OND 2014 Session descriptions
Session Descriptions
Session 100s: 10:45- 11:45 a.m.
Links to session descriptions: 101, 102, 103A, 103B, 104A, 104B, 105A, 105B, 106A, 106B
Session 101- PANEL- Evaluating the effectiveness of an online program to help Co-op students enhance their employability skills
Judene Pretti, Director, Centre for the Advancement of Co-operative Education (WatCACE)
Tonya Noel, Online Learning Consultant, Centre for Extended Learning (CEL)
Anne Fannon, Director, Waterloo Professional Development Program (WatPD)
Greg Andres, Instructor, Waterloo Professional Development Program (WatPD)
Pia Marks, Online Learning Consultant, Centre for Extended Learning (CEL)
This year, a HEQCO report(1) is being released about Waterloo’s Professional Development Program (WatPD)(2). The report focuses on WatPD’s program evaluation plan, including evaluation methodologies and findings collected to date. Like many programs', WatPD’s evaluation data is used to both improve the program and address accountability requirements. Unlike most academic program-level evaluations, however, WatPD examines its courses and program from several different angles using the Kirkpatrick model of evaluating training programs(3) as a guide. Results discussed in the report include students’ reactions to the program (collected in surveys and focus groups), evidence of student learning (based on pass rates, grades, pre/post-test data, and interviews), and a discussion on whether or not students’ behaviours change as a result of their learning (measured by interview responses and a study involving employer evaluations of student work term performances).
In this panel discussion, the authors of the report will share some of its highlights, WatPD’s director will share how the evaluation data is used for accountability purposes, an instructor from the program will share how evaluation data can be used to improve a course, and an online learning consultant will share some options, for those who don’t have a formal evaluation plan in place, to make evidence-based decisions.
1. Pretti, J., Noël, T., & Waller, T.G. (in press) Evaluation of the Effectiveness of an Online Program to Help Co-op Students Enhance their Employability Skills. Toronto, ON: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario
2. WatPD is a set of fully online 20-25 hour professional development courses in topics such as communication, problem solving, and ethics. All undergraduate co-op students at Waterloo must complete four or five PD courses to earn their co-op degrees.
3. Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. Second edition. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Back to session 100s descriptions
Session 102 - WORKSHOP - Assessing critical thinking outside the box and ivory tower
Kelly Anthony, Lecturer, School of Public Health and Health Systems, and Teaching Fellow, Applied Health Sciences
Mary Louise McAllister, Associate Professor, Environment and Resources Studies, and Teaching Fellow, Faculty of Environment
One decidedly tricky and elusive goal many educators and related institutions purport to pursue is to "encourage critical thinking". Some courses lend themselves very well to this goal. One way this may be achieved is by assessing students' ability to synthesize and apply lessons learned in class to a realistic scenario that they might encounter in the wider community outside of the ivory tower. Students can be asked to tackle a specific social, environmental or health issue using the knowledge they have gained in the course throughout the term. In this workshop, two instructors will offer examples to illustrate how they assess this knowledge in undergraduate and graduate seminar classes as well as a larger lecture class.
1) In one class, students are asked to propose a health intervention that is practical, relevant, evidence based, and necessary. The final course project is to share that proposal with the class for feedback and evaluation. At the graduate level, students are assessed on their articulation of a plan to engage in some social justice related activity beyond their current work in Public Health. Examples of students' work will be shared, as well as student feedback on the assessment processes in both classes.
2) In another class, students are asked to write one integrative paper choosing from one of three community-based scenarios and discuss how they would tackle a community development or environmental problem as if they were consultants. Assessment is based on demonstrated knowledge of course material and an ability to apply lessons learned to formulate a persuasive research project design.
Session outline:
- Co-presenters will discuss the importance of real life examples in teaching and scaffolding critical thinking. (10 min.)
- The co-presenters will offer several examples of course assignments designed to encourage and assess critical thinking. (25 min.)
- Co-presenters will suggest similar types of critical thinking exercises that might be used in other faculties (10 min.)
- Co-presenters will engage the audience and generate other examples that might be useful to the session participants. (15 min.)
Back to session 100s descriptions
Session 103A - PRESENTATION - Assessing writing-to-learn activities
Charis Enns, Ph.D. Candidate, Political Science, Global Governance, and TA Workshop Facilitator, Centre for Teaching Excellence
The ability to teach higher-order thinking skills, such as critical thinking and complex reasoning, is a priority of higher education across the disciplines. The term ‘writing-to-learn’ refers to the use of informal writing activities to develop and deepen student learning in the classroom. Research in higher education shows that writing-to-learn activities stimulate critical thinking and encourage reflective analysis (Bean, 2011; Sorcinelli and Elbow, 1997). Research in higher education also shows that writing-to-learn activities enable students to become more engaged and responsible learners, both within and beyond the class where such activities are being used (Bean, 2011). With this research in mind, well-designed writing-to-learn activities should be seen as an effective tool for developing higher-order thinking skills within the undergraduate classroom across disciplines.
