January 2 0 0 4 Vol.2 No.4
Reflecting the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning at the
University of Saskatchewan
The History of Instructional
Development & A Change for Bridges
By Eileen Herteis, TLC Programme Director
This issue of Bridges simultaneously marks a first and a last.
For the first time, we are devoting an entire issue to a single topic: The History of Instructional Development in Canada.
In his article, Dr. Adam Scarfe describes how—from humble beginnings in 1960’s Ontario among a small group of
enthusiastic professors— instructional development has grown to become an area of scholarship nationally and internationally. Decades later, amidst the prevailing culture of research-intensiveness at Canadian universities, instructional
developers are facing new challenges for recognition, for funding, for survival. While the operating budgets of instructional development centres across the country vary, we all have one thing in common—our reliance on volunteers. We
depend on support from faculty who present sessions for us without reimbursement, thus supplementing the expertise of
instructional development staff.
In the November issue of University Affairs, James Downey, former President of the Universities of New Brunswick,
Waterloo, and Carleton, wrote about the conundrum of research-intensiveness and how it is skewing the focus of Canadian universities: “There are, it is said, two ways of being lost. One is not to know where you are going; the other is
not to know where you are. There is, I would suggest, a third way of being lost. . . to lose sight of what you are.”
Downey laments that Canadian universities are being blinded by research and the dollars it brings into university coffers, while losing sight of our primary mission: “It is by our teaching that we will be known and judged in the end by
those who matter most, the people whose good will determines whether we prosper or not.” Downey goes on to call
teaching “the heart of the university enterprise.” If that is so, then instructional developers play a vital role in the health
of that heart; they provide services, consultations, resources and programmes that support and encourage teaching
excellence.
Accounting for the value of teaching and of the instructional development that supports it necessitates that we talk about
intangible assets, not a patently valuable commodity in times of budget realignment and strategic disinvestment.
As a result of the prevailing economic climate, The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre is compelled to make
some difficult choices; among them is the future of our newsletter. This issue of Bridges is likely the last that will appear
in print. Future issues will be published online at the TLC’s web site www.usask.ca/tlc/bridges_journal although we
will continue to print and distribute a one-page synopsis of each issue. The savings resulting from this change will not
be inconsiderable; however, we fear that we will lose more than we gain. If you would like to comment positively or
negatively on this change for Bridges, please send an e-mail to me Eileen.Herteis@usask.ca or call 966-2238.
The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre
37 Murray Building • 966-2231
January 2004
Vol. 2 No. 4
The Gwenna Moss Teaching
& Learning Centre
University of Saskatchewan
Room 37 Murray Building
3 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A4
Phone (306) 966-2231
Fax (306) 966-2242
e-mail : corinne.f@usask.ca
Web site : www.usask.ca/tlc
Bridges is distributed to every
teacher at the University of
Saskatchewan and to all the
Instructional Development Offices
in Canada, and some beyond.
It is freely available on the
world wide web through the TLC
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!
Ron Marken
TLC Director
Phone (306) 966-5532
ron.marken@usask.ca
Eileen Herteis
TLC Programme Director
& Bridges Editor
Phone (306) 966-2238
Fax (306) 966-2242
eileen.herteis@usask.ca
Christine Anderson Obach Programme Coordinator
Phone (306) 966-1950
christine.anderson@usask.ca
Corinne Fasthuber
Assistant
Phone (306) 966-2231
corinne.f@usask.ca
Joel Deshaye
Instructional Technology Consultant
(306) 966-2245
joel.deshaye@usask.ca
ISSN 1703-1222
An Historical Overview of
Instructional Development
In Canadian Higher
Education
Dr. Adam Scarfe
Department of Educational Foundations
College of Education
In Canada during the 1960s and
1970s, educational development
became part of the university largely
because of strong student unrest and
activism regarding the quality of
teaching. Educational development
had its controversial beginnings
with the founding of the Ontario
Universities Programme for Instructional
Development (OUPID) “as a central
effort to develop teaching in all
Ontario’s sixteen provincially funded
universities,” educational development
has grown to encompass universities
throughout Canada. After OUPID had
ended, the community of educational
developers and researchers it had
helped to establish formed The Society
for Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education (STLHE).
