No abstract

Since the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada’s Calls to Action in 2015, many post-secondary institutions have hired educational developers (EDs) to support instructors in the Indigenization of curricula and pedagogy. Drawing from a Canada-wide study, and best practices identified in the literature, this article explores the experiences of educational developers EDs in these roles, and proposes strategies for how institutions of higher education can better foster transformative change and practices inclusive of First Peoples in Canada.

This article identifies five predominant approaches to Indigenizing the curriculum occurring within Canadian universities today. Examining these approaches in relation to theories of change articulated by Gaudry and Lorenz (2018) and Stein (2020), the article considers the possibilities and limits of each approach as well as the degree to which they challenge the colonial and Eurocentric edifices of Canadian universities. While many of the current approaches to curricular change involve minor reforms that focus on individual transformation rather than substantive structural shifts, the authors also identify promising initiatives that push toward greater Indigenous intellectual sovereignty and institutional autonomy. The article concludes by calling on academic institutions to better center Indigenous Peoples, lands and knowledges in curricular change, and more specifically, to embrace structural revision that ensures Indigenous leadership and autonomy.

Graduate teaching assistant (GTA) training initiatives such as the Lead TA Program seek to enhance the instructional competence of GTAs at a disciplinary level. This paper outlines the results of a mixed-method study conducted to evaluate the perceived impact of the Lead TA Program on GTAs during a two-year pilot implementation stage at a large, research-intensive Canadian university. As a result of participating in programming offered by Lead TAs, GTAs reported overall gains in their confidence as an instructor as well as increased disciplinary instructional competence. GTAs’ perceived benefits in relation to disciplinary instructional competence included: (a) increased knowledge of the TA role in the context of their department, (b) gains in pedagogical content knowledge, and (c) increased classroom management skills when facilitating disciplinary tasks or discussions. The study points to the potential for the Lead TA Program to enhance the general, domain, and topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge of GTAs. Unique challenges of implementing discipline-specific programming are addressed and recommendations are offered for establishing similar programs at other universities.

As universities continue to internationalize their curricula and recruit a growing number of international students, instructors facilitate learning in increasingly diverse classrooms. This chapter explores the application of Intercultural Teaching Competence (ITC) by faculty members across the disciplines at a large Canadian research university. Based on focus group interviews with instructors in eighteen disciplines, it provides varied and concrete examples of how instructors mobilize intercultural teaching competence to navigate diverse classrooms, promote perspective-taking and global learning goals among students, practice culturally relevant teaching, and validate different ways of knowing and communicating among students through assessment practices. Placing disciplines at the centre of the discussion in this way elucidates the extent to which ITC may be adapted to fit the contours of the academic field and allows readers to explore best practices for facilitating the development of intercultural competence among students in their disciplines. Finally, the implications of disciplinary differences in ITC are discussed for faculty development and curriculum support.