January 2013, Volume 11, No. 2
THE GWENNA MOSS CENTRE
FOR TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
Bridges
Reflecting the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning at the University of Saskatchewan
It’s All About
Research…
By Jim Greer, Director, ULC
As a relatively new member of the U15, it
sometimes feels like we’re now “playing with
the big kids”. We feel a need to compete in
“their games,” and we focus on a few playing
fields (signature areas) where our team can
“win” recognition and favour. Playing with
the big kids is a risky business — one can feel
bullied by policies or programs that privilege
bigger players, pressured to over-achieve and
maybe eventually collapse with exhaustion,
frustrated at feeling under-resourced and
always behind, and worst of all, become
mired in gloom and self-pity. The currency of
competition in the U15 is research. It is the
same currency that is used to competitively
rate players in their respective academic
disciplines. Research is an easy game in
which to keep score – grants in, publications
out, HQP, impact factors, h-index. People can
winge about how the rules favour the big
kids or the science teams, and some proclaim
that we need to opt out of the game or even
switch to a different league.
But what about teaching? Does teaching
matter at all in the U15? We see many U15
universities rated poorly by their students
on quality of instruction, levels of student
engagement, and faculty-student interaction.
We hear teachers lamenting that researchers
get all the perks. We hear that in a game of
teaching versus research the students are the
pawns. Does “playing with the big kids” set
us further behind in our mission to provide
quality education to our students?
The research on effective teaching offers
many messages. Here are two apparently
contradictory findings:
1.Among research-active instructors in one
department, there is a significant positive
correlation between research output and
teaching evaluations.
2.Across all instructors in that same
department, there is no correlation
between research output and teaching
evaluations.
What can we conclude from this? All of
the statements below would contribute to
supporting these two findings:
•• Some (maybe most) of the people who
produce no research output are very
successful teachers. They specialize in
teaching.
•• Some very productive researchers are also
very successful teachers.
•• Anyone who would produce no research
output and who is also an unsuccessful
teacher will not remain employed for long.
•• A few of the research stars might be
marginal teachers.
•• A few faculty members may be coasting in
both their research and teaching.
What I am trying to show is that the story
about research and teaching is a fairly
complex one and that simple answers may
be simplistic answers. The increasingly
competitive research environment brought on
by the U15 does not really change the relative
complexity of this story. For decades research
success has been the primary currency for
academic reputation within the disciplines
IN THIS ISSUE:
Teaching and Research; not Teaching or Research............ 3
Station 20 West............................................................................... 5
Scholarship of Curriculum Development ..............................6
How to Facilitate Successful Teamwork & Collaboration..... 8
Green Guide Review ...................................................................10
From Novice to Mentor .............................................................11
Oh Please, Not Another Self Reflection ...............................12
For Graduate Students...............................................................13
What Supports Graduate Students’ teaching?...................14
The Treaty Module.......................................................................17
The Myth of the Multicultural Patchwork ...........................18
Teaching Awards .........................................................................19
Teaching Philosophy: Lorne Elias .........................................20
www.usask.ca/gmcte
Continued from page 1
JANUARY 2013
VOL. 11 NO. 2
The Gwenna Moss Centre for
Teaching Effectiveness
University of Saskatchewan
Room 50 Murray Building
3 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A4
Phone 306 • 966 • 2231
Fax 306 • 966 • 2242
Web site: www.usask.ca/gmcte
Bridges is distributed to every teacher
at the University of Saskatchewan and
to all teaching centres in Canada, and
some beyond. It is also available on
our web site.
Please consider submitting an article
or opinion piece to Bridges. Your
contribution will reach a wide local,
national, and international audience.
Contact any one of the following
people; we’d be delighted to hear
from you:
and has served to shape this complicated
connection between teaching and research.
Dialogues that pit research against teaching
are sometimes labeled “the academic lament.”
Too many advocates of teaching fall victim
to this lament and the stigma, self-pity and
marginalization it perpetuates. This lament
is not productive. Teaching and research
are connected, and it is research-inspired
teaching and teaching-inspired research
that offers us a way beyond. I had the
opportunity to meet Mick Healey at a recent
conference on the scholarship of teaching
and learning. He has done some credible
research and written persuasively on the
research-teaching nexus. Encouraging and
engaging the teacher-scholar in all faculty
members is vital to silencing the lament. And
broadening our understanding of the role of
teaching and its importance in the world of
disciplinary (and especially interdisciplinary)
research is also important. Positive and
constructive conversations about the
place of teaching in a research-intensive
university must be fostered. There is a valid
worry that teaching may be compromised
in our rush to be research competitive in
the U15. It is that same fear (and lament)
that environmentalists proclaim about
global economic competitiveness. And the
short-term / long-term consequences of
inattention to the deep interconnections
between teaching and research (or
environment and economy) deserve more
reflection and conversation.
If this piques your interest or stirs your blood, please drop in
for a conversation at the Gwenna Moss Centre. Have a great 2013!
About the GMCTE.....
Jim Greer
Director, ULC and GMCTE
Phone 306 • 966 • 2234
jim.greer@usask.ca
Brad Wuetherick
Program Director
Academic Editor (Bridges)
Phone 306 • 966 • 1804
brad.wuetherick@usask.ca
Christine Anderson Obach
Managing Editor (Bridges)
Phone 306 • 966 • 1950
christine.anderson@usask.ca
Corinne Fasthuber
Assistant GMCTE
Phone 306 • 966 •2231
corinne.fasthuber@usask.ca
Views expressed in Bridges are those of the
individual authors and are not necessarily
those of the staff at the GMCTE.
ISSN 1703-1222
THE STAFF AT THE GWENNA MOSS
CENTRE FOR TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
welcomes everyone at the University of Saskatchewan
to visit the Centre and take advantage of our large
selection of professional development events,
courses, resources, and services.
Please visit our website to find out more about our services
and resources for new faculty, experienced faculty,
sessional lecturers, and graduate students who teach.
www.usask.ca/gmcte
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
3.0 Unported License.
2
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
Teaching
&Research;
not Teaching or Research
By Brad Wuetherick, Program Director, GMCTE
There was an interesting discussion recently on the listserv of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education featuring a conversation about the teaching-research nexus. The conversation featured, as an
instigator for the discussion, the future direction of the University of Saskatchewan as an institution prioritizing
both teaching AND research as articulated by our new President. Questions were raised about whether
research was indeed good for student learning and whether there was a conflict between the research and
teaching. A lively conversation ensued, one continued in part by Jim’s editorial in this issue of Bridges, that
is important for the University of Saskatchewan as we strive to, in the words of our first President, “hold an
honourable place among the best” universities in Canada and around the world.
There is research, of course, showing that
research intensiveness does not necessarily
equate with teaching quality. The most famous
study was a meta-analysis of over 50 other
studies by Hattie and Marsh (1996) that shows
that essentially there is no correlation (.08)
between ‘traditional’ measures of research
excellence (in particular, publication and
citation rates) and teaching excellence (in
particular, student evaluations of teaching). Their conclusion was that while these measures
of research and teaching are uncorrelated,
to ensure that the teaching and learning
environment benefits from research, educators
in higher education need to find active ways to
bring research and teaching together.
The literature on this topic has followed two
main paths of debate and inquiry: first, is
research important for student learning?, and
second, should faculty/institutions engage
in both research and teaching? To deal with
the first of these two questions, a number
of scholars have written about the impact
of undergraduate research and researchbased teaching and learning on student
learning at the undergraduate level. The
most sustained work done to bring together
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
good practice examples of undergraduate
research and research-based learning has
been by Healey and Jenkins for the Higher
Education Academy in the UK (Jenkins, 2004;
Jenkins & Healey, 2005; Jenkins, Healey &
Zetter, 2007; Healey & Jenkins, 2009). In terms
of the impact of research on student learning,
a few people to look at include: Kuh (2008)
on high-impact educational practices (which
includes undergraduate research as one of
the most impactful experiences for students),
Hunter et al. (2007) on the impact of research
experiences; Brew (2006) on the integration
of research and teaching; and the list goes
on and on. In the Canadian context, I coauthored an article (2008) and book chapter
(2011) on this from previous work undertaken
at the University of Alberta, which I have
included in the references below.
In the words of Healey and Jenkins,
“all undergraduate students in all higher
education institutions should experience
learning through, and about, research and
inquiry… We argue that such curricular
experience should and can be mainstreamed
for all or many students through a researchactive curriculum. We argue that this can be
3
achieved through structured interventions at
[individual instructor, program], departmental,
institutional and national levels” (Healey and
Jenkins, 2009, p. 3). They further argue that
students’ involvement with research and
discovery might indeed help to define that
which makes higher education higher. There
has been an emerging consensus in the
literature that research can be a benefit for
students’ learning (a topic which I will return
to in a future issue of Bridges). Let’s turn to the second question about
importance of both teaching and research
for faculty and institutions. Building on
Hattie and Marsh’s (1996) conclusion that
traditional measures of research excellence
and teaching excellence are not correlated,
and that we need to find ways to meaningfully
bring teaching and research together, there
is a significant literature dedicated to the
importance and impact of an integrated
academic identity that merges both teaching
and research seamlessly. Hattie and Marsh
(2004) wrote a second article articulating
frustration that their original meta-analysis
had been misused to argue for the separation
of teaching and research. In confirming
www.usask.ca/gmcte
..the most successful early career academics often
have an integrated academic identity across all
aspects of their academic career... (2012)
.
their finding, they argued that the original
1996 study confirmed that some people
are successful at both teaching and
research, while others are only successful
at one or the other, and finally some aren’t
particularly successful at either teaching
or research. They did not intend, as
others subsequently concluded, that the
two are separate entities and should be
treated separately for funding or policy
purposes. Instead they argue that it is
better to consider how we might improve
the teaching-research nexus for individual
academics (as part of their academic
identity and in how they ‘practice’ as
academics) and institutions.
