the results of a qualitative study examining a newly implemented blended (face-to-face and online) instructional model for geospatial and information literacy in the first year Social Sciences Inquiry program at McMaster University. Through focus groups with teaching assistants (TAs), instructional assistants (IAs), instructors and students we explored the following questions: 1) how well do students learn and apply geospatial and information fluency skills using online modules? and, 2) how satisfied are users with the new blended learning model?
The utilization of online technologies provides an opportunity to foster inquiry-based learning and broaden the student experience. Educators and learners are challenged to identify how useful these blended learning models are both for learners and instructors (Bednarz & Kemp, 2011). Study results reveal one advantage of using online modules is the change in the context of classroom and lab experiences by freeing instructors and TAs to provide additional assistance to students. A disadvantage was the perceived pedagogical burden on course instructors who suggested that “library” support services and long-term planning, which includes instructors and students, are critical components of blended learning, for students (e.g., computer access, software, Internet connection), TAs (e.g., presentation) and instructors (e.g., course development needs, technical assistance). Key areas identified for module improvement include: increasing interactivity, developing generic skills-based modules, and on-going availability to upper year students.
We conclude that an opportunity exists to explore potential support services for this blended learning model, particularly as it relates to local and timely technical support in order to update digital resources. Respondents also illustrated the importance of engaging students in the process of blended learning model development. These results will spark a discussion among conference participants as to how other institutions deliver inquiry-based course content and the successes and challenges they experience.
We have used a systematic approach of the use of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), managed at an institutional level, to transform learning and teaching experiences at an Australian tertiary education institute. Through an analysis of systems data analytics, we studied access to and use of the VLE by diverse cohorts of students over time.
Northern Melbourne Institute of Technical and Further Education (NMIT) has a long history of vocational education and training (VET) with large student cohorts, and more recently offered higher education (HE) courses with small but rapidly growing student numbers. The Institute has an integrated approach to the diverse student cohorts with a focus on providing pathways to further study and support for transition in particular from VET into HE courses. Online engagement is an important strategy in our blended learning and teaching approach and in achieving integration.
We will describe the implementation of the VLE in three stages. In 2011-2012, we introduced online learning and teaching using our VLE (Moodle) in all HE subjects using a model of prototyping and piloting, template development, and implementation (stage 1). In December, 2012, we evaluated the status of online learning and teaching in VET (stage 2) to provide a starting point for the same model for design and development initiated in 2013 across selected VET courses (stage 3). Professional development for staff (teachers, administrators) at multiple levels and support for students, included strategically timed structured (e.g. workshops) and unstructured (e.g. one-to-one on demand) support.
We will present simple analytics indicating access (Google analytics) and use (Moodle learning analytics) of the VLE at each stage and consider trends over time. Use was categorised as: basic (transmission of content); intermediate (transmission, self-directed learning); or advanced (transmission, collaboration replacing face-to-face learning). We are specifically interested in the social constructivist aspects offered by online learning and the engagement of learners and teachers. We compare VLE use by cohorts of students to identify effective strategies for diverse contexts. Analysis of systems data should help to design more effective and efficient online learning and teaching environments, and further tailor learning for individuals. We will discuss benefits and limitations in the data collected and its analysis in our context. We will describe aspects of the project and discuss their importance in terms of engagement with technology and satisfaction of stakeholders.
Many undergraduate students fail one or more of their courses and consequently need to repeat them. Moreover, students sometimes repeat courses that were barely passed the first time, in order to improve their mark and maintain their major or honors status. This means that university classes often contain a mixture of students: most are brand new to the course, but some have previous experience with it. Introductory courses are especially likely to have such mixtures.
This mixing raises an interesting question: does the difference in prior experience lead to a corresponding difference in course outcomes? In other words, are the repeating students generally more successful than the first time students because of their previous experience? Or are they less successful given their unsatisfactory outcomes the first time through?
Although a large body of educational literature examines various factors related to student performance in introductory courses, the practice of repeating a course has largely been ignored. The main objective of this research paper presentation is to share the results of the empirical study that examines the relation between prior course experience and subsequent performance in the introductory finance course.
The study’s sample consists of students who entered an undergraduate business program at Brock University in 2005. All the course marks and demographic data used in this study came from the university registration system, not from student surveys; this avoids the tendency of the latter to overstate actual performance.
