building your skill set: be a mindful graduate student

usask.ca/gmcte

Curriculum Change in a Time of Transformation

By Jim Greer, Director, ULC & GMCTE

THE GWENNA MOSS CENTRE FOR TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

BridgesReflecting the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning at the University of Saskatchewan

September 2013, Volume 12, No. 1

As the University of Saskatchewan wrestles with program prioritization and all academic programs are thoroughly scrutinized, analysed, and criticized, there is a temptation to hunker down, do nothing, and wait for better times. Academic units have just completed a major self-assessment of their core programs and naturally have put forward a strong case for continued support (and perhaps worked hard to justify the status quo). It is risky to openly contemplate curricular change in an environment where admitting the need for change may risk resource loss or even program elimination.

Yet if the self-examination of academic programs has revealed some warts, redundancies, gaps, or misalignment, a tremendous opportunity is within reach. In 2012 a major investment was made by the University of Saskatchewan in curricular innovation and experiential learning. The University Learning Centre and Gwenna Moss Centre became the trustee of substantial central funds to support curricular renewal. A $1.5 million fund for curriculum innovation and a slightly smaller fund for experiential learning projects was established –

with the firm commitment to move every dollar into the academic units to support improvements to academic programs, enhancement of the student experience, and alignment with university areas of priority. These funds span IP3, i.e. the years 2012-2016.

Many academic programs have received financial support through these funds; many more have utilized the curriculum design and instructional design help freely available from the Gwenna Moss Centre. Many units have now established their desired program specific graduate attributes / program-level learning outcomes. Some have not. Many units have explored using the “Curriculum Alignment Tool” available through the Gwenna Moss Centre, to examine how individual courses contribute to their overall programs. Some units have begun to explore, through surveys of their faculty, students, recent graduates, alumni, employers, and community stakeholders, what changes to their programs might be plausible and attractive. If you haven’t, there’s no time better than now!

I want to add that consultations with our curriculum design specialists and

instructional designers can be candid and confidential. Units may feel vulnerable when taking an honest look at their programs during times of program prioritization, but an honest assessment with a neutral third-party can open exciting new possibilities. The Gwenna Moss Centre is available to coach, facilitate, and even help to finance innovation ideas that will make academic programs and learning experiences richer for your students.

Find out more at http://www.usask.ca/gmcte/awards/curriculumfund or at http://www.usask.ca/gmcte/awards/experiential

Table of Contents

Course Design in a Time of Transformation ....................... 1Reflections on Three Years and Seven Months ................. 3Curriculum Innovation Team - So where does course design and re-design fit in your curriculum renewal process…? ................................... 5Syllabus Template and Guide Created for U of S......................................................................... 6Putting our Course Design Institute through Course Design ............................................................. 8Teacher Scholar Doctoral Fellows: Implementing Innovative Learning Strategiesin the Classroom (GSR982) ....................................................... 9Open Textbook Initiative in British Columbia ................... 12The pitfalls of trying new teaching methods and climbing back out ....................................................................... 18Reflective Journal and Draft Course Outline ..................... 19

2 Bridges, Vol. 12, No. 1

SEpTEMbER 2013VOl. 12 NO. 1 The Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching EffectivenessUniversity of SaskatchewanRoom 50 Murray Building3 Campus DriveSaskatoon, SK S7N 5A4Phone 306 • 966 • 2231Fax 306 • 966 • 2242Web site: www.usask.ca/gmcte

Bridges is distributed to every teacher at the University of Saskatchewan and to all teaching centres in Canada, and some beyond. It is also available on our web site.

Please consider submitting an article or opinion piece to Bridges. Your contribution will reach a wide local, national, and international audience. Contact any one of the following people; we’d be delighted to hear from you:

Jim GreerDirector, ULC and GMCTEPhone 306 • 966 • [email protected]

Christine Anderson Obach Managing Editor (Bridges)Phone 306 • 966 • [email protected]

Sharilyn LeeAssistant GMCTEPhone 306 • 966 •[email protected]

Views expressed in Bridges are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily those of the staff at the GMCTE.

ISSN 1703-1222

usask.ca/gmcte

About the GMCTE...

Please visit our website to find out more about our services and resources for new faculty, experienced faculty, sessional lecturers, and graduate students who teach.

The staff at the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness welcomes everyone at the University of Saskatchewan to visit the Centre and take advantage of our large selection of professional development events, courses, resources, and services.

Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher.

Japanese ProverbThis work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerives3.0 Unported Licence.

3www.usask.ca/gmcte

By Brad Wuetherick, Past Program Director, GMCTE

On a cold and snowy day (at least that is how I remember it) three years and seven months ago, I began what became the best position I have had the privilege of holding in many years of working in higher education. I started officially at the UofS on January 2nd, 2010, in what was a Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness (GMCTE) in transition. As far as Centres for Teaching and Learning go across the country, the GMCTE was known for strong programming for graduate student teachers (GSR 984, GSR 989 and the new that year GSR 982) and new faculty (Transforming Teaching) and for one of the most highly regarded newsletters published by any Centre in the country (Bridges). It was a privilege to join what was, at the time, a relatively small team of dedicated people.

What has transpired over the past three years and seven months was something I had never imagined when I first came to the UofS. When I interviewed for the position, Jim Greer (Director of the ULC) and Rick Schwier (the soon-to-be Acting Director of the ULC while Jim went on a well-deserved sabbatical) indicated that there was a lot of potential for interesting and exciting growth possibilities for the Centre. And almost immediately I was asked to support the work (and the funding proposals) to take the Centre in some exciting new directions.

As I leave the UofS, for a new position at Dalhousie University, I wanted to take a few minutes to reflect on a few of the changes that I have seen in my time at the GMCTE – changes that I am particularly proud of and that position the UofS to lead the U15 research universities in key, strategic areas. While these reflections are quite different from the more scholarly articles I normally write for Bridges, I

hope that people find them effective (particularly to understand in full the services and programs offered by the GMCTE).

The first major change in the GMCTE, and one of the first major initiatives that I spent significant time on, was the PCIP-funded Indigenous Voices program. Indigenous Voices, funded in 2011-12 and piloted with the faculty and staff in the College of Education and the staff in University Learning Centre and Gwenna Moss Centre in 2012-13, is aimed at supporting the ongoing development of members of the UofS community around aboriginal education.

The program, which has been described in other issues of Bridges, was developed in consultation with key faculty members, aboriginal elders, and community consultants. it is made up of a series of 13 half or full day workshops, covering topics like basic myths and misconceptions about aboriginal peoples in Canada, an understanding of antiracism and indigenizing education, an introduction to aboriginal cultural practices and to treaties and other land agreements in Canada, and culturally relevant community-based, classroom-based and land-based pedagogies.

This program, which was informed by other initiatives across Canada in both higher and K-12 education, is a unique faculty and staff development opportunity at the UofS. One that connects deeply with the UofS’ priority of aboriginal engagement, and provides opportunities for both faculty and staff new to the area of aboriginal education and faculty and staff with a deep history of engagement with aboriginal students and communities.

The second area of significant new activity and growth in the GMCTE has been in curriculum innovation and renewal. In the 2011-12 academic year, PCIP agreed to fund a very forward-looking and ambitious plan to encourage strategic curriculum innovation in academic programs as one of the focal points for the third integrated plan adopted by the campus community. This is an area of increasing importance across the country (and, indeed, around the world) for a number of reasons, including changes in accreditation requirements in many disciplines and increased government oversight and demands for quality assurance. Many of these reasons have forced universities across the country to engage in activities across all disciplines, whether ready or not.

There are three main reasons (or drivers) for engaging in curriculum renewal, none of which are mutually exclusive. They are: quality assurance (often externally imposed processes to ensure a minimum standard across and between institutions); quality enhancement (usually intrinsically motivated to improve the experience and development of students across a program); and evidence-based teaching and learning practices (usually in the form of SoTL research informing an improved understanding of evidence-based teaching and learning practices).Other than those programs for whom there are ongoing accreditation processes required by their professions, the UofS does not have an externally imposed quality assurance framework that we must meet. Even though innovation in academic programs is included in the integrated plan as an institutional priority, a genuine interest in quality enhancement and evidence-based

Reflections on 3 Years & 7 Months


teaching and learning practices can be the primary purposes driving curriculum innovation on our campus.

