Symposium 2017 call for proposals are now closed.
Visit the Symposium 2017 archives to view video of the keynote presentation, photos, slide presentations, and more.
Approximately 15-20 proposals will be accepted for Strand A & B, and 10-15 proposals for Strand C. All proposals will be assessed by the program committee, according to a scoring rubric. To assist you, here are some exemplary proposals from last year.
Strand A: Scholarly Inquiry into Teaching & Learning Practice
(50 minutes: Presentation + Engagement Format)
This strand is for participants to present an active or completed inquiry into their practice. It may provide an overview of an entire study or focus on individual elements such as approaches to data gathering and analysis, the utility and impact of technologies, or other methodologies. Presentations should include engagement by participants. Proposals must include the question(s) being investigated, summary of relevant literature, and project overview (see the Proposal Evaluation Rubric). Max 250 words.
Strand B: Success Stories from Teaching & Learning Practice
(50 minutes: Presentation + Engagement Format)
This strand is for participants to share what’s working in their higher education classrooms: what ideas, (high-impact) practices, strategies, techniques, methods, assignments, activities, tools, and/or resources are helping students learn? Presentations in this strand focus on implementation of successful practices and sharing what is working for student learning. Presenters are encouraged to engage participants in active learning sessions and provide resources that will help others to adopt successful practices. Max 250 words.
Strand C: Research Bites
(3 minutes, 3 Slides)
This strand is an opportunity for participants to present their work around scholarly teaching practice or research on the scholarship of teaching and learning in three minutes! Short and sweet are the important factors here. This strand allows presenters to share a description of a scholarly teaching practice investigation, highlight informal or formal research findings, pose inquiry questions you’d like to investigate or seek feedback on a scholarly inquiry investigation. Presenters have three minutes and a maximum of three PowerPoint slides to present the basic components.
Proposals for this session must include a paragraph outlining the topic, a potential question for discussion, and include a couple references to the literature. Max 250 words.
To assist in developing your proposal for the 2015 Symposium, here are three excellent examples from last year’s Symposium, selected by the Program Committee. All proposals are shared here with permission of their authors, and with our thanks!
|Title of Proposal||Using classroom-based research to explore student acquisition of ‘threshold concepts’: how do students in Introductory Sociology come to develop a ‘sociological imagination’ ?|
|Presenters||Dr. Alison Thomas , Douglas College|
(Include adescription that will be printed in the Symposium’s Program as per the strand type instructions – applies to all strands: 250 words max)
|Introductory courses in post-secondary education offer students a taste of a new discipline – though for many this may be the only exposure they ever have to it. In such cases, what can we hope students will retain from this?
Sociologists like to believe that developing a ‘sociological imagination’
Exploring this theory inspired me to undertake classroom-based research to examine changes in my students’ thinking over the course of the semester, using various classroom assessment techniques (Angelo and Cross, 2003) in a cumulative learning dossier. I am also currently collecting data from students twelve months after they complete the course, in order to assess whether this is truly ‘learning that lasts’ (Mentkowski, 2000).
In this presentation I will describe the development of my research question with reference to ‘threshold concepts’ and report on some of my research findings from three years of data-collection. Using this as an example, I will then invite audience members to consider how they might likewise explore students’ learning experiences when encountering the ‘threshold concepts’ that exist in their own field.
Share a brief description of how you will engage participants and provide interactivity in your presentation
|As indicated in the proposal description above, I intend to engage participants in thinking about both theory and methodology in SoTL research. In the case of the former I will ask them to talk with each other about the particular ‘threshold concepts’ that students in their classes need to grapple with and in the case of the latter, to consider how they might examine student learning via the use of various Classroom Assessment Techniques similar to those I have been employing in my research.|
|Research Literature Connection:
Share any literature references or a short summary of the investigated literature
|Angelo, T. and K.P. Cross (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Mentkowski, M. (2000) Learning that Lasts: Integrating, Learning, Development and Performance in College and Beyond San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Meyer, J. and R. Land (2003) ‘Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines.’ In C. Rust (ed.) Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice Ten Years On Oxford: Oxford Brookes University
|Title of Proposal||Design Research of an Institutional Experiential Pedagogy: How team-based learning becomes a catalyst for personal, academic and institutional change.|
|Name(s) of Presenters||Michael Pardy, Associate Faculty, Team-based Learning Facilitator
Vivian Forssman, Director, Centre for teaching and Educational Technologies
|Institution Name||Royal Roads University|
|Proposal Description (Include a description that will be printed in the Symposium’s Program as per the strand type instructions – applies to all strands: 250 words max)||Royal Roads University has adopted an institution-wide pedagogy, the Learning and Teaching Model, focused on experiential and team-based adult learning, facilitated through technology. This session will present a case study of how a university community evaluates and responds, through critical inquiry, design improvements and services in support of team-based learning, to foster a continuous improvement cycle for this institutional pedagogy, and specifically for team-based learning.
We will present a precis of the current body of knowledge gathered through a collection of RRU-authored scholarly work examining the Learning and Teaching Model (Cases in RRU LTM series); we will situate team-based learning within both the scholarly literature and large scale studies of high impact practices which feature experiential pedagogies.
The focus of our inquiry is a case study of theories and practices of an institutional community, including actors and actions which represent academic leadership, scholarly inquiry, instructional approaches, technology scaffolding, student support services, and evaluation of student learning. How does team-based learning mature from an aspirational model to an institutional norm?
The workshop approach will examine and invite the participants to contribute to the design, evaluation and implementation of examples of various institutional change initiatives which contribute to adoption of team-based learning, including:
|Engaging Participants: Share a brief description of how you will engage participants and provide interactivity in your presentation (applies to all strands: 3-4 sentences)||Idea introduction and then 3 different round table sessions inviting participants to comment on and provide examples drawn from their own experience, on the actors and actions required to support an institutional pedagogy.|
|Research Literature Connection: Share any literature references or a short summary of the investigated literature components (applies to all strands: 1 or more references)||
|Proposal Strand Type||A|
|Title of Proposal||Assignment of Learning Activities – does sequence matter?|
|Name(s) of Presenters||Sunita G. Chowrira & Karen Smith, University of British Columbia|
|Proposal Description (Include a description that will be printed in the Symposium’s Program as per the strand type instructions – applies to all strands: 250 words max)||Students in introductory biology and biochemistry courses struggle with key concepts and as a result have low performance in exam-related questions. To address this, students in introductory Cell Biology and Biochemistry courses are assigned various learning activities (readings, quizzes, worksheets and problems) in a specific sequence, i.e. pre-class, in-class, post-class. This encourages students to be prepared for active learning in the classroom where they learn to apply the concepts. We hypothesize that student performance may vary depending on the order in which a learning activity is undertaken, and t he type of learning activity available to them. In this study, we will examine if altering the assigned order of these learning activities have any affect on student performance, in four key concept areas. The multi-section nature of the two courses provides an opportunity to rotate the sequential nature of the learning activities between the sections. For example, students in each of the four sections of the introductory Cell Biology class will be exposed to all four treatment methods, and thus reduce potential section-specific or instructor-specific biases. The data collected from this study will be very informative and helpful in guiding the development and assignment of future learning materials/activities in courses in many disciplines.|
|Engaging Participants: Share a brief description of how you will engage participants and provide interactivity in your presentation (applies to all strands: 3-4 sentences)||We will run a mock classroom scenario with worksheet for the audience to work through in a group and participate with Clickers.|
|Research Literature Connection: Share any literature references or a short summary of the investigated literature components (applies to all strands: 1 or more references)||Freeman S, et al. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:8410–8415.|
If you have any questions about Symposium 2017, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.