February 2 0 0 3 Vo l . 1 N o . 4
Reflecting the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning at the
University of Saskatchewan
In This Issue....
Promoting Active
Learning
Through Self-Assessment
Student Expectations: Set
the Tone
The Role of Emotion in
Learning
Computer-Mediated
Teaching and the Human
Face of Learning:
Essential Tensions or
Contradiction?
THE BEST OF THE REST
We are justifiably proud of Bridges; it is one of the best teaching and learning
newsletters in Canada and a reflection of University of Saskatchewan teachers’
commitment to the scholarship of teaching and learning.
This second annual “Best of the Rest” issue, however, spotlights some of the
interesting, provocative, and intriguing articles that have appeared in other
teaching and learning newsletters—articles that you might otherwise have missed.
I am grateful to colleagues at other teaching and learning centres for their
permission to reprint these items.
Don’t forget that you can read the newsletters from 15 other Canadian Centres
just by visiting our web site (www.usask.ca/tlc) and choosing “resources”!
Eileen Herteis
Riting the Writing:
David Solway and
Essential Reading
Experiential Learning
and Faculty Mentors
TEL Me More, TEL Me
More:
An Update on the TEL
Program
Second Annual Bright Ideas Showcase
Thursday, May 8, 2003, 2-4 pm
University of Saskatchewan teachers are resourceful and creative, but much
too modest. The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre is planning
another Showcase of the bright ideas that are illuminating complex concepts
and encouraging student learning across campus.
●
Some teachers have invented crossword puzzles
●
Others dress up and role play
●
Still others use music, art, building blocks, and real artifacts to enliven
their classes
Submit your bright idea! Just send Eileen a brief description (four or five
sentences) of your bright idea, how you use it in class, and how students have
responded. Presentation length: 15-20 minutes. Submission deadline: April
7th, 2003
The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre
37 Murray Building • 966-2231
February 2003
Vol. 1 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
PROMOTING ACTIVE LEARNING
THROUGH SELF-ASSESSMENT
By, Caroline Barrière, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ottawa
As with many professors in the Faculty
of Engineering, I face each year a
difficult situation relating to my
teaching: having a large number of
students and being incapable of
providing them with good feedback on
their work. Self-assessment came to my
mind as a partial solution to my
problem, and the idea seemed worth a
try. I had in fact embarked on the path
of active learning, and I now realize
that the benefits of self-assessment are
much greater than I had imagined.
Let me first describe my difficult
situation, certainly not a rare case. I
teach 3 sections of the course
“Fundamentals of Software Design”,
with a total of 350 computer
engineering and software engineering
students. This course contains a lab
component (3 hours per week),
absolutely essential to the
understanding of the material
presented. Unfortunately, my being
present during the lab sessions is not
possible as it would require an extra 21
hours of work per week. I must
therefore rely on teaching assistants (14
of them) to monitor and provide help
during the labs. After doing their lab,
students hand in a report to a TA, and
one or two weeks later receive their
report back, often with only a grade or
a few comments on it, no more. No
more because in the current reality, with
such a large number of students, our
TAs have about 10-15 minutes per
report to do a quick marking, leaving
little time for elaborating the justification
for their marks. There is also
inconsistency among TAs, some being
more generous than others.
The problem is twofold: first, the
impossibility of assisting students during
their lab, and second the impossibility
of marking their lab properly after they
are done. I felt like it was physically
2
impossible to challenge the first
problem, but that I could address the
second one logistically. In fact, the
problematic marking situation consists
of two sub problems: first, late and
inadequate feedback, and second,
inconsistency among TAs. These two
factors are of much concern because
good feedback is essential for learning,
and fairness is a basic principle of
respect to apply when teaching. I could
not find an ideal solution, but I found
self-assessment to be a step in the right
direction.
Involving the students not only in doing
the assignments but in marking them as
well would create complete
transparency, and would involve them
actively toward understanding what is
important and why. By providing
detailed solutions, consistency would be
assured (in principle, but not if they
decide to ignore the guidelines). Most
importantly, however, this exercise
would encourage them to think about
what they were doing, compare it to
what I did, find the similarities and
differences, examine, judge what is ok
or not and by doing so, encourage
them to be critical.
Students had eight lab sessions, each
lab due to be sent by email by midnight
on Monday. Students couldn’t give
themselves marks for an assignment
they didn’t submit. Each lab’s detailed
marking scheme was posted on the
Web the following day around 6pm.
The marking scheme included a very
detailed solution, showing some
alternatives, giving reasons for arriving
at that solution, and assigning marks to
specific parts of the solution. Feedback
was quick so students who wanted to
could mark their work right away. Each
lab counted for 2 points in the final
grade. The actual self-evaluation
counted for 0.5 for a total of 20 points
(16 points for 8 labs + 4 points for 8
self-evaluations), representing 20% of
the overall grade.
critical evaluation of other people’s
work. What I proposed is therefore only
a small step toward acquiring the
maturity needed to be critical of others
and critical of oneself.
Unfortunately, this approach was not
appropriate for students with immense
difficulties with the material. As they
were not even able to compare their
The most important aspect of this
solution with the one proposed, they
method is that in addition to the
could not understand what they did
marking itself, via guidelines such as:
Promoting self-assessment is more time
wrong. Students were encouraged to
give yourself 5 points if you did this,
consuming for the professor than just
consult me, or the TAs, if they did not
take 2 points out if you didn’t think of
giving a general marking scheme to TAs know what to do, but perhaps they
this, give yourself 1 point if you thought and assuming they will figure out the
were too shy to come forward. In the
of this instead, I included lots of
details. It also involves a trust in the
future, marking sessions could be
questions to encourage thinking and
students. It is so easy to be
organized by TAs to help the students in
questioning, to be answered during the overwhelmed by the cheating or
that process and promote exchange
marking process. Questions such as:
complaining students, that we tend to
with other students on what they did.
“Did you do this this way?”, “Why?”,
forget that many students want to learn
“Why do you think this is a good
and are willing to make lots of effort. I
We want students to learn, but we
approach?”. As mentioned in Hobson
decided to focus on these students. I am cannot force them to do so. All we can
(1996), tag questions (of type why?)
here for them. In any system, including
do is give them tools to help them learn
keep prompts open-ended, encouraging this one, some will try to cheat. I
if they wish to. In this particular setting,
students to dig deeper into their
implemented a deterrent to cheating by by focusing on learning instead of
analysis to produce an adequate
trying to avoid cheating, and by giving
justification of their position. The goal of
the students a way of being self-critical,
self-evaluation is not the actual marking
the environment at least encouraged
What I proposed is
itself, but the thinking process that we
them to think critically not just of others
therefore only a small
are trying to stimulate. Boud (1995)
but also of themselves. My goal as an
step toward acquiring
promotes the use of self-assessment for
educator is to provide the tools to
the maturity needed to
active learning as an important part of
enhance the learning of students who
be critical of others
learning, but also for building selfwant to learn. Overall, I want to spend
and critical of oneself.
