August 2 0 0 2 Vo l . 1 N o . 2
&
Reflecting the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning at the
University of Saskatchewan
In This Issue....
The Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning
The Sylvia Wallace
Sessional Lecturer Teaching Excellence Award
Dr. Len Gusthart is
named 3M Fellow
Graduate Student
Development Days
Fall Teaching Days
Limits on Infinity: The
Internet and Distance
Learning
TEL-ling It Like It Is: An
Update on the TEL
Program
THE SCHOLARSHIP OF
TEACHING AND LEARNING
by Eileen Herteis, Programme Director
The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre
What is the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning? A large number of
University of Saskatchewan teachers
are engaged in it; The Gwenna Moss
Teaching and Learning Centre
embraces it; and the University of
Saskatchewan Mission Statement
(1993) extols it:
[W]e commit ourselves to . . . .
practise scholarship in teaching
so we can inspire in our students
love of learning and critical
thinking.
The practice of scholarly teaching is not
new, but it is just over a decade since
the term became part of the lexicon. In
1990, Ernest Boyer, former President of
the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, wrote
Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate. Seeking to overturn the
dominant view that to be a scholar is to
be a researcher, Boyer argued,
“Faculty must assume a primary
responsibility for giving scholarship a
richer, more vital meaning.” Boyer’s
paradigm posits four overlapping and
interdependent scholarships: inquiry,
integration, engagement (application),
and teaching (xii).
Teaching &
Learning
Discovery
Scholarship
Engagement
Integration
Figure 1.
Ernest Boyer’s Vision
of Scholarship
The Scholarship of Teaching involves
planning, assessing, and modifying
one’s teaching and applying to it the
same exacting standards of evaluation
as those used in research. According
to Boyer, the scholarship of teaching
means “transforming and extending”
knowledge, not merely transmitting it
(24).
Boyer’s work has resonated with
countless scholars who are eager to
raise the profile and value of teaching
on their campuses.
Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre
37 Murray Building • 966-2231
August 2002
Vol. 1 No. 2
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
Fax (306) 966-2242
corinne.f@usask.ca
ISSN 1703-1222
In recent years, Boyer’s Scholarship of
Teaching will not be accepted by
Teaching has been renamed the
the professoriate as authentic
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
scholarship until its advocates
(SoTL), for as Mick Healey argues,
offer alternative models of
teaching and learning in higher
teaching as complex,
education are “inextricably linked, so
problematic, intellectually
the scholarship of teaching is as much
challenging and creative work.
about learning as it is
David Baume (1996)
about teaching”
gives succinct and
(2000:170). Healey
practical guidance to
goes on to say that if
university teachers
Paul Ramsden is right
Our disciplines
embarking on this new
and the aim of teaching
shape our
scholarship. Ask yourself
“is to make student
scholarship, in
the following questions:
learning possible,” then
terms of the
the aim of scholarly
types of reWhat are you doing?
teaching should be to
search and
Why? Is it working?
make the processes by
inquiry, and
How do you know?
which we have achieved
ways of reportWhat theories and
that aim “transparent”
ing and recordprinciples and values
(170-171).
ing that are
underpin or spring
acceptable to
from your practice?
But what exactly is this
and warranted
(5).
scholarship? How can it
by our peers.
be defined, documented
The Scholarship of
and rewarded?
Teaching and
Learning Begins in
Susan Wilcox from
the Discipline
Queen’s University has
As Baume indicates,
stated, and most scholars
many teachers embark
in the field and a great
on SoTL to deal with a
many university teachers,
particular classroom issue: a new
agree with her, that
course, the search for innovative ways
There is a growing interest in
to teach an old course, the quest for a
fostering the scholarship of
solution to a dilemma or problem
teaching through educational
rooted in teaching their discipline. Our
development programmes that
disciplines shape our scholarship, in
encourage faculty to take an
terms of the types of research and
intellectually engaging
inquiry, and ways of reporting and
approach . . . to the
recording that are acceptable to and
improvement of teaching and
warranted by our peers. Such roots
learning (98).
increase the likelihood that peers from
our discipline might adopt, adapt, or
However, a swirl of meanings revolves
extend our work.
around this term, which remains
according to some “elusive and
Keith Trigwell and his colleagues at the
intriguing” (Kreber, 1999) and
Australian Scholarship in Teaching
“evolving” (Healey, 2002). While
Project posit that scholarship in teaching
Healey argues that it may be unrealistic has five characteristics, (see page 3);
to expect a “single definition to
interestingly, the first one they cite is
emerge,“ others, most notably Weimer
that it should reflect discipline-specific
(1997) and Cerbin (1993), suggest that values, concepts, and means of inquiry.
university teaching is devalued by a
number of assumptions and myths about Mick Healey, a UK National Teaching
a lack of rigour and standards. Cerbin Fellow, has written extensively on the
says:
(continued on page 4)
2
SCHOLARSHIP DEFINED: SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE LITERATURE
Indiana University
http://www.indiana.edu/~sotl/overview.html
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL):
1.
Is systematic research and research-based activity aimed at deepening and broadening the foundation of
teaching practice
2.
Can give rise to new forms of knowledge through new forms of research: forms that often focus on our own
pedagogical practices or on the behaviours of our students
3.
Must meet similar standards to those applied to traditional forms of scholarship in academic disciplines
Some examples of scholarly activity supported by SoTL:
•
Reading and discussion of existing scholarship of teaching and learning
•
Applying scholarship to practice in courses and programs
•
Assessing learning outcomes and teaching effectiveness
•
Designing and conducting research in issues of teaching and learning
•
Publicizing and reviewing results of scholarly activities
•
Participation in campuswide and nationwide scholarship of teaching initiatives
Standards for Scholarly Work
“Their very obviousness suggests their applicability to a broad range of intellectual projects:”
1.
Clear goals
2.
Adequate preparation
3.
Appropriate methods
4.
Significant results
5.
Effective presentation
6.
Reflective critique
Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maerof, G.I. (1997) Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass, p. 25.
The Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning (CASTL)
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CASTL/docs/castl.htm
Launched in 1998, CASTL builds on the seminal work Scholarship Reconsidered, by former Carnegie Foundation
President Ernest Boyer. CASTL supports the development of a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning that will
1.
Foster significant, long-lasting learning for all students
2.
Enhance the practice and professions of teaching
3.
Bring to faculty members’ work as teachers the recognition and reward afforded to other forms of scholarly work
in higher education.
