S.10-59
SCUP 10-25
II. Introduction
1. IV. Proposed Priorities and Timeline
  1. 2. Developing a New Teaching and Learning Support System
2. Appendix C: Documents Reviewed, Referenced & Future Use
.SFU
S.FU

OFFI

, V

I'I{I.

IDI

NT,

ACi\

])I'

~II

I'I{

(

1ST

MEMORANDUM

ATTENTION

naTe

SS!! U

ni"

l"f"

Hurna

b)"

~n:l<b

FROM

Jon Driver,

Vic

Prcsident,

\cadcllli..:

and

ProvOSI,

and

h:llr,

CUP

1']

8.782

392

;

.782.,

;

DATE

brch

PAGES

S.10-59

\'r

~cJ

fl',

w",

w.du

.c:

p:lCa,kmic

port

thc

orce on Teachin

and L

arnin

LI\d r

btcd

docllIllclH

s) (

25)

At ItS

h 1

,2010

llledlll!-: SCUP

revi

wt.d th

~ma

Report

oflbe

e Oil T

hlllg ,lilt!

eami!l!-: and related dOClI!l1

llt

Tbe report am!

rcl

tt'd do

lIlllcn

arc attad

ed for the illfortlution of

SCllate.

SEIl:

UNIVEn

ITY

G O

THE W

ORLD

SCUP 10-25

(WFICE 01; TilE VICE.PRESIDENT, ,\C\DEMIC A:-JD PROVOST

8888

Univcr~ity

Drive, Burnaby,

Canada V5A 156

TEL:

778.782.3925

FAX:

778.782.5876

vpacad@:<fu.ca

www.~fu.ca/vpacadcmic

MEMORANDUM

SCUP

DATE

March 2, 2010

ATTENTION

FROM

Jon Driver, Vice-President, Academic

PAGES

1/1

.. /

and Provost

Final Report of the Task Force on Teaching and Learning/\

/\/

AE:

I attach a copy of the final report of the Task Force on Teaching and Lea!:plng ([FTL), together with

comments and recommendations from the

VPA Advisory Committee on Teaching and Learning 01 ACTL).

You may remember that the TFTL's report recommended the formation

of a University Council on Teaching

and Learning, and that I intended to form such a council to begin implementation

of the TFTL

recommendations. There were some objections to this process, and I therefore formed a short-term advisory

committee

ACTL) to provide advice about implementation.

[ am forwarding these documents to

SCUP for information, and also to receive advice about the

recommendations. I am also asking that

SCUP forward these documents to Senate for a similar purpose.

Attachments

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

THINKING OF THE WORLD

I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... i

II. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

Task Force's History ................................................................................................................................ 2

III. The Themes and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 3

Vision, Principles & Directions ......................................................................................................... 3

2. Communication and Community ..................................................................................................... 4

3. Expectations About the Learning Experience .................................................................................. 5

4. Recognizing, Evaluating

& Rewarding Teaching .............................................................................. 8

S. A Teaching & Learning Support System ......................................................................................... 11

III. Summary of Recommendations, Challenges and Benefits ................................................... 17

IV. Proposed Priorities and Timeline ......................................................................................... 18

1. Promoting a Culture of Teaching and Learning ............................................................................. 18

2. Developing a New Teaching and Learning Support System .......................................................... 19

Appendix A: Selected Issues, Recommendations and Alignment with the Academic Plan ......... 20

Appendix B: Task Force on Teaching & Learning and Working Groups ....................................... 24

Task Force on Teaching and Learning .................................................................................................. 24

Working Groups .................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix C: Documents Reviewed, Referenced & Future Use .................................................... 27

SFU Internal Documents (Cited or Reviewed) ...................................................................................... 27

Cited References ................................................................................................................................... 28

External Sources ...................................................................................................................................

Notable Documents for Future Use ..................................................................................................... 31

SFU

I. Executive Summary

The Task Force on Teaching and Learning (TFTL) engaged the community in a probing, intensive process to develop

recommendations on enhancing teaching and learning support at

SFU. The teaching and learning environment was

found

to be complex, comprising several interdependent, integral components that require attention at multiple

levels. The

TFTL proposes several interrelated recommendations (in bold below) and sub-recommendations.

The TFTL recommends "establishing and communicating a vision statement and principles to provide direction

and common purpose around teaching and learning

at SFU" that should be directly incorporated into the VPA's

Academic Plan. This action should promote working towards a shared vision for teaching and learning, provide a

basis for strategic planning, and enable support to be organized more effectively. Furthermore, ensuring that

learning and teaching-related expectations are articulated

institutionally and across all units should facilitate these

goals and serve

as a basis for planning and prioritization.

SFU enjoys many teaching and learning services and forms of support at its three campuses. Recognizing,

celebrating, and communicating

our successes enable the university community to benefit from local expertise and

develop a stronger culture around teaching and learning.

The recommendation to "develop and implement a

phased institutional plan

to raise awareness of the broad range of SFU teaching and learning successes, services

and support

for teaching and learning and to ensure that they are recognized, used, and celebrated at all three

campuses

in an appropriate manner" should ameliorate the perceptions of teaching and learning and facilitate a

shift

in culture at SFU.

Many academic institutions are redoubling their focus on the student experience and student retention by

investing in engaging learning environments and integrating classroom and non-classroom experiences. Expanding

student-centered approaches

to teaching within a process of ongoing improvement should clarify expectations

for student learning, provide more opportunities for experiential learning and learning that extends beyond the

classroom, and build

on the synergies among teaching, learning and research.

The TFTl believes that recognizing, evaluating, and rewarding teaching will help to foster a culture that implicitly

and explicitly values teaching and consequently enhance students' learning experiences. Valuing teaching in a

consistent way will

(1) encourage more dialogue and sharing amongst instructors about teaching and learning, (2)

ensure processes that recognize and reward teaching, and (3) ensure that ongoing professional development is

provided, encouraged and valued. To support these goals, the TFTL proposes "increasing awareness of policy

provisions

that address the importance accorded to teaching and learning, promote a consistent interpretation

of policy provisions, and implement further initiatives that value the teaching mission of the University."

Including the multiple stakeholders and appreciating their roles, perspectives, and experiences are critical to

teaching and learning at SFU. The TFTL proposes to "establish a new, highly-integrated, coordinated and

extensive teaching and learning support system

that fosters the exchange of ideas and promotion of teaching

between teachers

within and between programs, between teaching support staff from different venues in the

university, and between teachers and teaching support staff." The support system would draw upon instructors,

staff, and students in the planning, design, and implementation

of support initiatives, and facilitate communication

in a

collaborative network. The system would also afford faculty members the opportunity to assume leadership

and mentorship roles, and identify and voice unit-specific needs for teaching and learning support.

In sum, teaching and learning at SFU are complex activities that require integrating support at many levels,

Recommendations focus

on increasing the value attributed to teaching, better recognizing and rewarding teaching,

and enabling the university community

to benefit from eXisting expertise and experiences. The recommendations

in this report constitute the first step

of an unfolding process of discussion, refinement, and elaboration that will

lead to the development of implementation plans in a phased, transparent manner. Although implementation will

require considerable time and commitment, activities

to (1) promote a culture of teaching and learning and (2)

develop a new teaching and learning support system are identified as immediate priorities.

Task Force on Teaching & learning: Final Report

II. Introduction

The Task Force on Teaching and Learning (TFTL) wishes to express its thanks for the university community's

valuable and thoughtful contributions

to the task force process over the past year and a half. The Task Force has

carefully considered the feedback it received on its discussion paper released in mid-July 2009. Some of the

concerns raised

by the community resulted in revisions to the summary recommendations which are included in

this final report. Other concerns appear

to stem from misinterpretations of the original recommendations. An

accompanying FAQ will be distributed in an effort to clarify the intent of the recommendations and provide

elaborations or updates, where applicable.

The

TFTL strongly values teaching excellence and recognizes the generally high quality of teaching at SFU. It

supports increasing the value attributed to teaching, better recognizing and rewarding teaching, and enabling the

university community

to benefit from the experience and expertise of excellent teachers. We propose better

support for teaching development,

as well as teaching and learning, in response to annual undergraduate surveys

and instructors themselves. Regrettably, this

call was interpreted by some as implied criticism of the current

quality

of teaching. Our approach was to focus attention on issues identified by a large number of respondents

from a variety

of disciplines and support units through analyses of direct surveys or existing SFU documentation.

The community participatory events held in January 2009 corroborated the areas of focus identified by the TFTL.

The recommendations, if accepted, will lead to implementation planning and further discussions with stakeholders

to develop specific action plans. This process will involve instructor groups, educational and support staff and

students,

as well as Senate, SFUFA, TSSU, APSA and CUPE, where appropriate. Earlier materials prepared by the

TFTL and/or its working groups related to implementation processes and procedures have not been included in

this final report. Instead, they will

be made available to future implementation groups for their consideration.

A short-term

VPA's AdviSOry Committee on Teaching and Learning (VACTL) has been formed whose first priority is

to review the recommendations made by the TFTL and advise the VP, Academic which should be implemented, as-

is or amended, and when. This report and the accompanying FAa. along with VACTL's comments, will be made

available

to the university community in late February/early March 2010.

Lastly, community members identified a wide range of important issues which were beyond the mandate of the

TFTL. It is envisioned that implementation of the Task Force's recommendations will result in a more effective

means

to communicate, identify, prioritize and resolve specific teaching and learning concerns at SFU.

The Terms of Reference for the Task Force were:

1. Develop a comprehensive vision statement on teaching and learning for SFU which focuses on the aspirations

of students, faculty, instructors, teaching assistants, tutor markers, educational staff and the administration,

which recognizes the diversity

of pedagogies employed at SFU, and contemplates the use of a variety of

teaching and learning technologies.

2. Research and evaluate models of support and assessment for teaching and learning that will serve the needs

of SFU students, faculty, Instructors, teaching assistants, and tutor markers in a coherent and cost effective

manner

by emphasizing consistency of support and ease of use, and avoiding the duplication of services.

3. Identify mechanisms to encourage faculty and instructor involvement and innovation in educational

development programs

and teaching and learning initiatives.

Suggest an administrative structure which will foster interaction and collaboration among teaching and

learning support units and ensure

that their strategic planning activities are coordinated and integrated.

5. Develop a strategic planning process for addressing university teaching and learning infrastructure needs.

6. Propose a process for change and a timeline

for

the implementation of the TFTL recommendations.

Task Force on Teaching & learning: Final Report

Page 1

SFU

See

Appendix A

for a summary of the select issues, the recommendations and their alignment with the academic

plan.

Task Force's History

In June 2008, the Associate VP, Academic established a Task Force on Teaching and Learning. The Task Force was

charged with making recommendations

aimed at supporting quality teaching and learning at SFU

(see

Appendix 8

for Working Group membership and terms of reference). Early in the committee's process, it became apparent

that its scope needed

to encompass many institutional dimensions related to teaching and learning.

The information gathering phase yielded an initial survey of available supports, exemplars, and models of

successful support initiatives, teaching excellence and innovation and a variety of learning experiences. These have

been documented and will serve

as resource material during implementation planning. In addition to the

successes, numerous challenges were also identified through reviews of existing SFU documents (e.g. LlDC external

review, reports from other initiatives;

see

AppendIx

and input from

~315

university community members in Fall

2008. The Task Force outlined perceived issues in its January interim report. Further input and clarification of these

issues and volunteers for working groups

(Appendix

8) were sought through four Community Participatory Events.

Thereafter, four working groups were formed to more closely examine Teaching Evaluation & Rewards, The

Coordination of Teaching Support, Student Learning, and Community & Policy. External documents and academic

literature were also consulted (see

Appendix C).

The recommendations in the Task Force's July document were in draft form and were meant to stimulate

discussion. University community members were invited

to provide critical feedback and refine or propose

alternate solutions

to the identified issues. In late October 2009, after receiving feedback from the University

Community, a revised

and final set of recommendations was submitted to the VP, Academic. These

recommendations link to other SFU initiatives, such as the Faculty Structure Implementation, exploration of the

College for Lifelong Experiential Learning, interdisciplinary approaches in research and teaching, strategic plan

around First Nations, institutional accreditation with the

NWCC, and the 2010-2013 Academic Vision. Fortuitous

timing allows

for the integration of some of the final recommendations into the 2010-2013 Academic Plan. Table 1

outlines general

areas of alignment between the 2010-2013 Academic Vision and the Task Force's

recommendations.

Table

1. General areas of alignment between Academic Planning directions and the Task Force's

recommendations.

"1' Aligned Ideas & Dfrections. .,' ,'.. '.,'

'., ,'.

Teaching, research & learning, recognizing the:

•

Synergy between teaching & research

•

Importance of the relationship between teaching, learning, and research activities

High quality teaching & learning

•

Specifying attributes and skills for graduates: general (critical thinking, learning, analysis & communication) and

discipline.specific

Focus on student learning experiences by acknowledging:

• That students learn through a wide variety of pedagogies that expand the traditional classroom experience

I~_..

Graduate students' interrelated roles in research, teaching &

learn~ng~

~heir

""ork with undergraduates

i Support students

•

To understand expected learning outcomes

•

To achieve their goals and potential

•

To be able to identify the learning purposes & opportunities for each program

Recognize excellence in teaching at the graduate & undergraduate levels

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 2

# i Aligned Ideas & Directions

•

Establish an award system

Collaboration & community

Seek opportunities for multi-/interdisciplinarity and collaboration across units

•

Reduce silo culture, improve communication across all areas

•

Build community & partnerships

Employ effective, efficient & innovative approaches

•

To teaching, learning, research, service & administration

•

To ensure resource levels are sufficient & well managed

Support instructors in developing teaching skills

i Review curriculum

To clearly define learning outcomes

•

To incorporate discipline-specific pedagogies & varied learning opportunities

Anticipate and respond

•

To higher education demands (i.e. relevance, "skills'"

•

To program & instructor needs

III. The Themes and Recommendations

Five themes encapsulate the concerns and challenges regarding teaching and learning support as identified

through the

Task Force process. Teaching and learning are complex activities that require integrated support at

many levels and though the recommendations presented here are broad and presented individually, there

considerable overlap. Furthermore, if accepted, the recommendations will require refinement and elaboration

during the process

of implementation. Some details drafted by working groups which were included as appendices

in the

Task Force's draft discussion paper have been summarized and included within this report; while other

working group suggestions

for implementation will be forwarded to implementation groups for their consideration

and continued work,

if applicable.

1. Vision, Principles & Directions

Challenges: SFU is well known for the value it places on teaching, learning and research. However, the SFU

community would benefit from a more explicit statement of principles that guide teaching and learning processes.

SFU does not have an articulated statement of its vision and prinCiples for teaching and learning that Is related to

an academic plan. This makes it difficult to identify strategic directions, to organize support in effective ways, and

to work towards a shared vision. This may affect strategic planning and implementation of academic plans.

Proposed Solutions:

In response to this need, the Task Force drafted an initial set of principles (below) to consider

for implementation at the institutional level, recognizing that outcomes may assume different forms in different

disciplines.

The vision statement and principles below are in accord with principles in the 2010 - 2013 academic

planning vision that prescribe that

SFU should

(l)

enable students to define and reach their goals, (2) deliver high

quality teaching, learning and research, (3) employ innovative approaches, and

(4) create an intellectually

stimulating and culturally vibrant environment. Though a sub-recommendation on institutional standards

is made

below, details

of this vision still require definition. Subsequent sections of this document may help prepare the

way,

along with consultation with the university community.

Recommendation #1: Establish and communicate a vision statement and principles

to provide direction and

common purpose around teaching and learning

at SFU.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 3

Draft Vision and Principles

Simon Fraser University creates, values, and supports diverse, meaningful learning experiences. Teaching and learning are

central

to our culture and practice. We support, develop, and reward effective teaching and learning.

Teaching and research are central to the University's mission; both are valued and rewarded as important scholarly

activities.

Teaching and learning are visible, celebrated and showcased.

Our students have

access to rich learning experiences and benefit from the relations among research, teaching, and

learning.

We engage in inquiry about teaching, and support pedagogical innovation to enhance our practices and student :

learning.

Our teaching is continually evaluated to promote and ensure the highest quality of teaching and learning.

1.1. Ensure that appropriate learning and teaching-related standards are articulated Institutionally and in all

units.

This necessitates involvement by Faculties, departments, instructors and other stakeholders.

To recognize

and value teaching and learning requires a clear definition and criteria

to determine its level of "success". The

University is foremost a "learning enterprise" and just as it sets quality standards for research activities, it

should do so for the process and outcomes of teaching and student learning within the operation of program

and courses, and at the student recruitment

and public relations level.

Benefits: More clarity around SFU's viSion, principles and expectations around teaching and learning may enable

more effective planning and support,

as well as a cultural shift that highlights the value of teaching and learning

both

internally and externally. A general institutional framework provides academic units with a shared context

and understanding in which to embed their own discipline-specific outcomes and goals. Defining teaching and

learning and its uniqueness at

SFU compared to other universities, may also aid SFU in student recruitment. This is

an important consideration given the current landscape of Be post-secondary.

2. Communication and Community

Challenges: Respondents to the Task Force's surveys and interviews frequently mentioned that a sense of

community around teaching and learning occurs only in pockets at SFU rather than more broadly across the

University. There also appears

to be limited awareness among both instructors and their support providers of

successful teaching and learning initiatives and the existence of support for teaching and learning in areas other

than those with which they are directly associated.

SFU could more fully showcase, share and celebrate excellent

teaching and learning experiences (i.e., award winners, everyday teaching and learning

excellence, innovations,

non-classroom-based learning, etc.) There

is not a communication channel to reach all teaching and learning

stakeholders

and there are some challenges with recognizing that many roles (instructors, students and staff) are

integral in discussions and decision-making about teaching and learning. lastly, some

SFU community members

have encountered institutional obstacles and ad hoc practices that impede and discourage their efforts to be good

teachers.

Proposed Solutions:

SFU has many teaching and learning successes, services and forms of support at its three

campuses.

Recognizing, celebrating and communicating our assets enables the university community to benefit

from in-house expertise and to develop a stronger culture around teaching and learning.

Some other possible solutions are addressed in other recommendations within this document, such as by creating

a Teaching and learning Support System, clarifying expectations

for student learning, setting directions for

evaluating teaching, developing and revising policies, etc. Although cultural change takes time and is dependent on

institutional

changes in multiple areas, an initiative aimed at improving communication could begin to foster a

stronger university community around teaching

and learning.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 4

•

SFU

Recommendation #2: Develop and implement a phased institutional plan to raise awareness of the broad range

of SFU teaching and learning successes, services and support for teaching and learning and to ensure that they

are recognized, used, and celebrated

in all three campuses in an appropriate manner.

This plan should:

•

Address some of the challenges with awareness about existing supports, showcasing and celebrating teaching

and learning

at the institutional level

• Garner community members' attention, generate interest, encourage community involvement to share

knowledge

and provide feedback about teaching and learning, thereby building on the Task Force's

momentum

•

Recognize the mUltiple roles necessary for teaching and learning (faculty, staff, students), and model practices

of inclusion

• Identify this initiative as a high priority, acknowledging the strong message received during the information

gathering

phase and in other documents that indicated that communication and community should be

significantly improved.