When coupled with the various supports that have been put in place to aid programs in their activities (including curriculum and course development specialists in the GMCTE who are freely available to consult with academic units, funding support from the curriculum innovation fund and other funds that have been recently created on campus, database tools developed support curriculum mapping, and other initiatives on campus to support curriculum innovation – including a learning analytics project to try to understand more about our students, and participation in the Bayview Alliance), our institutional and provincial context has positioned the U of S to become a national leader in curriculum innovation and renewal.

And finally, the GMCTE continued to expand the suite of activities for which we have always been known. From

introducing new GSR courses for graduate students on teaching and learning and graduate professional skills, and introducing new short courses on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and Teaching Online, to increasing the diversity of workshops offered each term and revamping the online just-in-time resources available to support faculty (including investing in significant video resources), the GMCTE continues to meet the diverse needs of our faculty, graduate students and other instructors. All of which has been made possible by the great team of people who make up the Gwenna Moss Centre.

As I interact with colleagues at universities across the country (which I have had the pleasure of doing many times in the past three and a half years), I have witnessed dramatic increases in the respect shown to this institution and to the work being undertaken at the Gwenna Moss Centre and in academic units across the campus. In reflecting back, I am very proud of what we, collectively (as a Centre and as an

In recognition of many years of dedicated service to the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE), U of S Professor Emeritus Ron Marken has been awarded the 2013 Kris Knapper Outstanding Volunteer Award. A Master Teacher and 3M Teaching Fellow, Marken has been an active proponent of teaching and learning on campus and beyond for many years. He was the first director of The Gwenna Moss

institution), have accomplished in the past three years and seven months, and am very proud of the team at the GMCTE whom I had the pleasure of working with while on campus.

The theme of this issue of Bridges is course design, and many of the articles contributed are aimed at helping encourage a more thoughtful, reflective, and evidence-based approach to the course design process. I actively encourage you to engage the many services of the GMCTE in your course design or re-design processes. Whether accessing information on the revised resources pages, coming to the course design institute, coming to Indigenous Voices or other workshops or courses, meeting one-on-one with the exceptional team in the GMCTE, or engaging in your own reflective process of design/re-design, this issue inspires all of us to be thoughtful about our how we design learning experiences for our diverse student body now and in the future.

Centre for Teaching Effectiveness, during which time he played a key role in the re-launch of GSR 989: Introduction to University Teaching (now called GSR 989: Philosophy and Practice of University Teaching). Marken currently serves on 3M Council and Executive, and as 3M Program Coordinator. Some of Marken’s contributions include: coordinating the Alan Blizzard award, authoring and editing several STLHE publications including Making a Difference: A Celebration of the 3M Teaching Fellowship (2005), Silences (2008), and Students Speak: Lives Transformed by Teachers (2010), and assisting with the development of the 3M National Student Fellowship. Marken, who was not aware that he had been nominated, offered the following statement of gratitude to his nominator and those involved in preparing his dossier:

“How does one throw a blanket of gratitude over a group as various and wonderful as yours? Thank you! Whenever anyone congratulated my mother on one of her dresses (which she had sewn herself), she would always say, “Oh, this old thing? I got it for $10 at the Army and Navy.” Her modesty was genuine. Mine isn’t. Most of us love to be praised, but you should know that every single thing mentioned in my dear friends’ astonishing letters of support survived and flourished because of each of you and many like you. For example, I had a controlling hand in the creation of GSR 989, and it went like this: “Kim, Tereigh, would you design a Cadillac teaching course for graduate students?’ Then I ducked, and got out of the way. It’s a “society” and a “fellowship.” I’m proud to be part of it. !” Ron Marken

Professor Emeritus Ron Marken awarded the 2013 Kris Knapper Outstanding Volunteer STLHE Award

Photo from the STLHE 2013 SAPES awards ceremony in Cape Breton. From left, Arshad Ahmad, Chris Knapper and Ron Marken who received the 2013 Knapper Outstanding Volunteer Award.

5www.usask.ca/gmcte

The curriculum innovation/renewal process is basically a six-step action research cycle. As a department undertakes the renewal process, there comes a time when course design or redesign may address some of the changes needed to align practices and actions with the overall vision and program goals. The curriculum renewal process is a collective decision-making process while course design and redesign is generally the efforts of individual instructors as they focus the individual courses that contribute to the program in general. In the curriculum renewal process, course (re)design often comes up in Steps 3 and 4 as is highlighted in Figure 1.

In Step 3 congruencies are identified between the desired state and what is currently occurring. At Step 3 the basic question to be answered is: “How does what you have match what you want?” Often at this stage there are pleasant surprises like the innovative pedagogies already in use, the constructive overlaps and distinctions that exist in teaching and assessment methods, and the overall building blocks and sequencing of content in the curriculum. Ideas for improvement that may have been percolating start to take on detail and, usually, more energy. Other questions asked at this point in the curriculum renewal process include:

• What strengths/shortcomings of your current program have been identified?

• Where does this situate you in

relation to department’s/colleges vision?

• What new questions do you have about your program that may not have been answered by the inventory?

• How does what your current program looks like match your vision?

• What is needed to improve the match between the vision and the program?

• What can be done to improve the match?

• What can be undone to improve the match?

• What are the key areas that might benefit by accessing new resources?

• What can be learned from comparator programs and innovative peers?

• What can you create that is better than anything else that currently exists?”

Here is where course design starts to figure into the mix. During the inventory stage you will have gathered information about currently used teaching strategies, assessment practices and course goals, and it now becomes obvious to explore how individual courses can be adjusted and updated to create alignment. Active course redesign fits into Step 4—Implementation—plan and do.

Step 4 questions to ask at this point include:

• How can courses be designed to better align with the vision and stated program goals? (This may incorporate appropriate uses of technology, experiential learning, inter-cultural awareness, and the 10 high impact educational practices see http://www.usask.ca/gmcte/resources/curriculum_practices.

• What processes, policies, procedures might be addressed?

• What needs to go into a program proposal that will be approved readily?

• What budget implications exist, and where can additional resources be found?

Curriculum Innovation Team, GMCTE

So where does course design and re-design fit in your curriculum renewal process…?

CUrriCULUM rEnEWaL anD CoUrSE DESiGn


• Who will do what, with whom, by when?

• When will the new program roll out? How will it be staged?

• What communication and promotion strategies will be needed?

• What training (about teaching or assessment) might help?

• What special messages are required for student recruitment?

Courses are the most foundational units that constitute a coherent program (Figure 2). They should be thoughtfully designed or redesigned to contribute to the vision and stated program goals. Instructors could attend the Course Design Institute workshop to design new courses or redesign existing courses. Changes may include incorporating appropriate uses of technology, experiential learning, inter-cultural awareness, and the 10 high impact educational practices. Course content may remain the same with adjustments in assessment practices, assignments, and teaching methods.

Intentional faculty development then comes into play to support these changes. For support with this, and all other aspects of curriculum renewal, instructors could attend various sessions and workshops offered at the GMCTE throughout the year.

Syllabus Template & Guide created for the U of S

by Heather M. Ross, GMCTE

The University of Saskatchewan requires that students receive a syllabus for each of their classes at the beginning of the term. Instructors have a variety of ideas about what to include the syllabus, while some colleges want all of their syllabi to look the same. Some require that all sections of a course, regardless of how many different instructors there may be, must use an identical syllabus. All of this is acceptable under university policy as long as a syllabus includes all of the required elements laid out in the Academic Courses Policy. These include: • learning outcomes of the course;• the type and schedule of term

assignments, with approximate due dates;

• notice if any mid-term examinations or other required class activities are scheduled outside of usual class times;

• the type and schedule of mid-term or like examinations;

• relative marking weight of all assignments and examinations;

• procedures for dealing with missed or late assignments or examinations;

• whether any or all of the work assigned in a class including any assignment, examination, or final examination, is mandatory for

passing the class;• attendance expectations if

applicable, the means by which attendance will be monitored, the consequences of not meeting attendance expectations, and their contribution to the assessment process;

• participation expectations if applicable, the means by which participation will be monitored and evaluated, the consequences of not meeting participation expectations, and their contribution to the assessment process;

• contact information and consultation availability;

• • location of rules and guidelines for both academic misconduct and appeal procedures;

• class website URL, if used.