Australian Scholarship in Teaching Project
Trigwell, K., et al. http://www.clt.uts.edu.au/Scholarship/What.is.Scholarly.Teaching.htm
Scholarship in teaching has five characteristics:
1.
Reflects the natures, values, fundamental concepts and modes of enquiry specific to the discipline.
2.
Considers learning assessments and outcomes.
3.
Inquires into the effectiveness of aims and research into teaching and learning.
4.
Responds to the need for continuous improvement resulting from reflection and inquiry.
5.
Communicates new questions and knowledge about teaching and learning.
The Oregon State University “Litmus Test” for Scholarship
Scholarship is undefined and poorly understood, often simplistically equated with research at too many universities.
Scholarship is creative intellectual work that is validated by peers and communicated.
Weiser, C.J. (November, 2001) Keynote Address: Symposium on What is a Teacher-Scholar?
An intelligent act becomes scholarship when
1.
It becomes public
2.
It is critically reviewed and evaluated by one’s community
3.
Members of one’s community begin to use, build upon, and develop these acts of mind and creation.
Shulman, L. (1999) Taking learning seriously. Change. Vol. 31, No 4.
3
....if putting one’s
research findings
into the public
realm is a primary
goal of
scholarship, then
teaching is a much
better way of
achieving that.
scholarship of teaching. Healey, like
many, sees that the strength of SoTL lies
in its roots within the disciplines, and
that teachers should be encouraged “to
undertake research into their teaching
and the ways in which their students
learn (2000:180)” and to “apply the
same kinds of thought processes to their
teaching as they do their research”
(183).
with the literature in their own
disciplines, and then branch out into the
broader field choosing such material as
the National Teaching and Learning
Forum, Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, The Teaching Professor. They
will attend instructional development
workshops. After trying out some of the
solutions or ideas they have discovered
in their research, they will test whether
they have been successful by doing
some formative evaluation with their
students, adjusting their approach,
asking a peer to come into their class to
review their changes, and so on. (See
Figure 2, below). For many of these
teachers, the process will end there with
improved teaching, better student
learning, and positive solutions all
round. In this example, scholarly
teaching is informed, reflective,
continuously developing. Its product is
improved teaching and student learning
outcomes:
If more university teachers
reflected on, evaluated and
researched their practices, more
scholarly teaching should result
and, more significantly, the
quality of learning of our
students should be enhanced
(Healey, 2002).
Hutchings and Shulman give a succinct
description of the three characteristics
of the scholarship of teaching: being
public (“community property”), open to
critique and evaluation, and in a form
that others can build on (11).
But does the scholarship have to be
published in a peer-reviewed journal?
Probably not. Carolin Kreber from the
University of Alberta has done extensive
research into the scholarship of
teaching. Like many others, she argues
for peer-review, but she does not
suggest that the scholarship must be
published, just made public:
Both scholarly teaching and
practicing the scholarship of
teaching involve being cognizant
of the existing research-based or
theory-based knowledge about
teaching and using this
knowledge to explain practice,
as well as sharing one’s insights
in the form of the wisdom of
practice in a way that can be
peer-reviewed (2001:102).
Aside from publication, there are many
other ways of subjecting one’s scholarly
However, as Lee Shulman, President of
work to public review: conference
the Carnegie Foundation for the
sessions, workshops, performance, and
Advancement for Teaching, points out,
many more. On-line publication of
teachers in higher education are allied
scholarly material is becoming more
Other
teachers
will
go
further,
however,
to two professions: their specific
and more prevalent (See, for example,
and
share
the
results
of
their
research
discipline and their broader role as
David Fox’s article in the Spring, 2002
and
classroom
practice
with
their
educators; as a result, there is both an
issue of Bridges, also available in the
colleagues
in
more
formal
ways.
They
individual and communal imperative for
What is a Teacher-Scholar Symposium
will
talk
to
their
teaching
committees,
a scholarship of teaching (2000: 50).
send a description of their activities to a Proceedings.) In these cases, it is the
To thrive, therefore, practitioners of the
listserv or post it on a web site, present process, not just the product, that is the
SoTL must go beyond their “disciplinary a session in their department or college, yardstick of scholarship: the reflection,
dialect” and develop a common
give a conference presentation on it, or the preparation, the critique, and value
placed on the creative or intellectual
vocabulary and methodology that
write a paper for publication. This
work by one’s peers or intended
transcends disciplinary boundaries, cuts latter case more closely meets the
audience. (See for example the
across fields. As Mary Huber said in
criteria for scholarship outlined in
definitions of scholarship from Glassick
her keynote address at a 2002
numerous sources including the
et al, 1997 and Shulman, 1999.)
Conference on SoTL: “We must make
University of Saskatchewan Standards
Shulman points out in a later article:
deft use of our own disciplinary styles
for Promotion and Tenure:
and take the resulting scholarship of
We are expected to share our
Research and scholarly work is
teaching and learning into common
knowledge by making it public,
creative, intellectual work
trading zones.”
whether via publication,
which is in the public realm
correspondence, presentations, or
How do you DO the Scholarship
and which has been subjected
pedagogy. The new technologies
of Teaching and Learning?
to external peer review.
make such exchange even more
Practitioners of SoTL will read the
For other definitions of scholarship, see
widely possible than
pedagogical literature, likely starting
before.(2000: 49-50).
page 3.
4
Richlin presents a process that begins
with a teaching issue or problem, the
search for a theoretical and practical
solution, and review by students and
peers. This process has two possible
fulfillments. The first is improved
practice (scholarly teaching). What
Richlin calls “the scholarship part of the
process” is contingent upon the findings
being “submitted to an appropriate
journal or conference venue” (61).
better way of achieving that. Some
research may make an impact, she
argues, but most does not (5-6).
Australian Andrew Page (1998)
agrees:
If more university
teachers reflected
on, evaluated and
researched their
practices, more
scholarly teaching
should result and,
more significantly,
the quality of
learning of our
students should be
enhanced
Teaching is a fundamentally
important activity that scholars
undertake. Without teaching,
future scholarship would wither
and die.
So while most teachers may embark on
the scholarship of teaching and
learning to effect improvements in their
own classrooms, many will succeed in
having an effect beyond their local
setting “by adding knowledge to—and
even beyond—their disciplinary field”
(Cambridge, 1999).
(Healey, 2002).