criticism and self-confidence. Providing
more energy on being an educator than
immediate feedback was the first goal
a policeman. Lab self-assessment, along
here, but it became much more than
with lab quizzes, allowed me to do
that, it promoted learning, and thinking,
that.
and I believe that is our goal as
What next? As mentioned earlier, selfeducators.
marking is only a first step in
As reported by Stiggins (1994), in both
performing evaluation. The idea should
Bloom’s taxonomy (p. 240) and
be pushed further to involve the students
giving lab quizzes during lecture times
Quellmaz framework (p. 249) for
in the establishment of the marking
to test the knowledge acquired in the
naming and describing dimensions of
labs. From the students’ marks on these criteria itself (Boud 1995). Peer
learning, evaluation ends the list as
quizzes it was easy to see who had not assessment can be explored as well.
involving complex thinking capabilities. done their labs but given themselves
Some students said that knowing
In fact, Bloom defines 6 levels:
nobody else would see their lab
good marks.
knowledge, comprehension,
prevented them from performing to their
application, analysis, synthesis, and
maximum. Peer assessment or random
The method was generally well
evaluation. Quellmaz defines 5 levels:
checks by a TA would be a possible
received, even if students were quite
recall, analysis, comparison, inference, surprised at first. Students are often so
remedy to this problem. Overall, I
and evaluation. In general during
caught up in trying to follow assignment would like to involve the students in my
academic lectures emphasis is put on
class more and more in preparation
procedures step by step, that it is
knowledge or recall. Including selfand evaluation. The literature on the
difficult for them to take a step back
assessment in my class was a way of
benefits of self-assessment is quite large
and evaluate what they did. But they
addressing a different dimension of
and very fascinating. I think I just
can learn to do it. They were
learning. Self-assessment using
opened a door leading to a room full of
encouraged to send mail if they
predefined criteria is only the tip of the disagreed with the marking scheme, or interesting teaching and learning
iceberg. My true goal would be that
challenges....
send in their solution to be posted on
students define their own criteria for
the Web if they thought it was better
evaluation. In fact the word evaluation, than mine. That stimulated their critical
for Bloom and Quellmaz, means the
thinking.
3
References:
David Boud (1995). Enhancing
Learning Through Self-assessment,
Kogan Page Limited
Eric H. Hobson (1996). Encouraging
Self-Assessment: Writing as Active
Learning, in Using Active Learning in
College Classes: A Range of Options
for Faculty, Tracey E. Sutherland,
Charles C. Bonwell (eds), p. 45-58
Richard J. Stiggins (1994). StudentCentered Classroom Assessment,
Macmillan College Publishing
Company.
This article first appeared in Options,
Vol. 5, No.1 (Fall 2001). It appears
here with the permission of the Centre
for University Teaching at the University
of Ottawa.
Online
Only
Newsletter?
The TLC publishes its
newsletter “Bridges” four times a
year and distributes over 2,000
copies across campus and beyond.
To reduce costs, we have
considered moving to an online
only version with a one-page print
summary that will be distributed.
Would you read the newsletter if it
were available only online?
Please respond with your comments
to Eileen Herteis,
TLC Programme Director
eileen.herteis@usask.ca
We now have past issues of
Bridges available on-line in pdf
and html. Thank you to Joel
Deshaye. See past issues at
www.usask.ca/tlc
ON A LIGHTER NOTE . . .
Normative, formative, summative—oh
my! Test your understanding of
assessment in this light-hearted quiz,
adapted from one devised at Liverpool
John Moores University by Pat
Eastwood.
Assessment:
a) Thank Heavens it’s the end of term
b) Is killing off real learning
c) Proof that my students are better than
yours
Summative assessment:
a) Assessment for mathematicians
b) Is primarily provided to students to
give marks / comments on their
attainment
c) The only assessment we should
provide for students
Diagnostic assessment:
a) Sometimes my family doctor can
provide this, but usually he can’t
b) Ideally carried out before, or at the
start of a programme/module; in this
way the abilities and knowledge base
of each student could be identified
before formal study begins
c) There should be no need for this if
we were able to recruit students who
could cope with degree-level work
Formative assessment:
a) Goodness knows, I’m thinking about
how to improve my answer for the next
question
b) Is concerned with helping students
improve; feedback from such
assessment should provide guidance
and be motivating however awful the
work.
c) A contradiction in terms; assessment
is final
Self-assessment:
a) My tax return
b) A way of encouraging student
involvement and learning by getting
them to assess themselves
4
c) My job is to teach and assess;
students can’t possibly do this
Peer assessment:
a) The House of Lords deciding to
abolish itself?
b) A way of encouraging student
involvement and learning by getting
them to assess each other
c) If it works it would be a wonderful
way of lightening staff marking
Marking scheme:
a) Shall I use green or red pen?
b) The detailed allocation of marks for
specific points/sections/ideas
c) So long as it adds up does it matter
how many marks I allocate to different
bits?
Strategy:
a) To do as little as possible
b) A detailed plan that will enable the
implementation of a policy
c) What we lack at U of S
Normative assessment:
a) A class containing only Normas and
Normans? (not very common these
days)
b) Assessment that measures the
progress of a student with reference to
his/her peer group.
c) You are always going to be
compared with your peers throughout
life – students might as well get used to
it
Criterion referenced:
a) A cataloguing system in the library?
b) Criterion referenced assessment uses
a number of indices to produce a
profile of the achievement of each
student against a set of specified
criteria or performance standards
c) Something the driving test uses
Reflective practice:
a) More imagined than real – I’m too
busy marking to think about what I do
b) Encouraging students to think about
how they can learn from experience in
order to improve
c) If they spent less time ‘reflecting’ and
more time doing, students might
actually learn something
Portfolio:
a) My father in law’s stocks and shares
b) An assessment tool
c) A collection of certificates and
‘witness statements’ that are supposed
to be evidence of learning
Assessment criteria:
a) Something to do with my mortgage
application
b) Guidelines giving an indication of
the quality of work expected per
category of student, either per type of
assignment, or generally or per specific
assignment
c) What’s wrong with gut instinct? I
know an “A”
Transparency:
a) Out of date technology – we all use
PowerPoint now
b) It is important that students know and
understand what is required of them
c) So long as students know when and
where the exam is what else do they
need?
PMCs:
a) Preposterous medical certificates
b) Personal mitigating circumstances
c) Plausible mendacious cheats
This article first appeared in “Focus on
Assessment and Feedback” (2) 1.
Winter 2002. p. 28. It appears here
with permission.
Mostly As: You are an enthusiastic
and mildly eccentric teacher, immersed
in your subject and/or life outside U of
S. You are not concerned with
initiatives or buzz words and have no
truck with educational jargon or
initiatives from the Teaching & Learning
Centre. You know more than ‘them’
anyway. You will continue to teach in
the way you think best.
Interested in learning more
about assessment?
