Concurrent Sessions # 6

The following concurrent sessions will run on Friday, February 24th from 11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

6A: Improving the First Year Learning Experience: The Collaborative Approach of Trent's Centre for Teaching and Learning

Room: SSC 1504

Author: Robyne Hanley-Dafoe, Educational Developer, Trent University

Session Type: Research Presentation

Abstract: Centres for Teaching and Learning provincially and nationally are continually adapting to the ever growing scope of services offered to their respective institutions. Centres and Educational Developers can play critical roles in supporting system improvements through collaborative initiatives (Dawson, Britnell & Hitchcock, 2009; Harris, 2011). Trent’s CTL has completed an inter-disciplinary collaborative study: 1st Year Academic Experience Project. The goal of the project was to conduct a ‘360 degree’ scan of the first year learning experience from three perspectives (instructors, staff supports and students) as well as to conduct a syllabus environmental scan (92 courses were reviewed) in order to better understand the complexities and varied perspectives of the experiences of first year students. The study also included an examination of factors to consider for 1st year student learning including: student transitions, student engagement, and 21st century students. The final report carried a series of recommendations and suggested strategies to address some of the challenges with 1st year course designs, particularly how faculty can include a variety of pedagogical approaches in conjunction with innovative assessment and evaluation practices. This session will present what we learned from the faculty, staff, and student perspectives and discuss how this study can be implemented at other institutions.

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

  • Understand potential approaches to investigating introductory courses from multiple perspective at their respective institution

  • Frame potential areas of focus for faculty and CTL partnerships

  • Identify common themes, challenges and opportunities within large class course design

  • Initiate discussions of how introductory courses relate to retention and student engagement

6B: Undergraduate Science Students’ Approaches to Learning at the University of Windsor

Room: SSC 1511

Authors: Brandon Sabourin, PhD Student, University of Windsor

Session Type: Research Presentation

Abstract: A student’s approach to learning can help teachers and educational developers better understand student learning. Biggs and Tang (2011) stress the importance of understanding “what the student does” as a way of understanding how a teacher’s actions can help or hurt the learning experiences of students in and out of the classroom. The actions a student takes in relation to their learning (study habits, attitude, effort, etc.) contribute to their overall learning approach. As teachers and educational developers, it is critical that we understand our learners. This research sought to understand the dominant approaches to learning of undergraduate science students at the University of Windsor. Participants completed Biggs, Kember, and Leung’s (2001) Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ- 2F). Through an analysis of the data collected, it was found that deep approaches to learning were more prevalent among fourth-year students than first-year  students. Participants identified numerous factors which contributed to the approach they took to their learning, including: time, course design, study habits, personal interest, and effort. These results have implications on teaching within the faculty of Science at the University of Windsor, but also prompt questions of student approaches to learning in other faculties at the University of Windsor, and other Ontario Universities.

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

  • Explain what a student approach to learning is;

  • Identify the two most common approaches;

  • Utilize student approaches to learning as a means of understanding a learning environment;

  • Appreciate the diversity of learning approaches in the postsecondary classroom

6C: The Impact of Individual Consultation Sessions on the Use of Effective Teaching Strategies: Year 2 Findings from Research on New Professor Orientation Programs

Room: SSC 2303

Authors: Jean-Pascal Beaudoin, Educational Development Specialist, University of Ottawa; Louise Menard, Professor, Université du Québec à Montréal; France Gravelle, Professor, University of Ottawa

Session Type: Research Presentation

Abstract: Educational Developers consider professional development programs to be particularly important for cultivating the teaching philosophy and practices of new Professors (Luzeckyj & Badger, 2008). It is vital to study the impact of such programs in order to establish their relevance (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Postareff, Lindblom- Ylänne & Nevgi, 2007 and 2008). The study presented in this structured formal dissemination session will highlight the second part of a three year study that is being conducted. This part found some answers to the following questions: How are individual consultation sessions impacting understanding, selection and delivery of effective student-centered teaching methods? How do teaching practices of new professors differ between those who have chosen to receive support and those who haven’t? Interviews and class observations where conducted with the same new professors as in part 1, from different disciplines in six universities (Canada and Europe). Educational developers’ dashboards and annual reports were also analyzed. Results show that Canadian professors benefit from being supported through individual consultations with an educational developer: they are more aware and can explain more accurately why they are selecting specific teaching and   learning strategies; they become more focused on student learning, meaning using strategies that engage students further and deeper in their learning. Ending this presentation, a discussion will be lead around the question: ‘Does this mean that to make a difference, new professor orientation programs should include individual consultation sessions over time, in addition to the scheduled workshops?’

By the end of this presentation, participants will have:

  • been informed of the impact of individual consultation sessions on the use of effective teaching strategies in practice

  • data to reflect on the impact of their work and on how to address some of the challenges

  • the opportunity to network with likeminded individuals.

