Concurrent Sessions # 4

The following concurrent sessions will run on Friday, February 24th from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

4A: (Re)Examining the Relationship between Constructive Alignment and Reading Requirements

Room: SSC 1504

Authors: Johannah O’Hatnick, Learning Specialist, University of Guelph; Laura Sloat, Educational Developer, University of Guelph

Session Type: Interactive Workshop

Abstract: With the increased attention on learning outcomes and graduate attributes, educational developers may field questions from faculty about the development of students’ skill sets.  Many learning outcomes and graduate attributes imply the necessity of strong, critical reading skills, yet students are rarely supported in the development of such skills.  For example, many assessments include reading-based requirements; however, the teaching and learning activities aligned with those assessments may not address the types and purposes of reading that students are expected to do.

This workshop will invite participants to explore the multiplicity of academic reading skills at the university level and to identify approaches for supporting instructors interested in improving student skill development within the constructive alignment paradigm.  In this activity-based workshop, participants will engage in a discussion of the inherent assumptions around student reading within learning outcomes and assignments.  Through an exploration of course-based case studies, participants will examine the many possible purposes for reading in different types of courses and how these purposes can be made explicit within assignments and course activities.  Workshop facilitators will share their own experiences and perspectives as we take a deep dive into (re)thinking how we approach reading skill development.

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

  • Examine the inherent assumptions about reading skills within course expectations;

  • Analyze the varied purposes for reading depending on course learning outcomes, assignments and teaching and learning activities; and

  • Identify multiple approaches, scaffolded to the appropriate level, to support instructors engaged in the development of reading skills.

4C: The Participation Predicament: Aligning Course Learning Outcomes with Participation Assessments

Room: SSC 2303

Author: Karyn Olsen, Educational Developer, University of Western Ontario

Session Type: Interactive Workshop

Abstract: Although participation is a common component of university-level course syllabi, the literature suggests that instructors define and assess participation in face-to- face-classrooms in very diverse ways. This interactive workshop is intended for instructors engaged in course design or redesign and the educational developers who support the process. Why grade student participation? Some of the traditional reasons include holding students responsible for arriving to class prepared, motivating them to engage in discussions, and to stimulate thinking by having them make connections and apply ideas (Jones 2008). However, surveys of instructor practices found that, in some cases, attendance alone can contribute significantly to course participation grades (Archer & Miller 2011; Czekanski & Wolf 2013). In addition, instructors report challenges in assessing participation and, therefore, conflicted feelings about assigning grades, while still acknowledging the necessity of engagement to powerful learning experiences (Rogers 2013).

The goal of this workshop is to rethink the tradition of participation assessment by identifying innovative ways to connect engagement in face-to-face classrooms with course-level learning outcomes. We will start with a case study from a second year Anthropology course in which graded participation involved regular self-assessments of academic skills and the intended outcome of students who are adept at recognizing areas for growth, setting goals, and evaluating progress towards those goals. Participants will have the opportunity to discuss the inherent potential of participation grades,  share experiences with assessing student engagement, and take a constructive alignment approach (Biggs & Tang 2011) to connecting intended learning outcomes with participation assessments in additional case examples.

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

  • Discuss the challenges associated with assessing in-class student participation for grades.

  • Identify innovative means of assessing student participation.

  • Support the design of courses that align participation assessments with course-level learning outcomes.

4D: Undiscovered Country: 3M National Fellows Students speak to University Teaching

Room: SSC 2306

Authors: Lianne Fisher, Educational Developer, Brock University; Maureen Connolly, Professor, Brock University

Session Format: Ask Undergrads

Abstract: While educational developers typically do not work directly with students, there are merits to engaging with students with particular capacities and in particular contexts that likely would have carry over into faculty development. This may be undiscovered country, yet is can also be fertile ground. Faculty members report that hearing from students, observing student behavior in the classroom, and witnessing student performance are all factors that have initiated change in teaching (Hoffman-Beyer, Taylor, & Gillmore, 2013). The 2017 EDC location offers a unique opportunity to engage with a group of 3M NSF in a moderated open discussion format. Please, come join 3M National Student Fellows in a facilitated discussion to explore undergraduate students’ hopes and wishes for University instruction. Our work as Educational Developers offers a pivotal position through which to communicate and support the realization of some of these instructional hopes and more fully integrate student voices into the fabric of our institutions. Whether the 3M National Student Fellows you meet are past or current fellows, you have the opportunity to engage in dialogue with these student leaders, to learn from them and further support their enactments of educational leadership.