Benefits: Perceptions around teaching

and learning may be ameliorated as a cultural shift occurs at SFU: one that

recognizes, communicates, celebrates, rewards and

makes time for teaching and learning. By knowing what

supports are available and where (and being supported in doing

so), instructors may make more use of available

services

and supports. With a better understanding of the teaching and learning landscape, knowledgeable staff

may better support instructors and students, find areas

of collaboration with other units and with instructors and

students,

and reduce the duplication of services. Students can benefit indirectly from instructors' use of teaching

supports

and through their own increased awareness of resources to support learning. Institutionally, an increased

awareness

of resources may also enable strategic planning and prioritization that is more strategic, and draws

upon resident teaching expertise and supports

to serve as exemplars and models in other diSCiplines and units.

3. Expectations About the Learning Experience

Challenges: Respondents who provided feedback to the Task Force reported several challenges. The most frequent

were:

•

Absence of clearly.stated expectations for learning or learning processes.

• Inadequate encouragement and opportunity for instructors to experiment with new teaching practices, to

learn about successful practices, and to engage in interdisciplinary activities.

• Inconsistencies across programs in opportunities for students to benefit from the relationships between

teaching, learning, and research.

•

Inadequate formal recognition of experiential learning as an appropriate way to meet degree requirements.

•

Inadequate formal recognition of learning that extends beyond the classroom (co-op, field school, etc.)

•

Inadequate emphasis on aspects of the VPA's vision and proposed outcomes pertaining to the value of "a wide

variety

of learning experiences that develop long-term skills in learning", the value of research strengths,

and

the revitalization of curriculum.

The academic literature in higher education

is in concert with these views. Learning has been defined as

a change

from a naive and undifferentiated understanding

of a phenomenon or idea

a more differentiated and

sophisticated understanding

(Marton & Booth, 1998). As one way to accomplish this, Boyer (1996) recommended

integrating undergraduate research within formal learning environments. There

is also an emerging body of

research on student satisfaction and retention that focuses on creating engaging learning environments by

integrating classroom and non-classroom experiences, e.g. experiential learning opportunities (Astin, 1993;

Gardner,

2001; Kuh, 2003; Tinto, 2007).

Task Force on Teaching & learning: Final Report

Page 5

SFU.

Proposed Solutions: The recent SFU academic vision emphasizes the value of ethical, responsible and informed

citizenship,

and definition of program outcomes by academic units. To aid this process, identifying expectations

around learning

and the valued qualities of all SFU graduates would be helpful. This would entail a range of

interconnected learning expectations (rom general, high-level institutional,

to discipline-specific program-level.

In its academic planning, SFU is recognizing that different educational experiences result in different forms of

learning, requiring discussions about the learning goals for such experiences. In line with the recently proposed

academic vision, directions suggested by the

Task Force include: (1) increased attention to how courses that make

an academic program link to one another and to the totality of student learning in the program, (2) additional

opportunities to experiment with innovative learning practices,

(3) increased recognition and support of students

as active and responsible learners, and (4) the need to better align, grow, accredit and realize the full learning

potential

of the many and varied experiential programs offered at this university.

Recommendation #3: Expand student-centered approaches

to teaching within a process of ongoing

Improvement.

The following sub-recommendations should be regarded as a starting point.

3.1.

Identify and promote a set of attributes that every SFU graduate should possess or be able to demonstrate.

Building upon the

2006 Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents guidelines regarding University

Undergraduate Degree level Expectations, the Task Force envisions an ideal set of attributes that all students

(undergraduate and graduate), completing a degree at

SFU would acquire by graduation. Specific criteria

would pertain to:

(1) depth and breadth of knowledge, (2) knowledge of methodologies, (3) application of

knowledge, (4) communication skills, (5) awareness of limits of knowledge, and (6) autonomy and

professional

capaCity. See

Table

for proposed attributes. Additional attributes would be established for

specific disciplines and for completing graduate

degrees_

Table 2. Proposed attributes acquired

students upon undergraduate and graduate degree completion_

Attribute

I Criteria

Depth & Breadth of

Knowledge

Methodologies

Application

Knowledge

Communication

Skills

• Demonstrate excellence in academic disciplinary knowledge

I. Know and apply in-depth knowledge and skills about one or more diSciplines, as well as

understand the connections among the disciplines

• Demonstrate a high level of analytical problem solving

• Demonstrate the ability to synthesize knowledge

• Demonstrate knowledge of when and how to apply and interpret a variety of methods of

inquiry (qualitative & quantitative)

• Demonstrate the ability to recognize and frame an academic argument

• Demonstrate the ability to recognize when information is needed as part of the research

process

and/or the support of an academic argument, and be able to locate, evaluate, and

use effectively

the needed information.

• Apply technical and information skills appropriate to their discipline or professional area

I. Have participated in learning in situ, i.e. co-op, research assistant, community-based

learning, field school, practicum, etc.

i. Have participated in "internationalization" experience, i.e. exchange, field school,

international research, international

co-op, international mentorship, on campus

international

- --

activities,

----

etc.

I. Demonstrate effective oral and written communication skills In a variety of settings

(academic, professional, community)

• Demonstrate exemplary leadership and team skills through both academic projects and

extracurricular activities

• Present well-reasoned arguments, using technology as appropriate

Task Force on Teaching

& Learning: Final Report

Page 6

SFU

Attribute

Criteria

Awareness of limits

, of Knowledge

Autonomy &

Professional

Capacity

•

Demonstrate an understanding of the value of their university experience as more than the

acquisition of specific content and skills but rather as an experience that has taught them

how to learn, question, evaluate, and apply new ideas and concepts to an ever-changing

world

Understand that a university degree is one stage in a life-long process of learning

Contribute effectively and appropriately to their discipline and their diverse communities as

an engaged citizen with a sense of social responsibility

Understand

their personal values and how these apply to their goals and aspirations

Use technology effectively and appropriately, and make

informed conclusions and

recommendations

about its social impact

3.2. Ensure a student-centered focus in the curriculum (1) by identifying learning expectations across all levels

of the curriculum (in class and out of class) with consideration of the more general SFU graduate attributes,

(2) by ensuring that the curriculum is well structured from the perspective of developing learning and (3)

by providing clearly stated information about expectations and responsibilities of instructors and students

syllabi for all courses.

Details

of this recommendation suggest (1) identifying program learning expectations well in advance of

course registration, (2) ensuring that appropriate policies and practices pertaining to curriculum review are in

place,

(3) developing processes that provide instructors with opportunities to learning new instructional

strategies,

and (4) developing strategies to encourage the exploration of new learning experiences and ways

for students

to advance through their program of study. This student-centered focus would also include clear

learning

goals for graduate students within their disciplines.

3.3. Determine mechanisms

to develop, recognize, and integrate more research, experiential, and international

learning opportunities

into the formal curriculum and recognize these with integral academic credit.

The recently proposed academic vision recognizes the important interplay among research, teaching and

learning, and emphasizes the value of a variety of learning experiences. This recommendation encourages

SFU to explore the feasibility of integrating peer-mentored learning opportunities and an explicit research

requirement

across undergraduate degree programs (in addition to existing honors programs). The sub-

recommendation would enable SFU to investigate: (1) the value of a competitive-admission undergraduate

research program with the objective

of producing a sustainable and internationally recognized

undergraduate research training environment,

(2) processes that allow a unit to designate a percentage or

number

of experiential (E) or international (I) opportunities toward minimum degree completion

requirements and,

(3) mechanisms for quality assurance and regular review of E or I opportunities_

Recognizing that graduate students are teachers, researchers, and students, attention would be placed on

the development and interrelation of these multiple roles.

3.4.

Support the piloting of alternative approaches to interdisciplinary, theme-based, and peer-supported

learning opportunities,

such as peer-group learning, clustered curriculum groupings across departments on

topical

issues, team-teaching approaches, first year experiences, mentoring of undergraduates by graduate

students, and semester cohort groups.

Activities related to this sub-recommendation include

(1) raising the profile of existing projects, (2) creating

new opportunities for students and faculty members

to engage in interdisciplinary research and teaching, (3)

explore sustainable, supplemental Instruction for courses having historically difficult content (e.g.

opportunities for 'no-instructor present' group learning), (4) advertise existing successes in interdisciplinary

teaching,

and facilitate new initiatives, and (5) regularly, and critically review all extra-curricular programming

Task Force on Teaching & learning: Final Report

Page 7

(e.g. work study). If this sub-recommendation were implemented, it would help "expose students to different

perspectives

and complex, real world issues throughout their program" as articulated in the academic vision.

3.5. Review existing curricula and learning opportunities

to identify, expand, develop, and celebrate those

features

that facilitate student engagement, constructive feedback, early investment in learning, and

effective mentoring.

In accordance with this sub-recommendation, many features of the extant teaching and learning

environment

such as experiential learning opportunities (e.g., Co-operative education, Peer Educators

Program,

LEAD program), foundational academic preparation courses, and technological and e.learning

pedagogies, should be made more visible and further incorporated in the curriculum. Furthermore, these

features should

be celebrated and promoted and regularly reviewed, adapted, and refined to facilitate

student engagement

and sustainable mentoring platforms. Additional actions may include (1) developing

mechanisms for anonymous, constructive, feedback

in a timely manner and (2) encouraging each unit to

develop their own culture for the support of all stakeholders in meeting university objectives, and invest

early in all stakeholders for

success.

3.6. Evaluate programs, courses, and instructors regularly, systematically, and appropriately for learning

effectiveness.

This would

be undertaken by all academic units at the program and course levels.

Benefits:

Clarity around learning expectations enables stronger links between program planning, expectations

about learning by students

and instructors and related supports for both students and instructors. Recognizing a

wider variety

of learning experiences may provide faculty members with opportunities to more closely tie their

teaching with their research and

to try new teaching approaches. Meanwhile students may benefit from a more

well-rounded educational experience, be more engaged,

and more likely to complete and succeed in their

program.

4. Recognizing, Evaluating & Rewarding Teaching

Challenges: Respondents to the Task Force's surveys and interviews opined that teaching is undervalued. Key

institutional level concerns that were expressed include:

• Teaching excellence and expertise were insufficiently recognized, rewarded, celebrated, and communicated.

Until

changes are made in these areas, available teaching supports will not be used to their full potential.

•

Currently, SFU makes limited use of teaching expertise and successful support models that already exist within

individual departments.

•

Effective teaching is a complex endeavor that involves skills in planning, motivation, observation and analysis,

assessment, persistence, diplomacy, management, and creating engaging lessons out of "content." Some

experienced and novice teachers have little or no exposure to the fundamentals of teaching and learning as a

profession.

Being a content expert is necessary but not necessarily sufficient to providing excellent teaching.

These faculty members

would have appreciated the availability of a program offered at SFU, general and

discipline-specific fundamentals, institutional and departmental support, and a positive community in which to

pa rticipate.

SpeCific departmental level concerns about the recognition, evaluation, and reward for teaching included:

• The pursuit of excellence In teaching is not reflected in policy deciSions, or when it is, practice is inconsistent

with policy.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

PageS

SFU

• There is inadequate or inconsistent recognition or compensation for course or program development, team-

teaching or program coordination; publishing in teaching is not considered to be "research" for purposes of

promotion or salary.

•

Inadequate recognition and reward for teaching reduces the incentive to devote significant effort to teaching.

• Teaching is not evaluated in an adequate manner.

• Experimentation and innovation in teaching may result in lower teaching evaluations; this is particularly of

concern in units where student evaluations are the main or only measure of teaching success.

• Methods used to evaluate teaching, plan workloads, determine promotion and tenure, and support teaching

require more attention.

•

Better support and more opportunities for development need to be made available to instructors who are not

tenure-track professors (e.g., teaching faculty members, sessional instructors,

TAs and TMs).

• To improve teaching and learning at SFU, top-level administrators must make a commitment to make it a

priority, and to take appropriate actions to support instructors and students.

The findings

of the Task Force echo the 2008 Senate Committee on University Teaching & Learning's (SCUTL)

report, which describes issues with teaching evaluations: (1) graduate course evaluations tend to be conducted

inconsistently;

and (2) course evaluation questionnaire data are only one small indicator of teaching effectiveness.

Also

of note is that the student course evaluation instruments currently in use are neither means-tested nor

validated.

is supported consistently throughout the research literature on teaching and learning, a broader

approach

with other measures is needed to produce a reliable and valid assessment. Although comprehensive SFU

data are lacking, it is apparent that the results of student course evaluations are the primary measure of teaching

effectiveness at

SFU. Many instructors reported feeling that this evidence is inadequate, and that at the very least,

a validated instrument should

be adopted and used. Program curricular reviews could provide additional evidence,

but customarily, these reviews focus on course content and learning outcomes and not on teaching effectiveness

within the program.

The proposed recommendations in this document are interrelated and address mechanisms for recognizing,

evaluating, and rewarding instructors.

SFU instructors must have a sense that their contributions to teaching are

sufficiently recognized, evaluated, and rewarded. Recent recommendations by

SCUTL concerning how to review

one area

of evaluation (student course reviews) have been incorporated into this discussion document. The

following recommendations are aimed

at reinforcing the value attached to teaching at SFU.

Recommendation

114:

Increase awareness of policy provisions that address the importance accorded to teaching

and learning, promote a consistent Interpretation

of policy provisions, and implement further initiatives that

value the teaching mission ofthe University.

4.1. Tenure and Promotion

Committees (TPCs) should evaluate teaching in a manner consistent with University

policy.

TPCs are mandated by negotiated policies to ensure that: "At a minimum, satisfactory performance in both

teaching effectiveness and scholarly effectiveness must

be demonstrated. Less than satisfactory performance

in either will not meet the expectations

of the University" (All.OS). Faculty members must be assessed in

three categories of performance: teaching, research, and service. Evaluation criteria and standards should be

documented by departments, clearly communicated to faculty members, and consistently applied. Separate

evaluations

of teaching, research, and service are required for each individual. Merit awards should be based

on appropriate weightings

of these components of workload. Generally, demonstrably good teaching should

be rewarded on par with demonstrably good research. For promotion and tenure, faculty members and

other instructors should

be required to provide substantial evidence of instructional competency.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 9

SFU

4.2. A coherent system to evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness should be developed.

In addition to developing and offering new course and instructor evaluation forms, and providing related

support for instructors and departments

(e.g. guides, peers, consultation), a more comprehensive approach

with multiple inputs

is needed to evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness. Features of systems to

recognize teaching work would include: (1) definition of a normal teaching load (e.g. Tenure-track faculty

members normally teach 4 courses per year over a range

of levels (lower level, upper level and graduate) and

delivery types (seminar, lectures, workshops); (2) ability to calibrate load (e.g. definition of small, medium,

and large

classes; relative workload to class size defined; reduced/increased/split credit); (3) ability to give

credit for "extra" teaching duties (teaching tutorials, directed studies, student SUpervision, mentoring faculty

members, etc.), and

(4) exchange ranges (list of tasks that can be bought out and the point value of each

task).

4.3.

Each unit must fulfill its obligations regarding the definition of a normal teaching workload and the

equitable assignment

ofteachlng responsibilities.

A negotiated Faculty Workload Policy (A30.03) defines a normal teaching workload

as four regular courses or

their equivalent. A range

of activities is set out in the Policy from which equivalent teaching loads may be

defined. Each unit is responsible for establishing specific equivalencies among these activities, subject to

Faculty-level

guidelines where these have been established, and with reference, where and when

appropriate, to the norms

of particular disciplines. It is the ChairS/Directors/Coordinator's responsibility to

promote equity within units. Similarly, it is the Dean's responsibility to ensure fairness across

departments/schools/programs. Finally, the Vice-President, Academic will initiate periodic workload reviews

from a university-wide perspective, taking into account unique

diSCiplinary requirements.

4.4. Recognize teaching activities through

the online CV system.

Definitions

and examples of all categories of SFU's Online CV system should be elaborated and posted online.

For

each of the following categories, additional criteria may include: (1) Courses: Other, e.g. summer schools,

course innovation, instructional skills workshop;

(2) Student training: (a) undergraduate student supervision

(e.g. directed studies courses, summer NSERC students, honors theses/projects) and (bl other student

training,

e.g. competitions, internships; and (3) Professional development: Reflections on teaching

development. Furthermore, two new categories are proposed:

(1) Significant contributions to teaching and

(2) Publications and materials related to teaching: (a) Publications and materials related to teaching: Journal

articles, monographs, conference and workshop publications; (b) Textbooks, curriculum,

and lecture notes,

workshops.

4.5. Teaching and learning excellence and innovation, whether demonstrated by an individual or program,

should be publicly recognized

with awards, special recognitions and incentives.

A broader

range of teaching awards should be offered that target different stages of an academic career

(early, mid, late)

and different instructor groups (faculty members, sessional instructors, TAs, TMsl.

Additional

ways should be sought to reward and celebrate quality teaching (e.g., reduced service, one.time

monetary awards, funds transferred to a faculty member's grant account to support pedagogy or research

enhancement, extra TA/TM help).

4.6. Teaching, learning, and scholarship should be respected and celebrated across

the University.

The University should foster a culture that values both learning and scholarship within and among all its

departments.

Research on teaching should be acknowledged as a scholarly endeavour. Recognizing and

celebrating teaching excellence should increase the value placed on it in SFU's culture, and increase

awareness

of successful practices.

Task Force on Teaching

Learning: Final Report

Page 10

4.7. The importance of teaching and learning should be emphasized by example.

All faculty administrators should be seen as advocates of teaching and learning and model its value by

engaging

in teaching (e.g., team teaching, guest lecturer, graduate supervision).

4.8. Teaching

as a profession should continue to be supported.

SFU should provide sufficient support and professional development to ensure that new and continuing

teachers

possess the knowledge and skills necessary to teach effectively. More needs to be done to

encourage departments

and units across campus to articulate their intentions and goals with respect to

teaching within their academic plans.

Benefits: Effectively recognizing, evaluating,

and rewarding teaching helps to foster a culture that demonstrates

both implicit

and explicit value for teaching. Further, it indicates to those who are learning that the entire learning

process

Is valued. There could be many potential benefits for SFU instructors and in particular faculty members.

Exemplary teachers would

be recognized and rewarded. They would be supported in taking leadership and mentor

roles. Instructors who are evaluated more equitably may feel

less of a pull between research and teaching.

Teaching that

has a more consistent value at SFU can (1) provide opportunities for ongoing professional

development by instructors who wish

to pursue this, (2) encourage and reward participation, and (c) ensure that

systems

(e.g. online CV system) and processes are available to support the recognition and valuing of teaching.

Finally, positive

changes towards better recognizing, evaluating, and supporting teaching excellence can positively

affect

SFU's culture and sense of community, and benefit students' learning experiences.

S. A Teaching & Learning Support System

For academic units and instructors to foster learning in an effective manner, they need a well-integrated,

responsive

and dedicated support system.

