Deanna and Jennifer wish to acknowledge the extensive contributions of the following friends and colleagues to both this
project and production of this report:
Carissa Ropponen
JF Brandon
Josh Regnier
MaziarKazemi
We would also like to acknowledge the tremendous support, guidance and patience shown to us during this process by all
members of our Advisory Committee:
Sarah Dench (Chair)
John Bogardus
Stephanie Chu
Jane Fee
Nancy Johnston
Janet Moore
Mark Winston
2
table of contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 4
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology .................................................................................................................. 8
Part i: The Faculties
Faculty Of Environment ............................................................................................... 15
Faculty Of Arts And Social Sciences .......................................................................... 26
Part ii: The Comparison
FENV & FASS: Compare and Contrast ...................................................................... 42
Survey Comparison ..................................................................................................... 43
Part iii: The Students
Student Consultation & Engagement .......................................................................... 47
Part iv: The Recommendations
Concluding Reflections................................................................................................ 53
Recommendations....................................................................................................... 54
Part v: Appendices
Appendix I: Survey Tools ............................................................................................ 58
Appendix II: FENV Course Listing .............................................................................. 60
Appendix III: FASS Course Listing .............................................................................. 63
Appendix IV: Public Exposure ..................................................................................... 74
Appendix V: Student Directed Cohorts ....................................................................... 78
Appendix VI: Experiential Education at SFU .............................................................. 81
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Experiential Education (EE) project was initially started in Faculty of Environment (FENV) and then expanded into the
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS). The purpose of the project is to explore, document and promote credit-bearing
EE opportunities at SFU. This report summarizes the findings of our exploration and provides an understanding of each
Faculty‘s level of engagement with EE. The project is led by Jennifer McRae, a recent Geography graduate, and Deanna
Rogers, a recent Anthropology graduate. The information contained herein was obtained from 5 key sources: 1. a survey
asking faculty members to respond to 7 open ended questions about their teaching; 2. a review of current undergraduate
and graduate course outlines from the faculties; 3. a course verification process; 4. interviews with faculty members and
administration; and, 5. student consultation that included a student-directed learning experiment. The project was overseen
by a diverse Advisory Committee, comprised of 7 members from across the university community , chaired by Sarah Dench
in the office of the VP Academic. Beginning May 2011, the project will expand its scope to investigate the remaining six
faculties and complete SFU‘s institutional profile of credit-bearing EE engagement.
With ongoing revision and input from both the project Advisory Committee as well as faculty members from FENV and
FASS, the definition of experiential education that served as the framework for our exploration was:
Experiential Education is the strategic, active engagement of students in opportunities to learn through doing, and
reflection on those activities, which empowers them to apply their theoretical knowledge to practical endeavours in
a multitude of settings inside and outside of the classroom.
Key Findings:
Though differences do exist between FENV and FASS, overall their practices and understandings of EE share more
similarities than discrepancies. In total, a significant percentage of all courses offered each in Faculty were uncovered as
EE opportunities: 71% of Graduate and Undergraduate courses offered in FENV and 40% in FASS. Our analysis also
revealed six broad types of EE practice within the two reviewed faculties:
Reflection
Field-Based Experiences
Creative-Based Experiences
Community-Based Experiences
Collaborative Experiences
Directed Studies/Readings
In FENV we found the focus of practice to fall most frequently into problem-based learning and field-based experiences; in
FASS we found a fairly equal distribution across all 6 practices. Interestingly, the starkest contrast between the Faculties is
found in the use of reflection: in FENV its use is negligible; in FASS it is a predominant practice.
Recommendations conclude the report in section IV. They focus on growing SFU‘s culture of engagement with creditbearing EE and catalyzing pedagogical shifts.
The overwhelming conclusion: not only is there strong interest in EE amongst faculty members in FENV and FASS, but a
lot is already happening; paired with adequate support this existing culture will flourish and grow. This report represents a
foundational understanding of what already exists, from which SFU can move forward. The next step will be to continue the
process established through this project across all SFU Faculties.
4
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT PURPOSE:
The Experiential Education project has been an exploratory project focused on documenting and promoting credit-bearing
Experiential Education (EE) at SFU. It was initially launched in Faculty of the Environment (FENV) and then expanded into
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) to try and understand how experiential education is practiced and understood ,
as well as to gauge the prevalence of EE opportunities within each of the respective faculties.
The specific project goals include:
Understanding howcredit-bearing EE is practiced in FENV and FASS
Understanding and creating a profile of the extent, location and distribution of credit-bearing EE opportunities
within credit-bearing courses in each Faculty
Creating an inventory of courses that can be considered as EE opportunities
Understanding instructor/professor, student and administration engagem ent with EE and interest in EE
Understanding the diversity of language and concepts used to understand and define credit-bearing EE
The project‘s secondary focus is to grow the culture of EE at SFU in alignment with the Vice -President Academic‘s (VPA)
academic plan and recommendations of the Task Force on Teaching and Learning (TFTL). The project has attempted to
be as inclusive as possible; we aim to work closely with the university community to profile and promote EE opportunities
and innovative teaching at SFU.
The intention of this report is to detail what we have discovered to date, while providing recommendations as to both the
future of our work and credit-bearing EE more broadly at the university.
5
PROJECT HISTORY AND CONTEXT
This project began as a pilot in the FENV, led by Dr. Janet Moore and Jennifer McRae (geography student) serving as her
Research Assistant. The pilot was completed in August 2010 and a draft of the initial findings was released to FENV
administration. Interest grew around these findings and subsequently Jennifer and colleague Deanna Rogers were
encouraged to bring this work to the attention of Sarah Dench, Director of Curriculum and Institutional Liaison in the office
of the VP Academic. In conjunction with the FENV pilot, Jennifer and Deanna were also working with Dr. John Bogardus
(Senior Lecturer, Sociology and Anthropology [SA]) in work-study placements to investigate Community-Based Learning in
the SA department. As both projects were seen to align closely with and compliment SFU‘s academic plan, the
recommendations of the TFTL, and strategic university priorities, the decision was made to expand the work. In September
2010 Deanna and Jennifer took the lead on rolling out the project across FASS and deepening what had a lready been
completed in FENV.
The direct overlap of the project and the VPA‘s 2010-2013 Academic Plan are as follows:
SFU‘s academic mission coalesces around 5 themes; the twomost relevant to the project are High Quality Student
Experienceand Teaching and Learning in a Research University
THEME 1: HIGH QUALITY STUDENT EXPERIENCE:
Increase the retention rates of all students
Create direct entry and cohort options
Diversify our Pedagogy
Review and implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Teaching and
Learning
Increase the professional development opportunities for Instructors and teaching Assistants
Increase the Semester in Dialogue type courses in all Faculties
Provide and recognize for credit more experiential education opportunities 1
THEME 4: THE UNIVERSITY’S ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY
Provide opportunities for students to learn and apply knowledge in local and global communities including
increasing learning opportunities within local communities 2
Secondly it aligns with the Teaching and Learning Task Force Recommendations to:
―focus on the student experience and student retention by investing in engaging learning
environments…expanding student-centered approaches to teaching…[and] providing more opportunities for
experiential learning and learning that extends beyond the classroom,‖ 3
1
Driver, Jon. ‘SFU Academic Plan 2010-2013’, p.5 – 8. (Burnaby, Simon Fraser University, February 2010)
Driver, Jon. ‘SFU Academic Plan 2010-2013’, p.8. (Burnaby, Simon Fraser University, February 2010)
3
SFU Task Force on Teaching & Learning, "Task Force on Teaching & Learning's Final Report: Executive Summary," (Burnaby: Simon Fraser University, 2010).
2
6
Finally in addition to aligning with strategic priorities of the Academic Plan, EE is also closely related to many themes
articulated by President Petter‘s vision of SFU as a Student Centered, Research-Driven, and Community-Engaged
University. We see EE as an entry point and the common ground from which to foster and grow these existing strengths at
SFU. As Petter stated in an interview, Experiential Education ―is the connection between the student centered and
community engaged piece.‖
An advisory committee was brought together to oversee and guide the project‘s continuation; the intention was to create
an inclusive group across the university community. The members of the advisory committee are as follows:
Sarah Dench [Committee Chair]| Director of Curriculum and Institutional Liaison,
Office of the VP Academic
John Bogardus | Senior Lecturer, Sociology and Anthropology
Stephanie Chu| Interim Director, Teaching and Learning Centre
Jane Fee | Associate Dean, FASS and Senior Lecturer, Linguistics
Nancy Johnston| Executive Director, Student Affairs
Janet Moore | Associate Professor, Centre for Dialogue and Teaching Fellow, FENV
Mark Winston | Director, Centre for Dialogue
7
METHODOLOGY
This section outlines the methodology used to guide our exploration of EE in the FENV and FASS. In line with this project‘s
purpose as exploratory and the desire to understand EE - its practice and extent - in these two faculties, our investigation
was intentionally both flexible and iterative. We used a specific set of tools and strategies to explore what existed, in turn
allowing what we found to further inform and refine our framework. We entered with a curious spirit, allowing the data to
speak to us about what already exists.
The project was carried out in two phases, with three areas of emphasis in accordance with our project purpose.
PHASE II: FALL 2010
FENV
FASS
STUDENTS /
ADMINISTRATION
PHASE III: SPRING 2011
i. 2nd comprehensive course review
(undergraduate and graduate)4;
ii. Follow up interviews with targeted faculty
members (those using EE as identified by
first survey)
i. Completed and analyzed 2nd
comprehensive course review
ii. Secondary analysis of survey results as to
create continuity in methodology and
analysis between FENV and FASS;
iii. Completed and analyzed faculty member
interviews
i. Faculty survey
ii. 1st comprehensive course review
(undergraduate and graduate)
i. Completed and analyzed 1st
comprehensive course review;
ii. Completed and analyzed survey results;
iii. Participated in a number of formal and
informal meetings with faculty members,
administrators and departments as
requested
i. Developed Student Directed Cohort Model
i. Delivered Student Directed Cohort
ii. Interviewed administration
iii. engage:SFU event
The guiding framework underlying this exploration was our project definition of EE. Collaborating with our advisory
committee, we amended the original project definition from FENV before beginning in FASS. The original definition in
FENV was:
Experiential learning is the strategic, active engagement of students in planned real-life activities and reflection on
those activities, which empowers them to apply their theoretical knowledge to practical endeavours in a multitude
of settings outside of the lecture hall.
4
8
The initial course review was completed in summer 2010 by Jennifer McRae and Janet Moore.
It was felt that the term ―real-life activities‖ was problematic. Subsequently, in September 2010 this phrase was replaced
with ―opportunities to learn through doing‖. Going forward in FASS the definition read:
Experiential learning is the strategic, active engagement of students in opportunities to learn through doing, and
reflection on those activities, which empowers them to apply their theoretical knowledge to practical endeavours in
a multitude of settings outside of the lecture hall.
A third iteration of the definition was arrived at after working in FASS and realizing that this defini tion seemed to exclude
experiential activities that happen within a classroom. We had assumed that EE absolutely DOES happen within
classrooms; however, it was pointed out to us by FASS faculty members that the definition did not reflect this assumption.
Our previous work in FENV had included courses in which EE was happening within the classroom; therefore, we made a
third and final amendment to the project definition to reflect this aspect of EE. It now reads:
Experiential education is the strategic, active engagement of students in opportunities to learn through doing, and
reflection on those activities, which empowers them to apply their theoretical knowledge to practical endeavours in
a multitude of settings inside and outside of the classroom.