Interestingly, several scholars, notably
Cynthia Fukami (1997), herself a
Carnegie Scholar, have pointed out
that, if putting one’s research findings
into the public realm is a primary goal
of scholarship, then teaching is a much
Figure 2 adapted Richlin’s model for
another paper that went on to suggest
that the distinction was not so much
about the difference between scholarly
teaching and the scholarship of
teaching, but between the process and
the product of scholarship. In other
words, the outer ring is the process and
the inner is the product, and scholarship
is as much about the mesh of the net as
it is about the haul (Herteis, 2002 b).
There is some debate in the literature
over the distinction among excellent
teaching, scholarly teaching, and the
scholarship of teaching.
Foremost among those who distinguish
between scholarly teaching and the
scholarship of teaching is Laurie Richlin.
Most researchers agree, however, that
not all excellent teachers are scholarly
teachers (see for example Kreber,
2001; Weimer, 1997; Healey, 2000).
SCHOLARLY VS. SCHOLARSHIP
Others’
solutions?
Ô
Select best
method
Justify
choice
START
Teaching
problem or
issue
Scholarship =
Peer-reviewed
publication or
presentation
Ô
Observe
results
Record
results
Ô
SCHOLARLY
Method
becomes part
of repertoire
More Feedback
Formative critique
or peer feedback
Adjust if
necessary
5
Figure 2: Scholarly Teaching and the
Scholarship of Teaching, Adapted
from Richlin, 2001.
Hutchings and Shulman express the
distinction correctly when they say that
the scholarship of teaching and
learning is not just excellent teaching,
“a responsibility that all teachers
share,” but rather a situation in which
faculty pose and “systematically
investigate” questions related to
teaching improvement and student
learning (11).
Perhaps a serious obstacle in the
dissemination of SoTL is that its
foundation is often a teaching problem
or issue. On most campuses, a
research problem is seen as an
opportunity, a chance for discovery
from which understanding, creativity
and productivity can emerge. Why,
then, is a teaching problem seen as a
weakness—something pathological? As
Randy Bass of Georgetown University
(1999) says, a ‘problem’ is something
that you don’t want to have in teaching
and that the SoTL is precisely about
“changing the status of the problem in
teaching from terminal remediation to
on-going investigation.”
A word of caution here about the
motivation for embarking on the
scholarship of teaching, one echoed by
Bill Cerbin, (quoted in Hutchings,
2001). He warns against the
scholarship of teaching becoming “one
more hurdle or task” that must be
completed for promotion or tenure. For
Cerbin, the incentive is clear—
undertake the scholarship of teaching
because you are personally committed
to teaching and learning: “There’s an
important message here about passions
and pursuing ideas that really matter to
you” (2).
Supporting Scholarship at the
University of Saskatchewan
It takes a supportive climate for
any garden to grow.
Administration’s role in fostering
a culture of scholarship around
teaching and learning doesn’t
involve taking on the gardening
job directly—administration’s
role is climate control
(Thompson, 2001).
“There’s an
important message
here about
passions and
pursuing ideas
that really matter
to you.”
(Cerbin, 2001)
What is the climate at the University of
Saskatchewan? Is it supportive in the
way that Barbara Cambridge, Director
of AAHE’s teaching initiatives project
suggests in a 1999 article for the
American Association for Higher
Education?
Who does the scholarship of
teaching and learning? Not
everyone. Who can support
the scholarship of teaching and
learning? Everyone.
Perhaps the prevailing climate at the
university is one of confusion, given the
apparent contradiction in a number of
our University documents when it comes
In adopting this
teacher-scholar
model, the
University of
Saskatchewan
may seem out of
step, not only with
the work of Boyer,
but with the current
trends in the
United States and
UK.
to defining and recognizing
“scholarship.”
On the one hand, both our University
Mission Statement (approved 1993)
and Objectives (approved 1994)
embrace Boyer’s four scholarships:
The University’s mission of
excellence in four
interdependent scholarly
activities requires the academy
to equitably evaluate the four
scholarships. Given the central
role of teaching in the
University, and the
interdependence of the
scholarships, teaching
excellence must be emphasized
and rewarded throughout the
academy (Objectives, A2).
And while we have already seen that
our Mission Statement places teaching
first in the scholarly activities to which
the university is committed, our latest
Standards for Promotion and Tenure
(2002) create a conundrum:
At the University of
Saskatchewan, we have
affirmed that the “teacherscholar” will be our adopted
model for faculty development.
This model builds on the
principle that universities
acquire their distinctive
character through their capacity
to unite scholarship with
teaching (italics are mine).
The implication here is clear: Research
and scholarship are synonymous and
have primacy; teaching is valued only
to the extent to which it is united with
them. Is teaching no longer considered
scholarship?
Our Framework for Planning report
(1998) adds to the confusion by
asserting that the university’s
“commitment to research and
scholarship needs to be intensified” and
by totally removing teaching from the
university’s definition of scholarship:
Scholarship involves the
6
What are we doing
as a university to
recognize and
reward the richness
of scholarship, in all
its forms, that is
being performed by
University of
Saskatchewan
teachers?
discovery of new knowledge, its
integration and synthesis, and
its application to new or
persistent problems. Teaching
requires not just the effective
communication of this
knowledge, but the creation of a
capacity for criticism and selfexamination.
This vision of the teacher-scholar, a
seemingly ungainly hybrid, was
debated at the November 2002
Symposium, What is a Teacher-Scholar?
In his presentation, now part of the
Symposium Proceedings, Dr. Howard
Woodhouse of the University’s College
of Education sums up many of the
participants’ dissatisfaction with the
model and how it is defined:
Active learning and critical
thought are unlikely to occur
where faculty simply transmit
the abstractions of their
research agendas without
taking into account the concrete
experiences of their students.
in this article. But we must also take
note of other recent research conducted
in the US. The Kellogg Commission in
the United States was created in 1996
by the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
(NASULGC) to help define the future
direction of public universities and to
recommend an agenda to speed up the
process of change.
The Kellogg Commission recognized
the delicate balance between research,
teaching and accountability, but
among its conclusions is one that
implicitly endorses the SoTL:
Put learning first
Despite the vast scope and scale
of our enterprises, learning
remains the reason we exist. . . If
public universities are to prosper
in the future, they must become
great student universities as well
as great centres of research,
focusing on their most basic
mission and the compact which
it embodies between institutions
on the one hand and taxpayers,
parents, students, and public
officials on the other (41).