* notice of whether the instructor intends to record lectures and whether students are permitted to record lectures. In 2012, the University of Saskatchewan Instructional Design Group, including representatives from the Centre for Continuing and Distance Education (CCDE), the College of Nursing, the GMCTE, and Information & Communications Technology (ICT), set to work on developing a syllabus

7www.usask.ca/gmcte

Syllabus Template & Guide created for the U of S

template and guide to assist instructors in crafting syllabi that met all of these requirements. The template is based on one that has been used by CCDE for a number of years. A corresponding Web page was also developed by the GMCTE that includes links to the template, the guide, the U of S Academic Courses Policy and other resources, including videos related to various aspects of the syllabus to assist instructors in creating their syllabi. This page is located at http://www.usask.ca/gmcte/resources/teaching/syllabus The template and guide include all of the required elements listed above, plus additional items recommended by the U of S Instructional Design Group, Disability Services for Students (DSS) and others on campus. These items include: • course description including

prerequisites (this much match what is in the course catalogue)

• U of S grading system for the appropriate level (undergraduate or graduate)

• course overview and schedule• instructor profile (should be written

in first person)• required resources (books, software,

etc.)• student feedback (how it is

gathered and how it is used) There were some recent amendments made to the Academic Courses Policy related to the syllabus including one regarding the recording of lectures (the last point in the list of required items) and this:

“The syllabus is a public document that provides details about a particular offering of a class for enrolled students. It is also useful for recruiting prospective students and sharing information about University of Saskatchewan courses with the broader community. Instructors must make the syllabus available to Department Heads prior to the start of the course, and to all enrolled students at the beginning of the class. Syllabi should be posted on the Blackboard Open Courseware site or a publically accessible departmental website.”

Making your syllabi public offers a number of opportunities including allowing students to view them from previous terms to decide which section of a course they may wish to take, what types of teaching strategies you might utilize, what resources will be required and when major assignments will be due.

The syllabus template and guide are available as resources. They are not required by the university, but rather serve to help you get started in crafting a document that will fit the needs of both you and your students. Again, your college or department might have its own required template that you must use, but those syllabi must still include

... your syllabus should ideally be a reflection of you, the course you are teaching and your teaching style.

the items required under the Academic Courses Policy. Also, your syllabus should ideally be a reflection of you, the course you are teaching and your teaching style. One syllabus style does not fit all and you should take steps to personalize your syllabus by including a short biography, a short summary of your teaching philosophy, or details about how you use student feedback to shape your current and future classes. For more on personalizing your syllabus, see the Bridges article that Kim West wrote for the August 2012 issue.

It is important to remember that the U of S considers syllabi to be contracts with the students and certain parts of them, such as the due dates for major assignments or the date of the midterm may not be changed once students have received a copy of the document, including paper copies, or electronic versions through PAWS, BBLearn or Email. If you would like assistance with creating or revising a syllabus, or have questions about the template or guide, please contact the GMCTE to set up an appointment with one of our staff members.


COURSE DESIGN

PUTTING COURSE DESIGN

INSTITUTE THROUGH

inTroDUCTion

The Course Design Institute (CDI), an intensive workshop for instructors offered by the GMCTE, provides instructors a chance to design new courses or to redesign old ones. Instructors come in with one specific course in mind and when they leave they should have all of the major planning pieces completed. It is not feasible to plan and create all of the materials for the course during the workshop, but by the end participants have a focused plan and are ready to hit the ground running. This workshop has been offered in some form over the past number of year, but during the past two years, it has evolved and is currently being redesigned for future iterations. The next offering will be in February 2014.

WhaT iT WaS

As of 2012, the CDI was offered once a year in the second week of May. Instructors would sign up and pay a nominal registration fee. The workshop lasted five full days and consisted of entirely face-to-face sessions. Presentations took place in the mornings, along with a few afternoon sessions, but most afternoons were saved for participants to work on various aspects their courses.

WhaT iT iS noW

In 2013, it was decided that we would begin offering the CDI twice a year to fit with more instructors’ schedules. The first offering would be during mid-term break in February and the second offering would be offered in the familiar second week of May.

One major change came when Jim Greer and Brad Wuetherick visited the University of Kansas (KU) and met with Dan Bernstein, the Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence. They learned that KU offers grants to their successful CDI participants. Upon reflection, we decided to move to an application process, rather than an open registration process, and we also decided to offer $1000 grants to faculty who complete course designs that meet one of the University of Saskatchewan’s learning priorities. Some of the possible uses of this grant are to hire a student to help with building course materials, aid in purchasing required technology, or to aid in creating an evaluation tool to evaluate the new course design. Interested instructors must complete an application form (on our website) that describes their projected course designs and at least one of the university priorities it aligns with. Out of the applications, up to 10 instructors are selected - although, not all of the selected participants are necessarily eligible for the grant depending on their design and their role at the university (i.e. graduate students are not eligible to receive the grant).

Due to the Family Day holiday during the break in February, we could only hold the CDI over four days rather than a full five-day week. This forced us to take a closer look at the sessions being offered and we were able to pare down some of them. We essentially put the CDI through the course design process. We thought about our audience and the required learning outcomes. We read Rethinking Teaching in Higher Education: From a Course Design Workshop to a Faculty Development Framework by Saroyan and Amundsen and also consulted with what other similar centres were doing. The

main sessions that were decided upon for greatest impact and use of time were:

• Context Analysis• Learning Outcomes• Types of Assessments• Rubrics• Constructive Alignment• Blueprinting• the Syllabus• Instructional Strategies

We also offered an additional four optional lunch sessions on the university priorities: Experiential Learning, Aboriginal Education, Learning Technologies, and Internationalization. All of the afternoons were held open for participants to focus on designing their courses.

Along with the face-to-face sessions, we posted all of the learning resources within a private Blackboard Learn course. On this course page we also posted a wide variety of additional resources to facilitate further learning. At the end of the February 2013 offering of the CDI, we had an informal conversation with participants and the consensus was that four days was an appropriate length for this workshop due to the intensive conversations and time on task.

The next offering, in May 2013, was offered in a very similar fashion to the February offering. We chose to continue with the four day format and offered sessions on the same topics. Participants from both offerings have been receiving the $1000 grants to aid in implementing their course designs.

WhErE iT’S GoinGWe consider both 2013 offerings of the CDI to be great successes. Going forward we are implementing further improvements to the design. At the GMCTE we have become advocates for flipped teaching; therefore, we are going to put our money where our mouths are and flip the CDI. What this means is that we are developing short resource videos and collecting resources on all of the topics. These videos will serve two purposes. The first is that we will ask the

-By Ryan Banow, GMCTE

9www.usask.ca/gmcte

CDI participants to view them prior to each day’s sessions. The second purpose is that these videos will be publically available on our website as just-in-time resources for instructors who are seeking immediate assistance in course design. If an instructor wants course design assistance and cannot attend an offering of the CDI, then these resources will be available to at any time.

By having participants view the videos prior to the sessions, they will now have more time to discuss the concepts with the instructional designers and their peers. Participants will also have more time to work on their courses during the four days--a key element of this time to work is that participants are able to work one-on-one with instructional designers and are also encouraged to share their ideas with their peers in the room. The environment can be extremely productive and collaborative.

Another goal for the CDI going forward, is that participants will create a portfolio of their new course design after, after having taught the course. This is another idea that has been inspired by KU and other institutions. These portfolios would be shared with other faculty on our website and could also be shared in a presentation to interested colleagues. There is so much passion and great work coming out of the CDI and we need to share it!

Building your Skill Set: Be a Mindful Graduate StudentA conversation with Wenona Partridge, GMCTE & Amelia Horsburgh, GMCTE

Wenona is completing her MA in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Saskatchewan and works for the GMCTE as a Communications and Program Support Specialist. Amelia is completing her PhD in the Department of English at the University of Saskatchewan and teaches for the GMCTE as a Graduate Teaching Fellow.

Background

W: The path I took to university was not direct. I worked for several years after high school, then again after finishing a BA in philosophy. I also worked while studying, off campus as an undergraduate and on campus as a graduate student.

A:Unlike Wenona, I have never taken a break from my studies. I have been in school from Montessori all the way through to my PhD studies, only taking a six-month leave from graduate school when I had my son. Throughout my graduate studies, I have supported myself by way of research/teaching fellowships and scholarships.