While research has impressed the value of writing-to-learn activities, this research is less decided regarding best practice for assessing such activities (Yancey et al., 2009). As the purpose of writing-to-learn is to encourage deep learning rather than evaluate the effectiveness of communication, such activities must be assessed differently than formal writing. In this presentation, I discuss approaches to assessing writing-to-learn activities. To begin, I introduce the concept of ‘writing-to-learn’, highlighting the differences between writing-to-learn and formal writing assignments. Next, I discuss appropriate and useful assessment practices for writing-to-learn activities, drawing from research. I emphasize the importance of assessing process and learning, rather than accuracy and clarity. To conclude, I provide three examples of writing-to-learn activities that could be effectively used across the disciplines, detailing how one could structure these activities, as well as specific tools that could be used for assessment. This presentation is practice-based but informed by research on writing-to-learn in postsecondary education.
Back to session 100s descriptions
Session 103B - PRESENTATION - Integrated formative assessment of writing assignments in larger classes
Kristie Dukewich, Lecturer, Psychology, University of Toronto
Formative assessment has been advocated as a way to enhance learning by allowing students to receive feedback on their learning and course performance and correct their trajectory before the end of a semester. However, formative assessment is often time consuming and administratively demanding, presenting a significant challenge for instructors teaching large classes with limited resources. One way to incorporate formative assessment is by having students get involved in the assessment themselves. This year, I converted my detailed marking rubric for a term paper assignment, used by the TAs for summative assessment, into a peer activity used for formative assessment. I will describe the research-based evidence for involving students in formative assessment of writing assignments, the differences between the two summative and formative rubrics, the pedagogical rationale for those differences, and how the exercise was practically implemented. I will also share my reflections on the formative assessment activity including the strengths and weaknesses of the exercise and changes I anticipate making for the next iteration of the assignment.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 100s descriptions
Session 104A - PRESENTATION - Developing effective educational practices to enhance student engagement
Nirusha Thavarajah, Lecturer, Department of Physical & Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough
Finding ways to enhance student engagement is a challenge that most of us face today as university educators. This presentation is designed to contribute to our evolving and deepening understanding about student engagement.
What is student engagement in a university class room? In my own terms, I define student engagement as the product of synergistic interaction between students’ curiosity and intrinsic interest to learn.
This session will provide opportunities for the participants to actively engage in brief group discussions. The intended objective of this presentation is to have a closer look at the following topics: a) importance of student engagement, b)effective teaching methods to create intellectually stimulating learning environment to ignite students’ intrinsic motivation to learn and c) methods to assess student engagement.
My research study results on some of the teaching strategies I have implemented successfully in the year of 2013 to encourage student engagement in introductory and advanced level chemistry courses will be presented.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 100s descriptions
Session 104B - PRESENTATION - New directions for engaging students in online learning assignments
Bill Ju, Lecturer, Human Biology Program, University of Toronto
Several senior level courses in our life sciences undergraduate program have undergone significant content and curriculum re-design to enhance transparent, active, student-centered learning. Specifically, the re-design sought to align undergraduate learning outcomes to match post-graduate expectations in research settings. These outcomes included independent literature research and critical review, experimental design, enhancing presentation skills and peer evaluation through a variety of online and in-class activities. Course and curriculum re-design were intended to enhance the traditional classroom approach to learning. Elements of the re-design included technology-enhanced, extended classrooms and authentic, online assignments. Students enrolled in two separate 3rd and 4th year courses were given different methods of learning outcomes assessments including several online publications, in-class peer reviews of presentations, in addition to classroom teaching. Anonymous post-course surveys showed that students felt that online assignments have a beneficial impact and that peer review of assignments have the potential to become a useful pedagogical method. The different learning outcomes, student survey results and use of newly designed online assignments will be of benefit to instructors interested in using technology to engage students and critical thinking skills.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 100s descriptions
Session 105A - PRESENTATION - A new student centered comprehensive course evaluation model
Jonathan Witt, Associate Professor and Teaching Fellow, Biology
Carey Bissonnette, Lecturer and Teaching Fellow, Chemistry
Mary Power, Liaison for the Faculty of Science, Centre for Teaching Excellence
Courses and their instruction are usually evaluated by students with end of term standardized questionnaires. These evaluations are customarily carried out after the course is completed, but prior to the final exam. This is too late for any issues to be addressed in the current term and too early to assess the entire course. Additionally, whereas the results may be indicative of an overall student perception they represent a single time-point. Alternative models of course assessment include class representatives or student management teams (Buch, 2002) who meet with the instructor throughout the term, however, these methods lack anonymity.
We will present a more extensive course and instructor evaluation model that was developed and piloted in a fourth year undergraduate biology course in the fall term of 2013. A team of student volunteers were solicited to observe and reflect upon the course content, assessments, objectives and quality of instruction throughout the term. The students (8 volunteered, 6 completed) were not identified to the instructor and communicated solely with intermediary facilitators (a teaching fellow and a teaching centre staff member). Meetings with the students and facilitators were held at the start of term, after the first midterm and early in the following term after course completion.
