Reflecting the Scholarship of
Teaching & Learning
at the University of Saskatchewan
Bridges
April 2011
Volume 9, No. 3
Improving teaching takes more than talk.
THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION.
By Jim Greer, Director, ULC
O
ur students deserve the
best quality learning
experience we are able
to provide. While there are
many constraints that inhibit the
provision of the most ideal learning
experience, resource constraints
and competing demands, there
is still much that can be done to
improve the learning experience.
There is a growing body of evidence
that some educational practices
and approaches, some learning
technologies, some teaching
methods, and some organizational
tactics can improve the learning
experience without excessive cost.
Simply put, there are better ways
to teach than most of us currently
employ.
So, as busy faculty members – perhaps
even too busy to read this editorial
rant, the natural reaction is “show
me this path to better learning and
teaching, but be quick about it.”
I have spoken before about
efficiency in teaching and learning
– students want to learn efficiently
and universities want this too.
Good learning, like good food, often
takes some time to prepare and
should be savoured. Fast learning,
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
like fast food, might compromise on
quality and may even lead to other
unhealthy ends. But efficient teaching
and learning, like efficient preparation
of a nutritious and delicious meal, is a
learned skill that pays off manyfold for
students and faculty alike.
efficiency for your students and
yourself are worth the investment.
Institutionally and globally we are
challenged to be more accountable
for our teaching, to be efficient and
effective at the same time, and to
educate more people – well.
So where is this silver bullet, this simple
answer, this nugget of wisdom that
will simplify a career-long struggle by
a faculty member to magically teach
better. Okay, so there is not one
silver bullet. There are many bullets
– and the ones you need depend on
your discipline, the intended learning
outcomes, the kinds of students you
are teaching, and several other things.
What I am trying to say is that there
are evidence-based teaching practices
out there that have been proven to
improve the ways you teach, and
they all don’t presume added costs
like more time in your day, smaller
classes, smarter students, and so on.
Finding the practices that work may
require some search through the
scholarship of teaching and learning
(SoTL) literature. Learning the way to
implement such practices might involve
some small amount of personal study
or participation in a workshop, as well
as the courage to try new things. And
many faculty will claim that payoffs in
Action items… In the next few
months, plan to:
1
1. Attend a workshop sponsored
by the Gwenna Moss Centre.
2. Spend a Friday lunch hour with
a group of faculty who are
reading and discussing great
papers on teaching.
3. Check out the journals on
teaching in your discipline, or
take a look at the titles in the
Gwenna Moss Centre teaching
library.
4. Attend a conference about
teaching. The Society for
Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education (STLHE 2011) is at
the University of Saskatchewan
June 15-18th.
5. And please, browse through the
articles in this issue of Bridges.
www.usask.ca/gmcte
April 2011
Vol. 9 No. 3
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 the
teaching centres in Canada, and
some beyond. It is also available on
our web site. Your contributions
to Bridges will reach a wide local,
national, and international audience.
Please consider submitting an
article or opinion piece to Bridges.
Contact any one of the following
people; we’d be delighted to hear
from you:
Jim Greer
Director, ULC and GMCTE
Phone (306)966-2234
jim.greer@usask.ca
Brad Wuetherick
Program Director
Phone (306)966-1804
brad.wuetherick@usask.ca
Christine Anderson Obach
Managing Editor (Bridges)
Program Manager
Phone (306) 966-1950
christine.anderson@usask.ca
Corinne Fasthuber
Assistant
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
Keep the best and scrap the rest!
Marcel D’Eon, Director, ES&D, College of Medicine
U
sually when you hear such a
statement, a crusty old—or
young, jaded—prof is talking
about students in a professional
school. I don’t agree, but I am not
thinking about that situation. Rather
I am thinking about what I consider
to be one of the most pernicious and
insidious challenges in higher education
at this time: too much content!
When I first stumbled upon medical
education and began my dissertation
on faculty development, I encountered
several reports dating back almost
100 years lamenting the prevalence
of rote memorization at the expense
of real thinking. And as I started my
career, designing and then facilitating
innumerable workshops about
teaching and learning, I noticed a
similar complaint from instructors.
Though they would love to try some
new and promising approaches to
teaching they just had too much
content to cover in the miniscule
amount of time they were allocated.
At some point in this journey, and as
I was turning this over in my mind, I
ran across a short reflection by Craig
Nelson, a biologist, in The National
Teaching and Learning Forum, 2001.
This is what he writes. (If you would
like the entire article I have his
permission to pass it on.)
... the greatest paradox in learning
to teach better. I regard the
content I choose to teach as mostly
quite fascinating, very exciting and
fundamentally important. And
it seems to me that this sense
of fascination, excitement and
importance is the core of much
of what students respond to most
2
positively in my teaching. But they
are also the core of the biggest
problem I have had to struggle with
in my teaching-the tendency to try
to teach much more than can be
learned and, thereby, to also lose the
students so deeply among the details
that they fail to grasp the larger
picture.
I noticed, too, that though students
did well on tests, they were not using
the information. They could not apply
it. They were not really thinking with
it. I also read a great deal about deep
as opposed to shallow and strategic
learning. I found out that content
overload promotes shallow learning,
rote memorization, rapid knowledge
loss, and lack of higher order thinking.
It also seemed to me that by spending
time on learning content that was
quickly forgotten, poorly used, and
rarely seen again, we were losing the
opportunity to teach and learn other
important material.
I decided I needed to find out more
about how content decisions are
made. I learned quickly that only a
few people had attempted and then
published rigorous studies of content
determination. My own research
builds and expands upon these earlier
studies. Every last one of them
implicitly or explicitly acknowledged
the importance of relevance. No one,
in fact, ever argued that irrelevant
material ought to be included in
courses and lectures.
But it is not so simple since there
are various forms of relevance. Here
is a brief summary to which you can
undoubtedly add more:
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
out, it is not so easy. And many of us,
sincerely, with the best of intentions,
may actually believe that some content
with little or no vocational relevance
has great academic or other form of
relevance and needs to be included.
The devil is not just in the details, but
the details are the devil! Hence: Keep
the best and chuck the rest!
To learn about my very cool
research in determining professional
relevance, please plan to attend the
Fall workshop I will be doing for the
Gwenna Moss Centre. Check the
website for details in August.
Vicarious relevance: This is what Craig
Nelson is talking about: material that is
fascinating and intrinsically motivating
– for us! It is a part of our research
program or area of scholarship or
consulting practice, and it is very
interesting – for us. So, we teach it
in great detail to our students though
it may not meet their needs.
Examination relevance: This is my
favourite in a perverse sort of way.
It often sounds like this: “You need
to learn this because it is on the
exam!” As long as this is accompanied
by other more defensible forms of
relevance, it won’t hurt, but quite often
we professors use this to manipulate
students to attend to content for
which we cannot think of any other
sensible reason for learning!
Academic relevance: You cannot learn
to multiply until you can count by
twos, threes, and fours, etc. Students
cannot progress in the discipline until
they have mastered to some extent
the essential skills and background
knowledge. So, sometimes practicing
scales and doing drills really do
contribute to important further
learning even though concert pianists
don’t ever just show off how good
they are at scales and exercises!
Vocational (professional) relevance:
Sometimes this is called “authentic
relevance,” includes knowledge, skill
and attitude related in important ways
to the performance of real, challenging,
and meaningful tasks. This means that
in history students get to do in some
simplified way what historians do, or
they get to use history in ways that
informed and intelligent people might
use history in public discourses. It
means in medicine that students begin
to confront the kinds of situations,
problems, and cases that real doctors
face, early and often.
“I believe our only hope
for the future is to
adopt a new conception
of human ecology, one
in which we start to
reconstitute our concept
of the richness in
human capacity.”
— Sir Ken Robinson
Personal relevance: If someone in
the class has a relative or friend living
with multiple myeloma, then a detailed
lecture that explored all aspects of the
disease, including, of course, treatment
and prognosis, would have a great
deal of personal relevance – for that
one individual. As instructors, we can’t Most people agree that vocational
depend on this to motivate and engage relevance is the target. Few argue
the entire class.
that irrelevant content needs to be
taught, but as Craig Nelson points
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
3
www.usask.ca/gmcte
The
Conundrum
of Online
Discussions
By Jaymie Koroluk, GMCTE
and Rick Schwier, College of
Education
D
o you conduct online
discussions in any of your
classes using discussion
boards, and wonder whether it is
possible to build a vibrant group—
one that is deeply engaged with
the content and displays the kind
of intensity you have seen in your
“regular” classrooms? No, this isn’t
an infomercial for a new product. We
are not selling an idea. In fact, if you
consider online learning technologies
to be an ersatz version of “real”
teaching and learning, and would
never conceive of conducting online
discussions, much less allow students
to use laptops and social networking
tools during your classes, then you will
want to skip over this piece and read
something else in this issue of Bridges.
