Loading…
STLHE 2015 has ended
Achieving Harmony: Tuning into Practice

Sign up or log in to bookmark your favorites and sync them to your phone or calendar.

Educational Development [clear filter]
Tuesday, June 16
 

9:00am

An integrated approach to educational development
Teaching and Learning initiatives, collaborations, and practices occur within various organizational systems, cultures, interpersonal dynamics, and worldviews. Process consultation (Schein, 1999) and human systems design are methods of addressing implicit, and often unnamed, forces at play – those cultural factors that constitute “the water in which we swim.” Institutional climate, conflicting agendas, unaddressed underlying issues, and unchecked assumptions are part of what process consultation calls “secondary processes” that can undermine success when overlooked.

Using participants’ prior knowledge of self, other, group, and system/environment this workshop connects participant pre-existing “know how” (Varela, 1999) in higher education to plan and implement for their own desired outcomes. The session incorporates principles from How Learning Works (Ambrose et al., 2010) with a process consultation approach to better support teaching and learning goals. A culture change approach to programmatic change or curriculum creation will also be used to help participants practice process design considerations.

By the end of this session, participants will be able to:

- Identify what process consultation is and why it’s helpful to achieving goals
- Apply relevant process consultation tools to a current project or collaboration (e.g., a meeting, workshop, learning experience, curricular or programmatic reform, educational leadership, etc.)
- Use process consultation strategies to influence the implementation of a self-designed process

Speakers
avatar for Erin Yun

Erin Yun

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


Tuesday June 16, 2015 9:00am - 12:00pm
Mackenzie Room

1:30pm

A reflective practice approach to professional development: The “reflective practicum”
Schön’s (1983) concept of the “reflective practitioner” describes how professionals think in action. Argyris and Schön’s (1974) concept of “theories of action” suggests we design our actions to achieve our intentions, and we have theories, not necessarily explicit, about how to act effectively. By reflecting on how we were thinking in action, particularly in difficult interpersonal situations, we can make explicit our “theories-in-use,” the values and strategies we are actually using to design our interactions. Schön used “reflective practicum” to describe this type of learning experience.

Almost everyone espouses the importance of generating valid information about “difficult situations” so that we can make the best choice about how to act in order to “solve the problem” effectively. However, in difficult interpersonal situations we often don’t “practice what we preach” – we are not transparent about our thoughts and feelings, the strategies we are using, nor are we curious about the other person’s views of the situation, and of our thinking. We espouse “mutual learning” but we are “unilateral” (Schwarz, 2002). The result is often mistrust, misunderstanding and little learning or change.

This “theory-of-action approach to reflective practice” (Smith, 2012) has been successfully applied to professional development to create “reflective practicums” in short workshops (3-6 hours) with faculty, and over an eleven-year project with health care professionals. In this workshop we will examine the theoretical framework underlying this approach (values, assumptions and strategies), and apply it to participants’ cases about difficult interpersonal situations in their teaching or educational development experiences generated before and/or during the workshop.

Speakers
RS

Ron Smith

Concordia Univeristy
Dr. Ron Smith is a Professor Emeritus, Education Department Concordia University and a 3M National Teaching Fellow. He is the Past-Chair of the 3M Council and has served on the adjudication for the 3M.



Tuesday June 16, 2015 1:30pm - 4:30pm
Thompson Room

1:30pm

An aligned approach to assessing the work of educational development centres
Increasingly, our campus teaching centre is being asked to account for its impact and make its work more transparent. Having considered many evaluation models, we adapted elements of familiar processes (i.e., Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Wright, 2011) to fit our local context. In creating our hybrid comprehensive model of assessment, we also applied curriculum thinking to our situation and harnessed the power of “constructive alignment” (Biggs & Tang, 2011) to help achieve harmony in our approach. Knowing that other centres are facing similar calls for evidence-based decision making in a time of fiscal restraint, we will share our year-long collaborative process for coming up with categories of evidence and an approach to assessment. In so doing, we will provide a framework and tools that others may wish to adapt. First, we will describe our approach and its links to our activities, outcomes, and assessments across all our forms of contact with faculty, staff, postdoctoral fellows, and students (graduate and undergraduate).

Then, we turn to activities designed to scope participants’ own practice, consider the role of intended learning outcomes, and focus on elements of assessment: identifying, gathering, analysing, interpreting, and disseminating evidence. Throughout, the idea that centres’ own programs and consultative work can be understood in terms of constructive alignment will be tested. By the end of the workshop, participants should be able to adapt an approach and associated materials to their own local contexts, leaving with a plan to implement at least one new step in a centre assessment process.

Speakers
avatar for Trevor Holmes

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.