The central challenge for educational
development today is to help maintain
a balance between research and
teaching at Canadian institutions.
With the increasing trend of doing
research exclusively for the market and
the continued emphasis on ‘research
intensiveness’ at Canadian universities,
professors have concentrated on
research as opposed to teaching
and institutional and community
responsibilities. Teaching and Learning
Centres, such as The Gwenna Moss
Teaching & Learning Centre, provide an
important venue for professors to focus
critically on their teaching.
Defining Educational
Development in Higher
Education
In Canada, the term ‘Educational
Development’ generally refers to
the growing movement (Wilcox
1997, p.3) to improve the quality
of teaching in Canadian colleges
and universities. While ‘Educational
Development’ has only come into
currency in the last fifteen years,
various Educational Development
activities have been around since
the 1960s (Knapper, in Wilcox
1997, p.iii). According to Knapper,
the issues and activities involved in
educational development include
teaching innovation and educational
technology, methods for making
learning more active, instructional
evaluation, better assessment of
students, (…) preparation of teaching
assistants, (and recently) academic
programme review and curriculum
development (in Wilcox 1997, p.iv,
my additions).
The concept of Educational
Development includes instructional
development and faculty
development that designate
activities which aim “to improve
the quality of (teaching) through
a development process” (Wilcox
1997, p.1). Although the two
terms “have been blurred and (…)
are often used interchangeably”
(Wright and McLeod 1994, p.39),
instructional development typically
involves various programmes and
services outside individual departments
and faculties to improve teaching,
and faculty development usually
involves efforts inside individual
departments and faculties, namely,
to committees developing and
implementing policies in order to
enhance the quality of teaching.
Instructional development generally
includes workshops for professors
and instructors, peer consultations
on teaching, and other services in
conjunction with a centre for such
development, such as The Gwenna
Moss Teaching & Learning Centre at
the University of Saskatchewan. In
this article, I am most concerned
with the growth of and challenges in
instructional development, but,
since instructional development
is intrinsically linked with faculty
development, I will refer to both.
The History of Educational
Development
While the history of educational
development can be said to vary
from institution to institution, perhaps
the first serious thoughts about how
professors could improve teaching
originated in the 1960’s as student
groups and unions, who were very
active at that time, developed their
own course evaluation system.
Soon afterwards, they postured to
formalize teaching evaluations with
the institutions themselves. As Wilcox
(1997) writes, “if there was a single
issue in Canada that focused people’s
attention on educational development
at the time, it was the (student)
evaluation of teaching” (p.4). As in
the case of McGill, the subsequent
desire on the part of the governing
councils of institutions themselves to
use the evaluations as a standard
for personnel decisions led to the
motion “that faculty must participate
in the system” (Smith in Wilcox 1997,
p.10). Similarly, some, such as Al
Berland, then executive director of the
Canadian Association of University
Teachers (CAUT, founded in 1951),
began to question the training of the
professorate itself. Berland concluded
that “university professors never got
any orientation to their professional
responsibilities as academics” beyond
their apprenticeship as researchers
(Knapper in Wilcox 1997, p.10).
With some major centres of educational
development already established,
Ontario universities leaped into
instructional development in 1973
with the founding of the Ontario
Universities Programme for Instructional
Development (OUPID). OUPID was to
be “a central effort to develop teaching
in all Ontario’s sixteen provincially
funded universities” (Elrick 1990, p.65).
However, the influence of OUPID on
Ontario’s universities was not without
controversy.
As Elrick (1990) concludes, “what
can be learned from OUPID, and
programmes like it, is that attempts
to develop teaching must agree with
and extend academic values if they
are to make widespread changes
in university teaching” (Elrick 1990,
p.76). However, whatever limitations
and misgivings OUPID had, there
were some positive results for the
further establishment of instructional
development in Canadian universities.
