THE GWENNA MOSS CENTRE
FOR TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
Bay View Alliance Report - The Gwenna Moss
Centre for Teaching Effectiveness 2012
Table of Contents
1.0 Current Culture of Teaching and Learning at the U of S
1.1 SoTL Landscape at the U of S
1.2 Faculty Attitudes Survey
2.0 Summary of Current Innovations on Campus
2.1 Learning Communities
2.1.1 Retention
2.2 Writing Groups
3.0 Supporting Curriculum Innovation at the U of S
3.1 Five steps to program innovation
3.1.1 Curriculum Mapping Tool
3.2 Curriculum Innovation and Renewal Cycle
4.0 Beyond Curriculum Innovation to the Adoption of Evidence-Informed Teaching and Learning
Practices at the U of S
Introduction
Keeping in mind the following themes (see below) that will be explored at the meeting in Kansas, and the
request to report on “what current practices on your campus relate to this topic?,” this report has been
developed to explore different projects ongoing at the University of Saskatchewan that are relevant to the
upcoming meeting of the Bay View Alliance at Kansas University. This report has four main parts – projects
exploring the current culture of teaching at the U of S, summary of current innovations at the U of S (that
are particularly unique to the U of S and to the BVA), supporting curriculum innovation at the U of S, and going beyond curriculum innovation to encourage the adoption of evidence-informed teaching and learning
practices.
The BVA KU themes:
1) what resources can be used to create and activate change agents for teaching and learning?
2) what activities at the program level will develop collective ownership and development of effective instruction?
3) what forms of evaluation, recognition, and reward will provide sufficient honor to promote
change in teaching methods?
4) what indicators can we use to capture the quality of teaching culture at an institution?
5) what indicators can we use to capture the teaching practices of a campus or target units and
courses within a campus?
6) how can we best identify how well students are demonstrating the desired educational outcome, in this case scientific literacy?
1.0 Current Culture of Teaching and Learning at the U of S
1.1 SoTL Landscape at the U of S
In 2012, the Gwenna Moss Centre, with support from the Vice-President Research office, initiated a study aimed at systematically identifying University of Saskatchewan faculty currently
engaged in research pertaining to the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education (SOTL) and to gather information on the context of the SoTL landscape at the U of
S. The sample was obtained through a systematic snowball sampling method where department heads, academic administrators and well-known SoTL scholars were contacted and
asked to assist the researchers in identifying other SoTL practitioners. Concurrently, a thorough internet search of faculty and department or college websites was conducted to further
identify SoTL scholars. Once identified, each scholar was informed of the study and invited to
participate in a short follow-up questionnaire. In turn, 287 potential SoTL scholars (including
40 staff and 247 faculty at the UofS) were identified; of which, 196 (24 staff and 172 faculty)
responded to a questionnaire, resulting in a 68.2% overall response rate.
Rate the extent to which reflection influences your teaching practices or your scholarly
activity on teaching and learning.
We found that a vast majority of SoTL scholars at the UofS critically reflected on their teaching
and on their scholarly work on teaching and learning, and that this reflection very much influences their scholarly activity on teaching and learning.
Rate the extent to which the literature on teaching and learning figures in your teaching
on a day-to-day level, where 1 is, “None” and 5 is, “To a great extent”.
When asked, however, about the influence of the literature on teaching and learning on SoTL
scholars’ existing teaching practice, the results are more varied with 40% of respondents indicating that the literature did figure into their teaching while 37% felt that the literature somewhat played a role and 22% responded that the literature on teaching and learning had little
to no influence on their current teaching practice on a day-to-day basis.
Please indicate the extent to which you feel that your involvement in this type of scholarship is visible to your department colleagues, with 1 being “Invisible” to 5 being
“Highly visible”.
Finally, when asked about the visibility of SoTL in their respective departmental colleagues, a
majority of SoTL scholars responded that their involvement in SoTL research remains relatively invisible and this highlights a continuing challenge for efforts to further SoTL at the UofS.
How have you shared what you have learned about teaching and
learning?