But if our opening question resonated
with you, we would like to share a
couple of things we have learned from
our research in the Virtual Learning
Communities Research Laboratory.
our ongoing research program has
resulted in a model of virtual learning
community (VLC) catalysts, elements
and emphases that seems to capture
some significant features of strong
communities in formal learning
environments (VLC Research Lab,
2011).
It has been a long journey. We started
by examining distance learning
classes, and we learned a great deal
about how students and instructors
work with each other in traditional
distance education classrooms to
build successful online learning
environments. We have since turned
our attention to other types of
learning. Formal classrooms are not
the only venue for learning, and many
learners choose to participate in
non-formal or informal environments
to meet their needs. They blog,
they tweet, they use Facebook,
Flickr, and Foursquare, and they join
social networks. We suggest, even in
classes that have been meticulously
planned, that learners go outside the
boundaries of the class and build
their own personal learning networks.
Understanding how learners go about
building personal learning networks
to address their own needs can teach
us a great deal about how we can go
about building classes that are more
effective.
First, a few definitions of the three
contexts we studied: formal, nonformal, and informal online learning
environments – and these definitions
have been around for a long time.
Formal learning refers to educational
contexts typically characterized by
registered students in classes being
This is not meant to be a formal
taught by teachers who deliver
research paper; rather, it is a discussion comprehensive multi-year curricula,
of a small slice of our findings and
which is institutionally bound to a
impressions. Our research team
graduated system of certification
has been trying to understand what
(Coombs, 1985). Selman, Cooke,
makes online learning communities
Selman and Dampier (1998) identify
emerge, grow, and die away, and
non-formal learning as that which
4
“comprises all other organized,
systematic educational activity which is
carried out in society, whether offered
by educational institutions or any
other agency. It is aimed at facilitating
selected types of learning on the
part of particular sub-groups of the
population” (p. 26). When you think of
non-formal learning, it may be helpful
to visualize professional development
or continuing education classes.
In stark contrast to formal or nonformal learning environments, informal
environments are often characterized
as unorganized (not disorganized),
unsystematic (not a-systematic),
and regularly serendipitous (Selman
et al., 1998). Informal learning can
embrace the entire lifelong process
of learning, but for the purpose of
this brief discussion, we will focus
on learning environments that allow
users to structure and control their
learning, whether or not that learning
is intentional or incidental.
As we shifted our gaze from formal
to informal environments, we were
potentially getting to the “meat”
of the research: the beginnings
of a comparative analysis of the
characteristics of formal, nonformal and informal online learning
environments. Here, we will look at
one point of comparison: an analysis of
participation patterns among students.
We asked the simple question, “Do
learners in these three environments
interact with each other similarly?”.
The simple answer was an emphatic
“no.”
When we compared overall
participation patterns in formal, nonformal and informal settings over
time, we noted some interesting
differences. In formal environments,
where participation was required,
participation was initially high, and
grew over time as participants moved
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
beyond assigned postings and added
their own contributions voluntarily. We
speculated that the formal interactions
among students over time spawned
a deeper interest in each other and
collateral topics. As familiarity and
trust in the group grew, so did the
conversation.
In the non-formal environments
we observed, participants were
encouraged but not required to
participate. In these cases, initial
participation rates were not quite as
high as in formal environments, as a
few participants chose not to post to
the discussion board. In addition, we
repeatedly observed that participation
fell off steeply and quickly as the
course progressed. By the end of the
course, there was little activity on
discussion topics.
In the informal environment, where
participation was entirely voluntary,
a completely different pattern
emerged, one that can be described as
effervescent. Participation rose and
fell over time, apparently according
to the amount of interest generated
on a particular topic. Some topics
drew audiences; others remained
relatively quiet. But as a result, it was
apparent that participation patterns
were mediated by the personal
interest of participants in topics,
rather than by fiat (as in the formal
learning environment) or by duty (as
in the non-formal environment). A
review of the topics that drew higher
rates of participation revealed that
they might have been provocative,
humorous, profound, or personal, but
in every case they invited conversation.
So in the case of informal learning
environments, participation seemed to
be less about nurturing the group (out
of a sense of obligation borne from the
requirement to participate), and more
about nourishing the group—offering
the audience something that drew
them into a conversation. And the
audience judged what was worthwhile
and what was not. (Figure 1)
In every learning environment we
observed, there were bursts of
engagement in online discussions
where participation was high and
deeply engaged. This caused our
research team to coin the label
“principle of intensity” to describe
what we thought was at the heart
of the spikes of participation we
observed. We speculated that intensity
might be motivated by a number of
catalysts in learning environments:
social advocacy, joyful learning,
emotional connections to ideas, and
even associations with someone who
is important or provocative. But in
online learning, content also seemed
to be an essential ingredient for
intensity that was present, regardless
of the catalyst. In other words, the
interactions were about something
significant that was shared by the
group, a feature that has been labeled
“object-centered sociality” elsewhere
(Engeström, 2005). When individual
learning is about something meaningful
to members of the group, interest can
ignite.
Figure 1. Conceptual
comparison of engagement patterns in learning
environments over time.
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
5
www.usask.ca/gmcte
In order to take a closer look at
the interaction patterns, we drew
on Fahy, Crawford and Ally’s (2001)
Transcript Analysis Tools for measures
of intensity, density and reciprocity.
We analysed transcripts of online
conversations in a formal, nonformal, and informal setting that were
selected according to several criteria
(number of participants, number of
conversations, duration).
Intensity is a measure of the depth
and persistence of interaction. In the
case of the formal group, the measure
of intensity was considerably larger
than in the non-formal group. In fact,
the non-formal group
fell well below minimal
expectations. The
informal group, on the
other hand, repeatedly
demonstrated high
intensity on several
discussion threads, and
almost no intensity on
some, which caused some
difficulty in comparing
the three groups, but
suggested an interesting
pattern of participation.
A measure of density is
a ratio of the number
of actual connections to the number
of potential connections among
participants. Density asks whether
all possible connections among
participants are being made; in other
words, does everyone in the network
connect with everyone else? We found
that a greater number of people in the
formal environment connected with
fellow participants than in the nonformal environment, but this was at
least partly an artifact of the measure
of intensity. Fewer people were
engaged in the first place, so fewer
connected with each other. While
not surprising, it is another indication
that the community bonds in the
non-formal group were weaker than
in the formal group. Once again, the
informal group was curious. Because
the membership of the group shifted
from topic to topic, it was difficult
to track density in the same way. But
we did find that density was lower in
informal environments. In discussion
threads in the informal environment,
there was clustering around the
person who began the conversation,
but few connections among individuals
responding. Conversations were bidirectional, not multi-directional.
Reciprocity among participants is
a measure of the ratio between
the number of messages received
by individuals to the number sent.
In other words, did people realize
balanced conversations in the group?
In this case, we found that the mean
reciprocity of participants in formal
and non-formal environments was high
and similar. However, the apparent
similarities of the two groups masked
considerable differences. We found
that the standard deviation for the
formal group was low, suggesting
that reciprocity did not vary across
individuals in the formal group as much
as it did for individuals in the nonformal group. Once again, the informal
group demonstrated a considerable
amount of variance, with very low
reciprocity for the group, but this
6
was expected, given the voluntary,
occasional and casual nature of
interaction in this environment.Yet as
an anecdotal observation, we noticed
people were considerate of each other
in the group; when somebody posted a
comment, the person who posted the
original topic was often attentive and
responsive.
The participation data from these
examples suggests that they were
dramatically different learning contexts,
and while it is not reasonable to
generalize from them, it is interesting
to speculate about the differences. Our
observations suggest that “learning
community” was not a
useful framework for
understanding interactions
in the non-formal and
informal environments.
Learners did not interact
with each other in ways
that suggested deep
connection among the
participants. We found
few of the markers of
elements of community
that were extrapolated
from earlier research
on formal learning
communities. There
were few opportunities
to observe engagement that was
sufficiently persistent for anything we
might label as community to emerge.