Finally, it should be noted that during our initial work in FENV and throughout the second and third phase, we had been
referring to EE as Experiential Learning. Again, in consultation with our project advisory committee we decided it was
appropriate to shift the terminology from ―learning‖ to ―education‖. This is largely premised on the understanding that
learning is a life-long process which can happen anywhere; the term education refers to something intentional and is a
more accurate reflection of the focus of our investigation.
Using the final iteration of our definition as guiding criteria, data was collected from the following sources:
COURSE REVIEW5
Using course outlines, courses were reviewed for EE components against the framework provided by our project
definition
FACULTY SURVEY6
FENV and FASS faculty members were issued an open-ended 7-question survey inquiring about their engagement
with and use of EE in their classrooms
COURSE VERIFICATION
Faculty members and instructors whose courses were identified as potential EE opportunities were contacted via
email asking for verification and clarification regarding the content an d pedagogy used in their courses
INTERVIEWS
Seven FENV faculty members and 6 administrators were formally interviewed for the project; many informal
interviews and department meetings in FASS also contributed to our data collection
5
6
9
A full listing of the course offerings is detailed in appendices II & III, p. 60 - 73
A copy of our survey tool is contained in appendix I, p.58
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Section iii elaborates on the project‘s engagement with students; this was two-pronged and included a Student
Directed Cohort experiment as well as a student-driven event, engage:SFU.
This generated:
An inventory of EE opportunities within the two faculties
A profile of each Faculty‘s engagement with EE
A better understanding of faculty members, administration and student engagement with EE
A description of how EE is practiced within the Faculties
Recommendations to the university in regards to EE
10
EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION | the practices
A central outcome of this work was the generation of 6 general types of EE practice. These practice descriptors were
generated through analysis of both the survey responses and course review. Additionally we considered the input of
faculty members through our interview process. They are intended to reflect and provide insight into how EE is being
practiced within these two Faculties. A chart follows on page 12 describing the 6 practices and elaborating on how they
generally present or are used in courses.
It should be noted that taken in isolation, many of these practices, while necessary components of EE, are not sufficient
alone to create an EE opportunity. For example, a course may feature group work, but unless tied to an additional
experiential activity, it is in itself not necessarily ―experiential‖. In many cases courses featured multiple EE practices that
combined to create an EE opportunity.
EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION | special courses
In addition to these 6 practices are two special types of courses which deserve note, as we have included them as
experiential opportunities. Just like the 6 practices, Directed Studies are not necessarily, nor inherently, experiential;
however, when crafted appropriately they represent an existing credit structure for students to engage in self -directed and
learner-centered EE. Later in the report (section iii, p.50) we describe how this was done in an innovative, experimental
way by a group of students during the Spring 2011 semester.
DIRECTED STUDIES/READINGS
The vast majority of units within both FASS and FENV offer Directed Studies and/or Readings course options. We
considered these courses ―experiential‖ because they are a pre-existing structure which students can use to gain
credit for engaging in experientially based, learner-directed education. In particular, directed studies courses were
used as the credit structure for the student directed cohort experiment (described further in section iii, page 50) as
part of the project‘s student consultation.
PRACTICUM COURSES
In addition to directed studies are practicum courses, offered by many units throughout FENV and FASS. They are
courses designed to give students practical experience in their chosen disciplines.
11
EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION: PRACTICES
 This practice captures courses in which students are required to engage in purposeful reflection,
REFLECTION
sense-making or integrating course content into their personal lived experiences in personally
meaningful ways
 It is a process of placing the self in context with the content; asking meaningful questions about
the relationship between the two
 Reflection is most often encouraged through journal writing and dialogical exchange
 Reflection is an inherent component of EE
FIELD-BASED
EXPERIENCES
 This practice captures courses which put students in situ in the field
 This may include field work for labs, assignments or research-based activities, field trips or longer
term field schools
 This practice captures work, grounded in experience that falls outside of the traditional paradigm
CREATIVE
PROJECT-BASED
EXPERIENCES
of papers and exams and is often the output of EE processes and engagement
 Interesting ways this manifests include: publically oriented work and web-based work (such as
blogging, video and radio production, writing Wikipedia entries, writing and submitting Opinion
Editorials, etc); Creatively-oriented assignments including portfolio-based work (such as
producing professional-quality reports, policy recommendations, manufacturing artefacts,
producing original artistic works, etc)
 This practice captures many broad-based activities including: service learning; practica;
COMMUNITYBASED LEARNING
Internships; and action- or community-based research
 Additional to this category includes immersion in and interaction with the external community,
including inviting community guests into classrooms, or engaging in situ with the external
community
 This practice was informed largely by experiential activities conducted within group work,
COLLABORATIVE
EXPERIENCES
interaction with peers, learner-directed environments, co-created curriculum and courses,
democratically-directed classrooms, etc
 It also encompasses inter-institutional and inter-disciplinary activities, such as running integrated
concurrent classes with other institutions or departments, team-teaching, etc
 Lastly, it also encompasses classes or activities which take the form of process-oriented
workshops
 PBL encompasses the use of simulations, case-studies/competitions, role playing and other
PROBLEM-BASED
LEARNING
games
 It also encompasses real-world problem solving activities or grappling with
/manipulating/observing/collecting primary data/empirical data
 Generating original research questions and conducting primary empirical research
12
LIMITATIONS
The methodology employed for this project has been in constant evolution; the subject of continual reflection and revision,
a process that will continue as the project moves forward. In general, we recognize the following limitations of our process
to date:
COURSE DELIVERY VARIABILITY
Instructor autonomy is one of the central tenants of the academic process at SFU, and as such leads to variability
in course delivery methods and the pedagogy practiced. At the intersection of instructor autonomy and course
delivery, is the first limitation -- or rather, challenge -- we faced in evaluating courses. Only one course outline was
evaluated for each course offered in a department, therefore we may be ―missing‖ courses taught by multiple
instructors that would have been considered experiential in approach. Issuing the Faculty survey was one way in
which we attempted to account for this variability, however without 100% response rate on the survey, accounting
for all EE opportunities is difficult.
COURSE OUTLINES
In addition to this are the limited nature of course out lines themselves, often not providing enough detail to infer
whether or not EE opportunities are provided. Interestingly, this also demonstrates a possible shortcoming of the
information provided to students about SFU course content. Again, the survey and course verification process
were helpful in digging deeper into instructor‘s practice, but also necessarily led to courses being ―missed‖.
PROJECT SCOPE AND OTHER EE OPPORTUNITIES
The scope of this project was limited to credit-bearing courses within FENV and FASS only. We wish to
acknowledge the breadth of EE opportunities that exist across the university, particularly through programs like
Co-Operative Education. EE takes many forms at SFU and our intent was only to document this particular p iece
(credit-bearing course-based EE). We have outlined other EE opportunities in Appendix VI on p.80.
In acknowledging these limitations, we hope to both spark and continue institutional conversations regarding the practice
of EE. We invite faculty members and instructors alike to continue to engage with us, helping to create the most complete
understanding of EE opportunities at SFU.
13

part i
the faculties

14

the
faculty
of
environment

15
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION & HISTORY
During the summer semester of 2010, an initial pilot of this project was carried out in the Faculty of Environment by Dr.
Janet Moore and Jennifer McRae. A summary report, Experiential Learning in the Faculty of Environment 7detailed
outcomes of this first phase of exploration. The key findings from this pilot included:
Identification of 18 courses considered to be EE opportunities;
A survey response rate of 18.75% and six key considerations:
Faculty members are familiar with and interested in EL as a pedagogical approach;
There is common understanding/consensus of what EL is;
There is an existing foundational culture of EL practice within the FENV;
Students ―love [EL] and want more‖;
Broad support exists for the direct promotion of EL opportunities to students;
There is a desire for FENV support in regards to EL-based endeavours
As a follow up to this work, second and third phases of the project were carried out during the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
semesters. A significant focus of these additional phases included a more indepth course review to include graduate
courses, as well as interviewing faculty members.
The remainder of this section will detail the results of t hese subsequent phases of work.
7
Available online here: http://www.fenv.sfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/experiential-learning-in-fenvreport-oct-2010.pdf
16
EXPERIENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES | the culture of engagement
The purpose of this section is to document and describe the culture of experiential education in the FENV according to the
findings of phases two and three of this project. More specifically, it will provide an in-depth review of the findings and
themes emergent from the Faculty survey, course review and interviews.
Taken in aggregate, the survey, course review and interviews revealed the following themes in regards to FENV‘s culture
of engagement with EE:
EE is predominantly practiced in the Faculty as problem-based learning and field-based experiences
Notably, reflection upon and making sense of experiences through reflection is largely absent in the EE
courses in this Faculty or simply not described as such 8
Instructors/Professors are highly engaged with and interested in EE as pedagogical approach;
EE is recognized by faculty members as being time- and energy-intensive to develop and deliver; efforts
which they feel are not adequately recognized and rewarded via teaching credit
Many instructors/professors feel their disciplines cannot be divorced from field experience and therefore are
inherently experiential
71% of courses offered in the Faculty were found to be EE opportunities
Additionally, a visual summary of FENV‘s EE engagement appears on page 18. It gives an at-a-glance overview of the key
findings and data points in the Faculty. In particular it details:
A count of how many courses were evaluated in the Faculty
The percentage of courses considered to be EE opportunities
A count of how many Directed Readings and Practicum courses the Faculty offers
A word cloud depicting the most common words or phrases used by faculty members in their survey responses to
define EE9
A representation of the distribution of how EE is practiced across the 6 categories
A histogram indicating the distribution of EE opportunities across course levels
A histogram indicating instructor interest and familiarity with EE, as obtained from survey responses
A depiction indicating instructor-reported student feedback on EE opportunities, as obtained from survey
responses
8
Reflection is the most difficult of the practices to discern from a course outline; the ‚lack‛ of reflection in FENV can
likely be attributed to this difficulty. Or, as noted in the text, could be a language issue in terms of how faculty members
and students speak about reflection, again making it difficult to document
9
note: the larger the word in the word cloud, the more prevalent it was; wordle.net (an online application that
represents frequency with which a particular word appears in relation to other words by size) was used in its creation
17
18
SURVEY FINDINGS
This subsection contains a detailed overview of the survey findings in FENV. They were re -analyzed according to the methods
used in FASS for comparability. One additional survey response was obtained after the first (summer 2010) phase, and is
aggregated here. A total of 13 FENV faculty members responded to the survey. A copy of the survey tool is contained in
Appendix I.