How have you shared what you have learned about teaching and learning?
Response
Chart
Percentage
Count
I discussed it with colleagues in my
department, discipline, or
institution.
95%
146
I posted content to my blog,
website, or social media
account(s) [e.g., Twitter].
10%
15
I published my findings in a nonrefereed teaching and learning
publication.
13%
20
I published my findings in a nonrefereed disciplinary publication.
10%
16
I published my findings in a
refereed teaching and learning
publication.
24%
36
I published my findings in a
refereed disciplinary publication.
29%
45
I published my findings by writing
a peer-reviewed book or
publishing in a peer-reviewed
edited volume.
12%
18
I presented my research, artistic,
or scholarly work at a disciplinary
conference.
43%
66
I presented my research, artistic,
or scholarly work at a disciplinary
conference focused on teaching
and learning.
32%
49
I presented my research, artistic,
or scholarly work at a teaching
and learning conference.
35%
53
Total Responses
153
Faculty respondents were asked about the avenues they have utilized to disseminate their
knowledge on teaching and learning. For this item, respondents selected as many options
as it was relevant in their context. In turn, it was found that 95% of SoTL scholars at the UofS
disseminated their knowledge on teaching and learning through discussing it with their colleagues at their respective departments, discipline or institution. Next, 43% of SoTL scholars
have presented their research, artistic or scholarly work on teaching and learning at a disciplinary conference, while 32% have presented at a disciplinary conference that is specifically
focused on teaching and learning, and 29% have published their finding in a refereed publication in their discipline. In addition, 35% of SoTL scholars from our sample have presented at a
teaching and learning conference, and 24% have published in a refereed teaching and learning publication.
1.2 Faculty Attitudes Survey
Following a previous study completed at the University of British Columbia, all instructors
at the University of Saskatchewan who taught a course during the 2009 calendar year were
invited to participate in the online survey. A total of 458 instructors responded for a response
rate of 36%. The purpose of the survey was to gain understanding of the views of U of S faculty and sessional lecturers about the undergraduate teaching and learning environment, to
find better ways to improve teaching and learning at the U of S while maintaining a focus on
research excellence, and to help define new strategies and approaches as well as programs
to support teaching efforts and activities. The original report on the results of the survey is
available at: http://www.usask.ca/ipa/assessment/surveys/fac_survey.php. Please see the
graphic below for a visual illustration of the analyses (presented as a poster presentation during STLHE 2012).
Model Predictors:
Logistic Regression Model
The observed and predicted frequencies for active and studentcentred teaching and learning attitudes by Logistic Regression
No
Predicted
No
Yes
56
69
Yes
36
Observed
167
% Correct
44.8
82.3
Overall model evaluation:
Likelihood ratio test*** ; Score test ***
Cox and Snell R Square = 0.13; Nagelkerke R Square = 0.18
Gender***
Academic Rank
Years of Experience
Value of Training*
Discipline*
* Significant at 0.05, ** Significant at 0.01, *** Significant at 0.001
• 44.8% Sciences**
• 58.9% Social Sciences**
• 55.7% Humanities &
Fine Arts**
• 73.2% Health Sciences**
• 53.8% AgBio and
Engineering**
• 75.6%
Commerce/Education/La
w**
• 63.7% Training was
valuable**
• 48.9% Training was not
valuable**
• 77.4% of female faculty
members***
• 52.6% of male faculty member***
Active and
Student-centred
Teacher
•
•
•
•
70.1% of Assistant Professors***
71.8% of Sessional Lecturers***
49.5% of Professors***
50% of Associate Professors***
•
•
Over 70% of female faculty,
regardless of academic rank
60+% of male Assistant/Sessionals
vs. 40% Professors/Associate
Professors*
•
•
76.3% (1-7 years of experience)*
52.5% (8+ years of experience)*
•
75+% (female faculty, regardless of
experience)
56.5% (male faculty, 1-7 years of
experience)
45.9% (male faculty, 8+ years of
experience)
•
Dependent Variable consists of:
-Effective teaching is to engage in student learning:
- Social interactive processes of learning (such as
problem-based learning) are important and
effective teaching methods
- Traditional lecturing is not an effective method of
teaching
For more information:
brad.wuetherick@usask.ca
•
Subsequent to the report, further analysis was conducted to explore the connection between
the reported faculty attitudes and evidence-informed teaching and learning practices. Nine
items relating to self-reported attitudes on characteristics of active and student-centred
teaching and learning were extracted from the questionnaire. A subsequent reliability analysis on the index yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of a=.740. This nine-item index was operationalized into a scale at which point, a binary variable was created where respondents with high
levels of agreement to the overall scale were categorized into one group while respondents
with low levels of agreement were categorized into the other. As such, the effect of faculty
members’ demographic information of gender, academic rank, years of experience and academic discipline, as well as their self-perceived effectiveness of their previous training as a
teacher on determining whether faculty members’ likelihood of considering themselves to be
active and student-centred was explored.