Impetus for Study

W: Intellectual curiosity was my primary motivation to pursue university: I was looking for a community of interesting peers and mentors who were also intellectually curious. I wanted to become a better, more critically reflective citizen who contributes to her community.

A:Familial influence was my motivation to pursue graduate studies. As a young woman, I witnessed the career opportunities presented to my mother (who holds a PhD in Nursing) and wanted to have those same professional options and standard of living.

Visions of Success

W&A: Most students, particularly in the humanities, pursue graduate studies with the intent of eventually becoming a faculty member. The story we are told is that, if we work hard enough, we will have the same success as our mentors. However, this story is

not typically accepting of alternative endings, i.e. careers that fall outside a tenured faculty position.

Academic Realism

W&A: Despite intellectual curiosity and a love of teaching, we also hunger for food, a decent apartment and a not-empty savings account. For humanities graduate students on the cusp of graduating, the job market in higher education has the appearance of being unjust: teaching too many courses (in an attempt to make ends meet) with little time to pursue their research interests, impedes the likelihood of obtaining a tenured position. For those of us who are uninterested in filling a sessional role, the traditional story of what comes after graduate school needs to change. As we make that leap into the paid workforce, we must consider alternative narratives. That said, such alternative narratives should be considered throughout a graduate students’ education.

continued on page 17


Celeb

ratio

n of T

each

ing 2

013! The Provost’s teaching awards for 2013, in special

recognition of the University’s award-winning teachers during the past academic year are be presented at the annual Celebration of Teaching,

The Provost’s Awards recognize outstanding teaching in each College, as well the categories of Aboriginal education, international teaching, innovation in learning, new teachers, graduate teaching and graduate student teachers.

We are proud to announce this year’s Provost teaching awards recipients!If you would like to learn more about the awards, please visit www.usask.ca/gmcte/awards/provost

Excellence in Aboriginal Education Sheila Carr-StewartCollege of Education

Outstanding Graduate Student Teacher Leah Ferguson College of Kinesiology

Outstanding Innovation in Learning

Christopher Todd College of Arts & Science

Outstanding Graduate Teaching

Bonita BeattyCollege of Art & Science

Outstanding New Teacher

Regan SchmidtEdwards School

of Business

Provost’s Award for Outstanding Teaching

College of Agriculture & Bioresources

Tom Yates


College of Arts & Science Science

Neil Chilton


College of Arts & Science Social Science

Pamela Downe


College of Arts & Science Humanities & Fine Arts

Greg Marion

Provost’s Award for Outstanding Teaching Edwards School of Business

Keith Willoughby


College of Education

Debbie Pushor


College of Engineering

David Sumner


College of Kinesiology

Louise Humbert

This Year’s Provost’sAwards

Recipients

TeachingExcellence in International Teaching Simonne HorwitzCollege of Arts & Science

Provost’s College Awards Recipients

Provost’s Award for Outstanding Teaching College of Medicine

Sean Mulligan


Western College of Veterinary Medicine

Sue Taylor


College of Pharmacy

& Nutrition

Shawna Berenbaum

11www.usask.ca/gmcte

Celeb

ratio

n of T

each

ing 2

013! The Provost’s teaching awards for 2013, in special

recognition of the University’s award-winning teachers during the past academic year are be presented at the annual Celebration of Teaching,

The Provost’s Awards recognize outstanding teaching in each College, as well the categories of Aboriginal education, international teaching, innovation in learning, new teachers, graduate teaching and graduate student teachers.

We are proud to announce this year’s Provost teaching awards recipients!If you would like to learn more about the awards, please visit www.usask.ca/gmcte/awards/provost

Excellence in Aboriginal Education Sheila Carr-StewartCollege of Education

Outstanding Graduate Student Teacher Leah Ferguson College of Kinesiology

Outstanding Innovation in Learning

Christopher Todd College of Arts & Science

Outstanding Graduate Teaching

Bonita BeattyCollege of Art & Science

Outstanding New Teacher

Regan SchmidtEdwards School

of Business


College of Agriculture & Bioresources

Tom Yates


College of Arts & Science Science

Neil Chilton


College of Arts & Science Social Science

Pamela Downe


College of Arts & Science Humanities & Fine Arts

Greg Marion

Provost’s Award for Outstanding Teaching Edwards School of Business

Keith Willoughby


College of Education

Debbie Pushor


College of Engineering

David Sumner


College of Kinesiology

Louise Humbert

This Year’s Provost’sAwards

Recipients

TeachingExcellence in International Teaching Simonne HorwitzCollege of Arts & Science

Provost’s College Awards Recipients

Provost’s Award for Outstanding Teaching College of Medicine

Sean Mulligan


Western College of Veterinary Medicine

Sue Taylor


College of Pharmacy

& Nutrition

Shawna Berenbaum


Introduction

In 2012, British Columbia launched their open textbook project, which is being coordinated by BCcampus. In an effort to help educate the U of S community about this initiative and further conversations around a variety of aspects of open education, the GMCTE requested some opinion pieces from individuals in higher education in BC on this topic.

Following are pieces by Clint Lalond and Sylvia Currie from BCcampus, Will Engle from the University of British Columbia, and Valerie Irvine from the University of Victoria. In addition, there is a piece by Frank Bulk (from the GMCTE) who sat down for a conversation with USSU President Max Fineday who made the concept of open textbooks a part of his campaign platform when running for that position.

The B.C. Open Textbook Project

Last fall, British Columbia became the first Canadian province to launch an open textbook project (at the annual Open Ed conference in Vancouver). Under the direction of the ministry responsible for advanced education, BCcampus, a post-secondary service organization with a long history of involvement in inter-institutional open educational projects, is coordinating the project.

Since this announcement, we’ve been working to identify the top 40 first and second year subjects across the 27 post-secondary institutions in B.C., undertake a review process of existing open textbooks, and to engage faculty and staff in dialogue around adaptation and adoption. We have also connected with other open textbook projects around the world to identify possible areas of commonality and collaboration.

Open textbooks are similar to traditional textbooks in a number of ways. They are created by educators, often peer-reviewed and classroom tested, and sometimes even printed in familiar format of a physical book. However, open textbooks are also very different from traditionally- published textbooks in a couple of important ways:

• First and foremost, open textbooks are free -- obviously the biggest draw, especially in the eyes of students and those helping to fund their education. With $100-$200 sticker prices in some disciplines, making textbooks free can significantly increase access to post-secondary education.

• Open textbooks are also available in multiple technical formats, including ePub, PDF, HTML or (for a small fee to cover the cost of creating a physical copy) print-on-demand. This provides the greatest technical choice for students as they can pick the format that they prefer and works best for them.

What does “Open” mean?

While the promise of free textbooks is what catches the attention of the public, it is the culture of OPEN that has the potential to provide real pedagogical innovation in teaching & learning. It is both exciting, yet uncertain, territory.

At the heart of open textbooks, and what makes an open textbook “open”, is the Creative Commons (CC) license. The flexibility of CC licenses allow faculty to have complete control over the textbook and modify, use and redistribute the content without having to ask copyright permission from a publisher. This gives faculty a great deal of flexibility when it comes to customizing and contextualizing learning materials to fit their specific teaching needs. Photos, charts, and other visual resources from the textbook can easily be reused in another medium, such as in a presentation for students. Learning the mechanics of how to execute all of this ranks highly among faculty we are working with:

“How do you make textbooks visually appealing?”“Can you change a license assigned to your work?”“How do you track revisions?”

Open resources can transform educationHowever, many of the questions and comments that have emerged through conversations at our Adopting Open Textbooks workshops are more philosophical and transformational in nature, and speak to the bigger picture. This project has provided a spark for faculty to re-examine current practices around choosing and using educational resources. For example, commercial textbook publishers have often been the default starting point for many faculty when choosing learning resources, and this project has some re-examining that default position in light of the fact that we now live in an age where abundant information is freely available. Do we need to pay for it?

“How can we use this open textbook initiative to inform innovation around pedagogy?”“How are concerns around use, attribution, etc different from concerns we’ve always had?”“Are we replacing expensive texts, or are we providing alternatives?”

As individuals supporting this process, we make every effort to present the adoption of open textbooks as a reachable goal for everyone. Because it is! There are many ways to get involved, and it doesn’t have to mean taking on a huge task.