Ultimately, we now wonder if
community is a failed metaphor for
describing the shape of activity that
occurs when learners hold sway over
their own learning. They sample, make
temporary alliances, and generally
improvise ways to build learning
structures for themselves. It is all
very exciting, but also bewildering
to us as educators. What we are
learning challenges the centrality of the
educator/instructor in the teaching/
learning process, and it also challenges
the very notion that learning can be
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
regularized, predicted, measured, and
contained by institutions of higher
learning. When we rethink learning,
and acknowledge the central role
played by individual learners, it causes
us to also rethink the institutional
structures we have built to “deliver”
instruction.
We believe it is time for research in
higher education to make a serious
and sustained effort to understand
informal learning in technologybased environments—to find out
how learning happens in online social
environments and where it does not.
This leads to an important question
for educators: how can we leverage
the effective characteristics of informal
environments to create vibrant, active
learning communities of our own?
References
Coombs, P.H. (1985). The World Crisis in
Education: A View from the Eighties. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Engeström, J. (2005, April 13). Why
some social network services work
and others don’t — Or: the case for
object-centered sociality [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://www.
zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/whysome-social-network-services-workand-others-dont-or-the-case-forobject-centered-sociality.html
Selman, G., M. Cooke, M. Selman and
P. Dampier. (1998). Adult Education in
Canada (2nd ed.). Toronto: Thompson
Educational Publishing.
Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Ally, M.
(2001). Patterns of interaction in
a computer conference transcript.
International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 2(1). Available:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
article/view/36/73
Acknowledgements:
Schwier, R.A. (2010, July). Comparing
learning communities in formal,
non-formal and informal learning
environments: Cattle drives, watering
holes, and murders of crows. AECT
2010 Summer Research Symposium,
Bloomington, Indiana.
VLC Research Lab (2011). Virtual
Learning Communities Laboratory
Website, University of Saskatchewan.
http://www.vlcresearch.ca
The authors thank the members of the
VLC Research Lab who contributed to
the results and ideas presented here,
including Dr. Dirk Morrison, Dr. Ben
Daniel, Heather Ross, Greg Soden,
Craig Wall, Xing Xu, and Kirk Kezema.
The material reported here was
adapted from an upcoming chapter
in J. Huett & L. Moller (2011). The
next generation of education. New York:
Springer.
This research is supported by a
grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of
Canada.
Teaching Award News
T
he Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness takes great pleasure in congratulating this year’s winner of the Sylvia
Wallace Sessional Lecturer Award, Christtine Fondse, from the Department of Curriculum Studies in the College of
Education. She is a most deserving recipient. The Sylvia Wallace award is presented yearly to recognize the hard work
and dedication to teaching that our sessional instructors put forth at this university. Deadline for nominations for this award is
mid-November.
Congratulations to Michael Kennedy, a sessional in the Department of English, in the College of Arts and Science for winning the
Learning Communities Teaching Award. Michael is also a past recipient of the Sylvia Wallace Sessional Lecturer Teaching Award,
having won this in 2005. The deadline for submissions for the Learning Communities Award is end of November. For more
information on this award, go to http://www.usask.ca/ulc/lcaward
August 31, 2011 is the deadline for the Provost’s Prize for Innovative Practice in Teaching and Learning, for the Provost’s Project
Grant for Innovative Practice in Teaching and Learning, and for the call for proposals for the Teaching and Learning Scholars
Grant. The Centre offers these awards and grants for excellent teaching practices, in cooperation with the Provost’s Office.
The deadline for the Master Teacher Award was mid-February. An announcement for the spring recipient will be made just prior
to Convocation this May. The deadline for nominations for the Fall recipient is August 1, 2011.
Our website at www.usask.ca/gmcte gives full details of awards offered through the
Centre.
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
7
www.usask.ca/gmcte
BOOK REVIEWS
The Heart of Higher Education: A Call to Renewal
Parker J. Palmer and Arthur Zajonc with Megan
Scribner
I
n their newest book, author,
teacher, and social activist Parker
J. Palmer, and physicist, professor,
and contemplative education expert,
Arthur Zajonc, propose an integrative
approach to higher education that
engages students and teachers in
developing personal values, selfunderstanding, and discovering
purpose and meaning in their lives.
The book describes a philosophical
framework examining the challenges
and prospects of an integrative
education, and provides practical
models for fostering renewal in
colleges and universities through
collegiality and conversation.
The heart was once widely believed
to be the seat of the human mind,
however, it is perhaps most widely
known for its association with human
emotion. It could be this dual nature
that makes the human heart the
perfect metaphor for exploring the
aims of higher education. Building
upon Palmer`s earlier work that
describes the disconnected and
increasingly fragmented world that
so often pervades the culture of
higher education, The Heart of Higher
Education takes its readers on a
journey to find renewed meaning
and purpose by building connections
between the heart, spirit, and mind,
sciences, humanities, and contemplative
traditions, subjectivity and objectivity,
compassion and community.
Rather than provide a specific
definition, universal curriculum, or
set of pedagogical techniques, Palmer
and Zajonc embrace a broad vision
of integrative education, leading
readers down a path of self-discovery
to uncover what lies at the heart of
higher education for them. Several
themes are interwoven throughout
the book: 1) an acknowledgement that
learning is a complicated and personal
journey that involves exploration
of the whole human being: heart,
mind, and soul, 2) a contemplative
approach that fosters questions of
meaning, purpose, and values, and 3)
a humanitarian approach rooted in
compassion, community and altruistic
action. The central question at the
heart of the book is:
How can higher education
become a more multidimensional enterprise, one that
draws on the full range of
human capacities for knowing,
teaching, and learning: that
bridges the gaps between the
disciplines; that forges stronger
links between knowing the
world and living creatively in it, in
solitude and community? (p.2)
The book provides many practical
examples and methods that explore
integrative education, including
interdisciplinary courses, service
learning projects, integration of
8
curricular and extracurricular
activities, and others. However,
perhaps what is most valuable is the
advice it gives for moving from the
divided to undivided academic life and
embracing the “infinitely rich array of
sensorial, emotional, and intellectual
experiences” that constitute the inner
and outer “human experience” (p.61).
Instead of breaking things into parts,
and disciplines into specialities, Palmer
and Zajonc describe pedagogies of
experience and interconnection that
welcome whole students into our
classes, bring the heartfelt questions
of our disciplines to the forefront,
lead to deeper understanding, foster
interdisciplinarity and imagination,
enrich epistemology, and awaken
compassion. The authors describe the
positive role that transformation can
play in higher education and the need
for true integrative education to make
use of the cognitive, affective, moral,
and spiritual development of students:
“We need, therefore, to become
more attentive to our students’
intellectual, emotional, and character
development and learn to see them
as richly endowed, malleable beings
open to cognitive and affective changes
through pedagogical intervention
and social formation. We should
attend to the cultivation of students’
humanity at least as much as we
instruct them in the content of our
fields. In this way higher education,
both in the classroom and beyond,
can balance its informative task with
transformation, which is of equal or
greater importance. Long after they
forget the content they learned, who
they have become will endure and
determine much of the character and
quality of their contribution to society
and the personal satisfaction they take
in life,“ (p.102)
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
Perhaps even more notable than
this call for transformative action in
higher education is the potential that
this book possesses for promoting
collegiality and conversation. A
conversation that began as a dialogue
between Palmer and Zajonc is
now a potential polylogic agent
of change – a call for readers to
examine their thoughts, visions, and
hopes about the true purpose- and
heart- of higher education. Palmer
and Zajonc expressly state that this
book “is meant to be the start of a
conversation,” and is therefore in this
reader’s most humble opinion a rich
and accessible resource for all who
want to be inspired by integrative
education, and who want to connect,
find, and create with others strategies
and models for integrative learning on
their own campuses.
by Kim West, GMCTE
Killing Thinking:
The Death of the
Universities by Mary
Evans and Stephen D.
Brookfield’s Developing
Critical Thinkers:
Challenging Adults to
Explore Alternative
Ways of Thinking and
Acting
K
illing Thinking:The Death of the
Universities by Mary Evans
examines how a paradigmatic
shift within the university—brought
about by historical forces to
“open up” the university in terms
of inclusive access and increased
democratization—has not come into
fruition. Rather, according to Evans,
what has occurred are institutions
driven by the language, values and
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
rules of the market economy and rigid
bureaucratization. Evans asserts that
the effects of this shift have permeated
the fabric of the university and the
subsequent consequences have been
detrimental for faculty and students
alike. For faculty members, teaching
has become subject to constant
assessment and surveillance while
the new enthusiasm for publication
in the university less resembles an
imagery of the Renaissance of the
British academy than that of a factory
farm. Departments are pitted against
each other in fierce competition to
meet prescriptive and bureaucratic
standards in order to receive funding.