The results of this study show that students who completed the course in the past with a failing or passing grade demonstrate a considerable grade improvement on their subsequent attempt. Moreover, after taking into account student GPA, students who previously passed the course significantly outperform new students. Students who failed the course in the past show only a marginally higher grade compared to new students. In contrast, the performance of students who dropped or withdrew from the course is not significantly different from the performance of new students.
The session will start with a brief review of the literature on student performance in the introductory finance courses. It will then describe the data set used, descriptive statistics, and correlation analysis results. The main part of the session will discuss the regression analysis of the relationship between various explanatory factors and student performance in repeated courses. The session will conclude with questions from the audience.
The broad field of biomedical sciences includes subject areas that can be extremely content heavy. When an exceedingly large quantity of information is packed into a single course it can be difficult as an instructor to incorporate curricular elements that stimulate genuine student interest. In order to stimulate this interest, novel teaching modalities have been incorporated into a first year course in Human Anatomy and Physiology with overwhelming success. All of the in-course modalities are heavily routed in the broader theme of constructivist learning strategies. Two examples include Movement Guided Learning© (MGL) and Inquiry Guided Learning Projects (IGLPs) which represent an in-class modality and a modality that spans the entire semester respectively.
MGL is a tutorial-styled learning package that guides students through exercises, stretches, and functional applications that build on previously taught information pertaining to bones and muscles of the human body. Formal assessments before and after the MGL activity indicate that students not only improve their academic performance on open-ended musculoskeletal concept questions (t(9) = -3.65, p=.005), but they also perceive the MGL activity positively with all students (100%) indicating they believe it should be used in future classes. The MGL activity has not only been a successful means of enhancing student interest but it has also provided an opportunity for students to independently construct deeper, more integrated concept understanding.
An additional modality, representative of a strategy that spans the entire semester, is the IGLP. These projects have been designed following common elements of student inquiry including the self-selection and research of a question pertaining to the study of the human body. In addition, the IGLPs were also designed to meet specific self-reported student needs. For example, students self-report on a pre-semester survey (using a 10-pt Likert scale) a lack of confidence in the exploration of research on a scientific topic (6.4 +/- 1.1). To address this need, while also meeting student self-identified desires to develop skills in effective communication (8.1 +/- 1.8) and resource acquisition (8.5 +/- 1.9), IGLPs were facilitated in a unique way. The IGLPs included four Information Sessions and three Check-Ins that guided students through the stages of the Information Search Process (ISP): initiation, selection, exploration, formulation, collection, and presentation. The guiding aspect was imperative as students indicated poor self-perceived abilities at selecting research questions (6.6 +/- 1.7), exploring answers to research questions using peer-reviewed literature (6.4 +/- 1.2), and effectively communicating answers (6.3 +/- 1.5).
Both the MGL and IGLPs are examples of the many novel teaching modalities that are being used to enhance student interest in a course of Human Anatomy and Physiology. These novel modalities, embedded at various points within course curriculum, are effective strategies for stimulating interest and inspiring curiosity in our students.
We describe the implementation of and results from a pilot study to extend the pedagogy of the Flipped Classroom (FC) approach, by tasking students taking the course to become co-producers of learning content. We describe a pedagogical framework and associated procedures for using student-produced learning content extensively within FC courses, together with processes to evaluate and curate this content. Results from an initial small-scale pilot, together with more extensive deployment in several sections of a large enrolment introductory course in Physics (over 800 students), will be presented.
The implementation methodology is as follows: each week, approximately ¼ of the cohort are tasked with each producing a single learning object of their choice that pertains to the pre-reading material that is set for the whole class. The selected group of students will be supported in undertaking this by a combination of course staff (instructor, TA and recent undergraduate who has taken the course) who will hold an after-hours online tutorial which is recorded for those who cannot attend ‘live’. As with our previous work on student-generated assessment content, this scaffolding activity is critical and can have a significant impact on the quality of what is produced.
The learning objects that the students produce are submitted through the learning management system by the end of the weekly course cycle, and graded by a course TA using a simple rubric (e.g. does not meet / meets / exceeds expectations). Each week, a different group is charged with authoring artifacts, such that each student will be required to produce at least 2 artifacts per semester, for a portion of course credit (~5%). All artifacts will, with the student authors’ permission, be registered as open educational resources under a Creative Commons license, and the best ones will be incorporated into the subsequent class sessions that follow their creation, using a Just-In-Time-Teaching approach (these could be lecture, lab and tutorial sessions, depending on the content). In this model, the role of the instructor shifts towards a curating of content rather than sole producer.
