One of the questions I frequently get asked is, “So just what is the difference between Applied Research and SoTL?” Well, this question is not that easy! Never-the-less I’ll give it my best shot in this latest installment of the SoTL Corner. And I had my friend ChatGPT to give me a little help with this. Applied Research I asked ChatGPT to tell me what conducting Applied Research is like at the college level: Engaging in applied research at a college level typically involves conducting research that aims to solve practical problems or address real-world issues within a specific field of study. This type of research often involves the application of theoretical knowledge to practical situations, with the goal of producing actionable solutions or innovations. Applied research projects at the college level may involve collaborating with external partners such as industry organizations, government agencies, or community groups to address relevant challenges or opportunities. The focus is on generating new knowledge or insights that can be directly applied to improve practices, policies, or technologies in a particular domain. At NorQuest College, we encourage our instructors and students to engage in a variety of Applied Research projects. Some examples of this are:
An important characteristic of Applied Research work is that it focuses on real world problems that often take place outside the confines of the college. It implies a partnership with an outside agency (like Capital Health, the Mustard Seed, or the City of Edmonton) and it often seeks to provide practical insights and possible solutions or efficiencies. For instance, in Early Learning and Child Care, faculty and student researchers might collaborate with daycare centers to evaluate the effectiveness of a new play-based learning curriculum in promoting cognitive development and school readiness among preschoolers. Or in the field of Nursing, nursing students might collaborate with a local hospital to study the effectiveness of a new patient care protocol in reducing hospital-acquired infections. Applied Research is attractive to college instructors because:
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Here’s what ChatGPT told me about conducting SoTL research at the college level: Completing a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research project at the college level involves conducting research that specifically focuses on enhancing teaching and learning practices within higher education settings. SoTL research seeks to investigate and improve the effectiveness of instructional strategies, curriculum design, assessment methods, and other aspects of teaching and learning. This type of research often involves studying the impact of innovative teaching approaches, interventions, or educational technologies on student learning outcomes, engagement, and retention. SoTL projects typically aim to contribute to the scholarship of teaching and learning by generating evidence-based insights and recommendations that can inform teaching practice and educational policy at the college level and beyond. Again, NorQuest faculty have also been very much engaged in this kind of research. Examples of this might include Sheryl Boisvert’s inquiry into “flipping the classroom”, Karen Taylor’s work on using Indigenous story telling as an important pedagogical practice, the research that Viola Manokore and I did on the transition to Emergency Remote Teaching Practice, and Dustin Grue’s ongoing inquiry into the use of a generative AI tool as a writing tutor. In each of these cases the focus is on understanding and hopefully improving the student learning experience. At the moment, we are conducting three rather ambitious college wide SoTL projects for Reimagine Higher Education… I’ll write about these in later installment of SoTL Corner. In contrast to Applied Research, the focus of SoTL is on what happens within the college, often right in the classroom. So, while an Applied Research project might study the impact of a certain care model for dementia in several local long-term care centers, a SoTL project would examine the best approach for teaching Practical Nursing and Health Care Aide students about dementia. Would the optimal approach involve readings, simulations, role plays, videos and recorded interviews, literature reviews, or guest speakers? And would the aim of the project be on cultivating empathy, learning boundaries and self-care, changing perceptions and orientations, or understanding the medical conditions and considerations? However, SoTL inquiries are not limited only to studying classroom interventions. When I asked Chat GPT to provide a few examples of this, it said that SoTL researchers might also look at:
SoTL doesn’t always seek solutions, according to Hutchings (2000) it can describe a current state of teaching and learning, it can compare teaching approaches, conditions, or interventions, it can show relationships between various factors in teaching (e.g., workload and student performance) or it can seek to explain (e.g., why are students dropping out?) or advance a model of what could be. SoTL is attractive to college instructors because:
So, could an Applied Research Project also be a SoTL Inquiry? Well, yes, sometimes, if… but that is a topic for another installment of SoTL Corner! Reference: Hutchings, Pat. (2000). Introduction: Approaching the scholarship of teaching and learning. In Pat Hutchings (Ed.), Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 1-10). Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
0 Comments
Last week I had the pleasure of attending a two-day SoTL “hackathon” in Saskatoon. It was a rich couple of days with sessions on ideation, ethics, indigenization and decolonization, student partnerships, and research design. Attendees were mostly from Alberta and Saskatchewan, but there were a couple from Ontario.