Students, while bearing the increasingly
demanding costs of university
education, now see their university
experience as one which involves
collecting hand-outs, regurgitating of
information and fulfilling the need for
constant, quantifiable performance
assessment. While written as a
response to experiencing shifts in
British universities in the late 20th/
early 21st Century, the themes
highlighted by Evans will find affinity
amongst many who have experienced
the same phenomenon occurring in
universities around the world.
Ultimately, Killing Thinking challenges
readers to consider what the
university and higher education is
and what it should be. The question
proposed is of importance here as
Evans advocates that the essence of
university education should be placed
on the ability to recognize, compare
and evaluate the relationship between
ideas with a subject matter and its
related literature—in other words,
to think critically.
the concept of creative thinking to
the everyday experiences of adults.
The impetus for Brookfield here is
to demystify the notion of critical
thinking and articulating both its
components and significance in a
manner that’s accessible to audiences
that may not have received previous
exposure and training in the past.
As Brookfield argues, “the literature
on critical thinking is frequently so
apparently specialized, or semantically
impenetrable, that is so easy to
conclude that the activity is of such a
higher order of cognitive complexity
as to beyond the reach of most
‘ordinary’ people.” (pp. 228)
Brookfield links how personal,
interpersonal and public situations
experienced in everyday life are
often infused with elements of, or
opportunities for, critical thinking.
What becomes important then is
determining how to assist those
in recognizing and learning how to
integrate critical thinking in these
everyday life situations. For instance,
Brookfield suggests that whenever
workers are encouraged to re-design
some aspect of their workplace,
or when workers offer individual
suggestions of alternative ways of
organizing an aspect of their work,
regardless of whether the nature of
the job, the process of critical thinking
be apparent.
Interestingly, while Brookfield writes
of those who are inexperienced in
the application of critical thinking, his
intended audience is a reader who
already has an existing understanding
of critical thinking themselves and
takes a much more provider-oriented
approach to the book. Developing
Critical Thinkers acts as more of as
a starting point for practitioners in
professions that may require fostering
the development of critical thinking
for their clients, such as psychologists,
social workers, counselors, educators
and consultants.
Stephen D. Brookfield’s Developing
Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to
Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking
and Acting reinforces the primacy
for critical thinking, and tackles a
separate topic in exposing and applying For these practitioners, Developing
9
www.usask.ca/gmcte
First Year
Learning
Communities:
Advancing
the Value of
Authentic
Learning
Critical Thinkers introduces some
pedagogical techniques and exercises
for facilitating the development of
critical thinking. In assisting participants
to examine their assumptions,
exercises can range from “critical
incident exercises” where the
facilitator first asks participants to
describe a significant event followed by
an analysis of why they felt the event
was significant, to “crisis-decisions
simulations” where participants
are asked to imagine themselves
in a situation whereby they are
forced to make a decision amongst
difficult choices. As Brookfield aims
to address a diverse audience, there
was a tendency for the description of
exercises and techniques to jump into
different contexts, from the classroom
to workplace scenarios to clientbased training. In turn, readers are
encouraged to alter these techniques
and exercises to fit within their
specific context.
us that even when living in an era
of informational wealth, there is
still a need for the development of
a fundamental cognitive skill that
forces us to understand, analyze and
reflect on issues ranging from as
macro as globalization to as micro
as one’s relationship with a parent,
especially as the tendency to depend
on simplistic explanations to complex
realities continues to be so alluring.
On the other hand, Evans’s Killing
Thinking:The Death of the Universities
passionately raises her concern for
the diminution of focusing on critical
thinking within the university and what
the implications are for the essence of
higher education.
by Erin DeLathouwer
Learning Communities Coordinator
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing
University Learning Centre
Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to
Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and
Acting. San Francisco, California: John
The Learning Communities (LC)
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
program at the U of S has begun
to gain a reputation for connecting
Evans, M. (2004). Killing Thinking:The
first-year students to one another
On the other hand, Developing Critical
Death of the Universities.
in what can often be a scary first
Thinkers only provides the readers with London, England: Continuum.
term of university. Indeed, we’ve
brief descriptions, and explanation
begun to see that LCs at the U of
of the goals and possible outcomes
by Stan Yu, GMCTE
S do have a positive effect on the
of these techniques and exercises
student experience. How and what
rather than providing a step-by-step
we’re measuring, though, has raised
manual for readers. Consequently,
some new questions and offered new
readers will likely be required to
insights into the dynamic possibilities
“We need a coat with two
delve deeper into the mentioned
of this program. Our research has
pockets.
exercises and techniques before the
given us reason to believe that the
In one pocket there is dust,
book can be implemented in actual
goals we set out to reach, and the
and in the other pocket
practice. Moreover, although this book
values that underscore our mixed
there is gold.
does revisit the fundamental ideas of
methods approach to assessment, have
critical thinking which can serve as an
We need a coat with two
the potential to not only re-shape
excellent refresher for those readers
pockets to remind us who
the student experience, but also to
that are well-versed in the skill, it
more broadly impact the University
we are.”
is ultimately intended at explicating
community.
the notion critical thinking at a more
Parker J. Palmer
novice level and may contribute very
We often think that the goal of
little to more challenging questions
student programs, like the Learning
regarding critical thinking.
Communities initiative, is to recruit
In short, both authors agree that
and retain students. Indeed, these
the development of critical thinking
“r” words seem to pervade the
continues to be of utmost significance.
administrative language that often
On the one hand Brookfield’s
punctures our own disciplinary dialects
Developing Critical Thinkers reminds
in the contact zones of academia. But
10
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
what does it say about our attitudes
toward students when we use language
which seems to commodify them
(that is, treats them as mere means to
an end)? The Learning Communities
program is focused on students
enjoying their learning experience
at the U of S, but the values of this
program are undermined by setting
anything other than authentic learning
as our ultimate and unifying goal, i.e.,
our mission. Thus, we have spent some
time thinking about the necessary
set of core values that characterize
‘authentic learning.’ Perhaps ironically,
neither retention nor recruitment
made the cut. The following, however,
we suggest, make a start:
“curiosity: that is my role model,
with the Leibnizian imperative,
namely discipline.” For those who
do identify strongly with a discipline,
what could a Liebnizian imperative
look like in a world where individual
accomplishments and discoveries are
more often than not overshadowed by
those of research teams (i.e., learning
communities)? Too often the curiosity
that drives our learning seems to be
at odds with a competitive funding
model, and our individual disciplinary
expertise too narrow to address broad
global issues through both research
and teaching.
1. Multidisciplinarity
Multidisciplinarity – applying one’s
discipline in different directions –
advances the common language that
academics speak, and which university
students learn. It requires: Critical
Thinking – understanding a problem
or issue from multiple perspectives, and
bearing in mind that knowledge is never
gained through any single perspective
alone, and Humility – the ability to
recognize the limits of our knowledge,
to continue to ask questions, and to
be open to contrary evidence. As such,
we’ve suggested that both critical
thinking and humility are included
among the necessary conditions for
authentic learning. But how can we
nourish these values from within our
silos of specialization? How can we
be motivated to work together in a
competitive environment?
Multidisciplinarity is one of the values
we believe is necessary for learning
at any stage of life. The problem,
however, is that for those who don’t
yet identify with a discipline, on the
one hand, and those who identify very
strongly with their discipline, on the
other, multidisciplinarity may seem out
of step. However, in a paper entitled
“The Complacent Disciplinarian,”
Ian Hacking [1] makes clear that we
could think more broadly about what
we mean by the term ‘discipline.’
Hacking suggests that he does not do
interdisciplinary work, despite having
made contributions to numerous
fields of inquiry. He suggests, rather,
that he applies his discipline (which
happens to be analytic philosophy)
in many directions (with Leibniz as
his exemplary). But for students who
don’t yet identify with one of the
agreed upon disciplines, how could
such an approach apply?
Perhaps it has more to do with the
sort of discipline that means to
work hard and to struggle through
problems seeking the expertise and
determination to create solutions
along the way. Hacking writes,
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
2. Critical Thinking and Humility
3. Mentorship
Mentorship is another key value
that we’ve identified as necessary
for authentic learning. The Learning
Communities program thrives, in
large part, because of peer mentorship
between PALs and first-year students.
