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.

Scholarly Inquiry and Reflective Practice [clear filter]
Wednesday, June 17
 

11:15am

CON01.01 - Investigating the influence of learning attitudes on students' choice of major
Less than a year in to their university experience, students are faced with perhaps the most important decision of their undergraduate careers: their choice of major. While universities and departments invest significant time and effort in curriculum design, course design, advising, and outreach activities intended to support students in their choice, previous work has shown that students’ attitudes towards a discipline at the beginning of first year - prior to any of these interventions - can substantially influence their choice of major. This presentation will share the results of a recent investigation of how students’ attitudes towards chemistry change over the course of their first year, and how attitudes, academic achievement, and pedagogy may combine to influence students’ choice of major. The investigation was based on the analysis of a large database of students’ grades, majors, and responses to a widely used attitudinal survey administered at the beginning and end of each first-year term. We also conducted a series of focus groups with 1st and 2nd year students to develop a more complete understanding of influential factors, including how pedagogy impacts students’ perceptions of a scientific discipline. Although the present work focuses on grades and attitudes in chemistry, the tools, processes, and general trends of this investigation should be applicable to any learning discipline. This work was carried out with the ultimate goal of guiding recruitment and retention efforts to bring them into better harmony with the factors that bear the greatest influence on students’ decisions.

Barbera, J., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C. E., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). Modifying and Validating the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Use in Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(10), 1435. doi:10.1021/ed085p1435

Perkins, K. K., & Gratny, M. (2010). Who Becomes a Physics Major? A Long-term Longitudinal Study Examining the Roles of Pre-college Beliefs about Physics and Learning Physics, Interest, and Academic Achievement. Physics Education Research Conference, 1289(1), 253–256. doi:10.1063/1.3515214


Wednesday June 17, 2015 11:15am - 11:45am
Mackenzie Room

11:15am

CON01.02 - Research on teaching philosophy statements from a learning perspective
Teaching philosophy statements have become a vital document that allow people to quickly know an individual's beliefs about teaching and learning, along with their intended practices. Research on teaching philosophy statements (e.g., Kaplan et al., 2007; Schönwetter, et al., 2002) reveals a range of criteria and resulting rubrics and frameworks to develop and evaluate quality statements. These rubrics outline criteria for graduate students to use for self-assessment during the writing process as well as for those hiring, mentoring, and giving feedback. In this presentation, we report on an interdisciplinary research project that looked for evidence in a sample of 80 teaching philosophy statements of a deep learning/student focused approach to teaching (Trigwell & Prosser, 2004) as well as disciplinary differences. Statements were written by graduate students from a range of disciplines participating in a 35-hour seminar on teaching and learning. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in coding and analyzing the same data set with agreement and disagreement found in the data. We are now at the stage of verifying core categories that emerged during qualitative analysis and seeking explanations in the literature. The aim of our session is to present ways of evaluating an individual’s beliefs about teaching from a learning perspective.

Kaplan, M., Meizlish, D., O’Neal C., & Wright M. C. (2007). A research-based rubric for developing statements of teaching philosophy. In D. R. Robertson & L. B. Nilson (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty instructional and organizational developers, 26, 42–262. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Schönwetter, D.J., Sokal, L., Friesen, M. & Taylor, K.L. (2002) Teaching philosophies reconsidered: A conceptual model for the development and evaluation of teaching philosophy statements, International Journal for Academic Development, 7(1), 83-97.

Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and Use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409-424.

Speakers
avatar for Arshad Ahmad

Arshad Ahmad

Associate Vice-President, Teaching and Learning & Director, MIIETL, McMaster University
Dr. Arshad Ahmad is the Associate Vice-President Teaching and Learning and Director of Institute for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching and Learning (MIIETL) at McMaster University. He is the Past Coordinator of the 3MNTF program and a 3M National Teaching Fellow. He is the Past... Read More →
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 11:15am - 11:45am
Seymour Room

11:15am

CON01.06 - Art-making in health professions education: From research to practice
There is strong evidence supporting the personal and professional benefits for medical students of exposure to art. There is limited information on the value or potential role of art-making in relation to medical education. We explored the role of art-making within medical education by analyzing 76 artist statements submitted with visual artwork by students, residents, and practitioners to a national health care student/practitioner art exhibit. We analyzed the data inductively using grounded theory strategies and this generated eight themes: enhancing learning, escaping constraints, balancing life and work, surviving, expressing self identity and discovering professional identity, bearing witness, healing self and others, and advocating change. These themes attest to the instrumental, humanistic and other impacts of art-making in the context of medical education and practice. In this interactive session, we will draw upon research findings from a recent qualitative study to show how the practice of art-making can play a valuable role in the education of health professionals. We will also explore several stories of how art-making has offered a powerful humanizing influence through fostering new insight, increasing empathy and enhancing communicative and relational competence amongst students in the health professions. A selection of images of artworks created by medical students will be used to stimulate dialogue amongst session participants and elicit ideas about how art-making could be incorporated into many aspects of health professions education. These ideas will be recorded live in a mind-map and made available to participants after the session along with a list of resources. 

Dissanayake, E. (1995). Homo aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Goldie, J. (2012). The formation of professional identity in medical students: Considerations for Educators. Medical Teacher. 34, e641-e648. 

Kumagai, A.K. (2012). Perspective: Acts of interpretation: A philosophical approach to using creative arts in medical education. Academic Medicine. 87, 1138-1144.

Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: the generative power of transmediation for learning. Canadian Journal of Education. 20, 455-475.


Wednesday June 17, 2015 11:15am - 11:45am
Salon 1

11:15am

CON01.10 - Student diversity in context: Structural factors enhancing the composition of classrooms and classroom dynamics‏
Frequent and appropriately structured classroom interactions between students with diverse life experiences have been shown to have positive learning outcomes (Chang, Astin, & Kim, 2004; Denson & Bowman, 2013; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Nelson Laird, 2005). However, factors influencing student composition at the course level (rather than faculty or school level) have remained largely unexplored. To this end we examine organizational factors enhancing classroom diversity. Much sociological thought acknowledges the significance of multiple ways of seeing and knowing, making a systemic analysis of factors influencing classroom diversity particularly relevant for sociological teaching. In this paper we consider student enrollment trends in Introduction to Sociology courses at University of British Columbia from 2004 to 2013 based on student academic year level, degree program, admission average, age, gender, international/domestic status, and citizenship. We examine course composition in relation to course medium (online or face to face), term placement (summer or winter), number of credits (3 or 6) and other relevant characteristics. Our preliminary findings suggest that structural factors alter classroom diversity composition in particular ways and should be taken into account in creating positive learning environments conducive to student enrichment. During the session we will engage participants in a discussion about their own teaching experiences in relation to these findings. By the end of this session, participants will be able to articulate three factors influencing student composition at the course level. 

References: 

Chang, M. J., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D. (2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: Some consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 529‑553.

Denson, N., & Bowman, N. (2013). University diversity and preparation for a global society: the role of diversity in shaping intergroup attitudes and civic outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 555-570. 

Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S. & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-366.

Nelson Laird, T. F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 365‑387.

Speakers

Wednesday June 17, 2015 11:15am - 11:45am
Cypress 2 Room

12:00pm

CON02.01 - Realizing SoTL through teamwork: Faculty, staff and students working together
Our teaching and learning development grants program is facilitated by a team of individuals that includes faculty and graduate students, from a range of disciplines, and support staff. The non-competitive grants program provides faculty with $5-10K and other supports to investigate questions about teaching and learning. It is designed to enhance individual faculty knowledge and practice and to engage them in teaching as a socially situated practice (Team authored, in press). We employ Norton’s (2009) notion of “pedagogical action research” as a working framework by supporting faculty members’ efforts to produce research evidence at a micro level (through their individual projects) with the aim of dissemination resulting in changes at the meso (course and departmental) and macro (institutional) levels. The foci of this session are the values underpinning our practice and how we accomplish our work as a team. Our teamwork is advantaged by our diverse roles and disciplinary perspectives, yet we are guided by a shared vision unencumbered by pre-existing hierarchical relationships. Together we facilitate the grants process, read relevant literature, conduct ongoing evaluation of the program (Team authored, in press), co-present and co-author publications. The session begins with attendees sharing (in pairs) if and how grants programs at their institutions are conducted and ends with a period of “critical questioning” where participants probe more deeply the practices and values presented by both facilitators and participants. This session will be of most interest to those involved in the conduct of, or wanting to develop similar teams and grants programs.

(Team authored) (in press). The intentional design of a SoTL initiative. New Directions in Teaching and Learning.

(Team authored) (in press). Evaluating a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Grants Program: Our Framework, Process, Initial Findings and Reflections. Studies in Educational Evaluation.

Norton, Lin. S. (2009). Action Research in Teaching and Learning: A Practical Guide to Conducting Pedagogical Research in Universities. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.


Wednesday June 17, 2015 12:00pm - 12:30pm
Bayshore Salon D

12:00pm

CON02.04 - Tuning in on tacit knowledge

Tuning in on teaching practice in any discipline may well run up against a problem of tacit knowledge--knowledge crucial to the discipline’s ways of thinking and practicing, but by nature obscure. Teachers who omit to make their tacit knowledge explicit in the classroom cause learning bottlenecks for their students. Tacit knowledge can be made explicit to its teacher owner, with positive effect on her teaching, in an interview that invites her to address how she thinks and practices in work her students, lacking her tacit knowledge, find impossible to master (Middendorf & Pace, 2004). We have conducted half a dozen such 90-minute to two-hour interviews with university teachers in different disciplines. We present qualitative analyses of those interviews which find across disciplines common themes and elements in teachers’ tacit knowledge and common impacts on teachers’ practice and thinking when tacit knowledge becomes explicit. Quoting from our interviews, we show through different analytical lenses, including phenomenology and narrative identity theory, how teachers regardless of discipline gravitate to intrinsically hermeneutic understandings of their disciplines, instinctively value provisionality of judgment, assume crucial disciplinary relationships of parts to wholes, embody in Heideggerian terms their ways of thinking and practicing (Van Manen, 1990), implicitly trust key disciplinary processes, willingly inhabit liminal spaces and, in recalling how they came to the understandings their students find so difficult to master, surface crucial aspects of their professional identities. We seek discussion with our audience of the effects on teaching and learning of unearthing and variously analyzing tacit knowledge across many disciplines.

