STLHE 2015: Full Schedule

Achieving Harmony: Tuning into Practice

1:45pm PDT

RTD.50 - Harmonizing the curriculum: Linking first-year writing with content courses

Students dread the first-year writing class, often considering it a hurdle to jump before they can get on to the real work of the university. Linking the writing course with a content course in a student’s major or general education requirements is a way of positioning writing as central to learning, particularly if writing is not just performed in the composition class but is also woven into the fabric of the content class. The presenter will describe efforts to create a linked course (first year writing and art history, a requirement for all first year students) at an art and design university, illustrating that writing is key to every learning environment, inside or outside of the academy. As Mauk (2003) has suggested, we need to imagine writing as something that happens outside the confines of the composition or other academic course by “recasting the classroom as the place where(ever) the student is carrying out the practices of writing” (p. 385). This interactive presentation uses this course as an example of ways that writing faculty can reach out and collaborate with counterparts in other disciplines to create linked courses (Luebke, 2002) The presenter will give a brief overview of the course and will engage participants at the roundtable in an activity to help them envision connections among writing and content areas in order to establish similar pairings on their own campuses.

References:

Cargill, K., & Karlikoff, B. (2007). Linked Courses at the Twenty-First Century Metropolitan University. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 35(2), 181-190.

Luebke, S. (2002, May 7). Using Linked Courses in the General Education Curriculum. Retrieved January 5, 2015, from http://aw.colostate.edu/articles/luebke_2002.htm

Mauk, J. (2003). Location, Location, Location: The ‘Real’ (E)states of Being, Writing and Thinking in Composition. College English, 65(4), 368-388.

Speakers

Deirdre Vinyard (Emily Carr University of Art and Design)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Seymour Room

Curriculum Design and Learning Outcomes

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.51 - Are we graduating global citizens?

In recent years there has been increased rhetoric regarding the supposed outcomes of internationalization activities producing global citizens. In this discussion, Kyra will outline the findings of a mixed methods study which investigated the intercultural development scores and perceptions of intercultural and global learning of upper level students in regional British Columbian universities. The results indicate that participants significantly overestimated their intercultural development. Furthermore, focus group discussions revealed student perceptions of the influence of curriculum and pedagogy on their intercultural and global learning was intermittent and that in some cases administrative, curricular and pedagogical choices may even entrench stereotypes and strengthen biases. These findings will be outlined and followed by round table discussion to address the following questions:

1. How can higher education better prepare students across disciplines to be effective professionals and citizens in increasingly multicultural and globalized settings?

2. Which elements of programs designed to foster “global citizenship” should be addressed in order to meet learning outcomes?

References:

Andreotti, V. (2011). The question of the “other” in global citizenship education: postcolonialanalysis of telling case studies in England. In L. Shultz, A.A. Abdi & G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp.140-157). New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Brunstien, W. I. (2007). The global campus: Challenges and opportunities for higher education in North America. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 398-413. doi:10.1177/1028315307303918

Lee, A., Poch, R., Shaw, M.,& Williams, R. (2012). Engaging diversity in undergraduate classrooms: A pedagogy for developing intercultural competence. ASHE Higher Education Report, Volume 38, Number 2.

Otten, M. (2009). Academicus interculturalis?Negotiating interculturality in academiccommunities of practice. Intercultural Education, 20(5), 407-417. doi: 10.1080/14675980903371266

Speakers

Kyra Garson (Thompson Rivers University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Seymour Room

Curriculum Design and Learning Outcomes

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.25 - Creating the pathway: Using open badges to support personalized learning

Learning pathways, defined as the route in which an individual takes to acquire new learning, are highly complex. In interviews by the Centre for Research in Education, Equity and Work, adult learners described their own learning pathways as “…a ‘way of bettering, expanding, learning, a way of doing this towards a goal’, and ‘the journey you take to gain knowledge, to better yourself (Harris, Rainey, and Summer, 2006, p33.)” However, this path to betterment was also noted to be circuitous and fragmented. While attempting to grow skill sets and knowledge in an area, learners found their path to often veer off in unexpected directions. Open badges, which provide visual representations of a learner’s achievements combined with the required evidence, are emerging as a tool to support personal learning pathways. While it is too soon to see how open badges will affect higher education institutions, to provide people the ability to choose the path of their learning based on their own, “personal agency, to define steps that may seem more like hops, and to think about ways to do things that aren’t sequential or even seemingly rational.” (Casili) is a way by which open badges can provide both formal (e.g. degree programs, courses, etc.) and informal (e.g. workshops, MOOCs, etc.) learning a unified structure that brings clarity, purpose and recognition to diverse learning opportunities. This session will explore how University X's open badge pilot is creating a framework to support personalized and authentic learning experiences within a higher education institution.

Casili, C. (2013). Badge pathways: part 1, the paraquel. Retrieved from https://carlacasilli.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/badge-pathways-part-1-the-paraquel/.

Glover, I. (2013). Open badges: A visual method of recognising achievement and increasing learner motivation. Student Engagement and Experience Journal, 2(1). doi:10.7190/seej.v1i1.66

Grant, S. & Shawgo, K.E. (2013). Digital badges: An annotated research bibliography. Retrieved from http://hastac.org/digital-badges-bibliography

Harris, R., Rainey, L., & Summer, R. (2006). Crazy Paving or Stepping Stones: Learning pathways within and between vocational education and training and higher education. NCVER, Adelaide.

Speakers

Will Engle (University of British Columbia)

David Vogt (University of British Columbia)

Jon Festinger (University of British Columbia)

Cindy Underhill (University of British Columbia)

Erin Fields (University of British Columbia)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon D

Educational Development

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.26 - Developing social justice literacy for educational developers

As scholars argue, simply having a diverse campus population or a unit dedicated to equity and inclusion, or just agreeing with the importance of social justice does not automatically make the university an equitable and inclusive place (Ahmed, 2012; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2009). While institutional leadership in changing its systemic inequality continues to be crucial, educators and scholars have begun discussing social justice literacy as an essential skill for students and faculty to have (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2009; Tharp, 2012). The premise of this session is that having social justice illteracy blocks us from seeing, let alone critically reflecting upon and interrupting, injustice deeply entrenched in historically stratified institutional and social structures, which many of us are socialized and (mis)educated to see as “normal” (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2009; 2012). Without this literacy, educational developer can neither join nor effectively support students, faculty, and other colleagues working toward social justice across campus. This roundtable session will present a few case study scenarios that illustrate social justice work being misunderstood and hampered by educational developers. Instead of providing fixed answers or prescriptive tips, the objective of the session is to begin strategizing how as educational developers in various specialized roles can begin to develop social justice literacy individually and collectively in our own institutional contexts.

Keywords: social justice, educational developers, teaching and learning, reflective practice

References:

Ahmed, S. (2007). The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 235–256.

Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2009). Developing social justice literacy: An open letter to our faculty colleagues. The Phi Delta Kappan, 90(5), 345–352.

Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. J. (2012). Is everyone really equal?: An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Tharp, D. S. (2012). Perspectives: A language for social justice. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(3), 21–23.

Speakers

Hanae Tsukada (University of British Columbia)

Erin Yun

Educational Consultant, Campus and Classroom Climate, University of British Columbia

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon D

Educational Development

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.27 - Strategic planning in an educational development centre: Motivation, management, and messiness

A well-designed and implemented strategic planning process is considered key to advancement in higher education (Hinton, 2012). A functional process offers many benefits to an educational development centre. For example, it provides a forum for conversations about important issues, may be a source of information about progress and achievement, and can be organized to facilitate resource allocation and accreditation (Hinton, 2012; Shah, 2013). Abundant literature exists to help educational development centre personnel create a strategic plan. Planning is typically depicted as a linear process, beginning with selection of a model followed by a series of steps that culminate in a written plan. Authors tend to downplay the complexity of the process--which exists because human beings are key players in this activity (West, 2008). Our own experience is that strategic planning processes are not simplistic and predictable, but can benefit from existing tools and resources. Join us at this roundtable to hear about the “goals-based” strategic planning process one educational development centre undertook and to share your own experiences of strategic planning. Drawing from relevant literature, the presenters will outline typical steps for preparing a strategic plan and highlight challenges involved in creating a plan, including confusion in terminology. Together, we will generate ideas for productively moving forward in the strategic planning process.

References:

Hinton, K. (2012). A practical guide to strategic planning in higher education. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.

Shah, M. (2013). Renewing strategic planning in universities at a time of uncertainty. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17(1), 24-29. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2012.679753

West, A. (2008). Being strategic in HE management. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 12(3), 73-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603100802181133

Speakers

Simon Albon (University of British Columbia)

Marion Pearson (University of British Columbia)

Isabeau Iqbal

Educational Developer, University of British Columbia

Isabeau consults with instructors on teaching and learning matters, facilitates processes and workshops designed to improve teaching and student learning in higher education, and is involved with various formative peer review of teaching initiatives at the University of British Columbia... Read More →

STLHE 2015 Strategic Planning Albon Pearson Iqbal pdf

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon D

Educational Development

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.28 - Setting our sights: Exploring alternative career routes in educational development

Pathways into educational development are highly varied and often serendipitous (McDonald, 2010). As educational developers, we have diverse titles, roles, and responsibilities, and over time we shift from “new developers” to “experienced developers” (Sorcinelli & Austin, 2010). Career progress is often described as moving from entry-level, to senior, to director of a teaching and learning centre (Dawson, Britnell, & Hitchcock, 2010) and witnessed in shifts to faculty, administrative, or specialist roles. These career paths offer existing maps; however, for new or varied career routes, how do individuals identify what mountaintops to pursue next, what trails to follow, or when to forge new ones? What literature can we draw on when deciding? What signposts suggest that we are developing as developers? How might we plan for, conceive of, and experience career success? This session is for questioners, whether new or experienced travellers in educational development. Through group discussion and some guided individual reflection, we will explore diverse strategies for (re)defining routes and goals for career progression and success. Learning outcomes include:
• identifying experiences and ideas that have disrupted assumed paths and opened up new possibilities for careers;
• articulating how we are (re)imagining possibilities for career progression;
• identifying resources that may inform future exploration; and
• identifying possible next steps in achieving harmony and integration between values and career design.

This session is informed by literature on orientations (Land, 2001), threshold concepts in the careers of educational developers (Timmermans, 2014), and insights on academic culture (Sorcinelli & Austin, 2010).