Tuesday June 16, 2015 1:30pm - 4:30pm
Salon 3
 
Wednesday, June 17
 

11:15am

CON01.08 - “Over Easy” flipped experience: preparing faculty to effectively implement flipped teaching
In 2012, flipped teaching had established itself as a rapidly growing practice in teaching and learning (Goodwin & Miller, 2013). Flipped teaching is a practice that opens up in-class time for active learning strategies by moving the lecture content from in the classroom to prior to class, often in the form of videos (McLaughlin et al., 2014). At our institution, we wanted to create a professional development opportunity for our faculty members to begin utilizing this practice effectively. As a result, we developed and offered the “Over Easy” Flipped Experience. This workshop was designed to be very practical. To achieve this, the workshop we offered was flipped. This meant that faculty participants were required to explore and complete online materials prior to attending. Goals of the workshop were for participants to be able to articulate what flipped teaching is and why it would be used, to create and distribute a lecture video, and to create a student-centred lesson plan to use in conjunction with the flipped pre-class materials. The workshop has now been offered three times. Attendees of this interactive session will be provided with specific details of the design and structure of this workshop and given the opportunity to discuss strategies for developing faculty skills in using flipped teaching. Evidence will also be presented on the effectiveness of this workshop in terms of how many participants went on to flip their classes, how many employed other techniques and strategies presented, and any feedback they have for improving the workshop.

McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A., & Mumper, R. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Academic Medicine, 89(2), 236-243.

Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Research Says / Evidence on Flipped Classrooms Is Still Coming In. Educational Leadership, 70(6).

Speakers
avatar for Ryan Banow (University of Saskatchewan)

Ryan Banow (University of Saskatchewan)

Instructional Designer, University of Saskatchewan



Wednesday June 17, 2015 11:15am - 11:45am
Salon 3

12:00pm

CON02.12 - Deploying autonomous project teams in educational development
Educational development work is necessarily driven by and aligned to institutional priorities in learning, teaching and curriculum development (Gibbs, 2013). In practice however, Educational Developers also need to respond to emerging priorities, arising needs and serendipitous opportunities as and when they present themselves (Gosling, 2009; Roche, 2003). The variable nature of such issues requires balancing a setting of medium to long-term direction with strategies which are emergent and unplanned. The concept of autonomous project teams (e.g., Clark & Wheelwright, 1992) within organizational effectiveness research offers insights into how we can respond effectively and efficiently with existing personnel to meet new challenges. Through this lens, we have examined one Centre’s approach to structuring tasks, problem solving, accountability, and collaboration to uncover how and why this approach works within our context. Additionally, we offer insight into how an infrastructure of autonomous project teams can be created and implemented and we identify ways to facilitate that process. During this presentation, we will share our experiences and initial outcomes of a study of use of this strategy by one educational development unit and invite colleagues attending to see their practice through the lens of autonomous project teams, and evaluate fit with their context and structure.

Clark, K. B., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1992). Organizing and leading “heavyweight” development teams. California Management Review, 34(3), 9-28.

Gibbs, G. (2013). Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 4-14. 

Gosling, D. (2009). Educational development in the UK: a complex and contradictory reality. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 5-18.

Roche, V. (2003). Being an agent of change. In Kahn, P. & Baume, D. (Eds.), A guide to staff and educational development (pp. 171-191). London: Kogan Page.

Speakers
avatar for Carolyn Hoessler

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 →
avatar for Nancy K Turner (University of Saskatchewan)

Nancy K Turner (University of Saskatchewan)

Director, Teaching and Learning Enhancement, University of Saskatchewan


Wednesday June 17, 2015 12:00pm - 12:30pm
Cypress 2 Room

1:45pm

CON03.06 - A meaningful plan: Using a “portfolio of practice” approach to strategic planning in higher education
Strategic planning has become common practice at universities. Most strategic planning processes, however, are adopted from corporate domains (Ellis, 2010)—with little research evidence to support the efficacy of these models within post-secondary environments. Furthermore, teaching and learning centers have often been at the periphery of centralized strategic planning processes (Gibbs, 2006). Such centers may now find themselves facing requirements to engage in strategic planning without the benefit of established processes that adequately fit their contexts and purposes. The Educational Development Unit at the University of Calgary engaged in a process that explicitly merged collaborative strategic planning techniques, current higher education research (Mueller, 2015), and wisdom of practice (Weimer, 2001) in order to create a living strategic plan. This portfolio of practice approach allows us to reflect on and document our educational development beliefs and practices in an inclusive and collaborative manner, while also creating a research-informed and contextually-driven strategic plan. By the end of this interactive session, participants should be able to: (a) evaluate the portfolio of practice strategic planning model, and (b) adapt components of the model to meet their own institutional contexts. The presenters will provide an overview of the strategic planning process that has been implemented at the Educational Development Unit. Paired and small group discussion will be used to generate ideas about how such a process might be used at participants’ home institutions. The session will conclude with an open-group debrief to critically evaluate this strategic planning approach. 


Ellis, S. E. (2010). Introduction to strategic planning in student affairs: A model for process and elements of a plan. New Directions for Student Services, 132, 5-16. doi: 0.1002/ss.371

Gibbs, G. (2006). Supporting educational development within departments. International Journal for Academic Development, 1(1), 27-37. doi: 10.1080/1360144960010104

Mueller, R. (2015). Do values drive the plan? Investigating the nature and role of organizational values in university strategic planning. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1). doi: 10.1080/13583883.2014.998270

Weimer, M. (2001). Learning more from the wisdom of practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 86, 45-56. doi: 10.1002/tl.15

Speakers
avatar for Robin Alison Mueller (University of Calgary)

Robin Alison Mueller (University of Calgary)

Educational Development Consultant (Faculty), University of Calgary
avatar for Natasha Kenny