In essence, Hattie and Marsh were arguing for
higher education institutions to explore how
we might take full advantage of the teacher
scholar model – of academics as both teachers
and researchers. A significant part of Brew’s
(2006) book, which I referenced earlier, is on
this very topic – how one’s research might
more actively inform and influence one’s
teaching practice, and how one’s teaching
might in turn inform one’s research practice.
And there was also a seminal article by
Colbeck (1998) that shows academics with an
integrated identity (one where the individual
can articulate how teaching benefits
research and research benefits teaching in
an integrated manner) have difficulty seeing
how the two can be treated separately. On
the flip side, Colbeck’s work also shows that
for faculty who have a fragmented academic
identity, where teaching and research are
completely separate aspects of one’s work and
are competing with one another for time and
attention, it is often difficult to see how they
can be mutually beneficial. In a recent study by Kathryn Sutherland
(and colleagues) undertaken at all eight
universities in New Zealand (2009), as well
as at universities in Canada and Sweden,
the most successful early career academics
often have an integrated academic identity
across all aspects of their academic career
(teaching, research, service, leadership, etc.)
(2012).1 In her research, those academics
identified as being successful early in career
were often able to articulate where and
how teaching and research are mutually
supportive and beneficial.
the disciplines. For all faculty to have an
integrated academic identity, we must think
broadly about what it means to be a scholar,
an academic. This requires broad definitions
of scholarship and research that move us
beyond how they might traditionally have
been defined, in addition to the critically
important discovery research we expect in our
disciplines.
Based on an understanding of this literature,
in order for faculty to be successful
(particularly early in career), it is our
collective task wherever possible to help
all faculty develop an integrated academic
identity – an identity where they can see
the mutual benefits that come from the
research and teaching aspects of their
teacher-scholar roles. It goes beyond the
individual academic, however, in that we
also need to explore how the research
and teaching mandates of our institution
can be mutually beneficial for student
learning and for research. For example, the
University of Alberta, one of our U15 peers,
has made the connection between teaching
and research an explicit part of their
institutional academic plan by stating, quite
provocatively, that learning in a research
intensive university should be defined
as a qualitatively different experience
than learning in a non-research intensive
university (University of Alberta, 2007).
References:
Brew A. (2006). Research and Teaching: Beyond
the Divide. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Ernest Boyer (1990) started his seminal work,
Scholarship Reconsidered, where he introduced
his four notions of scholarship (discovery,
application, integration, and teaching and
learning), by arguing that it was time to get
beyond “the tired, old research vs. teaching
debate and define, in more creative ways,
what it means to be a scholar” (p. xii). He
goes on to argue, as do most (if not all) of
the authors above, for a broad definition of
research that goes beyond a closed notion
of only traditional discovery research in
4
Boyer E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered:
Priorities for the Professoriate. New York:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching.
Colbeck C. (1998). Merging in a Seamless
Blend: How Faculty Integrate Teaching and
Research. Journal of Higher Education,
Vol. 69, No. 6. Hattie J. & Marsh H. W. (1996). The Relationship
Between Research and Teaching: A MetaAnalysis. Review of Educational Research, 66:
507-542.
Hattie J. & Marsh H. W. (2004). One Journey to
Unravel the Relationship Between Research
and Teaching. Proceedings of the International
Symposium – Research and Teaching: Closing
the Divide. Held in April 2004 in Winchester,
UK. Accessed on Nov 19, 2012 from: http://
www.education.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/
education/shared/hattie/docs/relationshipbetween-research-and-teaching-(2004).pdf
Healey M. & Jenkins A. (2009). Developing
Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. York, UK:
The Higher Education Academy.
Hunter A. B., Laursen S. L., & Seymour
E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The
role of undergraduate research in
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
students’ cognitive, personal and
professional development. Science Education,
91(1), 36-74.
Community Outreach & Engagement Office
Jenkins A. (2004). A guide to the research
evidence on teaching-research relations. York,
UK: The Higher Education Academy.
Station 20 West
NOW OPEN
Jenkins A. and Healey M. (2005). Institutional
strategies for linking teaching and research.
York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.
Jenkins A., Healey M. & Zetter R. (2007). Linking
teaching and research in departments and
disciplines. York, UK: The Higher Education
Academy.
Kuh G. (2008). High-Impact Educational
Practices. Washington: Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
Sutherland K. & Peterson L. (2009). The Success
and Impact of Early Career Academics in Two
New Zealand Tertiary Institutions. Wellington,
NZ: Ako Aotearoa.
Turner N., Wuetherick B., & Healey M. (2008).
Student Perceptions, Experiences, and
Awareness of Research: The role of academic
development in implementing researchbased teaching and learning in higher
education. International Journal for Academic
Development, 13 (3), 199-211.
University of Alberta (2007). Dare to Deliver:
Academic Plan 2007-2011. Edmonton:
University of Alberta, Office of the Provost
and VP Academic.
Wuetherick B. & McLaughlin L. (2011).
Students’ Perceptions of the Learning
Environment: A Partnership to Enhance
Our Understanding of the Undergraduate
Experience. In Little S. (ed.). Staff-Student
Partnerships in Higher Education. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
Endnotes
1
Dr. Sutherland spoke at the U of S this
past November at both the Gwenna Moss
Centre for Teaching Effectiveness, as well
as at the Early Career Research Mentorship
Workshop hosted by both the Office of the
Vice-President Research and the Office of the
Provost and VP Academic. Links to the videos
of her talks are available on the
GMCTE website.
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
In October, the University of Saskatchewan’s
Community Outreach and Engagement Office
opened at Station 20 West. Situated alongside
a diverse group of organizations including
CHEP Good Food Inc., Quint Development
Corporation, the Good Food Junction Coop, the Mothers’ Centre, and the Saskatoon
Health Region’s Our Neighbourhood Health
Centre and KidsFirst Program, the COE
Office will focus on enhancing and building
community-university relationships through
community-engaged teaching and learning,
and community-based scholarship/research. At
the same time, the COE Office is aspiring to be a
doorway to the University for the communities
surrounding Station 20 West.
with community-identified interests
and organzations working in the core
neighbourhoods surrounding Station 20 West.
A small meeting room that accomodates eight
people with video conferencing capabilties
is also available, as well access to shared
meeting spaces at Station 20 West.
Workspace priority will be given to
applications for research programs that:
Please feel free to contact me if you would like
further information about the COE Office – I can
be reached at lisa.erickson@usask.ca or 966-1780.
Also, there are a few different ways that you can
connect with our office in the coming months:
•• identify the anticipated benefits of using
a workspace in the COE Office at Station 20
for faculty research, student learning and/
or teaching.
Workspace in the COE Office
at Station 20 West
There are four cubicles in the COE office
available to reserachers, graduate students
and staff engaged in community-based
scholarship/research and/or curricular
activities that meaningfully connect
5
•• demonstrate community involvement and
community partners
•• explain the community needs/interests
that the research/program addresses
•• identify the anticipated benefits for the
community
If you are a faculty member who is
interested in using one of the office
workspaces in the COE office at Station 20
West for a time as it relates to your research/
programs, or if you are supervising a
graduate student or staff member whose
work could benefit from being situated at
the site, please contact donald.bear@usask.ca
for an application form.
www.usask.ca/gmcte
Station 20 West
Continued
Take Your Class Off-Campus
Are you interested in holding a class
at Station 20 West or connecting with
community partners to strengthen a
course? Phaedra Hitchings, Community
Engaged Learning Specialist, is available
to assist faculty in building, sustaining,
and evaluating meaningful teaching and
research relationships and partnerships.
Please contact Phaedra at 966-7164 or
phaedra.hitchings@usask.ca for more
information.
Scholarship and Pedagogy
of Community Engagement
- Monthly Faculty Discussion Group
Starting in January 2013, the COE Office
at Station 20 West, will host a monthly
discussion group of faculty interested in
discussing the scholarship and pedagogy
of community engagement. If you would
like to receive information about the
date and time of the January meeting
and subsequent meetings, please email
donald.bear@usask.ca to be added to
the COE Office’s faculty distribution list.
Welcoming the Campus Community
Save the date! On January 18, join Provost
and Vice-President Academic, Brett Fairburn,
Vice-President University Advancement,
Heather Magotiaux, and Special Advisor
on Outreach and Engagement, Keith
Carlson, at Station 20 West to tour the
facility, connect with fellow communityminded faculty and staff, and learn about
the work of the COE Office at Station 20
West. More details and visit times will be
announced soon.
Community Engagement
Programming
Stay tuned for announcements regarding
new programming and funding
opportunities for community engagement.