References:

Dawson, D., Britnell, J., & Hitchcock, A. (2010). Developing competency models of faculty developers: Using World Café to foster dialogue. In L. B. Nilson & J. E. Miller (Eds.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, Volume 28 (pp. 3-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McDonald, J. (2010). Charting pathways into the field of educational development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Issue 122, 37-45. doi:10.1002/tl.396

Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. E. (2010). Educational developers: The multiple structures and influences that support our work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Issue 122, 25-36. doi:10.1002/tl.395

Timmermans, J. (2014). Identifying threshold concepts in the careers of educational developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 19, 305-317. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2014.895731

Speakers

Carolyn Hoessler

Program and Curriculum Development Specialist, GMCTE at the University of Saskatchewan

Carolyn Hoessler (Program and Curriculum Specialist) is a program and curriculum development specialist with 8 years of educational development experience. Her areas of specialty and focus include supporting faculty with curricular innovation, assessment of program outcomes, program... Read More →

Isabeau Iqbal

Educational Developer, University of British Columbia

Julie Timmermans (University of Waterloo)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon D

Educational Development

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.29 - Trends and challenges within graduate student professional development programs

Graduate Student Professional Development (GSPD) is concerned with equipping graduate students with transferable skills—skills valued across multiple employment sectors (private, public, non-profit), and not isolated solely to academic contexts (SSHRC, 2012). In the changing world of work PhD graduates are finding a highly competitive environment even for temporary contract work (HEQCO, 2013). The approach adopted at many Canadian research-intensive institutions has been the development of centralized professional development programs. The most common approach adopted by GSPD programs has been one-off workshops (or 'just-in-time' training), which promise to imbue graduate students with career-readiness skills. Yet one of the major issues inherent within these programs is the inability to evaluate the impact of these programs in terms of significant learning (Fink, 2003). New trends are challenging the assumption that graduate students need to develop discrete skills. For example, Porter and Phelps (2014) advocate an integrative approach which embeds professional experiences as inherently part of a student’s graduate work. Rather than viewing graduate student’s skills as deficits, an attribute-based, capacity-building approach is used to synthesize the curricular and co-curricular aspects of a student’s learning. In this 20-minute roundtable discussion, the facilitators will engage participants in conversations regarding current trends and issues related to GSPD. Participants can expect to gain a deeper understanding of the issues within GSPD and be infused with new ideas to improve programming for graduate students.

References:

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco: CA, Jossey-Bass, 27-59.

HEQCO (2013). So you want to earn a PhD? The attraction, realities and outcomes of pursuing a doctorate. Toronto, ON: Maldonado, Wiggers, & Arnold. Retrieved from: http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/At%20Issue%20Doctoral%20ENGLISH.pdf

Porter, S.D & Phelps, J.M. (2014) Beyond Skills: An Integrative Approach to Doctoral Student Preparation for Diverse Careers. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(3), 54-67.

SSHRC (2012). Graduate Student Professional Development: A Survey with Recommendations. Ottawa, On: Rose, M. Retrieved from SSHRC website: www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca

Speakers

Jacquelyn Brinkman (University of British Columbia)

Sue Hampton (Simon Fraser University)

SFU

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Educational Development

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.30 - Tuning in to inner ways of knowing: Contemplative practices in higher education

Contemplative practices in higher education have the potential to significantly impact the quality of teaching and learning. Practices such as mindfulness and introspection activities, meditation, yoga, journaling, drawing, music, reflective visual prompts, storytelling and even the use of non-conventional instructional spaces such as teaching classes in natural surrounds can help students contemplate course content in new ways (Barbezat & Pingree, 2012). For instructors, teaching and practicing such activities can help us maintain a connection to a sense of purpose of the work we do (Palmer & Zajonc, 2010). For students, contemplative practices can increase their abilities to problem solve, focus attention, forge deeper connections with material, and build compassion (Barbezat & Pingree, 2012). Teaching and learning centres can play an important role in supporting faculty members, instructors and TAs by introducing programs that use and practice these activities. This session aims to provide a discussion space for sharing participants’ ideas and experiences with contemplative practices, both within the classroom and as institutional initiatives. We will discuss our own experience introducing and exploring contemplative activities, both personally and through our work in the teaching centre. We will also discuss the challenges of incorporating this type of pedagogy in academic settings that are increasingly assessment driven.

Barbezat, D. & Pingree, A. (2012). Contemplative pedagogy: The special role of teaching and learning centres. In J.E. Groccia & L.a Cruz (Eds.), To Improve the Academy (pp.177- 183.) Vol. 31, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Palmer, P.J. & Zajonc, A. (2010). The heart of higher education: A call to renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Speakers

Lianne Fisher

Educational Developer, Brock University

Lianne Fisher works in educational development at the Centre for Pedagogical Innovation at Brock University.

Jill Grose (Brock University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Educational Development

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.31 - A scientific and applied approach to education: Translation of knowledge from the laboratory to the classroom

The fields of cognitive psychology and education have typically worked in parallel to understand and improve learning, with researchers examining learning in laboratories and educators promoting learning in classrooms (Fischer et al., 2007). Recent work connecting basic cognitive research and educational practice have identified methods for optimizing learning by translating lab-based research to real-world classroom environments (Dunlosky et al., 2013). The theme of this roundtable session is to discuss this translational research, which has unprecedented potential for higher education to foster lifelong learning behaviors and improve student retention. We will provide an overview of broad theoretical frameworks of memory and learning in cognitive psychology, with real classroom examples of their applications; e.g., applying the cognitive load theory to instructional design (Mayer, 2003). We will engage the audience in discussions about effective strategies by asking them to first identify challenges for instructors and students (e.g., test anxiety, ineffective use of multimedia technology in the classroom). We will discuss ways to integrate cognitive research and pedagogical strategies to address those challenges. We will conclude with an exploration of a new teaching and learning Institute fostering similar insights into scholarship and research in the lab and in the classroom. The ultimate goal is to get people to think of the underlying cognitive processes of various educational practices, and develop ways to support teaching and learning strategies based on a scientific understanding of human memory and attention.

1. Fischer, K. W., Daniel, D. B., Immordino‐Yang, M. H., Stern, E., Battro, A., & Koizumi, H. (2007). Why mind, brain, and education? Why now? Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 1-2.

2. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58.

3. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and instruction, 13(2), 125-139.

Lead Speaker(s)

Sandra D. Monteiro (McMaster University)

Speakers

Barb Fenesi (McMaster University)

Faria Sana (McMaster University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Educational Development

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.32 - Ultrasound-integrated pronunciation tutorials

The Japanese language program is the largest language programme at University of British Columbia with more than 1,500 students enrolled every year. It is also known to be the most diverse in terms of learners’ language backgrounds, with speakers of English, Mandarin, Cantonese and Korean from local, international students, and immigrant backgrounds. Although instructors are aware of the need for pronunciation education, time limitations and a lack of effective teaching and learning methods often prevent students from acquiring pronunciation efficiently. Since September 2014 we have adopted a flexible learning style by utilizing video tutorials in 100-level Japanese language courses. The tutorials, consisting of instructional and exercise videos and online quizzes, were developed through a collaborative project between the Japanese program and the Department of Linguistics. Ultrasound videos and animated diagrams were employed in order to display airflow, tongue position and movements within the mouth. Thus, the technique of ultrasound imaging for teaching L2 sounds (Gick et al., 2008) was adapted to an autonomous style of pronunciation learning, and the interference of L1 phonology (Toda, 2003) was explained without terminology. Prior to class, the students watched videos on the targeted sound(s); in class, they participated in a 10-minute small group activity including peer-review of the sound(s). To evaluate the effectiveness of this approach, three data sources were gathered: instructors’ observation, students’ feedback/reflection, and students’ pronunciation of the targeted sound(s). Overall, this approach increased students’ phonological awareness. Session participants will review the tutorials and discuss the value to them.

References:

Gick, B., Bernhardt, B., Bacsfalvi, P., & Wilson, I. (2008). Ultrasound imaging applications in second language acquisition. In J. G. H. Edwards and M. L. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 309-322). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Toda, T. (2003). Second Language Speech Perception and Production: Acquisition of Phonological Contrasts in Japanese. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.

Speakers

Asami Tsuda (University of BC)

Bosung Kim (University of BC)

Misuzu Kazama (University of BC)

Strang Burton (University of BC)

Bryan Gick (University of BC)

Noriko Yamane (University of BC)

Postdoctoral research fellow, University of British Columbia

STLHE2015 Ultrasound Integrated Pronunciation Tutorials pdf

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Educational Development

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.43 - Teaching and learning councils: Engaging faculty in changing institutional teaching practices

Post-secondary institutions aim to provide high-quality education through a commitment to student success, community engagement and associated scholarship. Individual faculty members’ primary role in creating quality educational experiences is traditionally accomplished through their individual teaching and committee activities. Although faculty members can play a critical role in producing a harmonious institutional approach to defining and operationalizing quality post-secondary education (Fullan, 2007), they rarely have opportunities to do so. One such opportunity can be created through an institutional teaching and learning council, which provides an innovative way for faculty to work with colleagues beyond their own Faculty, advance teaching practice, support student success across the university and create and implement original educational initiatives (Katz, Earl, & Jafaar, 2009). This session reports on experiences in two Canadian universities who have recently established teaching and learning councils to help advance a culture of scholarly teaching and empower faculty members to affect institutional change in teaching practices (Warhust, 2006). Through a roundtable discussion, the processes used in these two institutions will be summarized and participants will share their own experiences in engaging faculty at the institutional level. By the end of the session, participants should be able to identify effective structures and processes for facilitating institutional level faculty engagement in enhancing teaching and learning and overcoming challenges to such participation.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Katz, S., Earl, L. & Ben Jaafar, S. (2009). Building and connecting learning communities: The power of networks for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Warhurst, R. P. (2006). “We Really Felt Part of Something”: Participatory learning among peers within a university teaching-development community of practice. International Journal of Academic Development, 11(2), 111 – 122. doi: 10.1080/13601440600924462

Speakers

Liesel Knaack

Director, Centre for Innovation and Excellence in Learning, Vancouver Island University

Liesel is the director of the Centre for Innovation and Excellence in Learning at VIU. The centre supports faculty and students with learning technologies, pedagogical design, online learning and scholarly teaching and learning. Liesel was formerly a K-12 teacher and Associate Professor... Read More →

Tom Carey (Transforming Learning Together)

Samah Sabra (Carleton University)

Joy Mighty (Carleton University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Mackenzie Room

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.44 - An investigation of transformational and transactional leadership used by professors and its impact on student learning and engagement

Today’s students are evolving and consequently require teaching methods that incorporate a more situational-sensing leadership approach. This exploratory paper brings together two relevant bodies of literature: transactional and transformational leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) and specific learning styles/approaches within teaching and learning research. The paper addresses the learning styles of an accommodator, diverger, converger and assimilator (Kolb, 1984); as well as surface and deep approaches to learning (Caudill, Murphy & Young, 2008). When professors attempt to best match their leadership approaches to student learning styles, and to develop more “tuned in” ways of delivering lectures, engagement can be enhanced. Students can observe professors developing effective situational sensing leadership and teaching methods. Professors’ use of transformational leadership approaches can inspire and motivate students to participate, while at the same time utilization of transactional leadership can provide students with contingent rewards to increase engagement. A primary survey was administered to a sample population of undergraduate Business students, consisting of qualitative questions on teaching and learning. Findings emphasize the necessity of fostering better techniques for professor-student relations; elements of the most productive learning environments for students; and the importance of relating theory to real world examples in order to increase student participation. Findings also reveal the necessity for professors to have a mindset of adapting leadership and teaching methods in order to close the current learning gaps. Lastly, the paper concludes with discussions on specific feedback from students on how professors can “tune into practice” to effectively increase professor-student engagement and cohesiveness.