Middendorf, J. & Pace, D. (2004). Decoding the disciplines: A model for helping students learn disciplinary ways of thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(98), 1-12. 

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State of New York Press.



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

12:00pm

CON02.06 - My students are revolting! The use of humour as a classroom management strategy
Conflicts, disengagement and silos are realities that teachers face. There many ways to address these challenges; one of the most often employed, but least studied strategies is the use of affiliative humor (Avolio, Howell & Sosik 1999; McCartney-Matthews 2011). Recent events have highlighted the way that humour can be a point of unity or division.

The presenter has worked in a variety of post-secondary settings, from large research universities to small private schools to polytechnics. These schools have been in North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe. Humour was always a strategy employed to address classroom management. Now as a member of a faculty development team there has been an opportunity to conduct deeper study into how and why humour works to bring learners together.

This session will explore the benefits of instructor usage of positively-valenced humour in the classroom, focusing on its ability to reduce barriers between the instructor and learner, as well as between learners. The presenter will draw from prior research on the role of humour in organizations and educational anthropology (Collins 2012; Treece 2010; Vogler 2011). The audience will not leave with a list of knock-knock jokes, but they will gain an insight into how humour might be used to strengthen enhance engagement and improve classroom management.

Avolio, B.J., Howell, J.M. & Sosik, J.J. (1999) A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal 42(2), 219-227.

Collins, P.E. (2012). Leading higher education organizations: The role of humor. MA Thesis. Gonzaga University.

McCartney-Matthews, M.L. (2011). A funny thing happpened on the way to the hippocampus: The effects of humor on student achievement and memory retention. EdD Dissertation. Arizona State University.

Treece, B.P. (2010). Humor as a desired leadership quality compared across four professional fields in Findlay and Hancock County, Ohio. EdD Dissertation. Northcentral University.

Vogler, W.B. (2011). Humor and work: Toward a more contextual understanding of humor in the workplace. PhD Dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Speakers
avatar for Jeff Logan (SAIT Polytechnic)

Jeff Logan (SAIT Polytechnic)

Faculty Development, SAIT Polytechnic


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

1:45pm

CON03.04 - How do you partner with student scholars?
Whether you are keen to engage students as partners in particular initiatives (Felten et al., 2013), or as co-inquirers who shape research, (Dunne & Zandstra, 2011) or as agents in transformative learning experiences and multiple perspectives (Cook-Sather, 2013), this session addresses several puposes.Healthy partnerships come with its challenges, including dismantling entrenched structures of authority or sharing power meaningfully (Delpish et al., 2010). Establishing partnerships is hard, and the democratizing potential of the students as change agents can sometimes be overstated (Weller et al., 2013). Last year, the McMaster Institute for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching and Learning (MIIETL) named enhanced student partnerships as a central goal in its strategic plan. MIIETL implemented a novel student scholar program that has grown from 16 to about 50 students. Student partners are full members of institute project teams, and involved in much of MIIETL’s core business. We provide brief perspectives from students, faculty, and staff involved in this initiative, and map these on to established models of student engagement (e.g., Healey et al.). Most of the session will be devoted to exchanging implementation strategies, successes and challenges with the audience.This session exemplifies the conference theme of Achieving Harmony, Tuning Into Practice, with a particular focus on transforming the relationships between students, faculty and staff. Participant outcomes include learning about the existing literature on students as partners, examples of several case studies that will build on that scholarship highlighting possibilities for engaging students as change agents in their own contexts.

Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: A threshold concept in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(3), 186-198. **Note the year was wrong in the abstract. Should be (Cook-Sather 2014).

Dunne, E. & Zandstra, R. (2011). Students as Change Agents. New Ways of Engaging with Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Bristol: HE Subject Centre for Education. Retrieved from: http://escalate.ac.uk/downloads/8247.pdf.

Felten, P., Bagg, J., Bumbry, M., Hill, J., Hornsby, K., Pratt, M., & Weller, S. (2013). A call for expanding inclusive student engagement in SOTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 63-74.

Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014) Engagement through Partnership: Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. York: HE Academy. Retrieved from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/engagement-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher-education

Speakers
avatar for Arshad Ahmad

Arshad Ahmad

Associate Vice-President, Teaching and Learning & Director, MIIETL, McMaster University
Dr. Arshad Ahmad is the Associate Vice-President Teaching and Learning and Director of Institute for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching and Learning (MIIETL) at McMaster University. He is the Past Coordinator of the 3MNTF program and a 3M National Teaching Fellow. He is the Past... Read More →
avatar for Elizabeth Marquis

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).


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

1:45pm

CON03.05 - Exploring links between learning environments and student well-being
Although campus health has traditionally been the responsibility of student services, recent literature and public health models suggest that diverse players across the institution can play a role in creating healthy campus communities in higher education (American College Health Association, 2014; Keeling, 2014; Tsouros, Dowding, Thompson & Dooris, 1998; Washburn, Teo, Knodel, & Morris, 2013). There is growing interest in in creating conditions for well-being in higher education, with particular attention to the learning environment. This session will present the results of original research exploring the links between learning environments and student well-being at a comprehensive, Canadian institution. Over 1000 student responses were collected through a participatory action research study involving 14 faculty members. The session will present the rationale for the Well-being in Learning Environments project, the process of working collaboratively with campus partners and the results, both in terms the original research conducted and resources created. The Well-being in Learning Environments project, a partnership between the Teaching and Learning Centre and Health Promotion, has garnered national and international attention and was recognized with an Innovation Award from the Canadian Association of College and University Student Services in June 2014. Participants will have an increased understanding of the links between learning environments and student well-being and how learning environments can be shaped to contribute to student well-being. In addition, participants will discuss how the research findings can be used as a catalyst for collaboration at their institution, to create conditions for well-being in learning environments.

References:

American College Health Association (2014). Healthy Campus 2020 Objectives. Retrieved from http://www.acha.org/HealthyCampus/objectives.cfm

Keeling, R. (2014). An Ethic of Care in Higher Education: Well-being and Learning. Journal of College and Character, 15(3), 141-148.

Tsouros, A., Dowding, G., Thompson, J. & Dooris, M. (1998). Health Promoting Universities: Concept, Experience and Framework for Action. World Health Organization: Geneva.

Washburn, C., Teo, S., Knoedel, R., & Morris, J. (2013). Post-Secondary Student Mental Health: A Guide to a Systemic Approach. Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) and the Canadian Association of Colleges and University Student Services (CACUSS).



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

1:45pm

CON03.10 - Leadership to advance scholarly teaching at post-secondary institutions
A panel of teaching centre leaders from a variety of post-secondary institutions will facilitate a discussion on academic institutional leadership and support for scholarly teaching. The aim of the session is to have an open sharing of ideas and discussion with teaching and learning leaders on creating a supportive scholarly teaching culture, mitigating research challenges (i.e. research ethics boards, supporting faculty transition to human subject research, grants/funds and “acceptance”), and connecting scholarly teaching communities with other communities provincially, nationally and internationally. This session will also focus on the multiple entry points faculty can come to being engaged in a culture of scholarly teaching at the post-secondary level. The panelists will first share the practices currently working at their institutions and then the floor will be open for participants to contribute their successful practices, ask questions and help build a collection of ideas for leaders to take back to their institutions.

Hubball, H.T., & Albon, S. (2007). Developing a Faculty Learning Community: Enhancing the Scholarship of Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Practice. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 18(2),119-142.

Hubball, H.T., Clarke, A., & Poole, G. (2010). Ten-year Reflections on Mentoring SoTL Research in a Research-Intensive University. (Accepted). International Journal for Academic Development.

Speakers
avatar for Peter Arthur

Peter Arthur

University of British Columbia Okanagan
avatar for Stephanie Chu

Stephanie Chu

Vice Provost Teaching & Learning, Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Passionate about advancing teaching and learning and related University community and culture. Imagine what we can do together!
avatar for Gary Hunt

Gary Hunt

Coordinator, Teaching and Learning Support, Thompson Rivers University
TRU
avatar for Liesel Knaack

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 →


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

1:45pm

CON03.CreativeDiscussion02 - Tuning into dissonance and resonance in post-secondary communities of practice
How can post-secondary institutions remain responsive to emerging requirements and not just reactive to short term conditions? We live in times of great uncertainty and rapid change that call us all to respond with our highest capabilities. Traditionally, the culture of academia reinforces a habit of separation, and while we are beginning to use collaborative approaches with our students, we have yet to fully embrace these concepts among faculty. We know for our students that learning, as a social phenomenon, is catalyzed in holding environments designed with developmental intention. What might be possible if we more intentionally create faculty learning environments that support and challenge us at the leading edge of our potential?

Communities of practice (CoPs) are ideal holding environments to create a bridge across difference, and assist us in continually stepping into the unknown. This involves first recognizing and surfacing dissonance or resonance as an embodied feeling in the present moment, choosing to sit with it and be curious, and then opening to new possibilities. During this one hour deep dive conversation, participants will experience a mini CoP based on Dr. McAlister’s recent research, and the work of Cox and Richlin (2004), Palmer and Zajonc (2010), Scharmer (2009), and Wenger (1998). Presencing techniques will be used to explore emerging themes from the conference, and then to consider how CoPs might fit within the culture of our own institutions. 