Natasha Kenny

Natasha Kenny is Director of the Educational Development Unit in the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary


Wednesday June 17, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm
Thompson Room

1:45pm

CON03.08 - Incorporating active listening into day to day practices of educational development

Active listening has been defined as a state of hearing the other person, avoiding premature judgment, reflecting understanding, clarifying information, summarizing, and sharing (Hoppe, 2011). Active listening is considered a critical communication skill in administrative, leadership and management as well as in a variety of occupational and therapeutic fields (Hoppe, 2011; Romero et al., 2001; Slizewski, 1995; Weger, et al., 2014). However there is no research that addresses active listening within an Educational Development context. As Educational developers we engage in consultation, needs assessment, workshop and program design and facilitation, program coordination, program evaluation, and variety of other processes all of which rely heavily on the practice of active listening skills. Although active listening is highly valued, it is often deprioritized when in competition with other components of educational development processes (facilitation, program coordination, etc.) for our attention and resources. In this 60 minute interactive workshop we will engage participants in small group, guided practice, and brainstorming activities to identify unconscious acts of self-projection during active listening, and recognize the ethical hazards involved in self-projection. Participants will develop processes of self-monitoring and work to find an appropriate ethical and practical balance between self and other when actively listening.



• Hoppe, M. H. (2011). Active listening: Improve your ability to listen and lead Pfeiffer. 

• Romero, D. B., & Ebrary Academic Complete (Canada) Subscription Collection. (2001). The business of listening: A practical guide to effective listening. Menlo Park, Calif: Crisp Learning. 

• Slizewski, P. (1995). Tips for active listening. HR Focus, 72(5), 7.

• Weger, H., Castle Bell, G., Minei, E. M., & Robinson, M. C. (2014). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28(1), 13-31. doi:10.1080/10904018.2013.813234


Wednesday June 17, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm
Director Room

1:45pm

CON03.09 - Pursuing professional pedagogical growth through peer observation of teaching: Come one, come all, come hear all about it!
Peer observation of teaching (POT) has been shown to help teachers develop new skills (Cairns, Bissell, & Bovill, 2013) and become more aware of their own teaching (O’Keefe, Lecouteur, Miller, and McGowan, 2009). There is also an apparent reciprocal benefit for both the teacher being observed and the observer. It is speculated that this process allows teachers to reflect on each other’s perspectives and learn from one another (Cairns et al., 2013). Moreover, learning appears to occur regardless of one’s level of expertise, seniority, or faculty status (Bell & Cooper, 2013). Despite POT being an internationally recognized strategy to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in higher education (McMahon, Barrett & O’Neill, 2007), it is not practiced in all institutions. A POT initiative was introduced on our campus which uses a framework of reciprocal classroom observations and reflections amongst peers. This interactive workshop will provide participants with an opportunity to reflect on and share the types of feedback they have received regarding their classroom teaching. In addition, participants will learn about the different POT models that exist in higher education, including the Peer Collaboration Network (PCN) operating at our institution. The benefits of the PCN model, as well as challenges and solutions to keep in mind when developing a similar initiative, will also be discussed. Through this discussion participants will take away the value of POT as a means of engaging in on-going professional pedagogical growth and fine-tuning educational practice. 

Bell, M., & Cooper, P. (2013). Peer observation of teaching university departments: A framework for implementation. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 60-73.

Cairns, A. M., Bissell, V., & Bovill, C. (2013). Evaluation of a pilot peer observation of teaching scheme for chair-side tutors at Glasgow University dental school. British Dental Journal, 214(11), 573-576.

McMahon, T., Barrett, T., & O’Neill, G. (2007). Using observation of teaching to improve quality: Finding your way through the muddle of competing conceptions, confusion of practice and mutually exclusive intentions. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 499-511.

O’Keefe, M., Lecouteur, A., Miller, J., & McGowan, U. (2009). The colleague development program: A multidisciplinary program of peer observation partnerships. Medical Teacher, 31(12), 1060-1065.

Lead Speaker(s)
avatar for Judy AK Bornais

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 →

Speakers

Wednesday June 17, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm
Salon 1

3:00pm

CON04.09 - Getting to impact: Connecting evidence and practice
In light of rising pressures for transparency in post-secondary institutions in Canada, the need for evidence-based assessment of what we do is rapidly increasing. Yet, despite student cries for getting added value for their education (Fullan, 1993), there is little credible evidence to guide instructors in how to connect evidence and decision-making with practice. However, in this climate of change, successful teaching and learning centres are engaging key stakeholders in tracking how well various programs and services are working, and deciding on what evidence results in positive effects on teaching and learning (Healey, 2013; Scott, 2013). 

Drawing from and building upon this work, this presentation aims to describe the experiences of developing and implementing an impact assessment framework that integrates evidence with practice (Impact Plus) at McMaster University. We will provide tools to engage participants in: exploring what impact means; what counts as evidence; and, how impact is assessed within their own centres. By presenting preliminary findings from our ongoing study within Education Development, we will present tools and processes, and explore common challenges to and facilitators of getting to impact. Through paired dialogue, participants will discuss ways of translating these assessment approaches into effective strategies within their own contexts. Using newly developed performance indicators (ED-DEV, McMaster) for programs and activities, participants will come away with ideas for connecting evidence and practice for making informed decisions. 