Visit the TLC web site at
www.usask.ca/tlc and
choose “resources”; you’ll
find links to PowerPoint
presentations, web sites,
and more. Or come to the
Centre and borrow a book
from our Library.
Mostly Bs: You are committed to
improving student learning and as a
result you are spending a lot of time
attending or even presenting at TLC
workshops. Soon you may even have
some administrative responsibility and
see even fewer students. It was ever so.
Mostly Cs: You have firmly held
views and everyone knows them. They
are, of course, true and you cannot
understand why the University is
governed by people unable to see the
obvious. But everything is cyclical and
you expect your views to be back in
fashion soon. It’s just a pity you will
likely have retired by then.
Conferences and workshops world-wide
that are of interest to the university community
Lilly Conference on
Plus Ça Change...
College & University
23rd Annual Conference of the Teaching - West
STLHE/SAPES 2003
Society for Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education
University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC
June 11-14, 2003 http://
www.ubcconferences.com/
events/stlhe
14 & 15 March 2003
Kellogg Center, Cal Poly
Pomona
http://www.iats.com
International Conference on
Faculty Learning
Communities
19 & 20 June 2003
Kellogg Center, Cal Poly Pomona
http://www.iats.com
There are more conferences and events listed
in our new coming events section at
www.usask.ca/tlc.
5
STUDENT EXPECTATIONS: SET THE TONE
Laurie MacDonald, Information Systems, Bryant College, Rhode Island
I’ve said it a thousand times and heard
many of my colleagues say it, “These
students expect a free lunch! They
figure they deserve at least a B just for
signing up for my course!”
Grade inflation is real, and students
have come to expect higher grades.
Many students who receive a grade of
C or less feel they have been treated
unfairly and automatically blame the
instructor. Expectations play an
important role in our perception and
influence our construction of reality.
Students have been led to expect many
things from their college experience.
Unfortunately for some, hard work and
intellectual challenge do not make their
list of expectations.
It’s up to us to set the standards for the
students and not simply to react to the
expectations they bring with them.
Someone probably told them that
“Learning is Fun” and they most likely
were wearing a Happy Face button
when they said it. I remind them
frequently that “Knowing is Fun,” but
learning is hard work, very hard work.
They learn the very first day that I have
high expectations and will demand
serious work. They learn in the first few
weeks that I am relentless in my
demand for excellent work.
Many students show up for my courses
in business applications programming
thinking they know a lot about
computer processing. They surf the
web, they use email, they FTP files all
over the world, and they may have
written some programs. They think
they’re pretty good and many of them
are – in those limited areas. However,
they have no idea of the discipline and
structure that go into building a
business application. They have never
experienced the tedium of spending
hours looking for that single byte that is
causing the system to fail. It’s profoundly
frustrating when you have worked on a
project for weeks that comprises
hundreds (maybe thousands) of
kilobytes and it fails because a single
byte is wrong.
Some Simple Things
I use some simple techniques and
classroom procedures to help set the
tone.
The day’s activities always begin
exactly on time and class ends on time.
The fact that schedules matter is one of
the primary lessons of business
applications programming.
There are no small mistakes. A program
that’s almost correct is not acceptable. It
has to be perfect.
When students submit an assignment or
take a test, I make it an absolute rule to
return their papers at the next class
meeting. The students come to know
that I expect them to meet their
responsibilities and they can expect me
to meet mine. Having preached that
“every byte counts,” I am obliged to
follow up by reading every byte of their
papers and testing every aspect of their
programs.
Early in the semester I get a lot of
comments from students when I deduct
Attendance is taken at the beginning of points for using the wrong font size or
class. If a student is late, it’s the same as not aligning team names on their
a cut. I never re-do the attendance. The reports. However, they quickly get the
point that in programming it’s attention
students learn quickly that I am serious
about my classes, and I experience few to the details that wins the day. They
also appreciate the fact that I comment
cuts.
extensively on everything they do good and bad.
During lectures I make frequent eye
contact with each student. During lab
Grading
sessions I visit with each programming
team to discuss their progress. Students Students always seem to be concerned
who are not doing well are asked to
about the grading system. Therefore, I
come to my office for one-on-one
discuss grading in detail in the first
discussion of the course material. If
class. I use a variety of ways to assess
necessary, we meet weekly.
student achievement: Fill-in-the-Blank
quizzes, Multiple Choice exams, Lab
Reports, Problem-Solving tests,
Expect Excellence
Programming Projects. Using a variety
“Every byte counts.” My students hear
of measures is not only fair to the
that so often it makes them cringe. It is
students; it pre-empts the complaint that
true for the computer that every byte
counts and there are no small mistakes. they don’t do well on a certain type of
test.
By extension I apply that rule to
everything my students do. I enforce
I explain to the students that I will meet
rules for everything from assignment
due dates to the size of the font they use with them individually to review any
graded papers and answer any
on their reports. Many of the rules
questions they have about the grade
appear trivial at first and in fact are
they earned on a specific paper. I
quite arbitrary. It’s part of the way I
further explain that I will not discuss
establish the discipline and structure of
their final grade for the course. Final
programming.
grades are a function of their
6
achievement on individual papers. I
also explain the rules for grading each
type of deliverable so students will
know exactly what’s expected on their
papers and exams. When students
know exactly what is required to earn a
certain grade, there are few questions
about grades.
Finally, I discuss attendance. I’m always
bemused when students plead that I
should raise their grade because they
“came to every class and really, really
tried hard.” I let them know there are
no rewards for effort, only for
accomplishment.
Conclusion
Students do show up with expectations
of a good grade for a minimum amount
of work. We can change those
expectations by creating a structured
class with very clear statements about
what we expect from the student. If we
demand excellence, they will respond.
This places demands on us.
•We must plan our courses carefully
and provide explicit guidelines for the
students.
•The rules for grading must be clear
and consistent.
•Establish due dates and stick with
them. Students appreciate knowing
what is due and when.
•Provide feedback frequently and
extensively. Make sure they know what
they don’t know and what they do
know.
•Engage the students outside of
class…especially the ones who are not
doing well.
•Start class on time, and end on time.
We expect them to meet schedules; we
must do the same.
•Never negotiate grades. Students earn
what they earn. Period.
•The first day of class is critical. Good
endings require good beginnings.
•Every class is critical. Give them a full
‘hour’ of serious work.
•Teach what you love and love what
you teach!
This article first appeared in the Fall,
2001, edition of The Faculty Network,
published by Bryant College. It
appears with permission.
BRIDGING THE GAPS
Howard B. Altman. How to
Demoralize Faculty: A Six-Step
Program That Works. The Journal
of Academic Leadership (http://
www.usask.ca/tlc/resources.html#al)
Issues in Problem-Based
Learning, a special edition of the
Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching (http://www.usask.ca/tlc/
resources.html#ject)
“Faculty morale is too high,” says
Howard Altman in this satirical piece.