First, gender was found to have a significant impact on self-reported attitudes of being active
and student-centred where 77.4% of female faculty members were found to have high levels
of agreement in comparison to 52.6% of their male faculty member counterparts. Respondents’ academic rank further also demonstrated an impact where 70.1% of Assistant Professors and 71.8% of Sessional Lecturers viewed themselves as being active and student-centred
teachers, compared to 49.5% of Professors and 50% of Associate Professors. The intersection
between the variables of rank and gender was further examined. As a result, two separate
trends emerged for male and female faculty members. For female faculty members, over 70%
of respondents held active and student-centred teaching and learning attitudes, regardless of
their academic rank. On the other hand, for male faculty members, less than 50% of Professors
and Associate Professors considered themselves to hold active and student-centred, teaching
and learning attitudes, in contrast to over 60% of Assistant Professors and Sessional Lecturers.
For male faculty members, the effect of academic rank remained significant while the same
effect was engulfed by the influence of gender for female faculty members.
Next, faculty members’ years of experience was measured. Here, years of experience was operationalized into two categories with faculty members having one to seven years of experience
constituting one category, and faculty members having over eight years of experience as the
second category. The decision to utilize the seven-year mark as the separator was based on
the assumption whereby a faculty member’s seventh year often determines whether tenure
is attained. As such, what becomes important for this analysis is the differences exhibited
between junior faculty members vis-à-vis faculty members with more extensive experience.
Two-thirds of faculty members (66.3%) with less than seven years of experience reported
active and student-centred attitudes in comparison to 52.5% of faculty members with eight
or more years of experience. When gender was inserted as an intervening variable, 56.5% of
male faculty members with less than seven years of experience reported themselves to be
active and student-centred in contrast to 45.9% of male faculty members with eight or more
years of experience. Meanwhile, over 75% of female faculty members held those attitudes,
regardless of their experience. This finding mirrors what was found when the intersection
of gender and academic rank were measured where junior male faculty members exhibited
much higher levels of agreement with these attitudes in comparison to their more experienced counterparts. Meanwhile, a majority of female faculty members fall consistently in
line with reporting active and student-centred attitudes, and both academic rank and years
of experience do not appear to demonstrate an effect. Academic rank was then added as an
intervening variable to the existing relationship between faculty members’ years of experience and their likelihood of adopting active and student-centred, attitudes of teaching and
learning. While no meaningful discoveries were uncovered for Professors and Assistant Professors, this intersection produced a significant effect for Associate Professors. Specifically, it was
found that 73.7% of Associate Professors with less than seven years of experience reported to
champion attitudes of active and student-centred teaching and learning in contrast to 45.0%
of Associate Professors with eight or more years of experience. Despite accounting for the effect of gender, both male and female Associate Professors with less than seven years of experience similarly demonstrated higher levels of adopting active and student-centred attitudes
of teaching and learning. Due to small numbers, however, this finding cannot be generalized.