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer

Healey, M., Bradford, M., Roberts, C., & Knight, Y. (2013). Collaborative discipline-based curriculum change: applying change academy processes at department level, International Journal of Academic Development, 18, 31-44.

Scott, G. (2003). Effective change management in higher education, Educause review, Nov. 65-80.

Speakers
avatar for Janette Barrington

Janette Barrington

Associate Director, Educational Development, McMaster University
Janette Barrington is Manager, Strategic Initiatives, McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning (MIIETL). She holds a PhD in Educational Technology and is actively involved in research on interdisciplinary perspectives on teaching and learning in higher... Read More →


Wednesday June 17, 2015 3:00pm - 4:00pm
Salon 1

4:00pm

POSTER.05 - Slow facilitation: A collective, evidence-based approach to designing peer supports for teaching development
Mentorship has been documented as an effective approach to professional development in many disciplines (De Janasz & Sullivan, 2004). A growing body of evidence informs several different types of peer mentorship initiatives in higher education, including those that focus on professional development, progression to disciplinary maturity, and teaching development (Huston & Weaver, 2008). However, the success of peer mentorship initiatives appears to be partly dependent on how well they take contextual demands into consideration (Bernstein, Jonson, & Smith, 2000). 

The University of Calgary has recently implemented an institution-wide teaching awards program, which has generated a cohort of award winners who are both interested in and committed to contributing to peer support of teaching development on campus. In the effort to decide how the group would do this in a meaningful and sustainable way, the Educational Development Unit has facilitated a slow process of exploration and iterative decision making in order to establish a unique, evidence-based, context-driven peer support initiative for teaching development. 

After engaging with this poster presentation, participants should be able to: (a) conceptualize the process of slow facilitation, (b) imagine how slow facilitation for the purpose of developing a peer mentorship initiative would look at their home institution, and (c) develop one idea for starting a slow facilitation process. The presenter will provide an overview and artefacts of the slow facilitation process, and participate in interactive discussions about how such a process could be implemented at participants’ home institutions. 

Bernstein, D. J., Jonson, J., & Smith, K. (2000). An examination of the implementation of peer review of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 83, 73-86. doi: 10.1002/tl.8306

De Janasz, S. C., & Sullivan, S. E. (2004). Multiple mentoring in academe: Developing the professorial network. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 263-283. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2002.07.001

Huston, T., & Weaver, C. L. (2008). Peer coaching: Professional development for experienced faculty. Innovation in Higher Education, 33(5), 5-20. doi: 10.1007/s10755-007-9061-9

Speakers
avatar for Robin Alison Mueller (University of Calgary)

Robin Alison Mueller (University of Calgary)

Educational Development Consultant (Faculty), University of Calgary


Wednesday June 17, 2015 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Bayshore Foyer

4:00pm

POSTER.07 - Skill enhancement through teaching assistant training
With more than 60 teaching assistants annually helping educate over 3,000 undergraduate students, TAs play a critical role in undergraduate education in the Sociology Department at the University of British Columbia. TAs take on a variety of responsibilities including marking, lecturing, facilitating workshops, invigilating exams, interacting with students in office hours and via email, and leading discussion groups. Novice TA skills can range widely thus effective TA training is paramount. Our TA training consists of four workshops and an evaluation session held at the beginning of the academic year. These workshops focus on skill building through case studies where participants discuss scenarios, with opportunities for veteran TAs to share their experiences and for new TAs to voice their concerns. Emphasis is placed on skills that can be easily adapted, such as professional communication. Each workshop encourages students to interact, promoting a high level of peer social support and collaboration. We conclude with an evaluation session where participants provide feedback that guides future workshops. This poster provides a detailed overview of our TA training program, including the program learning goals and structure as well as plans for revision based on feedback from participants, reviews of best practices, and consultation with faculty members. By the end of this facilitated poster session, participants will be able to identify the key goals of each of four training sessions and articulate the ways in which the program supports both undergraduate and graduate student teaching assistants in their skill development.

Hogan, T. P., Norcross, J. C., Cannon, J. T., & Karpiak, C. P. (2007). Working with and training undergraduates as teaching assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3), 187-190.

Pentecost, T. C. (2012). Graduate teaching assistant training that forsters student-centered instruction and professional development. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(6), 68-75.

Shannon, D. M., Twale, D. J., Moore, M. S. (1998). TA teaching effectiveness: The impact of training and teacher experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 440-466.


Wednesday June 17, 2015 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Bayshore Foyer
 
Thursday, June 18
 

10:30am

CON05.04 - Leadership team coaching to develop teaching and learning capacity in a business school
This session explores a case study of developing a new leadership team dedicated to improving teaching and learning culture and practices within an existing local academic unit. We will expose and examine key conditions and requirements for fostering collective leadership and creating new structures for change at the local level within a comprehensive university setting. We will share how visioning and strategic planning including visual facilitation techniques (Sibbett, 2011) and leadership team coaching methods (Hawkins, 2011) resulted in collective vision, shared strategic priorities, and action plans. We will draw on socio-cultural and socio-material educational research (Fenwick and Nerland, 2014), and we will share the story of moving from single-point to collective ownership over professional development at a Vancouver business school.After we briefly describe the context and share results from our experience, participants will use image-based tools (Martel and Tiernan, n.d.) and facilitated discussion to explore the following question: 

What conditions must be in place to foster collaborative and collective ownership around teaching and learning in disciplines?This session will appeal to experienced educational developers, faculty leaders, and committee chairs interested in organizational change, professional and work-based learning, and socio-cultural theory.

