Participant perceptions of the faculty development Educational Research Series

Nancy Dalgarno; Corinne Laverty; Rylan Egan; Kendall Garton; Eleftherios Soleas; Jordan Babando; Richard van Wylick

doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.15

Authors

Nancy Dalgarno Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship
Corinne Laverty Centre for Teaching and Learning
Rylan Egan Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship
Kendall Garton Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship
Eleftherios Soleas Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2354-525X
Jordan Babando Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship
Richard van Wylick Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.15

Keywords:

educational research, educational scholarship, higher education, scholarship of teaching and learning, research approaches

Abstract

Interest in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is driven in part by the need to provide systematic academic development for faculty anchored in evidence-based practice such as the introduction of quality assurance frameworks. This article reports on a mixed-method evaluation of one institution’s grassroots multidisciplinary faculty development program, called the Educational Research Series, to determine if it met the needs of its faculty, graduate student, and staff participants. Conducted at one mid-sized university in southern Ontario and framed, as was the program design and implementation, by both adult learning theory and constructivism, the evaluation collected data from session exit surveys, attendee interviews, and facilitator focus groups. The data analysis revealed that reasons for participating included increasing levels of understanding, receiving individual support, and learning about colleagues’ research interests. The major strengths of the program included individual learning, resources, facilitator expertise, interactive sessions, and the multidisciplinary focus. The main challenges centered on depth versus breadth of the sessions, time, and educational language and theory. Participants recommended additional resources, communication among facilitators, institutional recognition, and increased depth of content. As a result of this evaluation, an Advanced Educational Research Series is being offered at the institution. This article will inform other institutions wishing to build SoTL as a field within their institutions.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Nancy Dalgarno, Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship

Nancy Dalgarno is Director, Education Scholarship at Queen’s University (CAN). She supports and conducts research in health sciences education.

Corinne Laverty, Centre for Teaching and Learning

Corinne Laverty is Teaching and Learning Specialist Librarian at Queen’s University (CAN). She supports and conducts teaching and learning initiatives through Queen’s library.

Rylan Egan, Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship

Ryan Egan is Assistant Professor, Healthcare Quality at Queen’s University (CAN). He conducts global health and health quality improvement research.

Kendall Garton, Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship

Kendall Garton is Research Assistant at Queen’s University (CAN). She conducts research in health sciences.

Eleftherios Soleas, Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship

Eleftherios Soleas is Professional Development Accreditation Lead and an Education Consultant at Queen’s University (CAN). He conducts research in health sciences and learning environments.

Jordan Babando, Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship

Jordan Babando is PhD candidate in sociology at Queen’s University (CAN). He conducts research in chronic pain and learning environments.

Richard van Wylick, Office of Professional Development and Education Scholarship

Richard van Wylick is Associate Dean, Professional Development at Queen’s University (CAN). He is a practicing pediatrician and leads the Office of Professional Development and Educational Scholarship.

References

Abell, M. M., Jung, E., & Taylor, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of classroom instructional environments in the context of “universal design for learning.” Learning Environments Research, 14(2), 171-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9090-2

Auten, J. G., & Twigg, M. M. (2015). Teaching and learning SoTL: Preparing future faculty in a pedagogy course. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 3(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.3.1.3

Bamber, V., & Stefani, L. (2016). Taking up the challenge of evidencing value in educational development: From theory to practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(3), 242-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1100112

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Chitpin, S. (2011). Can mentoring and reflection cause change in teaching practice? A professional development journey of a Canadian teacher educator. Professional Development in Education, 37(2), 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.531625

Chalmers, D., & Gardiner, D. (2015). An evaluation framework for identifying the effectiveness and impact of academic teacher development programmes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.02.002

Fanghanel, J., Pritchard, J., Potter, J., & Wisker, G. (2016). Defining and supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): A sector-wide study. York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/defining-and-supporting-scholarship-teaching-and-learning-sotl-sector-wide-study

Geertsema, J. (2016). Academic development, SoTL and educational research. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(2), 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2016.1175144

Hamilton, D. (2014). Building a culture of pedagogical inquiry: Institutional support strategies for developing the scholarship of teaching and learning. Advances in Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 1(1) [article 2]. Retrieved from http://tlc.suss.edu.sg/research/AdvSoTL/hemilton.html

Healey, M., Jenkins, A., & Lea, J. (2014). Developing research-based curricula in college-based higher education. York: Higher Education Academy.

Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Poole, G. (2010). Ten-year reflections on mentoring SoTL research in a research-intensive university. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601441003737758

Huber, M. T. (2006). Disciplines, pedagogy, and inquiry-based learning about teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2006(107), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.246

Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Hutchings, P., Bjork, C., & Babb, M. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An annotated bibliography. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(2), 233-236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502000574

Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/171050/

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

Kelly, N., Nesbit, S., & Oliver, C. (2012). A difficult journey: Transitioning from STEM to SoTL. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), article 18. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060118

Knowles, M. S. (1979). The adult learner: A neglected species (2nd. ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 476-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11778846

Lawrence, S., Lambeth, J., & Archuleta, K. (2016, March). Lessons in building a SoTL community. Paper presented at the Conference on Transformative Learning, Oklahoma City, United States.

Marquis, E. (2015). Developing SoTL through organized scholarship institutes. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 3(2), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.3.2.19

Marquis, E., Healey, Mi., & Vine, M. (2014). Building capacity for the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) using international collaborative writing groups. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), article 12. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080112

Mathisen, G. E., Einarson, S., Jørstad, K., & Brønnick, K. S. (2004). Climate for work group creativity and innovation: Norwegian validation of the team climate inventory (TCI). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45(5), 383-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00420.x

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Myatt, P., Gannaway, D., Chia, I., Fraser, K., & McDonald, J. (2018). Reflecting on institutional support for SoTL engagement: Developing a conceptual framework. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1346511

Narayan, R., Rodriguez, C., Araujo, J., Shaqlaih, A., & Moss, G. (2013). Constructivism—Constructivist learning theory. In B. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of educational theories (pp. 169-183). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance. (2016). Quality assurance framework. Retrieved from https://oucqa.ca/resources-publications/quality-assurance-framework/

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63. Retrieved from http://www.msera.org/docs/rits-v13n1-complete.pdf

Openo, J. A., Laverty, C., Kolomitro, K., Borin, P., Goff, L., Stranach, M., & Gomaa, N. (2017). Bridging the divide: Leveraging the scholarship of teaching and learning for quality enhancement. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning/ La revue canadienne sur l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage, 8(2), article 6. https://doi.org//10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.6

Pleschová, G., & McAlpine, L. (2015). Enhancing university teaching and learning through mentoring: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 4(2), 107-125. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-06-2014-0020

Riddell, J. (2016, April 6). The scholarship of teaching and learning: What works, and why [Blog post]. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/adventures-in-academe/the-scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning-what-works-and-why/

Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.x

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Säljö, R. (2011). Learning in a sociocultural perspective. In V. G. Aukrust (Ed.), Learning and cognition in education (pp. 59-63). Oxford: Elsevier.

Scott, J. M., Penaluna, A., & Thompson, J. L. (2016). A critical perspective on learning outcomes and the effectiveness of experiential approaches in entrepreneurship education: Do we innovate or implement? Education+ Training, 58(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2014-0063

Sjøberg, S. (2010). Constructivism and learning. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., vol. 5, pp. 485-490). Oxford: Elsevier.

Mertens, D. M., Bledsoe, K. L., Sullivan, M., and Wilson, A. (2010). Utilization of mixed methods for transformative purposes. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.) Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 193-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079612331381211

van Wylick, R., Dalgarno, N., Garton, K., Laverty, C., & Egan, R. (2017, June). The educational research series: A model for how an interdisciplinary learning community supports the scholarship of teaching and learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Halifax, Canada.

Weaver, D., Robbie, D., Kokonis, S., & Miceli, L. (2013). Collaborative scholarship as a means of improving both university teaching practice and research capability. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(3), 237-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.718993

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (2017). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wuetherick, B., & Yu, S. (2016). The Canadian teaching commons: The scholarship of teaching and learning in Canadian higher education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2016(146), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20183