“I would be hesitant to sit down and write a textbook and think that it would

be an improvement in some way over what exists”

In the past few years a number of open textbook projects have launched to develop high quality university & college level open textbooks. One example is Rice University’s OpenStax College, funded with grants from the Hewlett and Gates Foundation, where high quality introductory textbooks for Physics, Sociology and Biology are available for free with Creative Commons licenses. The early stages of the BC Open Textbook

Open Textbooks: A new initiative for the U of S?


Project has been to identify and review these types of resources in the hopes they will form the foundations of the open textbooks used in our province.

What’s ahead?

Educators and administrators are keen to get involved in a project that promises to be a very practical solution to a very large problem: prohibitive cost of textbooks. The long-term benefit for our educational system will be a shift to more open practices. Fortunately, feedback so far from faculty points to a future that is both exciting and doable.

“Collaboration is the most interesting piece when thinking about the

possibilities”“Change begins with the individual.

Start thinking of open as an option in the everyday of what we do.”

“It doesn’t all have to happen at once“ Clint Lalonde and Sylvia Currie

Open Textbooks;Enhanced Learning

Someday soon, a psychology instructor will visit an open textbook website to read the reviews of first-year psychology texts. As she browses, she will recognize colleagues’ names as both editors and peer-reviewers and, based on their, reviews, she will select different texts to explore. She will decide that for her fall class, she likes how one book covers specific topics while another other provides a rich background. She will combine sections from each book into a new file and then, from her own course notes, she will add information providing a Canadian context. Next, she will embed videos, dynamic 3D renderings, links to relevant websites, and interactive quizzes that will help students to gage their mastery of the material. Finally, she will add a student-generated knowledge base created by her previous class as an appendix. When her students access

the textbook, they will have the options to view it online or to download it in a mobile or e-reader supported format for free and to keep it for as long as they like. Additionally, they will be able to print a bound, static version of the text at the university bookstore for less than $30 dollars.

A number of different factors have recently pushed this scenario from the future to the near present: the high costs of traditionally published textbooks, the development of the Creative Commons licensing framework that supports the reuse and modification of materials, and the continued proliferation of technologies that support both the publication and reading of electronic media. This past fall, the government of British Columbia further drove this reality when they announced an initiative to offer free, open textbooks for the 40 most popular post-secondary courses.

Much of the motivation and attention for this BC open textbook project has been focused on the cost savings benefits to students. This benefit is, indeed, very important: the BC Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation, and Technology (2012), estimates that students spend between $900 and $1,500 per academic year on textbooks. A recent report published this June by the United States Government Accountability Office (2013) found that the textbook prices have gone up 6% this year and have risen 82% over the last decade.

Most instructors sympathize with the reluctance of students to purchase high priced books that will only be used for a few months. A faculty member at a workshop for the BC open textbook project recently confessed that he stopped assigning textbooks in his teaching. “I was reviewing potential textbooks for a course and realized that I wouldn’t want to learn from them myself,” he stated. And, yet, the instructor was genuinely excited about

the potential that open textbooks could have in his teaching. While he had currently moved to creating custom course packs and curating online resources, he found that a textbook provided a comprehensive framework for approaching the material and he like the idea of being able to provide a course contextualized, high quality resource that students could easily access for free on any device.

Even traditional publishers and educational technology companies are beginning to see the potential of openly licensed educational materials for enhancing teaching. In late June, both Pearson and Blackboard launched search tools to help instructors find and incorporate open educational resources into their teaching. Pearson (2013) described their search tool as a way of providing educators with the 21st century materials, assets and best practices they need to keep students engaged.

The BC open textbook project is helping BC faculty and institutions be leaders in developing these 21st century resources and best practices by working to remove some of the biggest hurdles in terms of quality and technology. By building a peer review process and enabling a framework in which the textbooks can be developed collaboratively by a network of peers, the project is ensuring that the textbooks are written and edited by expert faculty members, not committees, and reviewed by their peers. By exploring and implementing modern and emerging technologies, the project is also helping to drive innovation and move textbooks away from being just text.

The BC open textbook is helping to ensure that learners and instructors in British Columbia and the world will have access to not only more affordable resources, but also better resources that enhance learning for everyone.

Open Textbooks: A new initiative for the U of S?


References

Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology. (2012). B.C. to lead Canada in offering students free, open textbooks. Retrieved from http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012AEIT0010-001581.htm

Pearson. (2013). Pearson introduces the OpenClass Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/6/prweb10858753.htm

United States Government Accountability Office. (2013). College textbooks: Students have greater access to textbook information (Report No. GAO-13-368). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655066.pdf

Biography

Will Engle is a Teaching and Learning Strategist at UBC’s Centre for Teaching, Learning & Technology. He is engaged with projects that are leveraging emerging technologies, approaches, and pedagogies to support flexible and open learning. With a background in library science, Will is interested in understanding and supporting the removal of barriers that limit access to education, information, and knowledge.

The MOOC as text: A long term vision

Valerie Irvine Luke Richards Technology Integration and Evaluation (TIE) Research LabUniversity of Victoria

Textbooks have been central to the operation of higher education, but they are a target of criticism for being synonymous with the traditional approach to education as well as imposing a financial burden upon students who already face significant living and tuition costs with little opportunity for income. The State of Educational Technology Directors

Association recently released a report in 2013 called “Out of Print: Reimagining the K-12 Textbook in a Digital Age” which cites that states and districts in the United States spend $5.5 billion annually on content yet many students are still using textbooks that are 7 to 10 years old (Fletcher et al, 2012). With a modern day student population that is accustomed to access to free content, and dynamic content at that, the static textbook that is a significant proportion of their university tuition presents itself as an idol worthy of resentment. Furthermore, the movement to support open access to work published by publicly-funded academics is fueling the momentum toward the open textbook. Fortunately, there are a growing number of open textbooks emerging with print, epub, or PDF versions available (BCCampus, 2012; Creative Commons, 2012; Openstax College, 2013).

Textbooks should be recognized, though, as a highly adaptable literary genre and needs to change to resolve classroom problems as they emerge (Wakefield, 1998). In the 21st century, it is recognized that “information sources” include the people one connects to in addition to or instead of static content. Our value of knowledge as something individually held is also being redefined through emerging theories such as connectivism (Siemens, 2005). It is important to also consider the role of social networking and how MOOC capabilities are incorporated into the higher education sector. The connected textbook or text portal to a learning community is becoming more dominant over all things static in nature. McFadden (2012) suggested tablets will begin to dominate within 2-3 years with embedded applications for connecting faculty and students within a class. The growing ability to bring in social and dynamic content in some digital formats, as opposed to flat text and images, may allow for the community-building affordances never before possible in a traditional text. Looking forward to the next evolution of the dynamic, community-connected portal, at what point does the open textbook disappear as it transitions into status as a MOOC?

Currently, a variety of different types of MOOCs are emerging with the most notable being the xMOOC and cMOOC. There are growing instances of instructors wrapping a MOOC in a course, as we did in 2013, but there were considerable issues that arose for us and in some instances terms of service from MOOC providers prohibit it. Emerging from the open textbook initiative, we recommend a collaborative inter-institutional regional MOOC with all instructors working together in authorship and design. As dozens of courses across a state or province are offered and funded from the same taxpayer pool of funds, there are many opportunities that appear to redefine what a textbook is to both meet the needs of learners and to create communities between institutions. Moving toward a meta-course to collaborate as an instructional team will be a challenge because our institutions do not encourage it. Universities are in a competitive marketplace. We strive to recruit the strongest students and although research collaboration is encouraged among faculty at different institutions as it is an evaluation criterion for obtaining grants, teaching collaboration among faculty at different institutions is more rare as there is no such incentive and likely obstacles exist within the competitive recruitment and branding culture. The key will be for it to be a top-down initiative combined with student demand from bottom-up. The instructors and the institutions in the middle will not want to miss the opportunity for involvement.

As more open textbooks or “portals” emerge that are regional and overlap with the MOOC phenomenon, perhaps another category of MOOC might be created for the open textbook MOOC, which we suggest would be called tMOOC. The t stands for textbook and emphasizes the open textbook MOOC’s role in supplanting the traditional textbook and having a specific course profile it is intending to serve in regional campus-based environments. Where a traditional textbook in print form contained static text and still images, the tMOOC can contain hashtags, embedded


community spaces, and dynamic content that can be contributed by instructors and student alike across the same course from various post-secondary institutions. Since open textbook initiatives are typically linked to a government region, the moderators of the MOOC would be expected to be the course instructors from the corresponding course (e.g, Psychology 101) in that region. The tMOOC would act in place of the textbook. Rather than students asking “what text is required for Psychology 101?” the question will be “what tMOOC is required and what is the hashtag for Psychology 101?” Time will tell if this becomes a reality. We certainly hope so.