Challenges: Currently, individuals and units with varying priorities and approaches are providing limited support to

instructors throughout the university. Existing committees

(Le. SCUTl, LTCe, lOG) have limited functions,

representation

and linkages. Although central and local support for teaching is available, many community

members who responded to the

Task Force's Information gathering provided feedback that we should offer more

extensive and better-organized support. Particular challenges:

•

Instructors have few opportunities for support such as one-on.one consultation with peers, peer mentors, or

peer networks; there is little mentoring.

•

Many faculty members do not participate in centralized teaching and learning-related activities provided by

the current

1I0C, such as working groups intended to address faculty members' needs; the implication being

that these activities are

not perceived to be meaningful to individual needs or interests.

•

There appears to be a discrepancy in teaching and learning support between what administrators and support

providers believe

is being offered and what instructors perceive is available reflecting not only a lack of

communication, but a lack of agreement about what constitutes meaningful and relevant support.

•

Communication and collaboration between the Faculties and the

current

LlOC, other support units, learning

and instructional specialists, the Institute for the Study of Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines could be

significantly improved. Educational

and support staff may be at risk of becoming isolated, less engaged and

less informed.

•

In some cases, existing linkages across support units require better planning and coordination.

• The ongoing implementation of a desirable diverse curriculum and variety of learning experiences and

teaching approaches will require additional teaching support.

•

More diSCipline-based, and locally offered support and opportunities to collaborate with colleagues about

teaching would

be beneficial.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 11

• It is important to ensure that sufficient well-functioning equipment, tools, resources, as well as appropriate

physical

spaces and access to technological innovations, are available to support teaching.

Proposed Solutions: Although some support components

and processes exist, SFU would benefit from a

coordinated

and extensive teaching and learning support system that encompasses instructors, staff and students'

experiences in the planning, design and implementation

of support initiatives.

Recommendation

IS:

Establish a new, highly-integrated, coordinated and extensive teaching and learning

support system that fosters

the exchange of ideas and promotion of teaching between teachers within and

between programs, between teaching support staff from

different venues in the university, and between

teachers and teaching support staff.

A new support system would include, but not

be limited to speCific elements identified in the sub-

recommendations below and would achieve the following goals:

•

Promote initiatives to improve the quality of teaching and learning at SFU, seeking funding when needed.

•

Encourage collaboration between teachers and teaching support staff.

•

Foster the integration of discipline-based and centralized support for teaching and learning in the context of

existing institutional structures by: (1) coordinating and integrating the instructional support services that are

working well,

(2) determining which instructional support services to retain in their present form, to

discontinue, or to build upon and refine, and

(3) determining what additional forms of instructional support

are required.

•

Determine how best to accommodate change in student populations, budgetary constraints, pedagogy, digital

media,

and institutional initiatives.

•

Improve the instructional/learning processes and environment at SFU (e.g., spaces, tools, equipment).

•

Ensure that curricula are appropriately revised and evaluated on an ongoing basis.

The main purpose of the proposed teaching and learning support system is to facilitate a communication network

focused on teaching

and learning. In this case University Teaching Fellows (one from each Faculty), local Program

mentors and educational staff work together

to assure that teaching expertise is shared and needs are addressed

through both formal and informal activities and central and decentralized processes. A Council

for Teaching and

Learning brings together University Teaching Fellows and heads of support units, thus connecting academic staff

and educational staff in the common activity of supporting teaching and learning. University Teaching Fellows

work through the academic network

of Program mentors to reach teaching staff and students, and heads of

support units work with relevant staff groups to realize agreed upon directions in support of teaching and learning.

In this system, a centralized teaching and learning support unit would provide two types of services: (1) general

services addressing needs

that overlap faculties and disciplines and providing opportunities for interdisciplinary

interactions,

and (2) customized services addreSSing discipline-specific needs.

Through formalized roles, processes and structures that bring together academic and operational units, the new

system would improve coordination among different support units, formalize communication channels, foster

collaboration, support teaching and learning at all campuses, and establish a process for determining support

priorities.

In addition, it would increase the visibility of support, enable referral, and ensure a point-of-presence.

Currently, the educational and support staff components

of the proposed teaching and learning support system

exist and have representation on administrative committees. However, greater participation from a broader range

of support units and improvements to communications among the units are desirable. Meanwhile academic

departments, Faculties, and students do not have a forum

or a process for discussing issues related to teaching and

learning. Indeed, a key challenge in identifying and providing appropriate teaching and learning support to date

has been the limited consideration of students' learning experiences and the voice of instructors (faculty members,

sessionals,

TAs, TMs) from the Faculties. Issues such as support for specific instructor groups (e.g., international

TAs) and gaining a better understanding of today's students are important, as are input and involvement by

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 12

SFU

instructors in identifying, designing and implementing initiatives by support units and examining data on student

experiences (e.g., NSSE, annual undergraduate surveys) to inform priorities and directions.

The

following sub-recommendations pertain to each component of the proposed system.

Proposed New Components

S.l. Create a University Council on Teaching and Learning.

As implied above, part of the reason that such issues have not been sufficiently addressed is the lack of (1)

representation from departments and Faculties to bring forward important teaching and learning support

concerns at the institutional level, and

(2)

a forum for discussion and planning among departments, Faculties

and support units. The Task Force proposes the establishment of a University Council on Teaching and

Learning (UCTL) in which each Faculty would be represented by a University Teaching Fellow (UTF) (see

below).

The purpose of the University Council on Teaching and Learning is to address the existing gap in

communications, collaboration and planning of teaching and learning support between academic and

operational units. As a communication channel and working group, members of the Council would bring

forward needs and issues related

to teaching and learning for review and consideration. The Council would

work

in concert with the University Teaching and Learning Support Unit and others, where applicable.

Members would collaborate to plan, develop, and review institutional initiatives that support the academic

purpose and vision of the University in relation to teaching and learning. It would be advisory to the VP

Academic. The group will engage primarily in operational matters and will bring forward ideas and issues (e.g.

related to

policy) to Senate for review and approval, where appropriate. The Council would be chaired by the

VP Academic and be comprised of the University Teaching Fellows, the heads of teaching support units, an

undergraduate and a graduate student representative, and two Senior Administrators. One of the University

Teaching Fellows and the head of the University Teaching and Learning Support Unit would serve as vice-

chairs.

Table

3. Proposed terms of reference for the University Council on Teaching and Learning

...

~-;:~j ';~:

.~'t.~'-

'''It,

~<~~.:~~-:"

.......

"'!II~ ~

'1\ -::

&~~~.,h

~t;. -~ -.)~

,.....

~.'

-~ ~~~.;-~,

-1

j-;.;:;.~ ~.:-~~-

:---: .--.:;

.,,~

...

~1'

'Proposed'Ter!1l of I,{eference . . ,,',

'".,,' '.,

- .:' "

',,~

Enhancement

network/community

functions

Facilitate the flow of ideas and expertise about teaching between and within academic units.

Foster (interdisciplinary) opportunities for showcasing successes and sharing experiences related to teaching

and learning.

3. Provide support to academic units in the design, development, delivery. and evaluation of quality learning

experiences.

4. Support academic units in the implementation of learning and teaching policies. procedures. academic plans,

and

other

institutional

directions.

5. Consider and evaluate models and processes for improving the quality of teaching. learning. learning

environments,

and

learning

experiences.

6. Work with academic units in the design of opportunities for the development of teaching.

Plan, develop. recommend to the VPA. and regularly review policies. procedures. academic plans, and other

institutional directions that support the academic purpose and vision of the University in relation to learning

and teaching.

Plan, develop. recommend to the VPA. and regularly review strategic planning initiatives for effective and

meaningful

integration

learning

technologies.

Administrative

functions

9. Identify and monitor broad issues related to the quality of teaching and learning and make recommendations as

Task Force on Teaching

Learning: Final Report

Page 13

appropriate.

10. Provide support to Faculties and departments in the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of

Faculty- and department-level academic plans for improving the quality of teaching and learning.

11. Receive reports

from other committees or bodies, including working groups commissioned by the Council, on

issues

of relevance to the enhancement of learning and teaching.

12. Provide reports

to the VPA on activities of the Council as identified in the terms of reference.

5.2. Create a Group of University Teaching Fellows.

Selected from highly recognized

and accomplished teachers in each of the eight Faculties, University

Teaching Fellows

(UTFs) are pOSitions that recognize excellent teachers and offers them an opportunity to

take a leadership role and to share their expertise. UTFs would assume responsibility for improving the

quality

of learning and teaching in their Faculties and for mediating the allocation of support for learning and

teaching

on an ongoing basis. All tenure-track and teaching faculty members would be eligible for these

positions, which might constitute special Associate Deanships.

The group of UTFs would, as appropriate,

meet separately from other members

of the Council to work on specific Issues such as policies.

They will

be compensated accordingly, using the same principles for salary adjustments that are awarded to

faculty members who receive special recognition

as research leaders (e.g., Burnaby Mountain professors,

Canada Research Chairs). faculty members holding such positions are not rewarded for their research activity

per

se, but for their active participation and leadership in developing research clusters and concentrations.

likewise,

UTFs will receive awards for their contributions in improving and diversifying teaching and learning.

Or UTFs may negotiate a reduction in service load whereby the work as a UTF would count as the faculty

member's primary service contribution (subject to approval by his/her Chair/Director and Dean). Rewarding

UTFs with course releases is not an appropriate option since removing excellent teachers from instructional

activity is inconsistent with the recognition and value that attaches to their contributions in teaching and

learning

5.3. Create a Network of Program Teaching Mentors.

Program Teaching Mentors (PTM) are also pOSitions that recognize excellent teachers and offers them an

opportunity to take a leadership role and to share their expertise within their departments. A network of

PTMs would serve as an extension of the University Teaching fellows component of the Council, reaching

into all programs at

SFU. It would include one PTM from each major Department, School, Program, or set of

Programs. Core responsibilities would include meeting regularly with the UTf in their Faculties and with the

teachers and administrators in their programs

to gain and convey information relevant to the ongoing

improvement

of teaching and learning in their units. The PTMs would provide discipline-specific, localized

support - a frequently expressed need of respondents. This position would be proffered to individuals

renowned for excellence in teaching who have served, at least informally as teaching mentors in their

academic units. Specific responsibilities

and compensation would require further discussion with

stakeholders.

Proposed Changes to Existing Units and Processes

5.4. Create a Coordinated University Teaching & Learning Support Unit.

neW University Teaching and learning Support Unit would replace the lIDC. The new unit would be

mandated and have the resources necessary to support and coordinate the initiatives of the Council and the

needs

of individual instructors in departments, as identified by University Teaching Fellows and Program

Teaching Mentors. Responsibilities

would include ongoing, long-term support for learning and teaching, as

well as time-limited, project-based support. This unit would be headed by a continuing Director who would

serve as one of the Vice-chairs of the University Council on Teaching and Learning. The unit would include a

Task Force on Teaching & learning: Final Report

Page 14

SFU

number of full time continuing staff and possibly a few faculty members who would be appointed for specific

terms

and have expertise and experience with innovative approaches to teaching.

Table

4 below

is a preliminary and incomplete list of proposed teaching support functions. These require

further examination and fleshing

out during implementation planning. It is intended that all functions will be

planned and carried out in close collaboration with the Council, academic units and other support units.

Table

4. Preliminary, incomplete list of proposed teaching support functions.

Academic

I •

development I.

Provide formal academic development in teaching

Provide informal academic development in teaching

Community

Curriculum

and Course

Support

(f2f, online,

hybrid)

•

I •

•

! •

i •

Provide discipline-specific consultations on teaching and learning

Provide consultation

to instructors desiring general or confidential teaching support

Consult on & plan initiatives toward improving teaching within department/Faculty

Plan & offer general events/exchanges/ dialogue to inquire about teaching

Plan and offer discipline-specific events/exchanges/ dialogue to inquire about teaching

Collaborate in fostering a community and communication around T&L

Plan, organize, and

offer general events/exchanges/dialogue to learn about, showcase and

celebrate teaching & learning (e.g. institutional showcase events, guest speakers, conferences)

Keep abreast of Faculty, department and support unit happenings, and assist with

communicating this information across the university

Aid departments and programs

with curriculum planning and development and/or evaluation

and revisions

Assist departments

and/or instructors with general course development and delivery

Assist departments

and/or instructors with discipline-specific course development

Assist

with general teaching skill development (e.g. course design basics, presentation & voice)

Provide instruments, methods, procedures, and resources

for instructors in their teaching

Assist

with integrating "Classroom" technology (overheads, computers in classes, clickers,

WebCT):

how to use it (pedagogically) & developing skills

Provide & maintain accessible resources: examples,

cases, & tips (general & discipline-specific)

Consult on accreditation & curriculum planning & renewal (Faculty)

Consult on program evaluations & revisions

r-----------~------------~

- -- ---------------

Evaluation

Communi-

cation

Education

_ i

Skill

Development

T&LSupport

System,

specifically

•

Support the assessment of W,

B and determine areas for teaching development

•

Aid instructors in preparing for promotion/evaluation (portfolio development, understanding

what's required)

•

Gather and analyze data on a course or program & work with instructor/program on revisions

•

Communicate current information about teaching models, technologies, etc. to

Faculties/instructors/other educational support staff

Communicate T&L trends (e.g. models & technologies) to support providers

Inform instructors about institutional-level expectations: policies, copyright, FOIPOP

Inform instructors about institutional-level supports for students (to refer them to)

..Inform instructors about how to integrate institutional-supported learning: distance

education,

co-op, service learning, & non-academic with one's course

Plan, organize and

offer general teaching skill development opportunities (e.g. presentation &

voice, course design basics).

Offer orientations and professional development on mentoring

for new University Teaching

Fellows and Program Teaching Mentors

Operationalize initiatives from the

Council, including discipline-specific initiatives in

collaboration with Faculties, departments and programs

Inform Council about new perspectives, developments and different ways to support teaching

and learning

Serve

as a source of information for University Teaching Fellows and Program Teaching Mentors

Task Force

on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 15

SFU

*. Specialized Support from Support Units. However, members in the T&L Support Unit should be able to describe

current SFU supports to initially consult and connect people.

5.5. Establish stronger links between administrators and staff within the teaching and learning support system

and between members

of the support unit and the University Teaching Fellows.

the new teaching and learning support system two existing administrative groups, the learning

Technologies

Coordinating Committee (LTCe) and Instructional Development Group (lOG) would be

refocused. The l TCC would be broadened to include all heads of teaching support units and from the three

campuses, become a "learning and Teaching

Coordinating Committee". This group parallels the University

Teaching Fellows though

it would discuss specific operational matters (in contrast to teachers' matters) to do

with teaching and learning support.

To recognize the importance

of staff communications and collaboration, and to provide a forum for

educational and support staff from major support units, the Task Force proposes formalizing the lOG as part

of the teaching and learning support system for staff "on the ground" to communicate and collaborate on

matters related to teaching and learning support.

It would have broad representation from teaching and

learning support units.

The lOG will report to the LTCC and will operationalize initiatives from the lTCC. The

lOG would contain designated representatives from each support unit and report to the lTCC. It serves as a

communication forum and community and provides

lion the ground" support for the LTce and Council's

initiatives.

5.6. Incorporate

the Institute for the Study of Teaching and learning in the Disciplines Into the teaching and

learning support system.

The overall purpose of the Institute is to inspire, support, and enhance collaborative, faculty member-led

inquiry into all aspects

of teaching and learning at SFU. Its principle activity is to support teaching inquiry

projects

and processes, conducted by individuals or groups of faculty members, including the assessment of

the effectiveness of new approaches and methods. Although the Institute has a specific focus, it could work

closely with the University Teaching Fellows and collaborate

with support units as part of the overall teaching

and learning support system.

It also could help sustain the benefits of the Undergraduate Curriculum

Initiative

through ongoing inquiry into the effectiveness of W, Q and B courses.

5.7. Provide formal mechanisms

for Faculty-based W coordinators to connect to a community of colleagues and

other learning and instructional specialists.

Currently, there is considerable expertise to support W courses distributed within the SFU community

pertaining.

Feedback from the Task Force's information-gathering phase suggested the need to bring faculty

members together who support a writing-intensive learning approach.

Increased collaboration could increase

the visibility

of W coordinators, connect them to a community of colleagues and instructional specialists, and

provide a regular forum

to participate in ongoing refinement of W courses.

s.B. Re-examine the role and purpose of the Senate Committee on University Teaching and learning (SCUTL) in

light of the overall teaching and learning support system.

The Council is envisioned to be an active working group that will plan and engage in operational matters and

liaise with members

of their constituencies. This type of operational work is not part of a Senate Committee's

responsibilities. However, the roles and relationships between SCUll and Council require further

examination for synergies.

Some redefinition of purpose may be needed, as historically, SCUll has had

challenges with any empowerment.

Task Force on Teaching & learning: Final Report

Page 16

Proposed

Priorities

Specific issues that need to be addressed were revealed through recent public forums on the draft

recommendations and through the initial information gathering phase.

It is envisioned that the proposed system

would provide a means for stakeholder groups (Faculties, departments, support units, and students)

to bring

forward ideas and concerns related

to teaching and learning support. The Council would be a forum for members

of these stakeholder groups to work together toward viable solutions for the stakeholder groups and the

institution

as a whole. In addition to issues brought forward through the proposed system, it is proposed that the

following be priorities for the Teaching and Learning Support System to examine: (1) the student population and

their changing demographics, expectations and needs in relation to teaching and learning; and (2) the support

needs

of specific instructor groups (e.g., sessional instructors, TAs, TMs), including international Teaching

Assistants.

Benefits:

In general the proposed system recognizes the diversity of roles involved in teaching and learning and

provides a

means for the exchange of ideas and information. The day-to-day challenges faced by instructors in the

classroom may now

be brought forward and considered when prioritizing teaching and learning support at the

institutional-level.

The system also addresses an existing gap by including faculty members' and students' input

during planning

and enabling instructors, students and staff to collaborate. Inter-departmental teams, as well as,

strategic institutional-level initiatives may develop to better support instructors and students. The planning and

priorities of support units may also be augmented as a result of instructor and student input gained in a more

representative

and systematic manner. The needs of instructors will be better met, which in turn will positively

impact students' learning experiences.

Teaching excellence

and successful models in supporting teaching within some departments are more likely to be

recognized, celebrated and shared - to the benefit of all instructors at SFU. Furthermore, not only will instructors

benefit from the knowledge

and experience of recognized teachers, but these individuals will also be formally

recognized for their mentoring and offered

an opportunity to take on leadership roles. This is a step forward in

valuing teaching and learning. Meanwhile on the administrative and operations side, specific forums will been

re-

developed to include a wider range of stakeholders and to recognize the experiences of staff at many levels.

Several

of the system's components already exist and are proposed to either be included in this new system or to

undergo changes to better address teaching and learning support. The proposed system is subject to changes

during implementation planning. Some initial costs such as the creation of UTFs are immediate investments into

teaching

with longer term benefits such as planning that is better informed by stakeholder input, the development

of specific supports (e.g. localized, discipline-specific) and reducing duplicate or ineffective support efforts. The

different levels of input and participation may enable grassroots efforts as well as better alignment with academic

plans

and institutional directions.