6D: Quality Management as an Emerging Role for Educational Developers

Room: SSC 2306

Author: Qin Liu, Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of Toronto

Session Type: Research Presentation

Abstract: According to the quality development model proposed by Gosling and D’Andrea (2001), functions of quality assurance and educational development in  postsecondary institutions can be combined into one office so that accountability and improvement could be balanced. The model represents a theory-driven approach of the emerging field of quality management in higher education (Pratasavitskaya & Stensaker, 2010). How can this quality development model be  realized in postsecondary educational practice, particularly in Ontario where the evolving system-level quality assurance mechanisms entail institutional change at multiple levels? This study examined the roles of educational developers in five institutional cases of quality management at two public universities and three public colleges in Ontario. Interviews with academic administrators and faculty members confirmed the important roles of educational developers in the internal quality assurance activities of postsecondary education institutions. The findings provide tangible evidence that educational developers are instrumental in facilitating or even initiating self-evaluation mechanisms that are used to convert external quality assurance requirements to effective pedagogical and instructional practices  within postsecondary institutions. At this research presentation session, I will share the key findings of the five case studies and engage the audience in a discussion of the opportunities and challenges involved in the expanding role of educational developers in institutional change in the dynamic quality assurance movement in Ontario.

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

  • Examine their own experiences as educational developers in terms of their roles in the evolving changes in quality management

  • Engage in discussions and conversations regarding the shifting roles of educational developers in the contemporary postsecondary education environment

  • Develop some strategies in coping with the challenges related to the emerging roles.

CANCELLED 6E: Implementing and Evaluating a Communities of Practice Model to Align Diverse Learning and Teaching Styles in a Chinese Transnational University

Room: SSC 2315

Authors: James Wilson, Director, Academic Enhancement Centre, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University; Dawn Johnson, Educational Developer (Learning and Teaching), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University; Henk Huijser, Educational Developer (Learning and Teaching), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University; Jianmei Xei, Educational Developer (Research), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University

Session Type: Research Presentation

Abstract: This talk will present the findings of an evaluation on the implementation of a Communities of Practice (CoPs) model at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU) with the objective of aligning diverse learning and teaching styles in a transnational Chinese university.

Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU) is a joint venture between Xi’an Jiaotong University in China, and Liverpool University in the UK. XJTLU as an English Medium of Instruction (EMI) Institution is unique in that it offers degrees which are partly UK-designed and needs to comply with UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) requirements, and partly contextualized. The academic staff at the university are from a wide variety of educational contexts. In terms of learning and teaching, this means that people who come from very different pedagogical backgrounds come together in a higher education institution that strives to be unique, and needs to strike the right balance between two educational systems.

XJTLU’s Academic Enhancement Centre (AEC) occupies a crucial position in achieving this balance. In an effort to achieve a consistent and sustainable impact on learning and teaching across the institution, a Communities of Practice (CoPs) model was implemented in early 2016 where an attempt was made to establish seven CoPs across six Faculties (or ‘Clusters’) and one Language Centre under the guidance of the AEC’s Educational Development team.

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

  • Reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of a CoPs within a Chinese transnational context.

  • Gain insight into the Chinese context in which the CoPs is being set up.

  • Reflect on the potential of CoPs within their own educational context (whether they already have them or not).

6F: Rethinking Faculty Development Programming: Collecting Perspectives via Speed Dating

Room: SSC 3303

Authors: Rebecca Taylor, Educational Developer, McMaster University; Julia Evanovich, Educational Developer, McMaster University; Kris Knorr, Educational Developer, McMaster University

Session Type: Name your own format


Step 1. Establish a workshop;

Step 2. Bring faculty together;

Step 3. Expose them to something new;

Step 4. Collect feedback to evaluate the session’s effectiveness;

Step 5. Let them back into the world (i.e., classroom);

Step 6. Hope they implement their new insight.

This was the traditional faculty development model facilitated by the MacPherson Institute (formerly MIIETL, CLL) at McMaster University. While this model certainly enabled faculty insights, as well as improvements to our faculty development offerings via participant feedback, it left us as educational developers curious as to whether our workshops led to faculty implementation of new pedagogical approaches, improved student outcomes, and organizational change (Guskey, 2000). The MacPherson Institute has since rethought their traditional programming model and implemented approaches congruent with adult learning principles, while maintaining the “cafeteria of programs and services” available as characterized by Sorcinelli et al. (2006). This has resulted in a more programmatic structure made up of various offerings that create opportunities to nurture relationships between educational developers and faculty. But enough about us – how about you? In this session, we will briefly characterize the evolution of the MacPherson Institute‘s faculty development programming within a framework of questions that will then be posed to participants. Participants will discuss questions regarding faculty development models with peers via a speed-dating format. Participants will also have an opportunity to engage with recent literature on effective faculty development, reflect on the effectiveness on their own institution’s faculty development offerings, and connect with peers to examine their own and each other’s faculty development successes and challenges

In this session, participants will have the opportunity to:

  • Engage with seminal and recent literature on effective faculty development

  • Reflect on the effectiveness of their own institution’s faculty development offerings;

  • Connect with peers to examine their own and each other’s faculty development successes and challenges; and

  • Contribute to a discussion about what makes for successful faculty development.