He cautions university administrators to
follow his foolproof plan or face a
campus over-burdened by contented
teachers. Therefore, Deans, Chairs,
Provosts, and Presidents, here are some
of the measures essential to increase
dissatisfaction and send morale
plummeting:
From its beginnings in medical
education, Problem-Based Learning
(PBL) has acquired a much broader
appeal. In a variety of disciplines, PBL
is an approach for students to explore
what they know and apply their
knowledge to consequential problems.
It helps students to develop skills in
inquiry and critical thinking; to bridge
the gap between theory and practice,
the classroom and workplace.
Close down the lines of
communication—Let the Administration
Building be a “black hole” from which
no responses are received, no
communication heard.
Never thank anyone—Dedicated
service should always be taken for
granted and never acknowledged.
This special issue of the Journal on
Excellence in College Teaching
examines PBL in graduate and
undergraduate education, in disciplines
as diverse as Medicine, Education,
Law, Nursing, and English.
Stay invisible—Avoid being seen
around campus; stay behind closed
doors; postpone appointments.
If you have been thinking about
introducing PBL into your courses, or
are simple curious to discover what it’s
about, reading this special issue is an
excellent place to start.
Keep the workings of the reward system
secret—The more vague and
unspecified standards there are for
promotion, tenure, and merit, the easier
it is to make personnel decisions.
The Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching is another of the resources
available from the TLC web site at
http://www.usask.ca/tlc/
resources.html#journals.
Change everything frequently—Alter the
reward system, introduce another
teaching evaluation form, conduct
frequent surveys (but don’t share the
results), and bring in new administrators
every couple of years.
Visit our web site and check out all five
of our on-line journals: The Journal of
Academic Leadership; Inventio;
National Teaching and Learning Forum;
The Successful Professor; The Journal on
Excellence in College Teaching.
The Journal of Academic Leadership is a
thought-provoking resource for university
administrators—and those who like to
keep their eye on them! It is one of the
excellent journals available from the TLC
web site at http://www.usask.ca/tlc/
resources.html#journals.
7
Eileen Herteis
RITING THE WRITING:
DAVID SOLWAY AND ESSENTIAL READING
By Joel Deshaye, Instructional Technology Consultant, The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre
Last November, at his address to an
audience of teachers and readers at the
U of S, poet, critic, and retired
professor David Solway offered this
advice: abandon ship. The Titanic of
education is sinking and technology is
the cold hard iceberg that we didn’t
take seriously until it was too late.
According to Solway, technologies such
as television and the Internet corrupt the
reading habits of children and students.
Quoting Jane M. Healy’s
“Understanding TV’s effects on the
developing brain” (1998), Solway
claims that modern students have a
“two-minute mind.” They have the
attention spans of goldfish and are
swimming in the murky waters of
illiteracy.
Why? There are demands on our
attention now that were not common
even ten years ago. The computer
screen and the television have replaced
text with graphics and have forced
readers to adapt their learning styles.
Rather than reading carefully, readers
have learned from TV that reading
quickly and forgetting quickly are more
appropriate to the kind of content one
gets from the usual channels. Rather
than attending to details, readers have
learned from viewing the Internet that
superficial scanning reduces the
eyestrain caused by prolonged staring
contests with the screen. Solway sees
these coping strategies as reader
weaknesses rather than adaptations.
The problem, he implies, is that these
habits transfer to the reading of
literature and discourage meaningful
reading.
Solway says that we now “scan
collage” rather than “parse [or analyse]
text.” The viewing of images at the
expense of reading text has hobbled
our interpretive faculty and our
imagination. Although he didn’t say so
explicitly in his speech, Solway
probably read Richard Lanham’s The
Electronic Word (1993), in which
Lanham suggests that graphics-rich
reading material reminds us that we are
viewers and so discourages immersion
in the text. In Lanham’s concept of
reading, we look through a text and
forget that we are reading (Kafka,
Solway notes, calls this “go[ing] over”).
When reading on the Internet, we tend
to look at. Implicitly drawing on this
distinction, Solway claims that Microsoft
Windows should be called Macrohard
Pictures, because the graphical user
interfaces (GUIs) of modern operating
systems discourage us from looking
through figurative windows into
imaginative worlds. The GUIs are
obvious (“macro”) and, like the
ostensibly what-you-see-is-what-you-get
culture of images and quasipornographic advertising, are “hard,”
leaving little to the imagination.
If the road to a promised land of
technology is indeed destroying our
reading habits, then the toll will be paid
out of our comprehension, creativity,
judgment, and attention.
Solway’s address was entitled
“Reading, Riting, and Rhythmitic: The
Fate of Reading in a Technological
Age.” His subtitle is culled from Sven
Birkerts’ The Gutenberg Elegies: The
Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age
(1994). Both Solway and Birkerts are
dedicated readers with a paranoid
tendency to re-proclaim the death of
reading, authorship, and the book. Yet,
both writers have an earnest passion
that suggests that their way of reading
is worth preserving.
Solway reveals this passion in his
insightful and original concepts of riting
and rhythmitic. Reading is riting, he
says, because reading is a “ceremony
of prolonged attention” that gives
readers a writerly engagement and
interpretive influence over the text.
Riting (much like writing — the
homonym is intentional) is an “ancestral
8
technology of concentration.” It is
unbroken play for the imagination. For
an inveterate writer like Solway, this
kind of reading is sacred. No wonder,
then, that writing induces a kind of
rhythmitic, an unconscious joining of the
reader with the text’s sense of metrics
and cronymics (or “linguistic time”).
This riting is threatened by the new,
broken reading style, which Solway
sees as irreparable in his students. He
claims that students often lack four
essential skills in reading and
comprehension: practice and familiarity
with texts and independence in reading
them; an understanding of grammar; a
contextual knowledge of history, culture,
and ideas; and a capacity to think
logically and coherently over time.
Concentration is implied in this last skill.
Are the benefits of commerce and
efficiency worth the sacrificing of these
skills? If the road to a promised land of
technology is indeed destroying our
reading habits, then the toll will be paid
out of our comprehension, creativity,
judgment, and attention. The threat to
our education system is unquestionable.
However, Solway’s prophecy isn’t new;
people have been heralding doomsday
since well beyond recent memory.
Despite the difficult challenges posed by
the negative influence of technology,
this shift has some positive
consequences for reading.
The Internet, for instance, is rapidly
becoming the gateway to the world’s
best libraries. It may not yet be the
Lyceum, but the Internet is the premiere
information provider and will eventually
surpass the quantity of knowledge and
information found in books. Despite its
general lack of good editorial practice,
the Net is beginning to swell with
credible information because
academics and artists are staking their
claim in virtual space. As we use the
Net more and more for our information
needs, books will become more
specialized and their use will be
refined. They will be the doors to our
imaginations and higher-order thinking,
rather than suppliers of information. We
will begin to associate them with an
intellectual pleasure that they will have
more exclusively than ever. If students
begin to see books in this way, and can
retain the skills and patience needed to
engage with books, we might enter a
new era of appreciation for the best
kind of reading.