References:

Cox, M., & Richlin, L. (eds.) (2004). Building faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. (No. 97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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

Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

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

Speakers

Wednesday June 17, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm
STLHE Registration Desk

1:45pm

CON03.CreativeDiscussion03 - Writing into our teaching challenges: Four creative writing exercises to deepen reflective practice
Numerous studies have shown that writing about traumatic or otherwise stressful events in our lives makes us healthier and helps us function better as professionals (Pennebaker 2004). As educators, we face potentially stressful experiences every day, especially as we engage with our most challenging students. As such, the positive impact of personal journaling on teaching practice specifically is also well established (Stevens and Cooper 2009).

Recently, education researchers have begun to consider whether creative writing in multiple genres – that is, beyond mere diarizing – might also assist in fostering academic reflective practice (Rath & Edgington, 2014). Rath and Edgington suggest the use of poetry to prompt reflection upon teaching. I would like to expand upon this suggestion by making the case, through this interactive workshop, that writing exercises normally reserved for fiction writing classes may also provide powerful opportunities for teachers in all fields to reflect deeply on their practice as educators.

In this workshop session, participants will explore a recent traumatic or otherwise stressful teaching situation from their own experience using four creative writing exercises. These writing prompts were originally devised to help fiction writers delve more deeply into the psychologies of their characters and the trajectory of their stories; now we will repurpose them to help us tune into our own teaching practice. This workshop will be a creative experiment with the potential to yield real insight into our behaviour as educators.

Pennebaker, J.W. (2004) Writing to Heal: A Guided Journal for Recovering from Trauma and Emotional Upheaval. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Rath, J., & Edgington, U. (2014) There is Rhyme and Reason: Using Creative Writing to Enable and Enhance Academic Reflective Practice (abstract). Australian Association for Research in Education conference.

Stevens, D.D., & Cooper J.E. (2009) Journal Keeping: How to Use Reflective Writing for Effective Learning, Teaching, Professional Insight, and Positive Change. Sterling, VA: Stylus.


Wednesday June 17, 2015 1:45pm - 2:45pm
STLHE Registration Desk

3:00pm

CON04.08 - Turning the tables: Bringing Aboriginal pedagogies into academic practice
I attended a roundtable focused on “Indigenizing The Classroom,” hoping to learn about “best practices” for incorporating Aboriginal pedagogies in post-secondary courses. Instead, presenters focused on incorporating indigenous content. When I asked presenters to comment on how they used Aboriginal pedagogies, they responded: “there aren’t any,” “it would be inappropriate,” and “it is impossible.” I was unsatisfied. Each Aboriginal community maintains its own protocols and philosophies concerning how to teach and learn in a good way. Some of these pedagogies are grounded in specific environments, languages, relationships, and systems. It is neither possible nor appropriate to extract these highly localized philosophies and practices from their cultural contexts. Yet there are several Aboriginal practices and philosophies that are more generalized, that can be mobilized effectively in post-secondary classrooms. These approaches include valuing oral testimony; seeking wisdom from one’s elders; sharing findings with one’s community; and taking a four-directions approach (especially engaging heart, body, and spirit in addition to the mind). In 2014, I put my research on Aboriginal pedagogies into practice, with outstanding outcomes for students and myself. In “Turning the Tables,” I present my findings, drawing from cutting-edge scholarship on “Indigenizing the Academy,” student feedback, and my own experiences. This presentation will explain how Aboriginal pedagogies work, with practical examples related to instruction, student engagement, assignments, and evaluation. I will demonstrate how decentring colonial educational approaches can acknowledge and encourage both cultural and scholastic diversity. Attendees will be invited to reflect on their own teaching practice in a circle discussion.

Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing Limited.

Graveline, F. J. (1998). Circle Works: Transforming Eurocentric consciousness. Halifax: Fernwood.

Hill, E. (2012). A critique of the call to ‘always indigenize!’. Peninsula 2(1). Retrieved from http://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/peninsula/article/view/11513/3212

Mihesuah, D. A. and Wilson, A. C. (Eds.). (2004). Indigenizing the academy: Transforming scholarship and empowering communities. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.


Wednesday June 17, 2015 3:00pm - 4:00pm
Director Room

4:00pm

POSTER.19 - Barriers faced by undergraduate students when reading primary literature
This investigation uncovers student attitudes and approaches to reading life sciences primary literature. Personal, anecdotal (Spiegelberg, 2014), and systematic (van Lacum, Ossevoort, Buikema & Goedhart, 2012) observations suggest that undergraduate students follow a text-based reading strategy, and avoid making independent conclusions based on results and methodology. While the student process of deep vs. surface learning has been examined for several decades (Marton & Säljö, 1976), it needs more investigation into student practices of interpreting biomedical literature (van Lacum, et al.). In this inquiry, students enrolled in a 1st year general biology course (HSCI100 – Human Biology), or a 4th year seminar course (HSCI477 – Senior Seminar in Vaccine Immunology) were assigned a primary literature article, and their reading strategies were assessed by survey. In both classes, we found that students rated the methods section as the least important for helping them understand the paper. Fourth year students spent more time reading the results section than first year students, however, they emphasized text rather than interpretation of figures. Given these observations, activities and assessments should cultivate student appreciation of methodology and direct students into reading practices that emphasize independent interpretation of results. These findings will be used as a basis for further inquiry into individual student reading strategies. Ultimately, these data will inform the design of layered assessments that build student skills in this practice from first year to fourth year.

Reference List:

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. 

Spiegelberg, B.D. (2014). A focused assignment encouraging deep reading in undergraduate biochemistry. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(1), 1-5. 

van Lacum, E., Ossevoort, M., Buikema, H. & Goedhart, M. (2012). First experiences with reading primary literature by undergraduate life science students. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1795-1821.


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

4:00pm

POSTER.20 - Exploring undergraduates' learning strategies and metacognition in an introductory science course
In introductory science and math courses, several students struggle with adopting appropriate study strategies for learning the course material (Grove & Bretz, 2012; Lynch & Trujillo, 2011). As such, scholars call for curriculum and pedagogy that improves students’ learning strategies and metacognition (Tanner, 2012). That is, for curriculum and pedagogy that encourages students to control, evaluate, plan, and monitor their learning (Anderson & Nashon, 2007). This presentation will provide an overview of a mixed methods research project that investigated the catalysts for metacognitive change in a large, second-year organic chemistry course. This course has a reputation of being difficult and as such, the instructor developed several formative resources (i.e. in-class quizzes, study strategy workshops) to provide students with explicit feedback on their learning strategies. A case study approach employing a metacognitive instrument, classroom observations, and one-on-one interviews offered a window into the supports and barriers students perceived as prompting them to address and/or change their approaches to learning. Analysis of the data revealed summative assessments (i.e. midterm and final examinations) as overshadowing the use and usefulness of the resources designed specifically to enhance student learning and metacognition. As such, several students struggled with the course content and found it hard to make effective adjustments to their learning strategies. Ideally, the presentation of this research will engage STLHE scholars in discussions about how we may balance formative and summative assessment in higher education to enhance students’ learning strategies and metacognition.

Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students' metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298-320.

Grove, N. P., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). A continuum of learning: from rote memorization to meaningful learning in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 201-208

Lynch, D. J., & Trujillo, H. (2011). Motivational beliefs and learning strategies in organic chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1351-1365).

Tanner, K. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 113-120.


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

4:00pm

POSTER.21 - Expose yourself to the scholarship of teaching and learning
Forms of research, like human bodies, have multiple entry points which, when identified and understood, can be used to ease the transition into new fields of research. In this poster, we will use the human body as a metaphor to explain how researchers from diverse disciplines can use familiar entry points to ease their transition into the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). As a universal and inherently meaningful feature of life for necessarily embodied human beings, the body is a uniquely relatable metaphorical source of identity. In academia, our identities as researchers are similarly crucial to our sense of who we are and how we navigate and explore our own and other disciplines.

This poster highlights visual representations of the connections between the elements and systems of research with their analogues in the human body, as well as the connections between systems within each member of that metaphorical pair. For example, in the body, two of the digestive system’s primary functions are to absorb nutrients and eliminate waste; comparatively, when we, as researchers, are sifting through countless books and articles in search of evidence, it is imperative we are critical and efficient – absorbing the good, and eliminating the bad. Entry points, system elements, means and types of connections, and functions will be represented to help those entering SoTL better situate themselves in this new field, along the way demystifying its vocabulary and expectations, making it less intimidating and more accessible.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Hutchings, P. & Shulman, L.S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, September/October, 1999, 10‐15.

Meyer, J. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practicing within the disciplines. Occasional Report No 4, Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project, Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry and Durham.

Shulman, L.S. (2000). Inventing the future. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.


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

4:00pm

POSTER.22 - Faculty perceptions of challenges and enablers of effective teaching
The University of British Columbia (University of British Columbia), home to both campus-wide and Faculty-specific teaching and learning centres, hosts numerous initiatives targeting the improvement of student learning and the student experience. This includes the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (Faculty of Science, launched in 2007) and the Flexible Learning Initiative (University of British Columbia wide, launched in 2013). In fall 2014, University of British Columbia ran a campus-wide survey on teaching practices with the following goals: a) Establishing baseline information of teaching practices and attitudes among faculty, b) Measuring the impact of existing teaching and learning initiatives such as those mentioned above, and c) Recognizing the conditions leading to change in practices and attitudes around teaching (Borrego & Henderson, 2014). This survey was a modified version of a tool used to investigate the teaching climate at University of British Columbia in 2008. Over 1000 faculty with teaching responsibilities across 10 Faculties responded to the 2014 survey. In this session we will discuss the comments and insights shared by participants around the following issues: the biggest challenges for teaching; changes that could be made at University of British Columbia to help faculty teach more effectively; and factors that have improved their teaching. In this session we will be sharing our methodology and preliminary results on the main challenges and enablers of effective teaching practice at this large research-intensive institution. We will also discuss with the audience connections to existing research (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005) and the connections and implications of our findings for their institutional contexts.