In the United Kingdom, the Higher
Education Funding Council for England
awards 20 National Teaching
Fellowships every year. Each
Fellowship, worth £50,000, recognizes
outstanding teachers and promoters of
student learning. The Fellowship
Scheme was established to “raise the
status of learning and teaching in
higher education” and to “form a
community” of scholars whose collective
impact will benefit student learning
outcomes and teaching and learning in
general. (http://ntfs.ilt.ac.uk).
In a recent interview in Bridges, Dr.
Michael Atkinson, Vice-President
Academic and Provost, said that while
In adopting this teacher-scholar model,
many people at the U of S are doing a
the University of Saskatchewan may
seem out of step, not only with the work very good job at teaching “they are not
involved in the scholarship of
of Boyer, but with the current trends in
teaching” (4). From my experience at
the United States and UK. The work of
the TLC, and from data the Centre has
the Carnegie Academy for the
been gathering for the past year, I
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
has already been referred to extensively confidently suggest that many more
7
than he credits here are indeed deeply
involved in it; they are just not using the
term.1
Dr. Atkinson went on to suggest that
some of the criteria for the scholarship
of teaching would be “pedagogical
consciousness: Are you reflective? Are
you contributing to the teaching quality
of others?” These are undoubtedly
important questions to ask, but there are
many more. Given the wide range of
work that has been described in this
article and which flourishes under what
Mary Huber calls this “broad canopy”
of scholarship, perhaps the question
teachers at the University of
Saskatchewan should be asking isn’t
“What is the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning?” but rather “Why have I
neglected to acknowledge and declare
that my own teaching is scholarly
work?”
The essential corollary question, for the
institution becomes: “What are we
doing as a university to recognize and
reward the richness of scholarship, in
all its forms, that is being performed by
University of Saskatchewan teachers?”
The current confusion over the place of
the scholarship of teaching and
learning at the University of
Saskatchewan should be seen as an
opportunity to ask more questions and
to reassert the values of the institution,
remembering that (to paraphrase
Ebenezer Scrooge) “Education is our
business.” Not only can we clarify
definitions, set priorities—personal,
departmental, institutional—but also we
have a chance not to be left behind in
the growing international movement
that is recognizing the scholarship of
teaching and learning.
As Maryellen Weimer says:
A fundamental challenge faces
all of us committed to
instructional excellence—letting
our thinking, discourse, and
practice reflect the intrinsic value
of teaching (58).
Endnote
1
For example, since that interview with
Dr. Atkinson, we have learned from TLC
participation statistics, that during the
past academic year, 240 people from
the College of Arts & Science alone
attended TLC events; 18 presented a
variety of workshops or sessions; 5
wrote articles for the TLC newsletter;
and 12 requested consultations with
TLC staff to enhance their teaching.
Three departments in the college asked
for special instructional development
sessions. The college had two
nominations for the Master Teacher
Award and four for the Sylvia Wallace
Sessional Lecturer Award.
References
Bass. R. (1999). The scholarship of
teaching: What’s the problem?
Inventio,(online journal). 1(1). http://
www.doiiit.gmu/edu/archives/feb98/
randybass_1A.html
Baume, D. (1996). Editorial. The
International Journal for Academic
Development. 1(1).
Healey, M. (2002 forthcoming) The
scholarship of teaching: Issues around an
evolving concept Journal on Excellence in
College Teaching.
Herteis, E. (ed). (2002 a). An interview with
Michael Atkinson. Teaching & Learning
Bridges 1(1).
Herteis, E. (2002 forthcoming b).
Documenting scholarship: How to cope
when the subversive becomes mainstream.
Proceedings of the Second Annual UK
Conference on the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning. London.
Huber, M.T. (2002) Keynote Address.
Second Annual UK Conference on the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
London.
Hutchings, P. (ed.). (2001). Opening lines:
Approaches to the scholarship of teaching
and learning. Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Hutchings, P. & Shulman, L. (1999). The
scholarship of teaching: New elaborations,
new developments. Change. 31(5), 10-15.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship
reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching: Princeton
University Press.
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State &
Land-Grant Universities. (2001). Returning
to our roots: Executive summaries of the
reports of the Kellogg Commission.
Washington, DC http://www.nasulgc.org/
kellogg/kellogg.htm
Cambridge, B. (1999). The scholarship of
teaching and learning: Questions and
answers from the field. AAHE Bulletin.
www.aahe.org/dec99f2.htm
Kreber, C. (1999). A course-based
approach to the development of teachingscholarship: A case study. Teaching in
Higher Education. 4 (3), 309-325.
Cerbin, W. (1993). Fostering a culture of
teaching as scholarship. Teaching Professor,
7 (3),1-2.
Kreber, C. (2001) Observations, reflections,
and speculations: What have we learned
about the scholarship of teaching and where
might it lead. In Kreber, C. (ed.),
Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the
scholarship of teaching. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, no.86. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Fukami, C.V. (1997). Struggling with
balance. In Andre, R & Frost, P.J. (eds)
Researchers Hooked on Teaching.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maerof, G.I.
(1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of
the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Healey, M. (2000). Developing the
scholarship of teaching in higher education:
A discipline-based approach. Higher
Education Research & Development. 19
(2),169-189.
Page, A. (1998). Letter to the editor. Issues
of teaching and learning at University of
Western Australia. 4
(2).www.acs.uwa.edu.au/csd/newsletter/
Issue0298
Richlin, L. (2001). Scholarly teaching and
the scholarship of teaching. In Kreber, C.
(ed.), Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on
the scholarship of teaching. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, no.86. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
8
Shulman, L. (1999). Taking learning
seriously. Change. 31(4).
Shulman, L. (2000) From Minsk to Pinsk:
Why a scholarship of teaching and
learning? Journal of Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning. 1 (1), 48-53.
Thompson, S. (2001). Lessons learned in
implementing the scholarship of teaching
and learning. National Teaching and
Learning Forum. 10(5). http://
www.ntlf.com/restricted/v10n5/
Trigwell, K. et al. (no date). What is
scholarly teaching? Australian Scholarship
in Teaching Project http://
www.clt.uts.edu.au/Scholarship/
What.is.Scholarly.Teaching.htm
University of Saskatchewan. Mission
Statement. Approved by the Board of
Governors, 1993.
University of Saskatchewan. Objectives.
Approved by University Council, 1994
University of Saskatchewan. A Framework
for Planning. Approved by University
Council, 1998.