Solway thinks that this kind of reading
is threatened by more than the students
themselves. In The Turtle Hypodermic of
Sickenpods: Liberal Studies in the
Corporate Age (2000), Solway blames
not only technology, but bureaucrats
and outcomes-based teaching.
Concentrating on outcomes, he
suggests, restricts discourse, stifles
creativity and the freedom of ideas,
and makes academic success a
systemic, institutional challenge rather
than a personal one (20-28). The few
teachers who are skeptical of the
outcomes model face pressures about
curricula from the bureaucracy; it
becomes difficult to tell what is the
deadliest iceberg - technology or
bureaucracy.
Teachers often feel that they are
ramming their heads into something
cold, inert, and threatening, whatever it
might be. Cracking open the hull of this
Titanic might not be such a bad idea if
the free roam of the Dead Poets Society
model can be disciplined to balance
structure and creativity. If we’re forced
to swim for our lives (as students and
teachers), then maybe the desperation
will promote or renew the genuine
intensity and enthusiasm that can be
lacking in environments, like the
classroom, that should support close
reading. The crisis might turn these twominute-minded goldfish into
amphibians, so they can, at least, get
out of the murky water and onto firmer
ground.
We are thinking about deploying
different lifeboats: one for students who
already have the basic skills for riting,
one for those who need (or only think
they need) the skills for writing. Having
taught student engineers, future business
people, and novice mechanics, I think
that the need for riting (and hence
concentration and interpretation) is
crucial for non-literature students, too.
Their career needs are different from
students in the humanities, but literature
is still an effective way to demonstrate
that language holds meaning that
depends on interpretation and repays
attention with individual truths and
subtlety. Solway is right to suggest, as
he does in his speech, that all students
need it but might not have the skills for
it, but he is wrong to think that there is
no hope of saving the sea-borne
travellers who have been dumped into
the water. Some may have been saved
by his own poetry. Others need to see
that literature is not all joylessly difficult,
obscure, and less preferable to TV or
the Internet. They need interested role
models, illuminating texts, appropriate
and relevant context and history, free
and critical discussion - a journey on
high seas, perhaps, but a process that
should encourage ambitions for better
than high Cs. The place to start or
continue this journey is still the
university.
References: Solway, David. (2000). The
Turtle Hypodermic of Sickenpods.
Montréal: McGill-Queen’s UP.
THE THRILL IS GONE!
By Eileen Herteis
Most of us recognize that a professor’s enthusiasm is a crucial factor in effective
teaching and learning; but what do you do when the thrill is gone?
In a recent article in The Successful Professor (October, 2002) Deborah
Frazier and Jennifer Methvin examine the “killjoys” in teaching and suggest ways
to eradicate them. Here are some of their suggestions to dispel the teaching blues:
Memories
Lucid memories in which we relive bad teaching moments encourage us to dwell
on the negative. Analyze bad moments and work on improvement, certainly;
however, it is more important to remember, focus on, and share the joy of our
positive teaching experiences.
Routine
Not having to start from scratch each time we teach a class can be a blessing, but
teaching the same class over and over, without adding anything new, can lead to
boredom. How can teachers motivate students if they lack motivation themselves?
Climate
The institutional climate can increase teachers’ dissatisfaction and reduce their
enthusiasm. Frazier and Methvin urge teachers not to “let the situation outside the
classroom kill the joy within.”
Attitude
Is your attitude worth catching or is your lack of joy and enthusiasm affecting your
students’ learning?
For the sake of student learning, “conquer the killjoys and reclaim the thrill of
teaching.”
Source:Frazier, D. & Methvin, J. (October, 2002) Enthusiasm Conquers the
Killjoys: A Way to Enhance Student Learning. The Successful Professor, Vol. 1,
No. 5. University of Saskatchewan readers can access The Successful Professor
from the TLC web site http://www.usask.ca/tlc/resources.html#journals
9
THE ROLE OF EMOTION
IN LEARNING
by Mike Atkinson, Faculty Associate, Educational Development Office, University of Western Ontario
We talk a lot about the importance of
“passion” in the classroom, but does it
really help students learn? Well, in fact,
it can. At the very least, a passionate
instructor who demonstrates his or her
emotions in the classroom is a very
motivating speaker. Emotions add
emphasis to the content of a lecture and
underline the importance of certain
topics. In addition, the passion is
infectious — if you can get excited
about a particular topic, then perhaps it
is not so dull after all!
But over and above the presentational
benefits of passion, there is a definite
link to learning. Harry Murray of
UWO’s Psychology Department has
shown that instructors who are very
expressive, use a lot of nonverbal
behaviour, and move around the
classroom are very effective. Not only
do they receive higher ratings, but
students actually perform better on
exams. This effect may result from
several factors. For example, the
passionate instructor is more likely to
maintain student attention and,
consequently, there is a greater focus
on the material to be learned. In
addition, being in a positive mood, in
general, tends to have this focusing
effect — as long as the mood is
moderately positive. Being in an
extremely good mood can be just as
distracting as being in a negative
mood.
One potential problem is a moodcongruity effect. We tend to remember
better if we are in the same mood at
recall as we were at learning. So if
students are in a positive mood during
a lecture, they will recall the information
better if they are also in a positive
mood during the exam. Nonetheless,
the benefits of “passion” are well
documented and can provide a boost to
student learning.
If you are interested in receiving a copy
of Harry Murray’s Teaching Behaviours
Inventory, please e-mail me
(Eileen.Herteis@usask.ca).
This article first appeared in the
University of Western Ontario
newsletter, Reflections, No. 45. April,
2001. It appears here with permission.
Critical Thinking and the Scholarship of
Teaching & Learning
Presentations by Visiting Scholar Dr. Craig Nelson, Indiana University,
May 1st, 2003
Fostering Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines (9:30 am-12:30 pm)
The basic question with critical thinking is: Why is it so difficult for students to acquire? To promote students’ critical
thinking, teachers must consider the ways we structure content, the ways we present it—with and without technology—
and the ways we structure the social systems that our classrooms inevitably are.
How We Defeat Ourselves: Dysfunctional Illusions of Rigor—Some Key Lessons From The
Scholarship Of Teaching & Learning (1:45-4:30 pm)
From reading the pedagogical literature and watching his own classes, Craig Nelson slowly realized that much of his
pedagogy, though standard practice, was having the opposite of its intended effect. Thus began a search for changes
that would increase the number of students whose performance earned an A grade in his courses without lowering the
expectations. Would Craig’s changes work for you?
For complete session details and registration information, visit our web site www.usask.ca/tlc
Funding for this event has been requested from the Technology-Enhanced Learning Fund.
Craig Nelson has been a Carnegie Scholar since 2000. He was named “Outstanding Research and Doctoral University
Professor Of The Year 2000” by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for the
Advancement and Support of Education (CASE). Indiana University awarded him its President’s Medal for Excellence
(“the highest award given by Indiana University”) in 2001.