According to Wilcox, OUPID
“legitimized Educational Development
as a valuable thing on which to spend
time and money (…) and it formed a
focus for, and aided an embryonic
network of educational developers;
and it demonstrated that there was a
community of people interested in these
issues” (Wilcox 1997, p.15). In other
words, OUPID’s existence created an
experienced and expert culture around
and a widespread awareness of the
positive idea of educational development
in general. Furthermore, it gave the
very notion of instructional development
credibility.
After OUPID had ended, the community
of educational developers and
researchers it had helped to establish,
formed The Society for Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education
(STLHE), a national association
interested in the improvement of
teaching and learning in higher
education. Its members comprise
faculty and teaching and learning
resource professionals from institutions
across Canada and beyond.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s,
educational development units
flourished as institutions stepped up
their role in funding them. This was
the case since “new technologies,
accountability, and student pressure
were issues in higher education once
again, prompting administrations to
develop a deeper interest in formal
educational development” (Wilcox
1997,p.22). In Ontario, York, Queens,
and Ryerson resurrected centres that
had previously closed in the mid1980s. Elsewhere, universities in the
Maritimes and in British Columbia
opened their first centres. The Gwenna
Moss Teaching & Learning Centre at the
University of Saskatchewan opened in
August, 2000. Indeed, the U of S was
among the last universities of its size
in Canada to open a teaching centre;
comparable universities, also beginning
with instructional development
committees, opened their permanent
centres long before we did: Western in
1978, Alberta in 1983, and Dalhousie
in 1988. (See table on page 5.)
The Content and Methods of
Instructional Development
According to a study by Konrad
(1983) “the most pressing development
needs of faculty members in Canadian
universities, as perceived by
coordinators of development activities
(was) (…) instructional techniques and
course development” (p.20; see also
Foster and Nelson, 1980). For the
most part, workshops and short courses
dealing with instructional techniques
and course development have been the
cornerstone of instructional development
since the 1970s. Konrad’s (1983)
study backed up this delivery system as
it was demonstrated that “workshops
(and seminars) dealing with instructional
techniques, testing, and new or different
curricular approaches were among
the best attended and most effective”
(p.18). Workshops are further said to
be “the most visible activities sponsored
by a teaching centre” (Wright and
O’Neil 1994, p.37). Instructional
development workshops are important
events of continuing education in which
the community of researchers meet as a
community of teachers.
Within the workshops and seminars
themselves, discussion and group work
facilitated by instructors are among the
most prominent methods of instilling
a critical awareness of the various
aspects of teaching and professional
development, in participants. With the
exception of a few small universities
(for example, Royal Roads University),
attendance at workshops is voluntary.
Professors are able to come and go
as they please, selectively attending
workshops based in their own needs
and interests. Wright and O’Neil
(1994) report the great success of
instructional development workshops
at Dalhousie University where the
Office of Instructional Development and
Technology considers workshops to be
a valuable component of the ongoing
faculty development programme.
Attendance at major workshops has
consistently surpassed 100 professors,
participant response forms draw many
favourable comments concerning the
usefulness of the material presented,
and faculty regularly suggest relevant
follow-up activities to explore in greater
detail an approach to teaching or an
implementation strategy (Wright and
O’Neil 1994, p.37).
A common service instructional
development centres provide is peer
and individual consultations and
counseling in which instructional
developers attend and/or videotape a
professor’s class and privately address
various issues regarding their teaching
methods. Professional consultation
was rated third most effective in
Konrad’s (1983) study (p.22). Also,
instructional development assists in
preparing teaching assistants and new
teachers. Certification programmes
have been established for teaching
assistants and for new professors and
sessional staff. For example, The
Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning
Centre, like the centres at Manitoba
and Waterloo, offers a year-long
programme. GSR 989 – “Introduction
to University Teaching” enrolls about
thirty graduate students every year.
