I love a good read on how best to influence teaching and learning cultures in higher education. This recent article had me thinking critically about our work in higher education – Myllykoski-Laine et al. (2023).
It reminded me of four key elements critical to building a supportive teaching culture in higher education:
Value and Recognition: teaching and the development of teaching expertise and communities needs to be valued, recognized, and appreciated across multiple organizational levels. Many formal and informal processes and structures provide value and recognition for teaching including spaces, environments, resources, workload assignments, awards, grants, resources, policy, vision, professional learning, and leadership.
Collaborative Relationships & Collegiality: teaching and the development of teaching expertise should be recognized as a shared responsibility, across the academic community. A collegial “sharing culture” based on respect and trust are fundamental to creating communities of shared responsibility and understanding for teaching in higher education. Fostering this sharing culture extends beyond the responsibilities of teachers themselves.
Intentional Interaction & Knowledge Sharing: opportunities for formal and informal interaction and knowledge sharing about teaching should be fostered, including opportunities for co-teaching, peer support and learning, dialogue, critical reflection, and the sharing of experiences, ideas and knowledge. The development of teaching and learning communities, networks and conversations must be fostered across all levels of the academic community.
Pedagogical Influencers (aka Pedagogical Change Agents): Pedagogical influencers are individuals who actively support the development of teaching in community and positively influence change. Pedagogical influencers often hold informal roles and inspire concrete actions in their local teaching and learning communities. Pedagogical influencers require support, resources, recognition, and meaningful opportunities to impact change.
The authors acknowledge the inherent complexities and interrelationship of these different factors in influencing teaching values, attitudes, norms, principles, practices and structures across postsecondary institutions. They suggest, “…the development of a more supportive pedagogical culture requires intentional endeavors to influence abstract and possibly invisible cultural elements in the community” (p. 951).
Four elements to building a supportive teaching culture in higher education
I leave you with some further questions for reflection and dialogue.
What are you already doing in each of these areas to intentionally build a supportive teaching and learning culture?
What’s missing from this list? What would you add, change, refresh, revise?
Where are your strengths and points of pride?
What is one area where you would like to further learn, grow, and improve (as an individual, faculty/department, or institution)?
What is one action (or forward movement) you would like to take to provide an even more supportive teaching and learning culture in your context?
Reference:
Myllykoski-Laine, S., Postareff, L., Murtonen, M., and Vilppu, H. (2023) Building a framework of a supportive pedagogical culture for teaching and pedagogical development in higher education. Higher Education, 85, 937–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00873-1
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.
The last three years have presented extraordinarily complex challenges in higher education, as we navigated pivots and experienced ongoing disruptions in our teaching and learning spaces, environments, and communities. We became more aware of the systemic inequities that exist across our organizations. We’ve questioned and leaned into the opportunities and challenges our organizational infrastructure presents (e.g., our technologies, spaces, governance, decision-making, and planning). We’ve also worked to navigate challenges with our individual and collective well-being, anxiety, burnout and exhaustion. Throughout the pandemic, I heard strong leaders described by words such as: systems-level thinkers, networked, self-aware, mindful, equitable, inclusive, empathetic, compassionate, courageous, hopeful, and relational.
Perhaps we’ve experienced some foundational shifts in leadership practices, which will continue to carry us forward in higher education? I’ve conceptualized these shifts as three foundational leadership practices: 1) a leadership of compassion; 2) a leadership of connection; and 3) a leadership of hope.
A leadership of compassion
Throughout the pandemic we experienced challenges that were difficult to comprehend. We felt the anxiety, isolation, and overwhelming complexities of uncertainty. Building upon Worline and Dutton (2017), Waddington (2021) describes compassion as noticing and making meaning of suffering, feeling empathy for those experiencing suffering, and taking action to alleviate suffering. Throughout the pandemic, leaders across higher education demonstrated compassion by reaching out to their teams, checking in with their colleagues to see how they were doing, demonstrating empathy and vulnerability in the face of ongoing uncertainty, providing reassurance, embracing dialogue, listening deeply to those around them, and demonstrating support through relational action (e.g., Lawton-Misra and Pretorius, 2021). They asked about other’s feelings and well-being, and took action to alleviate barriers and reduce suffering where they could have influence. They suffered themselves. They made mistakes and experienced failure. They learned and unlearned. Their emotions fluctuated, and often, were relentlessly raw and challenging. It became harder to respond, rather than react in the face of ongoing challenge and uncertainty. They demonstrated resilience and vulnerability by sharing their experiences, connecting with peers, normalizing help-seeking, and cultivating a deeper sense of self-awareness, self-compassion, and mindfulness.
What does a leadership of compassion look like moving forward?
Hougaard et al. (2021) share practical strategies for demonstrating wise compassion through self-compassion, intention, transparency, and mindfulness. The Conscious Leadership Group’s Above the Line/Below the Line Framework is a fantastic tool for fostering ongoing self-awareness and reflection. Dr. Kristin Neff’s work on developing self-compassion through self-kindness, a recognition of common humanity and mindfulness is transformative.
A leadership of connection
There were no simple answers to the challenges we faced during the pandemic. Decision-making was forced by situations beyond our control and the need for action was accelerated at relentlessly unsustainable rates. There were no right answers. The disruptions were constant. The impacts of the pandemic were complex and disproportionately affected equity-deserving groups (Abdrasheva et al., 2022; Bassa, 2022; Jehi et al., 2021). Throughout the pandemic, many leaders embraced the power of shared leadership, relationships, and collaborative decision-making. They brought together informal and formal networks to surface and grapple with challenges, and to share knowledge across once-siloed institutional, faculty, departmental and unit-level boundaries. They identified and connected core networks of problem-solvers, instilled confidence, fostered trust, built relationships, facilitated consensus, listened deeply, and leveraged the strengths of local-level leaders, influencers, and change-catalysts (Bleich and Bowles, 2021; Bassa, 2022; Mehrotra, 2021). They looked across multiple organizational levels to influence systems-level awareness and change. They created peer, cross-institutional, national, and international networks of knowledge and resource sharing, breaking through past barriers of competition and scarcity. They leaned into the realities of the systemic and structural inequities that became increasingly visible across our university structures.
The work of fostering connection and developing relationships takes time and intentional effort. Research suggests that one of the most important factors associated with student confidence in their learning during the pandemic was their sense of connection with their peers and their professors (Guppy et al., 2022). This finding speaks volumes to the importance of developing and sustaining meaningful relationships bounded by belonging and connection across higher education.
