Principles

What does it mean to be an educational developer?

I’ve been connecting with several teaching and learning leaders across Canada, exploring the shifts and transformations we have been experiencing in higher education following the pandemic. I’ve experienced something during these conversations that has taken me by surprise. I’ve caught myself wondering:

What does it mean to be an educational developer? What do we do and what are our core ways of being? What guides how we approach our work? How has this shifted over the last few years?

As a leader in educational development and and higher education, you may think that this should be top of mind. It’s always helpful to pause and reflect upon what you do and what most strongly guides your practice.

Thankfully, I’m not the first person to consider this. Authors like Debra Dawson (Dawson et al., 2010), Lynn Taylor (Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010), Graham Gibbs (Gibbs, 2013), and Kathryn Sutherland (Sutherland, 2018) have put some great thinking into the work of educational development. Building upon the work of Gibbs (2013), a group of colleagues and I (Kenny et al., 2017) described many activities that educational developers engage in such as: working to strengthen teaching and learning practices with individuals, groups of educators, and faculties/departments, partnering with educators, departments and faculties to influence academic course and curriculum development, improving learning environments and spaces, influencing institutional processes, structures and policies related to teaching and learning, supporting quality assurance processes, and engaging in program evaluation, scholarship and research.

We emphasized that educational development takes place across multiple organizational levels: with individuals; departments, faculties, committees and working groups; across the institution; and even across the sector of higher education (Simmons 2016, Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010). Kathryn Sutherland (2018) encourages us to think even more broadly about academic development to consider the whole of the academic role, the whole of the institution, and the whole of the person.

Much of the above work focuses on what educational developers do. In 2013 Julie Timmermans (Timmermans, 2013) described threshold concepts in the careers of educational developers. She emphasized ways of knowing and being such as: respecting existing expertise, building capacity, starting where people are at, getting out of the way, thinking and acting strategically across mutliple organizational levels, influencing knowledge sharing and flow, seeing patterns and opportunities, collaborating and building relationships, communicating effectively, engaging in reflection, adapting a scholarly approach, and adapting to context.

But what does this actually look like in practice?

A group of educational developers at UCalgary came together to reflect on how we approach our practices. We called these our academic core beliefs. In 2023, we expanded upon these beliefs to describe guiding principles for our educational development practices at the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning (TI). I’ve presented this work below:

Collective Capacity: We foster integrated, ethical, and equitable networks of practice and leadership to build connections that strengthen our collective capacity to improve post-secondary teaching and learning. We provide context, resources, and expertise to help others enhance their learning, share knowledge, build communities, and influence change in teaching and learning. We believe that teaching and learning expertise and different ways of knowing are distributed across the academic community, and that relationships and a relational approach are paramount to our work. We learn from others and within diverse intercultural contexts founded on integrity which create opportunities for meaningful dialogue and action.
Collaborative Relationships: We believe it is essential to foster significant conversations and networks through both formal and informal processes. We support the development of collegial relationships and collaborations within the TI and across academic communities. We believe that context and culture matter, and that diverse ways of being, knowing, and doing exist. We respect, celebrate, and draw upon the knowledge, experience, and perspectives of the diverse roles, backgrounds, and cultures of colleagues.
Learning focused: We are all learners; therefore, we emphasize approaches that lead to meaningful and enriching learning experiences for all. We model and disseminate strategies that empower educators and students to actively engage in learning. We acknowledge that learning is an iterative and contextual process that can be supported by critical reflection, research-informed principles, and diverse ways of knowing, being, and doing,
Scholarly and cultural relevance: We believe it is important to critically examine knowledge and assumptions through inquiry, scholarly practice, practice-based research, and culturally relevant approaches. We commit to making decisions based on the best available information that incorporates multiple ways of knowing. We engage with the scholarship of teaching and learning and actively support and disseminate it to strengthen educational development.
Leadership: We believe that shared, collaborative leadership approaches are key to meaningful decision-making, transformation, and change in postsecondary education. We provide expertise, support, and resources to empower others to lead. We bring our scholarly experience and wisdom of practice to identify gaps and lead initiatives to influence change in teaching and learning. We model leadership approaches that are grounded in building trust and relationships across the academic community.
Critical Reflection: We believe that critical reflection is essential to fostering growth, enhancement and innovation in teaching and learning, as well as professional practice. We commit to being intentional about our individual and collective educational development approaches by engaging in critical self-reflection, examining our own positionality and assumptions, and modelling reflective practice.

