Bridging the Divide: Leveraging the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning for Quality Enhancement

Openo, Jason; Laverty, Cory; Kolomitro, Klodiana; Borin, Paola; Goff, Lori; Stranach, Matthew; Gomaa, Nahla

doi:10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.6

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, Simmons (2016) urges SoTL scholars to situate their influence beyond the institutional level to have an impact at the megalevel, where SoTL has the potential to inform decision-making that will shape the future political, social, and economic landscape of higher education (Bloch-Schulman, Conkling, Linkon, Manarin, & Perkins, 2016). Thus, in a zeitgeist that increasingly demands accountability for education funding, our colleagues remind us that SoTL not only has the potential to make a vital contribution to providing the evidence of quality that provincial and federal stakeholders demand (Bernstein, 2013;Gordon, 2010;Hutchings et al, 2013;Openo et al, 2017;Poole & Simmons, 2013), but also to critically challenge and transform current practices.…”

Section: Sotl Leadership In Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading Up in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) scholars, including those who are not in formal positions of leadership, are uniquely positioned to engage in leadership activities that can grow the field, influence their colleagues, and effect change in their local contexts as well as in institutional, disciplinary, and the broader Canadian contexts. Drawing upon the existing SoTL literature and our own diverse experiences, we propose a framework that describes institutional contexts in terms of local SoTL activity (microcultures) and administrative support (macro-level) and use it to describe the many ways that SoTL scholars can and do “lead up” to effect change depending on their own context. We conclude by inviting scholars to consider, reflect upon, and experiment with their leadership activities, not only for their own professional growth but also to contribute to the literature in this area. Les professeurs qui font des recherches dans le domaine de l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage (ACEA), y compris ceux qui n’occupent pas un poste de leadership formel, occupent une position unique pour s’engager dans des activités de leadership qui peuvent faire avancer le domaine, influencer leurs collègues et effectuer des changements dans leurs contextes locaux ainsi que dans les contextes plus vastes de leur établissement, de leur discipline et du contexte canadien en général. En nous appuyant sur la documentation déjà publiée en ACEA et sur nos diverses expériences personnelles, nous proposons un cadre qui décrit les contextes institutionnels en termes d’activités d’ACEA locales (micro-cultures) et de soutien administratif (niveau macro) que nous utilisons pour décrire les diverses manières dont les chercheurs en ACEA peuvent en arriver à effectuer des changements selon leur propre contexte. En conclusion, nous invitons les chercheurs à prendre en considération leurs activités de leadership, à y réfléchir et à faire des expériences, non seulement pour leur propre croissance professionnelle mais également pour contribuer à la documentation dans ce domaine.

show abstract

Section: Sotl Leadership In Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading Up in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Current interest in scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) presents an opportunity to engage faculty in continuous QI. 67 SoTL has been described as 'systematic inquiry into student learning which advances the practice of teaching by making inquiry findings public', 68 but SoTL inquiry could also be well-suited to one or other foci of evaluation, per the CIPP model. 58 More generally, proactive embedding of quality should be a target in developing any curricular component or resource.…”

Section: Ownership Of and Engagement With Continuous Qimentioning

confidence: 99%

State of the science: Quality improvement of medical curricula—How should we approach it?

Jamieson

2022

Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Quality improvement (QI) of the medical curriculum is generally regarded as a continuous process of evaluating whether the specific curriculum meets relevant educational and professional standards, implementing new activities or other measures to address perceived deficiencies, and subsequently re-evaluating the quality of the curriculum. QI is of consequence to medical learners, educators, patients, carers, specific disciplines and specialties, regulators and funders.Methods: To address how we should approach QI of medical curricula, a narrative review was undertaken, drawing mainly on medical/health professions education literature, identified through searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED and ERIC databases, and also on exemplar curricular frameworks and evaluation reports.Assumptions and practices in QI of medical curricula were explored critically. Results:The review compares alternative conceptualisations of QI; asks questions about priorities and perspectives in what we choose to evaluate; reflects on standards used to guide QI; critically discusses methods, models and theoretical approaches to the generation of evaluation data; and considers ownership of, and engagement with QI of medical curricula.Conclusions: Recommendations for curriculum teams include that discourse is necessary to achieve transparency and a shared understanding of continuous QI in a particular curricular context. Continuous QI requires data collection methods aligned to specific evaluation questions/foci; multiple methods for data collection, from different stakeholders; and appropriate evaluation models and theory to provide a framework for QI. Embracing a quality culture approach may increase the sense of ownership experienced by stakeholders. Mechanisms include creating democratic-collegiate cultures for multiple stakeholders to collaborate in QI; engaging stakeholders in QI activities and (e.g. SoTL) projects that contribute to holistic continuous QI; and proactively embedding quality in the (co-)creation of curriculum components and resources. | INTRODUCTIONQuality improvement (QI) of the medical curriculum is an important priority for the curriculum team and is of consequence to many stakeholders: learners, educators, patients, carers, specific disciplines and specialities, regulators and funders. Continuous QI is distinct from, but feeds into, externally driven accreditation-focused curriculum reviews. This narrative review 1 explores some of the assumptions

show abstract

“…Key trends in higher education have heightened focus on student assessment, especially in terms of online learning contexts, accountability, and the increasing scrutiny of the ability of colleges and universities to report performance outcomes (Newman, 2015). Openo et al (2017) contend that, at present, there is little connection between quality assurance indicators and quality teaching in provincial quality assurance frameworks, and that quality assurance reporting mechanisms are ill-defined. These gaps represent an important deficiency in provincial oversight of postsecondary education, where, increasingly, accreditation processes require detailed curriculum maps linking core competencies with assessment measures.…”

Section: A Framework For Assessment In Online Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%