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252. doi:10.1002/jee.20040.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Speakers
avatar for Andrea Han (University of British Columbia)

Andrea Han (University of British Columbia)

Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology - Senior Manager, Curriculum and Special Projects, University of British Columbia
avatar for Simon Bates (University of British Columbia)

Simon Bates (University of British Columbia)

Senior Advisor, Teaching and Learning | Academic Director, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology., University of British Columbia
STLHE conference co-chair | Professor of Teaching in Physics and Astronomy at UBC, currently designing a new intro course for first year Physics students.


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

4:00pm

POSTER.23 - Insights from the inaugural cohort of an innovative first-year undergraduate program for international students
This poster presentation showcases innovative aspects of a new first-year undergraduate program for international students at the University of British Columbia. Launched in September 2014, University of British Columbia Vantage College (www.vantagecollege.University of British Columbia.ca) provides a venue for international students who wish to pursue undergraduate studies in Applied Science, Arts, Management or Science, yet who do not meet direct entry English language requirements. Students complete a rigorous first year of credit-bearing courses that prepares them for their second year of study. Courses in the Vantage One program are connected using interdisciplinary approaches and following a language and content integrated learning model (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010; Crandall & Kaufman, 2002). For each content course (e.g., Physics, Political Science, Psychology), students attend a linked academic English tutorial that enhances students’ comprehension of the concepts and topics, while simultaneously raising their awareness of the language resources used in the respective disciplinary fields. This presentation will outline the Vantage One Program curriculum structure and ways in which collaborative teaching practices are adopted, together with some initial program evaluation findings related to student expectations and perceptions. These preliminary findings from our first student cohort are drawn from quantitative and qualitative analyses of student surveys. A student-facing report of these results was developed and shared with current students to support and enrich their learning experience. Details about the program structure, students in our first cohort, teaching approaches, and program evaluation will be shared, leaving the audience with some innovative ideas to implement in their own programs and teaching.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crandall, J. A., & Kaufman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Content-based instruction in higher education settings. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc.


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

4:00pm

POSTER.24 - Institutional teaching cultures: Tuning our attention to process metrics in an era of assessment and accountability
There are increasing demands to find metrics that account for the quality of student learning and teaching (Chalmers, 2008), yet many of the currently available metrics focus on inputs and outputs. To create a more harmonious and holistic view of the quality of teaching and learning, we advocate for also identifying process and outcome metrics that can demonstrate the value, importance, and enhancement of the quality of teaching that our institutions provide. An institutional culture that values teaching quality is likely to improve student learning (Cox, McIntosh, Reason, & Terenzini, 2011). By including process metrics, we can document institutional teaching cultures and provide useful benchmarks for institutions in their ongoing enhancement of teaching and learning. Continuing from preliminary work presented lasted year (Wolf et al, 2014) and based on results from our pilot study at three Ontario institutions, we have refined the Teaching Culture Perception Survey (TCPS). This survey aims to assess educators’ current perceptions of their institutional teaching culture, as well as their perceptions of the importance of various components that comprise a teaching culture. For this interactive poster, we will update participants on our expanding project that now involves over 10 institutions from Ontario and Quebec working collaboratively to tune and test the TCPS. Participants will have an opportunity to share their insights and provide feedback on the revised TCPS, by discussing our current process and outcome indicators and identifying additional ones to consider. 

Chalmers, D., (2008). Indicators of University Teaching and Learning Quality, Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Australia. 

Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K. L., Reason, R. D., & Terenzini, P. T. (2011). A culture of teaching: Policy, perception, and practice in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 52(8), 808-829.

Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering Quality Teaching in Higher Education: Policies and Practices: An IMHE Guide for Higher Education Institutions, Institutional Management in Higher Education, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development www.oecd.org/edu/imhe.

Wolf, P., Ellis, D., Grose, J., Goff, L., Dawson, D., Meadows, K., Doci, F., & Borin, P. (2014). Documenting and transforming institutional teaching cultures. Presented at the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, June 17-20, 2014: Kingston ON.

Speakers
avatar for Erika Kustra

Erika Kustra

Chair, Educational Developers Caucus
Erika Kustra became an educational developer in 1999, beginning to facilitate sessions earlier during her graduate and postdoctoral work in physiological psychology. She has been the EDC Secretary, STLHE Newsletter Editor, and participated in EDC Action Groups. In the last six years... Read More →


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

4:00pm

POSTER.25 - Iterative practice, iterative pedagogy: Integrating writing and studio education to foster reflective teaching and transformative learning in the first-year graphic design Classroom
This poster highlights the preliminary findings of a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) pilot project in design education exploring how the design concept of iteration – understood as a practice including research, (re)drafting, reflecting and revising – fosters critical engagement in the first-year Graphic Design classroom. Critical engagement and discourse are fundamental to the process of transformative learning (Mezirow, 2003; Cranton, 2006). They are also fundamental to the process of making: students must recognize preconceptions, undertake research, understand, deconstruct and draw upon the work of other designers, present and discuss their own designs, and provide constructive feedback on the work of their peers. Yet first-year students often lack the necessary skills to productively undertake these processes, and overestimate their abilities to do so as a result of unarticulated habits of mind and unexamined assumptions about research and learning. Research suggests that integrating writing into disciplinary learning contexts can promote critical thinking and deep learning (Bean, 2011). Taking this as its starting point, this pilot project, a cross-disciplinary collaboration between a writing specialist and two design instructors, sought to integrate discipline-specific writing activities into design studio pedagogy. The project’s preliminary findings suggest that these writing tasks supported first-years’ iterative reflective processes and skills development, providing them with the means and opportunities to challenge habits of mind and engage critically with their work, both on their own and in the studio classroom. The poster will also highlight the ways in which the collaborative assignment design process was itself iterative, fostering reflective teaching practice among academic support staff and discipline-specific faculty. 

References: 

Bean, J.C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom, 2nd edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: a guide for educators of adults, 2nd edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2003).Transformative Learning as Discourse. Journal of Transformative Education 1(1), 58-63.


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

4:00pm

POSTER.26 - Peer feedback on writing: Is more better? A pilot study
A good deal of SoTL literature shows that engaging in peer feedback can help improve student writing (e.g., Topping, 1998; Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Cho & Cho, 2011; Crossman & Kite, 2012). Still, there are some gaps in the literature. First, most studies published on this topic consider the effect of peer feedback on revisions to a single essay, rather than on whether students use peer comments on one essay when writing another essay. In addition, there is little in the literature about a “dose-response” curve: is peer feedback more effective in improving writing after a certain number of such activities, and/or are there diminishing returns after quite a few sessions? We designed a study to address these gaps by linking the comments given and received on essays to how students change their writing on later essays, in a course in which students write 12 essays over a year and engage in one hour of peer feedback every week. In this poster we report on a pilot study with one section of this course during 2013-2014. We collected all essays and peer comments from the participants in the study, as well as comments by the instructor on those essays. We have coded the peer comments and are in the process of coding instructor comments and the essays themselves. The poster will show our research design, data collection methods, and plan for data analysis for this very complex study with a large amount of qualitative data.

Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006

Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2010). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1

Crossman, J. M., & Kite, S. L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(3), 219–229. http://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412452980

Topping, K. (1998). Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249

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


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

4:00pm

POSTER.27 - Reflecting on diagnostic errors: Taking a second look is not enough
It is generally accepted that human reasoning is consistent with a “dual process” model and that cognitive errors are associated with a rapid, non-analytical “System 1” process (Kahneman, 2012). Reflective practice (Schön, 1983) on the other hand is associated with analytical thinking (System 2) and is generally assumed to result in fewer errors (Mamede et al. 2004, 2007). This dual-process model, made popular by Daniel Kahneman has been highly influential in medical education and several authors recommend higher education interventions that help medical residents identify cognitive biases and encourage analytic thought (Croskerry, 2003). A series of experiments investigated several key assumptions of the cognitive biases approach to medical reasoning, demonstrating that diagnostic accuracy is not affected by instruction in generalizable reasoning strategies (Monteiro et al. 2015; Norman et al. 2014.; Sherbino et al., 2014; Sherbino et al., 2012). In one study, participants instructed to be more careful and analytic were not significantly more accurate (45%) than participants instructed to diagnose quickly (44.5%) (Norman et al., 2014). In another study, revising a previous incorrect diagnosis resulted in a small benefit, increasing accuracy from 32% to 45% (p< 0.05) for revised diagnoses (Monteiro et al.). However diagnoses that were not revised were far more accurate (62.5%). We will discuss the results of these studies in the context of reflective practice in higher education more broadly. 

1. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking. Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

2. Norman, G., Sherbino, J., Dore, K., Wood, T., Young, M., Gaissmaier, W., ... & Monteiro, S. (2014). The etiology of diagnostic errors: a controlled trial of system 1 versus system 2 reasoning. Academic Medicine, 89(2), 277-284.

3. Monteiro, S.D., Sherbino, J., Patel, A., Mazzetti, I., Norman, G. and Howey E. Reflecting on diagnostic errors: Taking a second look is not enough. Journal of General Internal Medicine. In Press.