III. Summary of Recommendations, Challenges and Benefits

Input to the Task Force suggests that teaching and learning at SFU are complex activities that require integrated

support at many levels.

Each recommendation does not necessarily entail a simple solution. For example,

"rewarding teaching

excellence" is not simply about creating more awards, because this neither addresses issues

related to the methods and criteria used to evaluate teaching nor perceptions about the value of teaching awards.

Similarly, a need for

discipline-based support for Instructors cannot be satisfied simply by aSSigning a support

person

to a department or Faculty. Rather, the academic unit must engage in a planning process to identify goals

relevant

to teaching and learning and develop workable processes to actualize these goals, drawing on expertise

both internal

and external to the unit to accomplish this. Details in this document demonstrate the complexity and

interdependencies

of its recommendations. As mentioned earlier,

Appendix A

provides a summary of select issues,

the related recommendations and their alignment with the academic plan.

Table 5

below summarizes general

benefits for different stakeholder groups.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 17

Table

s. Summary of General Benefits for Different Stakeholder Groups

For Students

All Instructors

Faculty

Members

in pa rticular

II Educational and

Support Staff

Administrators

I The University

Community

• Clearly

defined outcomes acquired by graduation

• Fully developed, recognized and integrated research, experiential, and international learning

opportunities

• Quality instruction and learning opportunities

• Teaching that takes into account the changing landscape of various student needs

• A learning environment that inspires excellence

•

Changes that continually take into account constructive feedback from the students

• Support based on different instructor groups' needs

• Ongoing professional development opportunities

• Changes to awards and incentives for teaching excellence and innovation

• Faculty and program representation when identifying support priorities

• Discipline-specific, in-house support and mentors

• Supported piloting of alternative teaching approaches

• Opportunities for interdisciplinary interactions.

• Increased opportunities to bring research into teaching

• Recognition as accomplished teachers and leadership opportunities as Fellows and Mentors

• More consistent practices in evaluating teaching

• Formal mechanisms for meeting, sharing knowledge and resources and for interdepartmental

collaboration

•

Recognition of support service as a key component within a teaching and learning support system

• Coordinated priorities and efforts in providing support

• Better alignment and support across SFU initiatives

• Clearer expectations for T&L and stakeholders

• Competitive edge, student recruitment and retention

• Framework for a system that recognizes, supports and rewards T&L across Faculties and at all levels

•

Shared vision, direction and common purpose around teaching and learning (SFU identity)

• Visible recognition and rewarding of teachers and learners

•

Increased awareness of available supports and contacts

• Stronger ties between faculties and support units

• Clearer expectations around curricular coherence, connectivity and instructor and student

responsibilities

• Linkages with other SFU initiatives

• Steps towards recognizing all stakeholder roles and enabling a community around teaching and

learning

IV. Proposed Priorities and Timeline

The recommendations in this report constitute the first step of an ongoing process that will transparently discuss,

refine, elaborate, and implement the recommendations in a phased manner. To support the VP Academic's

academic plan for

2010 - 2013, suggested immediate priorities include:

Promoting a Culture of Teaching and Learning

Specifically, launch initiatIves that are aimed at promoting a culture in which teaching and learning are more

salient and accorded greater value and are in keeping with University policy and priorities. Increased attention and

involvement by university community members are needed for institutional change to occur. Thus,

implementation of recommendations #1 (vision and principles) and #2 (communication and community) should be

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 18

accorded the highest priorities in order to build on existing momentum from the Task Force and the Academic

Planning process.

2. Developing a New Teaching and Learning Support System

Begin the process of developing a new teaching and learning support system. This process would entail:

(1) Establishing formal processes and mechanisms

to organize communication, collaboration and decision-making

among existing teaching support services, and, where necessary, creating new roles (immediate).

(2) Refining

the terms of reference of University Teaching Fellows and selecting a representative from each

Faculty

to participate on the University Council on Teaching and Learning (immediate).

Convening the University Council on Teaching and Learning and charging it, as a first priority, with overseeing the

creation

of the new Teaching and Learning Support Unit. This will require identifying functions, roles, pOSitions and

monitoring the related

HR process to establish the new unit (an evolved version of the LlDC) with a director by

September

2010.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 19

SE~:U

Appendix A: Selected Issues} Recommendations and Alignment with the Academic Plan

These key issues were derived from the Task Force's information gathering phase (interviews, surveys, existing documents). Though each recommendation

may address

mUltiple issues, only a few are identified to maintain a document of reasonable length.

Table

Ai:

Institutional issues, related recommendations and alignment with the academic plan •

:"'"~(~

,; -.

........~.-;:.

1"".-

, .

..:~

.. +...

~,~

_-·~~J';:lt}.:l'~~.\"'-""'7::'"'1"-

" • .:

~1-.·~'

Selected

Issues,'::';,;.'

.. -

;.~..:_.

:f!i1:i'~;

t; ... -_o .. 1 •

_~r_~r..

:.-;;~:.{.,.

Recommendation

It ",.

,".

, ." :...

~._

-'_- -

J~I'Alignment->Nith:~caoe-niic

...

~~':~'":,!::.;!~ ~~_.

'.'-_~~_ ~

Plan

Lack of an articulated statement of SFU's vision and principles for

11:

Establish and communicate a vision statement and

teaching and learning

that Is related to an academic plan: a) makes it

principles to provide directions and common purpose

difficult

to identify strategic directions, to organize support in effective around teaching and learning ...

ways, and to work towards a shared vision; and b) may impact strategic

1.1:

Ensure that appropriate learning and teaching-related

planning and implementation

of academic plans.

standards are articulated institutionally and in all units.

, High quality teaching & learning

{implicit: having expectations about

teaching}

-----

----

• lack of institutional mechanisms aimed at fostering a community for 2: Develop and implement a phased institutional plan to Recognize excellence in teaching at

teaching and learning; that a sense of community around teaching

I raise awareness of the broad range of SFU teaching and the graduate & undergraduate

and learning occurs

in pockets at SFU.

I learning successes services and support for teaching and I levels

• limited awareness among both instructors and their support

learning and to ensure that they are recognized, used, and

providers of successful teaching and learning initiatives, resident

celebrated in all three campuses in

an appropriate manner.

expertise and the existence

of support in areas other than those with,

which they are directlv associated.

Recommendation

also addresses some o/these issues.

• SFU could more fully showcase. share and celebrate excellent

teaching

and learning experiences

I. No communication channel to reach all teaching and learning

stakeholders.

• Some challenges with recognizing that many roles (instructors.

students

and staff) are integral in discussions and decision-making

about teaching

and learning.

Task Force on Teaching & learning: Final Report

Collaboration & community

• Seek opportunities for multi-

!interdisciplinarity and

collaboration across units

• Reduce silo culture, improve

communication across all areas

Build community

& partnerships

Page 20

SF,U

Table

A2: Graduands, curriculum and learning environment issues, related recommendations and alignment with the academic plan.

: • Expectations about student learning could

be clearer, particularly at the institutional

level.

3: Expand student-centered approaches to teaching

within a process

of ongoing improvement.

3.1:

Identify and promote a set of attributes that every

I SfU ",du." ,hould

p .... " 0'"

.bl. to d.mo," .. ".

• Specifying attributes and skills for graduates:

general (critical thinking, learning, analysis

communication) and discipline-specific

• Support students to understand expected

learning outcomes

Curriculum I. Inconsistencies across programs in terms of

3.2:

Ensure a student-centered focus in the curriculum

, Focus on Student Learning Experiences by

& learning

Environment

time

to completion, intensity, standards,

(a) by identifying learning expectations across all levels of acknowledging:

approaches, and expectations.

the curriculum

(in class and out of class) with

• Absence of a clearly-stated set of

consideration of the more general SFU graduate

expectations for learning outcomes.

attributes, (bl by ensuring that the curriculum well

• Inadequate encouragement and opportunity structured from the perspective of developing learning

for instructors to experiment with new

and (cl by providing clearly stated information about

teaching practices, to learn about successful expectations and responsibilities of instructors and

practices, and to engage in interdisciplinary students in syllabi for all courses.

activities.

3.3:

Determine mechanisms to develop, recognize, and

• Inconsistencies across programs in

integrate more research, experiential, and international

opportunities for students to benefit from

learning opportunities into the formal curriculum and

the relationships between teaching,

recognize these with integral academic credit.

I learning, and research.

3.4:

Support the piloting of alternative approaches to

• Inadequate formal recognition of

interdisciplinary, theme-based, and peer-supported

eXperiential learning as an appropriate way II learning

oppo~unities, suc~

as peer-group learning,

to meet degree requirements.

I clustered cUrriculum groupmgs across departments on

• Inadequate formal recognition of learning

topical issues, team. teaching approaches,

first

year

that extends beyond the classroom (co-op,

experiences, mentoring

of undergraduates by graduate

field school, etc.)

I students, and semester cohort groups.

I • Inadequate emphasis on aspects of the

13.~:

Rev!ew existing curricula and learning opportunities

VPA's vision and proposed outcomes

to IdentIfy, expand, develop, and celebrate those

pertaining

to the value of "a wide variety of features that facilitate student engagement, constructive

learning experiences that develop long-term I

feedba~k,

early investment in learning, and effective

skills in learning", the value of research

mentonng

strengths, and the revitalization

3.6:

Evaluate programs, courses, and instructors

curriculum.

' regularly, systematically, and appropriately for learning

I effectiveness.

Task Force on Teaching & learning: Final Report

• That students learn through a wide variety o(

pedagogies that expand the traditional

classroom experience

Graduate students' interrelated roles in research,

teaching & learning; & their work with

undergraduates

Support Students

• To understand expected learning outcomes

• To achieve their goals and potential

• To know the learning purposes &

opportunities (or each program, find

straightforward information

Teaching, research

& learning, recognizing the:

• Synergy between teaching & research

• Importance of the relationship between

teaching, learning, and research activities

Review curriculum

• To clearly define learning outcomes

• To incorporate discipline-specific pedagogies &

varied learning opportunities

Page 21

Table

A3: Recognizing, evaluating and rewarding teaching issues, related recommendations and alignment with the academic plan.

I. Teaching is undervalued: institutionally, teaching excellence and expertise 14: Increase awareness of policy provisions that address the

were insufficiently recognized, rewarded, celebrated and communicated.

' importance accorded

to teaching and learning, promote a

• SFU makes limited use of teaching expertise and successful support models consistent interpretation of policy provisions, and

that already exist within individual departments. Some instructors should

I implement further initiatives that value the teaching

pursue/would like formal professional development in

the fundamentals of mission of the University.

teaching and learning.

' 4.1: Tenure and Promotion Committees

(TPCs) should

• The pursuit of excellence in teaching is not reflected in policy decisions, or

evaluate teaching in a manner consistent with University

when

it is, practice is inconsistent with policy.

I' policy.

• Inadequate or inconsistent recognition or compensation for course or

4.2: A coherent system to evaluate teaching and learning

program development, team-teaching

or program coordination; publishing 'effectiveness should be developed.

in teaching

is not considered to be "research" for purposes of promotion or 4.3: Each unit must fulfill its obligations regarding the

, salary.

I definition of a normal teaching workload and the equitable

Inadequate recognition and reward for teaching reduces the incentive to

1 assignment of teaching responsibilities.

devote significant

effort to teaching.

4.4: Recognize teaching activities through the online CV

• Teaching is not evaluated in an adequate manner.

' system.

Experimentation and innovation in teaching may result in lower teaching

4•5:

Teaching and learning excellence and innovation,

evaluations; this

is particularly of concern in units where student evaluations. whether demonstrated by an individual or program, should

are

the main or only measure of teaching success.

' be publicly recognized with awards, special recognitions

• Methods used to evaluate teaching, plan workloads, determine promotion , and incentives.

and tenure, and support teaching require more attention.

4•6:

Teaching, learning, and scholarship should continue to

• Better support and more opportunities for development need to be made

respe~ted

and celebrated .across the University.

available

to instructors who are not tenure-track professors (e.g., teaching

4.7: The.lmportance of teaching and learning should be

faculty members, sessional instructors

TAs and TMs).

' emphaSized by example.

• To improve teaching and learning at

S~U,

top-level administrators must

' 4.8: Teaching as a profession should continue to be

make a commitment to make it a priority, and to take appropriate actions to 'I supported.

support instructors and students.

Recommendation

also addresses some of these issues.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

, Recognize excellence in

teaching

at the graduate &

undergraduate levels

: • Establish an award system

Teaching, research

& learning,

recognizing the:

• Synergy between teaching

& research

• Importance of the

relationship between

teaching, learning, and

research activities

Su pport instructors in

developing teaching skills

Page

Table

A4:

Teaching and learning support system issues, related recommendations and alignment with the academic plan.

• Currently, individuals and units with varying priorities and approaches are

5: Establish a new, highly-Integrated, coordinated and

providing limited support to instructors throughout the university.

extensive teaching and learning support system that

• Existing committees (I.e. SCUTL, LTCC, lOG) have limited functions,

fosters the exchange of ideas and promotion of teaching

representation and linkages.

between teachers within and between programs,

Although central and local support for teaching is available, we should offer more between teaching support staff from different venues in

extensive and better-organized support. Particular challenges:

the university, and between teachers and teaching

• Instructors have few opportunities or support for one.on-one consultation

I support staff.

with peers, peer mentors, or peer networks; there is little mentoring, and few

5.1:

Create a University Council on Teaching and

available specialists at SFU.

I Learning.

• Many faculty members do not participate in teaching and learning.related

5.2:

Create a Group of University Teaching Fellows.

activities provided by lIDC, such as working groups intended to address faculty

5.3:

Create a Network of Program Teaching Mentors.

members' needs; the implication being that these activities are not perceived

,5.4:

Create a Coordinated University Teaching & learning

by those faculty

to meet a sufficiently pressing need.

, Support Unit.

• A thorough needs-assessment of instructor requirements does not exist that is •

5.5:

Establish stronger links between administrators and

consistent with

an institutional vision for teaching and learning.

staff within the teaching and learning support system

• Support for faculty development has not been given sufficient priority.

and between members of the support unit and the

• There appears to be a discrepancy in teaching and learning support between

University Teaching Fellows.

what administrators and support providers believe

is being offered and what

5.6:

Incorporate the Institute for the Study of Teaching

instructors perceive

is available.

and learning In the Disciplines into the teaching and

:. Communication and collaboration between the Faculties and L1DC, other

learning support system.

support units, learning and instructional specialists, the Institute for the Study :

5.7:

P~ovide

formal mechanisms for

F~culty-based

of Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines could be significantly improved.

coordmators to connect to a communIty of colleagues

Staff may be at risk of becoming isolated, less engaged and less informed.

and other learning and instructional specialists.

• In some cases existing linkages across support units require better planning

I 5.8: Re-examine the role and purpose of the Senate

and coordination.

Committee on University Teaching and Learning (SCUTL)

• The ongoing implementation of a desirable diverse curriculum and variety of

in light of the overall teaching and learning support

learning experiences and teaching approaches will require additional teaching system.

support.

• More discipline-based, and locally offered support and opportunities to

collaborate with colleagues about teaching would be beneficial.

• It is important

ensure that sufficient well-functioning equipment, tools,

resources, as well as appropriate physical spaces and access to technological

innovations, are available to support teaching.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

I Collaboration & community

• Seek opportunities for multi-

/interdisciplinarity and

collaboration

across units

• Reduce silo culture, improve I

communication across all

areas

Build community & partnerships

Support instructors in

developing teaching skills

Employ effective, efficient

innovative approaches

• To teaching, learning,

research, service &

administration

• To ensure resource levels are

sufficient

& well managed

Anticipate and respond

• To higher education

demands (i.e. relevance,

"skills")

• To program & instructor

needs

Page 23

SFU

Appendix B: Task Force on Teaching & Learning and Working

Groups

This document provides supporting details for the Introduction section of the Task Force's draft recommendations

report.

Task Force on Teaching and Learning

In June 2008, as part of the University's commitment to developing our strategic goals in the areas of teaching and

learning,

the Associate VP, Academic established a Task Force on Teaching and learning. The Task Force was

charged

with obtaining input about teaching and learning at SFU and making recommendations about how it can

be enhanced.

• Task Force's Public Site: http://www.sfu.ca/tftl

• Email forcommentsandqueries:teachinglearning-tf@sfu.ca

• Maillist to join for news updates: teachlearntf-news (instructions on our website)

Membership

Associate VP, Academic (Chair) - Bill Krane

6 faculty representatives (one

from each Faculty)

•

FAS - Chantal Gibson (resigned February 2009)

•

FASS - Dennis Krebs

•

FBA - Maureen Fizzell/ Colleen Collins

•

FOE - Michelle Nilson

FHS - Nicole Berry

•

FSC - Petra Menz

Dean, Graduate Studies (or designate) - George Agnes / Wade Parkhouse

Chair, SCUTl (or designate) - Stephen Spector (FBA as well)

Director, LlDC (or designate) - Bill Glackman

Director,

Institute for the Study of Teaching and learning in the DisCiplines - Cheryl Amundsen

Director, University

Curriculum (or designate) - Sarah Dench

University librarian (or designate) -

lynn Copeland

Dean, Continuing Studies (or designate) - Joan Collinge

Senior Director, Student learning and Retention - Nancy Johnston

Chief Information Officer (or designate) - Frances Atkinson

Undergraduate Student

Rep - Reema Jayakar from Fall 2008 (Kevin Harding for Summer 2008)

Graduate Student Rep -lorna Boschman

Support for the Task Force

Stephanie Chu - Special Projects Advisor to the Associate VP, Academic

Gwen

English - Executive Secretary to the Associate VP, Academic

Annique Boelryk,

Chris Groeneboer & Maria Davis - Research Assistants

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 24

Working Groups

This is a point-in-time document: After the Community Participatory Events, four working groups were formed to

examine key issues. The groups' proposed foci, membership and terms of reference follow. This document was

developed at the start and refined partway through the Working Group phase. It was released when details from

all groups were received, as they differed in their process and progression. The intent was to document proposed

ideas and directions

and to inform the university community.

the groups worked more closely with issues, some

directions and outcomes were amended accordingly

and as reflected in the Task Force's Draft Recommendations

document.

1. Student learning

George Agnes (chair), Sarah Dench, Nancy Johnston, Reema Jayakar, Elaine Fairey, Candy Ho, Malgorzata Dubiel,

Trina

Isakson, Janet McCracken

1. Define an attribute set that all SFU graduates should possess.

2. Identify what the University (curriculum, content

delivery, within

outside classroom, learning support)

offers now,

and needs, that leads to these outcomes.

3. Research strategies, old and innovative, that will result in SFU curriculum evolution with respect to these

attributes, and identify

how to implement processes to improve learning, and who is involved.