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

  • Participants will hear first hand from student leaders the teaching needs of undergraduate students

  • Participants will gain knowledge to take into their daily work to support faculty development and student learning

4E:Educational Developer as Network Artist: Rethinking teaching and learning through relational art practices

Room: SSC 2315

Author: Heidi May, Assistant Professor, Columbus State University

Session Type: Research Presentation

Abstract: There has been renewed interest in the overlaps between contemporary art practice and discussions about pedagogy – particularly those that encourage collaborative processes leading to emergent and ongoing learning. Understanding art today often requires a shift away from the art object to the encounter with the work. Research by the presenter (May, 2013), aligns itself with the notion that network art is a type of art not based on objects, nor digital instruments alone, but on the relationships and processes that occur between the multiple components and individuals that contribute to the project. Network artists work in relational ways in which digital media might exist as one part of a larger complex process; the same could be said for educational developers. This session offers an opportunity for educational development to be considered as a networked and relational art form, and for the role of an educational developer to be seen through a different lens.  How might understandings of network art and art pedagogy impact current practices in educational development? As a starting point, the presenter will discuss a qualitative research study that examined the art and teaching practices of seven multidisciplinary artists who teach in higher education art programs. The three main connections observed between the artist-educators’ art and teaching practices were: dialogical, collaborative, and performative. Following the presentation, participants will be encouraged to share ways in which their own practice demonstrates characteristics of a network/relational art and discuss the potential for thinking like an artist in their practice and/or wider institutional context.

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

  • Identify similarities and overlaps between contemporary art and pedagogy

  • Understand how educational development can be considered a form of network/relational art

  • Potentially think of themselves as an artist, conductor, or performer

  • Rethink at least one instance from their work through more of an artistic lens

4F: Ethical Potluck: Serving you Two days in the Life of an Educational Developer

Room: SSC 3303

Authors: Albert Johnson, Associate Director (Educational Development), Memorial University; Pierre Boulos, Educational Developer, University of Windsor; Jeanette McDonald, Distinguished Educational Developer Career Award Winner, Manager of Faculty Programming, Wilfrid Laurier University; Michael Lockett, Educational Consultant, Simon Fraser University Jill McSweeney, Educational Developer (Graduate Students), Dalhousie University; Darcy Benoit, Faculty Member, Acadia University

Session Type: Name your own format

Abstract: The EDC Ethical Principles for Educational Development Practice Action Group, with REB approval, has been diligently working with Educational Developers from across the country. Through open-ended survey questions and focus group conversations prompted by case studies, the action group has attempted to isolate and categorize the ethical questions and situations that confront our colleagues and point to some principles that may guide us in our practice.

Practitioners need to hear their voices in these guidelines and know that their day-to-day practice can be guided by these principles. The purpose of this session is to provide Educational Developers with an opportunity to add their experiences to this important work. So, expanding on the metaphor of the potluck, your experiences are best served with a side dish of reflection and contemplation, so bring something to the potluck and be prepared to share.

In this sixty-minute session, participants will be asked to think about their best day as an educational developer to describe what went right, and what were the characteristics that made it a great day. In small groups they will be asked to identify the common ingredients of these experiences and then share them with the larger group. In the second part of the session, they will be asked to do the same for the worst day they had as an education developer. Through this exercise the members of the action group with delve into the nature of ED practice to help create a recipe of Ethical Practices for ED.

For the participants, the session will for provide an opportunity for them to:

  • Describe their practice as an educational developer

  • Voice thoughts and feelings about their practice with other educational developers as well as ethical concerns or principles they have observed or experienced

  • Lend their voice to the discourse of ethical principles that guide our community

For the session facilitators, the session will provide:

  • Much needed information on the nature of educational development practice from first hand accounts

  • A different type of data to add to the research already collected to support the development of Ethical Principles for educational developers

4G: Reflecting On & Rethinking Our Approach to Rapport Building in Educational Development

Room: SSC 3306

Authors: Kim West, Educational Development Specialist, University of Saskatchewan; Carolyn Hoessler, Educational Developer Leadership Award Winner, Program and Curriculum Development Specialist, University of Saskatchewan; Donna Ellis, Director of the Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo; Jean Pascal Beaudoin, Educational Developer, University of Ottawa; Mary Wilson, Director of the Centre for Academic Excellence, Niagara College; Natasha Kenny, Director of the Educational Development Unit, University of Calgary; Veronica Brown, Senior Instructional Developer, University of Waterloo