We will present data illustrating aspects of student engagement, student perceptions of their experiences as co-producers of learning materials, and the evaluation of the quality of the materials they produce. This design is both novel and significant, as it tries to address one of the known limitations of the FC approach: not all students acquire the intended familiarity with the content which is presented to them ahead of class time (due to various reasons, including but not limited to, poor study strategies, lack of metacognitive ability to ‘know what it is they don’t know’ when reading an academic text, workload, etc.).The pedagogical design is transferable across a wide range of disciplines and in courses that utilize a FC modality.
A strong integration of linguistically and culturally diverse students into the university enables both a better learning experience at the undergraduate and graduate levels for students, and enriches the broader academic community. The significant increase in the student population over the past decade has brought both the opportunity for enrichment and the challenge of creating relevant co-curricular and academic programming that resonates with the needs and interests of these diverse groups of students.
The University of Toronto Scarborough has a vibrant and diverse student body, with a significant number of students who identify as ‘ESL’ (English as a second language) or ‘multilingual’. In growing numbers, these students have demonstrated their capacity to become actively involved in the unique process of their own learning, through the sustained creation of academic-focused peer networks. This presentation reports on research conducted by the English Language Development Centre (ELDC) and the Student Life Department, which systematically explored students’ perceptions of the academic and engagement benefits of participating in Knowledge Learning Networks on campus. In this session, we will both share our early data and analysis and invite participants to explore the following questions with us:
How did students represent their participation in co-curricular and academic support programming as forming a Knowledge Learning Network (KLN)?
What factors did students suggest influenced their engagement and sustained their motivation to participate in co-curricular programs and KLNs?
How did students represent their self-efficacy and academic identity as changing throughout their course of engagement with particular programming and KLNs?
How did students represent their involvement in their KLNs as helping them with their academic skills and commitments (e.g. specific academic success in courses, exams, study habits, oral communication etc.)?
How did students represent their involvement in KLNs as helping them to navigate their university environment and/ or participate more fully in academic life?
The research included an online survey which was widely disseminated on campus and available to any UTSC student who identified as being linguistically or culturally diverse and identified English as an additional language to their mother tongue. Extended semi-structured individual interviews were also conducted and a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was used to analyze the data. The findings of this research seek to contribute to the understanding/development/improvement of Knowledge Learning Networks as opportunities for both formal and informal integrated support.
Research has shown that First Generation Students (FGS), or students whose parents did not attend institutions of higher education, are at a greater risk of dropping out of university. Some estimates put the number above 50%. This is bad for all sorts of reasons, but most important is the detrimental impact that this has on the individual. One of the major reasons for this retention issue has to do with an insufficient support network. When this is coupled with increased pressures from family members to perform at University, because university is seen as an investment (“you’ve got to go to university in order to get a job”, “what are you going to do with a degree in that?”), then students are left with no model to follow and no support network for the specific issues that they face. In order to provide role models and a support network, the First Generation Student Ambassador program was brought together through Writing Services and Student Affairs at the University of Guelph as part of a larger project funded by the Ministry of Education. The Writing Services project focuses on increasing self-efficacy on three levels: basic knowledge of campus resources, improved writing skills, and community outreach and engagement through social media projects.
The presentation will begin with a literature review of best practices across North America for increasing FGS retention. Based on the work of Albert Bandura, self-efficacy will be identified as one of the most important factors that influence retention rates. This background theory will be coupled with specific practices that were used in order to increase feelings of self-efficacy. Part of the intent of this project is to make participants aware of FGS as a demographic group and also to start a broader conversation about increasing retention rates overall.
Recent accountability initiatives have resulted in an increased emphasis on undergraduate skill-based learning outcomes (LOs) (e.g., critical thinking; teamwork). Researchers interested in the scholarship of teaching and learning have suggested that the literature concerning university LOs is dominated by the perspective of academics and institutions, while students’ perceptions are documented relatively infrequently (Matthews et al., 2013). The absence of student input makes it difficult to “say with any certainty whether students have learned what academics are teaching” (AAC&U, 2002, p. 18). This concern is particularly relevant with regard to students’ acquisition of transferrable skills, which tend to develop across the curriculum rather than within the boundaries of a single unit.