These types of programmes aid new
faculty to integrate teaching with the
other dimensions of their professorial
work (Kreber 2000, esp.pp.79 and
102). Furthermore, in this era in which
institutions are granting more and more
doctorates and making fewer and fewer
appointments in the humanities and in
the social sciences, recent recipients
of Ph.D.s can embrace instructional
development in order to hone their
teaching skills and to become oriented
to academic life.
Contemporary Challenges
for Educational
Development
Gregor 1984, p.66).
The most predominant reason for
non-participation on the part of
46.7% of faculty was said to be “I
do not have enough time” (Botman
and Gregor 1984, p.66). From this
figure, it might be assumed that faculty
are over-worked, as is, or that they
have more urgent priorities. Botman
and Gregor (1984)concluded that
faculty nonparticipation may also
be associated with other factors: the
professor’s view about teaching and
teaching improvement; the relevant
personal priority assigned to teaching;
the perceived need for improvement
in teaching skills; attitudes towards the
teaching improvement programme;
awareness of available programmes;
and the perceived convenience of
available programmes (p.63).
This suggests that some faculty are
still skeptical and hold mixed views
One of the most pressing issues in
about the necessity of instructional
Canadian universities is the decline
development, especially with respect to
of teaching quality. According to the
teaching in the sciences (Botman and
findings of a 1991 Association of
Gregor 1984, p.66). According to
Universities and Community Colleges
Taylor (1993), two major beliefs prevail
(A.U.C.C.) report, “teaching is seriously in those still skeptical about instructional
undervalued in Canadian universities
development. The first “has to do with
and nothing less than a total recommitment the perception that advice to improve
to it is required.” (AUCC Report from
teaching effectiveness is constituted
Smith 1991, p.63; see also Wright
of general teaching ‘skills’ which
and O’Neil, p.28). One of the most
can be superimposed on any body
predominant reasons for this decline is, of knowledge”; the second is the
as Wright and O’Neil (1994) point out, contention that “an emphasis on basic
“teaching strategies and learning tasks skills does not acknowledge the value of
widely used in university classrooms
scholarship in university teaching and
foster intellectual passivity because they trivializes the teaching of the complex
focus more on presenting knowledge,
knowledge of their disciplines” (p.66).
rather than constructing, analyzing,
synthesizing, or evaluating knowledge” Hence, there is first a question of “a
(p.68). Thus, it would seem that
strategy for developing conceptual
participation in instructional development frameworks for understanding
would be one important way to address the learning task in a particular
the decline. However, instructional
discipline or course” (Donald 1986,
development is challenged by a lack
p.81). Professors have questioned
of motivation to participate on the
the applicability of instructional
part of faculty. In a study of university
development workshops with a
professors done by Botman and Gregor generalized focus on teaching and
(1984), 25.8% stated that they had
learning processes. They seem to want
attended teaching workshops in the
a more particularized focus on their
past, 47.9% said they had not attended own disciplines, not to mention the fact
workshops but expressed interest, and
that “the expertise of most teaching
21.1% stated that they had no intention faculty lies outside the study of human
of future participation (Botman and
learning” (Wright and O’Neil 1994,
p.67). Essencentially, this is another
way of stating the second perspective
of non-participating professors, namely,
that they emphasize the complex
content of their disciplines as opposed
to a focus on general teaching and
learning processes. Furthermore, it
must be pointed out that professors
are specialists, who are tenured,
promoted, and rewarded at the
university predominantly because of
their particular knowledge of a specific
discipline, and not because of their
knowledge of teaching and learning
processes. As Donald points out,
“universities are described as striving
‘to hire highly qualified academic
specialists, who know their subjects
well and do distinguished research’”
(Donald 1986, p.17). Similarly, with
the influence of the global economy on
universities, government, corporations
and agencies fund research producing
new goods and services, rather than
teaching. As such, it is overwhelmingly
the case that professors see their
primary function as researchers.