A call to action

If you are an educational developer in higher education, I encourage you to open a conversation with your team.

What are the principles that guide your work in higher education? What practices bring these principles to life? How might these principles or approaches be shifting?

Concluding thoughts and thanks

I am proud of the work our team continues to put into meaningful considering not only what we do as academics in the TI (i.e., what we do?), but how we approach our work (i.e., who we be?). Special thanks to colleagues Alysia Wright, Carol Berenson, Cheryl Jeffs, Frances Kalu, Fouzia Usman, Jaclyn Carter, Kara Loy, Kim Grant, Patti Dyjur, Robin Mueller, and Sreyasi Biswas, who thoughtfully informed and contributed to the development of these core beliefs and principles over time. Apologies if I missed anyone – let me know if I did and I will add you!

Coming back to these principles has helped ground what I believe to be most important about educational development approaches and practices in higher education.

References

Dawson, D., Britnell, J., & Hitchcock, A. (2010). Developing competency models of faculty developers. In L. Nilson & J. Miller (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development(Vol. 28, pp. 3-24). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Gibbs, G. (2013). Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic Development 18(1), 4-14.

Kenny, N., Popovic, C., McSweeney, J., Knorr, K., Hoessler, C., Hall, S., Fujita, N., & El Khoury, E. (2017). Drawing on the principles of SoTL to illuminate a path forward for the scholarship of educational development. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), n2.

Sutherland, K. A. (2018). Holistic academic development: Is it time to think more broadly about the academic development project?. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(4), 261-273.

Simmons, N. (2016). Synthesizing SoTL institutional initiatives toward national impact. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 146, 95-102

Taylor K. L., & Rege Colet N. (2010). Making the shift from faculty development to educational development: A conceptual framework grounded in practice. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model (pp. 139-167). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Timmermans, J. A. (2014). Identifying threshold concepts in the careers of educational developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 305-317.

What’s changed? Research informed principles for teaching in higher education

As we embark on a new academic year, I’ve been thinking a lot about what it means to be an effective educator in higher education. I have to admit that I struggle with the word effective recognizing that teaching and learning are complex and nuanced. Developing teaching expertise is a consistent practice that is supported through engaging in ongoing and intentional reflection over time (Hendry & Dean, 2002; Kreber, 2002). For me, the concept of effectiveness puts a somewhat artificial label of judgment on a practice that shifts, develops and changes over time. What is certain is that growing one’s teaching practice is an iterative journey of practice, reflection, and forward movement.

A while back, I drafted a set of research-informed principles for teaching in higher education, drawing upon the works of authors such as: Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education, Ramsden’s (2003) thirteen principles for effective university teaching; Weimer’s (2013) five key changes to practice for learner-centred teaching, Lizzio et al.’s (2002) conceptual model for an effective academic environment; and Tigelaar et al.’s (2004) framework for teaching competencies in higher education. Over the summer, I read Devlin and Samarawickrema’s (2022) thoughtful commentary on teaching in a “post-COVID” higher education. I’ve incorporated some of their work into the below “revised” principles.

What is presented below is meant to inspire further reflection and dialogue. These are not intended to be a prescriptive or straightforward list of strategies for teaching in higher education. Although the following principles are concisely presented – each is contextual and certainly more complex to put into practice! I imagine these principles as a starting point for curiosity-based discovery.

Research informed principles for teaching in higher education

Co-creates a Respectful and Inclusive Learning Environment: works with students and the instructional team to collaboratively create commitments to foster a learning community of respect, care, inclusion, and belonging; shows interest in student’s opinions and concerns; seeks to understand student’s diverse backgrounds, talents, needs, prior knowledge, and approaches to learning; affirms diverse ways of knowing; encourages interaction between instructor(s) and students; exhibits respect for students, colleagues, and the profession, field, and/or discipline.

Actively Engages Learners: ensures learning materials are current and relevant; explains material clearly, with relevant examples; provides opportunities for students to connect learning to future work, life, and academic experiences; uses a variety of methods and modalities that encourage active and deep approaches to learning, interaction, and engagement; connects meaningfully to community and industry (as appropriate); adapts to evolving learning contexts, technologies, and transformations in society and the field, profession and/or discipline.