Caudill, Eve M., J. William Murphy and Mark R. Young. (2008). Evaluating Experiential Learning Activities. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Vol. 13: 28-33, 36, 38.

Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Speakers

Teal McAteer (McMaster University)

Jennifer Manna (McMaster University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Mackenzie Room

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.45 - Building a community of practice for teaching-track faculty

Teaching is a creative process that often occurs in isolation, in the context of one’s own classes. People whose careers are centred squarely on teaching (e.g., sessional instructors, tenure-track teaching faculty) may risk isolation. To address this issue, the University of British Columbia Instructor Network was formed in 2009 to cultivate professional development and collegiality among teaching-track faculty at the University of British Columbia (see The University of British Columbia, 2014). The Instructor Network is exclusive to tenure-track teaching faculty, providing identity and connection to faculty in this relatively rare and sometimes misunderstood position. In 2009, we struck a Steering Committee for the Instructor Network. In its first year, the Steering Committee created a comprehensive cross-faculty listserv and website. Since then, the Steering Committee has organized an annual series of events for Network members. Given increased recognition and influence of the Network, the Steering Committee recently organized a “re-visioning session” to obtain feedback from Network members regarding the goals and future of the Instructor Network. We will begin this Roundtable Discussion by briefly sharing the current mandate and structure of the Instructor Network and the results of the re-visioning session. Following from the interests of the group, the ensuing conversation may focus on the importance of community among teaching-track faculty, and/or the challenges and opportunities associated with establishing a grass-roots community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Participants in this Roundtable Discussion will leave with ideas and strategies to develop a community of teaching practitioners at their own institutions.

The University of British Columbia. (2014). Guide to Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Procedures at University of British Columbia 2014/2015. Vancouver, B.C.: The University of British Columbia.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Speakers

Sunaina Assanand (University of British Columbia)

Catherine Rawn

University of British Columbia

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Mackenzie Room

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.46 - Creating opportunities for international collaboration and dialogue: A joint program for Canadian and Japanese university education managers and developers

In order to foster understanding, share experiences and resources, and to develop meaningful and sustainable collaborative partnerships an educational developers and manager program was developed between partner institutions in Canada and Japan. This initiative was part of the Educational Management and Leadership program in Japan which cultivated leaders or change agents that can drive educational improvement and reform at individual universities. It provided participants with the opportunity to build or improve expertise, skills and capabilities for designing, enabling and managing educational improvements at institutional level as well as promoting good teaching at the individual level. Groups of Japanese academic leaders participated in a week-long intensive program at a Canadian university which included a series of workshops focused on aspect of educational development and leadership, individual consultations and meeting with relevant Canadian stakeholders designed to support the participants in developing their own project or initiative. The purpose of this session is to describe the program that was developed in partnership with a Canadian Centre for Teaching and Learning and a Japanese University Center for the Advancement of Higher Education and to consider the rationales and benefits for internationalization (Knight, 2008, Chap.11) in educational development for the host Canadian institution and the selected Japanese participants and their institutions. This session will highlight the opportunities that exist for institutions in Japan and Canada to collaborate. Participant will learn about this program, but also discuss the similarities, differences, challenges and opportunities for collaboration that can be developed with other international institutions of Higher Education.

Knight, J. (2008) Higher Education in Turmoil, The Changing World of Internationalization, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers

Speakers

Andy Leger (Queen's University)

Kazuhiro Sugimoto (Tohoku University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Mackenzie Room

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.48 - Lessons learned: A discussion of a TA training program for graduate students

In the intense job market of higher education today, the importance providing graduate students with adequate opportunities for engaging in the practice of teaching is becoming increasingly apparent. (Nyquist, 1991; Pannapacker, 2012) At the same time, many departments often find it extremely difficult to create change in the face of a diversity of opinions and the inertia of long-sustained traditions.(Carlson, 2013) Based on our experience creating a new TA training program, and also a recent study by Jennifer S. Boman, we will lead a roundtable discussion of how TA training programs can create substantive change in the learning experiences of teaching assistants.(Boman, 2013) Topics we hope to touch on include financial and logistical challenges, partnerships with outside experts, and introducing students to the fundamentals of teaching theory and practice within the unique context of the courses offered by one’s department. Finally, we hope to discuss ways to encourage professional development without taking time away from more traditional scholarly and academic pursuits.

References:

Boman, J. S. (2013). Graduate Student Teaching Development: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Training in Relation to Graduate Student Characteristics. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(1), 100–114.

Carlson, A. D. (2013, November 6). Hard Lessons From the Front Lines of Change. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Nyquist, J. D. (Ed.). (1991). Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach: selected readings in TA training. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.

Pannapacker, W. (2012). Should Students Be Encouraged to Pursue Graduate Education in the Humanities? Journal of Markets and Morality, 15(2), 445–53.

Speakers

Nick Stember (University of British Columbia)

Guy Shababo (University of British Columbia)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Mackenzie Room

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.49 - Does it blend? Preparing to teach a blended course: Lessons learned in helping instructors transform a course

The research is clear that teaching a blended course produces enhanced learning outcomes for students. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). However successfully teaching a blended course requires instructors to adopt a new approach to teaching, learn new skills, and to rethink their course design. This is a time-consuming and intellectually-challenging task for instructors who are already carrying a full teaching and research load. How can a university motivate and support instructors to explore teaching in a blended learning environment and help them (re)design their course to incorporate active learning (Freeman, S., 2014, 8410-8415) (.Wieman, C. E. 2014, 8319–8320) in both the online and face-to-face contexts for an enhanced learning experience? At University of British Columbia, we have developed a cohort-based blended course on blended course design (T-BLE). This roundtable discussion will summarize lessons learned about designing and delivering three successful iterations of a blended course to prepare instructors to design and deliver their own blended courses. It will also include the voices of T-BLE participants who will provide feedback from their perspectives both as students in T-BLE and as instructors designing their blended courses. Working collaboratively, participants will:

- identify challenges and potential solutions when implementing blended learning in their (specific) contexts
- explore avenues to introduce instructors to the pedagogy of blended teaching and learning
- consider administrative, design and teaching strategies for motivating and supporting instructors as they move to a blended learning environment.

References:
1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2010.

2. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

3 Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319–8320. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111

Lead Speaker(s)

Bonita Bray (University of British Columbia)

Joseph Anthony (University of British Columbia)

Speakers

Afsaneh Sharif (University of British Columbia)

Luisa Canuto (University of British Columbia)

UBC

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Mackenzie Room

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.55 - How to do educational leadership for student learning? Preliminary findings from a staff training programme in educational leadership

At Roskilde University we have developed a staff training programme in educational leadership. The objectives are three-fold. A. to qualify the educational leaders in leadership; B. to create a good and strong framework around the institution's study programmes (degrees) and C. to prepare the leaders to actively work with staff motivation and quality enhancement of teaching for student learning. The programme provides the participants with both knowledge about learning and teaching, and with a forum for peer reflection and sharing of experiences of how best to navigate the known and unknown waters between many stakeholders and to navigate between regulations and opportunities, management and vision. An important goal of the programme is to facilitate the building of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998 & 2000) by sharing knowledge and engaging the participants in reflexive and innovative dialogues about their practice as leaders. The great challenge for the Heads of Studies is to motivate and manage the teachers, who are also researchers, as well as providing opportunities for developing contiguous teaching activities that lead to deep learning (Gibbs et.al, 2008). In the roundtable we will discuss how to develop educational leadership for improved student learning outcome – what is needed?

Gibbs G., Knapper C. & Piccinin, S. (2008), Disciplinary and Contextually Appropriate Approaches to Leadership of Teaching in Research-Intensive Academic Departments in Higher Education in Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 4, Oct 2008, pp 416-436

Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems Organization May 2000 vol. 7 (2), pp 225-24

Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Lead Speaker(s)

Sidsel Winther (Roskilde University)

Denmark, Roskilde, Roskilde University

Speakers

Lasse Martin Koefoed (Roskilde University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Seymour Room

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.52 - Self-care in higher education: Finding balance and promoting mental well-being

Students in higher education experience unique stressors, including the rigours of academic life (assignment deadlines, tests, conducting research), financial pressures (educational costs as well as a variety of life expenses), navigating new social situations and relationships, and learning to live independently. High levels of stress are known to adversely effect academic performance as well as personal well-being. Myers, Sweeney, Popick, Wesley, Bordfeld and Fingerhut (2012) found a positive relationship between educating graduate psychology students about self-care practices and competency in managing stress levels. Napoli and Bonifas (2011) discussed strategies for creating an atmosphere of mindfulness in the classroom for social work students through participation in a mindfulness training program. After a comprehensive review of 136 graduate psychology programs, Bamonti, Keelan, Larson, Mentrikoski, Randall, Sly, Travers and McNeil (2014) urged programs to consider implementing a proactive and healthful focus, encouraging wellness. How can we as graduate students develop within ourselves and support one another in methods of self-care, and how can we support undergraduate students we work with as TAs in finding balance through self-care? As citizens of higher education communities, how do we foster an increase in the inherent value conferred upon self-care and mental well-being? In this 20 minute engaging, round-table discussion, participants will discover the benefits of self-care, explore what self-care might look like in their own life, and investigate the ways in which they can support undergraduate students in taking greater self-care.

Bamonti, P. M., Keelan, C. M., Larson, N., Mentrikoski, J. M, Randall, C. L., Sly, S. K., and McNeil, D. W. (2014). Promoting ethical behavior by cultivating a culture of self-care during graduate training: A call to action. Training And Education In Professional Psychology, 8(4), 253-260.

Myers, S. B., Sweeney, A. C., Popick, V., Wesley, K., Bordfeld, A., and Fingerhut, R. (2012). Self-care practices and perceived stress levels among psychology graduate students. Training And Education In Professional Psychology, 6(1), 55-66.

Napoli, M., and Bonifas, R. (2011). From Theory Toward Empathic Self-Care: Creating a Mindful Classroom for Social Work Students. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 30(6), 635-649.