How can we continue to foster connection moving forward?
We can continue to bring networks together to grapple with important teaching and learning issues. A few topics that continue to surface: student assessment, academic integrity, artificial intelligence, experiential and work-integrated learning, learning spaces and technologies, equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility, truth, reconciliation and Indigenous engagement, the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), mental health and well-being, student learning skills, engagement and metacognition, sustainability and climate change, blended and online learning, learning pathways, stackable and personalized learning, and micro-credentialing. We can listen deeply to one another – with an intention to understand and heal, rather than to respond, judge, debate, criticize, or problem solve. We can trust and provide resources and support to pedagogical catalysts, influencers and local educational leaders who care deeply about teaching and make an effort to develop local teaching and learning networks and communities (Myllykoski-Laine et al., 2022). We can create accessible spaces, events, and initiatives for open knowledge sharing about teaching and learning, within our academic units, institutions, nationally and globally. A fantastic exemplar is Dr. Maha Bali’s and colleagues’ work on Equity Unbound – an open, and freely available resource that is filled with strategies to inspire online community-building, through the principles of equity and care.
A leadership of hope
It was easy to feel overwhelmed and consumed during the pandemic. The challenges we faced felt enormous, and it was often difficult to see where and how we could have influence. We learned the importance of establishing a leadership of hope. It was a hope that acknowledged that what we were living through was challenging and hard. We were experiencing a world that had become increasingly uncertain, volatile, and unpredictable.
Despite the challenges and inequities which surround us, critical hope requires us to come together in community to connect in meaningful ways, to envision a better and more inclusive future, and to take incremental action to create positive change (Riddell, 2020). Critical hope is a “…hope that is neither naïve nor idealistic;” it is both critical and emotional, and it works to dismantle injustice and despair in our systems and structures (Grain & Lund, 2016, p.51). It accepts that through connection and collective action, we can help to reduce suffering and move towards healing.
During the pandemic, leaders sustained a sense of critical hope by naming and leaning into the systemic inequities that continued to emerge, by acknowledging the ongoing uncertainty and suffering that occurred, by creating a sense of purpose and meaning in the face of uncertainty, by demonstrating a continuous perseverance to take action, by maintaining honest communication, by accepting and moving beyond mistakes, by establishing open feedback channels, and by creating an organizational culture of continuous learning and growth (Beilstein et al., 2021; Bassa, 2022). Leaning into uncertainty, systemic inequities, failure and ongoing learning took courage. It was an intensely vulnerable time for leaders – many of whom drew focussed attention to the power of emotion and humanity to help us through it all.
How do we continue to move forward through a leadership of hope?
McGowan and Felten (2021) highlight that deep inequities persist in higher education. They present a wonderful equation for continued reflection that I believe provides a foundation for leading through hope (p. 474):
Agency
‘I can change in meaningful ways despite the systems and structures constraining me’
+
Pathways
‘I see specific and purposeful steps I can take’
=
Hope
When feeling overwhelmed, this framework provides me pause to stop and ask:
1) What is one meaningful change that I can contribute to despite the systems and structures that constrain me?
2) What are some specific and purposeful steps I can take to move towards that change?
3) Who/what are the support networks I can draw upon for support and accountability?
There is always something I can do to help move towards the positive changes we most aspire to in higher education.
I am curious how these three shifts in leadership (i.e., a leadership of compassion; a leadership of connection; a leadership of hope) resonate with you? What would you change or add? What shifts have you observed? What can we learn moving forward?
Beilstein et al. (2021) Leadership in a time of crisis: Lessons learned from a pandemic. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology 35 (2021) 405e414
Bassa, B. (2022). Leading Into a New Higher Education as It Emerges in the Present Moment. In International Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education (Vol. 15, pp. 271-290). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Bleich, M. R., & Bowles, J. (2021). A model for holistic leadership in post-pandemic recovery. Nurse Leader, 19(5), 479-482.
Guppy, N., Matzat, U., Agapito, J., Archibald, A., De Jaeger, A., Heap, T., … & Bartolic, S. (2023). Student confidence in learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: what helped and what hindered?. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(4), 845-859.
Grain, K. M., & Lund, D. E. (2017). The social justice turn: Cultivating’critical hope’in an age of despair. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(1).
Jehi, T., Khan, R., Dos Santos, H., & Majzoub, N. (2022). Effect of COVID-19 outbreak on anxiety among students of higher education; A review of literature. Current Psychology, 1-15.
Lawton-Misra, N., & Pretorius, T. (2021). Leading with heart: academic leadership during the COVID-19 crisis. South African Journal of Psychology, 51(2), 205-214.
McGowan, S., & Felten, P. (2021). On the necessity of hope in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(4), 473-476.
Mehrotra, G. R. (2021). Centering a pedagogy of care in the pandemic. Qualitative Social Work, 20(1-2), 537-543.
Myllykoski-Laine, S., Postareff, L., Murtonen, M., & Vilppu, H. (2022). Building a framework of a supportive pedagogical culture for teaching and pedagogical development in higher education. Higher Education, 1-19.
Worline, M. C. & Dutton, J. E. (2017). Awakening compassion at work: The quiet power that elevates people and organizations. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Waddington, K. (2021). Introduction: Why compassion? why now?. In Towards the Compassionate University (pp. 5-22). Routledge.
Recently, we’ve heard that students and course instructors are reporting feeling overwhelmed. Assessment is often at the centre of these conversations. Jones et al. (2021) acknowledge that assessment practices impact both educator’s and student’s perceptions of their wellbeing. They highlight some common tensions related to challenge, format, weighting, flexibility, and group work. I anticipate more research to surface on assessment practices for wellbeing in higher education, as we continue to learn and heal from our experiences during the global pandemic.
Over the past year, I’ve noticed a handful of strategies that continue to surface as potential ways to promote wellbeing in student assessment. Many of these strategies align with and build upon research from Ross (2021) on assessment practices using a lens of ethics-of-care. I’ve summarized five approaches to promote wellbeing in student assessment below:
Wherever possible, focus on implementing practices that align with principles for Universal Design for Learning into student assessment practices (CAST, n.d.). UDL principles support multiple means of engagement, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of representation (Coffman & Draper; 2022; La et al., 2018). Strategies may include intentionally connecting assessments with student interests, supporting self-assessment/reflection, and providing flexibility, choice and a variety of forms of assessment throughout the semester (CAST, n.d.; La et al., 2018).