University of Saskatchewan. Standards for
Promotion and Tenure. Approved by the
University Review Committee, 2002.
Weiser, C.J. (2001). Keynote Address.
Symposium on What Is A Teacher-Scholar?
Saskatoon.
Weimer, M. (1997). Assumptions that
devalue university teaching. The
International Journal for Academic
Development. 2 (1), 52-60.
Wilcox, S. (1998). The role of the
educational developer in the improvement of
university teaching. The Canadian Journal of
Higher Education. 28 (1), 77-104.
Woodhouse, H. (2002).The false promise
of the teacher-scholar model. What is a
Teacher- Scholar?: Symposium Proceedings.
University of Saskatchewan.
TEL-LING IT LIKE IT IS:
AN UPDATE ON THE TEL PROGRAM
From the Office of Rick Bunt, Associate Vice-President, Information and Communications Technology
For the past five years, the Department
of Learning (formerly PSEST – Post
Secondary Education and Skills
Training) and the institutions making up
Saskatchewan’s post-secondary sector
have been working together to develop
a provincial strategy for technologyenhanced learning. Six strategic
priorities for collaborative action were
identified in the TEL Action Plan:
The Department of Learning has announced that TEL funding for 2002/03
will again be $4.15M. Approximately
$2.6M has been allocated for content
development, of which the U of S
portion is $885k. In addition to the
basic priorities identified in the TEL
Action Plan, the University of
Saskatchewan has identified areas for
special attention in content
development. These include, but are
not limited to:
received funding to provide web
programming and other media services;
and The Gwenna Moss Teaching and
Learning Centre and IT Services, to
provide training in the new
technologies to faculty and staff. With
the same funding available to us this
year, we can look forward to many
exciting new projects.
This year’s activities began on July 19
with a call for Letters of Intent for new
projects in content development. From
• Courses in areas of specialization in these, a number will be selected to
which the institution has committed to
submit full project applications. Last
developing and/or sustaining excelyear’s response was overwhelming –
lence at the national/international level. proposals were submitted for 92
These include:
projects representing 12 colleges. We
- Aboriginal studies,
anticipate a similar response this year.
agriculture, biotechnology,
information technology, life
Letters of Intent must be received in the
sciences, rural and northern
Office of the AVP ICT by September 16,
development, structural
and the deadline for invited applicasciences
tions is November 15. The Call for
The TEL program kicked into high gear
- Bio-molecular structures,
Letters of Intent can be obtained from
last year, and considerable progress
culture and diversity, environthe U of S TEL website or by contacting
has been made – both in the level of
mental sciences, indigenous
Sheena Rowan, our TEL Project Coordiengagement of the respective communipeoples and justice, materials
nator. Calls for projects in the other
ties and in delivered products. Over the
science, northern ecosystems
areas, faculty support and learner
next five years, the Province expects to
and toxicology, synchrotron
services, will follow at a later date.
invest in three major areas: developing
science, technology and
course content for delivery in alternative
change
The TEL Coordinating Committee
formats, enhancing the capability of
•
Courses
in professional programs
(TELCC) continues to play an important
faculty and staff to work with the new
- Commerce, engineering,
role in overseeing our TEL activities at
technologies, and supporting the
health sciences (dentistry,
the U of S. The TELCC establishes
learners. In 2001/02 a total of
medicine, nursing, nutrition,
criteria to evaluate proposals, and
$4.15M was provided in the TEL
pharmacy), law, veterinary
policies, processes and guidelines for
budget (up from $1.5M in 2000/01)
medicine
TEL projects and recommends which
to support projects in these areas at the
• Interdisciplinary programming
projects should go forward. The list of
participating institutions. $2.3M was
TELCC members is also available on
available for content development (of
At the U of S, 27 content development
our website.
which $800k went to the U of S) and
projects were funded last year. These
$1.6M was available for faculty
For more information, contact Sheena
are listed on the U of S TEL website,
development and learner support (of
Rowan, TEL Project Coordinator for the
http://www.usask.ca/vpacademic/tel.
which $330k went to the U of S). This
U of S, at 966-8408 or
The
Extension
Division
received
funding
level of funding is expected to continue
sheena.rowan@usask.ca, or visit the TEL
to
provide
instructional
design
services
on an annual basis until 2005, with the
web site: http://www.usask.ca/
to
the
course
developers.
The
Divisions
goal of expanding provincial postvpacademic/tel
of
IT
Services
and
Media
&
Technology
secondary on-line offerings to more
than 300 courses.
• A Saskatchewan Virtual Campus –
Campus Saskatchewan
• A network of technology enhanced
learning services
• First Nations and Métis partnerships.
• Inter-provincial, national and international initiatives.
• Inter-institutional faculty development.
• A technology-enhanced learning
consortium to coordinate the TEL Action
Plan.
9
THE SYLVIA WALLACE SESSIONAL LECTURER
TEACHING EXCELLENCE AWARD
This annual award acknowledges the
invaluable contribution of sessional
lecturers to the University of
Saskatchewan. The award recognizes
that sessional lecturers are committed,
exceptionally competent teachers,
without whose skills and expertise the
university could not fulfill its mission “to
offer a rich array of challenging
academic programmes.”
Eligibility: Candidates for the award
must have taught as sessional lecturers
at the university for at least two
semesters (including the term of
nomination).
Criteria: Candidates will demonstrate
their effectiveness in undergraduate
teaching (in lectures, labs, studios, or
discussion); their command of the
discipline; their skills in organizing and
developing class material; their capacity to motivate and inspire students.
Nominations: Nomination forms
will be distributed to departments by
the end of September. Students, peers,
department chairs, or deans may
nominate candidates.
Deadline: November 15th, 2002.
Award: The winner will receive a
certificate, a $1000 prize, and paid
registration to the annual Society for
Teaching & Learning in Higher Education Conference, to be held in
Vancouver in June, 2003.
This award honours
the memory of Dr.
Sylvia Wallace,
College of Pharmacy
& Nutrition. Dr.
Wallace was Associate Vice President
(Academic) at the
University and
received the
University’s Master Teacher Award.
For more information about the award,
please contact Dr. Ron Marken, Director, The Gwenna Moss Teaching &
Learning Centre, Room 37, Murray
Library Building 966-223; or visit the
TLC web site: (www.usask.ca/tlc/
teaching_awards.html).