Speakers

Nicole Gardner

I am a graduate certificate student at UVic in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (LATHE) and a PhD student in Sustainable Education through Nipissing University in North Bay, Ontario. I have a Master's in Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies from UVic in Measurement... Read More →

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Seymour Room

Learners Considerations and Support

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.53 - Student as producer: Enhancing student learning through meaningful collaboration

The “student as producer” pedagogical model emphasizes the role of the student as collaborators in the production of knowledge (Neary & Winn, 2013). In this model, the university's approaches to learning and research are closer aligned; for example, students, similar to researchers, are asked to share their work beyond the walls of the classroom and not just with their immediate instructor or advisor (Bruff, 2013). This round-table session will examine how educators, through the embrace of open pedagogies, can support learners in their role as active participants in both their learning and their institution's intellectual output. It will explore case studies from multiple open courses, assignments, and projects at University of British Columbia and other institutions that asked learners to not only be students but also creators, authors, researchers, performers, instructors, scholars, designers, and problem solvers. The session will provide an in-depth discussion on the how choices around accessible curriculum, remixable content, and extendible technologies can impact student abilities to fully participate and engage as equals in their learning. It will also explore best practices for how institutions can establish sustainable frameworks that support emerging pedagogical practices, open education initiatives, and modern web trends, such as open badges, leading to authentic learning experiences that empower students. Participants will be encouraged to discuss and reflect on how the “student as producer” model can be applied at their their home institutions in order to support teaching practices where “the student is encouraged and supported in being not just a student-consumer but rather a productive, critical, digitally literate social individual” (Winn, 2011).

Bruff, D. (2013). Students as producers: An introduction. Retrieved from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/2013/09/students-as-producers-an-introduction/

Neary, M. and Winn, J. (2009). The student as producer: Reinventing the student experience in higher education, in Neary, M, Stevenson, H and Bell, L (ed) The future of higher education: Pedagogy, policy and the student experience, pp 126-38, London: Continuum

Winn, J. (2011). Pedagogy, technology and student as producer. Retrieved from http://joss.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2011/01/28/pedagogy-technology-and-student-as-producer/

Speakers

Will Engle (University of British Columbia)

Novak Rogic (University of British Columbia)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Seymour Room

Learners Considerations and Support

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.33 - Academics in the open: Exploring networked, participatory, and open practices

In recent years there has been increasing attention given to conceptions of “openness” in teaching, learning, and scholarship. Openness in education can take many forms: the use of open educational resources in the classroom; opening access to learning through venues like MOOCs; or the use of open, networked, participatory practices to share and collaborate (Price 2013). While some see only benefits of openness, others worry about the possible implications for academic institutions, identities, and practices (Weller, 2011). Yet as openness gains popularity, academics today find themselves in a position where they can either shape, or be shaped by, these practices (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). During this roundtable discussion, we will look at some of the emerging practices of open and networked scholarship and unpack some of the scholarly and media discourse that surrounds it. In particular we will consider:

- the practices of scholarly participation in online spaces (blogs, social media) and the notions of identity and digital literacy they entail
- the place of open educational resources (open textbooks, open journals, open online courses) and questions of quality, access, and accreditation
- the impact of open and networked scholarship on higher education systems and practices (pedagogy, tenure)

Participants will be asked to take an active part in the discussion, and will leave with an increased understanding of what it means to be an open and networked scholar and how open practices might benefit their practice.

Price, D. (2013). Open: How we'll work, live and learn in the future. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.co.uk.

Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012). Assumptions and Challenges of Open Scholarship. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 13(4), 166-189.

Speakers

Ashley Shaw

PhD student/instructor, University of British Columbia

I’m working on a PhD in Education. I love technology, and am fascinated by the impact it has on people and society.I wear Converse most of the time.I’m always cynical, generally irreverent, and often offensive.I knit. A lot.

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Learning Environments and Technology Integration

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.34 - Creating a community of writers: Blog-based writing in the active learning classroom

Approaches to teaching disciplinary argumentation that emphasize writing as a social activity help advance students along the novice-expert continuum as they learn to write in the disciplines and genres of higher education (Bazerman, 1994; Peck-MacDonald, 1984). However, while many faculty now assign authentic disciplinary genres, specify particular audiences requiring tailored rhetorical strategies, deploy collaborative writing, and utilize peer review, the feedback loop remains that of assignment submission and evaluation, with the professor-examiner as primary audience (Giltrow, 2012). More faculty are addressing the domains of knowledge that constitute discourse communities: subject knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and writing process knowledge (Beaufort, 2007). Yet creating a truly collaborative discourse community in the classroom itself has remained a significant challenge. Recent developments in the design of active learning environments and the availability of blogging platforms now present new opportunities to faculty willing to experiment to address this challenge. This roundtable discussion will present a preliminary framework for matching an active learning classroom environment with a course blogging platform, and then engage participants in a critical discussion of how this framework might be adaptable across content areas. The framework is based on implementations in a writing-intensive environmental literacy course, and a computer programming course on modeling for science majors.

Speakers

Ian MacKenzie (Dawson College)

Founding Director, Writing in the Disciplines at Dawson, Dawson College

WAC&WID, blog-based writing, faculty learning communities, environmental literacy, sustainabilty education, carpentry, skiing, canoe tripping, the weather...

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Learning Environments and Technology Integration

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.35 - Guideline and instructional design to address privacy concerns in using open platforms for teaching and learning

The use of open platforms in higher education has rapidly expanded to include (but not limited to): building an entire course website; allowing group authoring; and providing a personal portfolio. University of British Columbia widely uses WordPress as an open platform. The popularity of Blogs is ascribed to its flexibility - with the owner having fine-grained control and management over the visibility of the content. Unlike closed-course systems (e.g. Blackboard), contents in Blogs is not - by default - locked behind a registration system. This public-facing content can be improved and iterated upon while students can publish their own content which can be kept beyond a single term. As the popularity of Blogs increases, so do concerns and issues relating to information security and personal privacy. Without providing clear guidelines to bring users’ attention to privacy setting at the beginning of blog-based courses, instructors and students alike are often unaware of the potential risks until a concern is raised. We, a team of instructional designers and technical staff, have worked to prevent and resolve privacy issues and set clear guidelines for course instructors and students.

University of British Columbia Blogs. (n.d.). In University of British Columbia’s e-Learning website. Retrieved from http://elearning.University of British Columbia.ca/blogs/

Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 159-174. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00347.x

Speakers

Novak Rogic (University of British Columbia)

Namsook Jahng (University of British Columbia)

Bosung Kim (University of British Columbia)

Richard Tape (University of British Columbia)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Learning Environments and Technology Integration

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.36 - If I record it, will they learn? Who benefits from the use of lecture capture technology?

Postsecondary institutions in Canada and abroad are increasingly investing significant financial and people resources in implementing lecture capture technologies, which allow instructors to record their lectures, or part of their lectures, and make them available on the web for students to see at any time and any place (Ford et al., 2012; Owlston et al., 2011). In 2013 the research team from two Canadian institutions collected data from 1,891 students and 13 instructors about their use of lecture capture technology in their learning. In addition to collecting data on learners viewing habits, the uses of lecture capture and student final grades, all participants also completed the teaching/learning approaches questionnaire, which determines whether participants used a surface or deep approach to learning. Participants' demographic data were collected too. In this session we will discuss the preliminary results of our research project. Participants will explore a difference in the ways different student subgroups (female/male; surface/deep learners; ESL/non-ESL, etc.) use lecture capture, investigate students’ perception of its benefits, and brainstorm situations in which lecture capture technology can best support learning and teaching in different contexts. This will also be an opportunity for participants to reflect on broader issues of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and the role educational developers can and should play.

Euzent, P., Martin, T., Moskal, P., & Moskal, P. (2011). Assessing student performance and perceptions in lecture capture vs. face-to-face course delivery. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 295-307.

Ford, M. B., Burns, C. E., Mitch, N., & Gomez, M. M. (2012). The effectiveness of classroom capture technology. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(3), 191-201.

Owston, R., Lupshenyuk, D., & Wideman, H. (2011). Lecture capture in large undergraduate classes: What is the impact on the teaching and learning environment? The Internet and Higher Education, 14 (4), 262-268.

Shaw, G. P., & Molnar, D. (2011). Non-native English language speakers benefit most from the use of lecture capture in medical school. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(6), 416-420.

Speakers

Patrick Lyons

Director, Teaching and Learning, Carleton University

Patrick Lyons is the Director, Teaching and Learning in the Office of the Associate Vice-President Teaching and Learning at Carleton University. He is responsible for the leadership and direction for Carleton’s initiatives in blended and online learning, educational development... Read More →

Dragana Polovina-Vukovic (Carleton University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Learning Environments and Technology Integration

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.38 - Participant intentions in MOOCs: Defining success for learners in open courses

In early 2015, a western Canadian university offered its first two open courses through the Canvas open course network: 1) learning technologies and 2) innovation in the circumpolar north. Research on both courses is being conducted to determine participants’ activity levels, both planned (participants’ pre-course estimates) and actual (posts to discussion forums and completion of assignments). At the beginning of the study, the researchers believed that completion rates were a poor method of judging success of open courses since they do not take into account the intentions of the participants. For example, some registrants may simply be looking to learn about one or two aspects of the topic, so may be unlikely to complete the entire course, whereas someone whose intention at the start is to complete the course, may have a higher level of participation (Hill, 2013). For this study, participants were asked at the beginning of the courses to indicate the category that best described their planned level of participation: An observer, a drop-in, a passive participant, an active participant, or unsure. These categories are similar to those used in research conducted on the HarvardX MOOCs (Reich, 2014). These results were then compared to actual participation in the courses. This roundtable will explore the findings of the comparison, as well as provide an opportunity for discussion of how this should inform the design and delivery of future iterations of open courses.