In this session, I intend to describe research that speaks to undergraduates’ understanding of skill-based learning. More specifically, I will present data that speaks to participants’ reports about the skill-based LOs that they felt they had developed during their degree, and their definitions of key skill-based LOs identified by administrators as being important (Council of Ontario Universities, 2007). Participants were psychology majors (N=350) who were at various stages of their degree at a mid-sized Ontario university.
In terms of reports about the skills they were developing, students were most likely to indicate that their degree was fostering time-management skills, followed by communication and teamwork skills. A surprisingly small proportion of participants identified critical thinking or leadership skills among those being developed during the degree. With respect to defining key skill-based LOs, participant responses suggested that their understanding of these skills was somewhat rudimentary. Relatively few responses identified facets of the skill in question (e.g., communication involves reading, writing, listening; teamwork involves cooperating with others and managing tasks). Somewhat unexpectedly, many student definitions described instead how the skill might optimally be done (e.g., communication needs to be clear/succinct; teamwork requires patience).
This session speaks to the importance of transforming the classroom from a place in which individual instructors focus exclusively on learning course content to one in which they help students to understand how their career-related skills are being fostered in their courses. This presentation will also touch on the increased importance of instructors helping students to integrate their thinking about skills that are learned across the entire degree, through both the formal curriculum and the co-curriculum. While much of the talk will focus on presenting data, audience participation will be encouraged by asking attendees to begin by considering those skills that they believe they are fostering through their own courses, and to then speculate about the extent to which their responses are likely to mirror those of their students.
In the fall of 2013, the University of Alberta offered its first MOOC, Dino101. The MOOC was taken simultaneously by 22,000 people around the world, as well as 450 University of Alberta students. Of the University of Alberta students, 400 students took the MOOC under the same conditions as the world-wide audience, but sat a midterm and final exam in person. Fifty University of Alberta students took the MOOC in conjunction with an in-class experience that also included field trips and active learning. The MOOC was declared the third best MOOC ever offered and met or exceeded all Alberta Education standards for effective learning. It also has one of the highest completion rates of any MOOC ever for the 22,000 world-wide audience, and one of the highest passing rates of any University of Alberta course for those 450 students.
The MOOC development started in 2012, with brainstorming and the development of a team of content experts. Although most MOOCs are simply recorded lectures, the University of Alberta chose to design this course from best principles of instructional design, including constructive alignment of pedagogy, learning outcomes and assessment. High levels of interactivity were deliberately included. However, numerous problems and challenges were encountered as the MOOC developed, both from the instructional and production sides. Significant new territory at an institutional administration level was also unveiled as the MOOC moved closer to fruition.
In this presentation, both the research performed and the results of developing this new practice will be shared with conference participants, followed by discussion amongst all participants. The results are surprising and they will validate, as well as raise questions about, some of the commonly held paradigms of post-secondary education.
The Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at McMaster University features two programs: Honours Chemistry and Honours Chemical Biology. While both programs feature inquiry-based integrated labs, only the Honours Chemical Biology program currently features a dedicated inquiry (non-lab) course. Students are initiated into the world of Chemical Biology through a first-semester Level 2 course titled ‘Inquiry for Chemical Biology’. The objectives of the course include the development of inquiry skills such as asking good questions, and accessing the primary literature.
This ethics-approved undergraduate student-led research project examines the perceptions of Chemical Biology students as to the extent they are transformed in the development of their inquiry skills through participation in the Inquiry for Chemical Biology course. It also examines to what extent these skills may be developed through other opportunities (e.g., a co-operative education experience, inquiry-based labs) for both Chemistry and Chemical Biology students. It further seeks to compare the development of inquiry skills in these two student populations, who arrive through different paths at the same Level 3 course, where, in groups, they complete an inquiry project.
Students from Levels 3-5 of the Honours Chemistry and Honours Chemical Biology programs will be surveyed to gather their perceptions as to what extent they have gained or developed certain inquiry skills (as identified by the literature and the Inquiry course syllabus) through participation in the Inquiry course (for Chemical Biology students), and other opportunities (all students). Instructors from the Inquiry course and the Level 3 course will be interviewed, along with a teaching assistant who acts as an inquiry project group mentor from the Level 3 course. Results from the student surveys and the instructor and TA interviews will be presented. Participants will leave the session with a deeper understanding of inquiry learning and inquiry skills, and the role a targeted inquiry course and other inquiry-based activities can play in supporting the development of these skills.