DR. LEN GUSTHART
IS NAMED 3M FELLOW.
Len Gusthart from the College of Kinesiology has received the prestigious 3M
Fellowship, a national award that honours teaching excellence and educational
leadership. Len received his award on June 13th at the annual conference of the
Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) at McMaster
University. A previous winner of both the USSU Teaching Excellence Award and
the Master Teacher Award, Len was praised as a “well respected mentor,
administrator, leader, innovator, and advocate” who “exemplifies the best qualities
of an educator.” A frequent participant and presenter at Teaching & Learning
Centre events, Len has been a Peer Consultant for many years, volunteering to work
with colleagues to improve teaching and learning on campus. Len has published
extensively on the scholarship of teaching and learning; his paper Improving One’s
Teaching: What do the experts (students and teachers) tell us? appears in the
Proceedings of the Teacher-Scholar Symposium. Congratulations, Len!
For more information about the 3M award, visit the STLHE web site:
http://www.tss.uoguelph.ca/stlhe/3M.html
10
BRIDGING THE GAPS
The Gwenna Moss Teaching &
Learning Centre web site
<www.usask.ca/tlc>
Access three journals:The National
Teaching & Learning Forum (NTLF), The
Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching (JECT), and The Successful
Professor. Look for these articles from
recent issues at www.usask.ca/tlc/
resources.html
“exam fairness” for most important in
the other group). “Course difficulty”
was of least importance in all four
student groups.
James Rhem’s article, Of Diagrams and
Models [NTLF, 11 (4), May 2002]
describes a new taxonomy of learning
developed by Lee Shulman, President of
the Carnegie Academy for the
Advancement of Teaching. Shulman’s
taxonomy has six parts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Engagement
Understanding
Performance
Reflection
Design and Judgment
Commitment
However, Shulman cautions, “The
design of taxonomies feeds the myth
that the world is a linear, rational
place.” Most of us would agree that it
isn’t.
An article co-authored by Len Gusthart,
3M Fellow and Professor in the U of S
College of Kinesiology, appears in
JECT, 11(1). The Impact of Individual
Instructional Characteristics on the
Global Assessment of Teaching
Effectiveness Across Different Instructional Contexts (79-95) describes
research conducted by Len and three
American colleagues. Using four
student groups, the authors studied how
students weight various teaching factors
when making overall evaluations of
educational quality. “Amount learned”
was considered the most important
factor in three groups (it was tied with
What is A Teacher-Scholar?
Symposium Proceedings
The November, 2001, symposium
What Is a Teacher-Scholar? attracted
over 100 participants. Keynote
presenter Dr. C.J. (Bud) Weiser talked
about his experience at Oregon State
University, where he spearheaded an
initiative to redefine the term
“scholarship,” simplistically equated
with research at too many universities,
he explained.
These proceedings contain 18 papers
from the 16 concurrent sessions,
including:
Teacher-Scholar: Personal Dimensions of the
Academic Life. Denise Larsen, Education,
University of Saskatchewan
Thanks, Nancy!
Nancy Poon, a sessional
lecturer from the Department
of Sociology, suggested the
name “Bridges” for the TLC
newsletter. We chose it for its
relevance to Saskatoon and
for its rich nuances of
connection, building, and
communicating. The first
issue received many
compliments, and we thank
Nancy for her suggestion.
Signed versus Unsigned Evaluations of
Teaching – An example of how research
informs teaching and how teaching informs
research. James McNinch, University of
Regina & Christopher Fries, University of
Calgary
Research and Teaching in the Context of
Mentorship: How Does the Student Factor
into the Scheme? Lyn Lamers, Music,
University of Saskatchewan
“Betweenness” as Characteristic of the
Teacher-Scholar: Interdisciplinarity,
Internationalization, and the ResearchTeaching-Extension Intersection. Brett
Fairbairn, History, University of
Saskatchewan
Our thanks go to Christine Anderson
Obach, the TLC’s Programme
Coordinator, for her tireless work in
compiling these Proceedings. Copies of
the publication are available to purchase through the University of
Saskatchewan Bookstore. Price
$12.00 Canadian. Shipping and
Handling not included. For information
on how to order, please see our website at www.usask.ca/tlc.
11
LIMITS ON INFINITY:
THE INTERNET AND DISTANCE LEARNING
Observing this interaction, Dreyfus
comments that “it may mean that
distance teaching not only may produce
poorer learning opportunities, but it
may produce poorer teachers” (58).
by Joel Deshaye
The Internet is often touted as the
technology that will revolutionize most
aspects of our lives: communication,
transportation, business, the arts, and
teaching and learning. The Internet’s
web of possibilities is now being used,
more and more, to deliver university
courses to students who can’t or don’t
want to attend class.
The Internet is now a necessary fixture
on most campuses. It fulfills at least two
needs of scholarship: first, the presence
of many collected sources of
information; second, a forum for
discussing that information and new
ideas. And the needs of teaching? Is
teaching simply a process of blending
the two aforementioned needs of
scholarship?
Perhaps, but not if we mean teaching
well. Despite the Net’s credentials as a
theoretically infinite library and hub of
communications media, it is not the
perfect match for higher education. The
best technologies match their tasks very
well, both conceptually and practically.
For instance, using slide presentation
software in combination with a
projector might be a suitable response
to a need for showing one’s students
many images in quick sequence.
Similarly, using hypertext links to show
a poem’s many allusions might be very
appropriate.
Joel Deshaye is a website designer and
instructional technology consultant at
The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning
Centre. He is also a sessional lecturer
in the English Department.
The Internet supplies both the good and
bad of this information, and it falters
when used to replace classroom
teaching. According to Berkeley’s
Professor Hubert L. Dreyfus in his book,
On the Internet (2001), “[d]istanceapprenticeship is an oxymoron” (69).
When a university’s faculty intends to
foster graduate-level programs and the
undergraduate students who will enrol
in them, apprenticeship can’t be virtual.
Dreyfus argues that correspondence
courses and their online equivalents can
produce competency in students, but
not expertise. The missing element in
distance learning, he claims, is risk (589, 91). Online, students don’t feel as
committed as they might in a room full
of keen learners. High-level learning
But how does the Internet respond to the occurs in a kind of swordplay of ideas,
tradition of students going to class to
where initiating a constructive criticism
learn from an expert, who might
or venturing a rebuttal in the debate is
become a mentor and a teacher of
a proposition full of consequence. Agile
high-level critical thinking in addition to and intelligent dialogue is the result of
being a disseminator of information?
interplay that both students and
Generally, students willingly accept a
teachers take seriously. When both
hierarchy of knowledge as embodied in parties feel involved as partners in the
the professor; in return, they learn from process of learning, they commit
him or her how to find and recognize
themselves to mutual evaluation; hence,
relevance in a world of information that the learning improves.
is often unreliable and unorganized.