Discovery
Integration
Application
Teaching
In exploring the scholarship of teaching and
learning and of curriculum development, I
return to the question of why I value being
part of a university community. My answer of
thoughtful discussion with deep engagement
in ideas, questions, and possibilities, hinges on
four assumptions:
January 2012 or see their website http://
www.iub.edu/~hlp/)
•• Dowling’s work at WCVM with mindfulness
within Veterinary medicine (e.g., see article
in May 2012 Bridges)
1) Scholarship is the fundamental quality of
all university activity.
•• Force Concept inventory Physics
(inventory by Halloun, Hake, Mosca, &
Hestenes; available at http://modeling.
la.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html)
2) Scholarship can be defined by standards
that mark meaningful and valuable
contributions to knowledge, student
learning, and society.
•• Mathematical conception of
sociomathematical norms applied to
Physical Chemistry (Becker, Rasmussen,
Sweeney, Wawro, Towns, & Cole, 2013)
3) Standards are most effective when clearly
articulated and encompassing as many
instantiations as possible.
4) Scholarship embodies and engages
multiple ways of knowing.
Scholarship and the work of faculty was
defined by Boyer (1990) broadly as “four
separate, yet overlapping, functions” (p. 16)
that are “the scholarship of discovery; the
scholarship of integration; the scholarship of
application; and the scholarship of teaching.”
Scholarship of teaching was later broadened
to Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(SoTL) in alignment with shifts from a focus on
teaching to a focus on learning (see Boshier
& Huang, 2008). In my own professional and
educational practice, SoTL is both an existing
body of scholarly content and a collection
of methods for pursuing new knowledge
through epistemologically diverse analyses
of teaching and learning across disciplines.
Research on teaching within and across
related disciplines includes:
•• The History Project (Middendorf, Pace,
Shopkow & Diaz, 2007 reprinted in Bridges
6
This disciplinary diversity is relatively new
as early SoTL often turned to observable,
positivist, and quantitative measures that
promised to avoid relying on anecdotes by
providing solid evidence. SoTL then began
spreading across departments, with journals
publishing SoTL in nearly every field (see lists
compiled by Illinois State University - http://
sotl.illinoisstate.edu/support/). However,
approaching knowledge of teaching and
learning from one single paradigm became
recognized as insufficient in the early 2000’s
as this approach ignored valuable information
gained through the contextually meaningful
inquiry of several disciplines (e.g., Healey, 2000
regarding geography). The ways of knowing
underpinning SoTL broadened, although
shared commonalties remained (see critique
by Young, 2010).
Currently, SoTL at the course level
encompasses a rich diversity of disciplinary
approaches to inquiry into teaching and
learning (see list complied by Buffalo State
http://www.buffalostate.edu/orgs/castl/
examples.html). Research on threshold
concepts, for example, revealed the
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
Scholarship of
Curriculum Development,
Innovation and Renovation
By Carolyn Hoessler, GMCTE
relevance of disciplines within SoTL work
to understanding how to improve student
learning (see Land, Meyer & Smith, 2008’s
book on Threshold Concepts within the
disciplines and as an example from Art History
(Loeffler & Wuetherick, 2012).
Up to now, scholarship in relation to teaching
has focused at this course level, although
existing definitions, examples, and standards
could be equally applied to curriculum
development, innovation, and renovation. For
example the framework of threshold concepts
can be applied to both course-level teaching
(Wuetherick, May 2012) and curriculum
innovation (Wuetherick, January 2012). The
existing richness can inform the teaching and
curriculum planning of individuals and units in
diverse disciplines and the work of disciplinetrained educational developers within
disciplinarily-neutral teaching centres. Our
disciplinary lenses shape how we approach
and analyze the world, including our teaching
and curriculum; often I can see my own
lenses of psychology and education research
reflected along with the lenses I have learned
about through SoTL research.
All disciplines in higher education offer
epistemologically and ontologically diverse
approaches to gaining knowledge about
the world including teaching and learning.
This diversity of disciplinary perspectives
is a strength and not a limitation. Despite
the myths that particular positivist models
are better for assessment, or that some
disciplinary scholarship cannot be equally
evaluated, all forms of scholarship can be
assessed on the basis of six qualitative
standards articulated by Glassick, Huber &
Maeroff (1997):
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
1. clear goals
2. adequate preparation
3. appropriate methods
4. significant results
5. effective presentation
6. reflective critique Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship
of teaching in higher education: A disciplinebased approach. Higher Education Research &
Development, 19 (2), 169 – 189. Available at:
http://www.fmhs.uaeu.ac.ae/ResearchGroups/
MERG/journal/scholardisciplines.pdf
Privileging one type of information, one set
of methods, or one paradigm of research
when promoting or engaging in curriculum
development, risks ignoring the lessons
previously learned about all other forms
of scholarship and risks repeating the
partial-story that initially silenced valuable
perspectives on teaching and learning within
the SoTL literature. Thus, to be meaningful,
curriculum development can be a scholarly
activity with clearly defined criteria that values
and encompass all ways of knowing and
draws on the rich diversity of discipline-based
inquiry available within our universities. Let
the thoughtful discussion continue.
Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (2008).
Threshold concepts within the disciplines.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Thank you to Wenona Partridge and others
for contributing a breadth of disciplinary
perspectives to this discussion.
Wuetherick, B. (January 2012). Threshold
concepts as a frame for curriculum innovation.
Bridges 10 (2), 5 - 7. Available at: http://www.
usask.ca/gmcte/bridges/archive
References:
Becker, N., Rasmussen, C., Sweeney, G.,
Wawro, M., Towns, M., & Cole, R. (2013).
Reasoning using particulate nature of matter:
An example of a sociochemical norm in a
university-level physical chemistry class.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice.
doi: 10.1039/C2RP20085F Advance article
available at http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/
articlelanding/2013/rp/c2rp20085f
Dowling, P.M. (2012). Mindful Veterinary
Practice. Bridges 10 (3), 3 - 5. Available at:
http://www.usask.ca/gmcte/bridges/archive
7
Loeffler E., & Wuetherick, B. (August 2012).
Exploring threshold concepts: An example of
a threshold concept in Art History. Bridges, 11
(1), 7 – 9. Available at: http://www.usask.ca/
gmcte/bridges/archive
Middendorf, J., Pace, D., Shopkow, L., & Diaz,
A. (2007). Making thinking explicit: Decoding
history teaching. The National Teaching and
Learning Forum, 16 (2), 1-4.
Wuetherick, B. (May 2012). Teaching threshold
concepts: Approaches to Overcoming student
uncertainty. Bridges 10 (3), 12-14. Available at:
http://www.usask.ca/gmcte/bridges/archive
Young, P. (2010). Generic or discipline–
specific? An exploration of the significance
of discipline–specific issues in researching
and developing teaching and learning in
higher education. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, 47 (1), 115-124.
Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
full/10.1080/14703290903525887
www.usask.ca/gmcte
How to Facilitate Successful
Teamwork &
Collaboration
By Monika Raesch, Suffolk University
Reprinted with permission from The National Teaching & Learning Forum
Volume 21, No. 6, 2012
Regardless of subject matter, college students also need to learn communication skills to successfully work with others. I believe that knowing how to
communicate one’s vision clearly, work harmoniously with others, and resolve
issues with one another successfully is essential in any profession or stage in life.
While I teach film theory and video production
classes – with the latter having an integral
group work component – creating a
meaningful collaborative environment early
on in class that strengthens throughout
the semester is nonetheless a challenge.
For this reason, I redesigned an upper-level
theory course (with applied components) to
emphasize teamwork with the aim of fostering
successful professional collaborations and a
respectful environment among students.
For the next 20 minutes, I sat quietly in the
circle with the students and took notes.
Needless to say, the group would have died
together (which, by the end of class, they
viewed as a bonding experience – a positive
outcome given that they could have blamed
one another), but the point had not been
to actually solve the problem, but to work
together. Next, students provided anonymous
feedback about how they had felt in the
group. Students should be open about their
experience, but only to the extent that they
Setting the Stage
would feel comfortable having it read aloud
by me. I collected their responses and shared
To emphasize the importance of these skills,
them (I did not know whom each response was
the first exercise (begun within 10 minutes
from). We discussed them as a group. Some
of the start of the first class in the semester)
students felt good, others felt their voice had
placed students into one large group (13
students were enrolled in the course). I placed not been heard, but also pointed out that they
were shy and chose not to participate. A good
them in a life-or-death scenario, asking them
sign was that students took responsibility for
to become stranded hikers who would die if
their actions; one of the leaders admitted that
they could not work together as a team. They
he was too dominant and realized at the end
were given 20 minutes to find a solution to
that he had lost valuable input from other
their dilemma (in real life, in the conditions
group members by not suggesting they share
in which they found themselves, their bodies
their thoughts. Last, I provided each student
would enter hypothermia in that time frame;
with feedback on their group performance in
thus, the time limit was realistic and students
front of everybody, pointing out something
could not view it as unfair). The goal was to
positive to suggest how each student is
see how the students interacted with one
essential to the group and has a specific
another to determine who would naturally
take a leadership position, who would become strength the group would benefit from. Also, I
a supporter, and so on.
pointed out the one weakness each that they
8
should work on to improve communications
skills within a team.
Building a Team
This initial exercise had sensitized all of us to
be alert to each other’s needs and ideas to
work together to fully succeed in a task. For
the remainder of the semester, students were
repeatedly assigned partners at random to
complete assignments. Over the following
weeks, students began to take their own
initiative in the following ways:
•• Students helped each other out inside and
outside of the classroom.