MOOCS, eLearning, online learning, and blended/hybrid are buzzwords that have been intensifying around the Dalhousie campus over the last couple of years. Rather than making decisions based solely on general trends, such as those found in the ECAR study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology (2013) and Inside Higher Ed’s Survey of Faculty Attitudes on Technology (2013), or on our anecdotal experiences of our own university community, we wanted to make context-informed decisions about our professional development programming choices for faculty to ensure best fit. This is especially the case as Dalhousie is at a pivotal point in its history – with a new President who has just conducted a 100 days of Listening visioning exercise that highlights eLearning as an important direction for our institution. The recent amalgamation of instructional design staff into the Centre for Learning and Teaching (CLT) also provided an opportunity for envisioning CLT development work in this area.
CLT staff believed this was an opportune moment to ask questions about the use of technology in learning and teaching on campus and in the virtual classroom (eLearning). This presentation will focus on a university-wide survey that CLT developed for delivery to Dalhousie students and faculty in the spring of 2013. Our analysis gave us a wealth of data that has helped the Centre shape faculty and graduate student programming with respect to online learning and classroom technology, allowing us to take an informed approach to creating a roadmap for developing interest in online learning and teaching in our community over the next few years.
By focusing on a transitional approach to faculty development in our traditional university environment, we believe that we can gradually transform attitudes and approaches to online learning, and support development of online and blended courses to complement and expand thinking about classroom learning. Administrators and educational developers may find our survey results, approach to planning, and our ensuing faculty development programming choices useful in developing their own contextualized approach to faculty development planning.
Peer mentoring in the educational context provides support, creates challenges and assists mentees in developing approaches to help make meaning of their experiences (Daloz, 1999). Nora and Crisp (2007) have broadly classified these experiences into four general areas that include the following: psychological and emotional understanding, role-model specification, academic and disciplinary support, and career and professional support. Peer-mentoring interactions also allow for critical and reflective dialogical encounters to occur in any of these four areas and others unique to the mentor-mentee context, such as teacher-student, boss-employee or learner-learner dyads, for example.
In the context of our peer-mentor programs, the focus is on breaking the hierarchical relationship between mentor and mentee in order to promote a form of engagement and critical dialogue where both can “become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow” (Freire, 2002). However, the focus on the mentor-mentee exchange has mainly focused on the experiences of the mentee and not on the experiences of the mentor. Kram (1985) and Allen and Eby (2003) reflect similar sentiments about needing to evaluate the experiences of the mentor when they examined mentoring relationships in organizations and the workplace. Therefore, this session will focus on the (transformative) nature of the mentor experiences that occur in academic-related peer-mentorship exchanges.
Our current work utilizes the framework proposed by Nora and Crisp (2007) and goes on to demonstrate that a sustainable mentoring experience can be developed when a mentorship program provides opportunities for engagement in psychological and emotional understanding, role-model specification, academic and disciplinary support, and career and professional support. In this presentation we examine the nature of the mentor experiences in these key areas outlined by Nora and Crisp (2007), and differentiate between experiences that are beneficial versus experiences that are transformative.
This session discusses an action research project in which the instructor-researcher designed and implemented a community-based teaching and learning strategy to help undergraduates achieve learning outcomes. This research project was situated in a teacher education course centered on issues of diversity in education. Acknowledging that there is little agreement on how to most effectively prepare preservice teachers to work with diverse learners (Cochran-Smith, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2001), the literature also acknowledges that preservice teachers need experience working with diverse populations in order to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to assist minority students to reach their full potential (Goodlad, 1990; Phillion; Malewski, Sharma & Wang, 2009). For this reason, I was interested in (re)designing an existing diversity-oriented course around a community-based model, and then investigating from a variety of perspectives how the project was experienced.
Data was collected from students, community partners, and the instructor and analyzed using a qualitative, open-coding approach to inform a holistic understanding of how all participants experienced the project, how community members could be incorporated as co-educators in a teacher education course, and how assumptions of student participants were challenged by the experience. The findings suggest a number of advantages to participating in a community-based learning experience, as well as ways to improve the design and implementation of community-based courses.