Fenwick, T. and Nerland, M. eds. (2014). Reconceptualizing professional learning: Sociomaterial knowledges, practices, and responsibilities. New York: Routledge.

Hawkins, P. (2011). Leadership team coaching: Developing collective transformational leadership. London: Kogan Page.

Martell, C., & Tiernan, T. (n.d.). VisualsSpeak. Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.visualsspeak.com/

Sibbett, D. (2009). Visual teams: Graphic tools for commitment, innovation and high performance. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.



Thursday June 18, 2015 10:30am - 11:15am
Chairman Room

10:30am

CON05.05 - Threshold concepts in higher education
Threshold concepts “can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something” (Meyer & Land, 2003, p.1). More than just key concepts or pieces of knowledge, threshold concepts represent an entirely new way of understanding a subject, one that can be troublesome but ultimately transformative for the learner. Emerging out of a large-scale collaborative project involving universities across the United Kingdom, threshold concepts have recently generated a great deal of interest internationally, including being labeled as an innovation with the potential to provoke a major shift in higher education (Sharples et al, 2014). Originally focused on improving teaching and learning within disciplines, recent studies illustrate that threshold concepts are also useful for initiating cross- and inter-disciplinary discourses (Carmichael, 2010). As such, the adoption of threshold concepts for curricular and pedagogical investigations could prove significantly beneficial for institutions, departments, and individual educators. This interactive session will begin with an introduction to the threshold concepts framework, share recent disciplinary and interdisciplinary research in the area, and engage the audience in conversation around using the threshold concepts framework to fine-tune practice. Participants will be guided in developing an understanding of threshold concepts in their field and in recognizing potential areas of application and navigating possible challenges. It is expected participants will leave with both increased knowledge of threshold concepts and the skills to begin their own work/study in this area.

Carmichael, P. (2010). Threshold concepts, disciplinary differences and cross-disciplinary discourse. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 7(2), 53–71.

Meyer, J.H.F. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In: Rust, C. (Ed.) Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice–Ten Years On. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford 

Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R, Gaved, M. McAndrew, P., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Innovating Pedagogy 2014: Open University Innovation Report 3. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Available from http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/innovating/?p=3

Speakers
avatar for Ashley Shaw

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 10:30am - 11:15am
Director Room

11:30am

CON06.06 - Achieving harmony in educational development practice: What does that look like?
Two recent Western Canadian studies provide an in-depth investigation of current educational development and professional learning structures and practices within 35 Canadian colleges, institutes, and universities in BC and Alberta (Randall et al. 2013; Wilson & Kwong See, S. 2015). With organizational change in post-secondary institutions occurring at a rapid and often disruptive rate globally, nationally and provincially, these studies were able to provide an overview of the dimensions of educational development structures and describe current models of practice in these two provinces. But the educational development landscape is changing and so are the mandates for teaching and learning centres/units. In BC for example, almost 60% of reporting educational development centres have sustained their current mandate and model for five years or less. Are changes in educational development structure and practice achieving harmony within post- secondary institutions? Are Teaching and Learning Centre personnel prepared to support, even lead, rapidly moving institutional changes? This highly interactive workshop focuses on the benefits and drawbacks of a range of educational development and professional learning models. Participants will be asked to reflect on current structures and practices within their own institutions and then align their context with their preferred educational development model. Participants will leave the workshop having contributed to the analysis of sustaining and inhibiting factors for educational development leadership. The researchers will share key findings from their educational development and professional learning studies.

References:

Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 90-126. doi: 10.3102/0034654312438409

Randall, N., Heaslip, P., & Morrison, D. (2013). Campus-based Educational Development & Professional Learning: Dimensions & Directions. Vancouver, BC, Canada: BCcampus.

Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact of instructional development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research. Educational Research Review, 5, 25-49. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.07.001

Wilson, M., & Kwong See, S. (2015). Campus-based Educational Development in Alberta Post-Secondary Institutions. Edmonton, AB, Canada: University of Alberta.



Thursday June 18, 2015 11:30am - 12:30pm
Thompson Room

11:30am

CON06.CreativeDiscussion01 - Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation Page Turners: Not your average book club!
Book clubs are popular not only for recreational reading, but also in educational settings to support teachers in “tuning into practice” (Kooy, 2009). Online, hybrid and face-to-face professional book clubs enhance community, and inspire cross-disciplinary discussions and networks. This deep-dive conversation analyzes the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation's (CTSI) Page Turners, a multi-session book club model for faculty, developed and offered through CTSI at the University of Toronto. Based on the concept of literature circles (Lin, 2002), book club participants are in charge of their own learning, assisted by a facilitator who helps establish group norms, and sets the stage to maximize individual accountability and the development of positive interdependence. During this deep-dive conversation participants will be provided with an overview of the model, debrief a small group text protocol and engage in discussion in order to:
• examine how this book club model supports pedagogical professional development through the exploration of educational ideas, reflection on practice, discussion of innovation in teaching and aspirations for student learning 
• consider evidence-based design features, including practical tips on book club structure, determining group norms, building inclusion, establishing roles and responsibilities, and assessing learning
• analyze the value of using text protocols and other reading/discussion formats for facilitation (Lipton & Wellman, 2003) 
• determine applications of book club models in their own contexts and to serve a variety of professional learning needs.
Sample books that encourage instructors to explore pedagogical theory and research and practical student engagement techniques (e.g., Barkley, 2010) will be shared. 