In this session we will share our overwhelmingly positive experience with the process, as the instructor and facilitators, and comment on the value of this model more broadly in terms of course redesign and the provision of more targeted feedback. We will also share some of the student perceptions.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 100s descriptions
Session 105B - PRESENTATION - Engineering elective course re-design to promote student engagement
Gordon Stubley, Associate Dean, Teaching, Faculty of Engineering
ME 566, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for Engineering Design, is a 4th year mechanical engineering elective course. The course goal is for course graduates to be able to effectively use computer simulation tools to select optimal engineering designs based on the analysis of fluid flow performance. After being well received for many years, over several offerings class attendance, student engagement in lectures, student demonstration of key course concepts in the final summative project, and student course evaluation scores all dropped.
From student feedback to specific instructor based questions during the student course evaluation it was found that the students believed that their existing understanding of engineering fluid mechanics was sufficient to make well-informed design decisions and that the emphasized course concepts were not relevant to the engineering design process. This feedback informed a course re-design.
The presentation will briefly describe the course outline and then review the factors that prompted the course re-design. The two major features of the course re-design, pre/post-test activities and authentic engineering assignments, will be described in some detail, including their grounding in the literature. The use of pre/post-test activities will be tied to the work of Halloun and Hestenes [1] on the role that student misconceptions have on learning outcomes for the physics of motion. The use of authentic engineering assignments will be tied to the work on student motivation summarized by Svinicki [2]. Finally the impact of the re-design on student performance and outcomes from two offerings of the re-designed course will be presented.
References:
- Halloun, I.A., and Hestenes, D., 1985, Common Sense Concepts about Motion, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 53, pp. 1056-1065.
- Svinicki, M.D., 2004, Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom, Jossey-Bass Publishing, San Francisco, CA.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 100s descriptions
Session 106A - PRESENTATION - Assessing university preparedness in the Bridging Academic Success in English (BASE) program: A communicative competency perspective
Christine Morgan, Language Instructor and Teacher Development Coordinator, English Language Centre, Renison University College
Keely Cook, Curriculum Coordinator/ Instructor, BASE - English Language Centre, Renison University College
The University of Waterloo’s plan for internationalization includes increasing enrollment of graduate and undergraduate international students. Thus, the overarching goal of BASE, a pathways program of critical support of the university’s internationalization focus, is to “attract highly desirable students who meet or exceed all admission requirements but English language scores” (Hummel & Missere-Mihas, 2013, p.6). Yet, current research indicates that the educational outcomes for English Language Learners (ELLs) compared to their non ELL counter parts are disparate (Baik & Greig 2009; Roessignh & Douglas, 2012).The aim of the pathway program is to prepare English Language Learners (ELLs) for the rigors of academia in a North American context. Hence, the BASE program is designed to improve all language skills areas, leading to greater sustained academic achievement. BASE is structured such that different language competencies are assessed using discipline specific genre tasks with an emphasis on spoken and written communication efficacy and the development of academic discourse and literacy. There is much evidence to suggest that such a discipline specific approach improves the focus and motivation levels of students, while better addressing targeted language difficulties as they occur in a specific field of study (Liyanage & Birch, 2001). Thus, the Academic Skills (AS) adjunct course is linked to their discipline specific credit course whereby AS curricula are developed to ensure the students are prepared for the content and assessment in their credit courses. All BASE courses are comprised of a focused curriculum design with definite course outcomes; course evaluation is sufficiently scaffolded so that optimal learning can take place. Ongoing student performance and research on curricula are used to determine assessment and best practices to meet these goals. Instructors from the ELI at Renison University College will demonstrate the process of developing BASE assessments focusing on communicative competency and academic preparedness.
References:
Baik, C., & Greig, J. (2009). Improving the academic outcomes of undergraduate ESL stduents: the case for discipline-based academic skills programs. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(4), 401-416. Doi: 10.1080/07294360903067005
Hummel, J., & Missere-Mihas, T. (2013). English language pathways for the university of waterloo. Renison University College.
Liyanage, I., & Birch, G. (2001). English for general academic purposes: Catering to discipline-specific needs. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 17(1), 48-67.
Roessingh, H., & Douglas, S. R. (2012). Educational outcomes of English language learners at university. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 42(1), 80-97. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/docview/1140130088?accountid=14906
Back to session 100s descriptions
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Session 106B - PRESENTATION- A course template for integrating Chinese 2+2 students and enhancing their communication skills
Brewster Conant, Jr., Research Assistant Professor and Teaching Fellow, Earth Sciences
Judi Jewinski, Special Advisor to the Provost on English Language Competency, Provost’s Office
Julia Williams, Director, English Language Studies, Renison University College
To provide ongoing social and academic support for 2+2 students* in their first term at Waterloo, the Earth and Environmental Sciences Department piloted a 10-week non-credit course using funds from a CTE LITE grant. The course focused on individual self-improvement in a safe, supportive environment. Students received content-based instruction from Earth Science faculty and language instructors in activities designed to improve English competency, help them adjust to academic and department specific requirements, and integrate them in the Waterloo community. The course included (1) a department field trip and picnic followed by a written summary, (2) a tour of faculty laboratories followed by a lab report, and (3) a tour of the Peter Russell Rock Garden followed by group work and an oral presentation.