The academic discipline a faculty member belongs to was also found play a significant role in
determining their likelihood of reporting active and student-centred teaching and learning
attitudes. Of the six groupings of academic disciplines included in the study, three groupings
of similar responses emerged. Firstly, 73.2% of faculty members in the Health Sciences and
75.6% of faculty members in Commerce, Education and Law were the most likely to report
student-centred attitudes towards teaching. Secondly, 58.9% of faculty members in the Social
Sciences, 55.7% in the Humanities & Fine Arts, and 53.8% in Agriculture & Bioresources/Engineering reported as considering themselves to hold these attitudes. Lastly, only 44.8% of
faculty members in the Sciences fell into the same category.
Finally, gauging whether a faculty member actively sought out and was satisfied with their
training and education on how to be an effective teacher was found to have an impact on determining respondents’ likelihood of adopting active and student-centred attitudes of teaching and learning. 63.7% of respondents who found their training to be valuable also adopted
attitudes of active and student-centred teaching and learning, in contrast to 48.9% of faculty
members who did not find their training to be valuable.
Subsequent to the exploratory analyses, the effect of the four demographical variables: gender, academic rank, years of experience and academic discipline, as well as the value placed
on previous training in teaching was further assessed in a logistic regression analysis to
uncover the most salient predictors of active and student-centred attitudes. A test of the full
model against the constant only model was statistically significant, indicating that the aforementioned predictors reliably contributes to further distinguishing between faculty members
that champion active and student-centred attitudes of teaching and learning, and those who
don’t (chi square = 47.37, p < .000 with df = 10). Of the predictors, it was found that gender,
whether faculty members found previous training to be valuable, and whether a faculty member’s academic discipline is in the Health Sciences or Commerce, Education and Law demonstrated the strongest influence.
2.0 Summary of Current Innovations on Campus
The U of S over the past four years, and over the coming four years, has prioritized the importance of the student experience, and innovation in academic programs. This has manifested
itself as a focus across campus on experiential learning (community service learning, community engaged learning, internships/practica, undergraduate research, field-based learning,
and study/courses taught abroad), internationalizing the curriculum, improving aboriginal
engagement, and embedding innovative uses of technology to improve student learning.
While many initiatives focused on these areas have been developed and implemented on
campus, two initiatives of relevance to the BVA (and relatively unique in how they have been
implemented at the U of S) are the first-year learning communities program and intensive
writing groups.
2.1 Learning Communities
The Learning Communities’ mission from the start has been to inspire authentic learning
through community. Learning is a social process, and authentic learning requires opportunities to draw connections between ideas, points of view, and ultimately, between people.
At the University of Saskatchewan, a First‐Year Learning Community (LC) is a small group of
first‐year students (30‐40) who choose to register in a common set of 2 or 3 classes. In addition to sharing a common classroom experience in large lectures, students gather as a smaller
community in a weekly LC Hour guided by two successful senior student Peer Mentors. Weekly LC Hours aim to (a) engage students in community‐directed academic discussions and self‐
directed life plans, (b) facilitate community engagement within, between and beyond their
Learning Community, and (c) enhance study, organization, and time management skills. Each
LC is named after an Alumni Mentor: a recent graduate from the U of S whose experience
from first‐year to first career exemplifies the non‐linear nature of life’s journey.
To measure the success of the Learning Communities initiative, assessments were carried out
during all the first three years of its funding with the primary goal of exploring the impact
of Learning Communities on retention and student engagement. The assessments aimed to
measure differences in the stated program goals between Learning Communities students
and non‐Learning Communities students, as well as delineating a subgroup of Learning Communities students who demonstrated the highest level of engagement (i.e., attendance in LC
Peer Mentor‐led Hours) in the LC program. Based on historical observations and subsequently
corroborated with assessment results from all three years, LC students demonstrated different outcomes based on their attendance in weekly LC Hours. Where students attended six or
more LC Hours in the term, we suggest they would attain a high degree of benefit from the
program, and those students were therefore categorized as, “LC: Maximal.”
differences in the stated program goals between Learning Communities students and
non‐Learning Communities students, as well as delineating a subgroup of Learning
Communities students who demonstrated the highest level of engagement (i.e., attendance in
LC Peer Mentor‐led Hours) in the LC program. Based on historical observations and
subsequently corroborated with assessment results from all three years, LC students
demonstrated different outcomes based on their attendance in weekly LC Hours. Where
students attended six or more LC Hours in the term, we suggest they would attain a high degree
of benefit from the program, and those students were therefore categorized as, “LC: Maximal”.