Increasingly, the “university sees for
itself a critical role as the creator of new
knowledge in the knowledge society”
(Donald 1986, p.80). For the university,
it is good research not the teaching of
students that brings prestige. And, with
the growing emphasis on ‘research
intensiveness’ at Canadian universities
to the neglect of teaching, professors
have little volition and little choice in
changing their focus.
In order to offset the one-sided focus
on research, many professors feel that
improvement in teaching can be made
a reality only if teaching is equally
weighed on the basis of incentives,
in the same manner as their research.
Wright and O’Neil’s study (1994)
on the best ways to improve teaching
in Canadian universities “reveal(s) a
widespread belief that the greatest
teaching improvement potential lies in
the provision of incentives to faculty
in the form of employment rewards,”
(p.26) such as appointments, tenure,
and promotion. Opting for a largescale reward system might mean
that faculty are largely interested
in a growth in the quality of their
teaching, not as a matter of course
for their profession or for the ideals
of continuing education, but as a
matter of motivation by money and
self-interest. However, this does not
mean that instructional development is
more effective than a reward system.
In this vein, a ‘negative’ reward system
University
Early ID Committees Permanent Centre
University of Regina
1996
Carleton University
1993
2002
Mount Allison University 2001
Ryerson University
1991
1993
York University
1973/77
1989
Queens University
1992
University of Waterloo
1977
University of Victoria
1980
1984
U of Toronto - Mississauga 1996
Guelph University
early 70’s
1989
Concordia Uniiversity
1973
University of Toronto
2002
Trent University
1990
2002
University of Manitoba
1972
Universite de Montreal
1974
Simon Fraser University
1991
2001
University of Ottawa
1980
Mount Royal College
1981
Memorial University
1996
McGill University
1969
Wilfred Laurier University 1990’s
2003
University of Calgary
1993
1998
The above information was obtained from responses to a query which was sent
to the STLHE/IDO listserve, November 2003. An updated chart will be on our
website January 2004.
in which satisfactory teaching enables
professors to simply maintain their status
and appointment might be the most
cost-effective. One might also speculate
that a combination of instructional
development and a moderate reward
system would be most effective to
improve the quality of teaching and
to re-establish the value of teaching at
universities. In any event, instructional
development opens up critical debate
over faculty’s own conceptions of
scholarship.
Towards a Balanced Focus
on Research and Teaching:
A New Model of Scholarship
Since the inception of educational
development in Canada, theorists have
pointed to the necessity of a unified
conception of scholarship, namely,
one in which teaching is emphasized
in conjunction with research. H. M.
Good (1974), using a triangular model
of the responsibilities of the university
professor, was one of the first to
articulate that there was an imbalance
between the three roles of university
professors, namely, ‘scholarshipdiscipline’, ‘institutional-societal’, and
‘student-teaching’ responsibilities.
Particularly, Good emphasizes that
scholarship-discipline, meaning
research, is over-emphasized to the
neglect of professors’ responsibilities to
their institution, to society, as well as to
teaching.
Thus, since the mid-1970s, instructional
developers have emphasized the need
for a new conception of scholarship,
in which teaching is associated with
scholarship. This has led to the
creation of and championing of the
‘Teacher-Scholar’ model, of what it
means to be a professor on the part of
instructional development centres. The
‘Teacher-Scholar’ model stems largely
from Ernest Boyer’s Scholarship
Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate (1990), in which the
interdependence of teaching and
research is advanced. Specifically,
Boyer (1990) argues towards the
inclusion of teaching in scholarship,
and a balance between research
and teaching. He states, “What we
urgently need today is a more inclusive
view of what it means to be a scholar
– a recognition that knowledge is
acquired through research, through
synthesis, through practice, and
through teaching” (p.24, emphasis
added). Since Boyer’s text has become
popularized, it has been adopted in
recommendations by various agencies
and institutions. Particularly, the
A.U.C.C. Report (1991) pointed to
the need to “include teaching, as
well as research activities, in the
conceptualization of scholarship”
(Taylor 1993, p.76). Boyer’s text
also claims that by instilling new
ways in which faculty see their roles
and responsibilities as ‘scholars’,
instructional development will be taken
more seriously. As Wright and O’Neil
(1994) make clear, “when the primary
emphasis in improving teaching is
not embedded in (…) scholarship,
instructional development efforts lose
credibility” (p.67). Similarly, Taylor
(1993) argues towards a more holistic
perspective regarding research and
teaching. She maintains that “scholars
in the university setting share a dual
trust: to contribute to the development
of their disciplines through research
and scholarly writing, and to maintain
the integrity of their disciplines through
teaching” (p.65).