Provide some flexibility to adjust submission timelines throughout the semester. One example is to provide late banks where students have a set amount of time (e.g., 48-72 hours) to use and distribute without penalty when they are struggling to meet assignment deadlines throughout the semester (Schroeder et al., 2019).
Let students bring a page of self-generated notes or a flashcard into an exam. This strategy may help reduce stress and anxiety, and promote metacognition as students strategically consider what they already know and where their growing edges are in terms of the course material (Settlage & Wollscheid, 2019).
Wherever possible, streamline and make transparent grading processes. For example, work with students as partners to co-develop the assignment grading criteria (Meer and Chapman, 2014), and have them submit a self-assessment of their work based on these criteria (Yan & Carless, 2022). What are they most proud of? What came most easily to them in completing this assignment? Where did they struggle most? What would they most like to improve upon? What 1-2 areas do they most want to receive feedback on? Use this self-assessment to help streamline where and how you provide feedback when grading.
For in-class presentations, have students present to small groups, rather than to the entire class. Many students experience fear when presenting publicly – practice, preparation and support can help to alleviate some of this fear (Grieve et al., 2021). Providing opportunities for students to practice and present their work to small groups of peers may help reduce anxiety, streamline the use of class time, and foster peer learning and development. For these presentations, consider focussing the grading process on student’s reflections of the growth and development of their presentation skills, and on communication skills such as active listening, and providing/responding to peer feedback. You may even consider doing this multiple times throughout the semester so that students have more than one opportunity to practice their presentation, communication, and feedback skills.
By no means is this an exhaustive list. There are many creative ways to implement assessment practices that further foster wellbeing for students and educators. I’d love to hear your ideas, as I predict this will be a growing topic of discussion in higher education over the coming years.
Coffman, S., & Draper, C. (2022). Universal design for learning in higher education: A concept analysis. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 17(1), 36-41.
Daniel M. Settlage & Jim R. Wollscheid (2019). An analysis of the effect of student prepared notecards on exam performance. College Teaching, 67:1, 15-22, DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2018.1514485
Grieve, R., Woodley, J., Hunt, S. E., & McKay, A. (2021). Student fears of oral presentations and public speaking in higher education: a qualitative survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(9), 1281-1293.
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.
Settlage, D. M., & Wollscheid, J. R. (2019). An analysis of the effect of student prepared notecards on exam performance. College Teaching, 67(1), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2018.1514485
Schroeder, M., Makarenko, E., & Warren, K. (2019). Introducing a late bank in online graduate courses: the response of students. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.2.8200
Yan Z. & Carless, D. (2022) Self-assessment is about more than self: the enabling role of feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1116-1128, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2021.2001431
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.
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
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.
By: Natasha Kenny (Senior Director, Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning)
and
Patti Dyjur (Educational Development Consultant, Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning)
It’s been a tough couple of years for students and educators (Brazeau et al., 2020; Morgan and Simmons, 2021). Over the past few weeks, we’ve increasingly heard from our academic community that students and educators are struggling. There is an acknowledgement that we have not taken the time to intentionally reflect upon and heal from what we have experienced from the global pandemic. Our individual and collective wellbeing has and continues to suffer and students are experiencing a “skills gap” in their approaches to time management, organization, independence and commitment, and communication (Napierala et al., 2022). Without a doubt, we need more conversation and shared leadership to address our experiences moving forward (Abdrasheva et al., 2022; Garcia-Morales et al., 2021).
We’ve been thinking a lot about how to address some of the challenges students and educators are currently facing in their courses. Acknowledging that this work is complex and will have to be addressed across multiple organizational levels, we were drawn back to some of our earlier work on how the PERMA flourishing framework (Seligman, 2012) might be used to help? For example, Morgan and Simmons (2021) have used this framework to develop a wellbeing program in universities in the UK.
In a previous post we shared how the PERMA framework could be used to support student and educator wellbeing in the classroom. We share an adaptation of that post here:
Positive Emotions: feeling joy, hope and contentment; reducing stressors; promoting positive coping and resilience
For instructors: schedule daily, weekly and monthly time to replenish and recharge; get up from the keyboard and take a microbreak; implement gratitude practices; ask for help from a trusted colleague or ask if you can help them; practice self-compassion; keep a ‘happy day’ email folder to store and revisit thank you messages and notes of appreciation from colleagues and students.
Engagement: feeling attached, involved and an ability to concentrate on activities; creating meaningful opportunities to draw upon strengths and interests
For instructors: talk to your colleagues/department head about your strengths and interests; bring your strengths and interests into the classroom; engage in your workspace where students and colleagues can see and connect with you (e.g., studio, office, lab); leverage zoom or other virtual spaces to connect one-one with students, colleagues, and small groups; rest, recharge and detach from work during vacation time (we know this one is tough!).
For students: provide choice in course activities and assignments; help students identify their strengths and interests through self-assessment activities and classroom discussion; encourage learning activities that relate to and encourage students to share their interests (e.g., discovering and sharing relevant readings and resources); bring relevant connections and “real-world” examples into the course to help students make meaning; incorporate collaborative activities in online courses such as jigsaws or world cafes; include online discussions to promote engagement; incorporate principles of Universal Design for Learning; incorporate variety in teaching and learning activities.
Relationships: feeling connected, supported, and cared about; promoting opportunities for collaboration and interaction within and amongst teams
For instructors: connect with a community of practice or learning community related to something that interests you; invite people for coffee; recognize your colleagues (e.g., write a letter of support or send a brief email of acknowledgement); ask for feedback from a trusted colleague; seek and/or offer peer mentorship; invite students to lead class discussions; intentionally connect with a colleague or community off-campus for fresh ideas and connections.
Meaning: feeling valued and connected to something greater than self; connecting to purpose; promoting reflection
For instructors: seek opportunities to mentor and provide positive feedback to colleagues; participate in a teaching square/triangle; prepare and/or revise a philosophy statement that speaks to your core values and purpose as a teacher – share this with students and/or a colleague; reflect on your teaching goals and impact (where are you making a difference? where would you like to further make a difference?)