So, a natural starting place to consider
what counts as mentorship within
the context of LCs is with students
11
who are, more or less, equals. On
the face of it, though, mentorship
might seem to be a more starkly
asymmetrical relationship between
teacher and student. Interestingly,
however, the myriad ways in which
the term is now used, the prevalence
of social constructivism in a wide
range of disciplinary contexts, and
the pragmatic task of the university
to engage a larger student body in
authentic learning, seems to beg for
a more symmetrical definition of
mentorship.
Certainly no two individuals share
the exact same set (or even subset)
of knowledge or experience. Indeed,
at the level of the individual, we
each have something to learn and
something to teach. At the socioeducational level, students offer a fuzzy
image of the hope we might have for
our future, teachers offer techniques
and questions to help sharpen that
image, but both teachers and learners
– mentors and mentees – guide the
discussion in an implicitly agreed upon
direction. It’s that reciprocal guidance
that seems contrary to mentorship
understood as entirely constitutive
of teaching. It’s that reciprocal
guidance that seems rather to embed
mentorship – the mutual exchange
of maximum benefit – within in the
concept of teaching.
We aim to personalize the
relationships that make up Learning
Communities and challenge their limits.
We do this by holding the concept
of mentorship in mind in every
interaction and every relationship
we build – among and between firstyear students, Peer Assisted Learning
(PAL) peer mentors, alumni, staff,
professors, and community partners
alike. But one-to-one mentorship may
seem practically impossible given the
necessary task of educating a higher
proportion of the population on a
shoestring budget. How, at the social
www.usask.ca/gmcte
level, can we meet the need?
4. Collaboration
Collaboration – reciprocal learning
aimed at reaching consensus or
achieving a common goal – is another
LC core value that we contend is
necessary for authentic learning.
We believe that insofar as learning
is a social process contextualized
by the communities we create, the
goals we set for ourselves must not
only be widely agreed upon, but we,
collectively, must also see them as
attainable. The pessimist might say that
the solutions to the global problems
we face are unattainable, but that, we
submit, is rather unproductive. Neither
climate change, nor poverty, nor
pandemics, nor genetic modification,
nor artificial intelligence, nor
democratization, can be addressed
very successfully by a lone Leibniz.
These problems are the product of a
higher population density, and as such
require socially constructed solutions.
The macrocosm of mentorship is
collaboration, and it is incumbent upon
us to advance this way of learning,
teaching, and researching for the sake
of the greater good. Furthermore,
our Vygotskian Zones of Proximal
Development [2] are stretched to the
same breadth our communities reach,
and the global community is becoming
less mythical every day.
5. Democratic Learning
But what is at stake when we abandon
the merits of the individual for the
sake of the greater good? No doubt
anyone who has tried a group project
in his or her class has heard the cry of
the bright individual whose grades will
no doubt suffer, and whose chances of
scholarship will no doubt come under
threat unless he or she autocratically
rules the assignment (which defeats
the purpose entirely). What balance
must be struck between collaboration
and self-directed learning? We suggest
that without some social constraint,
Democratic Learning – the
motivation and freedom to seek new
knowledge that is personally meaningful,
to that end alone – isn’t possible. That
which is personally meaningful, and
that which is pragmatically motivated
(e.g., social capital) must at some point
converge. But this sort of convergence
is only possible through a broad sense
of community. That is, the freedom and
motivation to learn is constrained by
one’s sense of belonging to a larger
community, because what counts as
knowledge is constrained by wide
consensus.
6. Advancing the Social Good
committed to understanding learning
as socially constrained from beyond
the traditional boundaries of our
more or less culturally homogeneous
communities (whether departmental,
institutional, civic, provincial or
national; whether disciplinary or
professional), our U of S community
illustrates a uniquely authentic learning
community.
References
1. Hacking, Ian [2008], The Complacent
Disciplinarian, published at http://www.
interdisciplines.org/, available at https://
apps.lis.illinois.edu/wiki/download/
attachments/2656520/Hacking.
complacent.pdf.
Indeed, in keeping with the spirit of
2.Vygotsky, Lev [1978] Mind in Society:
our values, defining the core of the
The Development of Higher Psychological
LC initiative is itself a collaborative
Processes, Harvard University Press.
endeavor. The coherence of our
University as a community relies on
the dynamic nature of all of the above,
Join us at the
and suggestions, criticisms, additions,
and subtractions are welcomed from
2011 Spring Teaching Week
the reader. For example, one of two
Workshops include
additions that came from Winona
Wheeler, Department Head of Native
May 2, 4 & 6 - 10am to 12pm
Studies, The Social Good, we submit,
Enhancing your Vocal Delivery and
can be collaboratively defined. Our
Communication
initial attempt reads as follows: a
commitment to a future where short term,
May 2, 4 & 6 , 2:00 - 4:00 pm
local behavior and long term, global values
At Risk: Making Space for Learning
converge.*
Tuesday May 3, 2011, 9:30 - 4:00 pm
Authentic learning must extend
Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Inbeyond the first-year students we aim
novative Instructional Practices
to educate. PAL Peer Mentors; Alumni
Namesake Mentors (for whom each
LC is named after); our LC Professors;
Thursday May 5, 2011, 10:00 am and our staff team that spans three
12:00 pm
Colleges, the University Learning
Graduate Supervision: Effective
Centre, Gwenna Moss Centre for
Strategies for Mentoring Graduate
Teaching Effectiveness, and Student
Students. Gradaute Student Panel in
Enrollment and Services Division; all
the afternoon.
help to cultivate authentic learning,
and more often than not that means
REGISTER AT
we see ourselves as life-long learners.
www.usask.ca/gmcte
Furthermore, insofar as we are all
12
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
Emotion, Conflict, and Culture
in the Classroom: Part Two of Two
By Tereigh Ewert-Bauer, GMCTE
I
n the last issue, I wrote about the following passage in Barbara Vacarr’s “Moving Beyond Polite Correctness: Practicing
Mindfulness in the Diverse Classroom,” (2001). Therein she describes a critical incident when an African American student described to a White student how it felt to hear her use the word “tolerance,” and was met with stony silence
from her classmates:
“When I hear you talk about tolerance, I hear you telling me that I am something to be put up with. That doesn’t
make me feel very good.” In the silence that followed this moment I had the uncomfortable privilege of confronting
myself as I struggled with the decision to address the differences in the room, and with trusting my ability to facilitate a safe and honest dialogue.
Remaining present in that struggle led me into a disturbingly vulnerable place where I was forced to confront my
ineptitude. It is only in retrospect that I am grateful to the African American woman for taking a risk that brought
me face to face with my own isolation, a place from which I could perceive her isolation as well as I stood facing
the room of silent White [sic] students. In that moment, the silence of the room amplified the noise of my internal
distress. Speaking felt risky — my words could leave me out there, exposed in much the same way that the student
had exposed herself. Just as her declaration pierced the illusion of group unity and separated her from her classroom peers, my words could separate me from the White students or could further my distance from the African
American student.
I sensed that several students wanted me to be their ally and to excuse our ignorance and our racism. And, in fact,
I wanted to do just that; it would have been so much safer. It was a preciously frightening moment, laden with
potential betrayal. Parker Palmer (1998) speaks about this as pathological fear, the kind that leads us to betray our
students and ourselves: “It leads me to pander to students, to lose my dignity . . . so worried that the sloucher in the
back row doesn’t like me that I fail to teach him and everyone else in the room” (p. 49). In these moments, so much
of who we are as human beings is at stake. Our integrity, our honesty, and our fundamental trustworthiness is [sic]
jeopardized by our need to belong, our need for validation, and our need to feel in control. (286-287)
In the last issue, I concluded that the emotion and conflict that were inherent in this teaching moment were actually positive and could be used for student learning. In this issue, I’d like to look at how power and culture play out in the critical
incident.
Vacarr is an experienced teacher who has clearly reflected on notions of power and culture in her classroom. Yet she,
like so many teachers, finds herself stumbling when these issues boil to the surface. In a classroom with one non-white
student amongst white students who clearly had a great deal to learn about racial inequality,Vacarr was in a “contact
zone.” Mary Louise Pratt describes contact zones as “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each
other, often in the contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power such as colonialism…” (1991). As Vacarr’s student
spoke out, she did so in a context of asymmetrical relations of power. Her classmates were white and outnumbered her,
in that she did not seem to find an ally in the classroom. Rather, her classmates rolled their eyes at her, and assaulted her
with silence. “Silence,” says Jerry Hazen, “is the weapon of hostility and has a way of breeding violence first of the body
and then the soul” (qtd in Lemon, 1992).