11. Teaching evaluation, rewards, expectations

obligations

Michelle Nilson (co-chair), Nicole Berry (co-chair), Stephen Spector, Russell Day, Tom Grieve, Petra Menz, Alistair

Lachlan,

Paul Budra, Michael Monagan

1. Determine if there is an improved system for student evaluation of teaching that could serve across campuses,

informed

by the current SCUTL report, and make recommendations accordingly

2. Research the approaches that various units across campus and other universities are implementing to

recognize and improve teaching practices among individual faculty members

3. Recommend standardized mechanism for review and reporting of all teaching which could include

documentation for a teaching portfolio

that could be implemented campus wide or an arm's length third party

assessment system

4. Identify particular mechanisms through which the evaluation of teaching and learning, both campus wide and

at the individual department/faculty level,

can be strengthened

S. Identify particular mechanisms, both campus wide and at the individual department/faculty level, to

strengthen the reward for excellent teaching

6. Recommend a comprehensive system to improve the evaluation and reward of all teaching activities

7. looking forward, identify and suggest long-term, step-wise processes to strengthen the evaluation of overall

departmental/faculty curricula based on student learning outcomes

111. Coordination

representation

Cheryl Amundsen (co-chair), Dennis Krebs (co-chair), Bill Glackman, Frances Atkinson, Annique Boelryk, Gerald

Thomas, Danielle Deveau, Adrienne Burk,

Chris Groeneboer, Sophie Lavieri, Stephanie Chu (roamer)

Recommendations on the following issues:

What kind of structure or system is best equipped to ensure that initiatives to improve the quality of teaching

and learning at

SFU are developed and supported on an ongoing basis?

Task Force on Teaching & learning: Final Report

Page 2S

.SFU

2. What is the best way of integrating central and discipline-based/local support for teaching and learning in the

context

of existing institutional structures?

3. What implications for effective forms of instruction and teaching and learning methods do changes in student

populations, budgetary constraints, digital media, and academic initiatives have,

and how can we best

accommodate them?

4. How

can we most effectively improve the instructional/learning processes and environment at SFU (e.g.

spaces, tools, equipment)?

5. How can we ensure that curricula are appropriately revised and evaluated on an ongoing basis?

6. What are the best ways to evaluate the extent to which existing supports and services

for

teaching and.

learning are meeting instructor needs and institutional goals, in the short and long term?

IV. Community & policy

Stephanie Chu (chair), Joan Collinge, John Moore, Lynn Copeland, Karen Marotz, Lorna Boschman, Steve Whitmore

(up

to March 31)

1. Review the detailed information gathering document created for this working group to extract ideas relevant

to the working group's activities.

2. Liaise with the three other working groups to identify and align policy and community recommendations.

3. Examine select examples from comparable other institutions and at SFU for best practices in celebrating and

communicating the importance of teaching and learning.

4. Prioritize key areas for changes to communications, valuing, expectations, and showcasing teaching and

learning at SFU.

S. Identify and review existing policies related to teaching and learning and make change recommendations

where appropriate.

6. Prioritize key areas for policy and procedural changes, and identify potential challenges with policy changes

and implementation.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 26

Appendix C: Documents Reviewed, Referenced & Future Use

The following lists key SFU documents reviewed by the Teaching and learning Task Force, references cited in the

discussion document

and resources.

SFU Internal Documents (Cited or Reviewed)

Excludes the numerous documents created by task force members for internal

working group use, informal

documents and websites for departments,

Faculties and units.

Amundsen, C. & Fettes, M. (n.d).

Executive version. Proposal for schedule B institute: The Institute for the Study

of Teaching

Learning In the Disciplines.

2. Board of Governors & Office of the President (2007).

Institutional accountability plan

report: 2007/08-

2009/10.

Retrieved August 24, 200S from http://www.sfu.ca/pres/files/IAP 0708 to 09l0.pdf

3. Centre for Online & Distance Education (200S).

CODE 2008 Information for Teaching

Learning Task Force.

4. Chu, S.T.l. & Severson, A. (200S). A

richer multifaceted learning experience: Using available SFU teaching

resources

(vs.O).

s. Harris, G. (2009).

Report on focus group discussions

[academic planningj. Retrieved May 24,2009 from

http://www.sfu.ca/vpacadem iclfiles/FocusG rou pReport May09.pdf

Institutional Research & Planning (n.d).

Classroom utilization analysis.

Multiple documents from 2003-2009.

Retrieved June 2S, 200S from http://www.sfu.ca/irp/space/ClassUtilization/index.html

7. Institutional Research

Planning (n.d).

SFU undergraduate student survey

(multiple documents, 1998 - 2008).

Retrieved August 22, 2008 from http://www.sfu.ca/irp/surveys/ugss/index.html

8. Library

(2008).

Services to Faculty.

Retrieved July 2S from

http://www.lib.sfu.ca/about/services/servfaculty.htm#teaching

9. learning

Instructional Development Centre (2005). LlDC

strategic plan: july

2005

June

3D,

2008.

Retrieved July 26, 2008 from http://www.lidc.sfu.ca/uploads/page/22/L1DCStrategicPlan.pdf

10. learning & Instructional Development Centre, Media Design (200S).

Media Design report.

11. Learning & Instructional Development Centre, Educational Support & Innovation (2008).

Educational

development services.

12. learning Technologies Coordinating Committee (2004).

Report of the L Tee:

strategy

functional structure to

support teaching

learning.

Retrieved June 2S, 200S from

http://www.sfu.ca/vpacademiclfil

es/l TCCre portJ un2s-04.pdf

13.

Office of the President (n.d.). [SFUj

Values and commitments.

Retrieved June 2S, 2008 from

http://www.sfu.ca/pres/vandc.html

14.

Office of the President (2005).

President's agenda.

Retrieved July 26, 200S from

http://www.stu.ca/pres/president/agenda200s-2009.htm

15.

Office of the President (2001).

President's agenda: SFU at 40.

Retrieved July 26, 2008 from

http:Uwww.sfu.ca/pres/president/agenda.html

16.

Office of the VP, Academic (2009). SFU

academic Vision, outcomes and goals.

Retrieved June 2, 2009 from

http:Uwww.sfu.ca/vpacademiclfiles/AcadVisOutcomes

VPAGoals June2009.pdf

17. Office of the VP, Academic (2009).

Three year academic planning timeline for 2009.

Retrieved May 24, 2009

from http:Uwww.sfu.ca/vpacademic!filesmmeline 28May 2009.pdf

18. Office of the VP, Academic (2009).

SFU academic vision, outcomes and goals.

Presentation to the academic

community May

21,2009. Retrieved June 2,2009 from

http:Uwww.sfu.ca/vpacademiclfilesOhreeyrpla n slides 3.pptx

19.

Office of the VP, Academic (2008).

LIDe External Review: Summary.

Retrieved June 2S, 200S from

http://www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/files/LIDC ExtRevSum.pdf

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 27

SFU

20. Office of the VP, Academic (2008).

Summary LlDC response

external review.

Retrieved June 28,2008 from:

http://www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/files/LlDC

RespSum .pdf

21. Office of the VP, Academic (2008).

Academic information report.

Retrieved June 28, 2008 from

http://www.sfu.ca/irp/departments/documents/sfu tables.pdf

22. Office

of the VP, Academic (2007).

Three year academic plan: 2007-2010.

Retrieved July 17, 2008 from

http://www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/AcademicPlanning/AcademicPlans/CurrentThreeYearPlans.html

23. Office of the VP, Research (2005). Strategic research plan: 2005-1010. Retrieved July 26,2008 from

http://www.sfu.ca/vpresearch/srp final.pdf

24. Senate

Committee on University Teaching & Learning (2008).

Evaluating how

evaluate: Examining SFU's

course and instructor evaluation system.

25. Student learning Commons (2008).

Faculty Q&A.

Retrieved July 28 from

http://learningcommons.sfu.ca/services!infoforfaculty.htm

26. Student Learning Commons (2008).

Student Learning Commons projects

reports.

Retrieved July 28 from

http://learningcommons.sfu.ca/services/about!projectsreports.htm

27.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning (2009). Interim report. Retrieved January 20,2009 from

http://www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/filesaeachingLearningTF-Jan2009-InterimReport-Final.pdf

28. Undergraduate Curriculum Implementation Task Force

(2006). Final report & recommendations.

29. Undergraduate

Curriculum Implementation Task Force

Writing, Quantitative

Breadth Support Groups

(2004). New directions for the Undergraduate Curriculum: A discussion paper on the implementation of

university-wide writing, quantitative, and breadth requirements.

Available http://www.sfu.ca/ugcr

30. Various authors (2006). Three year academic plan: 2007-2010 for Faculty of Applied Science, Faculty of

Education, Faculty of Business Administration, Faculty of Science, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Faculty of

Health Sciences, Continuing Studies and Graduate Studies. Retrieved July 24, 2008 from

http://www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/AcademicPlanning/AcademicPlans/CurrentThreeYearPlans.html

Cited References

Astin, A. W. (1993) What matters in college?

Liberal Education,

79,4, pp. 4-16. Academic Source Elite.

Boyer Commission (1996)

Re-Inventing Undergraduate Education: A

Blueprint for America's Research Universities.

The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University.

Gardner,

J. N. (2001). Focusing on the first-year student.

Priorities,

17. ERIC.

Keeling, R.P. (ed.) (2004)

Learning Reconsidered: A Campus-Wide Focus on the Student Experience.

National

Association

of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and American College Student Personnel Association

(ACPA).

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE.

Change,

35 (2). Retrieved from

Academic Search Elite January 31,2006.

Marton, F., Booth, S. (1997).

Learning and Awareness.

Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moore,

W.S. (2001). Understanding Learning in a Postmodern World: Reconsidering the Perry Scheme of

Intellectual and Ethical Development. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (eds.),

Personal epistemology: the psychology oj

beliefs about knowledge and knowing.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ontario

Council of Academic Vice-President's (OCAV) (2005). University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations

Guidelines, Retrieved January

31,2009 from http://www.cou.on.ca/ bin!publications!onlinePublications.cfm

Perry, William G., Jr. (1970),

Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the Col/ege Years:

Scheme.

New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Tinto,

V. (2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next?

Journal of Col/ege Student Retention:

Research, Theory and Practice, 8(1).

Task Force on Teaching

learning: Final Report

Page 28

SFU

External

Sources

Excludes websites, informal documents, and consultation with external colleagues.

Amundsen,

c.,

Abrami, P., McAlpine, l, Weston, C., Krbavac, M., Mundy, A., Wilson, M. (2005). The what and why

of faculty development in higher education: An in-depth review of the literature. Paper presented at American

Educational Research Association, Montreal, QU.

Athey,

S.,

& Hoffman, K.D. (2007). The master teacher initiative: A framework for faculty development.

Marketing

Education Review,

17(3), 1-9.

Baron, l. (2006). The advantage of a reciprocal relationship between faculty development organizational

development in higher education.

In: S. Chadwick-Blossey, & D.R. Robertson (Eds.).

To Improve the Academy,

24.

Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 29-43.

Boud, D. (1999).

Situating academic development in professional work: Using peer learning.

International Journal

of Academic Development,

4(1),

3-10.

Caffarella, R.S., & Zinn, l.F. (1999). Professional development for faculty: A conceptual framework of barriers and

supports.

Innovative Higher Education,

23(4), 241-254.

Carlson,-Dakes,

c.,

& Pawley, A. (2006). Expeditionary learning: A low-risk, low-cost, high-impact professional

development model.

In: S. Chadwick-Blossey, & D.R. Robertson (Eds.).

To Improve the Academy,

24.

Bolton,

MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 259-276.

Chism, N.V.N, lees, N.D., & Evenbeck, S. (2002). Faculty development for teaching innovation.

Liberal Education,

88(3), 34-41.

Chism, N. V. N., (2004). Playing well with others: Academic development as a team sport. In C.M. Wehlburg &

Chadwick-Blossey,

(Ed.),

To improve the academy,

22, 226-236.

Chism, N.V.N. (2006, March). Overview of organizational development. Presentation to the National Conference on

Professional and Organizational Development, Thai Ministry

of Education, Bangkok, Thailand.

Chism, N. (2004). Using a framework to engage faculty in instructional technologies.

Educause Quarterly,

39-45.

Cordero de Figueroa, N. & Sandin-Fremaint, R.A. (2002). Getting started with faculty development. In D. Lieberman

Wehlburg (Eds.)

To Improve the Academy, 20, 65-76.

Dawson,

T. (2004). UTSC guidelines for the assessment of teaching effectiveness in tenure, promotion to senior

lecturer and promotion to full professor decisions: A companion paper. Teaching

Learning Services,

Scarborough

College.

Diamond, R.M. (2005). The institutional change agency: The expanding role of academic support centers. In: S.

Chadwick-Blossey

D.R. Roberston (Eds.). To Improve the Academy, 23, 24-37.

Devlin, M. (2006). Solution-focused work in individual academic development.

International Journal Jor Academic

Development

11(2),

pp.101-110.

Devlin, M. (2003). A solution-focused model for improving individual university teaching.

International Journal for

Academic Development

8(1/2), 77-89.

Eckel,

P.O. (2002). Institutional transformation and change: Insights for faculty developers. In D.Lieberman &

Wehlburg (Eds.) To

Improve the Academy, 20,65-76.

Eggins, H.,

& Macdonald, R. (Eds.) (2003).

The scholarship oj academic development.

Buckingham, UK: The Society

for Research into Higher Education and open University Press.

Elen,

J.,

lindblom-Ylanne, S., Clement, M. (2007). Faculty development in research-intensive universities: The role

of academics' conceptions on the relationship between research and teaching.

International Journal Jor Academic Development,

12(2), 123-139.

Elvidge,

l. (Ed.) (2003).

Exploring academic development in higher education: Issues oj engagement.

Cambridge,

UK:

Jill

Rogers Associates ltd.

Fang, B. (2007). A performance-based development model for online faculty.

Performance Improvement, 46(5),

17-24.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning; Final Report

Page 29

SFU

Frantz, A.C., Beebe, SA, Horvath, V.S., Canales, J., Swee, D.E.

(2005).

The roles of teaching and learning centers. In:

S. Chadwick-Blossey & D.R. Robertson (Eds.1

To Improve the Academy,

23,

72-90.

Gillespie, K. H. (Ed.).

(2002).

Guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources.

Bolton, MA:

Anker

Publishing Company.

Gosling, D.

(2001).

Educational development units in the UK: What are they doing five years on?

International

Journal

for Academic Development,

6(1), 74-90.

Grace, S., Smith, B., Bradford, M., & Elvidege,

L. (2003).

MaXimising the synergy: disciplinary and generic

approaches in academic staff development. In: L. Elvidge (Ed.),

Exploring academic development in higher

education: Issues of engagement

(pp.

98-111).

Cambridge, UK:

Jill

Rogers Associates ltd.

Gray, K., & Radloff, A.

(2006).

Quality management of academic development work: Implementation issues and

challenges.

International Journal

for Academic Development,

11(2),

79-90.

Hall, R., Harding, D., & Ramsden, C.

(2001).

Priming institutional change through effective project management: A

case study of the Chic project.

The International Journal for Academic Development,

6(2), 152-16l.

Hativa, N.

(1995).

The department-wide approach to improving faculty instruction in higher education: A

qualitative evaluation.

Research in Higher Education,

36(4), 377-413.

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A.

(2003).

Discipline-based educational development. In: H. Eggins & R. Macdonald (Eds.),

The scholarship of academic development

(pp.

47-57).

Buckingham, UK: Society for Research in Higher

Education and

Open University Press

Ho, A.

(2000).

A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model for programme design.

International

Journal

for Academic Development,

5(1), 30-41.

IDEA. (n.d.).

Overview of student ratings: Value and limitations:

IDEA Center, Kansas State University.

Kalivoda,

P., & Broder,

J.,

& Jackson, W.K.

(2003).

Establishing a teaching academy: cultivation of teaching at a

research university campus.

To Improve the Academy,

21, 79-92.

Knight, P.T., & Trowler, P.R.

(2000).

Department-level cultures and the improvement of learning and teaching.

Studies

Higher Education,

25(1). 69-83.

Land, R.

(2001).

Agency, context and change in academic development.

International Journal for Academic

Development,

6, 4-20.

Langley, D., O'Connor, T.W., & Welkner, M.M.

(2004).

A transformative model for designing professional

development activities.

To Improve the Academy,

22, 145-155.

Lieberman, D., & Guskin, D. (2003). The essential role of faculty development in new higher education models.

Improve the Academy,

21, 257-272.

Lieberman, D.

(2005).

Beyond faculty development: How centers for teaching and learning can be laboratories for

learning. In:

New Directions for Higher Education,

131, 87-98.

lueddeke, G.R.

(1997).

Preparing academics for teaching in higher education: Towards an institutional model of

professional practice.

Ref/ections on Higher Education,

51-75.

Lueddeke, G.

(1997).

Educational development units in higher education: Much ado about something?

Quality in

Higher Education,

3(2),

155-17l.

McAlpine,

L.,

& Winer, L.

(2002).

Sustainable faculty development: An Indonesian case study.

Innovations in

Education and Teaching International,

39(3),

205-216.

McAlpine,

L.,

& Saroyan, A.

(2004).

Toward a comprehensive framework of faculty development. In: A. Saroyan, &

C. Amundsen (Eds.).

Rethinking teaching in higher education: From a course design workshop

a faculty

development framework.

Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing Inc.

Quinlan, K.M., & Akerlind, G.S.

(2000).

Factors affecting departmental peer collaboration for faculty development:

Two

cases in context.

Higher Education, 40, 23-52.

Ramsden,

(2003).

Chapter

12:

What does it take to improve university teaching?ln: P. Ramsden.

Learning

teach in higher education (2nd ed).

New York: RoutiedgeFalmer.

Rice,

R.E.

(2007).

It all started in the sixties: Movements fro change across the decades-A personal journey. In D.R.

Robertson, & l.B. Nilson (Eds.l. To improve the academy,

25, 3-17.

Task Force on Teaching & Learning: Final Report

Page 30

Sorcinelli, M.D. (2002). Ten principles of good practice in creating and sustaining teaching and learning centres. In:

K.H. Gillespie.

Guide

faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources

(pp. 9-23). Bolton, MA:

Anker Publishing Company.

Sorci nelli, M.D., Austin, A.E., Eddy, P .L.,

Beach A.L. (2006).

Creating the future of faculty development: Learning

from the past, understanding the present.

Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Co. Inc.

Stanley, C.A. (2004). Faculty professional development for the 21st century. In: J.e. Smart (Ed.)

Higher Education:

Handbook

of Theory and Research,

19, 441-480.

Steinert,

V.,

& Mann,

K.V.

(2006). Faculty development: Principles and practices.

Journal of Veterinary Medical

Education,

33(3),317-324.

Stevenson,

C.D., Duran, R.l., Barrett, K.A., & Cola rulli, G.C. (2005). Fostering faculty collaboration in learning

communities: A developmental approach.

Innovative Higher Education 30(1), 23-36.

Stigmar, M. (2008). Faculty development through an educational action programme.

Higher Education Research &

Development,

27 (2), 107-120.

Taylor, K.L., & Schonwetter, D.J. (2002). Academic development as institutional leadership: A framework for

meeting new challenges. In A. Goody,

Herrington, & M. Northcote {Eds.}.

Research and Development in

Higher Education,

25:

Quality Conversations,

647-654. ACT, Australia: Higher Education Research and

Development Society

of Australasia.

Taylor,

K.L. (2005). Academic development as institutional leadership: An interplay of person, role, strategy, and

institution.