While the ‘Teacher-Scholar’ model is a
positive attempt to integrate teaching
and learning, it is evident that some
recommendations and manners of
implementation of the teacher-scholar
model by some universities are still onesided. In a University of Saskatchewan
Institutional Policy paper entitled
“Fostering the Teacher-Scholar Model,”
(University of Saskatchewan 2000), it is
evident that the Teacher-Scholar model
has been co-opted by the ‘research
intensive’ model of scholarship. For
example, it maintains “a high value
on research that has an impact on the
learning experience of students, and a
high value on teaching that is informed
by scholarly activities.” (University
of Saskatchewan 2000. p.2). On
first reading, this statement seems to
convey a symmetrical balance between
research and teaching. Upon closer
inspection, however, one finds that,
in effect, it emphasizes how research
informs teaching, without questioning
how teaching might inform research.
Critics of the teacher-scholar model as
it is implemented by institutions, such
as the University of Saskatchewan
Process Philosophy Research Unit,
argue that “the teacher-scholar model
tends to emphasize the abstractions
of research by ignoring the concrete
experience of both students and faculty
as valuable sources of knowledge”
(USPPRU [Process Perspectives on
The Teacher Scholar Model, 2001).
In this way, USPPRU maintains that
teaching, in turn, informs research.
As such, the Teacher-Scholar model
is much debated, yet it demonstrates
one of the main ideals of instructional
development: to instill quality teaching
in Canadian universities and colleges.
Conclusion: Educational
Development in the Future
The preceding analysis has provided an
overview of educational development,
particularly, instructional development
at universities and colleges in
Canada. It has presented a critical
perspective regarding the role of
instructional development in assisting
professors to reflect on the current
values regarding scholarship of the
professoriate itself. This paper has
also attempted to depict some of the
history of, and challenges to the course
of, the establishment of instructional
development in Canada. I have also
alluded to the fact that the future of
educational development in Canada
depends largely on a commitment by
institutions to improving instruction,
and to maintaining a conceptual model
of scholarship which truly balances
scholarship and teaching. Furthermore,
I have suggested that, in order to be
successful, educational development
efforts must build upon the academic
values of professors themselves, instead
of dogmatically imposing them on
faculty. It is upon these foundations that
teaching at universities and colleges
can avoid being made subsidiary to
research, in an era in which universities
are increasingly being dominated
by the market values of research
intensiveness and the fallacious idea
References
Botman, E. S. and Gregor, A. D. “Faculty Participation in Teaching Improvement Programmes,” in
The Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
Vol. XIV-2, 1984, pp. 63-73.
Boyer, E. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1990.
Donald, J. G. “Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education in Canada: Changes Over the Last
Decade,” in The Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, Vol. XVI-3, 1986, pp. 77-84.
Elrick, M.-F. “Improving Instruction in Universities:
A Case Study of the Ontario Universities Programme for Instructional Development (OUPID),”
in The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XX, No. 2, 1990, pp. 61-79.
Foster, S. F. and Nelson, J. G. “Teaching
Improvement in Canada: Data Concerning
What and How,” in The Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, Vol. X, No. 2, 1980, pp.
120-125.
Good, H. M. and Trotter, B. “Accountability for
Efficient and Efficient University Teaching,” in The
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol.