Q1. INTEREST AND FAMILIARITY
n = 13 | 100%
FENV faculty members are both interested in and familiar with EE as a practice
Notably 69% indicate being highly interested in EE
One 1 respondent indicated neither being interested in nor familiar with EE
31% indicated actively using EE as a regular part of their pedagogy
Q2. DEFINING EE
n = 11 | 84.62%
There is overall continuity in the definitions provided by FENV faculty members
The most common words, phrases and categories used:
Learning through doing
‚real-world‛
Applying theory to practice
Active or community engagement
Q3. OFFERING EE
n =11 | 84.62%
90% of instructors feel they offer EL in their courses;
It is most often offered at the undergraduate level
Q4. PRACTICE
n = 10 | 77%
Field-based experiences and problem-based learning are the most commonly reported ways of using EL
Reflection is notably absent in these responses
(Using the same 6 EL practice categories developed through the course evaluations)
Q5. STUDENT FEEDBACK
n = 9 | 70%
All report overwhelmingly positive student feedback
Mixed feedback is reported by only 1 faculty member
Q6. WILLINGNESS
n = 7 | 54%
100% of question respondents are willing to learn more
Most want to be provided with tools and resources to do so
Q7. SUPPORT
Most commonly requested supports:
Resources, guides and manuals with a focus on best practices and examples
Workshops
19
n =8 | 62%
COURSE REVIEW
The phase II course review in FENV revealed significantly more EE opportunities than the first phase I review. Notably, the
geography graduate program was unable to provide course outlines, and therefo re is not represented in the course review or
considered in the following summary:
In total 142 of the 146 courses offered in the 4 units were evaluated, or 97% of all courses
Overall 103 EE opportunities were found, representing 71% of all courses offered in the Faculty
In regards to practicum and directed readings courses:
ENVS, while it does have a field methods course, is the only program without a specific practicum or
directed readings course option;
The remaining 3 units all feature practicum and directed readings options
In regards to practice: each course was not only evaluated against the definitional framework, but after being
identified as an EE opportunity, it was evaluated against our 6 general practices; this analysis revealed:
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and field based experiences are the two most common ways EE is
integrated
Collaborative experiences were used slightly more often than Community Based Learning (CBL) and
Creative Project Based exercises (used equally as often)
The least common practice in FENV is that of reflection, presenting in only 7 courses
EE is offered most often at the senior undergraduate and graduate levels; it rarely presents in 100 and 200 level
offerings, however this is relative in that 100 and 200 level offerings make up only a small fraction of total course
offerings (19/146)
The REM program, particularly its graduate program, features both the highest pe rcentage of EE opportunities
(80% of courses offered, and 84% of courses evaluated) and the most diverse EE practice in the Faculty
Finally, to better describe and visualize the practice and character of EE opportunities in FENV, departmental summary
sheets have been prepared. They are meant to drill deeper into course offerings and the Faculty‘s culture of engagement with
EE. One each for Geography, Resource and Environmental Management and Sustainable Community Development follow
this section (pages 21 - 23). These sheets provide a description of:
How many courses were evaluated in the department
The percentage of courses considered to be EE opportunities
A count of how many Directed Readings and Practicum courses the department offers
A representation of the distribution of how EE is practiced across the 6 categories
A histogram indicating the distribution of EE opportunities across course level
A departmental/Faculty comparison of the percentage of EE offerings
A course example that highlights some of the best practices in the department
20
21
22
23
INTERVIEWS
In total 22 faculty members were contacted via email to request an interview. Additionally, the REM department meeting was
attended whereby the entirety of REM faculty members were invited to participate in interviews. From this outreach, seven
interviews were conducted. Despite this broad-based outreach, only Geography (6 interviewees) and Environmental Science
(1 interviewee) faculty members participated.
Interviewees were asked to elaborate in detail on their use of EE in specific courses; about their motivation for providing EE
opportunities; the student response to this approach; how they define EE; what the barriers and opportunities are to its
provision; and, how they can be better supported in its provision.
Their responses to these questions are considered in aggregate; the following themes emerged:
EE is extremely time consuming to plan for and deliver but is often their favourite part of teaching
The time-intensive nature of providing EE opportunities is not adequately recognized nor rewarded via teachin g
credits or support structures
In fields like geography in particular, providing opportunities to experience the curriculum is essential, a r esponsibility
of the department
The majority of student reactions to EE are enthusiastic, however it places many outside their comfort zone and asks
them to do things they did not necessarily think they were capable of; there is a sub group of students who never
enjoy it
The students who challenge themselves to engage deeply with these opportunities often perform beyond both the
instructor‘s and their own expectations of themselves; it raises their work to a professional standard leading to job
opportunities, graduate work and publications
Key support requested:
Maintaining funding for TAships and increased funding for EE activities
Administrative support in regards to
Planning and booking field experiences, especially logistics
Navigating internal bureaucracy such as ethics clearance for class projects and legal clearance for
field trips
Developing, fostering and maintaining community partnerships, including coordinating guests
speakers, site visits and field trips
Increased teaching credit and/or rewards which acknowledge the time intensive nature of providing EE
opportunities
There is interest in creating more sustainable internal structures for the ongoing provision of EE, including
having multiple faculty members capable of teaching EE courses and team-teaching EE-intensive courses to
lessen the work-load
24
Learning by doing and real-world applications are the most commonly used terms to describe EE
25

the
faculty
of
arts &
social sciences

26
FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIAL SCIENCES
INTRODUCTION &HISTORY
Fall 2010 saw the official launch of this project in FASS. We began with the course review process, and in November
launched the Faculty survey. The survey was intended not only to be comparable to what had already been completed in
FENV, but also built upon work already completed in FASS in 2008 by Trina Isakson (former Coordinator for Volunteer
Services and Community-Based Learning), regarding CBL, which is a form of EE. A direct comparison of the 2008 CBL survey
and our survey findings is detailed in this section on page 28.
The survey and course verification process generated a range of reactions to, and feedback regarding, the project from FASS
faculty members. In particular, they were concerned with our project‘s definition of EE, as well as the question of ―what is
NOT experiential?‖ Many faculty members felt that all education is inherently an experience, and thus wanted to know where
we were drawing lines and how we were ‗counting‘ courses as being experiential or not. In particular, departments such as
Sociology and Anthropology, Philosophy, and English feel EE is already part of their pedagogical DNA, and that the (perhaps)
exclusionary language of our definition and methods would lead to us ―missing‖ the experiential aspects of their courses.
These conversations were especially helpful to us, and led to the subsequent update of our project definition (as described in
the Methodology section, page 9), as well as careful reconsideration of our process, methods and language. These
conversations produced some distinctions that seemed to go far in clarifying what exactly EE is amongst FASS faculty,
including:
Experiential education is the antithesis to models of education in which the learner is conceived as an empty
―container‖ to be ―filled‖ with knowledge through didactic instruction, memorization and rote learning
It is a form of active (versus passive) engagement
It is learning which places the learner within the context of a lived experience, one which often makes sense of and
allows for the internalization of theory
It is complimentary to traditional forms of higher education, including essay writing, exams and lectures
It does not seek to eliminate, replace or make light of the importance of theory and traditional forms of instruction
These conversations were invaluable to our process and aided the development of a fuller understanding of how EE is
practiced within this Faculty. The remainder of this section will provide both an overview, as well as a detailed account of our
findings in FASS.
27
COMMUNITY BASED LEARNING AND EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION |
survey comparison
In 2008 FASS Faculty participated in a survey concerning their use of and engagement with CBL in their courses. It should be
noted that CBL is considered to be a sub-category of EE, with EE being broader in scope and applicability. The similarities
between the two make for an interesting point of comparison. We also modeled the 2010 EE after the 2008 CBL survey. While
the 2010 EE survey had a greater response rate, the findings both correlate and are comparable, as summarized below:
2008 CBL Survey
2010 EE Survey
38
67
TOTAL
RESPONSES
SURVEY
INSTRUMENT
SFU Websurvey
SFU Websurvey
Mixed: Open-ended (qualitative) and
Mixed: open-ended (qualitative) and
multiple response (quantitative) questions
multiple response (quantitative) questions
60% were either already using CBL or were
potentially interested in using it in the future
88.06% believe they are already
using/offering EE in their courses;
50% are interested in EE
COMPARABLE
47% wish to join a community of best
54 % wish to join a community of best
KEY FINDINGS
practice regarding the use of CBL
practice regarding the use of EE
Reflection on the experience was found to be
Only 40.91% of respondents indicated
present in 100% of courses, as reported by
incorporating reflection into their EE
respondents
activities
Funding was identified as a major barrier to providing CBL/EE
SHARED KEY
FINDINGS
CBL/EE are described as being time-intensive for instructors
There is a need to organize a formal, widely accessible body of resources for the
incorporation of CBL/EE into course work
28
EXPERIENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES | the culture of engagement
The purpose of this section is to document and describe the culture of experiential education in the FASS according to the
findings of phases two and three of this project. More specifically, it will provide an in -depth review of the findings and themes
emergent from the Faculty survey, course review and informal engagement 10 with FASS faculty members.
Taken in aggregate, the survey, course review and informal engagement revealed the following themes in regards to FASS‘s
culture of engagement with EE:
The three predominant forms of EE practice in the Faculty are: problem-based learning, collaborative
experiences and reflection
An emphasis is placed on reflection and building a culture of engagement within FASS classrooms
The 6 types of practice are used with somewhat similar frequency, and represent a diverse approach to EE in the
Faculty
Instructors/Professors are highly engaged with and interested in EE as pedagogical approach
Many facultymembers feel their disciplines inherently require, and encompass a long tradition of, engagement
with EE practices, especially community engagement; this is supported by the 88% of survey respondents who
feel they offer EE opportunities in their courses
40% of all courses evaluated in the Faculty were found to be EE opportunities
Small (0-29 courses offered) and medium (30 – 50 courses offered) units 11appear to offer more EE opportunities
than large (51+ courses offered) units
10
Informal engagement references the meetings conducted with FASS faculty, including our attendance at the February
Dean’s Advisory Committee meeting; these meetings are considered ‘informal’ because they were neither recorded nor
formally documented in our process. Their themes however are directly transferable and should not be excluded from
consideration
11
UNITS refers to a department, program or school in the Faculty
29
Additionally, a visual summary of FASS‘s EE engagement appears on page 31. It gives an at-a-glance overview of the key
findings and data points in the Faculty. It is meant to be comparable with the overview prepared in FENV. In particular it
details:
A count of how many courses were evaluated in the Faculty
The percentage of courses considered to be EE opportunities;
A count of how many Directed Readings and Practicum courses the Faculty offers;
A word cloud depicting the most common words or phrases used by faculty members in their survey responses to
define EL12
A representation of the distribution of how EE is practiced across the 6 categories
A histogram indicating the distribution of EE opportunities across course levels;
A histogram indicating instructor interest and familiarity with EE, as obtaine d from survey responses;
A depiction indicating instructor-reported student feedback on EE opportunities, as obtained from survey responses
12
note: the larger the word in the word cloud, the more prevalent it was; wordle.net (an online application that represents
frequency with which a particular word appears in relation to other words by size) was used in its creation
30
31
SURVEY FINDINGS
This subsection contains a detailed overview of the survey findings in FASS. They were analyzed in the same manner as
FENV responses for comparability. A total of 67 FASS faculty members responded to the survey, representing 25 units across
FASS. A copy of the survey tool and unit response rate is contained in Appendix I.