10
EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING AND FACULTY MENTORS
Angie Wong, Ph.D., Extension Division, University of Saskatchewan
What do a 20 year-old full-time
undergraduate student and a 35-year
old part-time student have in common?
They could both benefit from the
guidance of a faculty mentor who
values experiential learning as a means
of fostering academic and personal
growth.
connect experience with disciplinary
abstractions.
Similarly, adult learners returning to
formal learning can be provided with
cognitive “hooks” to articulate what
they have learned experientially in a
manner that is acceptable to academic
readers. In the workplace, social
The term experiential learning is often
interaction with peers and supervisors
used in conjunction with the non-formal provide many opportunities for
learning that learners achieve through
generating multiple perspectives
concrete experience in the workplace or through articulation and clarification of
in the community. Increasingly,
ideas, collaboration, and negotiation,
experiential learning opportunities in
but many adult learners need
the workplace are integrated into
orientation to the appropriate reflective
undergraduate programs in response to frameworks to present this learning
growing interest from both students and (Boud, 1995).
employers. Concurrently, more and
more adult learners are entering or reExamples of reflective questions which
entering university, often bringing with
can act as “hooks” for connecting
them rich experiential learning
personal experience with learning are
achieved in a variety of contexts. Some •What do I now know or understand or
of these adult learners are seeking to
know how to do that I didn’t before this
have their prior experiential learning
learning experience happened?
assessed for potential credit under
•How has this learning experience
mechanisms such as the Challenge for
encouraged me to question my
Credit policy.
assumptions?
•How has this learning experience
Faculty mentors can assist both groups
helped me to understand this (concept)
of students by first applying teaching
or (theory)?
and learning practices that could foster •How has this learning experience
reflective thinking, and second, by
helped me in my personal
promoting experiential learning
development?
structures that can assist students in
•How has his learning experience
documenting evidence of learning.
changed me in the workplace or as a
student in this program?
Kolb (1984) defines learning as the
process whereby knowledge is created Learning structures that facilitate
through the transformation of
reflective learning include logs or
experience. To assist learners in
journals, which provide a continuous
creating meaningful new knowledge,
record of the individual’s observations
faculty mentors can design teaching
and thoughts throughout a learning
and learning activities that are active,
experience. Extracts from logs or
situated, and integrative (Mentkowski,
journals can be incorporated into
2000). This involves
written assignments. In sponsored
•allowing learners to test their
experiential learning, learning contracts
judgments and abilities in action;
provide a structure that takes into
•encouraging learners to think during
consideration the goals and
experience; and
expectations of multiple parties,
•providing “hooks” for students to
including the learner, the faculty mentor
(representing the institution), and the
11
field supervisor (representing the host
organization).
Experiential learning can be
systematically documented in a learning
portfolio, which becomes a vehicle for
providing evidence of developmental
progress. In portfolio-assisted
assessment of prior experiential
learning, adult learners can present a
variety of best practices and reflective
thought in relation to the learning
outcomes of a course (Wong, 1999).
The process allows an assessor to tap
into deeper or more complex learning,
compared to a test, which may just skim
the surface of a learner’s capabilities.
Experiential learning provides an
“umbrella” under which faculty can
explore and experiment with a variety
of teaching and assessment strategies
that can facilitate academic and
personal growth. Forthcoming articles
and workshops sponsored by the TLC
will highlight some of these strategies.
References
Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning
through self-assessment. London, Kogan
Page.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential
learning: Experience as the source of
learning and development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Mentkowski, M. & Associates. (2000).
Learning that lasts. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Wong, A. T. (1999). Prior learning
assessment and recognition: A guide
for university faculty and administrators.
Saskatoon, University of Saskatchewan
University Extension Press.
COMPUTER-MEDIATED TEACHING AND THE
HUMAN FACE OF LEARNING: ESSENTIAL
TENSIONS OR CONTRADICTION?
Dr. Robert Summerby-Murray, Department of Geography, Mount Allison University
Recipient of the Association of Atlantic Universities Distinguished Teacher Award
Many institutions are at a critical
juncture where a division is emerging
between on-line course delivery (with its
particular pedagogy) and the human
interactions of the more ‘traditional’
university experience. How do we
enhance the human face of teaching
and learning in relation to computermediated processes? How do we avoid
‘throwing out the baby with the bath
water’ in an anti-technology backlash?
Over the past decade we have seen the
computer-mediated teaching
environment shift from specialized
laboratory environments in such
disciplines as modern languages,
music, and geosciences towards more
generally-available learning situations
in our own classrooms, independent of
disciplines. We have moved from
having small components of a course,
such as specific exercises, operating
through computer networks to now
having entire courses operating on the
web, complete with interactive testing
and automatic grade submission. We
now expect students to communicate by
email, to submit assignments
electronically, and to check the course
web pages for components of the
course syllabus and evaluation scheme.
Some of us experiment with entirely
paperless courses where everything is
provided in some form of electronic
medium. Some set up parallel teaching
environments intended to complement
class time. And while most would argue
that these teaching technologies have
been applied appropriately, there are
those who continue - rightly - to ask
critical questions. And there are still
others for whom these forms of teaching
technologies have obfuscated the
essential human interactions of the
academy.
Computer-mediated environments:
falling into line online and becoming
‘teachnologically literate’
Perhaps you are fired up about
applying the latest technologies to your
teaching. Perhaps you have a teaching
development office that encourages and
rewards the use of computer-mediated
learning. Perhaps ‘innovative’ is
somehow equated with ‘technology.’
Perhaps you’ve never touched this
computer-mediated stuff at all and have
no intention of doing so - but are now
faced with continuous pressure to fall
into line online, to get on board, get up
to speed, and a host of other sales
pitches encouraging you to explore the
opportunities which seem so obvious to
the “teachnologically literate.” And
there are other pressures in the
innovator/adopter/laggard sequence:
What do my head of department and
dean think of this stuff? Is my annual
performance evaluation going to be
affected? Are tenure and promotion in
jeopardy because my courses are not
available on the web?
People still matter. The computermediated environment has not
succeeded in replacing class time for
most traditional on-campus courses. I
doubt that many of us ever intended it
to do so.
Whatever your individual responses to
these questions, as a group, we as
members of the professoriate, as
instructional learning officers and
development staff, have worked hard to
create a plethora of computer-mediated
teaching environments. In a recent
article in University Affairs, Tema Frank
(2001) notes that it is not just distance
education that has embraced computermediated learning but that traditional
course delivery on our own campuses,
12
in our own classes, now makes
extensive use of web pages, bulletin
boards, electronic discussion groups,
and email. Increasingly, we are seeing
some element of online learning in our
regularly assigned teaching. Below, I
suggest the need for a more critical look
at the intersection of computer-mediated
teaching and the ‘human face’ of
learning associated with our traditional
perspectives on the nature of the
university.