•• Students began to seek out one another
for specific skills to pair strengths and
weaknesses to succeed in assignments.
Of course, this transition did not occur
smoothly. Some group experiences occurred
in class, permitting me to step in when
needed. For instance, a student who naturally
tends to be a leader was “taking over” the
project from the assigned leader. I pulled her
out of the room and explained how important
it was that the other student direct the others.
While she meant well, doing the job for him
would not get him to overcome his fear of
delegating group members. The best way
she could be supportive was to become a
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
The class had made a mistake together and
acknowledged it, which in turn had a positive
impact on their teamwork.
“follower,” making him feel good whenever
he made a decision and delegated the tasks
to his team. Following my intervention, the
group worked more smoothly and efficiently.
The student who had hesitated to lead felt
accomplished and had more confidence in
his directing ability. Simultaneously, the other
student felt good about her contribution,
seeing a value in being a follower.
Making Decisions as a Team
By mid-semester, I asked the students for
feedback on the course as a whole, and
while the feedback was anonymous and
individual, many students suggested the
same change in one aspect of the class
structure. I explained to the students that
I would honor their decision and from the
next class onward I changed the order of
two activities. I had my doubts about its
success (given my knowledge of teaching
methodology) but had decided that I could
always override their decision if learning
would be impacted negatively. Learning
was impacted negatively, and students were
aware of it. They suggested switching the
order back while being able to articulate
why the new order was not successful,
signifying that they were conscious about
their learning environment and aware of the
impact one change in the classroom can have
on classroom productivity. They had become
critical students who were fully engaged
in their learning environment, not only at
content level but also at the structural level.
The class had made a mistake together and
acknowledged it, which in turn had had a
positive impact on their teamwork. As they
had made group decisions, they were now
also feeling “like a family,” as one student
wrote on the end-of-semester evaluation.
Another stated: “I’ve never felt this immersed
and involved in a classroom before!”
Based on my experience, several observations
offer Key Components in facilitating
successful teamwork and collaboration.
Key #1: Team skills need to be emphasized
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
from the beginning of the course to make
them an integral part that students are
conscious of.
Key #2: Upper class students in a major
know each other already, and most likely
the instructor has also taught many of
them before. This permits students to share
personal experiences more openly (such as
their experience in the first group exercise).
Key #3: Students should be provided with
some autonomy once academic rigor has
been established in the course. This permits
students to demonstrate their decisionmaking abilities as a team. This may be in
the form of mid-semester feedback. The
instructor will integrate student suggestions
into the class so that students can evaluate
whether their suggestions are successful.
This also assists in student engagement, as
students are actively shaping the course.
Key #4: Group exercises need to be frequent.
My class only met once a week, and I
incorporated at least one team task into
each class period and assigned one group
homework every week for the first few weeks
of the semester, which developed group
dynamics outside the class.
Key #5: Random teaming of students is
important, so that when two students who
do not choose to interact socially outside of
class are repeatedly placed in the same group,
they know it is coincidence and do not place
“blame” on the instructor. In turn, it will further
progress their professional collaboration skills.
I used note cards with student names on them
to randomly pair students.
The Outcome
The final course evaluation asked students to
state the best aspects of the course:
“The journey as a class we went on, to
better ourselves, [to] explore ourselves
. . .”
9
“Class atmosphere; we became a
family through this.”
“[The professor] not only educated
us as film students but pushed us
to excel in both professional and
personal aspects of our lives.”
When the class concluded on final exam day,
students did not leave the room. One student
explained: “We don’t know what to do . . . .
What are we supposed to do now?” Students
lingered and chatted; now, the students
experienced the breaking-up of a group after
the successful completion of a task. One
week later, I received an invitation to dinner:
students had planned a meal to “celebrate”
their individual accomplishments.
While our first inclination as instructors may
be that we do not have time to cover nonsubject-specific content, building a team will
benefit class engagement and the learning
environment, resulting in improved class work
as students feel responsible for one another.
Contact:
E-mail: mraesch@suffolk.edu
“Personal creativity is
stimulated by the ideas of
other people: this is why
creative companies are
constantly forming and
reforming creative teams.
Creative insights often come
from making connections
between different fields.
This is why the best creative
teams are cross-disciplinary.”
Sir Ken Robinson
www.usask.ca/gmcte
Cultural Diversity &
Inclusive Teaching:
Green Guide Review
By Leslie Martin, GMCTE
Two priorities of the University of
Saskatchewan’s Promise and Potential: The
Third Integrated Plan 2012 -2016 include
Aboriginal Engagement and Culture and
Community. This means that the university is
striving to increase Aboriginal engagement,
increase the visibility of Aboriginal culture
and to become inter-culturally engaged
through creating a welcoming environment:
in attitude, in support services and in
infrastructure (p.12). One way to achieve
increased engagement is to offer courses that
ensure the students feel comfortable and
welcomed. This partially may be achieved
through an understanding of cultural
diversity and through inclusive teaching. The STLHE Green Guide Cultural Diversity
and Inclusive Teaching by Guo and Jamal
(2007) is an excellent resource that includes
strategies to build inclusive teaching. Its
authors begin by mapping diversity in higher
education, defining cultural diversity as the
“distinctions in the lived experiences, and
the related perceptions of and reactions to
those experiences that serve to differentiate
collective populations from one another”
(Marshall, 2002, p. 7). Guo and Jamal explain
how culture is constantly changing, dynamic
and fluid and describe how culture and
education are inextricably intertwined. They
express how culture plays a part in shaping
the ways in which students learn and
communicate, how they relate to other
students and instructors, their motivation
levels and their sense of what is worth
learning (p.13).
Guo and Jamal (2007) emphasize in chapter
one that there is evidence that increased
diversity in higher education can benefit
students from all backgrounds. These include
an improvement in intergroup relations and
campus climate, increased opportunities
for accessing support and mentoring
systems, opportunities for acquiring
broader perspectives and viewpoints, and
participation in complex discussions, all of
which contribute to increased learning (p.14).
The authors stress that educators need to
view diversity as an opportunity and not to
view it as a deficit model or as something
that needs to be corrected.
Guo and Jamal discuss issues in dealing
with cultural diversity including identifying
varying perspectives on differences
and diversity, resistance to the focus on
cultural diversity and issues of knowledge
construction and validation. They use the
term “colour blind perspectives” that sees
cultural backgrounds as irrelevant and
assumes that treating all individuals the same
will erase issues of inequity and injustice
(Solomon & Levine-Rasky, 2003). As explained by Guo and Jamal this type
of perspective is harmful as it negates the
histories, backgrounds, and experiences
of diverse cultural groups and ignores the
way these have an effect on the learning
environment. The authors suggest that
educators must be colour sensitive to
affirm and validate differences and to gain
a fuller understanding of their students
(p.14). The authors remind educators that
the primary task of higher education is the
construction, generation and dissemination
of knowledge. However, they point out
that the dominant group determines what
constitutes valid knowledge resulting in
an Eurocentric curriculum. The authors
stress that responding to a culturally diverse
student population requires educators to
transform the curriculum to include multiple
ways of knowing (p. 15).
10
Chapter 2 describes three models that
may be used as starting points to explore
and understand the roles faculty can play
(p.16). The first is an intercultural education
model for the development of individual
diversity. Its emphasis is to respond to
cultural diversity in order to understand the
complex identities of individuals rather than
seeing them as members of a cultural group
with a fixed set of characteristics. Proposed
by Chavez, Guido-DiBrito & Malloy (2003), it
provides a holistic approach for cognitive,
affective, and behavioural transformation
and can be used to guide students,
staff, and faculty reflection on their own
development and to encourage and assist
in the development of others (p.18). The
second model presented in the guide is by
Banks’ model of multicultural education that
examines the implementation of change in
response to cultural diversity. The model
has five main elements:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
content integration
knowledge construction
prejudice reduction
an equity pedagogy and
an empowering learning culture.
The third model is an anti-racist
education model proposed by Dei, James,
Karumanchery, James-Wilson & Zine (2000)
that views education as a racially, culturally
and politically mediated experience. Antiracist educators argue that real change
can only occur when barriers to inclusive
education are challenged at all levels (p. 25).
The remaining chapters in the guide are
dedicated to understanding the dynamics
of the teaching and learning process in the
classroom and to provide strategies for more
culturally responsive teaching and learning
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
environments. Chapter 4 offers strategies on
culturally inclusive teaching that includes
(1) creating a positive classroom
environment
(2) diversifying curriculum content
(3) instructional strategies and activities
for learning
From Novice
to Mentor
(4) assessment strategies and
(5) the role of instructors. The purpose of the final chapter is to provide
strategies that are aimed at students whose
first language is not English. These strategies
fall into three categories:
(1) providing increased contextual
information and linguistic support
(2) providing specific learning and study
approaches and
(3) providing greater opportunities for
classroom interaction and participation. Overall the guide is a valuable resource
for those who strive to learn more about
inclusive classrooms, cultural diversity and
to learn strategies that increase student
effectiveness. The STHLE green guide series is
located in the GMCTE, 50 Murray Building.
References
Chavez, A. F., Guido-DiBrito, F. & Malloy,
S. L. (2003). Learning to value the “other”:
A framework of individual diversity
development. Journal of College Student
Development, 44(4), 453-469
Dei, G. J. S., James, I.M., Karumanchery, L. L.,
James-Wilson, S., & Zine, J. (2000). Removing
the margins: The challenges and possibilities of
inclusive teaching. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’
Press.