For students: Model reflection (sharing what you learned from your mistakes); promote co-op programs and experiential learning opportunities; provide context around how student learning in the course is connected to students’ academic, personal and professional development; have students set their own goals for learning; collect and respond to mid-semester student feedback – stop, start, continue; encourage metacognitive activities (e.g. exam wrappers); relate course concepts and topics to current events; have students create their own materials such as graphic organizers/ notes, concept maps, and summary notes.
Accomplishment: progressing towards goals; feeling capable and a sense of accomplishment; providing autonomy; celebrate success
For instructors: Keep notes of your successes (e.g. after class, at end of the week); celebrate small wins and achievements along the way (e.g. have coffee with a colleague; keep a stack of sticky notes to document what’s working on the corner of your desk; acknowledge that accomplishments come in many shapes and forms; share goals with a mentor/supportive colleague; connect with colleagues you trust to help each other with accountability and perspective; provide space to share key teaching successes and learnings at department meetings.
For students: Share positive and balanced feedback; encourage students to recognize their successes in a final course reflection; allow students to select from a series of questions to respond to in their assignments; design open-ended projects to give students choice in a topic that interests them; allow students to demonstrate their learning and reflect on it with online portfolios.
We continue to wonder:
How could these approaches and this framework be used to further support educator and student wellbeing as we continue to learn and heal from our teaching and learning experiences during the pandemic?
Abdrasheva, D., Escribens, M., Sabzalieva, E., Vieira do Nascimento, D., & Yerovi, C. (2022). Resuming or reforming? Tracking the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on higher education after two years of disruption. Instituto Internacional de la UNESCO para la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381749
Brazeau, G. A., Frenzel, J. E., & Prescott, W. A. (2020). Facilitating wellbeing in a turbulent time. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 84(6). https://www.ajpe.org/content/84/6/ajpe8154.short
García-Morales, V. J., Garrido-Moreno, A., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2021). The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: Emerging challenges in an online learning scenario. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 616059. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616059/full
Morgan, B., & Simmons, L. (2021, May). A ‘PERMA’response to the pandemic: an online positive education programme to promote wellbeing in university students. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 642632). Frontiers Media SA. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.642632/full
In our first post, we explored what active learning classrooms were, concluding that they are fundamental to supporting student-centred approaches to learning, provide a visible artifact of an institution’s philosophy of learning, and must be seen as a critical component of our teaching and learning community. So how do we move forward with supporting the intentional planning, design and use of active learning spaces in the context of our academic communities? How might our experiences during the global pandemic further influence how we incorporate these spaces into our academic communities?
Expanding upon the principles proposed by Finkelstein et al. (2016) and Finkelstein and Winer (2020), research related to the impact and influence of active learning classroom, and our own lived experience, we propose five approaches for guide guiding the planning, design, and use of learning spaces in postsecondary education: 1) Collaboration 2) Community 3) Flexibility 4) Transparency 5) Access.
1. Collaboration
One of the most often cited impacts of active learning classrooms spaces is that they fundamentally shift the social context in which teaching and learning occurs (Baepler and Walker, 2014). ALCs can create a sense of psychological and emotional intimacy, where learners and instructors are further encouraged to actively contribute, ask questions, share opinions and collaborate with each other to co-create knowledge in a learning community (Holec and Marynowski, 2020; Baepler and Walker, 2014; Kariippanon et al., 2018). Features of these spaces that best support collaboration and engagement, and foster the development of relationships include features such as:
flat floors to support movement and collaboration and reduce power dynamics in order to create a shared space of learning between students and instructors;
the inclusion of multiple whiteboards and writable surfaces;
tables for group seating or, in larger spaces tiered seating on wheels which allows for collaboration and small group activities between rows; and,
multiple screens to ensure sight lines are maintained around the room (Kenny and Chick, 2016; Finkelstein and Winer, 2020), and (if applicable) for remote learners to see and be seen by all participants in the learning community.
In technology-enhanced spaces, this may also include hardware and software capabilities to create and share knowledge within and amongst a broader community of instructors and learners (Baepler, Walker and Driessen, 2014). These technology enhanced capabilities have become even more important as we strive to increase access to students and instructors who may be required to engage remotely in course teaching and learning activities (either temporarily or for a sustained period of time). ALCs help strengthen relationships between all members of the classroom learning community (Kenny and Chick, 2016). They can be seen as providing critical opportunities for instructors to engage themselves in meaning-making and sustained reflection on their positionality (and power) in learning processes (Ignelzi, 2000; Savin-Baden, McFarland, and Savin-Baden, 2008) where – in ALCs – instructors are seen as collaborators and co-creators in the learning process, rather than passive knowledge transmitters.
2. Community
Building upon Shulman’s (1993) call to see teaching as community property, this principle speaks to the importance of ensuring that the processes we use to govern, inform and communicate the planning, design, use, and impact of ALCs engage diverse members of the academic community. Community engagement is critical to establishing a shared sense of belonging, helping the academic community and individuals within that community fulfill its needs/goals, and to creating a sense of connection based on shared history and experiences (McMillan and Chavis, 1986). Fundamentally, these community processes must include collaborative conversations, decisions, work and research from all groups connected to active learning classrooms including: students, instructors, teaching assistants, architects, space planners, facilities management and maintenance staff, educational developers, learning and information technology specialists, the Registrar’s Office, student services staff, external community members and stakeholders, and senior administrators. A community-based approach to the planning, design and use of ALCs is also advocated by Jamieson (2003) who states that educational developers and teaching and learning centres can play a key role in facilitating dialogue across multiple groups in order to ensure that educational visions and goals inform the design of learning spaces. These conversations can also help to strengthen teaching and learning cultures as individuals from across academic and non-academic units come together to engage in meaningful conversations and strategic decision-making about teaching and learning (Roxå, Mårtensson & Alveteg, 2011; Finkelstein et al., 2016).
A community-based approach to pedagogical support for instructors that use active learning classrooms is also seen as critical to their success, as instructors need support in shifting their approaches to teaching and learning in these spaces (Hyun, Ediger and Lee, 2017). This support often includes intentionally designed and facilitated professional learning programs for instructors teaching in these spaces, in the form of consultations, workshops and/or communities of practice (Finkelstein and Winer, 2020). It may also include bringing together and connecting instructors who teach in these spaces, so that they can engage in informal, but significant conversations about their learnings within and across disciplines (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009). Finally, it should also include developing working groups with representation from across the academic community to inform policy development and processes for the continued planning, design and use of active learning classrooms.