‘Roadkill on the information
superhighway’
The Canadian Association of University
Teachers Bulletin has been a
particularly interesting source of critical
comment on computer-mediated
teaching over the past year. While
some of this discussion appears
motivated by concern with pedagogy,
it’s clear also that some of the disquiet
results from a perception of the
connections between the
implementation of computer technology
and the restructuring of funding regimes
within university education. Critics have
argued that some academic institutions
have embraced information and
communication technologies as ways of
reducing operating expenses and
revitalizing course delivery; seeing
online courses as cash cows generating
tuition revenues without the need to
provide classrooms. The ‘products’ of
traditional courses can be seen as
readily convertible commodities for sale
to online student consumers.
Further, Tremblay (2001) ponders why
we still have great difficulty getting past
the ‘gee whiz’ effect of our teaching
technologies, and urges that we should
spend more time analyzing ‘mediation’
rather than ‘technology.’ In other words,
technology must not be an end in itself -
presumably we use it to teach more
effectively but we are woefully short of
real analysis of what this means.
Tremblay identifies also some disturbing
elements of adopting computermediated teaching, not least of which is
the suggestion that it is in danger of
becoming a cultural phenomenon
complete with its own mechanisms of
social coercion – including covert and
overt suggestions that to not be part of
the computer-mediated teaching culture
renders one out of touch, or as
Tremblay puts it, ‘roadkill on the
information superhighway’.
Learning from the Luddite within us and
moving to better informed perspectives
Many of the negative comments made
above reflect concern at the
glorification of a particular set of
technologies, with a particular set of
learning processes, without adequate
investigation of pedagogy. We need to
move beyond these, especially to our
own disciplinary experiences in order
to explore the potential for enhancing
our students’ learning experiences.
There are further issues to raise here
briefly for the use of web-based
teaching technologies. First is the
question of proprietary rights. Whose
material is it on the web? How do we
define ownership, on the part of both
student and instructor. The second issue
is related and is what I refer to as the
sanctity and authority of text. A number
of years ago we were very concerned
that the web would become the ‘great
digital dumpster’, a place of
unmediated information. Many of us
feared that our students, raised on a
media diet of 30 second soundbites
with correspondingly short attention
spans, would engage information on
the web as an incoherent process,
skimming over fragmented material and
contributing similarly disjointed and
poorly contextualized writing to the
quasi-intellectual maelstrom. Notions of
sustained argument within a finely
crafted text would be replaced with
casual informality. My experiences with
using the web in my teaching do not
support this dystopian view.
Instead, I’m heartened to see students
acknowledging that their web postings
need to conform to the same quality
control and conventions of other
academic writing. In other words, it is
an extension of our traditional teaching
processes. I remain optimistic and note
that there is much excellent academic
content in our online journals and in
computer-mediated writing that helps to
preserve the sanctity of the text in our
web-based teaching environments.
In addition to the web, and so often
overlooked, email is now a vital part of
our computer-mediated teaching. For
many of us it has replaced formal office
hours or has at least cut down on this
element of direct student contact. We
must continue to question its use,
however. It is rather ironic that we use it
to reduce student contact, to cut down
on the time we spend in face to face
dialogue, when it is these human
interactions that we value as teachers.
The humanity of the academy: lessons
from computer-mediated teaching?
People still matter. The computermediated environment has not
succeeded in replacing class time for
most traditional on-campus courses. I
doubt that many of us ever intended it to
do so. Despite some of the fears alluded
to in the literature cited earlier, my
personal experience does not suggest
that it was intended as a time saver, a
space saver, a solution to a student
numbers game or the lack of suitable
classroom space. Rather, it has
functioned as an extension into some
new approaches, improved the
flexibility of our discussion and the
mechanisms of involvement and
empowerment for students. There are
many elements of learning that are
enhanced in the computer-mediated
environment but these highlight the
importance of complementary face-toface human contact, a social pedagogy
that reinforces the teaching/learning
nexus as a highly flexible dialogue.
There are many institutional issues here
also. There is a tension between our
perspectives as teachers, keen to
encourage the intellectual development
13
of the whole person, and the realities
of our institutions where student
numbers and the allocation of scarce
financial resources are significant
issues. There is creativity here, though,
prompted in part by a reassessment of
the human interactions that are
fundamental to a view of the university
as a place where there is a unity of
purpose in the pursuit of knowledge.
As teachers, we must keep this point
foremost in our minds, particularly as
we debate the pressures for online
courses, distance education, and the
complicated conflation of teaching
development with ‘teaching and
technology’ which often threatens to
dominate our approaches.
Computer-mediated learning has many
possibilities but to concentrate on it in
isolation and at the expense of
enhancing our non-computer-mediated
methods narrows our lines of thinking
and ultimately reduces our effectiveness
as practitioners of higher learning.
References
Frank,T. (2001) “Online courses: a
gold rush or fool’s gold?” University
Affairs. February 2001, 8-13.
Tremblay, T. (2001) “The wizardry of
mediating instruction with technology.
CAUT Bulletin. June 2001, A3.
This article first appeared in Dalhousie
University’s newsletter Focus on
University Teaching and Learning, Vol.
11, No. 4, March/April 2002. It is
reprinted with permission.
TEL ME MORE, TEL ME MORE:
AN UPDATE ON THE TEL PROGRAM
Submitted by Sheena Rowan, U of S TEL Program Coordinator
The Province’s Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) program continues to develop course content in alternative formats,
enhancing the capability of faculty and staff to work with new technologies, and supporting the learners. The Department of
Learning has provided funding for 2002-2003 at the level of $4.15M. Approximately $2.6M of this is for on-line content
development, of which the U of S portion is $885,333 (an increase from the $800,000 allocated in 2001/02). It is
expected that this level of funding will continue on an annual basis until 2005, with the goal of expanding provincial postsecondary on-line offerings to more than 300 courses.
At the U of S, 27 projects were funded in the area of on-line course development last year and an additional 24 projects
have been approved for this year. A full listing of approved courses is available at the U of S TEL website www.usask.ca/
vpacademic/tel. The competition was keen again this year – our office received letters of interest from 11 colleges for 49
projects. Funding will also be provided to the Extension Division to provide instructional design services to the course
developers, to IT Services and the Division of Media and Technology to provide web-programming services, and to The
Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre in collaboration with IT Services to provide training to faculty and staff in the
new technologies.
The TEL initiative has two other funding envelopes - Learner Services and Faculty Development and Support. Within the
Learner Services envelope funding is available for selected projects that support learners who participate in technology
enhanced and online learning. Funding in the Faculty Development and Support envelope provides an opportunity to
support faculty members’ individual scholarly activity, advance the integration of online learning into the research culture at
the U of S, and support provincial goals for TEL. Last year, a total of 10 projects were approved in these two areas. A call
for proposals in Learner Services and Faculty Development was issued on October 28. The deadline for 2002/2003
proposals was January 24, 2003.