ReferencesBCCampus (2012). BCCampus to co-ordinate provincial open textbook project. Retrieved February 12, 2013 from http://www.bccampus.ca/bccampus-to-co-ordinate-provincial-open-textbook-project/

Creative Commons (2013). California passes groundbreaking open textbook legislation. Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/34288

Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D., & Levin, D. (2012). Out of Print: Reimagining the K-12 Textbook in a Digital Age. State Educational Technology Directors Association.

McFadden, C. (2012). Are textbooks dead? Making sense of the digital transition. Publishing Research Quarterly, 28(2), 93–99. doi:10.1007/s12109-012-9266-3

Openstax College (2013). Retrieved from http://openstaxcollege.org/ Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/jan_05.pdf

Wakefield, J.F. (1998). A brief history of textbooks: Where have we been all these years? Paper presented at the Meeting of the Text and Academic Authors, St.

Petersburg, FL. Retrieved March 30, 2013 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED419246.pdf

Open Textbook Interview with Max Fineday – Making Student Life Better

By Frank Bulk, GMCTE

In the April 12th issue of the OCN, I read an interesting article that profiled our new USSU president, Max FineDay. I was intrigued with his simply stated pre-election platform “to make student life better” and wanted to hear more from him specifically on the persistent concern that students’ have over the cost of textbooks.

Along with Brea Lowenberger, I invited Max to discuss this with us over coffee. Max suggested a date and time when we could meet in the Louis Loft, and on arriving I was surprised to see that the shelves of used books that were once sold in “Browsers” had all vanished. In literary terms I believe this would be considered an interesting element of “foreshadowing” as it related to the conversation we were about to have.

Frank: Thanks for meeting with us today. To start, please tell us something about the dialogue you have been having with U of S students as it relates to the cost of textbooks.

Max: During the campaign, a big thing that kept coming up was the cost associated with coming to university, and particularly the cost of textbooks. So when I introduced the open textbook part of my platform, there was a huge response from students. Students were so excited about finding a new way to do textbooks, a new way of transmitting information to each other that wouldn’t cost them hundreds of dollars per semester, because that’s a huge barrier to education and to coming to university.

Frank: In addition to cost savings, do you feel that flexible access to

educational resources is also an important consideration for students?

Max: Yeah, absolutely, particularly students my age are used to having information at the tip of their fingers, on their laptops, on their smartphones. I think that is something we can work into an open textbook program - transmitting that information to wherever they need it to be.

Frank: Do you believe that students are ready to move entirely into an electronic format for their required reading? Past arguments would suggest that there is still a level of comfort and familiarity in holding a printed textbook.

Max: Yeah, absolutely, without question. It’s 2013. My generation has largely grown up with computers, where they can go onto the Internet and find what they’re looking for - and we’re still using these books that cost hundreds of dollars, and that are replaced with new versions every few years. It’s very hard to reuse and repurpose these textbooks for new students. It’s sort of a generational gap that I don’t think the university is seeing yet, or it’s not on their radar yet. We have to move from physical copies of textbooks to something more interactive, to something more accessible, to something more relatable to students today – and that’s online stuff.

Frank: So how are students coping within the current cost model, are more and more students sharing textbooks, looking for library loans, or simply not buying them unless they feel it is absolutely necessary?

Max: There is a subculture of what to do with textbooks after – how to avoid the extra cost. There are so many tips and tricks of saving the extra cost. Some people are buying them online directly from Amazon for 75% off what they would pay at the bookstore.


There’s other ways for students to access this information, without having to pay $250.

Frank: As you know there have been some exciting developments in places like California and British Columbia where open textbook programs have been implemented for the benefit of their students. Are you familiar with how they’ve gotten to where they are now?

Max: BC’s an interesting model and is the first Canadian program. There was a really courageous step on part of the BC government to take the initiative and run with it. So the way they’ve done that is they’ve set it up through “BC Campus”. They’ve taken it on and they’re moving forward without any blueprint. They’re kind of seeing what’s going to work. They’re doing a lot of consultations, which I think is crucial in this process. And they’re really talking to everybody, including publishers, including professors, including everyone who might be a little bit skeptical of this program, and getting them onside. I think it’s a great model that Saskatchewan could learn from.

Frank: What do you hope to accomplish this year to move the U of S in this direction?

Max: The end goal is having an open textbook program implemented at the U of S. That’s going to take a lot of time and conversations, so I think my goal for the first part of my term is starting these conversations. Starting them with the provincial government, with university administration, and with the campus community as a whole. Because those are the players that need to be included to have this kind of program implemented.

Brea: You mentioned collaborating with the provincial government, do you also see the possibility of collaborating across Canada with other student executives?

Max: Yes, absolutely. I think there’s room for collaboration with other students at other universities. Really, this is something that affects us all, and I think there’s a national conversation to be had. And even to get people talking about this issue in a broader way – and not just students. It needs to be university administrators as well as politicians, whether it’s members of parliament or the legislature. When I’ve talked to my counterparts in BC and Ontario about an open licensing program, they’re really excited about it; they’re saying that it just makes sense. They recognize that it’s a national program. I think there’s a big want on the part of student leaders to see a change.

Frank: From an institutional standpoint, what do we need to do to make this happen?

Max: I think we need to want to change. We need to want to be the best. We need to realize that the textbook industry as it is right now is not working for students. In our Third Integrated Plan, we’re talking about innovation, we’re talking about how to better the student experience, and we’re talking about how to be at the top of the U15. We want to keep in pace with our comparator universities. We’ve seen that UBC has taken the first step. I think we can definitely follow them and still be one of the leaders of this area, and provide some innovation for this country. This is where education is moving, and the University of Saskatchewan should be at the forefront of these changes.

Brea: Are you planning on having any campaigns, carrying forward the “Be Booksmart” campaign?

Max: Yes, we’re in the process of planning the “Be Booksmart” campaign. This is going to turn into a lobbying effort so that we can have conversations with government, conversations with the university administrators to show that this is an issue on students’ minds.

This is an issue that students really care about, and have been talking about for years – the cost of textbooks is something that’s been on the USSU’s radar for a very long time – so we’re going to be having these conversations, and that there’s ground-level support for changing the industry.

Brea: At the national level in the past there has been the Canadian Roundtable of Academic Materials, which has been largely focused on collaborating with and trying to address issues with publishers. Is there still interest in this?

Max: There is going to be some sort of national collaboration that will be talking with key stakeholders in the industry. I’m not sure how that’s going look right now, but I do see some sort of working group of presidents or vice-presidents of student unions/societies who are having these conversations with universities and industry.

Frank: Do you see evidence of U of S faculty trying to support student on this issue by not assigning expensive textbooks and instead putting together reading packs, assigning materials from open access sources or relying on materials that are secured by our library?

Max: Yes. There’s a really big want on the part of faculty to see a change in how the system operates. Classes that I’ve been involved in, and I can only speak for my classes which has largely been Political Studies – some professors have been addressing this issue, and they have been assigning supplementary readings from online journals or texts that are easily accessible from the library, just to have that sort of understanding that university costs a lot of money, and the textbooks don’t have to be an added barrier to education. And I think there are a lot more faculty who are recognizing, understanding, and doing something about this.


Frank: What advice would you offer faculty who are similarly concerned but have not yet taken advantage of open educational resources?

Max: I would say to faculty that this is the way that education is moving forward. It would be helpful to look at what’s out there already, and see if there’s anything they can pick for their particular courses and see how they can implement free open, online resources into their classes. I know that professors understand that there is a huge barrier to university education, and I think any sort of effort on part of the professors would help ensure that students are able to come back and succeed.

Frank:Is there anything you would like to mention as a concluding comment?