3. Flexibility
Flexibility can be seen as the ability of ALCs to adapt to the ongoing needs of the academic community across five areas: fluidity, versatility, convertibility, scalability and modifiability (Monahan, 2002). Flexibility may include ensuring that furniture within the active learning classroom is usable and mobile, most often including mobile and height-adjustable podiums, and large work surfaces (i.e., tables) to accommodate multiple teaching and learning devices and group work of various sizes, as well as tables and chairs with wheels in order to accommodate various classroom configurations for learning across disciplines (e.g., small group work, individual seating during assessments, learning in a circle). ALCs designed with fixed furniture, often intended to support the installation of conduit to hard-wire technology and power-drops are now limited in terms of their versatility, convertibility and modifiability (Monahan, 2002). Wireless technology and screen sharing/projection has allowed for learners and instructors to share and co-create information using almost any wireless device and application. This has become more important now more than ever, as the global pandemic has encouraged us to consider how we can create spaces of shared learning and creation for in-class and remote learners and educators. From an institutional-perspective, flexibility can also be seen as critically important in terms of the versatility, convertibility, scalability and modifiability of ALCs. For example, ALCs may be designed with retractable walls and seating to convert to various sizes and uses. Simple is often best when it comes to thinking about flexibility in ALCs.
“The most useful flexible (and cost-effective) technologies in active learning classrooms continue to be movable tables and chairs, and shared whiteboards/writable surfaces that are close at hand (Baepler, Walker and Driessen, 2014; Finkelstein and Winer, 2020). “
4. Transparency
Transparency as a principle asks us to make teaching and learning processes more explicit and visible across our academic communities, and to put an end to the isolation and solitude many instructors feel when approaching their teaching practice (Winkelmes, 2019; Shulman 1993). This principle advocates for a more explicit, collaborative and open approach to the planning, design and use of active learning classrooms. From a physical design perspective this could mean incorporating glass walls in active learning classrooms to ensure the teaching and learning activities within are made visible to members of the academic community across disciplines. From a planning perspective, the principle of transparency involves making strategic conversations and decision-making processes related to planning, design, use and allocation of active learning classrooms more visible. For example, Finkelstien et al. (2016) reflect on the importance of including principles for the design of learning spaces in institutional strategic documentation, and how that has more broadly communicated the institution’s educational goals as it relates to the design and redesign of learning spaces. This could also mean managing the booking of active learning spaces centrally to ensure that instructors and students across all academic disciplines have access to these spaces. This principle is also intricately linked to the principle of community as we more intentionally make the teaching and learning practices we use in active learning classrooms more visible, and promote knowledge sharing across disciplines. As previously mentioned, this may include bringing instructors that use active learning classrooms together to formally and informally engage in professional learning related to their use of these spaces, and ensuring these instructors are appropriately rewarded and recognized for their commitment to supporting student learning. This may also include engaging in systematic research, scholarship and dissemination related to the impact and influence of active learning spaces in postsecondary education so that we are learning from and sharing with each other across various academic contexts and networks.
5. Access
This last principle represents a call to consider how and who is accessing (or not accessing) the planning, design and use of active learning spaces and why? Higher education continues to be dominated by Western epistemologies and processes which contribute to exclusion and marginalization (Louie et al., 2017; Tamik and Guenter, 2019), and our teaching and learning spaces are no exception. This principle asks us to ensure our active learning classrooms demonstrate, recognize and value difference, and support the ability to participate equitably (Tamtik and Guenter, 2019) in their planning, design and use. It also asks us to consider how we are aligning the planning, design and use of our active learning spaces with other institutional priorities and commitments such as Indigenous Engagement, Sustainability, Internationalization, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, and Mental Health and Well-Being. For example, how are equity-deserving groups represented in the planning, design, strategic decision-making and governance related to active learning classrooms? How do we support access and engagement of learners who do not have access to technology, such as laptops? What physical, procedural, and institutional barriers must be removed to ensure that all instructors and students, from across disciplines have access to teach and learn in these spaces? How can these spaces be designed to validate Indigenous perspectives, methodologies, epistemologies, protocols, approaches and pedagogies (Louie et al, 2017)? How can these spaces further reflect and communicate our commitments to truth, reconciliation, decolonization and transformation? Conversations related to access have become more prevalent as interest in technology-enabled ALCs has expanded over the course of the global pandemic, with more educators seeking flexibility in the way they engage learners in their courses. Our thoughts related to this principle are emerging. We acknowledge openly that more needs to be done to expand upon, contribute to and meaningfully explore this principle.
Summary
We recognize that it is not realistic for all spaces to be designed as an intensive, technology-enabled active learning classroom. Like Finkelstein and Winer (2020), we advocate for conceptualizing a continuum of formal learning spaces from intensively designed, technology-enabled active learning classrooms, through to flexible and collaboratively designed laboratories and seminar rooms, as well as lecture theatres that enhance opportunities for active learning. In their broadest sense, we believe that these principles can be used as a guide to inform discussions related to any learning space on postsecondary campuses.
How might you further consider, adapt and build upon these approaches to think more intentionally about ALCs based on your institutional context?
References
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-236.
Finkelstein, A., Ferris, J., Weston, C., & Winer, L. (2016). Informed principles for (re) designing teaching and learning spaces. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5(1).
Hyun, J., Ediger, R., & Lee, D. (2017). Students’ Satisfaction on Their Learning Process in Active Learning and Traditional Classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 108–118.
Ignelzi, M. (2000). Meaning‐Making in the Learning and Teaching Process. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(82), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.8201
Kariippanon, K. E., Cliff, D. P., Lancaster, S. L., Okely, A. D., & Parrish, A. M. (2018). Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 301-320.
Louie, D. W., Poitras-Pratt, Y., Hanson, A. J., & Ottmann, J. (2017). Applying Indigenizing principles of decolonizing methodologies in university classrooms. Canadian Journal of Higher Education/Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur, 47(3), 16-33.
Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible Space & Built Pedagogy: Emerging IT Embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19.
Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks–exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 547-559.
Roxå, T., Mårtensson, K., & Alveteg, M. (2011). Understanding and influencing teaching and learning cultures at university: A network approach. Higher Education, 62(1), 99-111.
Savin-Baden, M., McFarland, L., & Savin-Baden, J. (2008). Learning spaces, agency and notions of improvement: what influences thinking and practices about teaching and learning in higher education? An interpretive meta-ethnography. London Review of Education, 6(3), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460802489355
Shulman, L.S. (1993). Teaching as community property: putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, 25(6). 6-7.