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

4:00pm

POSTER.28 - SoTL snakes and ladders: Variations on a theme
This poster outlines results from an in-depth study at one Ontario institution that explored how academics develop an identity as scholars of teaching and learning. Each of these persons works in a different discipline; they represent diverse backgrounds, and yet, there are similarities in their accounts, particularly around the supports from which they have benefited and the challenges they have encountered. These themes will be compared to the results of two larger studies: Wuetherick, Yu, and Greer’s (in press) overview of SoTL work at the University of Saskatchewan and Poole and Simmons’ (2013) international study to engage you in building a comparative example of the major themes. You will be invited to interact with the poster by helping create a snakes and ladders game, responding to the original study questions: 1) What draws you to this work? 2) What supports you in this work? 3) What challenges you in this work? 4) What could support you further? and 5) What are the outcomes of this work? Your participation will give you an opportunity to consider and discuss how obstacles to SoTL might be overcome and SoTL supports enhanced in your own setting. The intention is to have you play further variations on the theme at your own institution. 

References:

Poole, G., & Simmons, N. (2013). The contributions of the scholarship of teaching and learning to quality enhancement in Canada. In G. Gordon, & R. Land (Eds.), Quality enhancement in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 118-128). London: Routledge.

Wuetherick, B., Yu, S., & Greer, J. (in press). Exploring the SoTL landscape at the university of Saskatchewan. In N. Simmons (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in Canada: Institutional impact. New Directions in Teaching and Learning.


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

4:00pm

POSTER.29 - Teaching team work skills to undergraduate students: How many teaching strategies do you use?
Teams perform best in achieving their shared goals when individuals within the team have both the necessary discipline knowledge and the skills to engage effectively in the process of teamwork (Hughes & Jones, 2011). Employers want graduates who not only have the required technical knowledge and skills, but have also developed ‘soft skills’ like teamwork (Hood et al., 2013). Teaching and assessing teamwork skills is difficult, usually not done well or not done at all (Hughes & Jones, 2011). There is a growing body of literature on the development of teamwork skills, although there is little evidence in the literature that teamwork skills have been systematically taught or assessed in the health professions. Since the focus on teaching and assessing teamwork skills is relatively new and resources are only beginning to emerge, it is reasonable to assume that academics themselves do not necessarily have well developed teamwork skills nor strategies to cultivate such skills in their students. What is lacking in the literature is evidence of how critical reflection influences how academics teach and assess teamwork skills. Multidisciplinary researchers from health sciences investigated how academics teach and assess teamwork skills. Critical self-reflection was a valuable strategy for academics to improve how they teach and assess teamwork skills. Key recommendations for academics actively teaching and assessing teamwork skills include integrating teamwork skills into the curriculum and allowing time for students to develop their skills across the curriculum. Strategies for developing effective teamwork skills included specific training about teamwork dynamics, conflict management and critical self-reflection. Findings from the study add to the evidence that critical reflection enhances team work teaching. 

References:

Hood, K., Cant, R., Baulch, J., Gilbee, A., Leech, M., Anderson, A., & Davies, K. (2013). Prior experience of interprofessional learning enhances undergraduate nursing and healthcare students' professional identity and attitudes to teamwork. Nurse Education in Practice, 14(2), 1-617-122. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2013.07.013

Hughes, R.L., & Jones, S. K. (2011). Developing and assessing college student teamwork skills. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(149), 53-64. doi: 10.1002/ir.380



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

4:00pm

POSTER.30 - The impact of practice on graduate students’ confidence to give a lecture
In this poster session, we will present findings from a study conducted at the University of Guelph that measured changes in graduate students’ confidence to lecture after delivering a practice lecture and providing/receiving feedback. Participants can expect to identify ways to nurture instructor self-confidence in teaching and to reflect on the role of confidence in their own teaching practice. Teaching workshops are one of the most common forms of professional development for teaching assistants at institutions across Canada. Yet research has suggested that workshops have limited long-term impact on teaching behaviour and attitudes, and student learning (Prieto & Meyers, 2001). With an interest in improving the efficacy of teaching workshops in improving teaching attitudes, and building on Boman’s work (2013), we designed this study to explore the relationship between practice lecturing and graduate student confidence to give a lecture. Our specific research question was “What impact, if any, does practice have on graduate students’ confidence to give a lecture?” Following from this question, we asked “Should practice be incorporated into graduate student teaching development workshops?” Our poster will not only present findings from this study, but will actively engage poster viewers through dialogue with presenters and the poster itself in considering opportunities for incorporating practice in their own experience as educators and life-long learners. 

References:

Boman, J. (2013). Graduate student teaching development: Evaluating the effectiveness of training in relation to graduate student characteristics. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 43(1): 100-114.

Boman, J. (2008). Outcomes of a graduate teaching assistant training program (Ph.D. Dissertation). The University of Western Ontario, Canada.

Prieto, L. R., & Meyers, S. (2001). The teaching assistant training handbook: How to prepare TAs for their responsibilities. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Speakers
avatar for Meagan Troop (University of Guelph)

Meagan Troop (University of Guelph)

Curriculum Consultant for the International Institute for Critical Studies in Improvisation, University of Guelph


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

4:00pm

POSTER.31 - The impact of processing skills on students’ use of research resources
Interdisciplinary, active-learning First-Year Seminars increase students’ processing skills (e.g., reading critically, conducting independent research) (Murray & Summerlee, 2007) and long-term grade-point averages (Summerlee & Murray, 2010). This interactive session will explore the association between students’ processing skills and use of different research resources. A total of 1256 students enrolled in a First-Year Seminar between Fall 2011 and Winter 2014 completed anonymous paper-and-pen questionnaires at semester end to assess their frequency of using different research resources and level of processing skills. More frequent use of scholarly articles was associated with greater skills conducting independent research, reading critically, using a variety of resources, and using the library. Students who less frequently relied on their instructor or teaching assistants reported better collaboration skills and comfort with independent research. Students who less frequently used the Internet as a research resource reported greater skills using the library and a variety of sources. Students less skilled at using a variety of sources more commonly used Wikipedia. This session will allow participants to engage in a discussion with each other and the presenters on how to foster students’ collaboration and critical reading skills along with savvy navigation of library systems as a means to increase the quality of students’ research resource reliance. This session is particularly relevant to instructors, librarians, and others working with first-year students, but may also be of interest to those focused on improving research skills and resource use for students at all levels.


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

4:00pm

POSTER.32 - Using easily accessible aggregate LMS and SEoT data to evaluate learning design, learner engagement and perceived course value
Learning analytics research may allow higher education to make better use of ‘big educational data’ for learning design (Ferguson, 2012; Lockyer et al., 2013). In this exploratory study we have brought together several sets of data from our institution to examine whether aggregated course-level data can be used to assess the relationships between different elements of course engagement: course and assessment structure, student online activity, and perceived course value. We explored aggregate course-level data (Learning Management System data and course evaluation (SEoT) data (Marsh, 2007)) from 26 online courses, rather than individual learner data, with the goal of discovering approaches that may be generalizable across higher education institutions, while avoiding use of sensitive personal information. Our preliminary results indicate that online courses in which students spend more time on peer interaction activities (mainly the discussion forum) receive higher evaluation scores, while the relationship between time spent on course content pages and perceived value is not as clear. Having an emphasis on effort-based assessments, on the other hand, and organizing course materials into modules, is associated with higher perceived value. This work demonstrates the value of pooled, easily accessible, and anonymous data for high-level inferences regarding learning in online courses. Specifically, our analysis suggests that courses whose activities and assessments are more demanding of learner time are, in fact, associated with increased perceived value, especially when students use their time in the course to interact with peers. Results also show that course structure can contribute to productive interactions, but not as simply as one would think. _x000D_
_x000D_
Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5/6), 304–317._x000D_
_x000D_
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ Evaluations of University Teaching: Dimensionality, Reliability, Validity, Potential Biases and Usefulness. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.) The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective (pp319-383). Springer Netherlands._x000D_
_x000D_
Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E., & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action: Aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1439-1459. doi:10.1177/000276421347936

Speakers
avatar for Ido Roll

Ido Roll

Director, Institute for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, University of British Columbia
Technology can Help folks be eager learners Fruitful in context


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

10:30am

CON05.01 - Exploring the integration of SoTL research results in institutional processes
This interactive panel and discussion addresses the follow question: How can we encourage the application of SoTL research by adapting or developing institutional processes to increase SoTL use. Support for creative and scholarly work on teaching and learning has evolved in parallel with a growing emphasis in the wider research community on the complimentary activity of knowledge mobilization and the use of research by practitioners. While we have made significant progress in supporting the ‘supply’ side of SoTL research, we have not had the same success in cultivating the ‘demand’ side. The goal of this session is to explore ideas on how institutions can better support the application of existing SoTL research to advance teaching and leaning. In the first half of the session panel members will initiate the discussion by summarizing recent pilot studies, from three Canadian universities, where SoTL knowledge mobilization was imbedded in institutional processes. Panelists will report from the perspectives of multiple roles (as faculty, students, educational developer and institutional executive). These examples are at early stages of evaluation and institutional integration. At the end of the session participants will: have shared and discussed institutional examples of knowledge mobilization practice; considered how current practice at their institution might be further integrate existing SoTL research to enhance institutional processes (beyond individual faculty work); identified potential steps to further this approach at their institutions to enhance institutional planning and goal setting. We look forward to learning from others about their interests, ideas and progress in this area. 

References:
Haigh, N., Gossman, P., & Jiao, X. (2011). Undertaking an institutional ‘stock-take’of SoTL: New Zealand university case studies. Higher Education Research & Development, 30 (1), 9-23.

Hutchings, P., Borin, P., Keesing-Styles, L., Martin, L., Michael, R., Scharff, L., Simpkins, S. & Ismail, A. (2013). The scholarship of teaching and learning in an age of accountability: building bridges. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 35-47.

McKinney, K. (2003). Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning: How can we do better? The Teaching Professor, August-September: 1,5,8.

Wright, M. C., Finelli, C. J., Meizlish, D., & Bergom, I. (2011). Facilitating the scholarship of teaching and learning at a research university. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43 (2), 50-56.