Q1. INTEREST AND FAMILIARITY
n= 66 | 99%
There is strong to moderate interest and familiarity with EE amongst FASS respondents
Q2. DEFINING EE
n = 60 | 90%
There was variability in the way FASS respondents define and understand EL; however the commonalities amongst respondents
included:
Learning through doing – 41%
Active or community engagement – 37%
Applying theory to practice – 32%
Includes the process of reflection or making sense of experiences – 23%
Use of the phrase ‚real-world‛ limited to only 13% of respondents
Q3. OFFERING EE
n = 67 | 100%
88% feel they offer EE in their courses
Slightly higher at the undergraduate level (64% vs. 40%)
Q4. PRACTICE
n = 44 | 66%
Reflection and PBL are the most common ways EE is practiced; however all 6 categories are notably present across survey
responses (30+%)
Indicates FASS faculty members are engaging with multiple forms of EE in their pedagogy/course delivery
Q5. STUDENT FEEDBACK
n = 53 | 79%
Student feedback on EE opportunities is largely positive; no negative feedback was reported, however mixed feedback (including
uncertainty) was reported by 24% of respondents
Q6. WILLINGNESS
n = 35 | 52%
¾ of respondents indicated interest in learning more about EE as a practice and further integrating it into their pedagogy
Q7. SUPPORT
n = 46 | 69%
The most commonly asked for form of support was financial
Other requests included (in order of frequency of requests):
Workshops, resources and material on best practices
Administrative support such as help with building and maintain community/university relationships; help with logistics
of field experiences; ethics and legal clearances
Connecting with other faculty in communities of best practice
The direct promotion of EE opportunities to students
32
COURSE REVIEW
The phase II course review in FASS revealed a fairly significant number -- 40% -- of FASS courses to be EE opportunities.
However, as this was the first course review, and only 78% of all FASS courses offered were able to be evaluated, we feel –
much like the experience in FENV – that a second review of courses would yield a higher percentage of EE opportunities.
Of the 28 units housed within FASS, 24 were completely or partially reviewed. Absent from review included the French
Program (their course outlines are produced in French only), the Hellenic Studies program and the Integrated Studies
Program. Of the remaining 24 units, 4 graduate programs (Archaeology, Humanities, History and Philosophy) could not be
reviewed due to not producing course outlines for their program. The First Nations Studies program, Linguistics department
and Urban Studies program were partially reviewed, each missing a few course outlines which could not be made available to
us.
In total 1123 of the 1440 courses offered across FASS were evaluated or 78% of all courses, revealing the following:
Overall 453 EE opportunities were identified, representing 31% of all courses offered in the Faculty and 40% of
course reviewed in the Faculty
In regards to practicum and directed readings courses:
Directed Readings are more widely available than practicum courses; most large units offer both, with
smaller units representing the gap
In regards to practice: each course was not only evaluated against the definitional framework, but after being
identified as an EE opportunity, it was evaluated against our 6 identified practices; this analysis revealed:
All 6 practices are represented cross the 453 courses
In order of frequency of use:
Problem-Based Learning
Collaborative Experiences
Reflection
Field-Based Experiences
Community-Based Learning and Creative-Project Based Experience (equal)
EE is offered most often at the senior undergraduate and graduate levels; it rarely presents in 100 and 200 level
offerings, however this is relative in that 100 and 200 level offerings make up only a small fraction of total course
offerings
33
Finally, to better describe and visualize the practice and character of EE opportunities in FASS, departmental summary
sheets have been prepared. They are meant to drill deeper into course offerings and the Faculty‘s culture of engagement with
EE. Due to the size of FASS, only a sampling of units – Archaeology, Criminology, English, Gerontology, Masters of Public
Policy and Sociology & Anthropology -- are represented within these sheets. Each unit was chosen for both their diversity of
practice, as well as represent a cross section of unit size based on number of courses offered. The 6 sheetsfollow this section
on pages 35 - 40. They provide a description of:
How many courses were evaluated in the department
The percentage of courses considered to be EE opportunities
A count of how many Directed Readings and Practicum courses the department offers
A representation of the distribution of how EE is practiced across the 6 categories
A histogram indicating the distribution of EE opportunities across course levels
A departmental/Faculty comparison of the percentage of EE offerings
A course example that highlights some of the best practices in the department
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

part ii
the
comparison

41
FENV & FASS | compare & contrast
In considering the trends and divergences between FENV and FASS, two key data sets can be compared: the faculty survey
and the outcomes of the course review. This section contains an overview of these comparisons, with a detailed and direct
compare/contrast of the responses to the survey. Broadly, however, some interesting similarities exist between the faculties
that can be identified as EE trends:
There is moderate to strong interest and familiarity among faculty members in regards t o EE;
many faculty members feel EE is an inherent part of their disciplinary practice
Learning through doing is the most widely used phrase in defining EE and supports our original project definition
An overwhelming majority of faculty members who answered our survey feel they offer EE in their courses
Problem-based learning is the most widely practiced form of EE, often presenting as simulations and role-playing
activities
Faculty members reported student feedback in regards to participation in EE activities as almost uniformly and highly
positive
There is desire for more support in the provision of EE, especially in the form of resources such as guides, manu als
and best practice examples
42
SURVEY COMPARISON
The following pages (43- 45) provide a comparison of the FENV and FASS responses to the Faculty survey. Comments are
provided.
How would you characterize your current interest in, and familiarity with, experiential learning?
Both FASS & FENV
Q1. Interest and Familiarity
strong interest in and
familiarity with EE. Notably
only a very small
percentage of
respondents indicated
having no interest and no
Response Categorires
respondents show both
No Interest, No Familiarity
Familiarity
FASS
Interest
FENV
0
20
40
60
% of Respondents
familiarity.
80
100
How do you define and/or understand experiential learning?
The language used to
define EE in the faculties
Q2. Definition
varies greatly with the
through doing‛ and active
and community
engagement. These are
the only two categories in
which faculty members
agree. Interestingly these
% of Respondents
exception of ‚learning
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FENV
FASS
Learning
"Real-World"
Through Doing
Applying
Active or
Theory to
Community
Practice
Engagement
Response Categorires
differences correlate with
how faculty members
PRACTICE EE, as
Reflection
described in question 4.
Do you offer experiential learning as part of your course work? If so, at which level (undergraduate, graduate, both)?
Nearly 90% of both sets of
Q3.EE Offerings
offer EE in their courses.
FENV | 91%
FASS | 88%
43
Response Categorires
faculty members feel they
I offer them at the graduate level
I offer them at the undergraduate level
FASS
I offer EE Opportunities
FENV
0
20
40
60
80
% of Respondents
100
If you answered yes to the previous question, please describe what and how you've integrated experiential learning into
course work. If applicable, please email course outlines for these classes to jmcrae@sfu.ca.
This graphic goes far in
Q4. Practice
highlighting the key
differences between the
faculties. These
Community Based Learning
differences were also
reflected in the course
Problem Based Learning
courses were evaluated
against these same 6
categories. In FENV we
see a strong emphasis on
applied activities, such as
Field Experiences and
Response Categorires
review process, when EE
Reflection
FASS
Creative Project Based Experiences
FENV
Problem Based Learning;
FASS shows greater
Collaborative Experiences
distribution and use across
the 6 categories. Notably,
Field-Based Experiences
reflection is absent as a
cited practice in FENV, yet
0
used often across FASS
respondents.
20
40
60
% of Respondents
80
100
If yes, have your students given you feedback on this type of learning? What were their reactions?
Both FENV & FASS faculty
Q5. Student Feedback
positive student feedback
in regards to EE
participation. The
difference being FASS
faculty members reported
some mixed reactions.
44
% of Respondents
members reported strong
100
50
FENV
0
Positive
Mixed
Response Categorires
Negative
FASS
If you currently do not offer experiential learning, or are not familiar with it, would you be interested in learning more and
integrating it in the future?
Both sets of faculty
Q6. Willingness
opportunities to learn more
about EE in the future.
However FENV faculty
members more often
asked for tools to do so in
% of Respondents
members appear to desire
100
50
FENV
FASS
0
their responses.
Learning More
Response Categorires
Tools
How can FASS/FENV support you in providing experiential learning opportunities for your students?
Q7. Support
FENV & FASS faculty
members differ again in
Teaching Credit
how they would like to be
supported in providing EE
Promotion
opportunities. The three
categories across which
correlations exist are:
Creating Communities of
Best Practice
Administrative Support
Participating in EE
workshops
45
Communities of Best Practice
Response
Categorires
Administrative Support
FASS
FENV
Best Practices/Guides and
Resources
Workshops
Financial
0
20
40
60
80
% of Respondents
100

part iii
the students

46
STUDENT CONSULTATION & ENGAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the past year there have been many student engagement pieces that this project has been involved with:
engage:SFU, the first Student Directed Cohort (SDC), various meetings, conferences, our own experience and informal
conversations with peers. We have also pulled research from SFU‘s Fall 2009 Undergraduate Student Survey.
Interestingly enough, across all venues, sources and departments, we have heard echoes of similar sentiments and desires
for student centered and involved learning at SFU. More specifically this research points to three major themes in relation to
EE13:
TRANSFORMATIVE EXPERIENCES
The data shows a desire amongst students for transformative experiences through and within formal credit-bearing
education opportunities. Students wish to engage fully with their university experience and in turn hope that it
transforms them as individuals. They crave to work on pers onally meaningful and relevant assignments. They want to
connect with content in practical and applicable ways, and be provided the space to mesh their personal and
professional concerns with what they are learning in their course work.
INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPERIENCE EDUCATION
Students feel EE is valuable and worthy of (greater) academic credit toward their degrees. They wish to see not only
more opportunities to engage with EE, but also for it to be a credit-bearing activity. Moreover, there is also a desire
for these opportunities to be collaborative in nature; they are seeking space to work with and learn from their peers.
PROCESS-ORIENTED EXPERIENCES
Taken in its broadest sense, EE is a process for meaningful engagement with content and curriculum.
Undergraduates are seeking opportunities to engage in a range of process-oriented experiences through which they
can gain new and tangible skills and methods of inquiry.
Undergraduate students want voice and place within the academic life of the university and to be appreciated for the capacity
and quality of work they are capable of.
In this section we will breakdown data retrieved from the university paired with our own research, all of which informed the
themes previously identified. Recommendations that emerged from the students themselves are integrated into our larger
project recommendations in the concluding section on page 54.
The central question asked of students was: how do you want to experience your education?
13
We have purposely limited the scope of reporting in this section to EE only. However, our work generated a number of
recommendations from students in regards to what it means to experience their educations; the more general and widely
applicable themes and recommendations were captured but not reported on here. Should these additional themes and
recommendations be of interest, please contact Deanna or Jennifer for further information.
47
FALL 2009 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT SURVEY |
institutional research and planning
The Fall 2009 Undergraduate Student Survey (UGSS) performed by SFU‘s Institutional Research and Planning (IRP) office
found that students want Experiential Learning/Education as fully recognized credit-bearing opportunities within their degree.
It should be noted that our definition of EE is broader than that used by the IRP‘s as their focus was more generally geared
towards out of classroom experiences explicitly. The IRP survey was wide reaching with nearly 6000 respondents
representing a 25.1% response rate 14, providing a larger representation of student voice.
A summation of their findings are:
Respondents indicated that they believe that ―learning through experience‖ does have an
educational value that deserves academic credits towards a degree (in addition to credits for anyrelated coursework).
In particular:
Over 80% believe that co-op, practica/internships, and research assistantships deserve academic credit
towards a degree
Over 70% believe that international exchange, work-study, field school, and community based learning
deserve academic credit
Over 50% believe that field trips deserve academic credit
Most respondents agree that experiential learning programs have an educational value of 3 or more credits.
Field trips are the exception; with most agreeing they have an educational value worth less than 3 credits
On the condition that experiential learning programs resulted in academic credits that counted towards SFU degree
requirements, students showed high levels of interest in participating:
90% of respondents indicated that they would be interested in participating in co -op
85% in the work-study program
77% in research assistantships
74% of respondents said that if they were to start their SFU studies over again, they would be interested in joining a
cohort program 15
14
Tilley, J ., et al. ‚Fall 2009 Undergraduate Student Survey: Report of Findings,‛ p.6 (Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Spring 2010).