References:

Barkley, E.F. (2010). Student engagement techniques. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lin, C-H. (2002). Literature circles. Eric Digest.file://localhost/Retrieved from http/::www.ericdigests.org:2003-3:circles.htm

Lipton, L. & Wellman, B. (2003). Mentoring matters: A practical guide to learning-focused relationships (2nd Ed). Sherman, CT: Mira Via.

Kooy, M. (2009). Collaborations and conversations in communities of learning: Professional development that matters. In C.C. Craig (Ed.), The Association of Teacher Educators’ Teacher Education Yearbook XVII: Teacher Learning in Small Group Settings (pp. 5-22). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Publication/Rowan & Littlefield.


Thursday June 18, 2015 11:30am - 12:30pm
STLHE Registration Desk

1:45pm

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.


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

1:45pm

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
avatar for Erin Yun

Erin Yun

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


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

1:45pm

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
avatar for Isabeau Iqbal

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 →



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

1:45pm

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
avatar for Carolyn Hoessler

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 →
avatar for Isabeau Iqbal

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 →


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

1:45pm

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


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

1:45pm

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
avatar for Lianne Fisher

Lianne Fisher

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


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

1:45pm

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.


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

1:45pm

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.



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

3:00pm

CON07.01 - Teaching controversial issues: A pilot workshop
This presentation describes a pilot workshop designed to support Faculty of Arts instructors interested in fine tuning their approaches to teaching controversial subject matter. Critical thinking and democratic engagement skills are frequently cited as graduate attributes for liberal arts programs, and conversations about controversial issues can provide a strategic site for the development of these skills (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005; Hess, 2009). However, as the university is increasingly populated by informed, political, diverse students who are engaged learners, questions of what might count as controversial and for whom arise (Flinders University, n.d.), along with potential classroom management challenges for instructors (Fournier-Sylvester, 2013). This case-study based workshop was designed and delivered by two faculty members, the director of a university equity office and an educational development consultant. In this session, a description of the pilot and its context, and lessons learned from its evaluation will be presented. Discussion of why and how we might best support faculty across a range of disciplines in their teaching of controversial issues will also be invited. By the end of the session participants will be able to:
• Discuss the rising importance of offering support for the teaching of controversial subjects in the post secondary setting
• Identify context-specific issues and approaches to fine tuning teaching practices on controversial topics within various disciplines
Recent public debates about free versus hate speech suggest that our teaching practices around controversies stand to make a difference well beyond the academy. As the conference theme suggests, providing a classroom space for controversies to occur can be transformative for ourselves and our students.

References:

Brookfield, S.D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Flinders University. (n.d.). Theory into practice strategies: Inclusive practices for managing controversial issues. Retrieved from http://www.flinders.edu.au/equalopportunity_files/documents/cdip/TIPS_controversial.pdf_x000D_

Fournier-Sylvester, N. (2013). Daring to debate: Strategies for teaching controversial issues in the classroom. College Quarterly, 16(3), 1-7. 

Hess, Diana E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York: Routledge.

Speakers
CB

Carol Berenson (University of Calgary)

Educational Develpment Consultant, University of Calgary


Thursday June 18, 2015 3:00pm - 3:30pm
Bayshore Salon D

3:45pm

CON08.02 - Contextualized academic development: Facilitating change in teaching and learning practices
“If we are to move forward with a more holistic academic development practice, … an approach that … respects the expertise and experience of our disciplinary colleagues” is critical (Wuetherick and Ewert-Bauer, 2012). So concluded a paper in a recent 2012 special issue of the International Journal for Academic Development that used postcolonial metaphors to explore the ‘decolonization’ of academic development. What does this mean for academic development practices and the institutional positioning of academic development centres? What does it mean for the day-to-day practices of academic developers in those Centres who are positioned in the ‘margins’ between academic disciplines and central administration (Little and Green, 2012)?_x000D_ This presentation, building on two parallel mixed methods studies of academic developers (on the one hand) and faculty (on the other), seeks to unpack issues related to both the strategic positioning of academic development centres and individual academic development practices that are historically affirming, culturally not alienating, philosophically localized, linguistically inclusive, epistemically and epistempologically validating, and developmentally sensitive and responsive (Wuetherick and Ewert-Bauer, 2012). In particular, this research presentation explores how a more holistic and contextualized academic development practice, at both the individual academic developer and the Centre level, might help address the challenges associated with the gap between the growing literature that explores 'evidence-based' teaching and learning practices in higher education and the reality that many of our disciplinary colleagues still have not begun adopting these 'evidence-based' practices. The presentation also will focus on exploring how one particular model of change, the transtheoretical model of the stages of change, might inform academic development practice to facilitate change in teaching and learning practices in higher education (Hazelton, Murphy and Lightfoot, 2014; Randhawa, 2012).