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

10:30am

CON05.08 - Quiet voices: Processes to better hear sessional instructors in awards for teaching
The literature on teaching awards describes three purposes for introducing and sustaining teaching awards in higher education: to publicly acknowledge (or be seen to acknowledge) support for teaching; to recognize teaching excellence; and, to encourage or inspire teaching excellence (Carusetta, 2001; Van Note Chism, 2006). What goes unstated in this literature is that these purposes, and the award criteria, presuppose the winners as faculty members at the institution. Much of the existing literature has focused on the impact of teaching awards – whether for contributions to teaching culture or incentivizing improvement – and methods to ensure criteria and evaluation validity and equity (Halse et al, 2007). However, “equity” in this literature has been limited to award distribution across gender, discipline, classroom context and age; discussions of equity have not yet taken into account instructor status within the institution. Specifically, these discussions have not yet engaged with how the opportunity to win these awards for sessional, or contract instructors, is impacted by award criteria and processes.

It is to this discussion we turn in our 45-minute interactive workshop. In the workshop we introduce representative examples of teaching awards, criteria, processes and winner profiles from Ontario institutions and national bodies. We then demonstrate how existing award criteria largely forecloses the likelihood of sessional instructors being nominated and selected for teaching awards. We then work collaboratively with participants to envision teaching award criteria and processes more likely to include sessional instructors. The overarching aim of this workshop is to interrogate existing processes and criteria of teaching awards in Canada and to envision alternate and more inclusive futures.


Thursday June 18, 2015 10:30am - 11:15am
Salon 3

1:45pm

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.


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

1:45pm

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
RC

Robert Cockcroft

McMaster University
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.
avatar for Elizabeth Marquis

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).


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

1:45pm

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


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

1:45pm

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
SF

Sheri Fabian

Dr. Sheri Fabian is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University. Her teaching and research focus on minorities and justice, qualitative research methods, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. She is a mentor for the graduate student Certificate... Read More →


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

1:45pm

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


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

1:45pm

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
JG

Jane Gair (University of Victoria)

Assistant Teaching Professor, University of Victoria


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

1:45pm

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.


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

1:45pm

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
CV

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
Bayshore Salon ABC

1:45pm

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

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

3:00pm

CON07.04 - Creating a framework and supports for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning research projects
At our university, we support small grants for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) projects. Our team is seeking to address the concern that prospective SoTL investigators may not have sufficient relevant methodological perspective and/or expertise to approach SoTL questions, and thus certain designs are over/under-utilized and/or not well-suited to the inquiry at hand. To address this, we have reviewed 120 of our small grant projects, harmonizing them into a single framework, and developing accompanying support materials. The framework includes quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and conceptualises projects according to their research purposes (exploratory or testing), project types (e.g., design, evaluation), data sources, and participant selection/recruitment methods. Drawing from our own SoTL experiences and disciplinary backgrounds (Education and Statistics), we have sought to make this framework practical and understandable to SoTL researchers across disciplines. The materials accompanying the framework facilitate informed choices regarding the relative suitability and implementation of different research designs by providing practical advice and suggestions as well as resources for further reading. We will share an abridged version of our framework and accompanying materials with participants and we will engage participants in an activity in which they will apply our framework to their own question(s). Attendees will develop a deeper and wider understanding of the range of methodologies that can be used to address SoTL questions, as well as some of the theoretical, practical, and methodological considerations that should inform their choice(s).

Speakers

Thursday June 18, 2015 3:00pm - 3:30pm
Seymour Room

3:00pm

CON07.06 - ‘Threshold concepts’, dissonance and disorientation in transformative learning: Exploring student encounters with ‘troublesome knowledge’ in Introductory Sociology
One of the most exciting aspects of teaching is seeing students challenged - and changed - by the ideas they encounter. As Mezirow (1991) stated, transformative learning typically involves a period of significant disorientation, prompting students to question and reject previous beliefs. While unsettling at the time, this destabilising experience of dissonance and discomfort ultimately generates transformative learning, achieved when the temporary uncertainties resolve into a stable, new understanding. Within sociology, a key concept encountered early on – the ‘sociological imagination’ - frequently challenges students in this way, before leading them to transformative ‘epiphanies’ (e.g. Haddad and Lieberman, 2002). Seeing this take place repeatedly in my own Introductory Sociology classes enabled me to identify the sociological imagination as an especially significant ‘threshold concept’ within the discipline (Meyer and Land, 2003) and, using this conceptual framework, I began exploring how students traverse this particular threshold in their learning. Using a CATS-inspired approach (Angelo and Cross, 1993), I ask students to complete weekly in-class writing tasks for the duration of the course, which form a cumulative ‘learning dossier’. This serves to document changes in their thinking, as they grapple with developing their own sociological imagination. In this presentation I will explain the development of my research with reference to Meyer and Land’s theory and invite audience members to identify ‘threshold concepts’ in their own field that could be explored using a similar approach. I will conclude by encouraging discussion of the implications of some of my research findings for our everyday teaching practices.

Key words: threshold concepts, transformative learning, the sociological imagination, CATs

References: 

Angelo, T. and K.P. Cross (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Haddad, A. and Lieberman, L. (2002) ‘From student resistance to embracing the sociological imagination: unmasking privilege, social conventions and racism.’ Teaching Sociology 30: 328-341

Meyer, J. and R. Land (2003) ‘Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines.’ In C. Rust (ed.) Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice Ten Years On Oxford: Oxford Brookes University

Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning San Francisco: Jossey-Bass


Thursday June 18, 2015 3:00pm - 3:30pm
Chairman Room

3:00pm

CON07.09 - Peer review of teaching: Program evaluation results
Fueled by global concerns about the quality of student learning experiences and the effectiveness of university teaching, there has been increasing attention to the evaluation of teaching in a broad array of institutional and disciplinary contexts in higher education (Arreola, 2007; Harris et al., 2008). The University of British Columbia has long recognized the importance of attending to the evaluation of teaching practices. However, the enactment of a campus-based approach and localized scholarship directed at these practices remains very much in its infancy. In 2008, a working group was tasked with developing principles and procedures for the formal summative evaluation of teaching, to inform decision making regarding re-appointment, promotion and tenure at University of British Columbia. During 2010-2011, the working group initiated a program to train nominated representatives from each Faculty in the principles and practice of the summative peer review of teaching (SPRT) process. Those faculty members have been actively involved as leaders of the SPRT Initiative and have helped design and implement customized Peer Review of Teaching (PRT) processes within the 12 Faculties at University of British Columbia. In the fall of 2013, CTLT designed a survey to evaluate the implemented PRT programs at University of British Columbia. The survey was distributed through SPRT Faculty representatives and was open between the dates of February 11 and March 4, 2014. 100 responses were received in total from 8 Faculties. In this session we share an overview of the PRT Initiative at University of British Columbia, and the qualitative and quantitative results from the survey, from the viewpoint of reviewers and reviewees.

• Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.

• Harris, K-L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M., & James, R. (2008). Peer review of teaching in Australian higher education: A handbook to support institutions in developing effective policies and practices. Australian Learning and Teaching Council Publication.

Speakers
avatar for Simon Bates (University of British Columbia)

Simon Bates (University of British Columbia)

Senior Advisor, Teaching and Learning | Academic Director, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology., University of British Columbia
STLHE conference co-chair | Professor of Teaching in Physics and Astronomy at UBC, currently designing a new intro course for first year Physics students.


Thursday June 18, 2015 3:00pm - 3:30pm
Salon 2

3:45pm

CON08.04 - Exploring the outcomes of empowerment among health sciences students
The concept of empowerment has been a topic of interest in the educational literature for decades. The link between structural and psychological empowerment is well established among employees (Spreitzer, 1995); however, this relationship has not been adequately explored in the student context. In addition, although the direct association between structural empowerment and positive student attitudes, behaviours, and academic success has recently been noted (Babenko-Mould et al., 2012; Houser & Bainbridge Frymier, 2009; Beauvais et al., 2013), this research fails to identify the mediating mechanisms through which structural empowerment impacts student outcomes. The purpose of this study was to test a multi-group mediated model of empowerment within nine programs at a large urban Canadian college. Relationships between student empowerment (structural and psychological), engagement, satisfaction, collaboration, and intent to stay (current program of study and academic institution) were tested using a cross-sectional survey design. A convenience quota sampling plan was employed in an attempt to achieve adequate representation from each program. Data analysis was completed using multi- group structural equation modeling. Knowledge gained from this study may be useful in creating learning environments which facilitate students’ access to resources, opportunity, information, and power (structural empowerment). In turn, these structurally empowering academic environments are likely to increase student’s psychological empowerment (meaning, confidence, self-determination, and impact), collaboration, academic engagement, and intent to stay.

Babenko-Mould, Y., Iwasix, C., Andrusyszyn, M.A., Laschinger, H., & Weston, W. (2012). Effects of clinical practice environments on clinical teacher and nursing student outcomes. Journal of Nursing Education, 51(4), 217-226.

Beauvais, A.M., Stewart, J.G., DeNisco, S., & Beauvais, J.E. (2013). Factors related to academic success among nursing students: A descriptive correlational research study. Nursing Education Today, 1-6.

Houser, M.L., & Bainbridge Frymier, A. (2009). The role of student characteristics and teacher behaviours in students’ learner empowerment. Communication Education, 58(1), 35-53.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimension, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.