Marshall, P. (2002). Cultural Diversity in our
Schools. Belmont: Thomson Learning.
Solomon, R. P., & Levine-Rasky, C. (2003).
Teaching for equity and diversity:
Research to practice. Toronto: Canadian
Scholars’ Press.
University of Saskatchewan (2011) Promise
and Potential: The Third Integrated Plan 2012 to
2016. www.usask.ca/plan
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
For PhD candidate Amelia Horsburgh, the path to effortful
and reflective teaching began in her first term as an MA
student at Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland,
OH) in 2005. Graduate students were required to take a
pedagogy course for credit in the first term. In the second
term, graduate students acted as writing liaisons or writing co-instructors for an
undergraduate course that was not necessarily from their disciplines. Amelia assisted
with a history, science, and women and gender studies course over a two year period,
although she was studying World Literature.
When she arrived at the U of S, Amelia saw taking GSR 989 as a compliment to her
Case Western experience. She also saw the course as a great way to meet other
graduate students from different disciplines. She has been able to apply her training
working as a TA and sessional instructor for WGSt and this past year instructing
English 300 Sexualized Bodies in Canadian Women’s Short Stories. The path she started
in 2005 led her to continue exploring teaching pedagogy and eventually to being
awarded the 2012 Provost’s Outstanding Graduate Student Teacher Award. This year,
she is a co-teaching GSR 989 and 982 as a Graduate Service Fellow with the GMCTE.
Amelia is aware of the ways she progressed from a novice teacher to where she is
now. She strives to be “conscientious of power relationships in the classroom.” About
her classes, Amelia says that “It’s very student-centred most days. But, as a novice, I
wasn’t ready to give away that power.”
The student-centred approach to teaching and learning can be scary for a novice
teacher, which Amelia acknowledges, saying, “You don’t sleep great the night before
because it’s a little daunting.” The anxiety is worth it, however, and Amelia claims, “My
best classes are student driven and I facilitate and make sure we get where we need
to go. Most students thrive in this kind of environment.” She can now confidently tell
her students that “every single one of you can do well in this class and I’m here to
help you get there.”
Although Amelia thinks that, as a teacher, “you develop by trial and error,” taking
classes such as GSR 989 and 982, and the classes she took at Case Western, allowed
her to begin developing as a teacher with a toolkit in place: “The building blocks have
to be in place before new teachers go into a class.”
As an award winning graduate student teacher, Amelia is now contributing to the
development of other graduate student teachers by providing them the tools they
need to get started.
By Wenona Partridge, GMCTE
11
www.usask.ca/gmcte
Oh Please,
Not Another Self-Reflection!
By Jane Preston, UPEI
As an integral part of many adult educational
programs, instructors ask students to reflect
on past experiences, decipher accrued
learning, and articulate self-growth.
Depending on the overall purpose, this task
is branded with such names as a reflective
journal, reflective dairy, professional
growth guide, learning log, or self-reflective
assignment. Often self-introspection exploits
two reflective actions: the unveiling of
unconscious feelings, values, and perspectives
about a topic and the interrogation of
conscious ideas, beliefs, and actions pertaining
to a topic. Such types of personal and
professional reflection encourages students
to become aware of their present and past
cognitive thoughts and affective attributes in
order to better understand how one’s personal
outlook and actions influence a situation. In
line with these points, the purpose of this
article is to articulate some pros and cons
associated with self-reflection and to describe
a couple of examples of self-reflective
activities.
The value of self-reflection can be expressed
via a theoretical standpoint asserting that selfscrutiny is a standard, sound, and necessary
way of enhancing professional skills and
nurturing character perfection. John Dewey
(1933) (a leader in educational pedagogy)
believed teachers need to contemplate past
actions. In doing so, they are empowered
to plan and teach with foresight, rather than
being debilitated by traditional, mundane, or
impulsive instructional techniques. Dewey
believed that that reflection and learning are
directly proportional—the more reflection,
the more learning. This philosophical premise
is applicable to all personal and vocational
settings, not just the teaching profession. In
order to develop intellectually, socially, and
professionally, it is essential to have a firm
understanding of one’s personality traits
and habitual thoughts and actions. It is then
equally important to recognize how new
learning is positioned within one’s personal
and professional worldviews.
Yet, within a classroom setting, students
often perceive self-reflection practices and
assignments in a less than favorable light.
They tend to describe such tasks as: a waste
of time, redundant, boring, busy-work, or a
useless regurgitation of jargon taken from a
professional checklist or the course syllabus.
The legitimacy of mandated self-reflections
may become increasingly dubious when
such assignments are to be communicated
within a set number of words and expressed
through a set number of designated topics.
To accentuate legitimacy problems, how can
self-reflection be truly authentic when it is
commissioned by an instructor for evaluative
purposes? As Moon (2004) stated, a common
problem related to any self-reflective task is
that “reflection and learning are essentially
private and under the control of the learner”
(p. 23). Otherwise said, self-reflections cannot
be some obligatory assignment bestowed
upon a student; rather, it needs to be willingly
undertaken by the student and regarded as
an opportunity for betterment of self. So,
what can instructors do to make self-reflection
a potently-powerful and genuine learning
experience for students?
For the purpose of this short article, I provide
two ideas. The first is founded on the concept
of social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978). This
theory acknowledges a positive link between
social interaction and individual learning,
because learning and self-growth is an innately
social, collaborative activity. Applying this idea
to a classroom setting, quality self-reflection
begins when students cross-examine stringent
assumptions about personal values, beliefs,
and worldviews and critically assess whether
those fixed opinions are functional and true in
all contexts. This analytical process needs to be
12
a collective activity where students engage in
potentially intensive classroom discussions and
respectfully, but openly, articulate conflicting
feelings, contradictory thoughts, personal
successes, and past disappointments. Such
student-focused dialogue can invoke feelings
of disorientation and confusion as students
interrogate and assimilate novel and atypical
ideas. If such self-reflective discussions happen,
the classroom culture must be permeated with
peer support and respect; the spirit of the class
must embody positive relationships and nonjudgmental attitudes between and among the
instructor and all students.
The second idea for promoting high levels of
self-reflection is grounded upon the idea of
self-directed learning. Knowles (1975) (a leader
in adult learning theory) broadly defined selfdirected learning as a process where learners
have the sole responsibility for planning,
carrying out, and evaluating their own learning
experiences. Recently, I adopted as an aspect
of self-directed learning in the form of a final
assignment for one of my undergraduate
classes. For me, it meant stepping out from an
area of teaching comfort and into a studentfocused zone of unknown consequences. More
specifically, I asked the students to self-reflect
on their growth during the course and use
any mode of communication (e.g., movies,
books, paintings, crafts, music, poems, essays,
etc.) to articulate their major learnings. The
outcome of this open-ended self-reflective
assignment yielded a richness of learning,
personified through students who were truly
excited, engaged, and eager to display, discuss,
and present their learning to their peers.
Their student-directed self-reflection was,
what I believed to be, an authentic, genuine,
compelling representation of what they
believed to be pertinent themes pertaining to
their personal and professional growth.
As a side and closing thought, constructing
lessons plans, developing course syllabi,
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
attending conferences, and writing articles are
just some of the many, many opportunities
we, as instructors, have to engage in selfreflection. During such times, we need
to mull over our personal growth, talk to
friends and colleagues, and decide how we
can continually and effectively embed our
new learning into the courses we teach and
the lifestyle we live. In turn, if we take time
to reflect, we can more fittingly ask of our
student that which we ask of ourselves.
References
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement
of the relation of reflective thinking of the
educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Health.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A
guide for learners and teachers. New York, NY:
Association Press.
Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective
and experiential learning: Theory and practice.
London, UK: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
How to make your
Graduate Student
teaching experience
AWESOME!
The experience of being a graduate student teacher or teaching assistant can be
challenging for a variety of reasons. One of the challenges is a lack of prior experience
and the other is a lack of training, so the teaching can feel like a trial by fire. To solve
the second challenge, the U of S offers three courses to graduate students from any
discipline who want to learn how to teach, or how to improve their teaching.
GSR 982: Mentored Teaching is offered to PhD students who have been awarded a
Teacher Scholar Doctoral Fellowship. GSR 989: Philosophy and Practice of University
Teaching requires some prior teaching experience, and Instructional Skills for Graduate
Students can be taken with no prior experience.
Beyond helping a graduate student overcoming the challenges of teaching for the
first time, taking one of these courses can help develop connections and introduce
students with opportunities to gain more experience teaching.
For one student currently enrolled in GSR989, “learning to teach was more about doing
something instructional. It may even be useful for things like consulting, industry, teaching
lab mates or talking to anybody on an academic level. I’m looking at it in a very broad
application,” said Rajat Chakravarty, about why he decided to enroll in GSR 989 this term.
Rajat, a PhD candidate in mechanical engineering at the U of S, has been teaching
since his days as a Bachelor of Technology student at the Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay. Given his prior teaching experience, Rajat sees participating in GSR 989 as
about more than learning to teach better.
The class has given Rajat the opportunity to talk with “people who are not confused
about teaching specifically, but who want to engage with the broader concepts of the
class. It gives me a lot of perspective, not only for being a good teacher but also for
being a good researcher.”