We are also beginning to see evidence of success in terms of completed projects. Math Readiness, WGST 110.6,
Computer Science 102 and Native Studies 200.6 have all been successfully launched and the development of twenty-five
other projects is well underway. Several of these projects will be launched in the Fall of 2003.
For more information on TEL please contact me, Sheena Rowan, TEL Program Coordinator for the U of S, at 966-8408 or
visit the Campus SK website at www.campussaskatchewan.ca.
A Case Study of Student-Led Online Discussions in a Graduate Level
Course by Mary E. Dykes, M.Ed. Thesis, Spring Convocation 2003
Dykes, a former GSR 989 student, has donated a copy of her thesis documenting research in online
discussions to the Resource collection. She hopes her thesis will be of interest to instructors who want
to read:
❖ the opinions of students on the use of online discussions, and
❖ the observations of the instructor about this medium.
In her study, Dykes interviewed eight students who participated in one course that made extensive use
of both asynchronous discussions, or bulletins, and synchronous discussions, or chats. The research
questions asked students to describe learning in their roles as discussion leader and discussion
participant and how the medium of communication facilitated or hindered learning. The instructor, also
part of the study, was asked how the online environment reinforced his pedagogical principles.
The TLC is grateful for Mary’s generous gift.
14
TLC DAYS
Getting them thinking: Models and
methods for developing higherorder thinking skills in the
classroom Dirk Morrison, Extension
Division, Deirdre Bonnycastle,
Extension Division Thursday,
February 27th - 1:30 - 4:00pm
Most university faculty would agree that a
major goal of higher education is the
development of higher-order thinking skills.
While graduates of the U of S are expected
to have basic content knowledge,
employers increasingly insist that students
must also acquire, refine and demonstrate a
constellation of cognitive proficiencies,
including critical, creative, and complex
thinking skills. This interactive seminar will
articulate and explore a conceptual model
(the Integrated Thinking Model) and a
number of concrete instructional methods
pertinent to the development of higher-order
thinking skills, applicable to both face-toface and online learning environments.
The Teaching Voice: Exercises and
Tips for Using and Protecting your
Most Valuable Instructional Asset
Pamela Haig-Bartley,
Department of Drama
Thursday, March 6th, 1:30 - 4:00 pm
This session will focus on helping you, the
teacher, use your voice to advantage.
We’ll attempt to learn a few exercises to
help minimize the common fear of public
speaking, and give you back some of the
fun, joy and power that speaking effectively
can give you. We’ll work on developing
healthy, self-aware habits so that you feel
less at the mercy of crippling selfconsciouness. You’ll also learn some
practical tips on taking care of this valuable
teaching instrument. So come on out, make
some noise, and be heard!
March 11, 11:45 am - 12:45 pm.
Why Did You Become A Teacher?
Dr. Ron Marken, Director, The
Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning
Centre
Was teaching the only thing you ever
wanted to do—or was it a default position
when something else didn’t work out?
Regardless of whether you entered this
vocation through the front door, back
door, or seat of your pants, you’re here
now and have a story to tell. Share that
story with colleagues at this highly
interactive session. Dessert of the Day:
Nanaimo Bars
These sessions are open to all U
of S teachers; new faculty,
international faculty, and
graduate student teachers are
especially welcome. Please
register on-lin at
www.usask.ca/tlc
Sense and Non-Scents
Perfumes, colognes, aftershaves,
lotions and other scented products
contain chemicals that cause
discomfort, or even serious health
problems, for those who suffer from
allergies, asthma, and other medical
conditions.
To ensure the comfort of everyone who
attends our workshops, participants
and presenters alike, The Gwenna
Moss Teaching & Learning Centre has
instituted a scent-free policy. Please do
not wear scented products when you
attend our sessions or visit the TLC.
Special
Event
Women in the
Academy:
Is it for you?
Friday, March 14
Place Riel Theatre
3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Sponsored by the College of
Graduate Studies and Research
________________________________
Congratulations
to Pat Harpell from the English
Department who won the TLC’s
“Find the Bridges” contest! The
prize was the Simon & Garfunkel
CD, Bridge Over Troubled Water,
a Faculty Club gift certificate, a
TLC mug, and past issues of
Bridges . Adam Scarfe won the
runner-up award, a copy of
Learning Through Writing: A
Compendium of Assignments and
Techniques (Revised Edition).
Edited by W. Alan Wright, Eileen
M. Herteis, Brad Abernethy
(Dalhousie University). Thank you
to everyone who took part.
Please don’t be a session “no-show”!
Our sessions have limited registration and there are frequently waiting lists. If you cannot make it to a workshop, contact
the Centre immediately to ensure that someone else can participate
Phone 966-2231 Fax 966-2242 Email: corinne.f@usask.ca
This courtesy will ensure that we do not incur costs for refreshments or materials for people who do not show up, that
presenters are not dissapointed by the lower-than-anticipated attendance; and that we can open up reserved spots quickly
to other interested participants. Thank you.
15
CALL FOR PROPOSALS
TEACHING & LEARNING — RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP:
A SYMPOSIUM ON TEACHING WITH TECHNOLOGY
MAY 12 -14, 2003
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
How has TEL impacted on teaching and on research? How are teachers integrating technology into
their teaching and scholarship? Once integrated, how is it rewarded in promotion, tenure, and merit
decisions? Where does technology fit into the Teacher-Scholar model? How is TEL integrated with the
culture of scholarship and research?
This symposium will include topics related to all of these questions. We hope to attract presentations on the practical aspects
of including technology into teaching and research, as well as raise some important issues about how that work is
recognized and rewarded.
Participants will:
1. Explore and share best practices in teaching with technology, showcasing several TEL courses
2. Consider aspects of technology-enhanced teaching and learning that are growing in importance:
*
*
*
*
Intellectual property - Who owns web-based material?
Instructional design - Do we have the resources we need to ensure that technology-enhanced classes are
appropriately conceived and designed?
Is the additional work of developing technology-enhanced classes appropriately rewarded?
Are the appropriate policies in place to support teachers and learners?
3. Examine the role of technology in scholarship and research, highlighting the work being done in several TEL research
projects:
*
*
*
Is publication on the web or of web-based material afforded appropriate consideration in promotion, tenure and merit
decisions?
What does the research tell us about technology-enhanced learning?
How is the research applied in the classroom or to influence policy?
All members of the University of Saskatchewan and University Regina communities, including graduate and undergraduate
students, are invited to attend and contribute. We also welcome participation from SIAST and the Regional and Aboriginal
Colleges.
We welcome proposals from university teachers, teaching assistants, and graduate and
undergraduate students. All sessions will be 90 minutes long. We encourage you to visit our website
and fill out the online proposal form: www.usask.ca/tlc
Keynote Presentation: Arshad Ahmad,
Concordia University, 3M Fellow
Pedagogy First: Supporting Learning and
Teaching with Technology
16
Bridge photo credit
Ginny Cherepacha
Printing Services • 966-6639
University of Saskatchewan • CUPE 1975