CANCELLED 6G: Academic Integrity and Senior Nursing Undergraduate Clinical Practice

Room: SSC 3306

Authors: Jennie Miron, Professor, Humber College

Session Type: Research Presentation

Abstract: Academic integrity (AI) has been defined as the commitment to the values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility with courage in all academic endeavours. The senior years of nursing studies provide an intersection for students to transition to professional roles through student clinical practice. A doctoral study aimed to explore two research questions. To what extent do students differ on Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) variables? What predicts intention to behave with academic integrity among senior nursing students in clinical practice across three different Canadian Schools of Nursing? The Theory of Planned Behaviour framework served as the theoretical framework for the study. A 38 question (41 items) self-report survey tool (Miron Academic Integrity Nursing Survey–MAINS) was constructed through the completion of Elicitation, Pilot, and sub-Pilot studies. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that background, site, and TPB variables explained 32.6% of the variance in intention to behave with academic integrity. The TPB variables explained 26.8% of the variance in intention after controlling for background and site variables. Findings from the larger three site study of senior nursing students (Year 3 & Year 4: N=339) will be reported along with the implications for educational policy and practice. Student attitude is the strongest predictor to intention to behave with AI in clinical practice and efforts to positively influence students’ attitudes need to be a focus for schools, curricula, and clinical educators. Opportunities for future research should include replicating the current study with students enrolled in other professional programs and intervention studies that examine the effectiveness of specific endeavours to promote AI   in practice.

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

  • Understand the threats to academic integrity within the learning environment

  • Understand the implications for the threats to clinical nursing practice

  • Understand the findings of the doctoral research titled Academic Integrity and Senior Nursing Undergraduate Clinical Practice.

  • Understand the opportunities for clinical education and educational policy based on the research findings.

6H: Developing a Graduate Certificate Program in Advanced Teaching and Learning: Sharing a Re-Design Process

Room: SSC 3307

Authors: Shaya Golparian, Educational Developer, University of British Columbia; Joseph Topornycky, Educational Developer, Manager of Graduate Student Programs, University of British Columbia

Session Type: Research Presentation

Abstract: The UBC Graduate Certificate Program is an advanced teaching development program for graduate student which started in 2006. In 2014 we engaged in the redesign of the program which was informed by a program review, an environmental scan, and the identified needs of graduate students at UBC. As a result, the new program expanded from the initial focus almost entirely on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), to include teaching and learning theory, mentorship, and a practicum component.

The new certificate program is innovative in its approach to preparing graduate students to enter a changing teaching and learning landscape in higher education; developing a cross-disciplinary cohort adept in thinking beyond the boundaries of their own disciplines while aware of the teaching and learning implications of their discipline; and creating a cohort able to engage, inspire, discern, and manage resources in the service of their larger-context goals and vision related to education and in contexts beyond academia.

In this session, we will share our program redesign process and offer an overview of ways the main components of the new program (Teaching and learning theory; Mentorship; Practicum, and SoTL) interact to consolidate teaching development. We will also share some of the participant experiences in the 2015-2016 cohort.

By the end of this session the attendees will be able to

  • draw on and adapt our program model to (re)design their own teaching development programs.

6I: Factors Contributing to Constructive Engagement of Academic Departments in Program Review

Room: SSC 3317

Authors: Paola Borin, Curriculum Development Consultant, Ryerson University   

Session Type: Research Presentation

Abstract: Traditionally, educational development work is built on best practice based on personal experience with the environment rather than empirical analysis, much like the practice of teaching itself. Increasingly educational developers question the underpinnings of our traditional practice and seek to substantiate our understanding with more comparative research.

This session will explore the issue of the degree of engagement across full academic departments in an educational development initiative. Examined here is departmental engagement in the analysis of program curriculum for the cyclical program review (IQAP) required in Ontario. The session will examine factors contributing to constructive or problematic faculty engagement and outcomes.

The session will begin with a presentation examining part of the analysis from a qualitative, cross-case research study conducted across four universities in Ontario and across multiple levels of involvement (from professor to Provost level) at each university.

Subsequently, participants will review a content analysis summary that emerged from this research.  It reveals some of the factors contributing to constructive or problematic engagement of departments. Participants will review findings from this analysis then explore some of the implications for our educational development practice.

Participants will:

  • Hear a brief overview of the research conducted

  • Review a content analysis of factors contributing to constructive or problematic engagement and outcomes

  • Examine a summary of the analysis, identify and discuss implications for educational development practice