Speakers

Heather M. Ross (University of Saskatchewan)

Jay Wilson (University of Saskatchewan)

Ryan Banow (University of Saskatchewan)

Instructional Designer, University of Saskatchewan

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Learning Environments and Technology Integration

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.39 - Participatory lectures from the ground up: Using disciplinary knowledge, personality and background to develop engaging lectures

In a time when there are so many different models of interactive classroom pedagogy to choose from, how do you decide on which one is right for your teaching style and personality? Or when is it best to go it alone and develop your own approach? Roundtable participants will share experiences and brainstorm ideas to these and other questions relevant to creating an interactive classroom model that works for them. Through a university grant program I have been awarded three sequential grants on how to use disciplinary knowledge, background and personality to build meaningful student participation into lecture courses. In keeping with deWinstanley and Bjork (2002) I have “assumed that the fundamental goal of the lecture is to increase student learning beyond what they can learn from the textbook” (p. 19). When I moved from small-class critique-oriented teaching to large lecture courses, active learning moved from during class to sometime afterwards, when students would engage with the material through activities and assignments. Over the last three years I have striven to bring meaningful in-class learning back to my courses. To do this I have experimented with in-lecture activities that have run from a few minutes to three hours; students have worked individually and in groups up to ten; I’ve used clickers, overhead projectors, cell phone cameras and discussion boards; student have worked on paper, computers and shouted out answers. Bring your problems, questions or share your solutions in this lively discussion.

deWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2002). Successful Lecturing: Presenting Information in Ways That Engage Effective Processing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(89), 19–31. doi:10.1002/tl.44

Speakers

Susan Clements-Vivian (Simon Fraser University)

STHLE workshop handout new pdf

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Learning Environments and Technology Integration

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.40 - The meaning of service learning reflected through e-learning portfolios

The purpose of this session is to introduce educators to the idea of harmonizing the use of e-learning portfolios with service learning to foster creative learning opportunities for students. Students understanding of the three key outcomes in a service learning course: discovering one’s own personal values and beliefs, understanding diversity, and promoting civic engagement and social responsibility are assessed through reflective components contained within the e-learning portfolio with the use of a rubric. Participants in the conference will be introduced to a service learning course and how e-learning portfolios can enhance student learning and meaning of the three key outcomes. E-learning portfolios offer opportunity for learners to engage in critical reflection through the use of multimedia to make connections between the learning that happens in different contexts, beyond the classroom (Tosh et al., 2005). Service learning is an experiential learning approach that intentionally connects the service experience to academic coursework. Service learning allows students to engage in activities that address human/community connections, incorporates reflection, and embraces the concept of reciprocity between the student and the person/agency being served (Gillis & MacLellan, 2010). The combination of e-learning portfolios and service learning inspires deep learning for students through creative reflection on the meaning of how their in-class and out-of-class experiences fit together (Fullan & Langworthy, 2013). The e-learning portfolio captures the significant occurrences in a student’s life beyond the formal academic and allows them to share these experiences using an integrative learning approach.

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a New End: New Pedagogies for Deep Learning. Seattle, WA: Collaborative Impact. Retrieved from www.newpedagogies.org.

Gillis, A., & MacLellan, M. (2010). Service learning with vulnerable populations: Review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 7(1). Art. 41, 1-27. doi: 10.2202/1548-923x.2041.

Tosh, D., Penny Light, T., Fleming, K., & Haywood, J. (2005). Engagement with electronic portfolios: Challenges from the student perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 31(3), 89-110.

Speakers

Tracey Jewiss (McMaster University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon EF

Learning Environments and Technology Integration

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.01 - Balancing learner and educator participation in learning: A protective empowering approach

The degree of participation in the teaching-learning process is influenced by learner and educator views of how people learn at any given moment. Regardless of the formal or informal signature pedagogies (Shulman, 2005) chosen by educators to guide their practices, there is an on-going quest to achieve harmony in balancing what and how much the learner and educator each do in the learning process. A research-based theory of protective empowering developed by the author in hospital settings (Chiovitti, 2008; 2011) was expanded to teaching and learning in higher education using grounded theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and a modified integrative review methodology (Cooper, 1984; Whittemore & Knalf, 2005). At this roundtable, protective empowering framework is shared. Participants are invited to imagine, tune-in, self-reflect, and dialogue about two questions: 1. Are protective dimensions (stepping-in) and empowering dimensions (stepping-back) important to you in teaching and learning? 2. How well does the process of protective empowering and its six main actions and sub- actions resonate with your own experiences with learners? As will be shown, protective and empowering dimensions of teaching-learning co-exist harmoniously as a deliberate process accomplished through six main actions of: 1. ‘Respecting learners’ 2. ‘Not taking the learner’s behaviour personally’, 3. ‘Keeping learners safe (well-being)’, 4. ‘Encouraging learners’, 5. ‘Authentic relating’, and, 6. ‘Interactive teaching’. One or more of these six main actions can come to the forefront depending upon the learners’ immediate needs. The goal of protective empowering is to invite learner(s) views and participation at every opportunity.

References

Chiovitti, R.F. (2011). Theory of protective empowering for balancing patient safety and choices. Nursing Ethics, 18(1), 88-101.doi:10.1177/0969733010386169

Chiovitti, R.F. (2008). Nurses’ meaning of caring with patients in acute psychiatric hospital settings: A grounded theory study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45 (2), 203-23.doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.08.018.

Cooper, H.M. (1984). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews, 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

Shulman, L.S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134 (3), 52-59.

Whittemore, J.E. & Knalf, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing 52, (5), 546-553.doi:10.111/J.1365-2648.2005.03621.

Speakers

Rosalina F. Chiovitti (Humber College)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.02 - Creating interdisciplinary harmony in teaching and learning research: SoTL research fellows and the intentional development of community

Embedding the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) within macro-level institutional contexts can be challenging. Workload (Brew, 2010), confusion about SoTL (Boshier, 2009), and a widespread undervaluing of teaching (Chalmers, 2011; Walker, Baepler & Cohen, 2008) can dissuade faculty from engaging in such scholarship. This is exacerbated by the need to cultivate a new sense of scholarly identity as one begins working in a new field or leadership role (Galloway & Jones, 2012; Manathunga, 2007; Simmons et al., 2013; Tremonte, 2011). Our participant-led research assesses an initiative supporting SoTL scholars in an institutional context that values their work on their own projects while seeding collaboration across disciplines. Like a musical ensemble experts from across campus convened to work together in SoTL research, but also to showcase their own “solo” research. Cross-appointed Fellows are responsible for teaching, research and service in their home departments, but conduct SoTL research of their own design in our Institute. Fellows meet regularly to discuss project progress, exchange feedback and ideas, discuss literature in the field, and offer peer support. Uniquely, this program was initially facilitated by a visiting scholar with experience in both faculty development and identity formation, in collaboration with the Associate Director (Research) and a Research Coordinator. Based on preliminary results of a systematic study, the perceived benefits and challenges of such a model will be shared along with the processes we followed, and roundtable participants will be invited to ask questions about our findings and methods.

References:

Boshier, R. (2009). Why is the scholarship of teaching and learning such a hard sell? Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 1–15.

Brew, A. (2010). Transforming academic practice through scholarship. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 105–116.

Chalmers, D. (2011). Progress and challenges to the recognition and reward of the scholarship of teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(1), 25–38.

Galloway, K., & Jones, P. (2012). Scholarship in the discipline and higher education: The need for a fusion epistemology focused on academic identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 931–933.

Manathunga, C. (2007). ‘Unhomely’ academic developer identities: More post-colonial explorations. International Journal for Academic Development, 12(1), 25-34.

Simmons, N., Abrahamson, E., Deshler, J.M., Kensington-Miller, B., Manarin, K., Morón-García, S., … Renc-Roe, J. (2013). Conflicts and configurations in a liminal space: SoTL scholars’ identity development. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(2): 9-21.

Tremonte, C. M. (2011). Window shopping: Fashioning a scholarship of interdisciplinary teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu

Speakers

Robert Cockcroft

McMaster University

Trevor Holmes

Senior Instructional Developer, University of Waterloo

Trevor Holmes is an educational developer with a background in cultural studies and English literature. He teaches in the Women's Studies program at the University of Waterloo where he is also a Senior Instructional Developer at the Centre for Teaching Excellence.

Elizabeth Marquis

McMaster University

Beth Marquis is an Assistant Professor in the Arts & Science Program and the McMaster Institute for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching and Learning (MIIETL).

John Maclachlan (McMaster University)

Kris Knorr (McMaster University)

Konstantinos Apostolou (McMaster University)

Dan Centea (McMaster University)

Theomary Karamanis (McMaster University)

Sandra D. Monteiro (McMaster University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.04 - Engaging students as partners in teaching and learning: A necessity for fine-tuning teaching practices?

There has traditionally been a separation between faculty and student perspectives on teaching practices that leads to dissonance. This is largely because of the fundamentally different roles of the two parties in learning (Cook-Sather, 2014). However, a theme of engaging students as change agents in the classroom to actively collaborate, co-produce, and co-inquire has emerged in recent pedagogical literature (Dunne & Zandstra, 2011). Educators that engage in this learning model have reported a better understanding of the needs of a classroom due to quality student feedback. Students externalize learning in a way that allows for a greater understanding of concepts (Mihans et al., 2008). Most importantly, students and faculty are more conscious of their presence and effect on each other when engaged in learning together. This allows for critical reflection and subsequent fine-tuning of teaching principles resulting in deeper learning. (Cook-Sather, 2014).

At STLHE 2014, we presented the perspectives of students, faculty, and institute staff partnering on SOTL projects within our institute. We focused on the challenges stemming from these novel partnerships as well as their successes. This discussion will present the findings of a follow-up project through real examples of how student-faculty partnerships might be structured and documents feedback and advice from current partnership participants at McMaster University. Attendees of this discussion will be asked to reflect on their interactions with students in learning environments. We will provide strategies to incorporate components of partnership into teaching practices to change understandings of teaching and learning through widened perspectives gained through a deeper connection with students.

References:

Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Multiplying perspectives and improving practice: What can happen when undergraduate students collaborate with college faculty to explore teaching and learning. Instructional Science, 42(1), 31-46.

Dunne, E., Zandstra, R., Brown, T., & Nurser, T. (2011). Students as change agents: New ways of engaging with learning and teaching in higher education.

Mihans, I. I., Richard, J., Long, D. T., & Felten, P. (2008). Power and expertise: Student-faculty collaboration in course design and the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), Article 16

Speakers

Andrew Lee (McMaster University)

Catherine Swanson (McMaster University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.06 - Teaching qualitative research methods: An experiential approach

As instructors of qualitative research methods, we ask students to trust in the research process, and ultimately in themselves as learners and emergent researchers, as we facilitate their experience “to form abstract conceptualizations” and to implement a qualitative methodological approach in their understanding of social phenomenon (Mitchell & Poutiative, 2001; McClellan & Hyle, 2012, p. 240). We emphasize active or experiential learning-“learning by doing,” the benefits of which are clearly outlined in the research literature regarding student engagement in learning, decision-making and problem-solving, and “realized linkages between academic study and ‘real world’ problems” (Retallick & Steiner, 2009, as cited in Teixera-Port, Cameron, and Schulman, 2011, p. 245). We encourage our students to become knowledge producers and insert themselves in the qualitative process: “The agency of the researcher is also being acknowledged more and more as an ideological force,” often intimidating and uncomfortable for students as they struggle with how they know what they know and their own ontological and epistemological challenge of self-discovery through the research process. In this roundtable discussion, we share a variety of techniques we use in our classrooms to encourage students to embrace the practice of qualitative research processes including in class exercises that assist in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data (see Janesick, 2011). In addition, we support reflective practices as our students find their voices, and narrate their research experience and themselves into the final product. Moreover, students have the opportunity to reflect upon the process and their project once completed.