12
In addition to posing the problem of
separation between students and
teachers, it seems that, for all its
advantages, the Net is not an ideal
library, either. Dreyfus notes that most
Internet search robots no longer search
for coded content keywords in web
pages because spammers have flooded
their irrelevant pages with keywords
that attract the robots (95).
As a result, instead of matching content
directly with a user’s request for
information, the matching is indirect
and probabilistic (14). There are no
categorical hierarchies unless humans
organize directories (and impose a
pyramid structure on the Web, which is
acclaimed for its flatness).
Otherwise, robots sort the pages based
on popularity statistics and content, but
this process usually yields only 20-30%
of the relevant information, according
to a study of Internet search success
rates (25). Confronted with billions of
possibilities even after computerized
sorting, a user needs a human guide to
discriminate between the relevant and
the irrelevant.
These human guides are teachers. At
the university level, where teaching is
not simply information transfer, people
in classrooms will continue to make the
biggest strides in higher thinking and
education. Teaching well will be their
priority.
References
Dreyfus, Hubert L. (2001). On the
Internet. London: Routledge.
GRADUATE STUDENT
DEVELOPMENT DAYS
CONFERENCE
ANNOUNCEMENT
What are these “Days”? Graduate Student Development Days are new halfday sessions for novice graduate student teachers at the University of
Saskatchewan. They are designed to provide graduate students with pedagogical
knowledge, skills, and the confidence to promote student learning. Graduate
Student Development Days are offered jointly through the Graduate Students’
Association (GSA) and The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre, with the
full support of the College of Graduate Studies & Research. Development Days
are open to graduate students from any department at the University of
Saskatchewan. (Participation is mandatory for those enrolled in the Scholarship of
Teaching & Learning Certification Programme. Please visit our website for more
information regarding the Certification Programme: http://www.usask.ca/tlc/
grad_scholar_tl_cert.html)
The following is a tentative schedule and list of topics for Graduate Student
Development Days, beginning in Fall, 2002. During each session, participants
will have the opportunity to discuss and reflect upon their teaching experiences
with other graduate students from different disciplines, and will be given practical
teaching advice on various topics by an expert or award-winning guest instructor
from the University of Saskatchewan teaching community.
Sessions:
October 8, 2002 9 - noon
Teaching Techniques (to be split into labs / discussions)
November 4, 2002 1 - 4 PM
Who Are Your Students? Diversity In The Classroom
December 4, 2002 4 - 7 PM
Designing Your Own Course & Preparing for Your First Class
Eileen Herteis, The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre
January 13, 2003 9 - noon
Becoming A Professional - How to Survive In Academia
February 13, 2003 4 - 7 PM
Teaching With Technology
March 4, 2003 1 - 4 PM
Academic Issues - Integrity, Ethics, Dishonesty Procedures
There is no registration fee for the programme; however, registration is required.
For further registration information, please contact Corinne Fasthuber,
corinne.f@usask.ca, or phone 966-2231.
If you have any suggestions for topics you’d like to see included in a Graduate
Student Development Day session, please contact Rob Angove
(grad.peer2@usask.ca), Joel Deshaye (joel.deshaye@usask.ca),Tereigh EwertBauer (tereigh_ble@hotmail.com), or Kim West (kim.west@usask.ca).
13
BEST PRACTICES
IN GRADUATE
SUPERVISION
Friday & Saturday
October 4-5, 2002
University of Saskatchewan
The College of Graduate Studies and
The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning
Centre present ‘Best Practices in
Graduate Supervision’, a conference
for graduate faculty and graduate
students. The conference will include
plenary presentations, student-led
sessions, sharing best practices, and
trouble-shooting common scenarios.
There will also be a wine and cheese
reception on Friday evening.
Guest speakers:
DR. LYNN TAYLOR
UNIVERSITY
OF MANITOBA
DR. DEAN KRIELLAARS
UNIVERSITY OF
MANITOBA
Sponsored by the Research
Committee of Council and VicePresident (Research), the event is
provided free of charge to
participants. For further
information, check the College of
Graduate Studies and Research
website: http://www.usask.ca/
cgsr/, or contact The Gwenna
Moss Teaching & Learning
Centre at 966-2231.
FALL TEACHING DAYS
The Teaching Portfolio:
Documenting the Scholarship of
Teaching & Learning
Eileen Herteis, Teaching &
Learning Centre
Friday, September 13,
1:30-4 pm
one! Given the realities of increasing
enrollments and dwindling resources,
however, teachers must look beyond the
obstacles to find ways of engaging
students in large classes. This session
will concentrate on solutions, not
problems.
One Step Ahead of the Palm
Pilots: Creating a Culture of
Academic Honesty at the
University of Saskatchewan
Gordon Barnhart, University
Secretary; Joan Bobyn,
Pharmacy & Nutrition (Former
GSA President); & Susan
McDonald, English
• why you should compile a portfolio to Friday, September 27, 1:30-4pm
document your scholarship in teaching
The teaching portfolio has become an
increasingly important tool for teachers
who want to record their teaching
activities and accomplishments. As well
as discussing the components of a
portfolio, this practical workshop will
provide you with information on
• what information you should include
in your portfolio
Canadian universities are grappling
with academic integrity: plagiarism,
cheating, and other forms of dishonesty.
• how you should organize and present Advances in technology have increased
your portfolio
the choices for those who want to cheat
or plagiarize; now many university
Whether for enrichment of their
teachers and administrators are turning
teaching or for career development,
to that same technology to detect
new and more experienced teachers
dishonesty, using software such as
alike are seeing the benefits of the
turnitin.com or search engines like
portfolio as a means of reflecting on
Google. But academic integrity is more
their teaching practice and supporting
than just catching cheaters. It is about
their applications for promotion or
creating an ethos or culture of trust,
tenure.
responsibility, and honesty
NB. This session is for faculty and
sessional lecturers only. A session
designed especially for Teaching
Assistants will be offered in January,
2003.