Tamtik, M., & Gunter, M. (2019). Policy analysis of equity, diversity and inclusion strategies in Canadian universities-how far have we come? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 49(3), 41-56
Winkelmes, M. A. (2019). Introduction: The Story of TILT and Its Emerging Uses in Higher Education. Transparent Design in Higher Education Teaching and Leadership, 1-14.
One of my favourite grounding statements is “We are human beings not human doings.” A quick search on the internet reveals that this statement has been attributed to many, including the Dalai Lama. For me, this statement speaks to the importance of our inherent humanness, including the fact that we feel and experience thoughts and emotions in the workplace, which give rise to actions and responses that are deeply connected to and have impact on ourselves and those around us. Each action and response creates ripples across our organizations.
This year has brought rise to constant change and challenge in our workplaces. We have adapted to situations that most of us could not have imagined. Technology has both connected and distanced us. The global pandemic has impacted people and organizations differently. For many, it has drastically shifted workplace and personal practices. It has increased feelings of uncertainty, emotional exhaustion, isolation and stress. We have witnessed disproportional impacts of the pandemic on vulnerable populations and equity-deserving groups, and many of us have struggled from poorer mental health and well-being (Aristovnik et al, 2020; Brazeau et al., 2020; Giorgi et al., 2020).
As a leader, the global pandemic has challenged my decision-making abilities, with the sheer load of required resources, responses and actions often exceeding my cognitive capacity. I have found some relief in grounding my practice through a lens of conscious leadership.
What is conscious leadership?
Being conscious or mindful is about, “observing and attending to the changing field of thoughts, feelings and sensations from moment to moment” through self-regulated attention, and non-judgmental acceptance of experience (Bishop et al., 2004, p.232). It is often described as a being in the present moment, or “present-moment awareness” (Goldstein, 2013, p. 13). Mindfulness helps us intentionally respond (as opposed to habitually react) to our thoughts, emotions, and surroundings as we reflect upon and broadened our perspective on experience (Bishop et al., 2004; Goldstein, 2013).
Conscious leadership can be understood through three key processes: 1) awareness, 2) transformation, and 3) intentionality (Hofman, 2008; Jones, 2015). Conscious leaders are aware of these processes across multiple levels. First and foremost, from the perspective of oneself, then of others through to their organizations and community. Conscious leaders are aware that everything across an organization is connected and impermanent (in constant flux), and that these interconnections influence continuous change. They act from a space of acceptance, curiosity, and reciprocity, recognizing that every organization is bound by human relationships and emotions (Bishop et. al, 2004; Hoffman, 2008; Jones, 2015). They act through a lens of empathy, compassion, and shared leadership, and are oriented towards observation, openness, acceptance, reflection and ongoing learning.
Essential questions to guide a conscious approach to decision making
Awareness
What is my understanding of the challenge (or opportunity)?
Who is involved or connected to this challenge?
How does this understanding change if I view it from the perspective of those around me, and/or the organization as a whole?
What is happening for me, others and the organization right now?
What interconnections, emotions and/or patterns are associated with this issue for me, others and/or the organization?
Transformation
What possibilities for change exist for myself, others and/or the organization?
How could I involve others in exploring these possibilities?
What actions could result in change and transformation for myself, others and the organization?
What influence might these actions have on myself, others and the organization?
Intentionality
What is most important right now for myself, others and the organization?
What is the most appropriate response? How should others be involved in responding?
What emotions and reactions may be associated with this response for myself, others and the organization?
What actions could I take to demonstrate empathy and compassion to myself, others and the organization in light of these emotions and reactions?
Like all leaders (and humans), the joy, happiness and success I experience in the workplace is balanced by challenge, defeat, failure and pain. Never has that been more apparent than over this past year. The above questions have brought mindful grounding to these peaks and valleys. I’d love to hear how/if this approach resonates for you!
References:
Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 8438.
Brazeau, G. A., Frenzel, J. E., & Prescott, W. A. (2020). Facilitating wellbeing in a turbulent time. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(6).
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., … & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 11(3), 230-241.
Hofman, R. E. (2008). A conscious‐authentic leadership approach in the workplace: Leading from within. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(1), 18-31.
Goldstein, J. (2013). Mindfulness: A practical guide to awakening. Sounds True.
Giorgi, G., Lecca, L. I., Alessio, F., Finstad, G. L., Bondanini, G., Lulli, L. G., … & Mucci, N. (2020). COVID-19-related mental health effects in the workplace: a narrative review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(21), 7857.
Jones, V., & Brazdau, O. (2015). Conscious leadership, a reciprocal connected practice. A qualitative study on postsecondary education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 203, 251-256.
Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L. M., Gill, H., Phan, L., … & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of affective disorders.
The global pandemic has been difficult for many in higher education.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the key assumptions and beliefs that serve as the foundation of higher education” (Brazeau, 2020, p.688).
Recognizing that the pandemic has impacted people very differently, Dr. Klodiana Kolomitro and I highlighted a few of the challenges the pandemic has created at a session earlier this year with the educational development community in Canada (Kolomitro and Kenny, 2021). We summarized that the pandemic has:
1) increased workload for students, administrators, educators and teaching and learning centres;
2) disproportionately impacted equity-deserving groups including Indigenous and racialized peoples, women, persons with disabilities and 2SLGBTQI+ communities;
3) increased feelings of uncertainty and emotional exhaustion;
4) caused physical, social and self-isolation and loneliness; and,
5) resulted in overall poorer mental health, wellbeing and quality of life (Aristonvnik et al., 2020; Brazeau et al., 2020; Naffi et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020).
Although hopeful for healing as we approach the 2021/22 academic year, the uncertainty of the fall semester continues to exacerbate many of these same issues.
The Department Chair and the Pandemic
In a recent article published in Innovative Higher Education, Gigliotti (2021) explored the impact of the pandemic on department chairs. This article highlights the critical role that department chairs hold at institutions, described as, “…agents of influence in leading the reinvention of policies, practices and patterns of behavior at the departmental level and throughout their academic discipline” (p. 430). Christensen-Hughes and Mighty (2010) further emphasized the role that these local leaders can play in either helping or hindering the decisions, cultures, behaviors, norms and practices we most aspire to see.
It won’t come as any surprise that Gigliotti (2021) found that the COVID19 global pandemic intensified leadership challenges, added complexity, and contributed to continuous emerging issues for department chairs.