Communicates Clear Expectations: makes clear the intended learning goals/outcomes and standards for performance; provides organization, structure and direction for where the course is going and how this may connect to future learning context (inside and outside of the classroom).

Encourages Student Independence: provides opportunities for students to develop and draw upon their personal interests; offers choice in learning processes and modes of learning and assessment; provides timely and developmental feedback on learning; encourages self-directed learning, autonomy, and metacognition (aka learning about one’s own approaches to thinking and learning) to promote ongoing self-assessment of learning.

Creates and Contributes to a Teaching and Learning Community: uses teaching methods and learning strategies that encourage reciprocity, relationality, mutual learning, as well as thoughtful, respectful and collaborative engagement and dialogue between all members of the course learning community; seeks feedback, input, and works with students as partners in learning; actively adjusts teaching approaches based on student feedback and input; collaborates with and supports teaching colleagues; actively contributes to curriculum conversations and activities across the program.

Uses Meaningful and Authentic Assessment Methods: clearly aligns assessment methods with intended course outcomes and desired learning goals; designs assessments that are meaningful and relevant to the field, profession, and/or discipline; designs assessment strategies to support students learning and to promote academic integrity; provides clear criteria for evaluation; emphasizes deep learning that can be applied over time; designs learning activities to practice and receive formative feedback on what is assessed; provides opportunities for students to intentionally monitor, evaluate, and adjust their learning progress; iteratively scaffolds assessments and feedback to ensure progressive learning.

Commits to Continuous Improvement: gathers feedback on teaching and learning approaches from multiple perspectives (e.g., self, peers, students, scholarship); practices ongoing self-reflection; draws conclusions and takes action from reflection to strengthen teaching; consults and/or engages in the scholarship of teaching and learning; engages in meaningful conversations with colleagues about teaching and learning; identifies clear goals for strengthening teaching and learning practices; adapts, innovates and responds to change and new pedagogical approaches.

Which of these principles resonate most with you? Which principle most challenges you?

How do (or might) you put these principles into practice?

Based on your own context, wisdom of practice or experience, what would you add to or revise in these principles?

As you reflect on these principles, what is one of your “superpowers” or strengths as an educator?

What is one thing you may shift in your teaching and learning practices based on these principles?

How might you use these principles to inspire further conversation or dialogue with a colleague or in your local context (e.g., in a coffee conversation or with your department, faculty, or institutional community)?

References

Chickering, Arthur W, & Gamson, Zelda F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.

Devlin, M. & Samarawickrema, G. (2022) A commentary on the criteria of effective teaching in post-COVID higher education, Higher Education Research & Development, 41:1, 21-32, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2021.2002828

Hendry,G.D.&Dean,S.J.2002. Accountability, evaluation and teaching expertise in higher education.International Journal of Academic Development,7(1),75-82.

Kreber,C.(2002).Teaching excellence,teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education,27(1),5-23.

Lizzio, Alf, Wilson, Keithia, & Simons, Roland. (2002). University Students’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Academic Outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.

Tigelaar, D.E.H, Dolmans, D.H.J.M, Wolfhagen, I.H.A.P, and Van Der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2004) The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education. Higher Education, 48, 253-268.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. New York: Routledge.

Weimer, Maryellen. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice: John Wiley & Sons.

Guiding Principles for Student Assessment in Higher Education

As institutions rapidly transformed the delivery of student learning, the pandemic drew attention to the importance of student assessment in higher education. Postsecondary institutions continue to grapple with the opportunities and challenges that assessment practices present across multiple organizational levels, whether in individual courses, across academic programs, or as it relates to institutional structures, policies, and processes.

Gibbs (2006) affirmed that assessment is key to student learning, often driving what, when and how students learn. Boud (2000) challenged us to rethink all components of assessment to create more sustainable and meaningful assessment practices to support student learning. More recently, authors such as Jones et al. (2021) have highlighted that wellbeing must be a key consideration for assessment practices in higher education. Technological developments such as artificial intelligence (AI) have become more prevalent in supporting practices related to assessment design and delivery, e-proctoring, grading and feedback, and learning analytics – while also presenting numerous ethical dilemmas and risks (Zawacki-Richter, et al., 2019; Eaton and Turner, 2020). Attention has also been focussed on how assessment practices can further support (or hinder) equity, diversity, inclusion, accessibility, and social justice in higher education (Tai et al., 2023).