Tilley, J ., et al. ‚Fall 2009 Undergraduate Student Survey: Report of Findings,‛ p.30 - 31 (Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Spring 2010).
15
48
Relevant detailed findings we wish to highlight are below (figures copied directly from the report). We include these finding s
because they represent an overarching echo of the demand that we heard through our work.
A significant portion of SFU
students think Experiential
Learning should be a
requirement (p.33)
Support and incentives that
would encourage students to
engage in this form of
learning (p.33)
49
STUDENT DIRECTED COHORT
PURPOSE
The Student Directed Cohort (SDC) was created as an educational experiment to extend and explore a completely student
created and led classroom. It was framed around EE practices and an exploration of what a classroom could be. We used
Directed Studies as a credit structure because it allowed students to get discipline specific credit but work in an
interdisciplinary space. Directed Studies is an incredibly flexible avenue and is ripe for educational experimentation. It led to a
wide variety of projects where students connected their personal passions to an academic context. Everyone had their own
individual research and projects that they worked on throughout the semester. However, the co hort was largely geared
towards process-oriented and skills workshops such as: facilitation, storytelling, conflict transformation, creativity and blurring
the lines of conventional understandings of education. Many dialogues were sparked trying to unpack their educational
experience to date and the avenues by which to engage and empower students to take ownership of their learning.
STRUCTURE
We met as a group once a week throughout the duration of the semester. Each week we alternated facilitators and had
community guests come into the classroom to provide workshops. We also had students run workshops and dialogues within
the group. For a full break down of how we ran our course and recommendations about this specific model see Appendix V.
PARTICIPANT PROFILES
Sixteen students participated in the cohort with the majority were enrolled in a directed studies course within their
departments; three participants volunteered their time and did not receive credit for being part of the cohort.
The following represents the distribution of students by academic unit:
Sociology and Anthropology | International Studies | History | Education | Health Sciences | Economics | Criminology | Contem porary Arts
| French | Political Science
50
ENGAGE:SFU
EVENT PURPOSE
Engage: SFU was a dialogue designed to create a student-driven vision of SFU's future. Josh Regnier, a student from the
SFU History Department and Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue alum, organized the event with support from the
University. Students were asked to share their stories of transformative learning moments in their lives, and then envision
their ideal university experience based on those themes. Each group of students was then asked to design recommendations
for changes they would like to see at the university in order to make those visions a reality. This event, therefore, helped
create a vision of the ideal student-led university – designed for students, by students. This vision was then shared with
guests from University Administration as well as faculty members. A dialogue between the students and guests closed the
day.
PARTICIPANT PROFILES
The participants at the engage:SFU event represented a diverse cross section of the SFU community, as follows:
67 Total University Community Members
42 Participants | 16 Facilitators and Note takers | 2 Organizers | 7 Guests
[Guests: 2 Administrators; 1 Teaching and Learning Centre Representative; 4 faculty members]
UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTED:
Sociology and Anthropology | Physics | Psychology | Communications | Education | Health Sciences | Linguistics | French |
Political Science | Economics | Archaeology | Geography | History | Business | Latin American Studies | Masters of Publishing
| International Studies | Resource and Environmental Management | Humanities | Engineering | Undergraduate Semester in
Dialogue | RezLife
51

part iv
the
recommendations

52
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This report is the conclusion of nearly a year‘s worth of investigation into the state of credit-bearing EE in two Faculties at
SFU. While the work has been largely completed in these two Faculties, six remain to be explored; a long term goal of the
project and the focus of the next year of work. Beginning in May 2011 and concluding in March 2012, the project will expand
into the remaining six faculties – Applied Science, Business Administration, Communication, Art and Technology, Education,
Health Sciences and Sciences – thus completing an institutional profile of SFU‘s engagement with credit-bearing EE. With this
in mind, we have reserved some of our larger recommendations for inclusion in our final project report (due March 2012). We
want to leave space for what is found in the remaining facult ies to inform our long-term institutional recommendations. Any
recommendations put forth in this section are intended as starting points for continued conversation and action in the
provision of EE opportunities.
In considering the overall findings of our work to date in FENV and FASS (including our engagement with students and
administrators), we offer the following reflections regarding the culture of EE in these faculties specifically:
EE appears to already exist as part of the pedagogical DNA within both faculties, a strong platform from which to not
only move forward, but to draw inspiration from. Many strong examples of EE opportunities exist in FENV and FASS,
representing existing institutional resources to draw from in growing EE.
Faculty members who are engaged with EE remain both excited about its potential and impact, as well as
overwhelmed with the energy-intensive nature of its delivery.
Many faculty members feel EE is inherent to the practice and teaching of their discipline.
EE pushes students beyond their conceived expectations for themselves and what can be accomplished in course
work. It is not only a catalyst for students to realize their fullest potential, but provides a platform from which they can
transition out of the institution and into their role as citizens making meaningful contributions to society. When done
well, EE becomes the switch that turns on life-long learners and motivated minds.
EE transforms the way students talk about, and relate to, their university experience, often transitioning them from
this is a ‗means-to-an-end‘ attitude to this was an ‗inherently valuable lifetime experience‘ attitude.
53
RECOMMENDATIONS | growing experiential education
In considering the provision and support, as well as the impact of, credit-bearing EE, we offer the following recommendations:
CREATE UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY LIAISONS/EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION CONSULTANTS
The time-intensive nature of EE provision administratively, as well as the establishment and maintenance of
community relationships, was a pervasive theme across our interactions in both FENV and FASS. This was an
underlying factor in many of the requests made by faculty members for support. Creating staff positions at the
university— whether housed within the Faculties themselves or the Teaching and Learning Centre – dedicated to
seeking and maintaining community partnerships specific to course content would have far reaching impacts in the
provision and effectiveness of EE. Moreover, having those same staff roles include consulting on and providing
support for EE would also alleviate faculty members‘ work load, and bring SFU and the external community closer. As
one example of this type of position, consider UBC‘s model16
REVIEW TEACHING CREDIT STRUCTURE
Two aspects of teaching credit came up time and again in our consultations with faculty members: I. time-intensive
nature of delivering EE; and II. lack of credit for supervising Directed Studies. In both of these regards, teaching
credit should be evaluated to ensure not only the active provision and sustainability of EE opportunities, but also
adequate incentive for provision. In particular there is little incent ive for faculty to work closely with undergraduate
students; Directed Studies provide the structure but lack the incentive. We saw the consequences of this gap in trying
to plan the SDC, as many students were declined multiple times by multiple professors when searching for a Directed
Studies supervisor.
PROMOTE EE OPPORTUNITIES
Consideration should be given to promoting these opportunities to students. Some ideas that have been generated:
Consider adding an ―E‖ designation to courses, meant as an indicator that it is an EE opportunity, not
necessarily a requirement in the existing W/Q/B structure.
Continue the FENV model of listing EE opportunities on Faculty websites.
Cross-post the video produced during this project on the TLC website, Faculty websites, VPA website and
Student Services website.
Invest resources in creating more intuitive and open-source search capacities within the calendar, especially
allowing the ‗tagging‘ of courses by students and faculty members. Much like a blog or a website that allows
both content publishers as well as the online community to tag posts and videos with content descriptors, the
tagging of courses in this manner would better inform students of their content, focus and delivery, aiding in
student crafting the most personally relevant degree paths.
Bring Student Advisors into the conversation and better equip them to help students plan ‗degrees of
experience‘. Additional to this would be to create a map/resource of EE opportunities that advisors can share
and refer to, perhaps similar to or integrated within, the ViewBook.
16
54
http://www.learningexchange.ubc.ca/about-us/staff-profiles/#alaya
CREATE EE RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Another pervasive theme across FENV and FASS faculty members was the desire for access to resources for the
provision of EE. Some specific recommendations for this include:
Build a library of online videos and tutorials demonstrating and elaborating on the tools and strategies
instructors can employ in integrating EE into their pedagogy. This is especially desired in regards to best
practice and assignment examples. Videos are also desired over other forms of resources, as they can not
only be quickly viewed and absorbed, but can be engaged with at any time from any location, negating
scheduling conflicts of seminars and other types face-to-face interaction.
Build an online repository of print resources on EE with special attention to best practices and examples.
Create a Community of Best Practice at SFU through the Teaching and Learning Centre. Many faculty
members expressed the desire to connect with and learn from their colleagues in regards to providing EE. A
network of EE ―practitioners‖ working together on curriculum design, exchanging best practi ces and
assignments is desired.
PROFILE EE STORIES
Stories are a rich and impactful way to share examples, outcomes and engagement with EE. Many student stories of
their engagement with EE are powerful motivators for providing this type of education. They also highlight the deep
and rich learning that often accompanies EE and the types of outcomes that result for students and the institution.
We heard many accounts – from students and faculty members–of life-changing outcomes from EE engagement.
Some of these included: students discovering their passions and paths; launching their careers; undergraduates
becoming published in scholarly journals; and, transitioning from being passive recipients of their education to fully
engaged and activated co-creators of their experience. EE is a catalyst for all of these things; clearly communicating
these stories shows why it is important not only as a pedagogical practice, but its inherent value and contribution to
society and the institution. It is worth nothing this entire project is a direct outcome of Deanna and Jennifer‘s own
engagement with EE.
TAKE RISKS, SUPPORT INNOVATION &EMBODY EE AS AN INSTITUTION:
Activated and motivated students represent a rich and sustainable resource at the university. Embodying EE at SFU
means more than offering EE opportunities through courses; it also means conceiving of EE as a point of synergy
and mutual advantage for students, faculty members and the institution as a whole. Service Learning in particular
represents an interesting entry point for involving students in institutional planning and projects, the delivery of
services and general institutional innovation. Directed Readings and Special Topics course are existing credit
structures to do this. Consider these 2 fictional examples to better highlight this idea:
SFU makes a commitment to dramatically reduce its ecological footprint. When the commitment is
announced, instead of hiring an external consulting firm to realize the goal, a prize is offered to the internal
team that produces the best plan for achieving the target. A timeline of 8 months is placed on developing
team submissions, and 4 months are spent evaluating the submissi ons. At the end of one calendar year the
winning team is selected and implementation begins. Special Topics courses are utilized as the credit
structure to enrol interdisciplinary teams of graduate and undergraduate students in a multiple -semester
undertaking to construct plans, working directly with interdisciplinary teams of faculty members.
SFU decides to implement our project‘s suggestion of creating a more intuitive and open -source calendar.
They issue the challenge to the computing science and engineering departments. A small team of senior
55
undergraduate students assemble in a SDS (each registered in a directed readings course for credit) to take
on the project, serving as a capstone to their degrees. At the end of the semester the students submit their
capstone project to the university.
TRAIN TEACHING ASSISTANTS IN FACILITATION
As previously stated, in its broadest sense EE is a process for meaningful engagement with content and curriculum.
Having TAs trained in the methods of EE process and facilitation would allow SFU to capitalize on an existing
structure
(tutorials)
to
increase
the
scope
and
scale
of
EE
offerings.
56

part v
appendices

57
APPENDIX I: survey tools
FENV
This survey was issued via email to FENV faculty members. It was contained within a word document. Responses were given
within the document and emailed back.
1. How would you characterize your current interest and familiarity with experiential learning?
2. How do you define and/or understand experiential learning?
3. Do you offer experiential learning as part of your course work? At what level (undergraduate, graduate)?
3.a. If yes, please describe what and how you‘ve integrated experiential learning into cou rse work. If applicable, please
attach any relevant course outlines to this correspondence.