What was it about the exchange in this contact zone that made the white students wield the weapon of silence? According to Vacarr, the African American student’s statement elicited eye rolling and facial expressions that communicated,
“‘Oh come on, don’t make a big deal out of this. Do we really have to watch our every word?’” (2003). The white students’ response seems initially to come out of frustration. They simply did not understand why the word “tolerant” was
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
13
www.usask.ca/gmcte
so offensive to the African American
student.
Looks 1992). In being tolerant, they
believed they were “good,” “benign,”
and “non-threatening,” and embraced
But something more significant than
these qualities as part of their identifrustration is occurring in this moment. ties. When the African American stuIn this instance, the African American
dent pointed out that to be tolerant is
student took issue with the word
actually condescending and racist, this
“tolerance,” a word that evidently was challenged the white students’ notions
not problematic for the white students of their own identities.
in the class.Yet the white students did
find it problematic when the lone stu- As Vacarr’s students face their own
dents argued against its use. Somers
racism,Vacarr herself seems tangled up
explains, “people tie themselves to
in the threads of cultural differences.
words because it is part of their iden- She describes being pulled toward
tity—these words are lived, felt and
being an ally to her white students,
experienced by all of us and we are
acknowledging her shared culture with
not likely to give up the meanings asso- the dominant group of students. Yet
ciated to these words without defend- even though she is of the dominant
ing them” (2010). Up until that critical group, she also admits to feeling the
moment, the white students probably
potential to “feel exposed” just as
identified themselves as “tolerant,”
her student who had spoken out. She
believing that this was a “desired atappears to occupy a liminal position,
tribute” and a positive position to oc- being of the dominant group and yet
cupy (Vacarr 2003). White people are (to an extent, by choice) not belonging
“socialized to believe the fantasy, that
to that group.
whiteness represents goodness and
all that is benign and non-threatening” Her liminal position can be attributed
(Richard Dyer qtd. in hooks, Black
to, at least in part, to the authority she
14
holds in the classroom. She uses words
that reveal her power: she has the
“uncomfortable privilege”, “the decision to address the differences,” and
is able to “facilitate a safe and honest
dialogue.” Indeed, Antonia Darder
explains “Authority, within the context
of critical bicultural pedagogy, is intimately linked to the manner in which
the teacher exercises control, direct,
influence, and make decisions about
what is actually going to take place
in their classrooms” (1991). Vacarr,
despite her reticence, has the authority to determine how her students feel
supported in their moment of conflict.
Authority, by definition, is power that
has been bestowed. While the students don’t have authority in the class,
they do have power. “Power” can be
defined as an individual’s potential to
have an effect on another person’s or
group of persons’ behavior (McCroskey and Richmond,1983). In terms of
power, then, the class exhibited it since
its behavior had an effect on Vacarr’s
behaviour, causing her to consider
“pander[ing]” to the white students.
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
Part of Vacarr’s problem with the situation, too, may come from her desire to
achieve “group unity.” She considers
using her authority to achieve group
unity, or, as John Trimbur frames it,
“consensus.” Trimbur explains, “the
use of consensus in collaborative
learning is an inherently dangerous and
potentially totalitarian practice that
stifles individual voice and creativity,
suppresses differences and enforces
conformity” (1989). The practice of
striving for consenus becomes “totalitarian” when the need for unity
requires dissenting voices to become
silent. Darder advises,
Educators who strive for culturally democratic environments
will need to call on their courage
and inner strength to challenge
the tension and discomfort they
experience when confronting
issues of discrimination in the
classroom. Instead of looking
for quick-fix methods to restore
a false sense of harmony at such
moments of confrontation, educators must seek to unveil the
tensions, conflicts, and contradictions that perpetuate discriminatory attitudes and behaviours
among their students. (1991)
incident:Vacarr’s uncertainty in the
moment does not communicate to
her students which community she
represents. I don’t think that it is that
Vacarr does not know which community she represents (e.g., an anti-racist
pedagogical community), but that she
was internally conflicted by what Mark
Bracher called “identity needs” (qtd. in
Sommers, 2010). Somers paraphrases,
“these needs vary depending on the
instructor but are encompassed in
such things are [sic] recognition, gratification and validation by students in a
learning environment” (2010). Indeed,
Vacarr admits to these very needs
when she quotes Parker Palmer’s assertion that we have “our need to belong, our need for validation, and our
need to feel in control.” Just as the students’ learning was impeded by their
need to cling to their belief that they
had “tolerant” identities, so Vacarr’s
teaching was impeded, in that moment,
by her need to feel she belonged and
that she was in control.
Both the students and the teacher can
meet their needs by approaching the
situation “relationally.” According to
Audrey Thompson, “thinking relationally means focusing on how our lives
are caught up together, how our possibilities are made together, and how we
As argued in part one, teaching the
render asymmetrical support or auditension and conflicts has a more signif- ence to one another—how we may be
icant impact on student learning than
called upon to listen to and hear one
glossing over these, pretending that
another” (2003). In Vacarr’s critical inthe class is unified in its thinking. If
cident, it seems to me that what each
differences aren’t acknowledged, there party needed was to both be listened
is no room for students to “move.”
to, and to hear each other. The African
Trimbur says that “consensus cannot
American student clearly needed to be
be known without its opposite—with- heard. But Vacarr has an opportunity
out the other voices at the periphery
to help her white students be heard in
of the conversation” (1989). If Vacarr
their struggle with their own racism,
chooses acknowledge the voice of her rather than allowing the racism to take
lone student, she has the potential to
over the classroom.
“reacculturate” her students into “the
community that [she] represents”
Ultimately, with a relational approach,
(Kenneth Bruffee qtd. in Lemon, 1995). we allow students, and teachers, to be
the best humans they can be. Andrew
Herein lies the crux of the critical
Sayer explains that “criticizing ‘dominaBridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
15
tion, unfairness, hypocrisy’ connects
humans and allows us to speak our
communal responses to injustices”
(qtd. in Somer). Given the identity
needs of all the parties involved in this
critical incident, what would “connect”
the humans involved would be to give
rise to the dissenting voice, to allow
the white students to interrogate the
domination and hypocrisy in the word
“tolerate,” and to give voice to the
teacher who needs her humanity to be
recognized.
References
Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the
classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural
education. Toronto: IOSE Press.
hooks, bell. Black Looks: Race and Representation. Toronto: Between the Lines, 1992.
Lemon, H. S. (1995). Ending the silence:
Encouraging dissensus in the contact zone.
In J.Q. Adams & J.R. Welsch (Eds.), Multicultural education: Strategies for implementation
in colleges and universities,Vol 4. (pp. 71-77.)
Macomb, IL: Illinois Staff and Curriculum
Developers Association.
McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond,V.P. (1983).
Power in the classroom I: Teacher and
student perceptions. Communication Education, 32, 175-184.
Pratt, M.L. (1991). PDF of Arts of the contact zone. From Pro91, 33-40. 1-6.
Thompson, A. (2003). Anti-racist workzones. Philosophy of Education, 387-395.
Somers, K. (2010). How diversity and
anti-oppression educators handle the
emotional challenges of their practice.
Masters of Education Thesis. Halifax, Nova
Scotia: Mount Saint Vincent University.
Trimbur, J. (1989). Consensus and difference in collaborative learning. College
English, 51(6)I, 602-212.
Vacarr, B. (2001). Moving beyond polite
correctness: Practicing
mindfulness in the diverse classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 71(2), 285-296.
www.usask.ca/gmcte
Sylvia Wallace 2011 Sessional
Lecturer Teaching Award
Presented to Christtine Fondse,
College of Education
a love for any subject, good mentors
help facilitate the process because
teaching is an art, not a business. I’m
infinitely grateful for the excellent
role models I have had. My earliest
and most influential mentor was my
mother, who encouraged me to read
widely and allowed me to follow my
dream of becoming a teacher. Two
others were teachers from England
who came to India: Margaret Moore
and Clara Bessie Schiff. Charlotte
Huck, my advisor at the Ohio State
Teaching as a Passion
University, was a wonderful teacher.