Session Type: Interactive Workshop

Abstract: Rapport, a cornerstone of educational development (Little & Palmer, 2011), is the creation of strong reciprocal connections with instructors that nurture the potential for growth and change (Timmermans, 2014). Studied extensively in other professions, rapport shapes every consultation (Boye & Tapp, 2012), group facilitation, and interaction by educational developers. Yet rapport still represents a type of tacit knowledge that can be difficult for educational developers to describe, reflect on, share, and model with colleagues (Chugh, 2015). Drawing insights from the Rapport Building on Educational Development project and guide (West et al., 2017), this interactive session provides an opportunity for educational developers of any experience level to reflect on the value of rapport within their educational development practice. We will discuss approaches and strategies for rapport-building across a range of contexts, including mentorship, and provide opportunities for educational developers to reflect on how their approach may evolve or change over the course of their careers.

Through this interactive session, our colleagues will further develop their ability to:

  • Reflect on the value of rapport within their educational development practice

  • Describe current strategies they use to build rapport with instructors and groups across a range of contexts

  • Reflect on their approach to rapport-building including how it may evolve or change over the course of their careers

4H: Uncharted Territory: Undertaking a Large-Scale Curriculum Mapping Project

Room: SSC 3307

Authors: Jennifer Reniers, Educational Analyst, University of Guelph; Brian Husband, Professor and Associate Dean (Academic), University of Guelph; Heather Pollock,  Program Counselor, University of Guelph; Clarke Mathany, Educational Developer,  University of Guelph

Session Type: Interactive Workshop

Abstract: Educational Developers often play a crucial role in guiding faculty through the process of curriculum mapping, in which a visual representation of the alignment of courses with program outcomes is created. Challenges of curriculum mapping include making decisions about what courses to include and gaining faculty buy-in (Kopera-Frye, Mahaffy, & Svare, 2008). These challenges intensify as the scale of the mapping project increases. Our Educational Development unit is currently undertaking an ambitious curriculum mapping project that involves mapping an entire undergraduate degree consisting of several majors and hundreds of courses. With such a large project, how can Educational Developers communicate the purpose and value of the project to faculty and gain faculty support? How can we  avoid duplication of effort when programs in the degree have been mapped recently? How should we manage the large and complex dataset resulting from the project? How can we communicate useful and meaningful results back to each program involved? In this 60-minute interactive workshop, we will draw upon curriculum mapping literature and our experience to share the challenges and opportunities inherent in undertaking a large curriculum mapping project. We will share resources that we have developed that can be adapted for other large (and smaller) curriculum mapping projects. We will also share best practices regarding designing a curriculum mapping project, recruiting key decision-makers, gaining faculty support, implementing the project, and analyzing and presenting the results back to stakeholders. Session participants will be invited to join in a discussion and share your institution’s approaches to curriculum mapping on a large (or smaller) scale. Participants will engage in small and large group discussions and will brainstorm solutions to challenges presented in case studies.

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

  • Describe the challenges and advantages of completing a large-scale curriculum mapping project

  • Identify successful practices in the design, implementation, and analysis of an ambitious curriculum mapping project

  • Develop ideas to tackle a large-scale curriculum mapping project at their own institution

4I: Mixed Messages: Exploring the Impact that SoTL Advocacy can have on Contingent Faculty

Room: SSC 3317

Authors: Apryl Gill, Educational Developer, Niagara College; Erin Aspenlieder,  Educational Developer, McMaster University; Mandy Frake-Mistak, Educational Developer, York University; Jacqueline Beres, PhD Student, Brock University; Alice Cassidy, Educational Developer, In View Educational Development

Session Type: Critical Café

Abstract: The facilitators of this session have all recently taken part in a collaborative writing project focused on investigating how the conditions of contingency intersect with contingent instructors’ engagement in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in Canadian post-secondary institutions. From our work we have noted that institutions can present contingent instructors with a mixed message: research and SoTL are desirable and frequently encouraged, yet contingent instructors are   often ineligible or hindered from engagement. In this session, we invite you to consider the impact and tensions of SoTL advocacy by teaching and learning centres on contingent faculty. We will use four composite stories (developed as part of the collaborative writing project) to facilitate discussion. Each story is anchored within specific documents that we know shape contingent instructors’ working lives and their opportunities to participate in SoTL, thus these stories will guide our examination of contingent instructors’ possible engagement with SoTL and the roles that educational developers might play in supporting the teaching lives of contingent instructors.

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

  • Describe the conditions of contingency that affect contingent instructors

  • Contribute experiences, ideas, and strategies about SoTL engagement for contingent instructors