3.b. If yes, have your students given you feedback on this type of learning? What were their reactions?
3.c. If yes, would you like your course(s) to be promoted on the FENV website as part of this project?
4. If you currently do not offer experiential learning, or are not familiar with it, would you be interested in learning more
and integrating it in the future? How can the FENV support you in this?
FASS
This survey was issued to FASS faculty members using the SFU web survey tool, thus the need to ask for different
information (personal identification information specifically) than was asked of FENV faculty.
What is your full name?
What is your email address?
What department(s), school(s) or program(s) do you teach in?
How would you characterize your current interest in, and familiarity with, experiential learning?
How do you define and/or understand experiential learning?
Do you offer experiential learning as part of your course work? At the undergraduate or graduate level (or both)?
If you answered yes to the previous question, please describe what and how you‘ve integrated experiential learning
into course work. If applicable, please email course outlines for these classes to jmcrae@sfu.ca.
If you do offer experiential learning, have your students given you feedback on this type of learning? What were their
reactions?
If yes, would you like your course(s) to be promoted on the FASS website as part of this project?
If you currently do not offer experiential learning, or are not familiar with it, would be interested in learning more and
integrating it in the future?
How can FASS support you in providing experiential learning opportunities for students?
58
SURVEY RESPONSES BY UNIT
FENV
Total Survey Respondents: 13
Department
Responses
% of All Responses
1
7
7.7%
53.8%
5
38.5%
0
0.0%
Responses
% of All Responses
School of Criminology
10
5
1
0
6
14.9%
7.5%
1.5%
0.0%
9.0%
Economics
4
6.0%
English
First Nations Studies Program
11
2
1
16.4%
3.0%
1.5%
French
3
4.5%
5
7.5%
Hellenic Studies Program
3
0
0
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
History
5
7.5%
Department of Humanities
2
3.0%
School for International Studies
Linguistics
2
0
1
2
4
3.0%
0.0%
1.5%
3.0%
6.0%
Philosophy
4
6.0%
Political Science
3
1
2
4.5%
1.5%
3.0%
Environmental Science
Geography
Resource and Environmental Management
Sustainable Community Development
FASS
Total Survey Respondents: 67
Department
Sociology and Anthropology
Archaeology
Asia-Canada Program
Cognitive Sciences Program
Explorations Program
Department of Gender, Sexuality and Women's
Studies
Gerontology
Graduate Liberal Studies Program
Centre for Labour Studies
Language Training Institute
Latin American Studies
Psychology
World Literature
*Note: there were 67 respondents to the survey, but 77 departmental responses; this is because some faculty members work in multiple units
59
APPENDIX II: FENV course listing
Centre for Sustainable Community Development
SCD-401*
Social Enterprise for Sustainable Community Development
SCD-403
Leadership in Sustainable Community Development
SCD-404
Project in Sustainable Community Development
SCD-412
Directed Studies in Sustainable Community Development
Environmental Science
EVSC-491
Advanced Field Studies in Environmental Science
EVSC-200
Introduction to Environmental Science
EVSC-401
Current Topics in Environmental Science
Geography
60
GEOG-111
Earth Systems
GEOG-213
Introduction to Geomorphology
GEOG-241
Social Geography
GEOG-250
Cartography I
GEOG-251
Quantitative Geography
GEOG-253
Areial Photographic Interpretation
GEOG-255
Intro to Geographic Information Science
GEOG-261
Introduction to Urban Geography
GEOG-264
Canadian Cities
GEOG-265
Geography of British Columbia
GEOG-302
Geography Practicum I
GEOG-303
Geography Practicum II
GEOG-310
Physical Geography Field Course
GEOG-311
Hydrology
GEOG-312
Geography of Natural Hazards
GEOG-313
River Geomorphology
GEOG-314
Weather and Climate
GEOG-316
Ecosystem Biogeochemistry
GEOG-317
Soil Science
GEOG-322
World Resources
GEOG-324
Geography of Transportation
GEOG-351
Cartography and Visualization
GEOG-352
Spatial Analysis
GEOG-353
Remote Sensing
GEOG-355
Geographical Information Science II
GEOG-356
Geovisualization
GEOG-362
Geography of Urban Development
GEOG-363
Introduction to Urban Planning and Policy
GEOG-385
Agriculture and the Environment
GEOG-386
Geography, Health and Health Care
GEOG-402
Geography Practicum III
GEOG-403
Geography Practicum IV
GEOG-404
Directed Readings
GEOG-405
Directed Readings
GEOG-409
Geography Practicum V
GEOG-411
Advanced Hydrology
GEOG-412
Glacial Processes and Environments
GEOG-413
Advanced River Geomorphology
GEOG-414
Advanced Climatology
GEOG-415
Advanced Biogeography
GEOG-417
Advanced Soil Science
GEOG-426
Industrial Change and Local Development
GEOG-427
Selected Topics in the Geography of Tourism
GEOG-428
World Forests
GEOG-440
Law and Geography
GEOG-441
Cities, Space, and Politics
GEOG-444
Regional Development and Planning II
GEOG-445
Resource Planning
GEOG-446/646
Geography of Contemporary Societies (Globalization and Migration)
GEOG-449
Environmental Processes and Urban Development
GEOG-451
Spatial Modelling
GEOG-455
Theoretical and Applied GIS
GEOG-457
Geovisualization Interfaces
GEOG-460/620
Selected Regions
GEOG-491
Honors Essay
GEOG-497
International Field Study
Resource and Environmental Management
61
REM-100
Global Change
REM-311
Applied Ecology and Sustainable Environments
REM-412
REM-445
Environmental Modelling
Environmental Risk Assessment and Management of Hazardous
Substances
REM 601-5
Social Science of Natural Resources Management
REM 602-5
Natural Resource Management II: Advanced Seminar
REM 609-5
Evaluation of Management Strategies for Living Resources
REM 611-5
Population and Community Ecology
REM 641-5
Law and Resources
REM 642-5
Regional Planning I
REM 643-5
REM 646-5
Environmental Conflict and Dispute Resolution
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and Environmental
Management Systems
REM 652-5
Community Tourism Planning and Development
REM 655-5
Water Planning and Management
REM 656-5
Environment and Development
REM 660-5
Special Topics in Natural Resources Management
REM-660
*pilot/experimental course*
REM 663-5
Science, Traditional Knowledge and Epistemology in Personal, Cultural
and Political Topics
Special Topics in Resource Management [Qualitative Methods in
Interdisciplinary Contexts]
Special Topics in Resource Management [Special Topics in
Environment and Development]
REM 664-5
Directed Studies
REM 667-3
Special Topics [Advanced topics in Applied Quantitative Ecology I]
REM 670-5
Introduction to Forestry
REM 690-0
Practicum I
REM 691-0
Practicum II
REM 698-3
Field Resource Management Workshop
REM 699-10
Research Project
REM 899-10
REM 610-5
PhD Thesis
Applied Environmental Toxicology and Environmental Management of
Contaminants
REM 612-5
Simulation Modelling in Natural Resource Management
REM 613-5
Methods in Fisheries Assessment
REM 614-5
REM 625-5
Advanced Methods in Fisheries Assessment
Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis for Management of Natural
Resources
REM 636-5
Applications of GIS in Resource and Environmental Management
REM 644-5
Public Policy Analysis and Administration
REM 649-5
Tourism Planning and Policy
REM 651-5
REM-663-5
Topics in Environmental and Ecological Economics
Special Topics in Resources Management [Applied Quantitative
Ecology]
Multiattribute State Preference and Choice Modelling in Resource
Management
REM 801-5
Principles of Research Methods
REM 802-5
Research Approaches for REM PhD Students
REM 661-5
REM 661-5
62
APPENDIX III: FASS course listing
Sociology and Anthropology
SA 101-4
Introduction to Anthropology (A)
SA 141-3
Sociology and Anthropology Practicum I
SA 201
Anthropology and Contemporary Life
SA 201W-4
Anthropology and Contemporary Life (A)
SA 241-3
Sociology and Anthropology Practicum II
SA 245-4
Cultures and Images (A)
SA 286-4
Aboriginal Peoples and British Columbia: Introduction (A)
SA 302W-4
Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (S or A)
SA 315-4
New Information Technology and Society (S or A)
SA 341-3
Sociology and Anthropology Practicum III
SA 355-4
Quantitative Methods (S or A)
SA 356W-4
Ethnography and Qualitative Methods (S or A)
SA 357W-4
Survey Methods (S or A)
SA 362-4
Society and the Changing Global Division of Labor (S)
SA 402-4
The Practice of Anthropology (A)
SA 429-4
Sex, Work, and International Capital (S or A)
SA 430-4
States, Cultures and Global Transitions (S or A)
SA 441-3
Sociology and Anthropology Practicum IV
SA 486-4
Aboriginal Peoples and British Columbia: Advanced Seminar (A)
SA 496-4
Directed Readings in Anthropology (A)
SA 497-4
Directed Readings in Sociology (S)
SA 498-8
Field Study in Sociology and/or Anthropology (S or A)
SA 499-8
Honours Essay Option (S or A)
SA 855-5
Advanced Quantitative Methods in Sociology
SA 856-5
Qualitative Methodology
SA 857-5
Research Design Seminar
SA 871-5
Readings in Anthropology I
SA 872-5
Readings in Anthropology II
SA 874-5
Historical Perspectives on Anthropological Theory
SA 875-5
Ethnographic Methodology: Social/Cultural Anthropology
SA 890-0
Practicum I
SA 891-0
Practicum II
SA 892-0
Practicum III
SA 896-6
MA Research
SA 898-6
MA Thesis
SA 899-6
PhD Thesis
Archaeology
63
ARCH 272-3
Archaeology of the Old World
ARCH 335-5
Special Laboratory Topics in Archaeology
ARCH 340-5
Zooarchaeology
ARCH 348-5
Archaeological Conservation
ARCH 350-3
Practicum I
ARCH 351-3
Practicum II
ARCH 372-5
Material Culture Analysis
ARCH 373-5
Human Osteology
ARCH 377-5
Historical Archaeology
ARCH 383-3
Molecular Bioarchaeology
ARCH 390-5
Archaeobotany
ARCH 432-5
Advanced Physical Anthropology
ARCH 433-6
Background to Field Work
ARCH 435-6
Field Work Practicum
ARCH 438-5
Geoarchaeology
ARCH 442-5
Forensic Anthropology
ARCH 450-3
Practicum III
ARCH 451-3
Practicum IV
ARCH 452-5
Introduction to Paleopathology
ARCH 479-3
Directed Readings
ARCH 480-5
Directed Laboratory/Library/Field Research
ARCH 485-5
Lithic Technology
ARCH 498-5
Honors Reading
ARCH 499-5
Honors Thesis
ARCH 349-5
Management of Archaeological Collections
Asia Canada Program
ASC 200-3
Introduction to Chinese Civilization
ASC 301-3
Asia-Canada Identities: Experiences and Perspectives
ASC 303-3
Selected Topics in Japanese Studies
ASC 401-3
Directed Studies
Cognitive Science Program
COGS 200-3
Foundations in Cognitive Science
COGS 300-3
Selected Topics in Cognitive Science
COGS 370-3
Cognitive Science Practicum I
COGS 371-3
Cognitive Science Practicum II
COGS 470-3
Cognitive Science Practicum III
COGS 471-3
Cognitive Science Practicum IV
COGS 490-5