Jane Preston is currently an assistant
professor in the Faculty of Education,
University of Prince Edward Island.
She completed her PhD in the College
of Education at the U of S, and has
contributed to Bridges in the past during
her time on campus. She enjoys teaching
undergraduate and graduate classes and
doing research that focuses on leadership,
rural education, Aboriginal issues, and
the demographics and environment
of Canadian universities. Jane was a
Kindergarten to Grade 12 classroom
teacher and a curriculum coordinator for
about 10 years. Please feel free to contact
her at jpreston@upei.ca or follow her on
Twitter: @jppreston1
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
The broader application of a multidisciplinary graduate class is “very holistic in that
way,” said Rajat, “also, learning how to teach helps you learn lots of other things. It
helps you have an academic conversation with other academics from other disciplines
because you can pick out the threshold concepts of that discipline and you can get the
main idea quicker.”
When asked how he plans to use the skills obtained from GSR 989 in the future, Rajat
said that “I definitely want to do something involved with some kind of research,
consulting about problems. If a faculty position comes with that, that would be great.
Good research is not sufficient for getting a faculty position, teaching skills will set
you apart.” Rajat recognizes that teaching is a skill he wants to hone because doing so
demonstrates “a commitment to be awesome outside of your research.”
By Wenona Partridge, GMCTE
13
www.usask.ca/gmcte
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY:
What supports
graduate students’
teaching?
By C. Hoessler (2012), GMCTE
Why?
Data Sources:
This mixed-method study encompassed five
data sources spanning a decade:
-National and institutional documents from
2002 - 2012
-Two pre-existing surveys of graduate
students: the student services survey and the
exit survey
-Interviews with 13 graduate students who
are indicated by GS1 to GS13
-Interviews with 8 supportive individuals who
were given pseudonyms (e.g., Patricia)
For decades there remains a pervasive
mythology that graduate students growth
as educators and their involvement in
professional development is the result of
individual motivation and programming
offerings. Earlier research on graduate
students’ teaching development typically
focused on formal institution-wide
workshops, certificates and programming
(e.g., Marincovich, Prostko, & Stout,
1998). The growing literature uncovered
surprisingly low levels of awareness and
participation (see respectively Golde & Dore,
2001; 2004 McGoldrick, Hoyt, & Colander,
2010). Recently, studies began examining
what happens after training sessions are
completed and discovered limited impact on
graduate students’ knowledge (Seung, Bryan,
& Haugan, 2012) and teaching practice (e.g.,
Buehler & Marcum, 2007).
At the same time, higher education
institutions were being conceptualized as
complex organizations (Bolman & Deal,
2008) understood through frameworks
such as complexity theory (e.g., McClellan,
2010; Reid & Marshall, 2009) and
communities of development (Blackmore,
2009). Academic development was similarly
perceived as occurring within individual,
institution, and sector levels (Fraser,
Gosling, and Sorcinelli, 2010), as well as
disciplinary cultures (Taylor, 2010).
This complexity intrigued me as I tried to
tease out the reality of graduate students’
support from the mythology. As a full-time
graduate student working in educational
development supporting graduate students’
teaching, I experienced both perspectives. I
Patterns of Support:
was one of the students chatting inthe hallway
and one of the team in meetings discussing
programming. The disparate views of informal
and formal supports, differences in awareness
of institutional and sector resources, and
the range of goals of people in both groups,
inspired me to look closer at what really
supports graduate students’ teaching. This
article is a short summary of the key findings
for individuals and committees involved in
supporting graduate students.
Study
In seeking to examine the broad question
of “What supports graduate students’
teaching?”, this study sought to identify
existing and recommended supports
for graduate students’ teaching and the
documented goals of such supports.
14
Through qualitative and quantitative
analysis, this research identified formal
and informal supports, including feedback,
across all segments of the university
including individuals, faculty, peers, courses,
departments, the institution, and the higher
education sector. Access and quality was
shaped by communication and collaboration
across and within these layers. Thus support
for graduate students was based on
interrelated sources of information, feedback,
and mentorship spanning all layers of their
academic and personal environment.
Key Findings
Each of the four main findings is described
below with evidence and related questions
for supportive individuals, educational
developers, and administrators.
1. Formal Supports Are Only
Part of the Mechanism
Evidence: In addition to formal supports,
such as journals, institution-wide workshops,
departmental training, and course TA
meetings, graduate students sought or
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
experienced informal support from peers,
family, fellow TAs in the same course,
faculty mentors, research supervisors, and
other supportive individuals. The most
common sources of informal support were
faculty members and peers, which were
mentioned by all 13 interviewed graduate
student; in comparison, formal course-level
support was mentioned by 12 of the 13.
“A lot of times it was fellow grad students
sitting around the grad lounge, informally
discussing: ‘I have 40 papers to mark within
a day. Do you have any suggestions?’
(interviewed graduate student GS5).
Questions for supportive individuals,
educational developers, and administrators:
•• What supports are currently described,
recommended, or celebrated in planning
documents?
•• What supports exist on campus if one
considers all forms of support?
•• To what extent do we value informal
sources of support? How is this valuing
reflected in planning?
2. No Form of Support
Operates Independently
Evidence: Just as no person or group acts in
isolation within a university (Bolman & Deal,
2008), every source of formal or informal
support was interdependent, with support
shaped by multiple layers inter-connected (or
disconnected) through communication and
collaboration. Graduate students’ feedback
and training was influenced by layers that
encouraged or hindered their awareness,
access, motivation, and engagement, such
as the relevancy of the focus and timing of
such training or feedback (student services
survey; interviewed faculty/staff Linda;
Mary). Graduate students motivated to
seek feedback felt stymied by policies and
the lack of an institution-wide process (or
encouragement) for TAs, relying mainly
on students’ willingness and instructors’
permission (student services survey;
interviewed graduate students GS7; GS8;
GS11; GS12).
Questions for supportive individuals,
educational developers, and administrators:
•• Who do we consider as providing support
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
for graduate students’ teaching?
•• Who else is providing support on our
campus? Does their support matter
when planning?
•• Where exist possibilities for collaboration?
How might they be nurtured?
••
3. Graduate Students and
Supportive Individuals Can
Feel Disconnected
Evidence: Despite access to such seminars,
courses, experienced graduate students,
mentors, training, websites, and more,
graduate students were unaware and
felt disconnected and isolated (student
services survey, Linda, interviewed
graduate student GS12), echoing prior
research (e.g., Barrington, 2001; Lovitts,
2004). Individual graduate students
struggled with self-doubt while pretending
that everything was okay, further isolating
them (interviewed faculty/staff Patricia).
Miscommunication occurred within the
layers of courses and departments as
graduate students were left unsure of
their responsibilities, confused about
the content and how to handle late
assignments, tentative about their place
as instructors within a department,
puzzled about expectations, and generally
uncertain as educators (Elizabeth; student
services survey, GS5, GS13, exit survey).
Online resources were not easy to navigate
or locate (interviewed graduate students)
or had broken links and inaccurate
names (document analysis). Supportive
individuals felt similarly disconnected
with limited discussion among colleagues
within the institution about graduate
student support and resulting limited
awareness of what was available, needed,
and could be jointly created (Patricia).
One-off events brought people together
briefly, but were infrequent (GS1) or did
not encourage conversations between
graduate students (GS11; student services
survey). Sustained conversations would
require more time and effort.
Questions for supportive individuals,
educational developers, and administrators:
•• Who is included in current discussions and
planning?
15
•• How are formal and informal supports
communicated?
•• To what extent is (or might) the widest
possible range of individuals included?
How?
4. Longitudinal Support is
Needed as Even Well Laid
Gears Need Regular Tuning
Evidence: One single session at the start
of graduate students’ two to six (plus) years
of studies is not enough. To improve their
teaching over the length of their studies,
graduate students needed training, feedback
and other support to be ongoing. For
example, end–of-term feedback alone left
graduate students unsure about their teaching
quality during the term when improvement
was possible if they knew what to change
(student services survey). Some graduate
students sought informal feedback from
their students throughout the term, stating
the benefit for those students (interviewed
graduate students GS6, GS11, GS12). Graduate
students desired and needed access to initial
feedback followed by an opportunity to
implement that feedback, including through
ongoing mentorship over a prolonged
relationship (GS7, interviewed faculty/staff
Linda). Benefits could include self-reflection,
awareness of teaching strategies, knowledge
of good teaching practices, and confidence
as highlighted by researchers (e.g., Bell,
Mladenovic, & Segara, 2010; Gaia, Corts, Tatum,
& Allen, 2003; Smith, 2001).
Questions for supportive individuals,
educational developers, and administrators:
•• What are the goals and purpose for
supporting graduate students’ teaching?
•• How is teaching development generally
viewed (e.g., longitudinal, valuable)?
•• When are supports made available,
communicated, and encouraged during
their studies?
•• What additional supports are needed
and when?
Once the goals are set, communicate this
vision widely as shifts in university culture
require more than a single written report
(see literature on universities as dynamic and
www.usask.ca/gmcte
learning organizations including: Blackmore,
2009; Bolman & Deal, 2008; McClellan,
2010; Reid & Marshall, 2009; and Trowler &
Bamber, 2005).