What I especially appreciated was the number of instructors/professors who attended. These people were very interested in shifting their research from studying their discipline to studying the teaching of their discipline. For instance, instead of looking at effective practices in veterinary science, examining the way in which students learn veterinary practices best - through lecture, scenarios, problem solving or hands-on work with animals. Could students learn through the use of VR and AR? Such SoTL work is really an extension of the work many of our instructors already do. SoTL really just takes thoughtful inquiry and reflective practice and firms it up by putting a research frame on it to provide focus and generate data and artifacts that can be analyzed. I might argue, that SoTL work is very powerful in post-secondary teaching as it allows us to better understand the impact of our teaching and gives us a way to share promising practices with colleagues inside and outside our institution. The only issue is, it is easy to access funding and support for applied, discipline-based research (the what), but much harder to secure funding for inquiries related to teaching and learning (the how and why). Some post-secondaries have established SoTL funding frameworks, but many have not. Often funding is tied to institutional priorities and individual instructors engage in SoTL inquiries because they can’t help themselves. They just have to know! And they’ll give up weekends and weeknights to find out! Some of the SoTL inquiry questions that Caylee Kreller and I took to the SoTL Summit/Hackathon included:
Obviously, these questions were of a more institutional or departmental level. Many of the participants at the summit had more course specific inquiries. For instance, one business instructor was interested in bringing more indigenous perspective into his course by inviting indigenous leaders to provide perspectives on management that may differ from the typical textbook examples traditionally studied in his courses. Would guest speakers, field trips and shared discussions bring about a greater awareness and understanding of alternative models? SoTL Corner - Sept 5, 2022If you are thinking about doing research into your teaching and learning practices, you might want to consider Pat Hutchings’ (2000) taxonomy of SoTL questions. Hutchings suggests that there are really four types of questions in SoTL research:
“What is?” questions. These types of SoTL inquiry questions seek only to provide descriptions of student learning and student or teacher experiences and they are not necessarily meant to evaluate effectiveness of an approach. “What is” descriptive questions may include descriptions of pedagogical approaches, students’ prior knowledge or challenges encountered by educators (Hutchings, 2000). Often the purpose of such an inquiry is to get a better sense of where things are at, so we can make decisions about how to move forward. For instance, in the past couple of years Tracy Topolnitsky (currently Associate Dean of FBET) conducted digital literacy study of our students. “Just how comfortable are our students with technology?” And “What kinds of technology do they use and have access to?” “What works?” questions. These types of SoTL inquiry questions explore the relative effectiveness of teaching practices and pedagogical approaches (Hutchings, 2000). “What works” inquiry questions include exploring whether students learn better when using certain approaches than other approaches (Hutchings, 2000). Effectiveness of teaching is typically measured by looking at students’ mastery of what they are expected to learn and their performance in assessment activities. When Sheryl Boisvert investigated the effectiveness of flipping the classroom, she was conducting this kind of inquiry! Other studies might include researching the effectiveness of student forums, breakout activities, portfolio assessments, or virtually any other teaching and learning strategy. “A vision of the possible” questions. According to Hutchings (2000), these types of SoTL inquiry questions focus on what might happen as educators try different strategies and approaches to enhance students’ learning. We believe that each time educators try a new pedagogical approach, they should reflect on possible student learning outcomes. In the study that Viola Manokore and I did on the rapid switch to emergency remote teaching, we wanted educators to reflect on their experiences and compare what they envisioned early in the transition to remote teaching and learning. What were the technological and pedagogical strategies they tried? Did they think that any of these tools, techniques, might have transformative learning power for their students? What further enhancements to remote emergency learning might leverage these strategies and this power? To a certain extent, NorQuest’s recent implementation of HyFlex learning was a prime opportunity to conduct a “vision of the possible” research study. “Formulating