Max: If faculty are supportive of the initiative, don’t be afraid to talk about it with their peers, with their deans, with university administration, with us, the USSU, because these are conversations that we’re trying to start, and any brief thought or brief show of support would go a long way toward making this process easier for students. It would be helpful and welcomed.

continued from page 9

Pathways to Success

W&A: As we have both discovered, students who enter graduate studies with the intent to access multiple opportunities outside their niche area and develop a professional skill set are better for it. They graduate prepared to take on a broader range of challenges and opportunities. Regardless of whether your career aspirations are inside or outside academia, for-profit or non-profit sectors, you must continue to pay rent/mortgage and provide life’s essentials to the ones you love; the cat needs to eat after all. Employment opportunities for a humanities graduate with an MA or PhD outside academia are not necessarily what you had imagined. It could look quite different indeed. And, as we see it, this is the beauty of a humanities graduate degree: the flexibility it affords you in the breadth of your job possibilities. However, it requires that you be mindful in the choices you make as a graduate student in regards to building your skill set. The ability to write in a clear and concise manner; to research, disseminate, and respond to huge swaths of information; to lead projects (such as a Master’s thesis or PhD dissertation) and take them to fruition; these skills are the bread-and-butter of a Masters or PhD prepared employee.

Building your Skills

W&A: Outside the bread-and-butter, where can you as graduate student turn to build your professional skill set? Specific to the GMCTE, we offer a variety of courses and workshops to enhance professional and teaching skills for graduate students such as GSR 982 Mentored Teaching, GSR 984 Thinking Critically, GSR 979 Introductory Instructional Skills, and GSR 989 Philosophy and Practice of University Teaching, as well as workshops that are offered throughout the academic year. The GMCTE also offers a three-day Fall Orientation to Teaching and Learning for graduate students and new faculty at the end August each year. The University Learning Centre offers a variety of paid opportunities (such as the Writing Help Centre), and workshops directed at graduate students. Another option to explore is the Student Employment and Career Centre which posts on and off campus jobs, volunteer opportunities, as

well as assistance with resume and cover letter writing.

Be your own Cheerleader

W&A: As a graduate student, take it upon yourself to be your own cheerleader and help your potential future employer see the breadth of your talents. For instance, make the most of your online presence: market yourself in the virtual world. We have found ways to market our skill set and network through such sites as LinkedIn, Academia.edu, Twitter, About.me, as well as services specific to the University of Saskatchewan like WordPress blogs and individual webpages on Homepage.

Conclusions

W&A: In the end, graduate students are like anyone else. They want to find employment that is meaningful and valued. These meaningful and valued positions may not be the coveted faculty position they currently imagine, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is worthwhile exploring the avenues available to you as a graduate student to create a more robust professional skill set that sets you apart, which could foster a more fulfilling graduate student experience. We believe this is an exciting time to be a graduate student. Take ownership of your studies and future career potential!

Invitation to Join the Conversation

W&A: Are you, dear reader, a graduate student thinking about your future career options? What are your thoughts about the possibility of finding employment inside or outside academia? We value your opinion on the subject. Please e-mail [email protected] & [email protected] to contribute to our conversation in future installments of Bridges.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able

to entertain a thought without

accepting it.

Aristotle


The pitfalls of trying new teaching methods and climbing back outMurray DrewCollege of Agriculture and Bioresources

For a long time, I have talked with my peers about how traditional lecturing using PowerPoint slides results in a very passive classroom. Students sit quietly and are very difficult to engage in discussion. To liven things up, I decided to try a different style of teaching. My goal was to move beyond presenting facts, I wanted students to apply these facts to problems they would encounter in the real world. I also wanted to encourage more class discussion about material. Mostly, I wanted students to be active learners. After reading about different teaching strategies, the flipped classroom model seemed to be ideally suited to this goal.

First, let me set the stage. Animal Science 315 is an introductory course in animal nutrition. In the laboratory section of the course, students run animal feeding trials and perform laboratory analysis of feeds. This is the first real hands-on experience with animals our students have and they love it (well except for having to write the lab report perhaps). The lecture section is divided equally between two instructors. I teach the last half of the course (18 lectures) and the final exam is only on my section of the course. My final exam is mostly essay questions that try to get students to integrate course material. While exam questions change each year, the knowledge students are asked to integrate remains the same and over 10 years the class average on my exam has been very stable, ranging from 68-73%. Only 1 or 2 students per year achieve marks over 90%.

Developing all new course material is a daunting job so I have put off trying the flipped classroom model for several years. Finally, last summer, I bit the bullet and spent many hours developing new online lectures and classroom problem sets. The first day of class arrived and I was ready to

take my students to new heights of higher learning. However, only about 60% of students were present so it was obvious that some of them did not share my enthusiasm. Class attendance remained low and I began taking note of which students attended on a regular basis to see how they fared on the final exam.

Many good things came out of my switch to the flipped classroom. There was definitely more class discussion and student engagement. However, there were major problems as well, the biggest being the way I was assessing students. I had changed my teaching method, but the only way I assessed students was using an exam worth 40% of their final mark. There was no assessment of their work in class. Not very good alignment of student activities with assessment! It was also apparent that students did not like the new approach. I usually get excellent student evaluations. However, my student evaluations on the online SEEQ this year were very low. Many students commented that they were unsure of what they should be doing in class and how they were going to be tested on the online lectures and on in-class work. Some students even came to my office and told me how much they hated the flipped classroom and asked me to switch back to traditional lectures. However, I stuck it out. Then came the final exam and some very surprising results. Students who did not come to class had an average of 61% on the final (see Figure). Those who came to class had an average of 82%. I also had 8 students with marks above 90%. Compared to 2011, where traditional lectures were given, students in the upper 50 percentile in 2012 had marks approximately 8% higher. My exam was similar to my past exams but I noticed that the answers of the students who came to class showed a much better understanding of course material. So here’s the dilemma: students hated the flipped classroom but they learned more. Should I continue using the flipped classroom model and accept poor student evaluations coupled with high student outcomes? The answer is obviously to improve the in class experience of students.

On to the present. I am now developing a 1st year course called Domestic Animal Biology (ANBI 110) for the new B.Sc. program in Animal Biosciences. This is the first Animal Science course that 1st year students will take and it is essential the students are engaged in the classroom, and that they are exposed to animals in a meaningful way. These students are taking this program because they have a passion for animal biology and I want to make sure that their experiences with animals in this course feeds this passion. As with ANSC 315, I needed to develop teaching methods to improve the student experience.

I signed up for the Course Design Institute that staff at the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness (GMCTE) put on several times per year. The course is one week long and covers topics from course blueprinting to assessment to experiential learning. Several topics really resonated with me. Constructive alignment is “focusing on what and how students are to learn, rather than on what topics the teacher is teach” (Biggs and Tang 2011). I am now thinking more about student learning activities and outcomes and how to relate course material and student evaluation to these activities. This was completely missing in my first attempt at flipping the classroom.

I also came to understand the importance of setting up student outcomes as a first step in course development. I original spent my time thinking about the structure and content of lectures and labs in my new course but did not give much thought to what I wanted students to know and be able to do after the course. I went back and came up with clear and concrete learning outcomes.

One of the most important things I wanted to accomplish in ANBI 110 was to incorporate experiential learning into the course. My first attempt at developing animal labs was to base them on my strengths as a researcher. While teaching what I know is great for me, it is probably not the best experience for students. What I want students to know and be able to do is to evaluate the relationship between domestic animals and humans. What are the ethical concerns about the use of animals in research? What are the animal welfare issues in intensive livestock production? What is the role of companion animals in human societies? These are large, open-

Lessons learned at the Course Design Institute


ended questions with no clear-cut answers. I want students to struggle with these issues and develop their abilities to evaluate and incorporate opposing points of view.

I have also rethought my normal method of assessment--examinations. In the case of the animal laboratories I am planning to use student blogs. Students will be expected to write a reflective blog on laboratory material. They will also have to read and comment on blogs written by at least 2 other students (thanks to Heather Ross for the idea). In class, one activity I am planning is assigning students to groups of 3 or 4 and having the groups give short presentations on important issues in domestic animal biology. I intend to use peer evaluation using rubrics to assess student presentations. The groups will evaluate themselves and the students in the audience, and me, will evaluate the presenters. This will show students explicitly what is expected of them and how their own performance compares to those of their peers.

Overall, the most important thing I learned was to begin with the end in mind. Easy to say but hard to do.