References
Barrington, E. (2001). Encouraging
professional training of graduate teaching
assistants. Journal of Graduate Teaching
Assistant Development, 8, 107-113.
Bell, A., Mladenovic, R., & Segara, R.
(2010). Supporting the reflective practice
of tutors: what do tutors reflect on?.
Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 57-70. doi:
10.1080/13562510903488139
Blackmore, P. (2009). Conceptions of
development in higher education
institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 34,
663-676. doi: 10.1080/03075070902785598
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing
organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(4th ed.). Mississauga, ON: Wiley.
Buehler, M., & Marcum, A. (2007). Looking
into the teaching crystal: graduate teaching
and the future of political science. Journal
of Political Science Education, 3, 21-38. doi:
10.1080/15512160601115372
Fraser, K., Gosling, D., & Sorcinelli, M. D.
(2010). Conceptualizing evolving models of
educational development. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 122, 49-58. doi:
10.1002/tl.397
Gaia, A., Corts, D., Tatum, H., & Allen, J.
(2003). The GTA mentoring program:
An interdisciplinary approach to
developing future faculty as teachersscholars. College Teaching, 51, 61-65. doi:
10.1080/87567550309596413
Golde, C., & Dore, T. (2001). At cross purposes:
What the experiences of doctoral students
reveal about doctoral education. Report
prepared for the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Retrieved from http://www.phd-survey.org/
report.htm
Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2004). The survey
of doctoral education and career preparation:
The importance of disciplinary contexts. In D.
H. Wulff, A. E. Austin, & Associates (Eds.), Paths
to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the
preparation of future faculty (pp. 19-45). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lovitts, B. E. (2004). Research on the structure
and process of graduate education. In D. H.
Wulff, A. E. Austin, & Associates (Eds.), Paths
to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the
preparation of future faculty (pp. 115-136). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marincovich, M., Prostko, J., & Stout, F. (Eds.).
(1998). The professional development of
graduate teaching assistants. Boston, MA:
Anker.
McClellan, J. (2010). Leadership and
complexity: Implications for practice within
the advisement leadership bodies at colleges
and universities. Complicity: An International
Journal of Complexity and Education, 7, 32-51.
McGoldrick, K., Hoyt, G., & Colander, D. (2010).
The professional development of graduate
students for teaching activities: The Students.
Journal of Economic Education, 41, 194-201.
doi: 10.1080/00220481003613862
Reid, A., & Marshall, S. (2009). Institutional
development for the enhancement of
research and research training. International
Journal for Academic Development, 14, 145157. doi: 10.1080/13601440902970031
Seung, E., Bryan, L. A., & Haugan, M. P. (2012).
Examining physics graduate teaching
assistants’ pedagogical content knowledge
for teaching a new physics curriculum.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, Online
First, 9 April 2012. doi: 10.1007/s10972012-9279-y Retrieved from http://www.
springerlink.com/content/1046-560x/
preprint/
Smith, K. S. (2001). Pivotal events in graduate
teacher preparation for a faculty career.
The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant
Development, 8(3), Stillwater, OK: New Forums
Press
Taylor, K. L. (2010). Understanding the
disciplines within the context of educational
development. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 122, 59-67. doi: 10.1002/tl.398
Trowler, P., & Bamber, R. (2005). Compulsory
higher education teacher training: Joined16
up policies, institutional architectures and
enhancement cultures. International Journal
for Academic Development, 10, 79-93. doi:
10.1080/13601440500281708
To cite this document:
Hoessler, C. (2012). What supports graduate
students’ teaching?: An Executive Summary.
Bridges. Vol. 11 No. 2
The full dissertation, Hoessler, C. (2012). “A
Contextual View of Support for Graduate
Students Scholarly Teaching,” is available
at: https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/
handle/1974/7539 (Articles forthcoming)
THE GWENNA MOSS CENTRE
FOR TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
Bridges
Announcement
As of April 2013 we are
planning on reducing the
number of Bridges that we
make available as print copies. This decision has been
made in order to cut back
on the amount of paper
used by the GMCTE.
The PDF versions of
past, current and future
Bridges will be available
on our website. For those
people who would prefer
a print copy we will still
have some print copies
available by subscription
only. Information on how
to subsribe will be made
available in the new year.
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
“We Are All Treaty People”
An Online Module for Faculty and Staff
Professional Development
Dates, Format & Time Frame
for Completion
To register for the online module please
go to the GMCTE website (http://www.
usask.ca/gmcte/services/indigenous_
education/treaties )and choose the
face to face session date that fits your
schedule. Approximately three weeks
before the face to face session your nsid
will be used to allow you access to the
module through Blackboard
Winter 2013 session dates are:
February 4, March 26, April 29.
An estimated time for completion of
entire module is 3-5 hours. If you have
any questions please feel free to contact
the GMCTE at 966-2231.
This learning opportunity is supported
by the Office of the Provost, Vice-Provost
Teaching & Learning and The Gwenna
Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness.
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
We all come to treaty education from different
places. Some of us may have a very sound understanding
of treaties in Saskatchewan. Perhaps we come from a
family or have had a teacher who valued learning about
treaties. But most of us have had little education about
treaties. Most educational institutions in Saskatchewan
did not place a great deal of value on treaty education,
until more recently. And many of us do not come from
Saskatchewan, or even from Canada. Is it any wonder
then, why so few of us don’t understand that even
today, treaties are living agreements that make us all
treaty people? Regardless of our past, today we have an
opportunity to compensate for what we do not know,
and this educational experience seeks to provide that
opportunity.
There are two parts to the module. First the self-directed
online module which consists of: videos, self assessment
quiz, rich textual summary including links to resources
and ends with an opportunity for written self-reflection.
The final piece of the module is the face-to-face session
hosted by a trained facilitator who will help participants
with issues and questions that have arisen during their
journey through the online module. These face-to-face
meetings make this treaty education meaningful and
lasting, providing human connection along with the selfdirected learning.
Having employees who are knowledgeable about
Aboriginal issues will make the U of S better able to
serve Aboriginal students and will lead us to be better
advocates for the value of Aboriginal education.
17
www.usask.ca/gmcte
tural patchwork
Anti-racist education and
the problem with multiculturalism
By Tyler McCreary – Sep 1,
2009 – Society
The myth of the
multicultural
patchwork:
Anti-racist education
and the problem with
multiculturalism
Multiculturalism – the idea that the existence
of multiple cultures within Canada should
be accepted and encouraged –has been
official state policy since 1971. Celebration
of the diversity of our northern cultural
kaleidoscope has become a mark of national
pride. But while the myth of multiculturalism
encourages us to imagine Canada as an antiracist state, it has done little to actually end
the racial inequities that permeate Canadian
learning. Why?
While in theory multicultural education
promotes inclusion by recognizing student
diversity and creating an environment where
all can feel comfortable and accepted, the
reality is that multiculturalism has failed
to deliver. Black and Aboriginal people in
Canada continue to rank lower than average
in terms of educational attainment. In 2006,
50 per cent of First Nations people aged 25
to 64 living on reserve and 30 per cent living
off reserve had not completed high school,
more than double the 15 per cent of adults in
the general population with less than a high
school education. A curriculum grounded
in multiculturalism is not only incapable of
addressing these disparities, it actually helps
to perpetuate them by encouraging us to
make tokenistic gestures to diversity rather
than addressing inequality.
Proponents of multicultural education
would certainly suggest otherwise, arguing
that celebrating diversity serves to include
students from diverse backgrounds in
education. In research I conducted on racism
against Aboriginal students in prairie schools,
an inner-city educator told me, “if [their]
culture is being . . . honoured and recognized
and accepted in their school, then maybe
they’d be more likely to stay.” Unfortunately
it’s not so simple. Multiculturalism fails to
address the systems of racial power that
created and maintain inequalities, and thus
will never be sufficient to overcome these
inequalities.
While multiculturalism encourages us to
imagine our society as a mosaic of different
but equal pieces, the material organization
of our society still privileges white people
with disproportionate political, social and
economic power. Multicultural education
aims to promote sensitivity to cultural
differences and interchange between people
perceived as different. In their efforts to
recognize diversity, schools have amended
their calendars, adding Black History and
Asian Heritage Month. But adorning the
walls with displays of ethnic art and bringing
cultural performers into school assemblies
do nothing to help teachers and students
interrogate systems of racial power.
Inserting ethnic heroes and holidays into
a Eurocentric curriculum fails to disrupt
the normative whiteness of Canadian
settler society. In an essay entitled
“Aboriginal People and Stories of Canadian
History,” York University professor Susan
Dion points out, “Teachers and students
interested in appreciating difference are
not required to confront the significance
of colonization.” Multicultural education
seeks to celebrate difference rather than
18
By Tyler McCreary,
York University
Reprinted with permission
from Briarpatch Magazine
September 1, 2009
recognizing the colonial and economic
relations that marginalize racialized peoples.
Multiculturalism fails to endow learners with
the critical tools necessary to construct a
truly transformative education.
Instead, multiculturalism promotes what
some have characterized as a tourist gaze
or culinary approach to understanding and
valuing difference. Diversity is recognized to
the extent that it can be commodified and
consumed. As cultural theorist bell hooks
argues, this fetish for “eating the Other”
allows people to enact fantasies about the
primitive “in a manner that reinscribes and
maintains the status quo.” In multicultural
education, language and customs, food
and costume become the objects of
learning. Culinary multiculturalism offers
the opportunity to expand the breadth of
the Canadian cultural palate: however, like a
tourist resort, exposure to the exotic world
of the ethnic Other serves primarily to enrich
the lives of privileged (white) consumers
without disrupting the hierarchies of race.