new conceptual framework” questions. These types of SoTL questions are designed to generate new models and understandings about teaching and learning. Such questions help to identify emerging themes that may help educators better understand ways to enhance students’ learning. Perhaps you have noticed that students have struggled with learning certain concepts or skills and have a hunch about why. You might suggest a framework or model of teaching that could address this issue and then test to see if your hypothesis is true. Could a thoughtful and skillful application of supports and resources and the specific sequencing of learning activities help students overcome the barriers to learning? There are many websites that can help you develop a SoTL research question. One that I found quite recently is from James Madison University: Developing a SoTL Research Question. You should check it out! Reference: Hutchings, Pat. (2000). Introduction: Approaching the scholarship of teaching and learning. In Pat Hutchings (Ed.), Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 1-10). Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. SoTL corner - August 22, 2022 This week is a busy one … so I’m making the SoTL Corner easy on myself by featuring research done by Viola Manokore and myself. In October of 2020, we conducted a research study involving instructor surveys, instructor interviews, and student surveys. Much of this research was done with NorQuest faculty and learners. Our project was rich and complex. Survey data had to be coded by themes, sorted, and then reexamined for emerging patterns and significances. Interviews had to be note-taken or transcribed and then reviewed, compared, and correlated. Then Viola and I framed up three different inquiries and went through the process of writing articles and submitting them to peer reviewed journals for publication. This last part is like playing tennis. You submit the article, they send it back with suggestions, you make the changes and send it to them, and so on. In the end, both parties (writers and editors), end up with articles that are sharp and specific. Of course, not every SoTL inquiry must be as rigorous or academic as the one that Viola and I undertook. In fact, many SoTL studies are informal and remain in-house. Research questions, observations, and findings are shared only within a particular department. The relevance and application of these inquiries are very specific to a particular cohort or a particular course or instructional strategy. And there is a lot less stress ab out polishing and publishing! That said, it is kinda fun to put yourself out there and submit to online journals. This is something that Viola is very experienced with, and I am trying to catch up! At this point we have three articles published online and, in the last 90 days, they have been downloaded 288 times by researcher from all over the world. What follows is a quick snapshot of each article. If you want to read the full article, or just download it to read later, just click on the title! Our first article, TPACK Tried and Tested: Experiences of Post-Secondary Educators During COVID-19 Pandemic (based upon 140 Alberta instructor surveys) explored educators’ experiences during the rapid shift from face-to-face to emergency virtual remote teaching and learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest that educators who were more comfortable with their TPACK (technical pedagogical content knowledge) had an easier transition to virtual remote teaching. Institutional support, students’ digital literacy/access, and overall wellbeing were also identified as factors that influenced educators’ overall experiences. This article really unpacks the whole concept of TPACK as well as Hutchings’ model for SoTL inquiry. It also shares many of the strategies and practices (for example: flipping the classroom, improving communication strategies, incorporating activity into synchronous lessons, and moving to a competency model) instructors used to be successful in a new teaching modality. Our second article, Replication or Reinvention: Educators’ Narratives on Teaching in Higher Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic zeroed in on the instructor interviews we conducted (11). The interviews yielded rich anecdotes about the shift to emergency remote virtual learning. Our thematic analysis revealed that educators’ experiences were influenced by three main factors: (a) student engagement, interactions, and persistence in learning; (b) competence in the application of teacher technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK); and (c) overall wellbeing of faculty and students. The article showed just how different the pandemic shift was for our post-secondary instructors. While some found the adjustments to be invigorating, others were frustrated and a little lost. And they let us know that! The third article, “I Did Not Sign Up For This”: Student Experiences of the Rapid Shift from In-person to Emergency