“The findings of this study underscore the important work of academic leadership, particularly the role of department chairs, in triaging immediate concerns, advocating on behalf of one’s colleagues and students, providing frequent and timely updates to facilitate an institution’s crisis response, ensuring the safety and well-being of others, and helping to restore hope when others experience a breakdown in collective sensemaking” (p.442).
Throughout this study, chairs acknowledged challenges related to pivoting to remote teaching, navigating remote meetings, and exploring methods to ensure some degree of research continuity throughout their department. They struggled with maintaining consistent and clear communication channels with senior administration, maintaining meaningful relationships and connections with colleagues, acknowledging and coping with emerging mental health issues experienced by themselves and departmental colleagues, balancing personal and professional commitments, ensuring the health and safety of students and staff, planning under constant uncertainty, ongoing budget constraints, and concerns related to ongoing pressures for renewal and reinvention.
The authors highlight the crucial role of relationships, connection and communication as departments negotiated and responded to the COVID19 pandemic:
“What we learn from the insights of the responding department chairs is a desire to connect with others— connections that are made more challenging in light of the global pandemic—and to care for others in navigating the uncertainty of the current moment. By shaping and interpreting how others react and respond to a crisis of widespread magnitude, leadership is made possible; and by recognizing both the personal and professional worries, fears, and goals of one’s faculty, staff, and student colleagues, department chairs can provide bridges of trust and goodwill.” (p. 442)
Leadership Approaches for Healing and Rebuilding Teaching and Learning
In their article, Gigliotti (2021) called explicitly for more opportunities to support departmental chairs, including providing additional support for their development as academic leaders. As we embark on healing and rebuilding our teaching and learning practices into the future, the following leadership approaches adapted from Gibbs and Knapper (2008) may provide a helpful guide and starting point for reflection for academic chairs:
Establish credibility and trust: foster open communication; listen carefully and solicit ideas actively from the departmental community, especially from individuals and groups that have historically been marginalized; identify, seek and advocate for additional institutional support and resources for change; establish a network of mentors and colleagues to support on-going reflection, growth and development.
Identify and address departmental strengths and challenges: actively identify departmental strengths and challenges; represent the department honestly; leverage strengths; lean into and address challenges; speak up to actions and behaviours that are harmful; focus on building and moving forward through incremental change.
Articulate a clear vision and rationale for change: learn about what others internal and external to the institution are doing; seek guidance from evidence-based and culturally relevant practices; collaboratively identify and articulate a clear narrative for the future; gather evidence and feedback on change initiatives; admit mistakes, apologize and change direction as necessary.
Distribute leadership: build and support a collaborative team of departmental leaders; create leadership pathways for those in formal and informal roles; surround yourself by a team that helps you address your leadership blind spots and areas for growth; ask for help; thank and give credit to others for their influence and impact.
Build communities of dialogue and practice: foster debate, discussion and reflection around issues that matter; use multiple forms of engagement to involve the entire departmental community; actively create opportunities to make teaching and learning practices public.
Visibly reward and recognize teaching and learning: provide leadership pathways for strong and committed educators; evaluate contributions to teaching and learning using multiple methods, lenses, and perspectives; actively identify and support individuals to be recognized for their contributions to teaching beyond the department.
Involve students as partners in change: actively seek student input; involve students meaningfully in initiatives, innovations, and decision-making processes; intentionally provide space for and amplify student voices; create leadership pathways for students.
There are likely other leadership approaches you would recommend for departmental chairs as we embark on an ever-evolving and somewhat uncertain pathway for teaching and learning in higher education.
What do you think are key considerations, challenges, and recommended leadership approaches for department chairs as we begin to approach teaching and learning during the 2021/22 academic year?
References:
Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 8438.
Brazeau, G. A., Frenzel, J. E., & Prescott, W. A. (2020). Facilitating wellbeing in a turbulent time. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(6).
Christensen Hughes, J., & Mighty, J. (2010). A call to action: Barriers to pedagogical innovation and how to overcome them. In J. Christensen Hughes & J. Mighty (Eds).Taking stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 261-277). Queens School of Policy Studies.
Gibbs, G., Knapper, C., & Piccinin, S. (2008). Disciplinary and contextually appropriate approaches to leadership of teaching in research‐intensive academic departments in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 416-436.
Gigliotti, R. A. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on academic department chairs: Heightened complexity, accentuated liminality, and competing perceptions of reinvention. Innovative Higher Education, 1-16.
Kolomitro, K. and Kenny, N. (2021). Caring for our community: when will well-being be a priority. Keynote Presentation. Educational Developers Caucus of Canada Online Conference. https://edc.stlhe.ca/conference-2021/keynote/
Naffi et al. (2020) Disruption in and by Centres for Teaching and Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Leading the Future of Higher Ed. White Paper ISBN: 978-2-9818996-5-1
Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L. M., Gill, H., Phan, L., … & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of affective disorders.
As a leader of a teaching and learning institute at a large-research intensive institution, I reflect a lot on how change and learning happens in organizations.
How do teaching and learning centres work to influence teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices?
A couple of years ago, I presented at the Educational Developers of Caucus of Canada Conference, and tried, in one slide to communicate all that I have learned about the complex work of teaching and learning centres. Below is a version of that slide.
Figure 1: a framework for influencing change in teaching and learning cultures, communities, and practices across multiple organizational levels
This framework builds upon the work of others (see for example: Brew & Ginns, 2008; Finkelstein, et al., 2016; Fields et al., 2019; Hannah & Lester, 2009; Jarvis, 2010; Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009; Simmons, 2016; Trigwell, 2013; Webster-Wright, 2009; Wright et al., 2018). I also highlight it in a forthcoming paper with Dr. Sarah Eaton (Kenny & Eaton, in press).
Most people would point to teaching and learning centres for the workshops and courses they offer individual educators. These formal, planned events are a visible part of the work of educational developers. But, as one of my favorite colleagues, mentors and leaders Dr. Leslie Reid shares,
“Change happens one conversation at a time.”
The seminal work of Roxå & Mårtensson (2009) and Roxå et al. (2011) suggests that teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices are strongly influenced by the small, but significant conversations we have and networks we create with colleagues we trust. A recognition that teaching and learning in higher education is influenced by FORMAL processes (i.e., policies, programs, structures, resources and committees) and INFORMAL activities (i.e., significant networks, relationships, conversations, and communities) is fundamental to the work of teaching and learning centres, and this framework.