Undergraduate peer mentors were key to the course’s success: they helped students with assignments, English practice, socializing, and orientation to the department. Metrics to assess success included student self-assessments in pre- and post- course interviews and questionnaires, comparisons of draft assignments to final submissions, and a post-program survey of peer mentors. As expected, participants found value and enjoyment in the course. Results indicate increased confidence in academic abilities and measurably better performance in other courses over peers who did not take EARTH 10. Involving faculty and peer mentors from the department, in addition to support from the writing centre and ESL instructors, helped the 2+2 students develop the socio-cultural and interactional competence necessary to their integration . A worthwhile complement to academic programming, EARTH 10 provides a course template that can be easily adapted by other Waterloo departments.
*2+2 students complete two academic years in China before coming to Waterloo to complete their undergraduate degrees.
Back to session 100s descriptions
Session 200s:2:30-3:30 p.m.
Links to session descriptions: 201, 202, 203A, 203B, 204A, 204B, 205A, 205B, 206A, 206B
Session 201 - PANEL - Assessment approaches in case based learning at uWaterloo
Kelly Anthony, Lecturer, School of Public Health and Health Systems, and Teaching Fellow, Applied Health Sciences
Jack Callaghan, CRC and Professor, Kinesiology
James Barnett, Faculty, School of Accounting and Finance
Jennifer Lynes, Associate Professor and Director of the Environment and Business Program, School of Environment, Enterprise and Development
Patty Hrynchak, Clinical Professor, School of Optometry and Vision Science
Using cases as “real world” examples in class has become an increasing interest among uWaterloo instructors. Case-Based Learning (CBL) allows students to develop a collaborative approach to education; fosters integrated learning; and promotes self-assessment, reflection and life-long learning (Williams 2005). This Panel Discussion will highlight uWaterloo instructors who have had experience using CBL in one or more of their courses. Panelists will represent different disciplines from across campus to illustrate similarities and differences in approaches to assessment when using cases in a course. To start the session, panelists will briefly share the context of their course (size, year, etc.), how they use cases in their course and the methods they used to assess student learning. Since this is an emerging experiential teaching mode at UW, importance will be placed on questions and discussion with the panelists and attendees.
In addition to questions from attendees, panelists will be asked to consider the following:
- Broadly speaking, how do you use cases in your course (position, number)? Do you follow a specific method (ie. Harvard Business School or Ivey School of Business: (individuals read and prepare for discussion of a case before class; small groups meet to discuss the case before class; the case is discussed in class)
- Use of cases in class promotes higher order learning outcomes, such as problem solving and evaluation, compared to traditional didactic lectures. What assessment strategies have you used to capture learning beyond recall basic comprehension?
- Do you give participation marks in class for discussion of cases? Why and how do you do this?
- Do you require a written submission with analysis of a case from students (individuals or groups) prior to discussing the case in class (or after the class discussion)?
- Do you use different approaches to assessment for novices versus students who have experience with CBL?
Back to session 200s descriptions
Session 202 - WORKSHOP - Assessment using rubrics: An introductory workshop
Trevor Holmes, Senior Instructional Developer, Centre for Teaching Excellence
Assessment drives learning for many, if not most, students. Grading rubrics are often suggested as a way to give feedback that is consistent, efficient, clear, and future-oriented. Aimed at participants with little or no experience using rubrics, this workshop will take you through a process to select and develop one from among several models of rubric to assess student learning efficiently and effectively, using criteria that you bring or create. Examples will be provided for a variety of assignments and activities.
Back to session 200s descriptions
Session 203A - PRESENTATION - Online synchronous group assessment
Felicia Pantazi, Online Learning Consultant, Centre for Extended Learning
Helen Chen, Assistant Professor, School of Public Health & Health Systems
Outcomes: after this presentation participants will be able to:
- Assess the appropriateness of live synchronous assessments in an online course.
- Formulate a plan for live synchronous assessments.
- Explain the use of the University of Waterloo’s web conferencing tool, Adobe Connect, to conduct online synchronous assessments.
One of the advantages of online learning is allowing students to pace their learning. But sometimes, depending on the context and type of content, synchronous sessions could be beneficial by allowing the instructor to provide immediate feedback and engage students in real-time group discussion. A synchronous session is a real-time or live meeting that takes place online between the instructor and students. Usually synchronous sessions are using a web conferencing platform such as Adobe Connect, and allows the participants to talk, type, share desktops, etc.
In this presentation we will describe our positive experience with online synchronous group assessment in a graduate-level, online course. The aim of the presentation is to explain our rationale to offer online synchronous assessments and to demonstrate our approach to planning and running the assessments with a group of students located in significantly diverse geographical locations that spanned many time-zones.
During the semester, the 26 students divided in 8 groups worked asynchronously on a multiple-stage project. The synchronous assessment was the final stage and it required all the students to attend a live session via Adobe Connect. Each group had to do a 5-minutes presentation about the purpose, functions and innovations of the prototype system developed, followed by a 10-minutes demonstration, and 5-minutes Q&A period.