Virtual Remote Learning During the COVID Pandemic was the latest to be published and I think it is the most interesting to read. In it you will hear the voices of our students and you will come to see their experience as much more complex than just simple “learning interactions”. Our students were impacted by the stress of the pandemic itself, varying levels of access to and confidence with technology, and a general sense of disconnect (even abandonment!). For this study, Viola and I used a model developed by Athabasca University’s Dr. Terry Anderson as an organizational frame. The data was organized and analyzed according to Anderson’s six factors in online teaching, namely: (a) Independent Study; (b) Peer, Family, & Professional Support; (c) Structured Learning Resources; (d) Community of Inquiry; (e) Communication; and (f) Paced, Collaborative Learning. The results are both affirming and concerning. You should click on the link and take a quick read! Now our research study is becoming a bit stale. It is time to check in with the field again. Are the instructors and students still struggling with the new teaching modalities, or have they attained a new level of comfort? So, what you planning to investigate this year? What aspects of student learning or of your teaching practice might need a closer look? SoTL Corner, August 15, 2022In this space I hope to feature the teaching and learning inquiries that some of our faculty are doing in their classrooms or at the college. We call this work the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and it really is a kind of Action Research. Instructors who ask themselves: “What is really going on when students interact with the content and skill development?”, or “What teaching approaches or strategies can make the greatest difference for our learners?” are really engaging in SoTL.
There are essentially six basic steps in engaging in a SoTL inquiry:
A key part of any SoTL inquiry is the intention to share your learnings with colleagues, either in your department, at the college or even beyond the college. How can you capture your learnings and clarify them for yourself and others? For more information about SoTL have a look at one of my old blog posts: What is SoTL? In coming months I’ll explain the difference between SoTL and Applied Research and then I’d like to start featuring SoTL projects that have recently happened at the college. At the moment I know of several projects but I’m sure that there have been many more SoTL investigations (informal and formal) that I am unaware of. So please feel free to contact me (Jeff) and let me know what you are working on, especially if you’d like to share your learnings in this space! Alternatively, I’d also like to invite you to share your own questions. Do you have an inquiry you’d like to begin? Perhaps, as colleagues and as faculty developers, we can help you sharpen your focus, assist you with developing a framework or methodology, and help you though the ethics process (if approval is necessary). The Promise and Pitfalls of Professional Learning Communities Instructors learn about their craft in many different ways:
In today’s musing, I want to focus on the fifth way, collaborative professional learning through focused inquiry and sharing. This is where a small group of people meet regularly to discuss promising practices, implement thoughtful changes in their daily planning and practice, and share their efforts with the group in order to promote program improvement and optimize student learning. This kind of collaborative learning is sometimes called a “Community of Practice”, a phrase coined by Etienne Wenger in 1991 (see: https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ ). Communities of Practice involve practicing professionals (not researchers or academics) who form a learning community based upon a shared commitment or domain of interest. Another term sometimes used to describe collaborative learning is a “Professional Learning Community” or PLC. I am much more familiar with this term. PLCs are narrower than Communities of Practice; they have very specific goals and focus on tangible results. So what is a PLC? In the late 1990’s American educators such as Dufour and Eaker (1998) and Hord (1997) advocated for goal-oriented, accountable, teacher collaboration as the best way to transform underperforming schools, boost teacher morale and improve student achievement. PLC advocates were quick to link Professional Learning Communities to adult learning principles put forward in the 1970's by Malcolm Knowles (2005), successful adult learning links to need, self-concept, foundation, readiness and orientation. Professional Learning Communities should build upon:
A Professional Learning Community should value and validate teachers, drawing upon internal motivators rather than external (credits or recognition). Of course there are some preconditions; in order to be successful, PLCs need to meet regularly, sustain their inquiry and action research for an extended period (years rather than months), and focus their energies on reasonable and measureable targets (establish SMART goals). From my experience from 20 years of working with PLCs, I have seen groups that worked wonderfully well, creating a culture of continuous improvement. These PLCs encouraged teachers to learn together, explore new ideas, and implement changes that paid great dividends for their students. I have also seen PLCs that quickly dissolved into coffee socials or worse yet, bitch sessions. One group that I had a loose connection with ended up spending their allotted PLC time on rejigging the wording on their multiple choice assessments - which was a far cry from their original intention of helping adolescent readers develop the confidence and skills to meet the literacy demands of challenging texts and tasks. At one point, when certain Alberta school districts became frustrated with the inefficiency of their PLCs (some districts provided money and time for PLCs but little leadership), they tried to mandate for tangible results. They advocated for “data-driven” PLCs, but this action ended up frustrating teachers who felt that they had to tweak their teaching to get better scores on standardized exams (Provincial Achievement Tests and Diploma Exams) rather than engage in meaningful learning and reflection. In the end, this push to focus and control PLCs backfired. Teachers felt conscripted and handcuffed. Here at NorQuest, my experience with PLCs has been limited. Some faculty might want to call the Innovative Teaching Group a PLC, but the group was too large, the meetings too infrequent and the focus was too scattered for it to be a real PLC. However, the Innovative Teaching Group did foster inquiry, reflection, sharing and networking. The NorQuest Learning Circle on Intercultural Competence that Sarah Apedaile spearheaded last year was much closer to being an actual, factual PLC. This group was smaller, regularly checked in, engaged in thoughtful readings and discussion, implemented changes in their classrooms and shared their learnings. I also believe there may be other groups around the college that more closely reflect the spirit of a PLC. I know of curriculum development groups, professional reading groups and other focus groups that are making a real difference for students and instructors. Why do some PLCs thrive while others lose their way? Well, from my perspective (and from some of the literature I consulted) a PLC has to allow for ownership and agency. Externally mandated PLCs often work against instructor investment. Andy Hargreaves, a PLC proponent from Britain, cautions against PLCs which design or follow too rigid a protocol and ultimately create a “"prison of micromanagement that constrains it" and will foster a “contrived collegiality” (Hargreaves as quoted in Vause, 2009, p.88). Educators need to know that they are able to shape the direction, set the goals and respond to immediate and longer-term issues that affect them and their classrooms. All too often, teachers see PLC work as an add-on or a fad and feel that “this too shall pass”. Some teachers actually view it an assault on their own professionalism; the very fact that an institute or district mandates PLCs is an assumption that they, as teachers, are lacking in skill, commitment or collegiality. PLCs should be built from the ground up, by the teacher participants - in response to real issues, not manufactured or arbitrary agendas. Given the educational context, their experience, and their knowledge of their community, PLC members should be able to collaboratively and individually frame a vision for their department and the type of learning they hope to achieve. There also needs to be ample space for dissent as well as discussion and time enough to really reflect upon and respond to the issues they face. To be successful a PLC needs to acknowledge experience. PLCs should be about shared exploration not didacticism. Faculty developers, chairs (and associates), and lead teachers charged with leading change through a PLC process should be especially aware of this. I have observed too many well-meaning instructional leaders lose credibility because they figured they could “fix” the pedagogy of their colleagues. Especially off-putting was when leaders started preaching about “best practices” and tried to hammer home recent research. Many teachers felt their own methods devalued (since they were not using “best practices”) and their experience discounted just because something may (or may not) have been proven in an entirely different context. A PLC needs to have a mission that goes beyond student achievement and program improvement. It cannot be just “reformative” but must tilt towards being “transformative” (Servage, 2008). In most cases, the PLCs I have worked with were reformative; teachers discovered new strategies or made adjustments in the way they planned or assessed. The truly powerful PLCs I worked with pushed educators to experience significant change forcing them to rethink their whole view of student learning and their role as a teacher. These “transformations” often revealed a shift in understanding related to core beliefs about planning, curricula, assessment, engagement, program relevance, critical literacy and many other foci being were working on. These transformations gave a glimpse into what PLCs could and should be. What is the real purpose of a PLC? Most proponents of PLCs would agree that PLCs are meant to:
Educators need to ask these questions:
Ultimately, I believe the key in building and maintaining a healthy PLC is in promoting and allowing for individual agency. Those who place student achievement as the only core of PLC work (“It’s always and only about student learning.”) actually denigrate the role of teacher as learner and constrict creativity (see Servage, 2006). Student learning may be the muse, but if the PLC is to succeed and thrive as a model for professional development and adult education it must allow for self-actualization, align with the principles of adult education, and avoid getting trapped in the world of data-driven reformation as opposed to professional and personal transformation. So how does this impact NorQuest? As we move forward in response to various initiatives like Reimagining Higher Education and our efforts to create a NorQuest College culture, and as we respond to pressures associated with the current teaching conditions brought on by Covid-19 and economic and structural pressures, PLCs and/or Communities of Practice hold promise. They present encouraging models to build community and resiliency. Moreover, I am eager to support the efforts of those who would like to start one of these learning communities or nurture the efforts of an existing one. In fact, in the next few months our faculty development team will be piloting a “Faculty Community of Practice” as we move to consolidating our support materials and providing access to instructors and academic leaders at NorQuest. However, I am conscious of the pitfalls too, and I am hoping that we can build this community and accompanying PLCs from the ground up, with 1) shared vision, 2) committed participation, 3) regular, sustained and focused work, 4) meaningful and honest inquiry and discussion, and 5) inspired leadership.
References:
Faculty Talking Circle - Library Last Thursday and Friday, Sarah, Joan and I hosted Faculty Talking Circles on “How might we get the most out of our Library”. The circles were small but rich. I really appreciated many of the points raised by faculty, faculty support, and especially by our guest librarians, Leah Townsend and Sheena Sereda. In the past year, and especially the past six months, the library has made a significant effort to connect with the students, staff and faculty at NorQuest. As Sheena put it: “Some students see us as a first stop, others as a last stop, still others as only and after-thought and then there’s one group that never considers the library or its services.” In the face of this challenge, library staff have:
Have you thought of inviting one of the library staff to your classroom? Do you reach out to them in your course planning and educational research? Did you know that the library block in your Moodle courses can be adapted to suit your students’ needs? For a significant part of the faculty circle we discussed some of the challenges that faculty and library staff still face. Instructors mentioned that students often resort only to Google and don’t know how to conduct reliable searches. While many instructors feel that they are giving the right links and information in their course descriptions, Moodle shells and assignment descriptions, the students still seem to have a phobia about using the databases and can be intimidated any time APA is mentioned. As the discussion continued, we agreed that many of the issues could be addressed through modeling and scaffolding. We often make the assumption that our students have the digital skills and the critical thinking skills to access resources, process them, recognize quality, and properly catalogue. It may not be so. Instructors need to model the use of the library by showing students how to access it and by using it themselves. Taking time in class to walk the students through an assignment and the steps in research, giving them a flow-chart or graphic organizer that might assist a search, and then setting up low-stakes assignments early in the term can build confidence and competence (I do, we do you do!). We also might need to look more closely at the scope and sequence or our course and our program. Are the essential skills of research, data gathering, discernment, organization, presentation and formatting taught early on in our program? Or do we just assume that the students come with those skills? Thank you to all who came to the circle! Our next circle will probably wait until late November/early December. The next three weeks seem to be packed with demands for faculty input! What is SoTL?