Thursday June 18, 2015 3:45pm - 4:15pm
Mackenzie Room

3:45pm

CON08.05 - Examining the role of friendship in mentoring relationships between faculty advisors and graduate students
There is considerable disagreement among authors regarding the critical functions employed by faculty advisors in the effective mentoring of graduate students. Some of this ambiguity relates to the dubious role of ‘friendship’ in these mentoring relationships. Kram’s (1988) seminal research, which was conducted in a business setting, but has been widely (and perhaps blindly) adopted within academia, identified friendship as being an important psychosocial function of mentoring. However, Johnson (2008), among others, has questioned the possible incompatibility of faculty mentors serving as friends while maintaining their roles as objective evaluators of their students’ work. In a recent study examining mentoring between faculty advisors and graduate students, Beres and Dixon (2014) found elements of mutual respect and collegiality, which may be precursors to friendship. For example, these authors found that mentors treated protégés like equals, downplaying the power and status differences between them. Despite these insights, and given the retrospective nature of their study, it remains unclear whether friendship was present at the start of the mentoring relationships, whether it developed during the students’ journey through graduate school, whether it developed after the active mentoring relationships had ended, or if it developed at all. Following a discussion of the existing literature regarding the tenuous role of friendship within mentoring relationships between faculty advisors and graduate students, we will engage participants in individual and group activities that will foster a deeper exploration of this topic, while helping participants (re-)consider the possible role of friendship in their past, present, and future mentoring relationships.

Beres, J. L., & Dixon, J. C. (2014). Exploring mentoring functions within the sport management academy: Perspectives of mentors and protégés. Sport Management Education Journal, 8, 14-26. doi:10.1123/SMEJ.2012-0007

Johnson, W. B. (2008). Are advocacy, mutuality, and evaluation incompatible mentoring functions? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16, 31–44. doi:10.1080/13611260701800942

Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Boston, MA: University Press of America.


Thursday June 18, 2015 3:45pm - 4:15pm
Seymour Room

3:45pm

CON08.09 - How can mid-course evaluations of teaching inform our teaching practice and improve students’ learning experiences?
Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are the most common approach to evaluating quality of instruction in higher education (Winchester & Winchester, 2012). Typically, SETs are completed towards the end of a course as a means of summative assessment. However, mid-course evaluations of teaching are being increasingly promoted as a way for instructors to collect useful formative feedback from students partway through a course (University of British Columbia Mid-course Feedback, n.d.). These informal evaluations are typically conducted approximately halfway through the term, enabling students’ feedback to be analyzed and applied, as appropriate, during that course offering. Gathering and applying feedback in this way acknowledges its context-specific nature and has the potential to enhance the teaching and learning environment in notable ways (Cook-Sather, 2009). Currently, 30% of instructors in our Faculty indicate they gather mid-course feedback from students in their courses. This interactive session will draw upon our experiences conducting mid-course evaluations of teaching in approximately 40 undergraduate and graduate courses, ranging in size from 15 to 200 students. We will share insights regarding various approaches to conducting evaluations and provide examples of ways in which students’ mid-course feedback has had significant impacts on our teaching practice. Through facilitated discussion and small-group learning activities, we will support participants in identifying strategies to i) effectively administer mid-course evaluations of teaching in their own particular contexts, and ii) analyze and reflect upon students’ mid-course feedback in order to both inform one’s teaching practice and improve the learning experience for students.

Cook-Sather, A. (2009). From traditional accountability to shared responsibility: the benefits and challenges of student consultants gathering midcourse feedback in college classrooms. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 231-241.

University of British Columbia Mid-course Feedback. Retrieved from http://midterm.teacheval.ubc.ca

Winchester, M. K., & Winchester, T. M. (2012). If you build it, will they come? Exploring the student perspective of weekly student evaluations of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 671-682.

Speakers
avatar for Judy Chan

Judy Chan

Education Consultant, Faculty Liaison, University of British Columbia
UBC


Thursday June 18, 2015 3:45pm - 4:15pm
Salon 1

4:30pm

CON09.03 - Use of reflection to improve student metacognition about their learning
Flexible learning strategies provide logistical and pedagogical flexibility to students and faculty. Reflective practice is one strategy for promoting personal and professional growth. This presentation will discuss applications for reflective practice: how to guide deeper learning, and how to evaluate the depth of student learning. One reflective practice research project will be described in detail. Seventy senior nursing students collaborated on practice-based projects with healthcare leaders from different sectors (e.g.., acute care, community, mental health). These projects enabled students to appreciate the extensive roles and accountabilities of nurse leaders. Student project work was totally conducted outside a class setting: students used a number of online tools to coordinate their work, and to produce agreed-upon project deliverables within a three-month period of time. Specific project learning objectives included students’ synthesis of knowledge from critical inquiry/research; relational practice/communications; leadership, ethics and policy; and professional practice. Structured reflective practice papers were intended to: a) deepen students’ appreciation of knowledge synthesis/application through project work (Mezirow, 2006); and b) stimulate identity development with respect to the richness of nurse leader roles within health care (Moje, 2008). Guided reflective practice questions and a reflective practice rubric were given to students before their assignment, and the rubric was used by faculty to assess the depth of student learning related to project work. The probing questions and rubric are based on Ryan (2012). Results from reflective paper analysis will be reviewed, particularly the “ah ha” new learning moments from this one flexible learning activity. 

References:

McGuire, L., Lay, J., & Peters, J. (2009). Pedagogy of reflective writing in professional education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9, 93-107. 

Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: a call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.

Ryan, M. (2012). Conceptualising and teaching discursives and performative reflection in higher education. Studies in Continuing Education, 34(2), 207-223.


Thursday June 18, 2015 4:30pm - 5:00pm
Bayshore Salon EF

4:30pm

CON09.06 - Culturally inclusive pedagogy: Co-educating with First Nations partners to create reciprocal place-based learning partnerships for students and the community
This session discusses a culturally inclusive community-based project in which the instructor, in partnership with BC Parks and Snuneymuxw First Nation, designed and implemented a community-based research assignment to help undergraduates achieve learning outcomes. Community-based learning was the best fit for this project in the context of the undergraduate course because of its connectedness to collaborative learning (Porter, Summers, Toton, & Aisenstein, 2008), and reciprocity with the community (d’Arlach, Sanchez, & Feuer, 2009), both of which were relevant to teaching pedagogy and course outcomes. The presentation will discuss the impetus for going off-campus; how we came to partner with one another; how the project was reciprocal in nature; and the benefits and challenges of taking the teaching and learning off-campus.

References 

d'Arlach, L., Sanchez, B., & Feuer, R. (2009). Voices from the community: A case for reciprocity in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(1), 5-16.

Porter, J. R., Summers, M., Toton, S., & Aisenstein, H. (2008). Service-learning with a food stamp enrollment campaign: Community and student benefits. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 66-75.

Speakers
avatar for Kathleen Bortolin

Kathleen Bortolin

Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Specialist, Vancouver Island University


Thursday June 18, 2015 4:30pm - 5:00pm
Thompson Room
 
Friday, June 19
 

8:30am

CON10.04 - Metissage: Collaborative analysis of critical pedagogy in the classroom
The objective of this 45-minute interactive session is to share our experiences using metissage as a collaborative research method, deepening our understanding of the complicated nature of enacting critical pedagogical ideals in practice (Ellsworth, 1989). Metissage is known as a literary artifact, a theoretical construct, a literary strategy, and a research praxis (Chambers, Hasebe-Ludt, Donald, Hurren & Leggo, 2008). Collective metissage “braids” multiple interpretations of experiences, and attempts to affirm rather than negate difference (Chambers et al., 2008). Metissage provides a site of resistance to discourses which attempt to totalize experiences (Zuss, 2012), and places the concept of multiple subjectivities front and centre, as the autobiographical writings of the authors are “braided” together to highlight multiplicity of experience. Using feminist, post-structural theory, the analysis interrogates the traditional concepts of teaching/learning, voice, and Truth, as multiple voices are highlighted and reveal a whole which is greater than its parts. In our session, the researchers will perform salient excerpts from the metissage, allowing participants to experience the subjective nature of the metissage. After the performance we will create a discussion space to engage participants in a conversation regarding our individual and collective insights of the process and the braid itself. Participants will have the opportunity to reflect on how the subjectivities illustrated in the analysis may be relevant and parallel similar experiences in their experiences with teaching and learning. Participants will leave the session with a new understanding of how to explore and examine the impacts of critical pedagogy within the classroom.


Friday June 19, 2015 8:30am - 9:15am
Mackenzie Room

8:30am

CON10.10 - Tuning into original undergraduate research in classroom contexts
The Council for Undergraduate Research (2011) defines undergraduate research as “An inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that makes an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline.” Undergraduate research has been identified as one of the high-impact educational practices, leading to gains in critical thinking skills, information literacy and communication skills (Kuh 2008; Lopatto 2010). Often people associate undergraduate research with honours projects and research assistantships available only to a few; however, if undergraduate research leads to learning gains, it should be available to all students at multiple points during their studies (Healey and Jenkins 2009). This workshop outlines one possible model that can be adapted to very different classroom contexts. Participants will learn about a scaffold for original undergraduate research used in a first-year writing class, a second-year psychology class, and a fourth-year literature seminar in Fall 2013. In each class students completed a research log. Each entry encouraged reflection on the research process. Students participated in poster sessions prior to their final papers/projects, so that we could frame research as a process of knowledge creation that should be presented publicly for peer review and critique. This session includes data about student attitudes towards research coming into the courses and their reflections on the research process at the end. We reflect upon challenges involved in embedding undergraduate research in classroom contexts. Participants will be encouraged to consider possibilities and challenges for undergraduate research in their own classes through activities during the session.

References

Council on Undergraduate Research. (2011). Retrieved January 7, 2015, from http://www.cur.org.

Healey, M. & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. York: Higher Education Academy.

Kuh, G. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: AAC&U.

Lopatto, D. (2010). Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience.” Peer Review 12 (2), 27-30.