We will discuss the planning process for facilitating this live assessment, the main features of Adobe Connect, the contingency plan and alternative technologies in case of technological failure, as well as the benefits of using synchronous assessments.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 200s descriptions
Session 203B - PRESENTATION - Assessment in blended classrooms
Sarah McLean, Assistant Professor, Physiology & Pharmacology, Anatomy & Cell Biology, Western University
Blended learning refers to an instructional format in which at least some learning occurs online in conjunction with traditional face-to-face instruction. A “flipped classroom” is a form of instruction in which the traditional acquisition of information occurs on students’ own time and class time is used for application of content. This presentation will highlight assessment techniques used in a blended, flipped fourth year medical sciences course and feedback from this course that launched the design of a blended laboratory. In the flipped fourth year course students performed interactive online learning modules prior to attending in-class sessions. In-class sessions were comprised of class discussion, group work, analysis of case studies and scientific literature critique. Throughout the term, students were asked to complete three short surveys as well as weekly reflective questions on their experiences in the course, including questions regarding assessment, access of the online learning modules and perception of the instructor. Analysis shows that students want more feedback and more opportunities for “safe failure” (ie failure not affecting grades). Based on this feedback, a blended laboratory course is being developed wherein students complete “choose your own adventure” style online lab simulations prior to completing the wet lab in class. These simulations will allow students a safe place to “fail” and experiment prior to completing the wet lab. It is also anticipated that these simulations will allow students to troubleshoot common laboratory mistakes and improve knowledge retention of laboratory procedures.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 200s descriptions
Session 204A - PRESENTATION - Delivering abstract principles – Teaching strategy determines assessment outcome
Katharina Hassel, Ph.D. Candidate, Chemical Engineering
Christine Moresoli, Professor, Chemical Engineering
When referring to teaching strategies one can postulate that there are as many teaching strategies as there are instructors: some prefer straight lecturing others like to include demonstrations. In the context of the delivery of the first year introductory course “Engineering Biology” offered to Chemical Engineering undergraduate students during Spring 2013, a number of teaching delivery strategies were adopted. The Engineering Biology course is one of two compulsory biology courses in the Chemical Engineering undergraduate curriculum at the University of Waterloo. The obstacle to overcome in this first year course is the gap between students with high school biology major background and students who did not take biology in high school. Therefore a number of students do not look forward to this course and at worst are even afraid of failing due to the (in their opinion) overwhelming course load.
In this presentation, I will show the importance of in class teaching activities (brainstorming, think-pair-share, problem recognition tasks) to convert abstract principles into an understandable process. This is an essential addition to lectures of all sciences especially in areas of inconsistent previous knowledge. When comparing assessment outcome from content delivered by traditional lecturing style with those for content delivered by teaching activities, signs of deeper learning and understanding were observed for many students which has translated in the improvement of their marks. In addition, I will discuss ways to increase transparency of the course, especially class activities and assessment questions. This approach seems to have increased the confidence of the students by aligning learning outcomes with quiz and exam questions. I will conclude by presenting student feedback and suggestions for the next delivery of this course. The aim for the audience is to take away one idea for the development of a class activity for their own teaching.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 200s descriptions
Session 204B - PRESENTATION - Poster presentation: An alternative to the final exam?
Pearl (Pei-Chun) Chang, Ph.D. Candidate, Biology
Group activities and projects encourage student participation and deepen the learning experience through personal interactions. In science courses, group oral presentations have been commonly used as the assessment method for collaborative work. However, assessing learning outcomes through group oral presentations has a number of limitations such as lack of class participation and difficulty allocating time needed for all groups (Koshy, 2011). Drawing on the example of a science course offered at the University of Waterloo, this paper will discuss how group poster presentations were used to replace the traditional final exam in a science course. We will argue that as a summative assessment method, group poster presentations are particularly useful for assessing group projects in a large class, as concurrent presentations not only minimize the amount of time needed to assess numerous small groups, but also engage students in learning topics of other groups. In addition to assessment by the instructor, the use of peer evaluation within and among groups will be discussed. Videos of students’ feedback about participating their own projects and evaluating others will be shared.
Reference:
Koshy, S. (2011). Poster presentation:an effective assessment for large communication classes? In N. Courtney, C. Holtham & C. Nygaard (Eds.), Beyond Transmission: Innovations in University Teaching (pp. 203): Libri publishing, UK.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 200s descriptions
Session 205A - PRESENTATION - Writing for Math Students? Easy to say - but do?
Judi Jewinski, Special Advisor to the Provost on English Language Competency, Provost’s Office
Increasingly, programs at Waterloo are responding to the 2012 report of the Task Force on English Language Competency by replacing a midterm or multiple-choice test with a writing assignment. To be taken seriously by the students, the assignment needs weight. To stimulate improved writing skills, it needs a clear rubric and formative feedback. This presentation focuses on what such an experience meant for students, TA markers, and faculty members in an Actuarial Science elective course offered Fall 2013. OND participants will thus discover the practicality and benefits of introducing a writing assignment in non-traditional settings.
In response to employers’ demand for stronger writing skills in co-op students, the Actuarial Science department revised MTHEL 131 to replace one of two midterms with an extensive 3-part business writing assignment. The value of the assignment was hefty—worth 25% of the course grade (10% for Draft 1 and 15% for Draft 2). To help ensure student success, the course instructor teamed up with a writing instructor to frame the assignment, create a rubric, oversee TA training and marking, offer extracurricular support to students, and evaluate results.