International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 31-46.

Tiberius, R.G. (2002). A brief history of educational development: Implications for teachers and developers. In D.

Lieberman & C. Wehlburg (Eds.) To Improve the Academy, 20, 65-76.

Trigwell,

K. (2003). A relational model for academic development. In: H. Eggins, & R. Macdonald (Eds.).

The

scholarship of academic development.

Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Notable Documents for Future Use

In addition to the above.

Academic Board Resolutions: The Management and Evaluation of Coursework Teaching

http:/Lwww.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/P&P/usyd coursework.pdf

•

Guidelines for Good Practice in Teaching

Learning

http:/Lwww.usyd.edu.au/ab/policies/Good Prac T&L.pdf

•

http:/Lwww2.nea.org/he/heta9S/images/f9SpgS.pdf

•

Washington State University- critical thinking project (in the disciplines): http://wsuctproject.wsu.edu/fa.htm

Weinberg, B. A., Fleisher, B. M., & Hashimoto, M. (2007). Evaluating methods for evaluating instruction: The

case

of higher education (Working paper No. 12844).

York University teaching award: http://www.yorku.ca/secretariat/senate/committees/scotl/UWT AFiles2008-

09/UWTACriteria2009.pdf

Task Force on Teaching

learning: Final Report

Page 31

I. Introduction

Task Force on Teaching and Learning:

Recommendations

to the VP, Academic

January 31, 2010 (Revised)

In June

2008,

as part of the University's commitment to advance its strategic goals in the area of teaching and

learning and in response to the LlDe's external review, the Associate VP, Academic established a Task Force on

Teaching and Learning

(TFTL). The Task Force was charged with making recommendations aimed at supporting

quality teaching and learning at SFU. Early in the committee's process, it became apparent that its scope needed to

encompass many institutional dimensions related to teaching and learning.

Fall

2008

the Task Force gathered information about teaching and learning, by reviewing a large set of existing

SFU and other documents (including the LlDC external review and SCUTL's report on student course evaluations)

and by surveying or interviewing more than

300

members of the SFU community. In an interim report published in

January

2009,

the Task Force outlined the main issues that arose from the information gathering processes and

sought feedback about those issues in

four participatory community events. During these events, volunteers for

four working groups were solicited, to examine more closely the issues that had emerged as most important.

Namely these

issues related to (1) teaching evaluation and rewards, (2) the coordination of teaching support, (3)

student learning, and (4) community and policy. After receiving the university community's feedback on a set of

draft recommendations and an initial summary to the VPA, the TFTL's final report and accompanying FAQ are

complete. This revised document

outlines final recommendations for consideration by the VP, Academic.

II. Identified Issues, Proposed Solutions and Recommendations

Teaching and learning are complex activities that require integrated support at many levels. The recommendations

presented here are broad, and

although presented individually, many issues overlap. If accepted, they will require

refinement and elaboration during the process

of implementation.

1. Vision, Principles and Directions

Issues and Proposed Solutions: The SFU community would benefit from a more explicit statement of principles

that guide teaching and learning processes. SFU does not have an articulated statement of its vision and principles

for teaching and learning that is related to an academic plan. This makes it difficult to identify strategic directions,

to organize support in effective ways, and to work towards a shared vision.

In response to this need, the Task Force drafted an initial set of principles (below) to consider for implementation

at the institutional level, recognizing that outcomes may assume different forms in different disciplines.

Recommendation #1: Establish and communicate a vision statement and principles to provide direction and

common purpose around teaching and

learning at SFU.

The vision statement and principles below are in accord with principles in the

2010 - 2013

academic planning

vision that prescribe that SFU should (1) enable students to define and reach their goals, (2) deliver high quality

teaching, learning and research, (3) employ innovative approaches, and (4) create an intellectually stimulating and

culturally vibrant environment. Though a sub-recommendation on institutional standards is made below, details of

this vision still require definition. Subsequent sections of this document may help prepare the way, along with

consultation with the university community.

, 1 \1

1 11 \ 'I " I "I \ I II, I I \

T M N

I N G 0

7" E W:>!1 L 0

Draft Vision and Principles

Simon Fraser University creates, values, and supports diverse, meaningful learning experiences. Teaching and

learning are central

to our culture and practice. We support, develop, and reward effective teaching and learning.

1. Teaching and research are central to the University's mission; both are valued and rewarded as important

scholarly activities.

2. Teaching and learning are viSible, celebrated and showcased.

3. Our students have access to rich learning experiences and benefit from the relations among research,

teaching, and learning.

4. We engage in inquiry about teaching, and support pedagogical innovation to enhance our practices and

student learning.

S. Our teaching is continually evaluated to promote and ensure the highest quality of teaching and learning.

1.1. Ensure

that appropriate learning and teaching-related standards are articulated Institutionally and in all

units.

This necessitates involvement by Faculties, departments, instructors and other stakeholders. To recognize

and value teaching and learning requires a clear definition and criteria

to determine its level of "success". The

University is foremost a "Iearning enterprise" and just as it sets quality standards for research activities, it

should do so for the process and outcomes of teaching and student learning within the operation of program

and courses, and at the student recruitment

and public relations level.

2. Communication and Community

Issues and Proposed Solutions: Respondents to the Task Force's surveys and interviews frequently mentioned that

sense of community around teaching and learning occurs only in pockets at SFU rather than more broadly across

the University. There also appears to be limited awareness among both instructors and their support providers of

successful teaching and learning initiatives and the existence of support for teaching and learning in areas other

than those with which they arc directly associated.

SFU could more fully showcase, share and celebrate excellent

teaching and learning experiences. There

is not a communication channel to reach all teaching and learning

stakeholders

and there are some challenges with recognizing that many roles (instructors, students and staff) are

integral in discussions

and decision-making about teaching and learning. Lastly, some SFU community members

have encountered institutional obstacles and

ad hoc practices that impede and discourage their

efforts

to be good

teachers.

SFU has many teaching and learning successes, services and forms of support at its three campuses. Recognizing,

celebrating and communicating

our assets enables the university community to benefit from in-house expertise

and

to develop a stronger culture around teaching and learning. Although cultural change takes time and is

dependent on institutional changes in multiple areas, an initiative aimed at improving communication could begin

to foster a stronger university community around teaching and learning.

Recommendation #2: Develop and implement a phased institutional plan

to raise awareness of the broad range

of SFU teaching and learning successes, services and support for teaching and learning and to ensure that they

are recognized, used, and celebrated

In all three campuses In an appropriate manner.

I \\ ( I" I II \

I II I "I Y! II, I I ,

Ii , N K t N GO;' 7 HEll/

a ;,

L 0

SFU

3. Expectations about the Learning Experience

Issues and Proposed Solutions: It would be beneficial to make expectations about learning clearer, particularly at

the institutional

level. Respondents who provided feedback to the Task Force reported several challenges. The

most frequent were:

•

Absence of clearly-stated expectations for learning or learning processes.

• Inadequate encouragement and opportunity for instructors to experiment with new teaching practices, to

learn about successful practices, and to engage in interdisciplinary activities.

•

Inconsistencies across programs in opportunities for students to benefit from the relationships between

teaching, learning, and research.

•

Inadequate formal recognition of experiential learning as an appropriate way to meet degree requirements.

•

Inadequate formal recognition of learning that extends beyond the classroom (co-op, field school, etc.)

•

Inadequate emphasis on aspects of the VPA's vision and proposed outcomes pertaining to the value of "a wide

variety

of learning experiences that develop long-term skills in learning", the value of research strengths, and

the revitalization of curriculum.

The recent

SFU academic vision emphasizes the value of ethical, responsible and informed citizenship, and

definition

of program outcomes by academic units. To aid this process, identifying expectations around learning

and the valued qualities

of all SFU graduates would be helpful. This would entail a range of interconnected learning

expectations from general, high-level institutional, to discipline-specific program-level.

Recommendation #3: Expand student-centered approaches

to teaching within a process of ongoing

improvement.

The

following sub-recommendations should be regarded as a starting point.

3.1

Identify and promote a set of attributes that every SFU graduate should possess or be able to demonstrate.

Building upon the 2006 Ontario Council

of Academic Vice-Presidents guidelines regarding University

Undergraduate Degree level Expectations, the

Task Force envisions an ideal set of attributes that all students

(undergraduate

and graduate), completing a degree at SFU would acquire by graduation. SpeCific criteria

would pertain to:

(1) depth and breadth of knowledge, (2) knowledge of methodologies, (3) application of

knowledge, (4) communication skills, (5) awareness of limits of knowledge, and (6) autonomy and professional

capacity. Additional attributes would be established

for speCific disciplines and for completing graduate

degrees.

3.2 Ensure a student-centered focus

in the curriculum (1) by identifying learning expectations across all levels of

the curriculum (In class and out of class) with consideration of the more general SFU graduate attributes, (2)

by ensuring

that the curriculum is well structured from the perspective of developing learning and (3) by

providing

clearly stated information about expectations and responsibilities of instructors and students in

syllabi

for all courses.

Details

of this recommendation suggest (1) identifying program learning expectations well in advance of

course registration, (2) ensuring that appropriate policies and practices pertaining to curriculum review are in

place,

(3) developing processes that provide instructors with opportunities to learning new instructional

strategies, and

(4) developing strategies to encourage the exploration of new learning experiences and ways

for students to advance through their program of study. This student-centered focus would also include clear

learning goals for graduate students within their disciplines.

3.3 Determine mechanisms to develop, recognize, and integrate more research, experiential, and international

learning opportunities

into the formal curriculum and recognize these with integral academic credit.

The recently proposed academic vision recognizes the important interplay among research, teaching and

learning, and emphasizes the value of a variety of learning experiences. This recommendation encourages SFU

to explore the feasibility of integrating peer-mentored learning opportunities and an explicit research

requirement

across undergraduate degree programs (in addition to existing honors programs). The sub-

recommendation would enable SFU to investigate: (1) the value of a competitive-admission undergraduate

research program with the objective

of producing a sustainable and internationally recognized undergraduate

rest:!arch training environment, (2) processes that allow a unit to designate a percentage or number of

experiential (E) or international (I) opportunities toward minimum degree completion requirements and, (3)

mechanisms for quality assurance and regular review of E or I opportunities. Recognizing that graduate

students

are teachers, researchers, and students, attention would be placed on the development and

interrelation

of these multiple roles.

3.4 Support the piloting

of alternative approaches to interdisciplinary, theme-based, and peer-supported

learning opportunities, such

as peer-group learning, clustered curriculum groupings across departments on

topical

issues, team-teaching approaches, first year experiences, mentoring of undergraduates by graduate

students, and semester cohort groups.

Activities related

to this sub-recommendation include (1) raising the profile of existing projects, (2) creating

new opportunities for students and faculty members

to engage in interdisciplinary research and teaching, (3)

explore sustainable, supplemental instruction

for courses having historically difficult content (e.g.

opportunities for 'no-instructor present' group learning), (4) advertise existing successes in interdisciplinary

teaching,

and facilitate new initiatives, and (5) regularly, and critically review all extra-curricular programming

(e.g. work study). If this sub-recommendation were implemented, it would help "expose students to different

perspectives

and complex, real world issues throughout their program" as articulated in the academic vision.

3.5 Review existing curricula and learning opportunities

to identify, expand, develop, and celebrate those

features

that facilitate student engagement, constructive feedback, early Investment in learning, and

effective mentoring.

In accordance with this sub-recommendation, many features of the extant teaching and learning environment

such as experiential learning opportunities (e.g., Co-operative education, Peer Educators Program, LEAD

program), foundational academic preparation courses, and technological and e-Iearning pedagogies, should be

made more visible

and further incorporated in the curriculum. Furthermore, these features should be

celebrated and promoted and regularly reviewed, adapted, and refined to facilitate student engagement and

sustainable mentoring platforms.

3.6 Evaluate programs, courses, and instructors regularly, systematically, and appropriately

for learning

effectiveness.

This would be undertaken by all academic units at the program and course levels.

4. Recognizing, Evaluating and Rewarding Teaching

Issues and Proposed Solutions: Respondents to the Task Force's surveys and interviews opined that teaching is

undervalued. Key institutional level concerns that were expressed include:

•

Teaching excellence and expertise were insufficiently recognized, rewarded, celebrated, and communicated.

Until

changes are made in these areas, available teaching supports will not be used to their full potential.

•

Currently, SFU makes limited use of teaching expertise and successful support models that already exist within

individual departments.

'I :\\ ()' I H.\' I \: 1 'I \ I

1/,

ii' .. " N K , N G 0

:",. W

R L 0

SFU

•

Effective teaching is a complex endeavor that involves skills in planning, motivation, observation and analysis,

assessment, persistence, diplomacy, management, and creating engaging

lessons out of "content." Some

experienced and novice teachers have little or no exposure to the fundamentals of teaching and learning as a

profession.

Being a content expert is necessary but not necessarily sufficient to providing excellent teaching.

These faculty members would have appreciated the availability

of a program offered at SFU, general and

discipline-specific fundamentals, institutional and departmental support, and a positive community in which to

participate.

Specific departmental level concerns about the recognition, evaluation, and reward

for teaching included:

•

The pursuit of excellence in teaching is not reflected in policy decisions, or when it is, practice is inconsistent

with policy.

• There is inadequate or inconsistent recognition or compensation for course or program development, team-

teaching or program coordination; publishing in teaching is not considered to be "research" for purposes of

promotion or salary.

•

Inadequate recognition and reward for teaching reduces the incentive to devote significant effort to teaching.

•

Teaching is not evaluated in an adequate manner.

•

Experimentation and innovation in teaching may result in lower teaching evaluations; this is particularly of

concern in units where student evaluations are the main or only measure of teaching success.

• Methods used to evaluate teaching, plan workloads, determine promotion and tenure, and support teaching

require more attention.

•

Better support and more opportunities for development need to be made available to instructors who are not

tenure-track professors (e.g., teaching faculty members, sessional instructors,

TAs and TMs).

• To improve teaching and learning at SFU, top-level administrators must make a commitment to make it a

priority,

and to take appropriate actions to support instructors and students.

The findings of the Task Force echo the 2008 Senate Committee on University Teaching & Learning's (SCUll)

report, which describes issues with teaching evaluations. Although comprehensive SFU data are lacking, it is

apparent that the results of student course evaluations are the primary measure of teaching effectiveness at SFU.

Program curricular reviews could provide additional evidence, but customarily, these reviews focus on course

content

and learning outcomes and not on teaching effectiveness within the program. The following

recommendations

are aimed at reinforCing the value attached to teaching at SFU.

Recommendation

"4:

Increase awareness of policy provisions that address the importance accorded to teaching

and learning, promote a consistent interpretation

of policy provisions, and implement further Initiatives that

value the teaching mission of the University.

4.1 Tenure and Promotion

Committees (TPCs) should evaluate teaching In a manner consistent with University

policy.

TPCs are mandated by negotiated policies to ensure that: "At a minimum, satisfactory performance in both

teaching effectiveness and scholarly effectiveness must

be demonstrated. less than satisfactory performance

in either will not meet the expectations

of the University" (All.OS). Faculty members must be assessed in

three categories

of performance: teaching, research, and service. Evaluation criteria and standards should be

documented by departments, clearly communicated to faculty members, and consistently applied. Separate

evaluations of teaching, research, and service are required

for each individual. Merit awards should be based

on appropriate weightings of these components of workload. Generally, demonstrably good teaching should

be rewarded on par with demonstrably good research. For promotion and tenure, faculty members and other

instructors should

be required to provide substantial evidence of instructional competency.

NKING 0:- THE WORLO

SFU

4.2 A coherent system to evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness should be developed.

In addition to developing and offering new course and instructor evaluation forms, and providing related

support for instructors

and departments (e.g. guides, peers, consultation), a more comprehensive approach

with multiple inputs

is needed to evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness.

4.3

Each unit must fulfill Its obligations regarding the definition of a normal teaching workload and the

equitable assignment

of teaching responsibilities.

A negotiated Faculty Workload Policy (A30.03) defines a normal teaching workload as four regular courses or

their equivalent. A

range of activities is set out in the Policy from which equivalent teaching loads may be

defined. Each unit is responsible for establishing specific equivalencies among these activities, subject to

Faculty-level guidelines where these have been established, and with reference, where and when appropriate,

to the norms of particular disciplines. It is the Chairs/Directors/Coordinators responsibility to promote equity

within units. Similarly,

it is the Dean's responsibility to ensure fairness across departments/schools/programs.

Finally, the Vice-President, Academic will initiate periodic workload reviews from a university-wide

perspective, taking into account unique disciplinary requirements.

4.4 Recognize teaching activities through the online

CV system.

Definitions

and examples of all categories of SFU's Online CV system should be elaborated and posted online.

For each of the following categories, additional criteria may include: (1) Courses: other, e.g. summer schools,

course innovation, instructional skills workshop;

(2) Student training: (a) undergraduate student supervision

(e.g. directed studies courses, summer NSERC students, honors theses/projects) and (b) other student

training,

e.g. competitions, internships; and (3) Professional development: Reflections on teaching

development. Furthermore,

two new categories are proposed: (1) Significant contributions to teaching and (2)

Publications and materials related to teaching: (a) Publications and materials related to teaching: Journal

articles, monographs, conference

and workshop pUblications; (b) Textbooks, curriculum, and lecture notes, (c)

Other, e.g. creation of software, exhibits, devices, models, and (d) Talks, e.g. at conferences and workshops.

4.5 Teaching and learning

excellence and innovation, whether demonstrated by an individual or program,

should

be publicly recognized with awards, special recognitions and incentives.

A broader

range of teaching awards should be offered that target different stages of an academic career

(early, mid, late)

and different instructor groups (faculty members, sessional instructors, TAs, TMs). Additional

ways should be sought to reward and celebrate quality teaching (e.g., reduced service, one-time monetary

awards, funds transferred to a faculty members grant account

to support pedagogy or research

enhancement, extra TA/TM help).

4.6 Teaching, learning, and scholarship should be respected and celebrated across the University.

The University should foster a culture that values both learning and scholarship within and among all its

departments.

Research on teaching should be acknowledged as a scholarly endeavour. Recognizing and

celebrating teaching excellence should increase the value placed on it in SFU's culture, and increase awareness

of successful practices.

4.7

The importance of teaching and learning should be emphasized by example.

All faculty administrators should be

seen as advocates of teaching and learning and model its value by

engaging in teaching

(e.g., team teaching, guest lecturer, graduate supervision).

-y-

t \\ (I" t II \" 'I

"t \ I ", I I ,

r ,. ' N KiN G a F

H E VI 0 R l D

SFU

4.8 Teaching as a profession should continue to be supported.

SFU should provide sufficient support and professional development to ensure that new and continuing

teachers

possess the knowledge and skills necessary to teach effectively. More needs to be done to encourage

departments

and units across campus to articulate their intentions and goals with respect to teaching within

their academic plans.

5. A Teaching and Learning Support System

For academic units and instructors to foster learning in an effective manner, they need a well-integrated,

responsive

and dedicated support system. Currently, individuals and units with varying priorities and approaches

are providing limited support

to instructors throughout the university. Existing committees (Le. SCUTl, lTCC, IDG)

have limited functions, representation and linkages. Although central and local support for teaching is available,

many community members who responded

to the Task Force's information gathering provided feedback that we

should offer more extensive and better-organized support.