Janesick, V. J. (2011). Stretching" exercises for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

McClellan, R., & Hyle, A. E. (2012). Experiential Learning: Dissolving Classroom and Research Borders. Journal of Experiential Education, 35(1), 238-252. doi: 10.1177/105382591203500103

Mitchell, M. M., & Poutiatine, M. I. (2001). Finding an Experiential Approach in Graduate Leadership Curricula. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(3), 179-185. doi: 10.1177/105382590102400309

Teixeira-Poit, S. M., Cameron, A. E., & Schulman, M. D. (2011). Experiential Learning and Research Ethics: Enhancing Knowledge through Action. Teaching Sociology, 39(3), 244-258. doi: 10.2307/41308952

Speakers

Sheri Fabian

University Lecturer, Simon Fraser University

Dr. Sheri Fabian is a University Lecturer in the School of Criminology and Director of Transforming Inquiry into Teaching and Learning (TILT, formerly ISTLD), at Simon Fraser University. Her teaching and research focus on minorities and justice, qualitative research methods, and... Read More →

Charmaine Perkins (Kwantlen Polytechnic University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.07 - The impact of dual credit programs on Ontario college students

Dual Credit Programs were introduced to the province of Ontario in 2005 as part of a broader educational reform initiative designed to help more students graduate high school and transition to college. The number of Ontario Dual Credit Programs has grown tremendously over the years but research has not kept pace with program expansion so I conducted a study to help fill the research gap. Specifically, I analyzed the college student records of 168 students who participated in dual credit courses and activities and subsequent postsecondary programs at Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning in Toronto. I also examined the records of a matched comparison group of 168 non-dual credit participants who attended postsecondary education at the same institution and at the same time as the dual credit participants. Data from the 236 college student records showed that students who completed Dual Credit Programs and comparators with no dual credit experience differed in college success but not college persistence. In this roundtable discussion, I will share the particulars of my findings as well as their implications for policy and practice. Participants will be encouraged to discuss these findings in view of their own research, experiences, and context.

Armstrong, D., Desbiens, B., & Yeo, G. (2006). Report on the analytical review of phase 9 School/College/Work Initiative pilot B dual credit/dual program 2005-2006. Retrieved from http://cgtat.org/Resources%20CGTAT/SCWI%20Prov%20Review%20of%20Ph09%20Pilot%20Bs.pdf

Philpott-Skilton, L. (2013). High school/college transition: A case study examining the impact of a Dual Credit Program at Fleming College. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto). Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/35928/3/Philpott-Skilton_Linda_201306_Phd_thesis.pdf

Whitaker, C. (2011). The impact of dual credit on college access and participation: An Ontario case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto). Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/29641/6/Whitaker_Christopher_201106_PhD_thesis.pdf

Speakers

Rena Borovilos (Humber College)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.08 - Tuning into Faculty and TA development in China: What we achieved and learned

The field of faculty development in higher education in China is rapidly changing and growing (Huang, Li, & Kuang, 2012). Despite this growth, there is scant literature (in English) about delivering faculty professional development programs in China (for examples, see Huang, Li, & Kuang, 2012; Wong & Fang, 2012), and nothing specifically about teaching assistants (TAs)._x000D_
_x000D_
In April 2015, an invited team of educational specialists traveled to one university in central China to research and deliver faculty and TA development programs. Delivering material developed in one country to another highlighted the challenges faced regarding culture, language, and many aspects of the different educational systems, but also highlighted similarities (Thanh, 2014). A common issue identified is how to evaluate the efficacy of the professional development programs (Huang, Li, & Kuang, 2012; Wong & Fang, 2012) especially due to the non-transferability of Western-based pedagogies to Confucian heritage cultures (Thanh, 2014)._x000D_
_x000D_
In this session, the team will share their approach and process to delivering instruction to faculty and TAs. Included will be preliminary results from the study undertaken that looked at different aspects of the programming, including its effectiveness and transferability. Participants will be encouraged to ask questions and discuss how these challenges and successes resonate with internationalization and globalization of higher education._x000D_
_x000D_
References:_x000D_
Huang, H., Li, X., & Kuang, Y. (2012). Faculty development in engineering colleges in mainland China: _x000D_
The humanities perspective. IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning _x000D_
for Engineering (TALE), August 20–23, 2012, Hong Kong. _x000D_
_x000D_
Thanh, P. T. H. (2014). Implementing cross-culture pedagogies: Cooperative learning at Confucian _x000D_
heritage cultures. Springer online. Retrieved April, 2015 _x000D_
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789814451901_x000D_
_x000D_
Wong, J. G., & Fang, Y. (2012). Improving Clinical Teaching in China: Initial Report of a Multihospital Pilot _x000D_
Faculty Development Effort, Teaching and Learning in Medicine: An International Journal, 24:4, 355-_x000D_
360, DOI:10.1080/10401334.2012.719801

Speakers

Cynthia Korpan (University of Victoria)

Jane Gair (University of Victoria)

Assistant Teaching Professor, University of Victoria

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.09 - Using peer support to fine-tune your teaching practice

The scholarship into the roles mentors can play in academia has tended to focused on mentoring younger scholars' research careers, but there is a growing body of work exploring how mentoring and other forms of peer support can also help post-secondary instructors become better teachers (see, for example, Boyle and Boice, 1998; Kanuka, 2005; Kanuka 2006; Reder and Gallagher, 2006). Whether it be through traditional one-on-one mentoring relationships or mentoring circles, communities of practice or the Instructional Skills Workshop, less-experienced instructors can learn from more-experienced instructors, and instructors at all levels can learn from each other's ideas, strategies, successes and failures. I clearly cannot do anything I had planned to do, since my one-hour workshop was cut down to 20 minutes. What I will do instead is have a one-page handout of the workshop for participants, which I will review with them and answer any questions. They can then take that suggested format back to their home institutions and run a workshop themselves. This will help them begin a dialogue as to which peer support programs might be welcome and effective at their own institutions.

Boyle, P., & Boice, R. (1998). Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate teaching assistants. Innovative Higher Education, 22, 157–179.

Kanuka, Heather. (2005). Does mentoring make a difference? Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, #39. Centre for Leadership in Learning, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.

Kanuka, Heather. (2006). Mentoring provides benefits for faculty and institutions. Teaching and Learning Exchange. University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

Reder, M., & Gallagher, E. V. (2006). Transforming a teaching culture through peer mentoring: Connecticut College’s Johnson teaching seminar for incoming faculty. To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional and Organizational Development, 25, 327-344.

Speakers

Sheila McManus (University of Lethbridge)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.10 - What is undergraduate research? Student and faculty perceptions

According to the Council on Undergraduate Research, undergraduate research is “an inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that makes an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline. (http://www.cur.org/about_cur/). A number of educators and researchers have broadened this definition to include formative experiences underlying the ability to engage in independent research that makes an original contribution (e.g., Beckman & Hensel, 2004; Healey, 2005). To investigate perceptions of undergraduate research, we developed an online survey for a random sample of undergraduate students and faculty. Using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), participants rated their perceptions of different activities as research activities, such as attending a research presentation, attending an artistic event, taking a methods course, using the library to find resources for a paper or a project, receiving a competitive award for mentored research. In the roundtable session, participants will first reflect on their perceptions of undergraduate research. We will then present the student and faculty findings from our study. Finally, we will encourage discussion of how to broaden perceptions of undergraduate research in our disciplines and institutions.

References :

Beckman, M., & Hensel, N. (2004). Making explicit the implicit: Defining undergraduate research. CUR Quarterly, 29(4), 40-44.

Healey, M. (2005) Linking research and teaching: Disciplinary spaces. In R. Barnett (Ed.) Reshaping the university: new relationships between research, scholarship and teaching, pp. 30-42. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.

Speakers

Connie Varnhagen (University of Alberta)

Academic Director, Undergraduate Research Initiative

Undergraduate Research: A question can take you anywhere

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.54 - Out of tune? Lack of harmony between students’ and teachers’ expectations in higher education

Active learning seems to be a key word in university teaching and learning these days, but how do the students relate to this concept in a university setting? My PhD project is based on action research at Roskilde University (RU), Denmark. RU has a strong focus on the students’ research activity, and the degree courses are almost all based on 50% student activity in problem-based project work and 50 % in courses (Andersen & Heilesen, 2014). Through observation and interviews with students and teachers I am currently investigating correlations and discrepancies between teachers’ and students’ attitudes and experiences related to university teaching and learning. My findings indicate that even though all students appreciate active participation in problem-based project work, they have a different approach when it comes to active learning activities in courses. Even though many students like active participation in the above-mentioned areas, they tend to associate active learning in courses with secondary school teaching methods, and expect “real” university courses primarily to be conducted as one-way lectures. Thus, there seems to be a surprising lack of harmony between the teachers’ active learning approach and the students´ concept of learning (expectations) (Varnava-Marouchou, 2009). This discrepancy can prove to be a serious obstacle to student motivation (Illeris, 2007). In the roundtable discussion we will discuss how this lack of harmony between students and teachers can be understood. We will share experiences as well as research-based knowledge on the subject in order to understand this challenge and reflect upon possible solutions.

Andersen & Heilesen (2014): The Roskilde Model: Problem-oriented learning and projectwork. Springer.

Illeris (2007): How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Routledge.

Varnava-Marouchou (2009): How can students´ conceptions of learning improve their learning outcomes? In: Nygaard, Claus & Courtney, Nigel: Improving students´ learning outcomes. Copenhagen Business School Press.