TAs took part in norming workshops to help them learn to apply what Bean (2011) calls a “revision-oriented commenting strategy,” after which they provided formative feedback on content, organization, and style. Students had two weeks to submit a revised version that not only took their marker’s original comments into account but also met requirements spelled out on a 32-item checklist. Attention to this feedback would count for 50% of the grade of the final draft. Not surprisingly, most students worked hard to improve their first drafts. That they were ultimately successful (with the class average improving by 10 percentage points from first to second draft) confirms the value of such an exercise, despite its being resource-intensive.
Reference:
Bean, J.C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 200s descriptions
Session 205B - PRESENTATION - Improving the accessibility of STEM courses: Why online Math at Waterloo is amazing
Tonya Noel, Online Learning Consultant, Centre for Extended Learning (CEL)
Rachael Verbruggen, Instructional Digital Media Developer - Lead Math Specialist, Centre for Extended Learning (CEL)
Mark Stewart, OTC/DEV, Centre for Extended Learning (CEL)
By the end of 2014, Waterloo’s Center for Extended Learning will offer nearly 30 math courses in a fully online environment. What makes many of these courses unique (in comparison to other school's or companies' online math resources that exist) is that they're significantly more user-friendly for students who require various assistive technologies.
During our presentation, a summary of accessibility-related student challenges will be shared followed by a demonstration of the current iteration of our HTML math framework. This framework presents formulas in a way that “looks right” while also being zoomable, searchable, accommodating to colour contrast settings, and somewhat screen-reader friendly. Specific emphasis will be given to the content presentation and formative assessments components. Our thoughts about next steps in accessible online math design - namely summative assessment, facilitating student interaction, and resources required in the development process - will also be discussed.
While currently only used with Math courses, when complete this framework may also be suitable for Science, Engineering, and any other discipline with lessons that include multiple formulas.
The presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Back to session 200s descriptions
Session 206A - PRESENTATION - Graphic tablets: A classroom tool whose time has come
The standard tools used by university educators in the classroom have evolved over the years from chalk & blackboard to overhead projectors to whiteboards and now to Powerpoint & data projectors. A recent survey of Electrical and Computer Engineering professors shows that it is now becoming more common to use partially completed Powerpoint or Word slides which are handed out to the students. The students are given these partial notes and, during the lecture, the instructor fills in the missing portions (which may include equations and figures) for the students. This is done to increase student engagement and discourage student absenteeism due to the course notes being available.
It was discovered through an analysis of student course critiques that this technique is poorly accepted when the two views are not co-located, but results in excellent class acceptance when the blackboard annotations appear directly on the projected Powerpoint notes. Different tools, including tablets and graphic tablets, which could enable the co-located views are discussed and compared based on ease of use as well as for accuracy. It will be shown in this talk, through a live demonstration, that graphic tablets have evolved to the point where they can greatly enhance lectures with partial Powerpoint or Word notes, and provide a quick and easy way to capture the class lecture afterwards for the students. Given their reasonably low cost, it is argued that the time may have come to supply all classrooms with this versatile input device.
Mat DeMarco, Teaching Assistant, Pharmacy
Study Question: Is it effective to teach and learn using a nonprescription drug evidence-based medicine self-care research project (EBSCR) in an advanced patient self-care elective?
Background: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires pharmacists to utilize the formal rules of evidence and biostatistics in critically appraising and applying medical literature to optimize a patient’s drug therapy. The University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy’s curriculum relies heavily on utilizing an EBM approach to teach prescription drug therapeutics, however the curriculum did not historically apply the same EBM methods to teaching nonprescription drug therapeutics.
Methods: This presentation discusses the use of an evidence-based self-care research (EBSCR) project in an Advanced Patient Self-Care Elective to enhance student literature evaluation and therapeutic application skills at the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy. One goal of this project is to enhance pharmacy students’ learning focused on the critical appraisal process and ability to apply drug literature to the optimal selection of nonprescription drugs used for minor ailments. Another goal of this project is to improve research engagement among UW students by utilizing a focus group assessment as a learning opportunity. For this project students will work in groups to learn about a published critical appraisal tool and then use the tool to assess the value of nonprescription drug literature within a specific minor ailment. The final product is a web-based treatment algorithm that depicts their critically appraised findings in order to sequentially guide clinicians through the various nonprescription drug and nondrug therapeutic options for a specified medical condition.
Progress: This elective course was approved and has been offered eight times at UW. It enrolls between 50-80 third and fourth year pharmacy students each term. The focus group data has been gathered, processed and analyzed as per protocol (appendix B).
Conclusions/Implications: This research aims to assess the effectiveness of teaching and learning using this nonprescription drug evidence-based medicine project and to provide insight on how to improve the deep learning interaction between students and research literature. Qualitative data will be collected using pre and post Likert-scale student surveys.
Conclusions will provide insight into deep learning outcomes delivered by this elective as a function of EBSCR as well as future guidance in further developing this innovative teaching and assessment approach. Using assessment as a learning opportunity provides a variety of learning efficiency advantages that contribute to deep learning for students. Therefore, the results of this study on EBSCR have far reaching implications for assessing learning across various UW faculties and disciplines which value research literature engagement as a core competency, although the assessment of common skills across the UW community are discipline-specific.
This presentation will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period.
Session 300s: 3:50-4:50 p.m.
