This paper makes a critical assessment of problem-based learning (PBL) in geography.It assesses what PBL is, in terms ofthe range of definitions in use and in light of its origins in specific disciplines such as medicine. It considers experiences of PBL from the standpoint of students, instructors and managers (e.g. deans), and asks how well suited this method of learning is for use in geography curricula, courses and assignments. It identifies some 'best practices in PBL', as well as some useful sources for those seeking to adopt PBL in geography. It concludes that PBL is not a teaching and learning method to be adopted lightly, and that if the chances of successful implementation are to be maximized, careful attention to course preparation and scenario design is essential. More needs to be known about the circumstances in which applications of PBL have not worked well and also about the nature of the inputs needed from students, teachers and others to reap its benefits.

This paper defines and operationalizes definitions of good teaching, scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning in order to measure characteristics of these definitions amongst undergraduate instructors at McMaster University. A total of 2496 instructors, including all part-time instructors, were surveyed in 2007. A total of 339 surveys were returned. Indices of good teaching, scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning were developed. The data illustrated a strong correlation between good teaching and scholarly teaching and between scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning. The perceived value placed upon teaching varied across the different Faculties. New instructors and those engaged in scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning perceived teaching to be more valued than their peers.Le présent article définit et opérationnalise les définitions d’enseignement efficace[1], d’enseignement érudit[2] et de la publication sur l'enseignement supérieur[3] afin de mesurer les caractéristiques de ces définitions chez les enseignants de premier cycle de l’Université McMaster. Au total, 2 496 enseignants, y compris tous ceux qui travaillent à temps partiel, ont été sondés en 2007 et 339 questionnaires ont été retournés. Les chercheurs ont élaboré des indices d’un bon enseignement, d’un très bon enseignement et d’un excellent enseignement. Les données illustrent une forte corrélation entre un bon enseignement et un très bonenseignement, de même qu’entre un très bon enseignement et un excellent enseignement. La valeur perçue accordée à l’enseignement variait selon les différentes facultés. Les nouveaux enseignants pratiquant un très bon enseignement et un excellent enseignement trouvaient l’enseignement plus utile que leurs pairs

Recent teaching and learning scholarship has documented the importance of uncovering and removing barriers to learning experienced by students with disabilities (e.g., Cook, Rumrill, & Tankersley, 2009). At the same time, in Ontario, new legislation is making this issue especially pronounced. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA, 2005), mandates universal access for persons with disabilities, requiring the removal of barriers to their full participation in all aspects of society, including higher education. This article reports on the first phase of a larger project designed to collect qualitative data about the effects of the AODA legislation on the teaching and learning environment at one University. Building on previous work that investigates students with disabilities' experiences of tertiary learning (e.g., Healey, Bradley, Fuller, & Hall, 2006), it reports on the results of semistructured interviews that explored the ways in which students with and without disabilities, instructors, administrators, and staff perceive the relative accessibility and inclusiveness of teaching and learning at this institution, with an eye to ultimately enhancing learning for all students.Results from this first phase suggest a number of areas in which both barriers to and facilitators of educational accessibility exist at the study University, including: attitudes; knowledge; disciplinary features; pedagogical choices; and, institutional practices. We suggest that these findings may be of relevance to others in different constituencies and contexts, and provide recommendations for enacting change related to teaching and learning accessibility and thereby improving the student learning experience.L'avancement récent des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage a permis de documenter l'importance de dévoiler et de surmonter les obstacles à l'apprentissage des étudiants ayant des incapacités (p. ex., Cook, Rumrill, & Tankersley, 2009). En même temps, en Ontario, une nouvelle loi rend ce problème particulièrement évident. La Loi de 2005 sur l'accessibilité pour les personnes handicapées de l'Ontario (LAPHO, 2005), rend obligatoire l'accès universel pour ces personnes, ce qui nécessite l'élimination des obstacles à leur pleine participation à tous les aspects de la société, y compris à l'éducation supérieure. Le présent article traite de la première phase d'un grand projet visant à recueillir des données qualitatives sur les effets de la LAPHO sur le milieu d'enseignement et d'apprentissage dans une université. Les auteurs s'inspirent des études antérieures auprès des étudiants handicapés afin d'étudier leur expérience de l'apprentissage dans un établissement d 'enseignement supérieur (p. ex., Healey, Bradley, Fuller, & Hall, 2006). L'article rapporte les résultats d'entrevues semi-structurées concernant la perception qu'ont les étudiants handicapés, les autres étudiants, les professeurs, les administrateurs et le personnel de l'accessibilité relative et du caractère inclusif de l'enseignemen...

Several authors have suggested that educational institutions have a responsibility to foster creativity in their students. Yet, research has shown that creativity is a variable concept that can mean different things in different fields and contexts (Kaufman & Baer, 2005). As a result, generic pedagogical techniques for developing creativity may not be equally appropriate across domains.In light of these factors, this pilot study explored (via an electronic survey of instructors) the ways in which creativity is defined and taught across McMaster University's six faculties. Results suggested areas of both commonality and difference across disciplines in terms of academics' understandings of creativity and their stated strategies for developing creativity within their students. In this respect, our data provide preliminary support for the notion that creativity teaching may be at least partially discipline-specific, and suggest that further work in this area is warranted. KeywordsCreativity, Disciplinary perspectives, Pedagogical approaches, Discipline-specificity (Kaufman & Baer, 2005). As a result, generic pedagogical techniques for developing creativity may not be equally appropriate across domains.In light of these factors, this pilot study explored (via an electronic survey of instructors) the ways in which creativity is defined and taught across McMaster University's six faculties. Results suggested areas of both commonality and difference across disciplines in terms of academics' understandings of creativity and their stated strategies for developing creativity within their students. In this respect, our data provide preliminary support for the notion that creativity teaching may be at least partially discipline-specific, and suggest that further work in this area is warranted.

No abstract