IV, No. 1, 1974, pp. 43-53.
Konrad, A. G. “Faculty Development Practices in
Canadian Universities,” in The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XIII-2, 1983, pp.
13-25.
Kreber, C. “Integrating Teaching with Other
Aspects of Professorial Work: A Comparison of
Experienced and Inexperienced Faculty’s Role
Conceptualizations,” in The Canadian Journal
of Higher Education, Vol. XXX, No. 3, 2000,
pp. 79-112.
Taylor, K. L. “The Role of Scholarship in University Teaching,” in The Canadian Journal
of Higher Education, Vol. XXIII-3, 1993, pp.
64-79.
Wilcox, S. Learning From Our Past: The History of Educational Development in Canadian
Universities, University of Manitoba: Published as
‘Occasional Papers in Higher Education: Number
8’ by The Centre for Higher Education
Research and Development (C.H.E.R.D.) &
The Society for Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, Occasional Papers in
Higher Education, 1997.
Wright, W. A. and O’Neil, M. C. “Perspectives
on Improving Teaching in Canadian Universities,”
in The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XXIV-3, 1994, pp. 26-57.
Other Sources Consulted:
Bridging the Gaps
Eileen Herteis, TLC Programme Director
The CAUT website: www.caut.ca
Fostering the Teacher-Scholar Model” – University
of Saskatchewan Institutional Policy Paper (2000)
at www.usask.ca/university_council/reports/0402-00/shtml
Summary of U.S.P.P.R.U.’s presentation at the
Biography:
Adam Scarfe
completed
his Ph.D. in
Philosophy at
the University of
Ottawa in 2001,
having written
on G.W.F. Hegel’s
Speculative
Philosophy and
Alfred North
Whitehead’s Process Philosophy.
If Adam’s article has prompted you to
discover more about instructional development, its history, its aims, and its key
practitioners, here are some resources
to consider. All are available for loan
or consultation at the TLC.
Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (Ernest
Boyer) and Scholarship Assessed:
Evaluation of the Professoriate
(Charles Glassick, Mary T. Huber &
Gene Maeroff).
These two works, closely related though
seven years apart, have informed the
practice of instructional development
more than any others. They have also
contributed to the guiding philosophy of
The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning
Centre and many other centres across
North America.
Improving Undergraduate Education through Faculty Development
by Kenneth Eble & Wilbert McKeachie
In this book, Eble and McKeachie,
two of the best known writers about
instructional and faculty development,
examine many of the recent trends and
programmes in this area. Among other
topics, they consider the types of activities that are most effective (workshops
and seminars, it turns out) and they ask
what outcomes institutions, teachers and
students can expect from faculty development initiatives to revitalize undergraduate education.
How Administrators Can Improve
Teaching
by Peter Seldin & Associates
Peter Seldin is one of today’s most
prolific and influential writers on many
Boyer’s seminal work, first published in aspects of instructional development,
1990, posits that scholarship comprises teaching evaluation, and portfolios. In
Adam has articles published and
four broad areas: discovery, teachthis book, subtitled “Moving from Talk
forthcoming in several key journals
including Process Studies,
ing, integration, and application. He
to Action,” he argues that administraInterchange, and the Journal
argues that institutional priorities and
tors must transcend mere rhetoric about
of Speculative Philosophy. He
the reward system should reflect that
effective teaching to actually supporting
has presented papers at several
breadth of scope and, in encouraging
teaching. The thirteen authors in this
international conferences, such as the
research and publication, should not
book talk about the need for leadership
Process and Education Seminar-Based
devalue
teaching,
especially
undergradfrom deans, chairs, and senior adminisConference for Educators held in Saint
uate
teaching.
tration to initiate, develop, and implePaul, Minnesota in July 2003.
ment policies and practices that support
Glassick, Huber & Maeroff (1997)
teaching and give it higher priority in
Adam is pursuing post-doctoral
studies in Educational Foundations at propose that Boyer’s new paradigm
the academy.