Links to session descriptions: 301, 302, 303A, 303B, 304A, 304B, 305A, 305B, 306
Session 301 - PANEL - Online assessment: Aligning design and delivery in the faculty of Arts
Dorothy Hadfield, Extended Learning Co-ordinator, English
Gerry Callaghan, Continuing Lecturer, Extended Learning Coordinator, Philosophy
Kyle Scholz, Faculty of Arts and University Colleges Liaison, Centre for Teaching Excellence
One general goal for assessment in a university course can be succinctly stated: to determine how well students have learnt the course material. In courses on campus, that determination is made by instructors who prepare and present the content, and then design and grade the assessments. While the process of marking assessments and giving feedback can be automated or outsourced to some extent, it is still a central form of interaction between instructor and student.
In fully online courses, however, the relationship between the assessor, assessment, and assessed becomes complicated by the variety of people involved in course design and delivery. In the Faculty of Arts at the University of Waterloo, oftentimes the author of an online course does not teach it. What impact does this change in the traditional practice of instructor involvement in both the setting and marking of assessments have on course management or student learning?
The panel being proposed here will examine the relationship between assessment design and delivery in the online context:
- Person X will consider assessment design in online courses not taught by the course authors;
- Person Y will discuss a model in which the online course author is also the instructor;
- Person Z will look at alternatives to instructor-focused assessment, particularly in courses where class size or assessment volume present time management challenges.
Some key questions will frame the panelists’ remarks: What strategies for assignment design are appropriate in the different design-delivery contexts considered? Should assessment in online courses be dynamic and evolve during the semester, or must it remain static from day one?
Panelists will limit their talks to approximately 12 minutes each in order to provide time for audience questions and discussion.
Rudy Peariso, Lead Online Learning Consultant, Centre for Extended Learning (CEL)
Amanda McKenzie, Manager, Office of Academic Integrity
Barbara Moffatt, Professor, Biology, and Associate Dean, Student Relations
Stephane Hamade, VP Education, Federation of Students
References:
1) Kidwell, L.A. & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a distance: A study of academic misconduct among university students on and off campus. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17(S3-S16).
2) Sendag, S. et al. (2012). Surveying the extent of involvement in online academic dishonesty (e-dishonesty) related practices among university students and the rationale students provide: One university’s experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 849-860.
3) Bernardi, R.A. et al. (2004). Examining the decision process of students’ cheating behavior: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 397-414.
4) Meadows, K. N. (2012). Academic integrity in Canadian higher education: A conversation with Julia Christensen Hughes, Spring, 2012. Western Teaching Support Centre. Retrieved on January 27, 2014 from http://www.uwo.ca/tsc/resources/publications/newsletter/selected_articles/academic_integrity_in_canadian_
higher_education_part_two.html
5) Rettinger, D.A. & Kramer, Y. (2009). Situational and personal causes of student cheating. Research in Higher Education, 50(3), 293-313.
The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) has just completed – in partnership with 14 Ontario colleges and universities – an extensive five-year study of Work-Integrated Learning (WIL). These studies included surveys of faculty (2011, n=3,400), employers (2012, n=3,500), and students both as they were about to graduate (2012, n=10,000) and 18 months after graduation (2013, n=4,500). The contents of those studies encompass nearly all types of WIL ranging from apprenticeships at one end of the spectrum to service learning at the other.
As governments and the public clamour for more “experiential” learning opportunities for postsecondary students, and students and the media complain increasingly about unpaid and potentially illegal placements and growing challenges for students in finding relevant employment after graduation, colleges and universities need to ask themselves several important questions, each of which will be explored in this presentation:
- What are WIL/experiential learning opportunities really intended to provide to a participating student?
- How much WIL do our programs already offer to students, and are those existing WIL opportunities fulfilling their promise and intent?
- How much additional WIL can really be provided, especially given the challenges already being experienced in finding sufficient placements?
- Are there alternatives to WIL that could also educate students in terms of the workplace and how it relates to their postsecondary studies?
This presentation will provide an overview of the growing body of research related to WIL in Ontario, and provide some suggestions for future directions at colleges and universities.
Session 304A - ROUND TABLE - Designing interprofessional learning activities and assessments
Charlotte Lee, Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, Ryerson University
Aaron Bechtold, Undergraduate Research Assistant, School of Nursing, Ryerson University
Interprofessional education has been established in many academic institutions to enhance one’s capacity to work with individuals from different professions. While group work and team-based pedagogy is clearly valued and benefits all students, interprofessional groups and teams are rarely implemented in mandatory undergraduate courses and much less assessed for their value as a pedagogical approach. The objective of this roundtable session is to explore emerging ideas on how to effectively engage and assess students from different disciplines in interprofessional education. The Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative lists six competency domains for effective interprofessional collaboration: 1) interprofessional communication, 2) patient/client/family/community-centered care, 3) role clarification, 4) team functioning, 5) collaborative leadership, and 6) interprofessional conflict resolution. The overarching question is how does one design learning activities to develop and assess competencies related to high performance interprofessional teams? The roundtable session will utilize a jigsaw method in which participants will divide into groups. Each member of a group will be given a particular assessment challenge related to interprofessional team-based learning. Individually, each participant will think of a potential solution to their challenge. Temporary "expert groups" (defined by having the same jigsaw piece) will be given time to share ideas. Finally, each jigsaw group will then integrate their ideas into a complete assessment package to develop and assess interprofessional team-based activities.