Elinor Chelsom (Stinson), who
y passion for teaching has to do
introduced Children’s Literature
with my love for literature and
and Drama courses in the College
language. The province of literature is
of Education, nurtured my aesthetic
the human condition, life with all its
experience. Dorothy Heathcote
feelings, thoughts and insights. From
demonstrated that all children could
the time I was a little child growing
participate and be totally engaged in
up in India I knew I wanted to be a
educational drama, not just the chosen
teacher. I would gather neighbourhood few.
children together because I wanted
them to experience the other worlds Every class I’ve taught at the University
I had explored vicariously through
level always began with a quotation
literature. To enrich students’ lives
from Ruth Rendell’s A Judgement in
beyond the narrow confines of the
Stone: “Literacy is the cornerstone
classroom, to recognize that there are of civilization. To be illiterate is to be
different learning styles, to aid students deformed. And the derision that was
to communicate ideas with clarity
once directed at the physical freak may,
became my passion. To teach with joy, perhaps more justly, descend upon
enthusiasm and a sense of humour has the illiterate. If he or she can live a
been my goal. Children want to learn
cautious life among the uneducated all
when motivated. As Einstein stated,
may be well, for in the country of the
“It is the supreme art of teachers to
purblind the eyeless is not rejected.”
awaken joy in creative expression and Each one of my mentors addressed
knowledge.”
the issue of literacy in ways that truly
inspired me.
The Importance of Mentors
Meaningful Learning
I’ve been fortunate to have
encountered extraordinary mentors
In my classroom, I combined theory
over the years. If one wants to instil
with practice. It is critical to teach
Teaching
Philosophy
M
16
theory, so that we have a sound
foundation to support practical
application as students take on many
roles as readers and writers. Learning
must always be meaningful.
I am very glad that the books written
for children today help them extend
their experiences or see their
everyday world in a new perspective,
more so than in previous years. Books
about minorities, appreciating racial
and ethnic diversity, understanding
various world cultures and the like,
allow children to savour really fine
literature in a truly meaningful way.
Books can have the power to evoke
in readers rich images and deep
emotional responses regardless of
the technological format in which the
material is presented.
Extended Learning
We would get together after class if
students were interested in pursuing
further discussions. My office door
was always open. I told my students
that if at any time they required
help, they were free to come and
chat. In a sense I was ‘mother’ to
many, advising them when they were
confronted with major decisions in
their lives. This aspect was especially
true around exam time when stress
levels were high. Problems outside of
campus needed to be resolved as they
impacted learning.
Lifelong Learning
We, as teachers, should be flexible in
our approach to learning. Knowledge
changes swiftly in our fast paced
society and we need to keep pace.
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
Teaching is an art that is refined over
time. We learn from our students, as
they learn from us. Mohandas Gandhi
embraced lifelong learning. He said
that he did not wish home to be
walled in on all sides, nor did he want
his windows tightly closed. Rather, he
desired that the cultures of all lands
blow freely and have access to his
home. That’s a marvelous image for
teachers to reflect and act upon.
Diversity in the Classroom
Growing up in India and Indonesia
afforded me the opportunity to
experience diverse people. What a
rich setting! My mother taught me to
appreciate and respect all cultures. I
learned that each child deserved an
equal chance. Fine teachers enable
our children to succeed. I have
been fortunate to meet many who
embraced the diversity within their
classrooms. Changing the world for
the better is a lofty yet reachable goal,
achieved through our students.
2011 Course
Design Week
May 9-13
This five day course will run
from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm daily.
Facilitated by Jaymie Koroluk,
GMCTE. It is essential that you
bring to the workshop a course
that you intend to design or redesign, and that you are able to
attend all workshop sessions.
There will be a $100 fee for this
workshop.
For full details see our website
at www.usask.ca/gmcte
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
Finding Common Ground in
Unfamiliar Territory
Terry Tollefson, Department of Soil Science
Sheryl Mills, GMCTE
“I spent a good part of my career very comfortable and then unexpectedly! AN OPPORTUNITY! And I was out of my comfort zone—full
time, new position, and new people.”Terry Tollefson, Associate Professor,
Department of Soil Science
Changing teaching strategies and renovating instructional practices to work
with increasingly diverse groups of students can be at best challenging, and
at worst threatening. As instructors we often have instructional habits and
comfortable ways of interacting with our students. Our personal signature
pedagogies are formed by our disciplines and reinforced by our peers—and
students. However, once in awhile a unique opportunity comes along that
prompts us to rethink our practices and make changes to the ways in which
we have traditionally taught. Terry Tollefson met this challenge by finding
common ground with his students. Terry and I met at a GMCTE TEA when
Jim Greer hosted the Beadwork Group from the College of Education. When
Terry mentioned working with Aboriginal students in the Land Management Program, I was intrigued and wanted to know more. We met and Terry
shared his story…
I began my teaching career in 1982 when I was appointed as a winter term
instructor in the Diploma Program at the University of Saskatchewan’s
School of Agriculture. The School of Agriculture, as it was known then,
employed a number of seasonal part time instructors. These instructors
were often farm managers with advanced academic training who brought
first hand knowledge and experience directly to the classrooms of young
agriculturalists. Life was generally hectic because the demands of the farm
often overlapped with the school term. I found teaching very satisfying. I was
able to bring my graduate training in soil science, my first hand knowledge
of both production agronomy, and the psyche of the predominantly rural
student body to the classroom. My goal was to provide a positive learning
experience for undergraduate students. I enjoyed the freedom to experiment
with different instructional styles, from the standard lecture based courses,
to courses with a large field component, courses delivered with a combination of print based and live television instruction, and, more recently, internet
based and webinar style instruction. In short, I would describe my career as
rewarding and comfortable.
In 2006 I made the decision to curtail my “farm habit” when I accepted a
full time appointment in the College of Agriculture and Bioresources. This
appointment came with a new role—Aboriginal liaison for the College. To
this point, the College of AgBio, had limited success in attracting Aboriginal
students to its agriculture programs. A decision was made to invest additional
resources to attracting Aboriginal students — I was one of several faculty
tasked to take an active role in that regard. It was this new assignment that
led me to accept an unfamiliar teaching role, one that took me far outside
17
www.usask.ca/gmcte
my familiar comfort zone.
ing that my best course of action was
ing outside of our cultural comfort
to throw myself on the mercy of the
zones offers rich and surprising opIn that same year, the Federal Depart- court. I admitted freely my lack of
portunities.
ment of Indian and Northern Affairs
cultural awareness and understanding
approached the College of AgBio to
of traditional ecological knowledge.
This experience, and the opportunity
discuss the possibility of developing a
I asked the students for their unto reflect upon it, has made me a more
training program in natural resource
derstanding on that point. I realized,
complete lecturer. I am beginning to
management. The program was to pro- despite my obvious deficiencies, there understand cultural differences in comvide training to Aboriginal land manag- was at least one key subject area that
munication styles. I am more comforters from across Canada to prepare
I held in common with the students— able with what I initially perceived to
them for greater levels of self- govern- that common ground was our shared
be the students’ more meandering
ment. The College of AgBio accepted
respect for the land and the desire
responses to questions and differences
this invitation and
in eye contact protocol. My
I was asked to
normal classroom demeandevelop a course
or includes a strong voice,
for the new proan animated delivery, and
gram. Still bathed in
an often rapid-fire interacthe comfort of my
tion with students, partraditional teaching
ticularly if it is a subject I
role, I agreed to
am passionate about. In my
develop a course
new setting when a quesdealing with land
tion is posed I try to pause
and water. I began
and then offer a considered
a lengthy consultareply. I show respect for
tion process to
the question. I also pause
determine the
before asking questions,
breadth and depth
relax the focus, and, whenof material these
ever possible, capitalize on
students would
the strong link between
require.
learning and laughing.
Dr.Terry Tollefson, “Soil Science. Up Close and Personal) Photo Credit - Terry Tollefson
I began to realize
that, while I was steeped in the culture
of agriculture, I was very much ignorant of Aboriginal culture. I found this
lack of cultural awareness very unsettling. I began to contemplate the possibility of making unintentional cultural
blunders that might damage my rapport with the students or unknowingly
present material that conflicted with
traditional ecological teachings.