Honors Project I
COGS 491-5
Honors Project II
Criminology
64
CRIM 161-3
Practicum I
CRIM 261-3
Practicum II
CRIM 315-4
Restorative Justice
CRIM 318-3
Special Topics in Criminology
CRIM 319-3
Special Topics in Criminology
CRIM 320-3
Quantitative Research Methods in Criminology
CRIM 321-3
Qualitative Research Methods in Criminology
CRIM 343-3
Correctional Practice
CRIM 350-3
Techniques of Crime Prevention I
CRIM 351-3
Police Accountability and Ethics
CRIM 361-3
Practicum III
CRIM 369-4
Professional Ethics and Interpersonal Skills in Criminal Justice
CRIM 370-3
Directed Readings
CRIM 410-3
Decision-making in Criminal Justice
CRIM 417-3
Current Issues in Criminology and Criminal Justice
CRIM 419-3
Aboriginal/Indigenous Justice
CRIM 429-3
Indigenous Peoples and International Law
CRIM 442-3
Restorative Justice Practice: Advanced Topics
CRIM 455-3
Advanced Issues in Policing
CRIM 461-3
Practicum IV
CRIM 462-1
5 Field Practice
CRIM 470-5
Directed Studies
CRIM 490-5
Honors Thesis I
CRIM 499-1
2 Honors Thesis II
CRIM 831-3
Law and Social Control II
CRIM 860-3
Research Methods I
CRIM 862-3
Research Methods III
CRIM 870-3
Directed Readings
CRIM 880-3
Field Practicum
CRIM 885-3
Master's Project
CRIM 898-6
MA Thesis
CRIM 899-6
PhD Thesis
CRIM 801-3
Theories of Crime II
CRIM 820-3
Criminal Justice Policy Analysis
CRIM 821-3
Criminal Justice Analysis: A Systems Approach
CRIM 869-3
Professionalism and Criminal Justice
Economics
65
ECON 110-3
Foundations of Economic Ideas
ECON 278-3
Economics Practicum I
ECON 279-3
Economics Practicum II
ECON 282-3
Selected Topics in Economics
ECON 305-5
Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory
ECON 331-5
Introduction to Mathematical Economics
ECON 381-3
Labor Economics
ECON 398-3
Directed Studies
ECON 428-3
Seminar in Behavioral and Applied Economics
ECON 435-5
Econometric Methods
ECON 478-3
Economics Practicum V
ECON 498-3
Directed Studies
ECON 750-0
Practicum I
ECON 751-0
Practicum II
ECON 752-0
Practicum III
ECON 808-4
Macroeconomic Theory
ECON 811-4
Advanced Monetary Theory
ECON 826-4
Applied Contract Theory
ECON 835-4
Quantitative Methods in Economics
ECON 836-4
Applied Econometrics
ECON 838-4
Econometric Theory II A
ECON 842-4
International Monetary Economics
ECON 891-4
The Economics of Public Choice
ECON 900-0
PhD Field Paper
ECON 921-4
Directed Readings
ECON 922-4
Directed Readings
ECON 923-4
Directed Readings
ECON 990-6
PhD Thesis
ECON 991-6
MA Thesis
ECON 998-6
MA Essays
ECON 999-6
MA Project
English
66
ENGL 103W-3
Introduction to Drama
ENGL 210W-
3 Writing and Critical Thinking
ENGL 212-3
Metrics and Prosody
ENGL 310-4
Studies in Early Modern Literature Excluding Shakespeare
ENGL 311-4
Early Shakespeare
ENGL 359-4
Studies in the Literature of British Columbia
ENGL 371-4
Writing: Theory and Practice
ENGL 372-4
Creative Writing I: Poetry
ENGL 374-4
Creative Writing II: Fiction
ENGL 375-4
Studies in Rhetoric
ENGL 377-4
Italy Field School I
ENGL 378-4
Italy Field School II
ENGL 441-4
Directed Studies A
ENGL 442-2
Directed Studies B
ENGL 443-4
Directed Studies C
ENGL 444-2
Directed Studies D
ENGL 453W-4
Aboriginal Literatures
ENGL 461-3
Practicum I
ENGL 462-3
Practicum II
ENGL 463-3
Practicum III
ENGL 464-3
Practicum IV
ENGL 472-4
Advanced Creative Writing
ENGL 494-4
Honors Research and Methods Seminar
ENGL 496-4
Honors Graduating Essay
ENGL 811-4
Studies in Theory II
ENGL 821-4
Studies in Manuscript, Print and Media Culture
ENGL 829-4
Studies in Shakespeare
ENGL 831-4
Studies in Early Modern Literature
ENGL 850-4
Studies in Globalization, Literature, and Culture
ENGL 860-4
Studies in Writing and Rhetoric
ENGL 875-4
Directed Studies
ENGL 890-4
MA Thesis
ENGL 891-4
MA Paper/Project
ENGL 899-6
PhD Thesis
Explorations
EXPL 150-3
Introduction to Research Approaches in the Social Sciences
First Nations Studies
FNST 212-3
Indigenous Perceptions of Landscape
FNST 332-3
Ethnobotany of British Columbia First Nations
FNST 383-4
Indigenous Technology: Art and Sustainability
FNST 433-4
Indigenous Environmental Activism
FNST 442-3
Directed Readings in First Nations Studies
Gender, Sexuality and Women's Studies
67
WS 207-3
Introduction to Feminist Theory
WS 208-3
Feminist Research Methods
GDST 300-4
Masculinities
WS 306-4
Women's Autobiographies, Memoirs, Journals
WS 313-4
Women and the Environment
WS 334-3
Law and Human Reproduction
WS 399-4
Numeracy, Gender and Cultures
WS 401-5
Research Project
WS 402-2
Directed Readings
WS 403-3
Directed Readings
WS 421-3
Practicum I
WS 422-3
Practicum II
WS 423-3
Practicum III
WS 424-3
Practicum IV
WS 200-3
Women in Cross-Cultural Perspective
WS 398W-
4 Feminist Currents
WS 822-5
Graduate Seminar in Feminist Theory
WS 840-5
Directed Studies
WS 898-6
MA Thesis
WS 998-6
PhD Thesis
WS 899-6
MA Extended Essays
WS 999-6
MA Field Exam
Gerontology
GERO 101-3
Aging and Society
GERO 302-3
Health Promotion and Aging
GERO 401-3
Environment and Aging
GERO 403-3
Counselling Issues with Older Adults
GERO 803-4
Analytical Techniques for Gerontological Research
GERO 804-4
Advanced Qualitative Methods in Gerontology
GERO 805-4
Advanced Statistics for Behavioural Analysis in Gerontology
GERO 806-4
Interdisciplinary Theories in Gerontology
GERO 850-0
Co-op Internship
GERO 889-4
Directed Studies
GERO 898-6
Project
GERO 899-6
Thesis
GERO 998-6
PhD Thesis
Liberal Studies
LS 800-5
Reflections on Reason and Passion I
LS 801-5
Reflections on Reason and Passion II
LS 829-5
Directed Study
LS 990-2
.5 Extended Essays (Completion)
LS 991-2
.5 MA Project (Completion)
LS 998-5
MA Extended Essays
LS 999-5
MA Project
History
68
HIST 104-3
The Americas from Colonization to Independence
HIST 208-3
Latin America: the Colonial Period
HIST 213-3
The United States Since 1877
HIST 224-3
Europe from the French Revolution to the First World War
HIST 225-3
20th Century Europe
HIST 255-3
China since 1800
HIST 288-3
History of Christianity to 1500
HIST 317-4
From Reconstruction to Destruction: The Byzantine Empire from the
9th to the 15th Centuries
HIST 327-4
Canadian Labor and Working Class History
HIST 337-4
The Balance of Power in Europe
HIST 338-4
World War II
HIST 370-3
Practicum I
HIST 375-3
Practicum II
HIST 400-4
Methodology
HIST 424-4
Problems in the Cultural History of Canada
HIST 427-4
Problems in the History of Aboriginal Peoples
HIST 428-4
Problems in the Social and Economic History of Canada
HIST 433-4
Italian Films, Italian Histories
HIST 443-4
Aboriginal People's, History and the Law
HIST 444-4
Conceptualizing Atlantic Canada
HIST 445-4
Fascist Italy
HIST 447-4
The Nikkei Experience in North America
HIST 451-4
Oral History: Theories and Practices
HIST 455-4
Race in the Americas
HIST 461-4
Oral History: Practicum
HIST 464-4
Problems in Modern Asian History
HIST 470-3
Practicum III
HIST 475-3
Practicum IV
HIST 479-4
Change, Conflict and Resistance in Twentieth-Century China
HIST 494-4
Honours Seminar
HIST 498-6
Honours Essay
LBST 101-3
Introducing Labor Studies
Humanities
HUM 219-3
The Early Middle Ages
HUM 240-3
Studies in Modern European Culture
HUM 340-4
Great Cities in Their Time
HUM 390-4
Directed Studies in Humanities
HUM 471-3
Practicum I
HUM 472-3
Practicum II
HUM 473-3
Practicum III
HUM 474-3
Practicum IV
International Studies
69
IS 200-3
Historical Perspectives on Diplomatic Relations, International Security
and Law
IS 210-3
Comparative World Politics: Trajectories, Regimes, Challenges
IS 230-3
Transnationalism and Society
IS 240-3
Research Methods in International Studies
IS 302-4
Introduction to Humanitarian Intervention
IS 303-4
Ethnic Minorities, Identity Politics, and Conflict in Southeast Asia
IS 304-4
Russian Foreign Policies and Security Policies
IS 314-4
National, Regional, and International Politics in Southeast Asia
IS 408-4
Directed Readings I
IS 412-4
Central Asia, the Transcaucasus and Russia: Democracy,
Development and Conflicts
IS 418-4
Directed Readings II
IS 427-4
Selected Topics - Globalization, Poverty and Inequality
IS 428-4
Directed Readings III
IS 490-4
Honours Seminar
IS 499-5
Honours Essay
IS 800-4
Problems in International Development Policy and Practice
IS 887-3
Pre-project
IS 888-6
MA Project
IS 889-3
MA Project Completion
Latin American Studies
LAS 380-3
Practicum I
LAS 390-3
Practicum II
LAS 402-5
Field Study
LAS 480-3
Practicum III
LAS 490-3
Practicum IV
LAS 493-3
Directed Readings
LAS 498-5
Capstone Project
LAS 800-4
Approaches to Research in Latin American Studies
LAS 851-5
Directed Readings in Latin American Studies
LAS 898-6
MA Thesis
Linguistics
LING 222-3
Introduction to Syntax
LING 231-3
Introduction to First Nations Language I
LING 295-3
Language and the Law
LING 301W-3
Linguistic Argumentation
LING 309W-3
Sociolinguistics
LING 321-3
Phonology
LING 322-3
Syntax
LING 323-3
Morphology
LING 324-3
Semantics
LING 350-3
First Language Acquisition
LING 362-3
English as a Second Language: Theory
LING 363-3
English as a Second Language: Practice
LING 370-3
Linguistics Practicum I
LING 371-3
Linguistics Practicum II
LING 401-3
Topics in Phonetics
LING 407-3
Historical Linguistics
LING 441-3
Linguistic Universals and Typology
LING 470-3
Linguistics Practicum III
LING 471-3
Linguistics Practicum IV
LING 490-3
Honours Essay
Philosophy
70
PHIL 357-3
Topics in the History of Philosophy
PHIL 477-5
Honours Tutorial I
PHIL 478-5
Honours Tutorial II
PHIL 210-3
Natural Deductive Logic
PHIL 300-3
Introduction to Philosophy
PHIL 314-3
Topics in Logic I
Political Science
POL 201-3
Research Methods in Political Science
POL 211-3
Politics and Ethics
POL 252-3
Local Democracy and Governance
POL 290-3
Political Science Practicum I
POL 291-3
Political Science Practicum II
POL 301-3
Political Science Practicum III
POL 312-4
Modern Political Thought
POL 315-4
Quantitative Methods in Political Science
POL 322-4
Canadian Political Parties
POL 327-4
Globalization and the Canadian State
POL 354-4
Comparative Metropolitan Governance
POL 381-4
Japanese Politics
POL 401-3
Political Science Practicum IV
POL 496-1
Political Science Extended Essay Option
POL 497-4
Directed Practice in Political Science
POL 498-4
Directed Readings in Political Science
POL 499-5
Honours Essay
POL 802-5
Political Research: Design and Analysis
POL 829-5
Internship
POL 852-5
Urban Government and Politics
POL 856-5
Issues in Social and Economic Policy
POL 890-0
PhD Seminar
POL 891-0
Master's Seminar
POL 892-6
Research Project
POL 895-6
Extended Essays
POL 897-6
Field Exam in Major Areas of MA Concentration
POL 898-6
MA Thesis
POL 899-6
PhD Thesis Research
Psychology
71
PSYC 201W-4
Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology
PSYC 301-4
Intermediate Research Methods and Data Analysis
PSYC 342-3