Friday June 19, 2015 8:30am - 9:15am
Salon 2

8:30am

CON10.12 - Writing and publishing your scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL)
This 45-minute workshop will support participants in “tuning in” to the common issues that scholars of teaching and learning often encounter when writing up their SoTL inquiries for publication. Informed by the literature (Bernstein, 2011; Chick et al. 2014; Christopher, 2013; Smith, 2013) and their own experience as authors, reviewers and editors, the co-presenters will discuss important considerations in publishing SoTL work including breadth and appropriateness of literature review, clarity of methodology and methods, linking evidence and claims, and considering disciplinary-specific vs. general or interdisciplinary journals on teaching. These considerations will be actively explored in facilitated group discussions of case studies. This session will be of value to scholars who are new to SoTL inquiry, scholars who are relatively new to publishing in this field, and faculty developers who are facilitating SoTL at their institutions. 

References:

Bernstein, J.L. (2011). Identifying high quality SoTL research: a perspective from a reviewer. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1).

Chick, N.L., Cornell-Swanson, L., Lazarides, K., & Meyers, R. (2014) Reconciling Apples & Oranges: A Constructivist SoTL Writing Program. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2).

Christopher, A. N. (2013). Navigating the Minefields of Publishing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 136, 85-99. 

Smith, R. A. (2013). Tell a Good Story Well: Writing Tips. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 136, 73-83.

Speakers
avatar for Elizabeth Marquis

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).
avatar for Shannon Murray

Shannon Murray

University of Prince Edward Island
Shannon Murray is a professor of Renaissance Literature at UPEI, a 3M National Teaching Fellow (2001), and the Coordinator of the 3M NTF. For the past 15 years, she has facilitated the Faculty Development Summer Institute on Active Learning.
avatar for Janice Miller-Young (Mount Royal University)

Janice Miller-Young (Mount Royal University)

Director, Institute for SoTL, Mount Royal University


Friday June 19, 2015 8:30am - 9:15am
Cypress 1 Room

9:30am

CON11.04 - Self study as a tool for reflective practice in science education: A cross-faculty collaboration
In 1965, Nature published an editorial called “Education and Change” by Alexander King. He wrote: “it is a chief task of our particular age to preserve the best of our past and incorporate it in a new and aspiring culture”. Fifty years later this is as true as ever, but with a subtle shift. King was referring to tensions in what to teach, while today his quote is especially relevant to questions about how we teach. The last 50 years have seen the introduction of technologies and teaching methods that are profoundly changing the way we teach. In parallel, new tools have been developed to quantify the effectiveness of teaching methods. Here, we present a complementary approach to navigating King’s tension: self-study (Loughran, 2005). Self-study is a methodology for reflective practice grounded in the philosophy that educators possess unique expertise at teaching in their own disciplines. The methodology provides a forum for collegial discourse on questions from teaching effectiveness, to purpose, and experience. In this workshop, we introduce our collaboration through the lenses of our own disciplines (Education, Biology). Participants will be introduced to the methods of self-study, including the role of the ‘critical friend’, and will participate in the process through writing, reflection, and discussion. We will wrap up with a discussion on the role of self-study and reflective practice in navigating the changing educational landscape. This workshop will provide interested participants with the model and tools needed to pursue their own self-study or reflective practice. 

King, A. (1965). Education and change. Nature, 206, 1078-1083.

Loughran, J. (2005). Researching teaching about teaching: Self-study of teacher education practices. Studying Teacher Education, 1, 5-16.


Friday June 19, 2015 9:30am - 10:15am
Mackenzie Room

9:30am

CON11.05 - The power of introversion in higher education
It is likely that over a third of our students and our colleagues are introverted. However, according to Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking (2012), introverts are dramatically undervalued, both inside and outside of our classrooms. The buzz generated by her work suggests how pervasive the impact of the phenomenon she refers to as the extrovert ideal has been—and yet, Cain believes we are “at the very beginning” in exploring possibilities for more effectively learning from and with one another (Grant, 2012). Reviewing and extending upon round table discussions of introversion at STLHE 2014, we will provide a more detailed overview of the introversion-extroversion spectrum, highlighting specific differences in preferences and tendencies, and probing implications for higher education. Participants will be invited to engage in a series of exchanges to explore strategies for increasing the inclusion of introverts in higher education. By wrestling with the topic from a variety of perspectives, we hope to identify ways we, as educators, might tune into our differences in more productive—and potentially more harmonious—ways. Cain’s continued work in this area makes a compelling case that we can do better to meet the learning needs of all of our students and to address our own needs, as educators. Participants will have an opportunity to partake in her Quiet Revolution, where contemplation is as valued as participation, where gregariousness is optional, and where both introverts and extroverts are able to do what they do best.


Friday June 19, 2015 9:30am - 10:15am
Seymour Room

10:45am

CON12.02 - Aligning values and practice in academic settings: Reflections from a study involving instructors’ and students’ perspectives about learning
University-level students have been found to use study strategies that are less effective for complex learning and less reflective of self-regulation than those required for their coursework (Pintrich, 2002; Kesici & Erdoğan, 2004; Sheard, Carbone, & Hurst, 2010). Supporting student learning in higher education involves understanding not only students’ challenges but also investigating what is considered effective learning within a particular academic environment. Aligned with the conference theme of Achieving Harmony: Tuning into Practice, this session will invite participants to reflect upon the kinds of learning valued within their particular academic contexts and the extent to which this learning is supported in the classroom. Presenters will share results from their own mixed-method research within the Academic Enhancement Program (http://cs.sfu.ca/CC/AEP/), which revealed dissonance between students’ attitudes, motivations, and perceptions about learning (Pintrich et al., 1991) and instructors’ perspectives and expectations of student learning and success. These findings highlight the need for educators to consider what beliefs and norms about student learning are valued and whether our practices are aligned with the desired learning and the adoption of disciplinary norms and attitudes. We will share how we used instructor perspectives to develop co-curricular activities to familiarize students with valued attitudes and expectations about learning. We will offer our findings as a springboard for participants to reflect upon their own academic contexts and to bring these reflections back to their respective areas of practice.

References:

Kesici, S., & Erdoğan, A. (2009). Predicting college students' mathematics anxiety by motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies. College Student Journal, 43(2), 631-642.

Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: NCRIPTAL, School of Education, University of Michigan.

Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.

Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Hurst, J. (2010). Student engagement in first year of an ICT degree: Staff and student perceptions, Computer Science Education, 20(1), 1-16.


Friday June 19, 2015 10:45am - 11:15am
Bayshore Salon EF

10:45am

CON12.04 - Using reflective activity to improve student metacognition and attitudes in post-secondary education
This study presents the construction of and research into a term-long, weekly reflective activity designed to enhance students’ metacognition and attitudes toward mathematics in a university course offered both face-to-face and online. While the course is in mathematics, the design and principles of the reflective activity can be adapted to any course “by helping students learn about themselves as learners in the context of acquiring content knowledge” (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 78). The weekly reflective activity is sequential: instructor provides reflection prompt, student responds, instructor selects feedback. The prompts “serve a cueing purpose to enhance the students’ cognitive and metacognitive capabilities and lead to the behaviors associated with a deep learning approach” (Chin & Brown, 2000, p. 133). The student provides a response by analyzing how the concept/exploration is affecting and changing her knowledge, thinking and learning. Then the instructor selects one predetermined feedback (based on expressing confidence, frustration, language barrier, etc.) to each student response as support for the metacognitive analysis. Preliminary research into the effectiveness demonstrate that the benefits are threefold: (1) improvement of students’ metacognition; (2) positive change in attitude toward mathematics; and (3) achievement of (1) and (2) in both versions of the course regardless of who the instructor is. The audience itself is given an exploration followed by a reflective activity. The discussion that will ensue will hopefully support that the design of the reflective activity allows its adaptation by instructors of a wide variety of post-secondary courses. 

Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.

Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177-195.

Speakers
avatar for Petra Menz

Petra Menz

Senior Lecturer, Simon Fraser University
I am particularly interested in helping students transition from high school to post-secondary education as well as teaching mathematics to students who want to become elementary teachers.



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

10:45am

CON12.06 - Labyrinths and learning research results: Training the mind to be calm, clear, and creative
This interactive session will present the research results from a SoTL project which investigated the relationships between mindfulness practice using finger labyrinths and the potential to reduce student anxiety, improve concentration, and enhance creativity. The study involved participants from three introductory Creative Writing classes (Fall 2013, Fall 2014, and Winter 2015) at Thompson Rivers University. Data collection included pre-tests, journal surveys, test surveys, and focus groups. In particular, a specialized "labyrinth journal" with a fold-out finger labyrinth design became an innovative data collection tool which was central to the study. Labyrinths, which are ancient patterns large enough to be walked or small enough to be traced with the finger, represent tools for cultivating mindful habits. Mindfulness is the contemplative practice of focusing the attention on the present, non-judgmentally. By training the mind to remain fully present in each moment, the interior mental chatter that often plagues the mind becomes quiet, enhancing capacities or equanimity, clarity, and insight The Association for Contemplative Mind in Higher Education (ACMHE) embraces the labyrinth as a contemplative and experiential resource for student learning, and supports Contemplative Pedagogy as a foundation for an enriched research methodology (2015). Amid a culture that rewards speed and “busyness,” contemplative practice proposes a radical innovation for teaching and learning. This session will offer a brief historical context for labyrinths, provide an overview of contemplative practices for student learning, share the research findings from the project, and invite participants to experience finger labyrinths.

References:

Artress, L. (1995). Walking a sacred path – Rediscovering the labyrinth as a spiritual tool. New York: Riverhead Books.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 8(2), 73-107.

Wallace, B. A. (2009). Mind in the balance: Meditation in science, Buddhism, and Christianity. New York: Columbia UP. The Association of Contemplative Mind in Higher Education. (2015, April 17). Retrieved from .


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