2.1.1 Retention
i. Retention
Year 1 to Year 2 Retention: Comparing LC and Non-LC
students
100%
80%
84%
90%
76%
72%
83%
90%
75%
83%
86%
60%
Non-LC students
LC students
40%
LC: Maximal students
20%
0%
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
For Year 1 to Year 2 retention, it was found that students in Learning Communities (across the
colleges of Arts and Science, Agriculture and Bioresources, and Kinesiology) demonstrated a
For Year 1 to Year 2 retention, it was found that students in Learning Communities (across the
colleges of Arts and Science, Agriculture and Bioresources, and Kinesiology) demonstrated a
much higher retention rate than non-Learning Communities students. Throughout the past
three academic years, the average retention difference for Learning Communities students
higher retention
students.
Throughout
was aboutmuch
8 percentage
points.rate
The than
effectnon-Learning
is even moreCommunities
evident for LC:
Maximal
students the past three
the average
retention
difference
for Learning
students was about
where theacademic
retentionyears,
difference
throughout
the three
academic
years isCommunities
around 14 percentage
8
percentage
points.
The
effect
is
even
more
evident
for
LC:
Maximal
students
where the
points.
retention difference throughout the three academic years is around 14 percentage points.
Year 1 to Year 2 Retention
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
1301
1346
1463
Not Retained
500
430
487
% Retained
72%
76%
75%
Retained
274
382
406
52
80
85
% Retained
84%
83%
83%
Retained
153
246
219
17
28
35
90%
90%
86%
Retained
Non-LC students
LC Students
Not Retained
LC: Maximal Students
Not Retained
% Retained
In each academic year, we saw the greatest retention improvement in the College of Arts &
Science.
Year 1 to Year 2 Retention in Arts & Science
100%
84%
90%
89%
81%
85%
Retained
LC: Maximal Students
153
246
219
17
28
35
90%
90%
86%
Not Retained
% Retained
Ineach
eachacademic
academicyear,
year, we
we saw
saw the
the greatest
greatest retention
retentionimprovement
improvement
the
College
Arts
In
inin
the
College
of of
Arts
&&
Science.
Science.
Year 1 to Year 2 Retention in Arts & Science
100%
84%
80%
90%
71%
89%
75%
81%
74%
80%
85%
60%
Non-LC students
LC students
40%
LC: Maximal students
20%
0%
2009-2010
2010-2011
Year 1 to Year 2 Retention in
Arts & Science
Non-LC students
LC Students
LC: Maximal Students
Retained
Not Retained
% Retained
Retained
Not Retained
% Retained
Retained
Not Retained
% Retained
2011-2012
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
1133
463
71%
198
39
84%
100
11
90%
1210
409
75%
278
65
81%
174
22
89%
1310
465
74%
294
72
80%
154
28
85%
These findings indicate that involvement in Learning Communities has a positive effect on
These findings
indicate
that involvement
in Learning
Communities
a positive
effect
retention
and, moreover,
the greater
a student’s
attendancehas
at LC
meetings
(i.e.on
greater
retentionparticipation
and, moreover,
the
greater
a
student’s
attendance
at
LC
meetings
(i.e.
greater
particin, engagement with, and benefit from Learning Communities), the less likely
ipation in,attrition
engagement
with, and benefit from Learning Communities), the less likely attrition
becomes.
becomes.