This session discusses the potential for transformative learning experiences when students are supported in going beyond the classroom and partnering with experts in the community. Participants will leave this session with an overview of how community-based teaching and learning can be implemented. As well, participants will be encouraged to share and discuss their own opinions and experiences.
In 2012, the University of Ottawa’s Senate Committee on Teaching and Teaching Evaluation began examining the possibility of carrying out online evaluation of courses. Stemming from the works of Adams and Umbach (2012); Crews and Curtis (2011); Dommeyer, Baum, Hanna and Chapman (2004); Gamliel and Davidovitz (2005); Morrison (2011); Nevo, McClean and Nevo (2010); Nowell, Lewis and Handley (2010); and Venette, Sellnow and McIntyre (2010), the committee carefully considered the advantages, risks and challenges of moving from hard copy course evaluation to fully online evaluation. In consultation with various administrative and curriculum committees, the advantages of online evaluation were recognized, but concerns remained regarding how this format may affect the response rate and scores of sub-groups within the University (program, class size, language of instruction, etc.). As such, a pilot project was initiated to assess:
Working from a randomly sampled list of courses that represent both full-time and part-time instructors, all faculties, and a variety of class sizes, 400 professors were invited to participate in the pilot project by having their course evaluated using the online format in the fall term of 2013. A total of 216 professors agreed to participate and preliminary results indicate a total response rate of 52% for courses evaluated online versus 64% for courses evaluated using the traditional paper-based format. Another 600 invitations to participate in the pilot project will be sent out in the winter term. Initial indications suggest that the relatively high online participation rates may be associated with the maintenance of the mandatory in-class 20 minute evaluation period at the end of the semester. In addition to student questionnaires, feedback will also be collected through focus groups with professors after the course evaluation results and comments from the fall semester have been released.
This session is largely structured as a presentation of the pilot project results. Resources related to the transition from paper-based to online course evaluation will be shared and discussed.
The demand for innovation within organizations is a world-wide concern. Education is under heavy criticism for failure to produce the workforce needed to meet the innovation challenge and the needed 21st century skill set. In a 2010 McKinsey global survey, 84 percent of executives say innovation is extremely or very important to their company's growth strategy. Successful businesses are looking for employees who can adapt to ambiguity and changing needs, think critically and creatively, and routinely make decisions on their own. Today's economy places value on broad knowledge and skills and the ability to create, analyze and transform information into insight. The 2013 McKinsey study suggests that employers, education providers and youth have fundamentally different understandings for preparedness for entry-level positions. Students report that experiential learning is the most effective instructional technique, but fewer than half are enrolled in this type of curricula.
The Faculty of Business at Sheridan College has set out to develop a transformational blended pedagogical model that collaboratively engages the three stakeholders: learners, instructors and employers. This session provides our applied research findings related to our transformational learning model.
We embarked on a longitudinal, multi-method study of this transformational model piloted in two business courses (Leadership Development and Creativity in Business), with research objectives to measure the extent of student engagement, exhibited emotions, and social interaction. We also sought to measure student feedback on the learning opportunities that this teaching model provides, as well as explore the relationships of these measures on student satisfaction as a proxy of student success.
The theoretical framework for this model and study draw from the principles of adventure learning (Doering, 2006, 2007; Doering & Veletsianos, 2008; Veletsianos & Kleanthous, 2009; Veletsianos & Doering, 2010; Koseoglu & Doering, 2011), transformational learning (Jarvis, 2006; Mezirow, 1996; Taylor, 1987); reflective practice (Cunliffe, 2009; Bourdieu, 2004; Van Manen, 2001; Brookfield, 1995; Schon, 1987), and Phronesis (Flyvbjerg, 2011, 2012). This transformational model stresses the importance of constructionist learning experiences grounded in complex, real world issues aligned with curriculum that are student-led, and mediated by collaboration, social interaction and dialogue, emotions, critical reflexivity, and technology. Instructors are no longer the transmitters of static information, but facilitators and mentors who support the learning process.
A multi-method research design was used for the study, encompassing online questionnaires designed and administered to students, faculty and employers. Semi-structured student focus groups were also held to explore experiences in more depth. The data collected and analyzed to date will be presented using statistical analysis, text and content analysis as well as visual analytics. Time will be afforded for meaningful discussion of the model and findings with the audience offering additional insights into the efficacy of the model in responding to the demands of the new educational paradigms and opening opportunities for transforming the lives of learners and emerging leaders.