I remember being particularly uneasy
on that first morning of class. Instead
of addressing a familiar and comfortable group of agricultural students
who shared my Saskatchewan farming
background, I would be addressing a
multicultural group with a background
I did not share. Perhaps out of a sense
of desperation, I decided that morn-
I realize that I was forto share information about it. Their
tunate to stumble upon common
connection to the land was rooted in
ground—it was the foundation of
Aboriginal tradition and their current
communication in the course. Because
role as land managers. My connection of it, students were patient and unwas a farming career and a soil science derstanding as I attempted to improve
background. The common ground,
my instructional practices and slowly
ironically, was soil.
establish a new comfort zone with
them. In thinking about this experiThis wonderful patch of common
ence, I realize that my common ground
ground became the basis for sharis more than a subject—it is a state of
ing information and ideas with the
mind. A shared goal to communicate
class. I felt accepted as a part of the
about soil was the basis of this comgroup and engaged in many interesting mon ground. It would not have been
discussions with students both in and
achieved, however, without open honoutside the class. It took me to places est reciprocal communication. I feel
and situations I had never thought of,
that you can go anywhere and teach
let alone experienced! I learned a lot anyone if you find the common ground
from those students, personally and
especially if you are willing to open up,
professionally. Their honesty, openness admit your limitations, take a risk, and
and good humor was delightful. Work- explore together.
18
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
STLHE Conference 2011
The University of
Saskatchewan is pleased to be
the host for the 31st annual
conference for the Society
for Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education (STLHE)
from June 15th to 18th.
STLHE is a national association
of full and part-time academics,
educational developers, administrators,
librarians, and students (graduate
and undergraduate) interested in
the improvement of teaching and
learning in higher education. Each year,
the STLHE conference participants
exchange ideas, communicate
research findings and best practices,
and connect with old and new
colleagues. This year’s conference,
From Here to the Horizon, is
expected to include approximately 450
to 500 individuals from Canada, the
United States and more than ten other
countries from around the world.
It will feature approximately 250
concurrent sessions, preconference
workshops, roundtables, and posters
across three and a half jam-packed
days, along with the highly-anticipated
presentation of the 2011 3M Teaching
Fellowship to ten highly deserving
individuals from across the country at
the conference banquet.
From Here to the Horizon:
Diversity and Inclusive Practice
in Higher Education
“From here to the horizon” is an
interestingly deceptive notion, for
as one approaches the horizon, it
continues to stretch ever further away.
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3
It is the future.
In Saskatchewan, “from here to the
horizon” marks a great distance.
Between vast plains and open skies
you will find remarkable regional,
geographical, and biological diversity,
and perhaps most diverse, the people
and cultures.
The main theme of this conference
is to explore how the horizons of
our understandings of diversity are
actually changing as we investigate
the future of teaching and learning in
higher education. What are we doing
to honour our appreciation of multiple
perspectives, and what is happening
at the intersections of teaching and
learning theory and practice? How
have teaching and learning become
richer through diversity?
The work beckons us— how do we
put into practice the challenges and
benefits of our diverse populations,
but also, how do we make connections
and find fields of convergence that
help us educate global citizens? How
do our educational institutions make a
philosophical shift to one that humbly
acknowledges that “other ways of
knowing” in fact enrich, challenge, and
strengthen scholarship for all members
of our learning communities?
On the horizon of teaching and
learning in higher education, one sees
tremendous opportunity. Depending
on the direction you face, that
horizon includes experiential learning,
teaching with technology, innovative
program and course design, creative
19
assessment and teaching practices, the
scholarship of teaching and learning,
and, of particular interest, creating an
inclusive educational environment that
embraces diversity.
Conference attendees have submitted
proposals that focus on insightful
and innovative policies, programs,
and practices that recognize, benefit
from, value, and honour the diversity
of students, faculty, instructors, staff,
administrators, and the communities
we serve.
The STLHE conference will feature
three plenary sessions at this year`s
conference. The conference`s
opening plenary speaker will be Dr.
Jeanette Norden from Vanderbilt
University. She will be discussing the
topic “Promoting the Intellectual and
Personal Development of Students in a
Way that Embraces Diversity.”
This keynote presentation will focus
on how to create a safe learning
environment in which both the
intellectual and personal development
of students may be stimulated. Creating such an environment
allows diversity in all of its forms,
from differences in learning styles to
differences in cultures and worldviews,
to be appreciated. Examples from Dr.
Norden’s own teaching of medical,
graduate and undergraduate students
will be used to illustrate how such an
environment can be “transformative”
for students.
www.usask.ca/gmcte
For over twenty years, Dr. Jeanette
Norden, Ph.D., has conducted research
on nerve regeneration, focusing on GAP43, a protein involved in nervous system
development, regeneration, and plasticity.
Since 1998, she has devoted her time
to medical/graduate/undergraduate
education. Dr. Norden is currently a
Master Science Teacher and the Director
of Medical Education in the Department
of Cell and Developmental Biology at
Vanderbilt University. She has been a
maverick in Medical Education, stressing
not only intellectual, but also personal and
interpersonal development in students.
Her emphasis on personal development
and her innovative approach in integrating
‘humanity’ into a basic science course
has been recognized at Vanderbilt and
nationally. In addition to winning virtually
every award available at her institution for
teaching, she was also awarded the first
Chair of Teaching Excellence at Vanderbilt
University, and was the first recipient
of both the Gender Equity Award of the
American Medical Women’s Association,
and the Teaching Excellence Award
given by the Vanderbilt Medical School.
In 2000, Dr. Norden was the recipient
of the Robert J. Glaser Award, a national
teaching award from the Alpha Omega
Alpha Honor Society of the American
Medical Association. In 2010 she was
presented with the John Chapman
Award for “transformative effects on
medical education nationally”. She was
highlighted as one of the most effective
teachers in America in What the Best
College Teachers Do (Ken Bain, Harvard
University Press, 2004). Dr. Norden has
given more than 100 invited presentations
on teaching at Universities and Medical
Schools.
The second plenary session will
feature the presentation of the 2011
Alan Blizzard Award (ABA) for
Excellence in Collaborative Teaching
to the U of S team who developed
the Interprofessional Health Sciences
Problem-Based Learning initiative,
led by Peggy Proctor in the School
of Physical Therapy. The recipients of
the ABA will lead a plenary session
exploring the nature of the innovative,
collaborative project, including some
of the research that has been done
exploring its effectiveness with
students across the health sciences.
The closing plenary speaker will
feature a return to Saskatchewan for
world-renowned aboriginal musician,
artist, teacher and activist Dr. Buffy
Sainte-Marie, who will be addressing
the challenges facing universities
in responding to the call-for-action
on aboriginal education in Canada
and around the world, including
introducing the Nihewan Foundation
and the Cradleboard Teaching Project
that she founded in the US. For her very first album she was voted
Billboard’s Best New Artist.
She disappeared suddenly from the
mainstream American airwaves during
the Lyndon Johnson years. Unknown to
her, as part of a blacklist which affected
Eartha Kitt,Taj Mahal and a host of
other outspoken performers, her name
was included on White House stationery
as among those whose music “deserved
to be suppressed”, and radio airplay
disappeared. Invited onto television talk
shows on the basis of her success with
Until It’s Time for You to Go, she was
told that Native issues and the peace
movement had become unfashionable
and to limit her comments to celebrity
chat.
Among aboriginal communities across
North America and abroad, however, her
fame only grew. Denied an adult television
audience in the U.S., in 1975 she joined
the cast of Sesame Street for five years.
She continued to appear at countless
grassroots concerts, AIM (American Indian
Movement) events and other activist
benefits in Canada and the U.S. She
made 18 albums of her music, three of
her own television specials, scored movies,
garnered international acclaim, helped
to found Canada’s Music of Aboriginal
Canada JUNO category, raised a son,
Dr. Buffy Sainte-Marie, PhD, was a
earned a Ph.D. in Fine Arts, taught Digital
graduating college senior in 1962
Music as adjunct professor at several
and began touring North America’s
colleges, received honorary degrees
colleges, reservations and concert halls,
from several universities (including the
meeting both huge acclaim and huge
University of Saskatchewan), and won
misperception from audiences and record
an Academy Award Oscar and a Golden
companies who expected Pocahontas in
Globe Award for the song Up Where
fringes, and instead were both entertained
We Belong. In 2009 Buffy Sainte-Marie
and educated with their initial dose of
released her eighteenth album Running
Native American reality in the first person.
for the Drum, which just won Buffy her
third Juno Award.
By age 24, Buffy Sainte-Marie had
appeared all over Europe, Canada,
Join us at the upcoming
Australia and Asia, receiving honors,
2011 STLHE Conference. It
medals and awards, which continue to
this day. Her song Until It’s Time for You to will be an experience that
Go was recorded by Elvis and Barbra and you will find rewarding,
Cher, and her Universal Soldier became
inspiring, refreshing, and
the anthem of the peace movement.
challenging.
20
Bridges, Vol. 9, No. 3