2010-21 NSSE
Benchmarks
Level of
Academic
Challenge
(LAC)
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
(ACL)
StudentFaculty
Interaction
(SFI)
Enriching
Educational
Experiences
(EEE)
Supportive
Campus
Environment
(SCE)
Active & Collaborative Learning (ACL)
Student‐Faculty Interaction (SFI)
Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)
Supportive Campus Environment (SCE)
Arts & Science
Agriculture & Bioresources
Kinesiology
Overall
Non-LC
Students
LC
Students
LC:
Maximal
Non-LC
Students
LC
Students
LC:
Maximal
Non-LC
Students
LC
Students
LC:
Maximal
Non-LC
Students
LC
Students
LC:
Maximal
47.87
50.06
50.15
45.3
51.16*
50.53
45.8
45.3
46
47.66
49.52
49.42
28.44
28.31
29.17
34.13
37.38
39.56
26.66
33.7*
33.33
28.64
29.97
31.03
20.89
21.19
22.03
17.52
26.4*
26.92
17.54
20.55
20
20.6
21.65
22.18
20.13
27.1
***
27.42
***
19.41
24.16
28.36
18.91
26.46
**
26.68*
20.05
26.70
***
27.39
***
54.35
52.83
54.58
53.36
58.05
62.18
55.85
64.15
54.36
54.84
57.1
63.78
*p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
InInallFebruary,
Colleges, LC
students
much higher
the Enriching
Experiences
2011,
the Ureported
of S participated
in levels
NSSE.on
Students
in theEducational
2010‐11 LC
program (and
benchmark
(score of
26.7 for not
LC students
versus
a scoreall
ofreceived
20.0 for non‐LC
students).
is
the comparator
students
in the LC
program)
the NSSE
surveyThis
andbenchmark
about 43%
one
on
which
the
U
of
S
performs
much
worse
than
our
comparator
institutions
and
improvement
is
an
responded. NSSE provides a wealth of data and only a preliminary analysis comparing LC to
institutional
priority.has
Other
benchmark
factors
LC students
showedfrom
significant
improvements
over
Non‐LC students
been
completed
so where
far. Based
on responses
students
in the three
non‐LC
students
included
the
level
of
academic
challenge
and
student‐faculty
interaction
for
Agriculture
Colleges, we and scores associated with the NSSE benchmark summary factors:
and Bioresources students and the level of active and collaborative learning for Kinesiology students.
• Level of Academic Challenges (LAC)
• Active & Collaborative Learning (ACL)
• Student‐Faculty Interaction (SFI)
• Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)
• Supportive Campus Environment (SCE)
In all Colleges, LC students reported much higher levels on the Enriching Educational Experiences benchmark (score of 26.7 for LC students versus a score of 20.0 for non‐LC students).
This benchmark is one on which the U of S performs much worse than our comparator institutions and improvement is an institutional priority. Other benchmark factors where LC students showed significant improvements over non‐LC students included the level of academic
challenge and student‐faculty interaction for Agriculture and Bioresources students and the
level of active and collaborative learning for Kinesiology students.
One new initiative being introduced in September 2012 is Learning Communities for aboriginal students as part of the Aboriginal Student Achievement Program (ASAP) in the College of
Arts and Science. The ASAP program provides aboriginal students significant academic and
cultural support as they transition into the University of Saskatchewan, and the addition of
Learning Communities as part of the ASAP program is allowing aboriginal students to register in one of three Learning Communities (where 3 specifically chosen courses are grouped
together with additional cultural and academic support incorporated into the Learning Communities).
2.2 Writing Groups
The College of Agriculture and Bioresources, in collaboration with the University of Saskatchewan Writing Centre, initiated the implementation of peer mentor-led Writing Groups to
address persistent barriers to the quality of writing instruction in professional colleges. Specifically, peer mentor-led Writing Groups worked with two sections of a large (200+ student)
first-year course in the College of Agriculture in the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 academic years. Peer mentor-led writing groups focused on giving students support throughout the writing
process, structuring peer feedback using customized rubrics and emphasizing on writing as
process rather than a product. They also integrated structured peer-review at key stages of
the process to build a community of writers.