One of my roles at the college is to encourage instructors to examine closely their teaching practice with an eye to what works and what might not be quite so effective. The thought is that every one of us, no matter how experienced and skillful we are, can get better at the practice of teaching. Instructors who are reflective practitioners plan their lessons thoughtfully, seek feedback from students and colleagues, review their lessons and sometimes watch them over again (handy to do in BBU!), and make timely and skillful adjustments to their ensuing lessons and units. Those who want to take reflective practice to the next level engage in something we call “the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” (the NQ definition of SoTL is included at the end of this musing). By doing so, these educators move from reflection to research. Not only do they seek answers to questions they may have asked about their own teaching, they also look for learnings to be shared with colleagues and applied in wider contexts. SoTL is a relatively new wrinkle in post-secondary education, having been on the scene for only 30+ years or so. Before this time, the research focus for many instructors and professors seemed confined only to their area of teaching expertise; literature professors studied literature and health care instructors studied advances in the world of medicine and care. Teaching was just a vehicle for conveying what they learning in their studies and research; it didn’t merit study in itself. However, this changed in the 1990’s. Many post-secondary instructors started to realize that there the practice and pedagogy of post-secondary instruction was not something that could be taken for granted. Skillful use of teaching approaches, strategies and innovations could make learning more interactive, engaging and powerful. And so these post-secondary educators began to research not only what they taught, but how they taught. Since that time, SoTL has gained in popularity. There are now conferences and publications established so instructors from a wide array of academic, professional or vocational fields may share their questions and findings in working with students in post-secondary settings. One such conference is the STLHE conference (The Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education) and another is the Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (sponsored by Mount Royal University and held annually in Banff). Both of these conferences attract SoTL researchers from around the world! At NorQuest College, we have had quite a number of SoTL projects conducted in the last couple of years. Instructors have asked:
The NorQuest Research Showcase last year featured a number of these inquiries and several are now being prepared for presentation and publication. Just this week Viola Manakore and I hope to launch one more SoTL project. Our inquiry will ask instructors, from NorQuest College and from other colleges and institutes across Alberta to respond to a survey and perhaps participate in informal interviews. Our objective is to explore the experiences of post-secondary educators and students as they have transitioned from face-to-face learning to alternative forms of instruction during COVID 19 pandemic. More specifically, we would like to know:
Obviously, Viola and I are not the only researchers looking at this issue. There were some surveys and questionnaires sent out early in the pandemic that captured some of the confusion and quick thinking of the time. That said, I think we are in a very advantageous position to follow-up on some of this research. Instructors have had five months to make adjustments, explore technologies and get feedback. Now is the time to capitalize on what they have learned and consolidate it, so that it might be shared. So, I hope that, when the invite to participate in the study comes to your email this week, you will choose to jump in and share your learnings! If you have any questions about SoTL or are thinking of perhaps starting on a project of your own, please contact me. I will be running workshops later in this term, but a preliminary conversation is usually the best way to get started! The NQ SoTL definition: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) involves the close examination of the relationship between teaching and learning at the at the post secondary level. Faculty members who engage in SoTL conduct focused inquiries into their teaching practice with an eye to improving the engagement and achievement of their students. SoTL is primarily concerned with investigating and improving the “how” rather than the “what” of post-secondary teaching practice. Such inquiry necessitates the identification of an innovation, problem, or process to study; a review of previous research and seminal literature; the skilful and deliberate implementation of innovative teaching practices and strategies; a detailed reporting of success and failure; thoughtful analysis and reflection; and the eventual dissemination of findings through presentations or publications. SoTL may include inquiry into teaching aspects such as course design and implementation, classroom or online facilitation, review of assessments or assignments, innovative learning formats or systems, and/or program evaluation. Ultimately, SoTL adds to the growing body of knowledge related to post-secondary teaching and learning by providing practical applications for promising educational theories and innovations. References:
"The students are alive, and the purpose of education is to stimulate and guide that self-development." The corollary of this idea is that "teachers also should be alive with living thoughts."
Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays, 1929, Preface, p. v Thinking about Research (an excerpt from the President's Message to Phi Delta Kappa membership May, 2018) I’m writing this report at the Jasper Park Lodge; it’s beautiful. I’m here to attend the annual ACIFA Conference (Alberta Colleges and Institutes Faculty Association). It is a nice little conference with educators from NAIT, SAIT, Lakeland College, Northern Lakes, Portage College, Medicine Hat, Red Deer College, Olds, Keyano College, Grande Prairie, and of course, NorQuest. Here we have been able to increase our understanding about student advocacy, flipped classrooms, building resiliency, sustainable curriculum, community research, accommodations, reconciliation, and mindfulness. Some of the sessions have been quite inspiring and helpful, others not so much. What is really powerful though, is the networking and sharing between instructors from across the province. The between-session conversations, the discussions during meal times and receptions, and the late-night debates over a beer or two have fostered a kinship and information exchange that benefits both the instructors and the students we serve. At the conference, I was able to attend a joint session where Business instructors from two different colleges (Sheryl Boisvert - NorQuest & Rick Robinson - Medicine Hat) worked together to conduct informal research that might inform their instructional practice. This research started with Rick asking himself: “Is my approach to teaching the most effective way to engage and support my learners?” To this point, he had been doing a fair bit of lecturing - using PowerPoints and prepared notes. So he started experimenting with active learning strategies and began soliciting feedback from his students on their level of confidence and engagement after using different approaches. He also started tracking his students’ academic results more closely, especially in response to changes in his pedagogical approach. Then, after sharing some of his observations with Sheryl, the research inquiry gained more focus and rigour. The two instructors set about teaching the same course in different ways and even had a “control group”. While one group continued to be taught using the traditional lecture method several other groups worked in a flipped environment where the students were asked to watch pre-recorded videos and read sections of the text before coming to class so that the bulk of their class time could be spent on problem-solving in small groups with the instructor moving into a facilitation role. So far the results have been encouraging; there was improved achievement and attendance in year-over-year comparisons. And now, after a year of working together, the two instructors were ready to present some of their preliminary findings. Having been involved in K-12 school improvement and post-secondary faculty development for so many years, I was already well aware of the learning potential in using active learning approaches like the flipped classroom. So, while I appreciated the sharing of practical applications and discoveries, I was most excited to hear how Rick and Sheryl felt the need to be accountable, reflective, collaborative, and strategic in their approach to teaching. They were not afraid to challenge themselves and avoid classroom complacency (things were working…students were learning) by starting on an inquiry that would eventually require a fair bit of work and introspection. And I think their students greatly benefited from the collaboration, focused inquiry, and responsive risk-taking. Now, each year our local PDK chapter seeks to highlight some of the research being done at our universities and colleges by handing out a dissertation award and/or staging a graduate student research showcase. Through these efforts we are able to keep up with, support, and disseminate information on quality research. It is important that we, as an organization, encourage research based upon sound pedagogy, clear theoretical underpinnings, rigorous inquiry, and peer-reviewed validation. But, as my two colleagues from NorQuest and Medicine Hat have shown, research does not always have to be so elaborate or academic. In fact, informal research (sometimes called action or applied research) has an advantage over academic, peer-reviewed research in that it can produce immediate impact on the classroom with the students. In this kind of research, teachers, instructors and professors are able to design very concrete, context-based inquiries and nimbly respond to emerging variables. And, there are so many opportunities to conduct informal research in our classrooms. I believe that many of our members are already conducting this kind of action research, they just need to take the extra step of documenting their question, approach, adjustments and findings so that these might be shared with other educators. |
AuthorJeff Kuntz Ph.D. ImagesExcept where indicated, images used in the blog posts are personal photos, images from NorQuest College or images from Pixabay. Pixabay is a vibrant community of creatives, sharing copyright free images, videos and music. https://pixabay.com/ Archives
March 2024
Categories
All
|