References:

Wuetherick and Ewert-Bauer (2012). “Perceptions of Neutrality through a Post-Colonial Lens: Institutional Positioning in Canadian Academic Development,” International Journal for Academic Development. 17 (3), 217-229.

Little D., and Green D. (2012). Betwixt and between: Academic developers in the margins, International Journal for Academic Development, 17 (3), 203-216.

Hazelton L., Murphy C., and Lightfoot, K. (2014). Remediation Practices in Canadian Psychiatry Clerkships. Academic Psychiatry, 38, p. 350-353.

Randhawa S. (2012). . The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 43 (4), 148-149.

Speakers
avatar for Brad Wuetherick

Brad Wuetherick

Executive Director, Learning and Teaching, Dalhousie University
Brad Wuetherick is the Executive Director, Learning and Teaching at Dalhousie University, and is an active researcher in teaching and learning in higher education in areas including undergraduate research, educational development, SOTL, facilitating change in teaching and learning... Read More →


Thursday June 18, 2015 3:45pm - 4:15pm
Bayshore Salon D

3:45pm

CON08.12 - Assessment of the teaching assistant preparation program (TAPP)
Teaching assistantship has an important role in the development of teaching capacity among graduate students. However, educational development strategies must be in place to facilitate this development (Boman, 2013; Hardré & Burris, 2012). Furthermore, as highlighted by Gardner and Jones (2011), the design of educational development initiatives tailored at developing teaching capacity among graduate student must consider the uniqueness of teaching assistantship experiences in each discipline. With these points in mind, a teaching assistantship preparation program (TAPP) was designed, consisting of workshops offered by the Educational Development Unit of the University of Calgary, working sessions tailored to a specific Faculty (Werklund School of Education), and debriefing sessions where participants were invited to reflect upon how the knowledge developed during those sessions could be enacted in their upcoming postsecondary teaching practice. At the end of the first year of implementation of the program, a case study research was conducted to assess impacts TAPP had on the development of the teaching capacity among graduate students who participated in the initiative. Findings from this research will be used to redesign the program, as well as to provide recommendation for similar projects currently being offered at other postsecondary institutions. The goal of this session is to present preliminary findings of the research, highlighting how lessons learned from this experience are informing the next iteration of the program and can impact the design of similar programs. To achieve this goal, participants will be invited to discuss how findings from this research can guide practice in their own institutions. By joining this session, participants will reflect on potentialities and challenges of implementing a teaching assistantship preparation program, as well as insights from their experiences with similar initiatives.

References:

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

Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2011). Pedagogical Preparation of the Science Graduate Teaching Assistant: Challenges and Implications. Science Educator, 20, 31–41. Retrieved from http://proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67370874&site=eds-live

Hardré, P. L., & Burris, A. O. (2012). What contributes to teaching assistant development: Differential responses to key design features. Instructional Science, 40(2012), 93–118. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9163-0


Thursday June 18, 2015 3:45pm - 4:15pm
Cypress 1 Room
 
Friday, June 19
 

8:30am

CON10.11 - The SoTL Canada symphony: Conducting the orchestra
SoTL Canada is a special interest group of STLHE that provides a targeted opportunity for SoTL scholars to form a community to share findings, to engage in opportunities for broader sharing of SoTL work, and consider ways to catalyze Scholarship of Teaching and Learning initiatives at the institutional, regional, national, and international levels. In this session we use the metaphor of conducting an orchestra to outline the development of this SIG from a few interested people to over 200 members in under three years. We draw on network theory (Verwoord & Poole, in press) and Wenger’s (1998) work on Communities of Practice to discuss lessons learned in developing the interests and attributes of individual ‘musicians’ into networks of orchestra sections and ultimately, working towards a full symphony. Just as a good tune can be appealing in multiple genres, we believe that through examining results from our recent membership survey, along with a brief account of the SIG development history, you will find passages that can be played and techniques that can be used in alternative SoTL development contexts. In small and large groups you will consider what principles are at play in this case study and how they might equally resonate in your own setting. The session will be facilitated in English; however, questions and discussion in French are encouraged.

References

Verwoord, R., & Poole, G. (in press). The role of small significant networks and leadership in the institutional embedding of SoTL. In N. Simmons (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in Canada: Institutional impact. New Directions in Teaching and Learning. 

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


Friday June 19, 2015 8:30am - 9:15am
Salon 3

9:30am

CON11.01 - Cultural assumptions about pedagogy and educational development
Having worked in more than one country, we (Celia and Vivian) have had cause to ponder the impact of culture on our perceptions, beliefs and practices as educational developers. Many of the people we work with have similar multicultural experiences, as higher education becomes increasingly globalized. We believe that recognizing and valuing cultural differences will enhance the quality of the academy, for international and domestic faculty and for their global students. We will share observations from our experiences of working abroad, for example, how ‘good’ pedagogy is sometimes culturally defined. Vivian will share stories from her work in Canada, England and Kenya including her thoughts about the authority of the teaching staff and the power balance in the teacher/student relationship, and how these are influenced by the expectations of students and the opportunities for graduates. Celia will discuss her experiences of leading teaching and learning units in both a British and Canadian university, including her observations about faculty expectations of what such a unit should and could achieve, the cultural differences that emerge from mandatory vs. optional faculty development, and how this impacts her work. Participants will be invited to share their own experiences with the group, and through dialogue, explore their own beliefs and assumptions. Together we will identify common themes, such as the extent to which pedagogy, teaching and learning are culturally prescribed, and consider the implications of these for the work of the academy.