The More the Merrier? Teaching
Large Classes
Eileen Herteis, Teaching &
Learning Centre
Thursday, September 19, 4-6 pm
Allan J. Gedalof (1998) says that
there’s nothing you can do in a large
class that you can’t do better in smaller
This special session will investigate
current practices at the University of
Saskatchewan and look forward to the
kind of campus culture we want to
create. This session will also look at
academic honesty from the perspective
of the student and the teacher.
“Learning is the process
whereby knowledge is
created through the
transformation of
experience.”
(Kolb, 1984).
14
Simon & Garfunkel Meet
Shakespeare: The Sounds and
Silences of Classroom Discussion
Eileen Herteis, Teaching &
Learning Centre
Thursday, October 3, 1:30-4 pm
What forces help or hinder classroom
discussion?
In this session, you will:
• Establish ground rules for discussion
in your classrooms, rules that recognize
the dual and mutual responsibilities of
students and teacher.
• Identify and try to solve some of the
impediments to discussion
• Examine your own teaching
behaviours that encourage or stifle
discussion
• Clarify your comfort level with
permitting silence
Experiential Education: Fostering
the Connection between
Learning and Personal
Experience
Dr. Angie Wong, Extension
Division
Thursday, October 31,
1:30 - 4:30 pm
“Learning is the process whereby
knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience.” (Kolb,
1984).
This workshop will begin with an
introduction to the historical and
contemporary influences on experiential
education. The assumptions about
learning from experience will be
discussed. Participant interaction will
focus on tools and strategies to enhance
the quality of reflective thought among
learners and the assessment methods
that are congruent with experiential
education.
Academic Integrity: Preventing,
Detecting and Addressing
Plagiarism
Alec Couros, Coordinator,
Instructional Technology, U of R
James McNinch, Director,
Teaching Development Centre,
U of R
Friday, November 1, 1:30-4 pm
• What are the fundamental values to
which a culture of academic integrity is
committed?
• What factors—internal, external, and
even cultural—lead to students to
plagiarize?
• How can we educate students and
design assignments to ensure that our
culture of integrity is more about
prevention that detection?
This interactive workshop includes a
variety of approaches and resources,
especially Duke University’s excellent
Centre for Academic Integrity web site.
Don’t miss this important session!
We gratefully acknowledge the support
of the Technology-Enhanced Learning
fund to present this event.
Pedagogy, PowerPoint, and
Presentation: Basic PowerPoint
for Teachers
Kim West, The Gwenna Moss
Teaching & Learning Centre
Wednesday, November 6,
1-4 pm
PowerPoint has recently taken the
university community by storm, but its
effectiveness as a teaching and
presentation tool continues to be
extensively debated. PowerPoint
(2000) can be used to present your
teaching and research in a new,
engaging, and investigative format,
and provides a variety of ways to
visually enhance a presentation.
However, it can diminish the
effectiveness of a presentation if used
inappropriately. This workshop is
designed to provide you with key
presentation strategies on how to use
PowerPoint as an effective multimedia
tool that will engage your students in
the classroom.
Participants in the workshop will also
be introduced to the basics of
PowerPoint (2000), including how to
create your own slide show
presentation using text and graphic
tools, how to use PowerPoint’s predesigned presentation templates, and
how to create handouts and overhead
transparencies from PowerPoint
presentations. The workshop is
designed for teachers with little to no
experience using PowerPoint (2000).
Registration is limited to 20 people.
If I Assign It, I’ll Have to Assess
It: Learning Through Writing
Eileen Herteis, Teaching &
Learning Centre
Friday, November 22, 1:30-4 pm
This session will open the old can of
worms labelled “Teaching students to
write” and will examine some of the
slimiest and juiciest of its denizens!
Participants will reflect on and discuss
their answers to these questions:
• Is there a common core of good
writing and whose responsibility is it to
teach it?
• What does good writing mean in
my discipline?
• Is teaching students how to write part
of my (hidden) curriculum?
Through a variety of activities,
participants will
• Clarify why and how they give
feedback to students about their writing
• Examine strategies and best practices
for assigning and assessing student
writing
• Discuss and evaluate different types
of writing assignments
15
Nominate a colleague for the
Sylvia Wallace
Sessional Lecturer Award.
See page 10 for more details.
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 scentfree policy.
Please do not wear scented
products when you attend our
sessions or visit the TLC.
FALL TEACHING DAYS
REGISTRATION FORM
Please print clearly
Name ___________________________________________________________________
Department ______________________________________________________________
On Campus Address ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
E-Mail ___________________________________________________________________
Please send your completed
registration form to the
Gwenna Moss Teaching &
Learning Centre
Room 37,
Murray Memorial Library
3 Campus Drive
You may also register by
faxing this form to
966-2242 or calling
966-2231 or e-mailing
the information to
corinne.f@usask.ca
Fax _____________________________________________________________________
Phone ___________________________________________________________________
Please indicate which category you are in:
❐ Faculty
❐ Sessional Lecturer
❐ Graduate Student Teacher
❐ Lab Demonstrator
❐ Extension Specialist
❐ Librarian
Teaching Portfolio: Documenting the Scholarship of Teaching &
❐ The
Learning
Friday, September 13, 1:30-4 pm
More the Merrier? Teaching Large Classes
❐ The
Thursday, September 19, 4-6 pm
Step Ahead of the Palm Pilots: Creating a Culture of Academic
❐ One
Honesty at the University of Saskatchewan
Friday, September 27, 1:30-4pm
& Garfunkel Meet Shakespeare: The Sounds and Silences of
❐ Simon
Classroom Discussion
Thursday, October 3, 1:30-4 pm
❐
Experiential Education: Fostering the Connection between Learning and
Personal Experience
Thursday, October 31, 1:30 -4:30 pm
Integrity: Preventing, Detecting and Addressing Plagiarism
❐ Academic
Friday, November 1, 1:30-4 pm
PowerPoint, and Presentation:
❐ Pedagogy,
ers
Basic PowerPoint for Teach-
This registration form is
also available
on the web at
www.usask.ca/tlc
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
disappointed by the lower-thananticipated attendance; and that we
can open up reserved spots quickly
to other interested participants.
Thank you.
Wednesday, November 6, 1-4 pm
If I Assign It, I’ll Have to Assess It: Learning Through Writing
❐ Friday,
November 22, 1:30-4 pm
16
Printing Services • 966-6639
University of Saskatchewan • CUPE 1975