This chapter briefly describes the SoTL research development program and context at Mount Royal University, reports initial results from a study of the program's impact on participants’ teaching and scholarly activities, and situates the findings regarding individual impact, department‐level impact, institution‐level impact, and discipline‐level impact within the current literature and the Canadian context.

No abstract

This article describes a model for supporting undergraduate research that can be adapted for very different classroom contexts; we implemented this model in a first-year general education composition class, a second-year Psychology class and a fourth-year English literature seminar. We examine student work created for each class as well as reflections and interviews to explore student attitudes towards and perceptions of research. While the scaffolded approach had an impact on students' understanding of the research process, the effects did not vary significantly by level and context as we had expected.

This paper presents the results of a pilot SoTL study re: a non-traditional leadership course delivered in three sections of a foundational General Education course at [name of university] in 2016-17. This nontraditional course focuses explicitly on ontological change (a change in way of being) rather than epistemological change (a change in knowledge or skill sets). The project aimed at two goals: to replicate a pre-and post-course questionnaire study (Carney, Jensen, Ballarini, Echeverria, Nettleton, Stillwell, & Erhard, 2016) and to attempt to surface possible evidence of ontological change (change in ways of being). The pre-and post-course questionnaires replicated the Carney et al. study. Narrative data also indicates some change in self-perception of leadership capacities. These results suggest opportunities for considering moving beyond the dominant epistemological educational paradigm to explore the potential of ontological approaches to learning, at least in the arena of leadership development.

ples, the distinction is important for Kelly's defense of the "mutually reinforcing activist approach to rights that originates with the cabinet and the bureaucratic arena that supports its legislative agenda"~39!. He continues, "Judicial activism is more a reflection of the institutional failure of legislative activism to ensure that Charter values are addressed in the design of legislation than it is an indication of the danger of judicial supremacy"~39!. But this is true only if we take judicial specifications of "Charter values" as conclusive. The real problems associated with "judicial activism" would occur when-or if-the Department of Justice's rights vetting process relied on the department's independent and reasonable specification of those values. Although Kelly's work opens up important lines of inquiry here, we will need further investigations to fill in the picture he has outlined. As the book's subtitle indicates, Kelly's analysis moves beyond his central theme into other areas. He argues that the Supreme Court's activism is consistent with the intent of some of the Charter's framers, especially Pierre Trudeau. Though convincing on the level of framers' intent, this argument does not in itself defeat the conservative critique of the Court's activism. On its face, it eliminates one version of the originalist criticism of activism, without affecting other grounds of criticism, such as the non-democratic nature of activism. And even in originalist terms, a framers'intent analysis is unresponsive to more recent versions of originalism that focus on general public understanding of a constitution's terms and structures. Kelly relies heavily on what specific authors had in mind when they adopted the Charter but does not show that the public understood what it was getting. Kelly also points out that a substantial number-52 per cent by one count-of Charter cases involve challenges not to the constitutionality of legislation but to the exercise of discretion delegated to public officials, such as the police~35!. Such cases raise no deep questions of the consistency between constitutional review and democratic self-government, and indeed can be handled-as they traditionally were under British law-as matters of administrative law. Kelly's provocative cabinet-centred approach is a major addition to the literature on constitutional review in Canada and should influence discussions of comparative constitutional review as well. He has opened up important lines of inquiry even if he has not fully sorted through distinctions that later scholars will undoubtedly feel compelled to make.