Reference:

Popovic, C. (2010). Educational developers at home and abroad. Retrieved from: http://www.seda.ac.uk/research.html?p=7_1_1_1

Lead Speaker(s)
Speakers
avatar for Celia Popovic

Celia Popovic

Director Teaching Commons, York University
Susan Vail, associate vice-president teaching and learning at York University, has announced that Celia Popovic has been appointed to the position of director of York University’s Teaching Commons.“I am so pleased that Dr. Popovic will now have the opportunity to share her pedagogical... Read More →


Friday June 19, 2015 9:30am - 10:15am
Bayshore Salon ABC

9:30am

CON11.10 - The medium and the message: cMOOC as open professional development
The affordances between the tools we use to teach, how we learn to teach, and how we teach may not be in sync. For example, the notion of open education has been growing in prominence in higher education but often professional development opportunities to support open pedagogies happen in closed workshops or private online spaces for limited audiences. This session will examine a joint University of British Columbia faculty-staff project that utilized a connectivist Massive Open Online Course (cMOOC) framework for an online workshop on teaching with WordPress, an open technology. The cMOOC format was chosen so the content of the three-week workshop (teaching with an open platform) and the format of the course (open pedagogy) were aligned. Based on the theory of connectivism (Siemens, 2005), cMOOCs focus on the co-creation of curriculum and the development of connections between participants, so that knowledge acquisition and creation can continue even after a course is finished (Sadaatmand & Kumpulainen, 2014). Additionally, the open format allows for a wider participant base, expanding the kinds of experiences, approaches, and ideas included in a course. In this session participants will be introduced to the Teaching with WordPress cMOOC we designed, discuss in groups what benefits/drawbacks they can see to opening up professional development in this way, and brainstorm other ways to extend the reach and value of educational development. Participants can expect to leave with an understanding of cMOOCs as well as ideas for how they might open up professional development at their institutions.

References

Jobe, W., Östlund, C. and Svensson, L. (2014). MOOCs for Professional Teacher Development. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Conference 2014. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/proceeding_130997%20%283%29.pdf

Saadatmand, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2014). Participants’ perceptions of learning and networking in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 10(1), 16-30. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no1/saadatmand_0314.pdf

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Instructional Technology and Distance Education, 2(1), 3–10. Retrieved from http://itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

Speakers
avatar for Christina Hendricks

Christina Hendricks

Professor of Teaching in Philosophy, Academic Director, Centre for Teaching, Learning & Technology, The University of British Columbia
Philosophy, OER, open textbooks, open pedagogy
avatar for Lucas Wright

Lucas Wright

Open Strategist (Leave Appointment), BCcampus
UBC



Friday June 19, 2015 9:30am - 10:15am
Salon 2

10:45am

CON12.12 - Threshold process for understanding and applying systems principles
This session will describe the theoretical framework of threshold concepts and explore its relevance to the relationship between epistemic and ontological cognitive development (EOCD) and applying systems principles to complex problems. Threshold concepts are defined as concepts that are essential for the mastery of a particular disciplinary framework (Meyer & Land, 2005). Further, they are key concepts that need to be understood before a student can develop beyond the stage of novice. 

Studies of personal epistemology focus on “how the individual develops conceptions of knowledge and knowing and utilizes them in developing understanding of the world” (Hofer & Pintrich, 2002, p. 4). These studies are interested in “beliefs about the definition of knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, how knowledge is evaluated, where knowledge resides, and how knowing occurs” (ibid). Systems thinking, based on the principles of holism and pluralism, is necessary for dealing with issues of complexity and uncertainty (Bawden, 2007). Both holism and pluralism require complex ontological beliefs and epistemic cognitive skills (Bawden, 2007).

By integrating Reflective Judgment Model (King & Kitchener, 1994) and Model of Epistemic and Ontological Cognitive Development (Greene, Torney-Purta, & Azevedo, 2010), I position EOCD as having the characteristics of a threshold concept for systems thinking; however, I argue further that the term threshold process is a more accurate descriptor for EOCD in relation to systems thinking. I will present pedagogical activities for promoting EOCD and developing systems thinking competencies. You will have the opportunity to discuss your own practices relative to teaching about systems.

Key words: Epistemic and ontological cognitive development, threshold concepts, systems thinking
References:

Bawden, R. (2007). Pedagogies for persistence: cognitive challenges and collective competency development. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2(3), 299–314.

Greene, J. A., Torney-Purta, J., & Azevedo, R. (2010). Empirical evidence regarding relations among a model of epistemic and ontological cognition, academic performance, and educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 2

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J: L.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388.


Friday June 19, 2015 10:45am - 11:15am
Cypress 2 Room