In emphasizing the importance of traditional
stories, song and dance, schools have
become arbiters of the boundaries of
authentic and permissible minority culture
without an understanding of the impact
of colonialism. Another inner-city teacher
I spoke with described how, while she
perceived Aboriginal culture “in a positive
light, like, with the language and the
traditions and the stories and the songs,”
many of the Aboriginal students at her
school were “living in a culture . . . where
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
Rather than trying to “add and stir”
diversity into the classroom, anti-racist
education seeks to radically shift the
balance by bringing students and
teachers to a critical consciousness
of how the legacy of colonialism has
shaped school and society.
school completion is not a priority and it
doesn’t have any importance in the home
or really in the community.” This blames
the Aboriginal peoples for the impact of
colonialism. Aboriginal cultural values
weren’t lost through misguided parenting,
they were stolen by the genocidal policies of
the Canadian state.
Instead of multiculturalism and superficial
“tolerance” of difference, we need to talk
about racism and anti-racism. Fundamentally,
this means talking about power: who has it,
how it is exercised and how it is perpetuated.
While most of us recognize racism as a form
of individual prejudice, racism also operates
through a much broader set of social
processes and institutional practices, often so
normalized that they are invisible, at least to
those of us who benefit from them.
School is not a racially neutral site; we need to
unravel the power of whiteness and how it is
reproduced in the classroom. Educators need
to understand racialized student issues within
the complexity of colonial histories, and to
not just assume that problems originate in
the home or in the cultural deficiencies of
the student’s community. Rather than gazing
upon ethnic Others with the eyes of a tourist,
we need to see whiteness critically from
the perspective of those it has exploited,
dispossessed and excluded.
Anti-racism focuses on the structures,
ideologies and institutionalized practices
that produce privilege and disadvantage.
Rather than trying to “add and stir” diversity
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2
into the classroom, anti-racist education
seeks to radically shift the balance by
bringing students and teachers to a
critical consciousness of how the legacy of
colonialism has shaped school and society.
White privilege, the ongoing violence of
colonialism and the myths of meritocracy
– these are topics our curricula can and
should address. A grounding in these
topics would serve Aboriginal students
and students of colour far better than the
abstract respect of their “difference,” and
would help white students recognize they
have a role in anti-racism as well. Antiracist education aims not simply to dispel
prejudice but to transform students into
actors for social change.
Instead of reinforcing mythologized
cultural differences, anti-racist education
focuses on the fundamental injustices of
how these differences came to be vested
in hierarchies of social, economic, and
political power. Only when whiteness is
visible, and contested, rather than assumed
as the unspoken norm, can we begin to
collectively work to revision our world as a
place where we all belong as equals.
Thank you to Sheelah McLean, Verna St. Denis
and Evelyn Peters for their contributions to
the research of this article.
Tyler McCreary is a graduate student in
geography at York university. He currently
resides in northern B.C. on unceded
Wet’suwet’ en territory.
19
Teaching Awards
By Corinne Fashuber, GMCTE
At this past fall Convocation, Lorin Elias, a
faculty member in the College of Arts and
Science, Department of Psychology, was
the presented with the Master Teacher
Award. Congratulations Lorin! Deadlines
for nominations for the Master Teacher
Award are mid-February and mid-August
each year.
The Provost’s College Awards for Outstanding Teaching as well as the Provost’s
Awards for Excellence in Aboriginal Education, International Teaching, Innovation
in Learning, Outstanding New Teacher, Outstanding Graduate Student Teacher Award,
and the Provost’s Award for Graduate-Level
Teaching, are administered by the Gwenna
Moss Centre. The deadline for these
awards is mid-February. For more information on these, or any awards managed by
the Gwenna Moss Centre, please consult
our website www.usask.ca/gmcte/awards
The Sylvia Wallace Sessional Lecturer Award
nomination deadline has now been moved
to mid-February.
The deadline for nominations for the Provost’s Prize for Innovative Practice in Teaching and Learning and the Provost’s Project
Grant for Innovative Practice in Teaching
and Learning are August 31 each year.
All of these award winners will be recognized at the Celebration of Teaching event,
which is held in September each year.
Faculty members are encouraged to attend
and celebrate the achievements of their
colleagues. Details of this event can be
found on our website http://www.usask.ca/
gmcte/events
Other national awards of particular interest,
but not directly sponsored by the University of Saskatchewan, are the 3M Fellowship
Award, and the Alan Blizzard Collaborative
Projects Award. Particulars regarding these
two awards can be found on the STLHE
website http://www.stlhe.ca/awards
For more information contact
Corinne Fasthuber, Assistant, GMCTE
corinne.fasthuber@usask.ca, 966-2231
www.usask.ca/gmcte
Fall 2012
Master Teacher
As my teaching experience and effectiveness
increases, I find myself in the ironic position
of finding it more and more difficult
to express my teaching philosophy. As
academics, we instruct in a variety of
qualitatively different forums. Within the
Department of Psychology at the University
of Saskatchewan, we offer undergraduates
lecture-based courses, laboratory courses,
senior seminar courses, and hands-on
research courses, such as the honours thesis.
Similarly, the instruction of graduate students
also varies considerably. Most courses are
taught in a seminar format, some courses are
lecture-based, but much of the instruction
is based on a one-to-one, apprentice-type
model, and it takes place outside of the
classroom. Personally, I do not employ a
teaching philosophy that generalizes to all
of these situations. Instead, I have a very
different approach to instruction in these
different forums. Therefore, these approaches
are discussed separately below. However,
there are four common goals that I strive to
meet across all of these teaching forums.
Goals across all
teaching forums
(1) An instructor should LOVE the material
being taught, and this love should be
infectious.
I mostly teach neuroscience. Many (if not
most) of the students in my classes are not
particularly interested in neuroscience when
they meet me. Instead, my students tend to
be interested in a B.A. in Psychology (usually
with a clinical focus), and my courses are a
speedbump along the way. This presents
me with two major challenges: First, I must
convince them that although my course
might look intimidating at first, they can
and will succeed if they apply themselves.
Second, I must try to get them engaged in
the material, finding it relevant to their lives
and their understanding of the behaviour of
Lorin Elias
Teaching Philosophy
Department of Psychology, U of S
others. I honestly believe that neuroscience
is the most fascinating and exciting field of
study today. By the time a student leaves
one of my classes, they might no share this
view, but at the very least they will have
witnessed the joy that neuroscience brings
to me. Sometimes this joy is infectious, and
sometimes it even reroutes the career paths
of my students. Sharing this joy and interest
takes a lot of energy, and sometimes even
costs me some dignity, but it is worth it. We
should all love the material we are teaching.
We made this our life’s work after all!
from different angles, but observing a 3D
animated figure rotating in space can be
an effective means of communicating their
structure and function. Video can also be a
very effective and time-efficient teaching
tool. For example, when lecturing on
common motor disorders, interjecting very
short (i.e. less than 5 minutes) video clips of
people with various disorders (such as Tardive
Dyskinesia or Parkinson’s disease) provides
the student with a rich visual image of the
symptoms of these disorders, rather than
simply a list of words that describe them.
(2) Technology should be applied to make
teaching materials more engaging and
clear, but it should not be employed as a
gimmick or in a manner that provides a
more expensive duplication of conventional
teaching methods.
(3) The university professor should be active
as both an educator and a student.
I have always employed cutting-edge
technology in the classroom as well as in
my laboratory. I was using PowerPoint and
posting my lecture notes on the internet in
the 1990’s, and since then I have authored
on-line courses for my students here at
the U of S, as well as taking on multimedia
projects for publishers. I just spent my
summer ‘vacation’ rebuilding our on-line
introductory psychology course making all
the material accessible from tablets & mobile
phones in addition to desktop computers.
The conventional ‘lecture’ format is becoming
increasingly outdated in our classrooms, and
we must adopt hybrid models of education
that integrate technology (instead of merely
adding it as a ‘supplement’) if we want to
continue to attract and retain students.
As an instructor of neuroscience, these
technologies are particularly crucial. For
example, when teaching neuroanatomy,
examining static images does not provide
the average student with a clear image of
the morphology of various complicated
structures. Some structures (such as the
lateral ventricles) look radically different
20
Psychology is a relatively young science.
Teaching introductory (or even second-orthird-year) courses in some other disciplines
might be possible with only minor alterations
to course materials across the years. Not so
in psychology – our discipline is changing
all of the time. Therefore, as instructors, it is
imperative that we strive to keep abreast with
the current literature and integrate these
recent developments into our courses.
Summary
Across all teaching forums, I strive to
communicate my genuine fascination for the
material being presented, utilize technology
to make teaching materials more accessible,
engaging and clear, organize courses
clearly and to personally be active as both
an educator and a student. In classroom
situations, I strive to engage the students,
help them develop research skills, and learn
to critically evaluate research. I laboratory
situations, I try to foster the development
of independent research skills, providing as
much direction as necessary, but not to a
point of sacrificing the independence of a
student’s research.
Dr. Elias’ full teaching philosophy
is available on our webiste.
Bridges, Vol. 11, No. 2