Issues and Proposed Solutions:

•

Instructors have few opportunities for support such as one-on-one consultation with peers, peer mentors, or

peer networks; there

is little mentoring.

•

Many faculty members do not participate in centralized teaching and learning-related activities provided by

the current

LlDC, such as working groups Intended to address faculty members' needs; the implication being

that these activities are not perceived to be meaningful to individual needs or interests.

• There appears to be a discrepancy in teaching

and

learning support between what administrators and support

providers believe

is being offered and what instructors perceive is available reflecting not only a lack of

communication, but a lack of agreement about what constitutes meaningful and relevant support.

•

Communication and collaboration between the Faculties

and

the current LlDC, other support units, learning

and instructional

specialiSts, the Institute for the

Study

of Teaching and learning in the Disciplines could be

significantly improved. Educational

and support staff may be at risk of becoming isolated, less engaged and

less informed.

•

In some cases, existing linkages across support units require better planning and coordination.

• The ongoing implementation of a desirable diverse curriculum

and

variety of learning experiences and

teaching approaches will require additional teaching support.

• More discipline-based, and locally offered support

and

opportunities to collaborate with colleagues about

teaching would

be beneficial.

•

It is important to ensure that sufficient well-functioning equipment, tools, resources, as well as appropriate

physical

spaces and access to technological innovations, are available to support teaching.

Although some support components and

processes exist, SFU would benefit from a coordinated and extensive

teaching

and

learning support system that encompasses instructors, staff and students' experiences in the

planning, design

and implementation of support initiatives.

Recommendation

#5: Establish a new, highly-integrated, coordinated and extensive teaching and learning

support system

that fosters the exchange of ideas and promotion of teaching between teachers within and

between programs, between teaching support

staff from different venues In the university, and between

teachers and teaching support staff.

A new support

system would include, but not be limited to specific elements identified in the sub-

recommendations below and would achieve the following goals:

•

Promote initiatives to improve the quality of teaching and learning at SFU, seeking funding when needed.

•

Encourage collaboration between teachers and teaching support staff.

-Y 38

, I \1 (I" I II \

I \ I II' I I ,

T H . N K , N Gar 'H E W O!l t 0

SFU

•

Foster the integration of discipline-based and centralized support for teaching and learning in the context of

existing institutional structures by: (1) coordinating and integrating the instructional support services that are

working

well, (2) determining which instructional support services to retain in their present form, to

discontinue, or to build upon and refine, and (3) determining what additional forms of instructional support

are required.

•

Determine how best to accommodate change in student populations, budgetary constraints, pedagogy, digital

media, and institutional initiatives.

•

Improve the instructional/learning processes and environment at SFU (e.g., spaces, tools, equipment).

•

Ensure that curricula are appropriately revised and evaluated on an ongoing basis.

The main purpose of the proposed teaching and learning support system is to facilitate a communication network

focused on teaching

and learning. Through formalized roles, processes and structures that bring together academic

and operational units, the new system would improve coordination among different support units, formalize

communication

channels, foster collaboration, support teaching and learning at all campuses, and establish a

process

for determining support priorities. In addition, it would increase the visibility of support, enable referral,

and ensure a point-of-presence.

Proposed New Components

5.1 Create a University Council on Teaching and learning.

As implied above, part of the reason that such issues have not been sufficiently addressed is the lack of (1)

representation from departments and Faculties to bring forward important teaching and learning support

concerns at the

institutional level, and (2) a forum for discussion and planning among departments, Faculties

and support units. The Task Force proposes the establishment of a University Council on Teaching and

learning (UCTl) in which each Faculty would be represented by a University Teaching Fellow (UTF).

The purpose of the University Council on Teaching and Learning is to address the existing gap in

communications,

collaboration and planning of teaching and learning support between academic and

operational units. As a communication channel and working group, members of the Council would bring

forward

needs and issues related to teaching and learning for review and consideration. The Council would

work in concert with the University Teaching and Learning Support Unit and others, where applicable.

Members would collaborate to plan, develop, and review institutional initiatives that support the academic

purpose

and vision of the University in relation to teaching and learning. It would be advisory to the VP

Academic. The group will engage primarily in operational matters and will bring forward ideas and issues (e.g.

related to policy) to Senate for review and approval, where appropriate. The Council would be chaired by the

VP Academic and be comprised of the University Teaching Fellows, the heads of teaching support units, an

undergraduate and a graduate student representative, and two Senior Administrators.

S.2 Create a Group of University Teaching Fellows.

Selected from highly recognized and accomplished teachers in each of the eight Faculties, University Teaching

Fellows

(UTFs) are positions that recognize excellent teachers and offers them an opportunity to take a

leadership role and to share their expertise. UTFs would assume responsibility for improving the quality of

learning and teaching in their Faculties and for mediating the allocation of support for learning and teaching

an ongoing basis. All tenure-track and teaching faculty members would be eligible for these positions,

which might constitute special Associate Deanships.

The group of UTFs would, as appropriate, meet separately

from other members of the Council to work on specific issues such as policies.

5.3 Create a network of Program Teaching Mentors.

Program Teaching Mentors (PTM) are also positions that recognize

excellent teachers and offers them an

opportunity to take a leadership role and to share their expertise within their departments. A network of

3'1

, I \1 ( I" I II \

I I' I "I \ I II, I I ,

H Ii KIN G 0

R t. 0

PTMs would serve as an extension of the University Teaching Fellows component of the Council, reaching into

all programs at SFU. It would include one PTM from each major Department, School, Program, or set of

Programs. Core responsibilities would include meeting regularly with the UTF in their Faculties and with the

teachers and administrators in their programs

to gain and convey information relevant to the ongoing

improvement

of teaching and learning in their units. The PTMs would provide discipline.specific, localized

support -- a frequently expressed need of respondents. This position would be proffered to individuals

renowned for

excellence in teaching who have served, at least informally as teaching mentors in their

academic units. Specific responsibilities

and compensation would require further discussion with stakeholders.

Proposed Changes

Existing Units and Processes

5.4 Create a Coordinated University Teaching and Learning Support Unit.

A new University Teaching and Learning Support Unit would replace the

lIDC. The new unit would be

mandated and have the resources necessary to support and coordinate the initiatives of the Council and the

needs

of individual instructors in departments, as identified by University Teaching Fellows and Program

Teaching Mentors. Responsibilities would include ongoing, long-term support

for learning and teaching, as

well as time-limited, project-based support. The unit would include a number of full time continuing staff and

possibly a

few faculty members who would be appointed for specific terms and have expertise and experience

with innovative approaches

to teaching.

5.5

Establish stronger links between administrators and staff within the teaching and learning support system

and between members

of the support unit and the University Teaching Fellows.

the new teaching and learning support system two existing administrative groups, the Learning

Technologies

Coordinating Committee (LTCe) and Instructional Development Group (lOG) would be refocused.

The

LTCC would be broadened to include all heads of teaching support units and from the three campuses,

become a

"Learning and Teaching Coordinating Committee". To recognize the importance of staff

communications and

collaboration, and to provide a forum for educational and support staff from major

support units, the

Task Force proposes formalizing the lOG as part of the teaching and learning support system

for

staff "on the ground" to communicate and collaborate on matters related to teaching and learning

support.

The IDG will report to the LTCC and will operationalize initiatives from the LTCC.

5.6 Incorporate the Institute for the Study of Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines into the teaching and

learning support system.

The overall purpose of the Institute is to inspire, support, and enhance collaborative, faculty member-led

inquiry into all aspects

of teaching and learning at SFU. Its principle activity is to support teaching inquiry

projects

and processes, conducted by Individuals or groups of faculty members, including the assessment of

the effectiveness of new approaches and methods. Although the Institute has a specific focus, it could work

closely

with the University Teaching Fellows and collaborate with support units as part of the overall teaching

and learning support system.

It also could help sustain the benefits of the Undergraduate Curriculum Initiative

through ongoing inquiry into the effectiveness

of W, Q and B courses.

5.7 Provide formal mechanisms

for Faculty-based W coordinators to connect to a community of colleagues and

other learning and instructional specialists.

Currently, there is considerable expertise to support W courses distributed within the SFU community

pertaining. Feedback from the

Task Force's information-gathering phase suggested the need to bring faculty

members together who support a writing-intensive learning approach. Increased collaboration could increase

the visibility

of W coordinators, connect them to a community of colleagues and instructional specialists, and

provide a regular forum

to participate in ongoing refinement of W courses.

'I \1

(1'

I 11.\

Il I

'I \

I 11,1 I ,

" H

i f.i

K , N G 0

T" E

W" III

SFU

5.8

R~examine

the role and purpose of the Senate Committee on University Teaching and learning (SCUTl) in

light of the overall teaching and learning support system.

The Council is envisioned to be an active working group that will plan and engage in operational matters and

liaise with members of their constituencies. This type of operational work is not part of a Senate Committee's

responsibilities. However, the roles and relationships between SCUTl and Council require further examination

for synergies.

Some redefinition of purpose may be needed, as historically, SCUTl has had challenges with any

empowerment.

Proposed PrioritIes

Respondents in the information gathering phase and to the draft recommendations suggested specific issues to be

Specific issues that need to be addressed were revealed through recent public forums on the draft

recommendations

and through the initial information gathering phase. It is envisioned that the proposed system

would provide a

means for stakeholder groups (Faculties, departments, support units, and students) to bring

forward ideas

and concerns related to teaching and learning support. The Council would be a forum for members

of these stakeholder groups to work together toward viable solutions for the stakeholder groups and the

institution

as a whole. In addition to issues brought forward through the proposed system, it is proposed that the

following

be priorities for the Teaching and learning Support System to examine: (1) the student population and

their changing demographics, expectations and needs in relation

to teaching and learning; and (2) the support

needs of specific instructor groups (e.g., sessional instructors, TAs, TMs), including international Teaching

Assistants.

III. Proposed Priorities and Timeline

The recommendations in this report constitute the first step of an ongoing process that will transparently discuss,

refine, elaborate, and implement the recommendations in a phased manner. To support the VP Academic's

academic plan for

2010 • 2013, suggested immediate priorities include:

Promoting a Culture of Teaching and Learning

Specifically, launch initiatives that are aimed at promoting a culture in which teaching and learning are more

salient and accorded greater value and are in keeping with University policy and priorities.

Increased attention and

involvement by university community members are needed

for institutional change to occur. Thus,

implementation of recommendations #1 (vision and principles) and #2 (communication and community) should be

accorded the highest priorities in order to build on existing momentum from the

Task Force and the Academic

Planning process.

2. Developing a New Teaching and Learning Support System

Begin the process of developing a new teaching and learning support system. This process would entail:

(1) Establishing formal processes and mechanisms to organize communication, collaboration and decision-making

among existing teaching support services, and, where necessary, creating new roles (immediate).

(2) Refining the terms of reference of University Teaching Fellows and selecting a representative from each

Faculty to participate on the University

Council on Teaching and learning (immediate).

Convening the University Council on Teaching and learning and charging it, as a first priority, with overseeing the

creation

of the new Teaching and learning Support Unit. This will require identifying functions, roles, positions and

monitoring the related

HR process to establish the new unit (an evolved version of the lI0e) with a director by

September

2010.

\1\1')'

111\~111

t'I\III_II\

r ••

NK'NG

~rlE

WORLD

Response to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and Statements by the

University

Community on the Task Force on Teaching & Learning's

Draft Discussion Paper

Fall 2009/Spring 2010

The Task Force considered the feedback

received

from the

university community

its

discussion paper released

mid-July 2009. Some of the concerns raised by the community prompted

revisions

to the recommendations and

the

Task Force report. Other concerns appear to stem from misinterpretations of the recommendations, due in

part to the ways in which they were written. The purpose of this document is to

clarify

the recommendations and

to provide elaboration and updates where applicable.

"Q"

below refers to questions or statements received from

university community members.

The Task Force's Focus

Q: The Task Force should be concerned with the future of the LlDC only and not with reviewing teaching and

learning at large.

A: When the Task Force considered the issues related to the LlDC and its external review, it became apparent

that they could not be resolved without considering all of the ways

which we provide support for

teaching.

As well, the external review of the LlDC recommended that SFU develop an institutional-level strategy for

teaching and learning and that the LlDC provide support to instructors in the implementation of that strategy.

Q: The Task Force should focus on teaching and learning support, rather than teaching and learning

general.

A: There is no disagreement here, but to make recommendations about support for teaching and learning,

necessary to attend to the nature of these processes. Basically, the questions that the Task Force addressed

were

"What kinds of support do we need to promote teaching and learning in an optimal way", and "How can

we most effectively offer it at SFU?" One of the first steps

defining where we want to go with teaching and

learning support

is to identify the teaching and learning outcomes we desire. In planning how to accomplish

this, we need

to understand both the current state and the desired state

Q: The Task Force failed to recognize that excellence in teaching is pervasive in SFU.

A: Not so. The Task Force assumed that there are many excellent teachers at SFU, as well as some whose

teaching

is below average. One of the working group's recommendations was aimed at

increasing

the value

attributed

to teaching at SFU,

recognizing

and rewarding teaching excellence. The Task Force recommended

filling the University Teaching Fellow and Program Teaching

Mentor pOSitions with instructors Who have

demonstrated excellence in teaching. These positions would provide accomplished teachers

an opportunity to

take a leadership role and to share their expertise, thereby increaSing the overall quality of teaching at SFU.

There's an emphasis on teachers, not learners; teaching and not learning. Why?

A: The

two are inextricably bound. Ultimately, the desired outcomes of teaching and learning support include

improved

learning experiences. Students' learning experiences should improve with improvements in the

quality of teaching, which should improve with the quality of teaching support.

The emphasis appears to be on undergraduate (vs. graduate) education.

Yes, it

unfortunate that it appeared this way: there was a representative from the Dean of Graduate Studies'

office and a graduate student representative on the Task Force. Regarding the appearance of there being a

bias towards undergraduate education in the recommendations, we have tried

to address this problem in

revisions

to the report. Also, the Office of the Dean of Graduate Studies now has a representative on Council.

Why did the Task Force not address structural issues such as class sizes, the number of TAs, faculty workload,

etc.?

'1.\1

1 11.\ '>1 It

t:"

I \ I 11'1 I \

tl N KIN G 0 F T .. E

0 R lO

A: Although members of the Task Force viewed these issues as very important, the Task Force was not charged

with addressing them, nor did it have the authority to address them. Such issues need to be addressed by

groups consisting

of representation from SFUFA, TSSU, and administration. One of the added benefits of

having a University Council on Teaching and learning would be that it would create a forum in which such

problems could

be discussed, and impetus developed to resolve them.

Specific issues such as support for international teaching assistants and consideration of the millennia I student

were not addressed.

A: Although the draft recommendations did

not prioritize specific support issues, international TA support was

raised by many stakeholder groups (departmental chairs, students, instructors and

staff). This issue needs to

be a

priority for the institution. (Note: the VPA has now made the International TA program available cost-free

for students.) With respect to the millennia I student, in its final report, the Task Force recommends practices

designed

to obtain a better idea of the needs of "millennial students."

Q: Why did the Task Force make a recommendation about teaching evaluations?

A: Teaching evaluations came up repeatedly

as an issue of concern for a majority of stakeholders during the

information-gathering phase.

Many respondents felt that there were severe imbalances in the ways in which

teaching

is evaluated, and in particular, when compared to the ways in which research is evaluated. To ensure

that good teaching is adequately rewarded, we need to find valid ways to recognize and evaluate it. SCUTl's

report on student evaluations discussed a broad range of issues pertaining to the evaluation of teaching. Its

report was reviewed by the Task Force's working group, and recommendations were incorporated into those

of the Task Force.

The Teaching & Learning Support System and University Council on Teaching & Learning

Note: In response to the university community's feedback on the recommendation to create a University Council

on Teaching and learning, a temporary (Dec. '09 to Aug. '10) VPA's Advisory Committee on Teaching and learning

(VACTl) has been struck in place

of the Council. As one of VACTl's first tasks, members will review the Task Force's

recommendations and advise

the VPA on their acceptance. The responses below pertain to the Council, not to the

VACTl.

Why did the Task Force recommend the creation of a Council and "System" structure?

A: The Task Force believed

that it would be of great benefit to the SFU community to create a body that would

coordinate existing sources

of teaching support on an ongoing basis and supply a forum for the creation and

implementation

of new forms of support, with input from faculty, students, and existing support units. The

primary purpose is the facilitation of a communication network regarding teaching and learning.

More speCifically, it is also important to note that that the Task Force was guided by the committee's terms of

reference #3-5:

3. Identify mechanisms to encourage faculty and instructor involvement and innovation in educational

development programs and teaching and learning initiatives.

4. Suggest an administrative structure which will foster interaction and collaboration among teaching and

learning support units and ensure

that their strategic planning activities are coordinated and integrated.

Develop a strategic planning process for addressing university teaching and learning infrastructure needs.

Q: The Council is a bureaucracy aimed at solving problems that do not exist.

A: Although some community members do

not see any problems with teaching support, a large number of

community members from a variety of diSCiplines and support units who took the time to provide feedback to

the Task Force see them quite clearly. Many community members (instructors and staff) identified a need for

better coordination and prioritization of teaching and learning support at SFU. The Council and the teaching

and

learning support system in which it is embedded were proposed to address this need. Additionally, some

.SFU

problems were identified in previous reports such as SCUTl's report on student evaluations and the annual

surveys

of undergraduate students. The Task Force recognized that SFU has a solid reputation as having

exemplary faculty

and instructors; the intent was to situate where support was needed and to provide

recommendations for ensuring that future support

is provided to those who are currently not feeling

supported.

Q: What

is the rationale for the System and Council?

A: The Task Force envisioned the implementation of a viable teaching and learning support system that would

foster communication

and collaboration, and recognize and respect the many important roles that contribute

to effective teaching and learning at SFU. The staff components of the proposed teaching and learning support

system already exist

and have representation on administrative committees. However, greater participation

from a broader

range of support units and better coordination among the units would be beneficial.

The academic components of the proposed teaching and learning support system do not exist. Faculties,

academic departments, and students do not

have an ongoing forum or process for discussing issues related to

teaching and learning. Indeed, a key challenge in identifying and providing appropriate teaching and learning

support

has been the limited consideration of students' learning experiences and the voice of instructors

(faculty members,

sessionals, TAs, TMs) from the Faculties. Issues such as support for specific instructor

groups (e.g., international

TAs) and gaining a better understanding of today's students (e.g., through data on

student experiences such as NSSE and annual undergraduate student surveys) are important. Also of

importance are input and involvement of instructors to inform priorities and directions in Identifying,

designing

and implementing support service initiatives.

These issues have not been sufficiently addressed because there has not been an identifiable forum in which

they

can be addressed, or a group with the mandate to address them on an ongOing basis. There are many

types

of teaching support and many models at SFU, but relatively few people know about them and benefit

from

them.