Speakers

Eva Ulstrup (Roskilde University)

Sidsel Winther (Roskilde University)

Denmark, Roskilde, Roskilde University

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Seymour Room

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.11 - 'You learn no matter what happens': Approaches to harmonizing assessment of situated learning with discipline practice and situational realities

In situated learning scenarios student learning opportunities arise in unexpected ways. In such cases, learning objectives, assessment, evaluation, course organization and teaching strategies do not follow traditional models. The challenge for educators is to identify and capitalize on these opportunities while harmonizing assessment and evaluation with learning objectives and a changing context. Our curriculum includes industry-sponsored project courses in Information Technology that give students the opportunity to solve real-life problems in a discipline-specific manner. These courses are offered to large classes of 100+ students organized in teams of four with each team assigned an industry client who outlines a project, and a faculty supervisor who provides assessment, evaluation and practical guidance. Several theories apply: situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991; McLellan, 1995), experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984), and elements of problem- and project-based learning. Course learning objectives are the same for all students and must be assessed and evaluated fairly despite changing situational realities as we deal with a significant degree of variability in many aspects including the level of technical difficulty, project-specific requirements and supervision. Students and participants in course delivery (i.e., instructor, supervisors and clients) play discipline-specific roles. Besides innovation in course organization and teaching strategies, we developed a high-level formative assessment marking schema with components that supervisors adapt as required. Participants will learn about our innovative solution and how this model could be adapted and applied to their specific discipline. This roundtable would be most interesting to instructors of courses with practical components and curriculum developers.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McLellan, H. (1995). Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Speakers

Mirela Gutica (BCIT)

Trevor D. Lord (BCIT)

Johanna van der Heyden (BCIT)

You learn no matter what happens RTD 11 STLHE 2015 pdf

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.12 - An investigation of students’ engagement with peers and assigned readings in annotation-enhanced discussion forums

Engaging with texts by scribbling comments in the margins is an ancient tradition (Howard, 2005). Online discussions can be enhanced by allowing students to use annotation tools to do just that—insert comments in the margins beside the excerpt of interest rather than posting a reply at the bottom of the post (Xin, Glass, Feenberg, Bures, & Abrami, 2011). The purpose of our study was to examine how students commented on each other’s written responses to course readings in annotation-enhanced online discussion forums, and how this process contributed to their learning. To facilitate students’ critical engagement with readings, we implemented an instructional process called the “triple-entry notebook” (Kooy & Kanevsky, 1996) that required them to prepare a response to each reading that included a summary, selected highlights with reflections, and a lingering question. Classmates posted their responses and commented on each other’s in small groups on a discussion forum augmented with an annotation tool called Marginalia. This tool allowed students to highlight text and write notes in the margin of classmates’ responses, just as readers might underline and annotate a book. Data were collected from 17 students in a post-baccalaureate Education course. Many students exceeded the required contributions and all reported no difficulty making the required contributions to the online discussion. Patterns of interaction among classmates emerged that demonstrated they engaged in true, multi-voice, multi-comment discussions rather than posting individual isolated remarks. The depth of their engagement varied depending on the composition of the group. We will present our results, share our instructional materials, and engage attendees in a discussion of how such instructional practices and enhanced discussion forums can be used to facilitate critical reading of literature and active engagement with classmate’s understandings online.

References:

Kooy, M., & Kanevsky, L. S. (1996). Making meaning from assigned readings: A process for using the triple-entry notebook in teacher education. Teaching Education, 8(1), 45-54.

Howard, J. (2005). Scholarship on the edge. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Xin, C., Glass, G., Feenberg, A., Bures, E., & Abrami, P. (2011). From active reading to active dialogue: An investigation of annotation—enhanced online discussion forums. In F. Pozzi & D. Persico, Techniques for fostering collaboration in online learning communities (p. 300-318). Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.

Speakers

Lannie Kanevsky (Simon Fraser University)

Cindy Xin (Simon Fraser University)

Ilana Ram (Simon Fraser University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.13 - Critical reflection: "How to" guide for providing feedback

Introduction: Reflective capacity has been identified as an essential component of professional practice. Reflection often needs to be ‘taught’ to assist students to develop this habit for future practice. Health professional students are often provided with many opportunities for developing reflective capacity. However, taking students to a deeper more meaning experience of “critical reflection” requires explicit teaching and appropriate provision of feedback in order to support student learning (Aronson, 2011).

Participant Outcomes: Through round table discussion, participants will be introduced to examples of learning activities that use critical reflection as an assessment point as well as how it is used to develop synthesis of learning within practice based courses. Review of the literature on the role of providing feedback to student’s reflective writing will be addressed. The session will focus on introducing some approaches for guiding student reflective writing; techniques for developing grading rubrics as well be introduced to techniques for giving written feedback. Participants will critique several samples of reflective writing using a variety of approaches.

Practice Implications: Appreciation of the importance of formative feedback on student narrative writing will help participants to develop their own framework and rubric and “Critical reflection writing guide” to take back to their own academies. Conclusions: Reflection is an important part of practice. Developing reflective capacity skills requires some explicit teaching as well as faculty development in the area of providing feedback to the reflections to help learners scaffold their experiences into best practices and work toward solidifying their discipline specific knowledge, skills and attitudes.

References:

Aronson, L. (2010). Twelve Tips For Teaching Reflection At All Levels Of Medical Education. Medical Teacher, 33(3), 200-205.

Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2007). Practising critical reflection a resource handbook. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Reidsema, C. & Mort, P. (2009). Assessing reflective writing: Analysis of reflective writing in an engineering design course. Journal of Academic Language & Learning. 3(2), A117-A129.

Speakers

Donna Drynan (University of British Columbia)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.14 - Crowdsourcing social learning and business education assessment

The business education community is under growing pressure to engage in significant reforms in the face of globalization, new learning technologies, soaring tuitions, and unprecedented economic uncertainty. One approach being adopted is to engage faculty and students in a crowdsourcing learning experience. Specifically, this new paradigm significantly alters the three pillars of traditional instruction — fixed time, fixed location, and fixed learning pace—with a more flexible, customized, and mobile learning environment. Crowdsourcing, as applied to business education, involves the process of connecting with a broad-based group of external resources, e.g., students, faculty, researchers, and the business community, for the general purpose of problem solving and developing new skill sets. Specifically, crowdsourcing can open up multiple options for adding new dimensions to learning and knowledge acquisition by allowing students to connect in both formal and informal learning settings. This pattern tends to mimic the increasing use of crowdsourcing in the workplace. In an academic setting, crowdsourcing, among other things, provides access to previously inaccessible intellectual capital. The challenge of student learning assurance represents a key success factor as business schools continue the transition to Online learning. The learning objectives of this session include: 1) To highlight the dramatic changes occurring in business education, 2) To demonstrate how crowdsourcing can improve the learning process, and 3) To introduce a new crowdsourcing based methodology for learning outcome assessment and accountability that addresses meaning, quality and integrity in a wholistic approach.

Anderson, M. (2011). Crowdsourcing higher education: A design proposal for distributed learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 576-590.

Sharma, P. (2011). Crowdsourcing in Higher Education IT, Educause Quarterly, 34(3).

Thomas, M.& Thomas, H. (2012). Using new social media and Web 2.0 technologies in business school teaching and learning. Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 358-368.

Speakers

Charla Griffy-Brown (Pepperdine University)

Owen Hall Jr. (Pepperdine University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.15 - Examining patterns of effective teaching practices across disciplinary areas

Variation in the use of effective teaching practices across disciplinary areas can be an impediment to improving undergraduate education but can also provide an opportunity for dialog. Using data from the 2013 and 2014 administrations of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), this session will explore the similarities and differences in patterns of engaging teaching practices across disciplinary fields for instructors in Canada and the United States. FSSE measures instructor perceptions and expectations of undergraduate student engagement in educationally purposeful activities and the extent to which instructors promote student learning and development in their courses at four-year colleges and universities. The focus of engaging teaching practices examined in this session will be the value instructors place on students participating in reflective and integrative learning activities, instructor emphasis on higher-order learning activities, and the opportunity students have to engage in discussions with diverse others. During this session, participants will 1) learn about a method for measuring instructor engagement in effective teaching practices, 2) examine and discuss patterns in engaging teaching practices across disciplinary fields for instructors at Canadian institutions, 3) consider how these patterns compare to those of instructors in the United States, and 4) discuss what these patterns say about the different teaching contexts and fields and what that means for efforts to improve undergraduate education. Understanding the similarities and differences in disciplinary cultures in different contexts may help make sense of the disciplinary dissonance and shed light on how to achieve teaching and learning improvement across contexts.

Biglan, A. (1973a) The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.

Braxton, J. M. & Hargens, L.L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. Smart & W.J. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of research and theory, XI (pp. 1– 46). New York: Agathon Press.

Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49, 469-494.

Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland's theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Speakers

Allison BrckaLorenz (Indiana University-Bloomington)

Thomas Nelson Laird (Indiana University-Bloomington)

STLHE 2015 FSSE by Discipline pdf

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.16 - Incorporate effective teaching and learning techniques in large science classrooms to help first year university students transition

There is a high attrition rate for first year university students in Canada that less than 80% of students would continue to their second year of study; in engineering and science, the attrition rate is even higher (Grayson and Grayson, 2003). Daempfle (2003) suggests the differences in faculty and epistemological expectations between high schools and post-secondary institutions may play an important role in the high attrition rates in science and engineering. Wieman and Perkins (2005) discuss how they transformed physics education by focusing on understanding and appreciation of the subject. McGuire and Hoffman (2009) discuss the teaching and learning strategies they used to teach students how to learn chemistry; in particular, they emphasize the importance of active engagement, being empathy, and empowerment in teaching. While these techniques are known to be effective, how can educators incorporate these methods in large science classes to teach first year students to be competent learners? In this workshop, we will first do a few interactive activities to understand the importance of learning skills including understanding the concept, practicing the problem, and monitoring the understanding. Then, we will look at several real life examples of incorporating these techniques in large science classes. Participants are expected to learn the effective teaching and learning skills that are essential in science, engineering and other disciplines. Further, they will gain knowledge of applying these practices in their teaching to help first year university students transition from high schools.

References:

Daempfle, P. A. (2003). An Analysis of the High Attrition Rates among First Year College Science, Math, and Engineering Majors. J. College Student Retention, 5(1), 37-52.

Grayson, J. P. & Grayson, K. (2003). Research on Retention and Attrition. Montreal, QC: Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation

McGuire, S. Y. & Hoffman, R. (2009). Teaching and Learning Strategies that Work. Science, 325, 1203-1204.

Wieman, C. & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming Physics Education. Physics Today, 58(11), 36-41.

Speakers

Stephen Cheng

Dr. Stephen Cheng is the Faculty Associate of the Centre for Teaching and Learning at the University of Regina.

Large 1st Year Science Classrooms and Students Transition (Stephen Cheng) STLHE 2015 pdf

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.17 - Is fine tuning possible with grade-focused students?

In our service-learning courses, students work with real people and record and reflect on these experiences, to learn appropriate professional behavior, and how to think creatively and respond to changing circumstances. Many of our students are “strategic” learners, characterized by alertness to assessment and intention to achieve the highest possible grades (Entwistle et al., 2000). They display a need to be correct that overrides the opportunity to explore ideas, trouble shoot and problem solve. Additionally, the slavish allegiance to one correct answer prevents many from engaging in the ‘messy’ processes of trial and error, formative feedback and assessment, reflection and refinement (Dewey, 1938). They not only avoid the benefits of proximal learning, they also deny themselves the benefits of ‘cognitive play’ that Vygotsky (1962) encourages. An ‘end of term binge’, their rush to get work done at the eleventh hour, can occur because many seem reluctant to take advantage of formative feedback opportunities (i.e. fine tuning) during the term. Accompanying this binge is the concomitant expectation of immediate feedback from the instructor and the equally unrealistic expectation of their own spontaneous comprehension of the material without adequate assimilation time. In our session we will provide participants with a summary of formative assessment examples (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) and invite discussion and suggestions about the pros and cons of each, as well as implementation strategies that enhance student motivation and timely engagement.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.