Take a moment to reflect on where and how these formal processes and informal activities occur across your institution. How and where is your teaching and learning centre influencing these formal processes and informal networks, conversations and communities?
The centre of the framework highlights four key components to influencing teaching and learning cultures: 1) High-impact professional learning for individuals and groups, 2) Local-level leadership and microcultures, 3) Scholarship, research and inquiry, 4) Learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies.
High-impact professional learning activities can be informal or formal, but are intentionally designed to be contextual, embedded in practice, and to facilitate on-going reflection and action (Webster-Wright, 2009).
How is your centre providing initiatives to support meaningful and sustained professional learning and growth for educators across higher education?
The influence of local-leadership and microcultures are often overlooked in higher education (Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016; Kenny et al., 2016). Formal leaders (who hold roles such as Dean, Department Head/Chair, Associate Dean) and informal leaders (who may not hold a formal title) are catalysts for action and change. They have an incredible influence on the development of microcultures (behaviours, norms, values, actions) that either support or hinder the development of the teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices we most aspire to see (Christensen Hughes & Mighty, 2010). We need only to look at the complexities, sheer exhaustion and pressures that Department Heads/Chairs faced related to teaching and learning during the global pandemic – Gigliotti (2021) calls for more training, support and development for those who hold these roles.
What does your teaching and learning centre do to support informal and formal teaching and learning leaders?
Scholarship, research and inquiry provide a means for investigating, sharing and disseminating knowledge about teaching and learning in postsecondary education. This work includes inquiry in individual classrooms, as well as how teaching and learning are more broadly supported across multiple organizational levels within higher education. Knowledge sharing and dissemination about teaching and learning are important, and we are also coming to understand that the very process of intentionally engaging in scholarship and inquiry related to teaching and learning, helps us become better educators, as we focus on the student learning experience and develop stronger abilities as critically reflective practitioners (Brew and Ginns, 2009; Trigwell, 2013).
How does your teaching and learning centre encourage and support engagement in scholarship, research and inquiry in teaching and learning?
I have also been thinking a lot lately about how these supports are (or aren’t) inclusive of multiple ways of knowing, being and understanding?
Learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies have an incredible impact on teaching and learning communities, cultures and practices in higher education. Learning spaces can be designed intentionally to foster engagement, collaboration and to create a shared learning community between students and instructors (Finkelstein and Winer, 2020). Never has the power of learning technologies become more prevalent as during the COVID19 pandemic when millions of learners across the globe accessed their higher education from remote locations. When thoughtfully integrated, learning technologies can strengthen connection, collaboration, flexibility and innovation. Pedagogical approaches that are intentionally structured, promote active engagement, encourage meta-cognition and self-regulation, foster deep learning, and establish relevance improve student learning outcomes (Freeman et al., 2014, Deslauriers et al., 2011; Kember, Ho & Hong, 2008; Pintrich, 2002).
How does your teaching and learning centre support learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies that improve student success and promote deep learning?
How are we ensuring our learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies support our commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion, and Indigenous Ways of Knowing?
The framework is grounded by the recognition that these four core elements (i.e., high impact professional learning, local-level leadership and microcultures, scholarship, research and inquiry, and learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies) are influenced across multiple organizational levels (Hannah & Lester, 2009; Kenny et al., 2016; Simmons, 2016; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009). At the institutional (macro-level) senior leaders, policies, and committees can establish a clear vision, resources, governance processes and structures for teaching and learning. At the faculty and departmental level (meso-level) integrated networks of knowledge sharing can be established, and local leaders can be provided with appropriate support to help influence change and decision-making related to teaching and learning. And finally, at the individual level (micro-level) individuals must be supported, recognized and rewarded for their work to advance teaching and learning.
How is your teaching and learning centre influencing change in teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices across the micro, meso and macro levels?
As always, I’d love to hear how this framework resonates for you. It’s difficult to articulate what I have come to understand about the work of educational development and teaching and learning centres in one slide, and I am certain my thoughts will continue to evolve over time!
References
Brew, A., & Ginns, P. (2008). The relationship between engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning and students’ course experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 535-545.
Christensen Hughes, J., & Mighty, J. (2010). A call to action: Barriers to pedagogical innovation and how to overcome them. In J. Christensen Hughes & J. Mighty (Eds).Taking stock: Research on teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 261-277). Queens School of Policy Studies.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862-864.
Finkelstein, A., & Winer, L. (2020). Active learning anywhere: A principled-based approach to designing learning spaces. In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 327–344).
Fields, J., Kenny, N. A., & Mueller, R. A. (2019). Conceptualizing educational leadership in an academic development program. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(3), 218-231.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Gigliotti, R. A. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on academic department chairs: Heightened complexity, accentuated liminality, and competing perceptions of reinvention. Innovative Higher Education, 1-16.
Hannah, S. T., & Lester, P. B. (2009). A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 34-48.
Kember, D., Ho, A., & Hong, C. (2008). The importance of establishing relevance in motivating student learning. Active learning in higher education, 9(3), 249-263.
Kenny, N., Watson, G. P. L., & Desmarais, S. (2016). Building sustained action: Supporting an institutional practice of SoTL at the University of Guelph. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2016(146), 87-94. doi:10.1002/tl.20191
Kenny, N., & Eaton, S. E. (2021, in press) Academic integrity through a SoTL lens and 4M framework: An institutional self-study. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge: Springer.
Mårtensson, K., & Roxå, T. (2016). Leadership at a local level–Enhancing educational development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 247-262.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into practice, 41(4), 219-225.
Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks–exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 547-559.
Roxå, T., Mårtensson, K., & Alveteg, M. (2011). Understanding and influencing teaching and learning cultures at university: A network approach. Higher Education, 62(1), 99-111. DOI 10.1007/s10734-010-9368-9
Simmons, N. (2016). Synthesizing SoTL institutional initiatives toward national impact. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2016(146), 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20192
Trigwell, K. (2013). Evidence of the impact of scholarship of teaching and learning purposes. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 95-105.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of educational research, 79(2), 702-739.
Wright, M., Horii, C. V., Felten, P., Sorcinelli, M. D., & Kaplan, M. (2018). Faculty development improves teaching and learning. POD Speaks, 2, 1-5.
xossifap.net