the
demands that universities introduce new
University of Saskatchewan,
standards for assessing and evaluating Finally, to find out what other universiresearching the issue of selectivity
faculty and for defining scholarly work
ties’ Teaching and Learning and Centres
in higher education as emphasized
in all its forms. The authors say of these are doing, visit the “Resources” link on
by Whitehead’s Process Philosophy.
standards: “Their very obviousness
the TLC web site. From there, you will
He is a Research Associate of the
suggests
their
applicability
to
a
broad
be able to read and download instrucU of S Process Philosophy Research
range of intellectual projects”:
tional development newsletters from
Unit, and he is a sessional instructor
1.
Clear goals
across Canada.
in both Philosophy and Educational
Foundations.
2.
Adequate preparation
3.
Appropriate methods
In 2003, Adam completed the
4.
Significant results
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 5.
Effective presentation
Certificate Programme at The
6.
Reflective critique
Workshops
TLC Days 2004
The Sounds and Silences of Classroom Discussion
Eileen Herteis, TLC Programme Director
Friday, January 23, 1:30 – 4:00 pm
Educating the “NetGen”: Strategies That Work
(STARLINK Videoconference)
January 29, 1:30 - 3:00 pm
From Kaleidoscopes to Collages: Making the Last Day of Class Count
Sandra Bassendowski, College of Nursing
Thursday, March 18th 2:00 -4:00 pm
Plain Figures: Using Graphs and Charts Effectively
Melissa Spore, Instructional Designer, Extension Division
Thursday, March 25th, 1:30 -4:00 pm
Special - Focus on Teaching
Sweet and Informal Lunchtime Events
Tuesday, January 20. 11:45am – 12:45 pm
The Scholarship of Teaching with Eileen Herteis
Dessert of the Day: Carrot Cake
Tuesday, February 10. 11:45am – 12:45 pm
Teaching Metaphors with Ron Marken
Dessert of the Day: Chocolate Cake
Thursday, March 11. 11:45am – 12:45 pm
Four Conceptions of Teaching with Eileen Herteis
Dessert of the Day: Nanaimo Bars
Grad Student Development Days
Friday, January 16, 2004, 1 - 3:30 pm
Teaching Portfolios for Grad Students
Eileen Herteis, Teaching & Learning Centre
Monday, February 2, 2004, 1:00 - 3:00 pm
Teaching Tips for Discussion Groups & Labs.
Sakej Henderson, Native Law Centre and
Valerie Mackenzie, Department of Chemistry
Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 9:00 - 11:00 am
Creating Online Discussions
Richard Schwier, College of Education
Tuesday, March 9, 2004, 4:00 - 6:00 pm
Your Teaching Identity
Ayten Archer, College of Commerce
To register for any of the above
courses, visit our web site at
www.usask.ca/tlc
“There is a tendency for institutional obligations, including
those of teaching and advising
students, to fade in the face of
research and the external pressures. Yet public expectations of
the university about the duty to
teach, and teach well, could not
be stronger.”
Donald Kennedy, former
president of Stanford
University, quoted in
Downey, J., “The Heart of
Our Enterprise,” University
Affairs, November 2003.
Our next
Bridges—
online!
The February/March Bridges,
our third annual “Best of the
Rest” issue, will feature interesting and provocative pieces
from other Teaching Centres, as
well as the conclusion of Joel
Deshaye’s article on the English
department’s anti-plagiarism
“roadshow.”
Watch your mailboxes for your
one-page Bridges highlights
sheet, then log on to our web site
http://www.usask.ca/tlc/bridges_journal/ to read the full text in
html or pdf versions. Past issues
of Bridges are also archived on
this site.
Remember, if you have comments
about this change to Bridges
publication, please e-mail me at
Eileen.Herteis@usask.ca or call
966-2238.
Printing Services • 966-6639 • University of Saskatchewan • CUPE 1975