Levels of Struggle: Pre- and Post-term comparisons
Preterm:
2010-2011
Postterm:
2010-2011
Preterm:
2011-2012
Postterm:
2011-2012
Organizing
info &
presenting it
in a logical
sequence
Creating
smooth
transitions
Citing tables
and figures in
the text
Citing
borrowed
information
into text
Revising
paragraphs
and other
elements of
paper's
organization
Grammatical
and spelling
errors
Appropriate
tone/writing
style/level of
complexity
36%
50%
41%
43%
26%
38%
35%
18%
33%
17%
24%
18%
29%
31%
31%
44%
53%
52%
23%
32%
34%
18%
38%
32%
32%
15%
30%
26%
Utilizing a pre- and post- assessment, it was found that students in Writing Groups contributed to decreased levels of struggle in scientific writing and reported increased levels of confidence in their written communication skills.
3.0 Supporting Curriculum Innovation at the U of S
The Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness at the University of Saskatchewan has
been given the task of coordinating an ambitious curriculum innovation and renewal mandate by the Provost’s Committee on Integrated Planning. The Curriculum Innovation Initiative
is supported by the GMCTE’s Instructional Design Group and Curriculum Innovation Team.
The process of curriculum innovation and renewal has begun in several units across campus,
and the current plan is that outcomes from the changes made will be made public when they
have been.
In addition to direct support by the GMCTE, a fund has been established to help units pursue
innovative projects. Projects supported by the Curriculum Innovation Fund should have a
curricular focus - changing or developing the content or methods of a collection of courses
(major, theme, minor, specialization, certificate, etc.). New or revised curricula should also
focus on improving the student experience, with preference given to proposals that address
identified institutional priorities - experiential learning, Aboriginal education, internationalization, and innovative uses of learning technologies.
The U of S has 17 schools and colleges. The program offerings of each are vastly different and
advocating for renewal in any of these requires significant involvement by faculty and knowledge of students. In order to maximize the impact of the investment in the GMCTE to support
curriculum innovation, we have partnered with several academic units to establish Collegelevel curriculum innovation initiatives. For example, we have partnered with the College of
Engineering (which is undergoing major changes to the accreditation of its programs) to have
a half-time curriculum specialist dedicated to the curriculum renewal and evaluation required
to meet the national accreditation process. Another example is in the College of Arts and Science, where the College has established a high level Curriculum Innovation Steering Committee to help coordinate and facilitate College-wide adoption of the curriculum renewal (and
ongoing quality improvement) processes supported by the GMCTE.
To achieve the goals of its mandate, the GMCTE has established the following set of steps for
coordinating change broadly on campus, followed by a model for curriculum innovation and
renewal that can be adapted to the needs of individual departments:
3.1 Five steps to program innovation
First, program change processes need to be faculty-driven, and student–centred. The process
also needs to be collegially endorsed, and administratively-supported.
Second, the process of program change needs to be data-informed. This means a focus on
what the learning goals or outcomes of a program are, and how these align with similar programs at other institutions, as well as measuring the skills and knowledge of incoming and
outgoing students. The data gathering and analysis phase can seem daunting. Faculty time
and additional resources may be required. There is an Academic Program Innovation Fund
available to support units at this stage.
The third stage is curriculum mapping – performing an audit of what does and should exist
in the curriculum. Our consultants at the Gwenna Moss Centre can assist with curriculum
mapping, process facilitation, and keeping the process moving forward. But faculty-driven
and student-centred remains our focus. A curriculum mapping tool has been developed to
help faculty with this process.
3.1.1 Curriculum Mapping Tool
The curriculum mapping tool is intended to provide leaders of curriculum renewal and innovation processes with information about the courses in their programs. For the courses they
teach, instructors complete data entry tables on instructional strategies, assessment methods,
course learning outcomes, and contribution of their course to program-wide outcomes. The
tool displays summary data in bar graphs, summary tables, and can be used to export data
sets to other tools for further analysis. The following screen shot is of the mapping tool as an
instructor would view it.
The fourth ingredient involves course design and delivery considerations. The Gwenna Moss
Centre offers courses on course design and offers instructional design support services to
individuals and departments.