Now, taking off my instructor’s cap, I would like to make a comment as the Associate Dean (Academic) for the College of Agriculture and Bioresources. Trying new teaching methods is risky. It takes time to develop the skills to become good at these new methods. Further, these methods often require more work from the student and that is never going to be popular. From my own experience with new teaching methods, my student evaluation scores dropped significantly. I am concerned about this but I expect these evaluations to improve as I gain more experience and refine my skills, but while I do this, I do not have to worry about tenure and promotion. New faculty members are the people we should be encouraging to try new teaching methods. However, poor teaching evaluations can negatively affect their careers and this might deter them from trying new approaches to teaching. We need to open a dialogue on how to balance low scores on SEEQ course evaluations and negative student comments with encouraging new faculty to innovate as teachers. Student outcomes as well as student evaluations should probably also be taken into account. In my case, students acquired a deeper understanding of course

material in ANSC 315. Thus, low evaluation scores were not the entire story. Finally, I encourage all faculty, instructors and grad students to take advantage of the resources at GMCTE. Most of us teach the way we were taught. It’s worth taking a look at some alternatives.

References

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. 2011. Teaching for quality learning at University. 4th ed. New York: Open University Press.

Student performance on the final exam in ANSC 315 in 2011 and 2012. In 2011, traditional lectures using PowerPoint were given. In 2012 a flipped classroom model was used and students are divided into those who regularly attended class and those who did not.

Reflective Journal & Draft Course Outline John KleefeldCollege of Law

Opening SalvoWhen I teach, I like starting with a problem or practical question and working from there to the theory. I was delighted, then, when reading about the Course Design Institute, that we’d design or redesign a course as part of the training. Delighted but daunted, because I decided to design a completely new course from scratch. Art of the Judgment is the title of a book I started in 2003 but never completed. I figured it was not only time to get back to the book, but that the best way to do so was to turn it into a course. And in keeping with my learning-by-doing philosophy, I decided to make the course outline for Art of the Judgment the basis for my reflective journal.

Drafting Learning Outcomes: How Hard Can it Be?The biggest eye opener for me related to drafting learning outcomes. I had done this sort of thing before, but realize now that my efforts were meagre and perhaps even misguided. We were asked to take a rigorous approach, stating learning outcomes not only in terms of what learners should be able to do (contrast “understand,” “appreciate” and other

words that so often appear in learning goals, but reflect a state of mind rather than an ability or skill), but also the means by which they would be able to do them and demonstrate their achievement. Further more, we were invited to tie all of this into learning activities and Bloom’s taxonomy of learning.

I found the experience mentally exhausting, but was grateful for the class time to work on this and share the results with other committed colleagues. Surprisingly, it took all my energy just to draft the three top learning outcomes that I settled on. The reason, I think, is that the drafting process forced me to think about a lot of other things too, such as learning activities, modes of assessment, and scheduling.

One of the results of this exercise was the realization that I could offer two streams of the course. I began to get quite excited about this and decided by Day 3 to start drafting the course outline itself so I could keep track of the ideas that were coming.

Commentary on Course Outline for Art of the JudgmentThe course is a three-credit seminar, which is an upper-year type of course that all law students take at least once in their JD (juris doctor) programs. Here is the course description that I drafted:

Art of the Judgment addresses the history, development, reporting and practice of the judgment (a term comprising both judicial and quasi-judicial decisions or opinions) from the earliest recorded judgments to the present. This has two aspects. One is analyzing the judgment from multiple and interdisciplinary perspectives—e.g., literary, historical, sociological, political or jurisprudential. A judgment that is amenable to such analysis is provided in Appendix II to this outline. The other aspect is gaining practice in applying the require ments and skills of reasoned judgment writing for modern-day courts, arbitrators and other tribunals. This will involve rewriting judgments such as the one in Appendix III to this outline. If you’re interested in the art and craft of judging, this course is for you.

I thought a lot about this description. It changed during the program and


assessments should be linked. This three-way linkage is called “constructive alignment” or, simply, “alignment.” The literature tends to present this as a logical-linear process, with outcomes dictating activities, which in turn dictate assessment modes. However, I found that thinking about any of these things ended up impacting the way I thought about the others, such that the “loop” or “feedback” model in the draft U of S Syllabus Template Guide better reflected my mental process:

This gave me some room, and the idea, to create two streams for the course: one for the student who prefers to put most of his or her energy into an in-depth research paper and the other for the student who prefers to spread his or her efforts over a number of smaller assignments. Since I wanted judgment writing to be part of the course, I had to find ways of working this into the non-paper components of the course.

The key difference between the two streams is the written moot judgment required for Stream I, but not for Stream II. Some explanation is in order here. One of the basic law school traditions is

the first-year appellate moot (or “mock”) court. All students act as counsel in this exercise, which takes place in February. They argue the legal issues in an appeal case before a mock tribunal comprising one faculty member and up to two upper-year students. The upper-year students do this on a voluntary basis, and my proposal relies on the tradition, the difference being that anyone in this course will be required to judge one of these moots. However, the upper-year students are not currently required to write a judgment after the hearing, though some of them occasionally do. If they take this course and opt for Stream I, they will all do that, or do an approved substitute exercise.Even for students in Stream II, though, it seemed important to create learning

activities related to judgment writing. I made a start on this through various in-class exercises. I have put all of this activity under the general heading of “Participation,” along with other participation activities such as asking and answering questions. I’ve allocated 15% of the final grade to it. I have also created a self-assessment form for this component, based on a “class contribution record” that a colleague uses elsewhere in the U of S.

The other 15% component, “Presentation,” is more along the traditional lines of what is expected in a seminar. The idea is to lead a class discussion, which is sometimes done on the basis of a textbook chapter and sometimes on the basis of a particular set of readings.

This leaves the written judgment and minor paper (for Stream I) or major paper (for Stream II). I described the judgment requirement and allocated 30% of the grade to it. To the minor and major paper, I allocated 40% and 70% of the grade, respectively, and provided bare-bones descriptions of the requirements. These will need to be fleshed out in language that explains the nature of the assignments (even though they are well know at the College of Law), perhaps accompanied with a marking rubric.

I included an appendix, the idea for which came from one of the sample syllabi from other faculty members, circulated to us on the last day of the program. I picked up on some ideas in that syllabus by including a judgment of Justice Benjamin Cardozo, one of my judicial heroes. I created a short introduction outlining the procedural posture of the case and setting out several questions designed to stimulate interest. But then the outline seemed to emphasize only the aesthetic side of the course, so I also created Appendix III—a run-of-the-mill judgment that needs rewriting, along with some preliminary remarks on how to start going about that. I had hoped that this would pique students’ interest in the course.

From all of this, I hope that it is clear how much I benefitted from the CDI. My outline is still a work in progress—indeed, I’ve watermarked it “draft”—but even this draft version is superior to anything I’ve drafted before, and the CDI has given me the tools I need to make it even better.

continued to change afterwards. The most important change was to emphasize the judgment-writing aspect more than I had originally envisioned—largely due to our readings and exercises around learner analysis. I thought that learner motivation would be higher with a tangible outcome—judgment-writing skills (the “craft,” if you like). This is not to say that I was willing to give up on the judgment-appreciation aspect (the “art,” if you like), which was the original impetus for the book. But I wanted to find a way into that aspect for the law student who is interested in the topic for its own sake and who also has an eye on professional development. Hence my pitch for both the “art and craft” of judging in the course description.

The three learning outcomes are reproduced below. Some things changed from the original versions. For example, during the drafting of the outcome relating to writing a moot judgment, I rethought the course design and ended up developing two streams (discussed below). Also, the original outcome for the minor/major paper (see below) spoke of being able to apply “a particular analytical perspective”; subsequently, I changed it to “a particular analytical or aesthetic perspective,” intended to better relate it to the “art” aspect of the course.

· Through completing course readings and participating in seminars, you should be able to identify and illustrate four common modes of legal reasoning used in judgments: rule- or precedent-based, analogy-based, policy-based, and narrative-based.· Through judging a first-year moot case, engaging in mini-writing exercises, and, for those in Stream I (see below), writing a decision after hearing the moot case, you should be able to demonstrate the ability to write a reasoned, well-structured judgment· Through writing and submitting an original minor or major paper (see Streams I and II below), you should be able to demonstrate the ability to apply a particular analytical or aesthetic perspective to a judgment or to a series or genre of judgments.

One of the things we learned about in CDI is that when designing a course, degree, or program, the learning outcomes, learning activities, and learning

building your skill set: be a mindful graduate student

Documents