The Task Force proposed the establishment of a University Council on Teaching and learning (UCTl) in which

each Faculty would be represented by a University Teaching Fellow (UTF). The roles of the UTFs are critical to

facilitate discipline-specific support, recognize and reward local teaching expertise, and enable excellent

teachers to

become leaders. UTFs would contribute to communication across departments and units. Faculty

input

is required to address some of the issues identified by the Task Force and SFU community members, and

to identify the mandate and services to be offered by a new teaching and learning support unit. A process to

identify and appoint the UTFs to Council is needed.

Q: Creation of Council was a foregone conclUSion, and the public event was a means to justify the decision.

A: There were several recommendations that the

Task Force considered to resolve the issues surrounding the

need for support

of teaching and learning. It was determined that the Council was the most appropriate,

expeditious,

and cost effective way to resolve several of the highest priority concerns. In the end, it was

determined that most of the reservations were based on a misunderstanding of the design and purpose of the

Council. In response to feedback, some aspects of the recommendation were changed (e.g., the relation

between the

Council and SCUTl and the relation between the Council and Senate) and clarified.

It is important to note that the recommendation to create a University Council on Teaching and learning was

made in response to a significant problems pertaining to the lack of coordination among teaching support

providers and stakeholders (instructors, staff, students

and administrators) from across the University, the

need to identify, prioritize and work on teaching and learning concerns, the need to provide support at the

local

level (through mentors), and the need to improve communication and awareness of available support

services.

Solutions recommended by some community members

in response to the Task Force's discussion paper,

focused

on departments, Faculties and individual faculty members or instructor groups. Support and

, 1

\I' '"

I II \ '>1 II I "I \" 1 11' 1 1 ,

H N K N G 0

'>-i

E W:) R L

S.FU

prioritization by Faculty or program is not efficient or sustainable and results in duplication of effort and an

imbalance in levels of service. Some issues (e.g. meeting the needs of today's students; class size, the tutorial

system)

cross Faculties and need to be addressed at the institutional-administrative level.

The Council seems to be a bureaucracy designed to impose policy and procedures in a top-down manner.

We can understand how it might appear that way from the organizational location of the Council, but its

composition

is actually from the community. The purpose of the Council is to bring all the main stakeholders in

teaching

and learning together at the same table. Many respondents to the Task Force's information gathering

suggested that we need

to create ways of encouraging more involvement and input from faculty members

and other instructor groups.

Responses identified gaps in teaching support, and support that was not meeting

instructors'

needs. Some teaching support staff indicated that they would benefit from input and interaction

with instructors,

to better inform their work. The Council is intended to bring people together to identify and

prioritize teaching

and learning support issues.

All changes to procedures or policies that are proposed would result from discussions to improve teaching and

learning support.

These ideas would then be discussed with Council-members' constituencies. All

recommended changes to policies and procedures would then go through the established process guiding SFU

policy and procedure reVisions, which would include Senate and other groups as usual.

Q: Council is a centralized effort to homogenize teaching methods.

A: Again, this criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Council. The purpose of the Council

is to enable communication across the university between stakeholders who need and want support and

those providing support.

The University Teaching Fellows would be responsible for bringing forward the needs

and ideas

of their Faculties and working with support providers to develop solutions to address needs or

resources to develop ideas. The system would be designed to bring stakeholders together to better

communicate

and understand what support is needed and where and to share expertise and foster new ideas

within and

across academic units. There is nothing in these goals that implies homogenizing teaching

methods.

What are the time demands on University Teaching Fellows

and Program Teaching Mentors?

A: The University Teaching

Fellow would be a leadership, not a support, position. The UTFs would attend monthly

Council meetings and work within their Faculties and with other stakeholders on identifying, prioritizing and

resolving teaching and learning support

issues. Also a recognized teaching expert, the Program Teaching

Mentor would have a more hands-on role that would involve liaising with new faculty members and

supporting and sharing effective approaches.

The responsibilities and related time demands require further

consideration and discussion.

Q: How can you justify spending money on the University Teaching Fellows during times of fiscal constraint?

A: The allocation of resources within the University always is guided by assumptions about the value of

investments, and Task Force feels that the benefits of supporting these positions would more than

compensate for their costs.

In short, it would be money well spent. It is important that stakeholders needing

support and stakeholders providing support have a venue to identify, prioritize, and resolve teaching and

learning support

issues together. Recognizing the time required to adequately represent their faculties in this

venue, financial remuneration would

be offered. These short-term costs outweigh the longer-term costs of

not having faculty input. (Such compensation is another step towards recognizing teaching in a manner

similar

to recognizing research through stipends.)

Q: Why not put more money directly into teaching rather than administration?

A: The teaching and learning issues raised by some members of the university community cannot be solved

through funding alone.

The Council and teaching and learning support system as a whole are designed to bring

issues forward, prioritize initiatives, and collaborate on solutions.

The staff representation on Council and the

teaching and learning system already exist

as individual administrative committees and units.

The new components are intended to address complaints that: 1) instructor (faculty, sessionals, lAs, TMs)

issues are not heard or dealt with effectively, and 2) faculty members do not have a means to provide input or

be involved in directions for new initiatives. The Council would attempt to 1) establish a means to bring

forward the teaching and

learning issues of instructors, 2) recognize and provide a leadership opportunity to

faculty members known for their teaching, and 3) better involve the Faculties and faculty members in

identifying priorities

and working on solutions.

Q: The Council will replace SCUTl, thereby disenfranchising Senate and placing all teaching matters in the hands

of the VPA. SCUTL is a coordinating body for teaching and learning at SFU.

A: In response to this concern, the Task Force has withdrawn its recommendation to disband SCUTL It now

recommends that the roles and relationships between

SCUTL and Council be defined by another appropriate

group.

The Council is envisioned as an active working group that will plan and engage in operational matters

and

liaise with members of their constituencies. This type of operational work is not part of a Senate

Committee's responsibilities.

Council and the University Teaching Fellows in particular will be gatekeepers or evaluators of their peers.

A: Council would not be an evaluation committee, and it would not be charged with evaluating instructors. The

Council and

UTFs would discuss issues such as improving the process of evaluating teaching and learning in

ways that would give good teachers the credit they deserve and provide constructive feedback for all

teachers. The UTFs would be facilitators and communicators, not gatekeepers and evaluators.

Q: There

is little value in establishing another unit (the Council) to oversee CODE, Learning Commons and other

support units.

The Council would not oversee any of these units. It would be a coordinating committee that brings together

stakeholders needing support and stakeholders providing support

to identify and prioritize teaching and

learning support issues and to collaborate on the development of solutions. Existing sources of support could

benefit

by coordinating their resources and guarding against duplication.

Q: The Council is extreme and not needed. SCUTL could be redefined to monitor the teaching support unit

without micromanaging the Director

of the new unit.

A: Senate committees do not oversee administrative units. The priorities of the new teaching and learning

support unit would

be defined with inpul from the Council. Teaching and learning issues from instructors and

links to institutional directions such as the academic plan would be discussed in the Council. The Director

would work closely with other members

of the Council to plan and operationalize support initiatives, which

would

be vetted through appropriate channels.

Central

vs.

Local

and Discipline-Specific Support

Q: There is no need for centralized support or a teaching and learning support unit. Centralized units usually

diminish the effectiveness of other, more collegial, mechanisms (e.g. informal peer-to-peer discussion and

support.)

A: The University Council system would promote both centralized and local support. Local support would be

provided by Program Teaching Mentors

and, in appropriate cases, localized or "embedded" teaching support

teams. However, in addition, because there are

similarities in support needs across some areas, it is efficient

to offer centralized support, and a body is needed to make fair decisions about how to allocate support to

local units. The idea here is to share what support is offered among the various departments, Faculties and

support units.

The proposed teaching and learning support system recognizes the need for local discussion and support. The

Program Teaching Mentor roles are intended to ensure that this takes place on an ongoing basis in all

departments.

To summarize, the Task Force is recommending a model that provides both local and centralized activities and

processes.

It consists of faculty-specific University Teaching Fellows, localized Program Mentors, and a

centralized teaching and learning support unit

and a council that serves as a venue to connect support service

users and providers. The goal is to gain the advantages of each type of model while avoiding the

disadvantages.

The centralized support unit would provide two types of services in collaboration with the

Council: (1) general services addressing needs that overlap faculties and disciplines, and (2) customized

services

addreSSing discipline-specific needs.

The

Appendices

To what extent are the details in the appendices binding?

A: There are two sets of documents within the appendices of the discussion paper. Appendix A to C include the

terms

of reference, membership and activities of the Task Force and its working groups, as well as linkages to

the academic plan. Appendices D through I were created by the working groups and presented to the

university community

to evoke discussion about the details of some recommendations. These details are not

binding. They need

to be refined by a broader group of stakeholders before being implemented. For

example, details related to desired attributes

of SFU graduates requires discussion and consideration at many

levels,

as noted in some of the feedback by members of the university community.

Potential Impact

Q: Where's the problem? The "issues" are only perceptions and do not exist.

A: We agree-

SFU

an exemplary institution with regards to teaching, learning and research, which is precisely

why we are challenging ourselves to be better. With additional support to the development of teaching and

learning, we

can become an even better institution! For the people who took the time to respond in the

Information gathering phase of the Task Force, the issues they identified

are

problems for them. Although

some members

of the SFU community feel that there aren't any problems, many others feel that there are

significant problems

with the value attached to teaching and with the provision of support for teaching. Data

collected from students

and from existing SFU documents also suggest areas for improvement. For example,

we know that student engagement and retention are important concerns for our future.

Q: How does all this translate to the classroom?

One of the biggest concerns we consistently heard was that there was a lack of support for teaching--from

those who were just entering new positions

to those who had been teaching for many, many years. For those

who are entering teaching as a new profeSSional, either as a TA, sessional, or a new Faculty member, teaching

mentors will

be available to assist with their induction period, with understanding expectations, and becoming

professionals.

For those who have been teaching for a few years, and are intrigued by new learning models,

there are procedures and supports in place where they

can access updated pedagogical and curricular ideas

from their colleagues. For those who have been teaching

for a very long time and may be looking to be

reinvigorated in their careers, there are opportunities to serve as mentors and in other capacities that can

allow them to contribute in meaningful ways. For students, this will mean more consistent course

expectations, more time spent on curriculum, better supported, and more engaged

faculty and instructors.

Instructors can benefit from discussions with colleagues about their teaching experiences. New instructors

can benefit from assistance from teaching mentors (particularly instructors in groups such as International TAs

and sessionals). Instructors also can benefit from systemic changes that better recognize and support diverse

teaching methods and learning experiences

(e.g. team-teaching, bringing research to the classroom, learning

outside

of the classroom).

What are the benefits to me?

A: Action on the recommendations are intended to benefit various stakeholders over time:

SFU

For students:

clearly defined outcomes acquired by graduation; fully developed, recognized and integrated

research, experiential,

and international learning opportunities; quality instruction and learning opportunities.

For all SFU instructors:

Better support based on different groups' needs; more recognition for excellent

teaching; more opportunities for continued professional development; more discipline-specific, in-house

support, the availability

of mentors, support in piloting alternative teaching approaches, and opportunities for

interdisciplinary interactions.

For Faculty members:

increased opportunities to bring research into teaching; recognition as accomplished

teachers

and leadership opportunities as Fellows and Mentors; and more consistent practices (Le., in

evaluating teaching) that better recognize, celebrate and reward teaching.

For Teaching Support Staff:

formal mechanisms for sharing knowledge and resources, and for

interdepartmental collaboration; recognition

of support service as a key component in teaching and learning;

coordinated priorities

and efforts.

For Administrators:

better alignment and support across SFU initiatives; clearer expectations for teaching and

learning

and stakeholders; a competitive edge, student recruitment and retention; and a framework for a

system that

recognizes, supports and rewards T&L across Faculties and at all levels.

For the SFU Community:

shared vision, direction and common purpose; visible recognition of, and reward for

teachers

and learners and people who support them; increased awareness of available teaching support;

clearer expectations around curriculum, instructor

and student responsibilities.

It is important to consult with SFUFA and other bargaining units; there cannot be unilateral changes to

policies.

Yes, the Task Force agrees completely and did consult SFUFA during the development of some of the

recommendations. There

is no intent to make unilateral changes. However, the Task Force believes that, to

foster

and reward good teaching, we should consider changing some policies and procedures In some cases,

SFUFA and other groups would need to be involved. This has since been made more explicit in the final

report.

Q: There

needs to be an implementation plan and guidelines.

Yes, implementation is the next step. The draft recommendations were proposed for discussion with the

university community before moving

to implementation planning and execution.

Recommendations to the VPA on

the Task Force on Teaching & Learning's Report:

the VPA's Advisory Council on Teaching

Learning

February 11, 2010

Convened

in December

2009,

the VPA's Advisory Committee on Teaching and learning (VACTl) reviewed the

recommendations made by the

Task Force on Teaching and learning

(TFll)

and advised the VPA on

implementation.

Priorities

VACTl recommends accepting the five high-level recommendations and their sub-recommendations proposed by

the TFTl. Upon a decision by the

VP Academic to implement the recommendations, a team would prioritize the

TFTL's sub-recommendations and plan an implementation in conjunction with the

2010 - 2013

Academic Plan.

VACTl recommends the following priorities for Implementation:

(1)

Recommendation

#1:

Create

vision statement and principles around teaching and learning. This requires

immediate attention

as the vision statement and principles set the stage for the other recommendations.

(2}

Recommendation

#2:

Begin communication, community and celebration initiatives.

(3)

Recommendation

#5:

Establish the teaching and learning support system, in phases.

(4)

Recommendations

and

#4:

Identify priorities for short and longer-term implementation and plan

carefully with

an awareness of available resources.

TFTL Recommendation #1: Create a Stronger Vision for Teaching and

Learning at SFU

"Establish and communicate a vision statement and principles

provide direction and common purpose around

teaching and learning

at SFU"

VACTL Recommendations to VPA: Accept Recommendation

with a caveat

VACTl supports the notion of developing a viSion, principles and directions for teaching and learning at SFU. Rather

than the draft vision and principles proposed by the TFTl that appear to

be more like a mission and principles,

VACTl recommends developing a strong and imaginative vision statement. This statement would (1) emphasize

and

be orientated towards leadership, (2) encapsulate a "vision" that inspires community members, (3) define

SFU's success in achieving this goal, and (4) promote a distinctive culture of teaching and learning at SFU.

Leadership from SFU's administration as well as other community members is needed.

TFTL Recommendation #2: Develop a Communication Plan for SFU's

Teaching and Learning Community

"Develop and implement

phased institutional plan

raise awareness of the broad range of SFU teaching and

learning successes, services and support for teaching and learning

and

ensure that they are recognized, used,

and celebrated in

all three campuses in an appropriate manner. "

VACTL Recommendation to VPA: Accept this recommendation and its one sub-recommendation.

VACTl's Recommendations to the VPA on the TFTl Report

/"/9

SFU

SFU needs to change the culture around teaching and learning, to articulate expectations about teaching and

learning more consistently, and to communicate about available resources and services for instructors at all three

campuses.

Implementation considerations:

(1)

VACfl members recommend broadening activities to include celebration.

(2) The VPA should be responsible for ensuring consistent communication about teaching and learning across

aU units. Communications would centre from the VPA's office with review and input by the future Council.

(3) Communication would be enhanced if there were a single unit responsible for support of teaching and

learning

for instructors.

(4) An important step towards the cultural transformation includes clearly voiced support by senior

administrators (including the President) and encouragement and celebration at multiple levels.

(5) University Teaching Fellows and other Council representatives with their respective constituencies would

play an important role in communicating within Faculties.

TFTL Recommendation #3: Improve the Learning Experience at SFU

"Expand

student-centered

approaches

teaching

within

process

ongoing

improvement.

VACTL Recommendation to VPA: Accept Recommendation #3 and its six sub-recommendations.

VACfL suggests, because the term "student-centred" has many interpretations, that members of the University

community refer to the TFTL report for a detailed discussion (see p. 5 of the full report at http://www.sfu.ca/tftl).

Implementation considerations:

(1) Significant care, communication, and support-building are required

to implement these

recommendations.

(2) Because teaching and learning are pragmatically

about recrUitment, engagement and retention, the

emphasis in sub-recommendation 3.5 on early investment in students and recruitment is recognized as

being particularly important.

(3) The significance for SFU in making expectations about students' learning experiences more explicit needs

to be recognized and explored.

(4) Implementation planning needs to reflect practical considerations and realistic resourcing given the

budgetary challenges departments are facing and potential increased workload

for individuals: everyone

needs to contribute (institution, Faculties, departments, individuals) and while much would need to be

done by departments, support needs

to be provided centrally.

a. Since resources will be limited in the foreseeable future, consideration and planning around this

recommendation should

not require a lot of new resources, but rather should focus on priorities

and a related realignment

of resources.

b. Focus on one or two initiatives and ensure that they are well accomplished, rather than

attempting

to implement all of the sub-recommendations.

(5) Providing institutional support towards a culture of experimentation and cross-Faculty initiatives to

nurture enthusiastic instructors is crucial.

(6) Engaging students in initiatives such

as involving them in pilot projects, where the learning experience

includes both students and instructors

is recommended.

(7) Pilot projects

that may then be expanded to other departments or Faculties later require support.

(8) Because they are

different and may require different proportions of emphasis on teaching and research, it

is important to carefully consider the applicability of these recommendations to both undergraduate and

graduate students.

(9) Promotion

of learning expectations and modalities needs to be well founded and reflected in practice.

VACTl's Recommendations to the VPA on the TFTl Report

TFTL Recommendation #4: Recognize, Evaluate & Reward Teaching

"Increase awareness of policy provisions that address the importance accorded

teaching and learning, promote

a consistent interpretation of policy provisions, and implement further initiatives that value the teaching mission of

the University"

VACTL Recommendation to VPA: Accept Recommendation #4 and its eight sub-recommendations.

Two types

of issues requiring attention are:

(I)

policies and procedures that are not carried out systematically or

consistently and

(2) absent or silent policies and procedures that already exist that could be integrated to signal

more strongly that teaching and learning are

SFU priorities.

Implementation considerations:

(1) Add a means to help junior faculty members to develop evidence of their teaching.

(2) Encourage and support more graduate students in teaching development

as they teach at SFU and

prepare to become faculty members.

TFTL Recommendation #5: Create a Teaching

Learning Support System

"Establish a new, highly-integrated, coordinated and extensive teaching and learning support system that fosters

the exchange of ideas and promotion of teaching between teachers within and between programs, between

teaching support

stoff from different venues in the university, and between teachers and teaching support stoff'

VACTL Recommendation to VPA: Accept Recommendation #5 and its eight sub-recommendations.

Implementation of this recommendation is key to the success of the other recommendations since planning,

operationalization

and evaluation of the other recommendations necessitates communication, input, and

collaboration by multiple stakeholders.

The support system is integral to foster cultural change.

Implementation considerations:

(I)

It is essential that this be done consistently with existing SFU policies and governance. The new system

will enhance and add

to existing collaborations among individuals, departments, Faculties, support units

and administration.

VACTl's Recommendations to the VPA on the TFTl Report