Practicum I
PSYC 343-3
Practicum II
PSYC 386-4
Laboratory in Behavioral Neuroscience
PSYC 442-3
Practicum III
PSYC 443-3
Practicum IV
PSYC 457-3
Behavioral Neuroscience Undergraduate Honours Thesis Proposal
PSYC 459-9
Behavioral Neuroscience Undergraduate Honours Thesis
PSYC 490-4
Honours Project
PSYC 493-3
Directed Studies
PSYC 494-3
Directed Studies
PSYC 495-3
Directed Studies
PSYC 499-6
Honours Project
PSYC 410-4
Research Design I
PSYC 411-4
Research Design II
PSYC 770-3
Proseminar in Personality
PSYC 820-3
Seminar in Individual Assessment
PSYC 821-2
Practicum in Individual Assessment
PSYC 822-3
Seminar in Intervention
PSYC 823-2
Practicum in Intervention
PSYC 824-3
Research Issues in Psychology
PSYC 825-2
Intervention (Ongoing) (Clinical Practice)
PSYC 830-3
Seminar in Child Evaluation and Treatment Formulation
PSYC 831-2
Practicum in Child Evaluation and Treatment Formulation
PSYC 880-3
Practicum
PSYC 881-3
Senior Practicum
PSYC 882-3
Neuropsychology Practicum
PSYC 883-3
Practicum III
PSYC 884-3
Practicum IV
PSYC 886-9
Internship
PSYC 890-3
Practicum in Clinical Forensic Psychology
PSYC 892-3
Research/Policy Practicum in Law and Psychology
PSYC 898-6
MA Thesis
PSYC 899-6
PhD Thesis
PSYC 915-3
Seminar in Measurement
PSYC 925-3
Seminar in Cognitive Processes
PSYC 950-3
Seminar in Developmental Psychology
PSYC 997-3
Directed Studies
PSYC 998-3
Directed Readings
Public Policy
MPP 800-5
Introduction to Policy Issues and Analysis I
MPP 805-5
Research Techniques and Quantitative Methods I
MPP 808-5
Advanced Policy Analysis I
MPP 809-5
Advanced Policy Analysis II
MPP 817-5
Advanced Qualitative Analysis for Public Policy
MPP 818-5
Quantitative Methods for Policy Analysts
MPP 820-5
Public Participation in Public Policy
MPP 825-5
MPP Directed Readings I
MPP 826-5
MPP Directed Readings II
MPP 828-5
Multiple Account Benefit-Cost Analysis
MPP 850-0
MPP Internship
Urban Studies
72
URB 635-4
Urban Inequality and the Just City
URB 645-4
Urban Sustainable Development
URB 650-4
Urban Governance
URB 665-4
Urban Housing Policy
URB 670-4
Urban Research Methods
URB 690-4
The City in Art, Culture and Politics
URB 693-2
Directed Readings I
URB 694-4
Directed Readings II
URB 696-4
Seminar in Urban Studies
URB 697-4
Research Project
URB 699-2
Research Project Completion
World Literature
73
WL 103-3
Pre-Modern World Literature
WL 203-3
Selected Genres in World Literature
WL 300-4
How Theory Travels
WL 305-4
Sages and Poets
WL 350-3
Directed Studies
WL 404-4
Literature and Translation
WL 450-4
Directed Readings in Language and Literature
WL 460-4
Directed Studies
WL 480-4
Honours Essay Research
WL 490-4
Honours Essay
APPENDIX IV: Public Exposure
Twice over the course of 11 months of this work, the project was profiled by the Teaching and Learning Centre. The first
article appeared in the Teaching and Learning News in December 2010 and was written by Jennifer. The secon d appeared in
April 2011, written by the Centre‘s Communications Officer.
December 2010
Project leaders promote experiential learning to improve student experiences
in Faculties of Environment and Arts and Social Sciences
By Jenn McRae
A faculty member recently said to me, ―We keep hearing ‗experiential learning, experiential
learning‘…as if we‘re not doing it…but my gut reaction always is, I think we already do some of that.‖ I
sat across from her, nodding my head, smiling. ―Yeah, yeah you do!‖
ENVS 491 students collect samples in Kanaka Creek
Nearly half of Faculty of Environment courses provide students the opportunity to learn through
doing—the pedagogical approach she refers to as ―experiential learning.‖ This isn‘t just because of
the applied nature of FENV‘s subject matter either; it‘s a reflection of the outstanding efforts of faculty,
their commitment to innovation in course design and experimenting with pedagogy.
For example, Sustainable Community Development 401 sees students design, develop and pitch
ideas for sustainable social enterprises to a mock panel of financiers. In Resource and Environmental
Management 656, graduate students study international environment and development in Baja,
Mexico. Environmental Science offers their fourth year students the opportunity to conduct
collaborative field research and report their findings to local and provincial governments.
Undergraduates enrolled in Geography 356 apply skills from the emerging field of geovisulization to
manifest their inner worlds in 3-D virtual space via self-directed projects.
This article is part of a much larger project my colleague, Deanna Rogers, and I are leading that is
investigating the state of experiential learning in the Faculties of Environment and Arts and Social
Sciences (FASS). We are building an inventory of for-credit courses considered to be experiential in
74
approach, while also engaging with faculty and students to better understand the culture of
experiential learning that already exists.
PawelZienczuk, long-time worker in the Gdansk Shipyards and union negotiator during Solidarity Stikes of 1980s, gives SFU geography
undergraduates a private tour of the historic shipyards.
It matters because, as one professor put it to us, ―Students love experiential learning and want
more.‖ It catalyzes them to become passionately engaged with their education and they feel their
work has meaning beyond the institution. Some have gone on to publish original research in scholarly
journals; others have started social enterprises; many more have secured employment directly
resulting from skills gained through their experience.
Most importantly, though, students that are given these kinds of opportunities initiate change. They
describe themselves as having been ―…activated. Once you‘re activated you cannot [stop]…you have
to keep diving in.‖ This is significant considering that, as one Geography professor reminded me, the
university is where we train our next generation of professionals and leaders. If we want to unleash a
generation of activated visionaries, we must be innovative in our approach.
Contacts
If you‘re an educator practicing or experimenting with experiential learning in FASS or FENV, Jenn
McRae and Deanna Rogers want to hear from you!
Jenn McRae and Deanna Rogers – 778.782.9239 | sfu.exl@gmail.com
More Information
Read the first FENV experiential learning report:
http://www.fenv.sfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/experiential-learning-in-fenv-report-oct-2010.pdf
75
April 2011
Project to map experiential education at SFU gets go-ahead to expand
In December 2010, the Teaching and Learning News first profiled the experiential education project managed
by Jenn McRae, a former SFU geography student and Deanna Rogers, who is currently wrapping up a degree
in anthropology. With the guidance of an advisory committee of representatives from across the university,
these passionate researchers have been compiling an inventory of for-credit courses considered to be
―experiential‖ in approach in the Faculties of Environment and Arts and Social Sciences.
Their success in this first phase of the project led to it‘s expansion to encompass the entire university. By
March 2012, they expect to have completed an institution-wide report of SFU‘s engagement with experiential
education.
Tracking Experiential Education at SFU
School of Interactive Arts and Technology students show off their term project
For the experiential education neophyte (your intrepid correspondent, included), experiential education
basically refers to learning through doing, allowing students to apply their theoretical knowledge inside and
outside the classroom. In McRae‘s words, it‘s about ―marrying theory and practice.‖
McRae and Rogers hope that by exploring and documenting experiential education practices at SFU, they can
help instructors get a better sense of the diversity of pedagogical and andragogical approaches here, including
the broad range of experiential practices at the university. By encouraging such an approach to teaching and
learning, they anticipate that students will become more activated, empowered, and engaged in their
educations. Echoing her colleague, Rogers quotes something once read in a Student Services publication, ―it
is about bringing life to theory and theory to life.‖
Creating Engaging Learning Opportunities
As part of their project, McRae and Rogers recently helped Josh Regnier, an SFU History student, organize an
open event called ―engage: SFU.‖ Put together by students, for students, their objective was to get a sense of
what students are hoping to get out of their educations.
76
Education students participate in a brainstorming session
Over sixty students attended, letting organizers know what they thought of various approaches to experiential
education such as in-class simulations and field work. Organizers heard that students want to be more
engaged with their educations, learn collaboratively from and with their peers, and to create stronger
community at SFU. Faculty and administrators were on hand to listen to the ideas and dialogue generated by
the students.
By raising awareness about experiential education practices at SFU, McRae and Rogers hope students and
instructors will cooperate more closely in creating engaging learning opportunities. They want to develop an
environment that drives students‘ passion and desire to get involved. They also hope to send a supportive
message to instructors that risk-taking in teaching can pay off. ―We are all working towards the same thing,‖
says Rogers – a transformative, meaningful student experience.
If you wish to get involved in the project, discuss your teaching practice or engagement with experiential
education, please forward inquiries to Deanna Rogers at dcr1@sfu.ca or Jenn McRae at jmcrae@sfu.ca.
May 2011
A video was produced during Spring 2011, highlighting EE opportunities at SFU. It is available online at:
http://blogs.sfu.ca/projects/tlcomm/?tag=experiential-education
77
APPENDIX V: Student Directed Cohorts
This appendix will give a general ‘how-to’ overview for setting up SDCs, based off of our Spring 2011 experiment. We hope others interested in this
model can use this as a resource for future SDC iterations. Pages 78 and 79 provide an in depth overview of the SDC model.
78
79
80
APPENDIX VI: Experiential Education at Simon Fraser University
As previously stated, this project‘s focus was explicitly limited to credit -bearing courses in the Faculties of Environment and
Arts and Social Sciences. To better understand the range of other EE opportunities at SFU, and how our project fits, we have
prepared this overview.
REPORT
FOCUS
81