Christine Moresoli, Professor, Chemical Engineering
Jason Grove, Lecturer, Chemical Engineering
Teaching and measuring affective-domain outcomes can be challenging, since they often involve personal behaviours, values, and attitudes. When teaching value-based outcomes in technical engineering courses, we would like students to use their knowledge base, including technical engineering material as well as non-technical matter such as law, to formulate opinions and judgments and make decisions; doing this may involve a variety of attitudes and values, including those of both the student and others. However, the availability of assessment tools for affective domain outcomes in engineering courses is limited since these outcomes are rarely present in most engineering programs.
One would expect that with the introduction of program outcomes such as “Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment”, and “Professional Ethics” by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board will change this situation.
Opportunities to assess affective domain outcomes, specifically the behaviour and attitudes of a variety of individuals, were recently encountered with the implementation of teaching activities based on cases in the Chemical Engineering program at the University of Waterloo for two courses: a core first-year course in engineering biology and an upper-year technical elective in industrial ecology. The technical elective example is a business school-style case study examining a historical environmental contamination incident. The core first-year course has a different format, a structured panel discussion examining the societal and ethical impacts of bio-related technologies. This presentation will reflect on the delivery of value-based outcomes and the development of assessment tools in the context of two value-based CEAB outcomes.
Back to session 300s descriptions
Session 305A - PRESENTATION - Joint progress update meetings in capstone design courses: Encouraging peer review and assessment
Ada Hurst, Lecturer and Industry Liaison, Management Sciences
Oscar Nespoli, Lecturer, Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering
Capstone design courses challenge senior engineering students to solve open-ended engineering design problems. Course implementations vary by discipline and institution, but usually students tackle different design problems in teams. In many cases, project topics are sourced from industry.
The education literature strongly supports the use of the peer review and assessment method.(1) The objective of this presentation is to share a novel use of the method that can increase interaction and cooperation between teams. It is founded on the ‘studio’ method that is traditionally used in architecture programs.(2) In Spring 2013 and Winter 2014 we tested a pilot implementation of two-team (joint) progress update meetings in the Management Engineering capstone design courses (MSCI 401/402). Prior to this implementation, progress update meetings were strictly used by teams to communicate project progress to the course instructors. In the novel implementation, progress update meetings were held with two teams at a time. Paired teams took turns presenting to and critiquing each other’s presentation and design progress. At the end of each meeting, teams summarized their feedback in 2-page memos. The feedback provided was used to inform the instructors' evaluation of the assessed team. Each team was also evaluated on the quality of their feedback, with the main criteria being its thoroughness and usefulness. Course evaluations show that the format was well-received by students and was successful in increasing the diversity and wealth of knowledge teams could draw from during the meetings. Teams also appreciated the number of good ideas generated as a direct result of these meetings. The new format encouraged inter-team interactions, collaboration, and competition. While some questions remain with respect to what the ideal method implementation would look like, the format will be reused and refined in future course offerings.
Presentation attendees will be challenged to think about ways in which this teaching method can be utilized in other types of courses.
References:
- Sondergaard, H., & Mulder, R. A. (2012). Collaborative Learning through Formative Peer Review: Pedagogy, Programs, and Potential. Computer Science Education, 22(4), 343-367.
- Kuhn, S. (2001). Learning from the Architecture Studio: Impmlications for Project-Based Pedagogy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4 & 5), 349-352.
Back to session 300s descriptions
Session 305B - PRESENTATION - Team-based learning and assessment in the multi-disciplinary classroom
Amanda Hooykaas, Adjunct Faculty, Geography/Environment and Resource Studies, University of Guelph
Team-Based Learning is an innovative learning approach where courses are taught in flipped classrooms and concepts are made concrete through high-performance learning teams. Students spend a significant portion of the classroom component in groups but are largely assessed on their own engagement with the material and the ways that they prepare for class.
In this presentation, course facilitators are offered novel techniques to engage and assess students in multi-disciplinary courses. Whether based on qualitative or quantitative materials, the basic structure of this approach encourages deep learning and opportunity for both team and individual work. Multiple choice tests (both for individuals and teams), debates, personal reflections, and traditional lectures are all presented as options. Additionally, discussion includes how these approaches cater to all types of learners. These approaches lead to various methods of assessment and with clear, repeated structure throughout course; students learn how to learn and improve results in the classroom. By moving away from the traditional assessments of papers and exams and toward reflections, individual and collaborative multiple choice tests, and debates, students are challenged to redefine their educational experiences.
A case study of a tourism course taught at the University of Guelph students is explored. The course was originally structured in a lecture format but for the term has been completely redesigned to offer students a new way of learning – one that places the onus on the students to learn well and recognize both their strengths as individuals and as part of a group. Students in this course come from diverse backgrounds and disciplines and this is the first time most of them have taken a course on the topic. Even with an early class (8:30am), students come prepared and are highly-engaged with the material.
Back to session 300s descriptions
Session 306 - BIG QUESTIONS SESSION
Bring some of your big questions about teaching and learning generally, or about assessment specifically to this informal session facilitated by members of the Centre for Teaching Excellence.