Entwistle, N., Tait, H. & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XV(1), 33-48.

Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Speakers

Maureen Connolly (Brock University)

Gail Frost (Brock University)

STLHE 2015 Grade Focused Students Frost Connolly pdf

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.18 - Making Assessments COUNT: A framework for relevant and efficient assessment for learning

Developing assessments that are relevant, efficient and are constructively aligned (Biggs, 2014) creates, to use a music term, "harmony". During this round table, we will share our newly developed framework for assessment that integrates evidence-based best practices (e.g. Knaack, 2011) with an easy-to-remember acronym, COUNT. The acronym COUNT is comprised of the elements Credible, On Target, Unambiguous, Navigable, and Timely, and aligns with the acronym SMART, that is used for well-written learning objectives (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely). We look forward to discussion about how assessments are developed by instructors, how good assessment is taught and supported by educational developers, and how the COUNT framework might be useful in your context.

Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive Alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education. Volume 1 (July). Pp. 5-22 http://www.herdsa.org.au/?page_id=3745

Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (2007) Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. New York, NY: Routledge.

Knaack, L. (2011). A practical handbook for educators: Designing learning opportunities. Whitby, ON: DeSitter Publications.

Speakers

Carolyn Hoessler

Program and Curriculum Development Specialist, GMCTE at the University of Saskatchewan

Barbara Schindelka (University of Saskatchewan)

Amelia Horsburgh (University of Saskatchewan)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.19 - Student evaluation of teaching response rates

Many higher education institutions have moved or are moving from print based to online student evaluation of teaching surveys. The aim of this discussion is to share strategies universities are using to increase these rates. The session will start with sharing examples of successful and unsuccessful strategies used by both co-facilitators and quickly move to drawing on the experiences of participants. By the end of the session participants should have many practical ways to increase the response rate for online student evaluation of teaching at their home institution.

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 301-314.

Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). Student survey response rates across institutions: Why do they vary? Research in Higher Education, 47, 229-247

Speakers

Peter Arthur

University of British Columbia Okanagan

Gary Hunt

Coordinator, Teaching and Learning Support, Thompson Rivers University

TRU

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.20 - Teaching a blended course: The possibilities and the challenges

Many post-secondary institutions are facilitating the increased demand for higher education and the perceived convenience associated with asynchronous learning by offering blended learning. Moving to blended learning involves a process of converting face-to-face classes to blended (hybrid) classes, while maintaining the integrity of the former course. This conversion to blended learning, though not always straightforward, can be successful after identifying existing and required course content and material, which are essential for successful learning outcomes. To encourage these learning outcomes and maximize successful conversion of face-to-face classes to blended ones, we need to examine case studies of courses that allowed for positive learning outcomes in a supportive learning environment. Therefore, the purpose of this session is for participants to explore case studies and discuss the possibilities and challenges involved in converting a face-to-face class to a blended one, while exploring the:

1. dynamics that facilitate successful course conversion;
2. pedagogical implications of changing the delivery mode; and
3. barriers encountered when moving courses to an online space.

References:

Baran, E., Correia, A-P., Thompson, A.D. Tracing Successful Online Teaching in Higher Education: Voices of Exemplary Online Teachers. Teachers College Record 115, March 2013, 1-41.

Carbonell, Katerina Bohle, Dailey-Hebert, A., Gijselaers W. Unleasing the Creative Potential of Faculty to Create Blended Learning. Internet and Higher Education 18, 2013, 29-37.

Cowan, P., Neil P.S., Winter E. A Connectivist Perspective of the Transition from Face-to-Face to Online Teaching in Higher Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 8(1), March 2013, 10-19.

Speakers

Tanya Haye (Douglas College)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.21 - Would you prefer bento or buffet? Two systems of flexible grading

Between fully self-regulated learning, in which individual students and their instructor negotiate and agree on all aspects of assessment (e.g. tasks, methods, weightings, timelines, grading criteria), and traditional assessment systems which are completely instructor-based and uniform, there are many potential flexible grading systems. Zarzeski (1998), Cook (2001), and Pacharn, Bay, and Felton (2013) provide models and show that student engagement/learning increases under flexible grading. I will present two other such systems which I call “bento” and “buffet”: each allows students choices which increase motivation and allow self-reflection on academic abilities, while not significantly increasing instructor time required to implement assessment. I developed both systems for use in Literature courses beyond the freshman level with criterion-based grading, some of them large classes with Teaching Assistants. In the bento system students have identical assessments and due dates but choose from weighting options, while in the buffet students choose from a list of assessments and also assign their own due dates and weightings in the final grade. I find little change to the grade curve in the bento box system. Diligent students may achieve slightly higher grades using the buffet system, though procrastinators tend to suffer: the grade curve flattens slightly. Students report more engagement and satisfaction with the buffet system, and it is the one I prefer.

Cook, A. (2001). Assessing the use of flexible assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 539-549.

Pacharn, P., Bay, D., & Felton, S. (2013). The impact of a flexible assessment system on students' motivation, performance and attitude. Accounting Education: an international journal, 22(2), 147-167. DOI: 10.1080/09639284.2013.765292.

Zarzeski, M.T. (1998). The use and benefit of flexible student contracts. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(3), 585-594.

Speakers

Nicky Didicher (Simon Fraser University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.22 - From practice to harmony: Teaching leadership chairs

Like the Canada Research Chair program that encourages specialization and mobilization through essential research initiatives nationwide, the Teaching Leadership Chair program aims to spearhead chief initiatives in teaching and learning on the local, national, and international stages. By eliciting funds from institutions and organizations, leadership chairs may be funded for a single or multiple year term whereby they outline how they will accomplish a series of goals, how they will disseminate their results to the wider community, and how they will impact the scope of teaching and learning both short and long term. The notion of teaching leadership chairs has grown now to several institutions across Canada; and these programs encourage and facilitate the improvement of teaching and learning in post-secondary education in Canada. We will outline the process and successes (and challenges) through the Teaching Leadership Program at our institution, which ushered in several leadership chairs, with topics ranging from Peer Collaboration, International Faculty Development, Flipped Classrooms, Learning Modules, and several others. We will further share the outcomes and experiences from our May 2015 symposium at a recent international conference. Our hope with this interactive presentation is to facilitate a dynamic dialogue on initiatives made at other institutions, and their relative success stores plus their challenges. Although our central theme sits squarely with Leadership in Teaching and Learning, several other themes are enveloped by this discussion, including Teaching, assessment and evaluation; Educational development; Learning environments & technology integration, etc.

Filan, G. L. (1999). The need for leadership training: The evolution of the chair academy. New Directions for Community Colleges, 105, 47-55.

Leithwood, K. A., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence (Eds.). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Porter, G. P., & Smith, D. (2012). Exploring Inclusive Educational Practices Through Professional Inquiry (Eds.). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishing.

Speakers

Judy AK Bornais

Experiential Learning Specialist, Teaching Leadership Chair, University of Windsor

Judy Bornais is currently an Experiential Learning Specialist with the Faculty of Nursing. She feels that teaching has been at the core of her work as a practitioner and academic. Teaching nursing students appealed to Judy as an opportunity to make a broader contribution to health... Read More →

David M Andrews (University of Windsor)

Ken Cramer (University of Windsor)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.23 - Interdisciplinary approaches to problem-based (PBL) learning: A case study of law and literature in an undergraduate classroom

One of the key values of transformative pedagogy is to extend learning outside of the classroom. In this session, I will discuss an interdisciplinary experiential project where students in a 200 level (2nd year) undergraduate literature course (ENG223 Elizabethan Shakespeare) prosecuted Shakespeare for fraud in the Canadian Criminal Court system. Inspired by the renewed debates about Shakespeare and authorship (cf. Anonymous, 2011; the MA in Shakespeare Authorship Studies at Brunel University, UK; the rise of the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition), students from ENG223 Elizabethan Shakespeare, contributed to the trial as legal researchers. Students were trained on research methodologies during two sessions in the library’s interactive training lab. Trial teams built their arguments based on the established research produced by the team of legal researchers. This conference presentation outlines the several phases of the project and outlines the learning outcomes measured - both quantitatively and qualitatively - for the students and participants.

Gillespie, Alisdair A. (2007). “Mooting for Learning,” Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education, Volume 5, Issue 1, April 2007. Pp. 19-37.

Kennedy, Ruth R. (2009). “The power of in-class debates.” Active Learning in Higher Education. November 2009 vol. 10 no. 3. Pp. 225-236.

Speakers

Jessica Riddell (Bishop's University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion

1:45pm PDT

RTD.24 - The art and science of experiential learning: A liberal education approach to an academic microbrewery

The Bishop's Arches Brewery, Bishop's University's on-campus teaching and research microbrewery, is Canada’s first liberal education focussed academic microbrewery. Our primary objective is to research the art and science of beer making in an interdisciplinary, experiential approach that is local and grounded in the Eastern Townships community. During this session, we will outline the several phases of the project, from its inception to its current state as a centre for experiential learning. We will discuss the challenges of teaching science to both science and non-science students through interactions in the classrooms, labs, and internship opportunities. Finally, we will explore how brewing beer is a metaphor for transformative learning.

Korolija, Jasminka N.; Plavsic, Jovica V.; Marinkovic, Dragan; Mandic, Ljuba M. (2012). “Beer as a Teaching Aid in the Classroom and Laboratory.” Journal of Chemical Education, v89 n5 p605-609 Apr 2012. 5 pp.

Beck-Winchatz, Bernhard; Parra, Ruben D. (2013). “Finding Out What They Really Think: Assessing Non-Science Majors; Views of the Nature of Science.” College Teaching, v61 n4 p131-137 2013. 7 pp.

---. (2008). “Field Trips Put Chemistry in Context for Non-Science Majors.” Journal of Chemical Education, v85 n5 p645-649 May 2008. 5 pp.

---. (2009). “Visualization and Interactivity in the Teaching of Chemistry to Science and Non-Science Students.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, v10 n1 p62-69 2009. 8 pp.

Speakers

Jessica Riddell (Bishop's University)

Dale Wood (Bishop's University)

Thursday June 18, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm PDT
Bayshore Salon ABC

Teaching Practice and Evaluation

Workshop Format Roundtable Discussion