There is no doubt that student assessment in higher education is complex and important. When addressing complexity, I tend towards using principles as a guide. Building upon the excellent work of Boud (2000), Gibbs and Simpson (2005), Gibbs (2006), Jones et al. (2021), Lindstrom et al. (2017) and recent work done at McGill University (2022), I’ve curated the following principles as a starting point for conversation and decision-making related to student assessment in higher education:

Meaningful assessment practices shift the focus of assessment from evaluating, ranking, or judging student performance to ensuring assessment is an integral and intentional component of student learning experiences.
Assessment practices should foster on-going learning and growth. Assessment tasks should be structured and scaffolded progressively, to ensure the development of expertise and confidence overtime, with appropriate challenge, feedback, and practice. Assessment should recognize and validate multiple disciplinary, scholarly, and culturally-relevant approaches and ways of knowing.
Assessment practices should be equitable, fair, accessible, and inclusive. A variety of assessment methods should be utilized and provide some level of flexibility and choice to maximize student engagement, foster accessibility, and encourage student involvement in the assessment process. Assessment practices should draw upon the principles and practices of universal design for learning. Grading practices should be based on transparent standards and criteria, rather than norms, ranks, or distributions.
Assessment practices should be developmental and provide opportunities for feedback, self-regulated learning, and metacognition. There should be a balance between summative and formative assessment processes, with multiple opportunities for students to reflect on, receive, respond to, and use feedback on their learning. Feedback opportunities should be encouraged from multiple perspectives (e.g., self-reflection, peers, course instructors, and/or teaching assistants).
Assessment practices should foster academic integrity. Assessment design should uphold the values of integrity and be relevant to learning goals. Expectations related to assessments, and the policies and procedures related to academic integrity should be clearly communicated.
Assessment should be recognized as a core element in the planning and design of course and program learning experiences. Assessment practices should be transparent, providing students with clear expectations on their assessments, and how they align with the teaching and learning goals, and approaches for the course/program/discipline. Institutional and unit-level supports should be available to ensure course instructors and teaching assistants have opportunities to develop expertise in developing and supporting scholarly, relevant, and meaningful assessment practices.
Assessment practices should be sustainable and align with a commitment to supporting well-being for students, faculty, and staff. Expectations related to assessment practices should be transparent and clearly communicated to students. The design and scheduling of assessment tasks should consider a reasonable time to complete the assessment, be appropriate to the credit-weighting, recognize the cumulative distribution of assessment tasks throughout the semester, and support sustainable workloads for students, course instructors and teaching assistants.

What’s missing from these principles ? What would you change or add? How could you imagine using and building upon these principles within your own local context?

References

Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22, 2, 151-167

Eaton, S. E., & Turner, K. L. (2020). Exploring academic integrity and mental health during COVID-19: Rapid review. Journal of Contemporary Education Theory & Research (JCETR), 4(2), 35-41.

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and teaching in higher education, (1), 3-31.

Gibbs, G. (2006). How assessment frames student learning. In Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 43-56). Routledge.

Jones, E., Priestley, M., Brewster, L., Wilbraham, S. J., Hughes, G., & Spanner, L. (2021). Student wellbeing and assessment in higher education: the balancing act. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(3), 438-450.

Lindstrom, G., Taylor, L., Weleschuk, A. (2017) Guiding Principles for Assessment of Student Learning. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning Guide Series. Calgary, AB: Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary, June 2017. https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/Guiding_Principles_for_Assessment_of_Student_Learning_FINAL.pdf

McGill University (Office of the Provost and Vice-Principal Academic) (2022) Policy on Assessment of Student Learning (pp. 3-11) in 512th REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE TO SENATE on the APC meetings held on April 14th and May 2nd, 2022 McGill University. https://www.mcgill.ca/senate/files/senate/03_d21-58_512th_apc_report_0.pdf

Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Jorre de St. Jorre, T. (2023) Promoting equity and social justice through assessment for inclusion. In pp 9-18. Ajjawi et al. (Eds). Assessment for Inclusion in Higher Eduation: Promoting Equity and Social Justice in Assessment. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003293101/assessment-inclusion-higher-education-rola-ajjawi-joanna-tai-david-boud-trina-jorre-de-st-jorre

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-27.