The fifth critical aspect of this process is program assessment. Completion rates and satisfaction are relatively easy to measure, but achievement of program level outcomes can be more
difficult to assess. An assessment plan for programs needs to be integrated with the assessment plan for learners. Assessment rubrics, portfolio-based assessment, and student achievement inventories can be helpful. A commitment to sustained, longitudinal studies of student
achievement should be planned from the beginning. The consultants at the GMCTE can help.
3.2 Curriculum Innovation and Renewal Cycle
The model of curriculum development support being adopted at the U of S is adapted from
the curriculum development model articulated by Peter Wolf from the University of Guelph
in Canada. Wolf’s model calls for three phases of development: 1) curriculum visioning (to
articulate the current as well as intended outcomes for the program), 2) curriculum development (to inventory the current practices in the curricula), and 3) alignment, coordination and
development (to map the curriculum to the intended learning outcomes for the program and
to change curriculum as necessary to align with the intended program learning outcomes.
The underlying purpose of curriculum development remains quality improvement (both for
student learning outcomes and for faculty teaching practices), but emphasizes three key principles – the process remains faculty-driven, data-informed, and curriculum specialist-supported. The model at the U of S has been refined to include six key components:
1. setting the vision (what do you want for your program?),
2. gathering data (what does your program offer now?),
3. identifying discrepancies (how does what you have match what you want?),
4. implementing changes (what is practically needed to enact the changes?),
5. assessing (how are the changes working?), and
6. continuing the quality improvement process (how might we continue to re-imagine our
curriculum in the future, particularly based on the results of the assessment?).
Curriculum Innovation and Renewal Cycle
1. INFORMED IMAGINING
Set the Vision
IP3 Areas of Focus
www.usask.ca/plan/
Knowledge Creation
Aboriginal Engagement
Innovation
Culture and Community
Current Program Goals?
Departmental
College Level
Accreditation Bodies
The Gwenna Moss Centre
for Teaching Effectiveness
6. RE-IMAGINE
Continue the
Commitment
What do you want
for your program?
What next?
2. INVENTORY
Gather Data
Faculty-driven
Data-informed
GMCTE-supported
5. INVESTIGATE
IMPACT
Assess
How are the
changes
working?
4. IMPLEMENT
Plan and Do
What is practically
needed to enact
the changes?
What does
your program
offer now?
3. IDENTIFY
DISCREPANCIES
Analyze
How does what
you have match
what you want?
Learning Charter Core Learning Goals
Discovery
Knowledge
Integrity
Skills
Citizenship
10 High-Impact Educational Practices
www.aacu.org/leap/hip.cfm
4.0 Beyond Curriculum Innovation to the Adoption of Evidence-Informed
Teaching and Learning Practices at the U of S
An underpinning principle of the curriculum innovation and renewal cycle is an expectation
that the curriculum specialists from our Centre helping academic units with facilitating the
process will have significant opportunities to engage with faculty about just-in-time educational development. These opportunities, as they present within each unit, provide opportunities to influence collective intentions and behaviors towards evidence-informed teaching
and learning practices.
To this end, the U of S team of Jim Greer (Director of the University Learning Centre), Patti
McDougall (our incoming Vice-Provost Teaching and Learning), Angela Ward (our former ViceProvost Teaching and Learning) and Brad Wuetherick (Program Director of the Gwenna Moss
Centre), in conjunction with partners at Queen’s University and Carleton University, have proposed a research study (being sent to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada this month) to explore the impact of facilitated curriculum development processes on
the faculty adoption of evidence-informed teaching and learning practices.
Our objective is to study possible methods of invoking more rapid improvement in teaching
practices across many units within research universities and discover methods that will result
in positive change in teaching.
We will be posing the following research questions:
1. Will engaging faculty in externally-facilitated curriculum development, mapping, and
alignment exercises (described above) increase faculty focus on student learning outcomes?
2. Will engaging faculty in longitudinal assessment of student learning gains within their
program increase faculty focus on student learning outcomes?
3. Will the increased individual faculty and/or collective departmental focus on programlevel student learning outcomes result in the adoption of evidence-informed teaching
practices?