Social Behavior Inventory: To Ipsatize or Not To Ipsatize, That Is The Question

This research extends prior knowledge of the statistical procedure of ipsatization, commonly utilized in interpersonal research to align data with theoretical expectations. The working hypotheses in prior studies have posited that a general factor, representing a response bias with no relevant substantive meaning, alters the data and interferes with analysis and interpretation unless removed by ipsatization. In the first of two studies, we initially investigated whether ipsatization removes important conceptual information from data when it removes a general factor. Three potential meanings of the general factor expected to occur in the Likert-scale version of the Social Behavior Inventory (SBI; Moskowitz, 1994) were modeled. When the resulting models did not adequately predict the data, the underlying structure of the data was analyzed with the discovery that a general factor does not exist for this version of the SBI. During study 2, this discovery was replicated in two larger datasets, leading to an investigation into whether ipsatization is still useful for a measure that does not possess a general factor. Despite a lack of a general factor to be removed, ipsatization did improve the structure and correlation patterns of SBI data with the resulting patterns matching those predicted by interpersonal theory. Thus, ipsatization can still be performed on this measure, which does not possess a general factor, thereby suggesting that the mechanism by which ipsatization improves data may not simply be the removal of a general factor as previously assumed. Several alternative mechanisms are discussed, with future research required to fully understand how ipsatization transforms the structure of data

The Visioning of Policy and the Hope of Implementation: Support for Graduate Students’ Teaching at a Canadian Institution

Graduate students teach within the complex higher education environment of financial constraint, greater student diversity, and growing graduate enrolment (e.g., Austin, 2003). Teaching roles offer financial support and skill development while multiplying responsibilities (Price, 2008). Across the national working papers and institutional reports, policies, and websites that we analyzed, support for graduate students was linked to their roles (e.g., teaching assistants). Formal messages about responsibility varied; national documents pointed to institutions, while institutional documents pointed to departments, courses, and individual graduate students. Most supports for graduate students reported were already existing piecemeal supports with limited implementation, despite policy recommendations for broad, flexible, open-ended, and recognized programming. Future research is needed to further clarify the pathways from vision to action.  Les étudiants diplômés enseignent dans un milieu d’éducation complexe dont les ressources financières sont en déclin, la diversité étudiante est plus importante et l’inscription aux études supérieures est croissante (p. ex., Austin, 2003). Les rôles associés à l’enseignement offrent un support financier et le développement d’habiletés, tout en multipliant les responsabilités (Price, 2008). L’analyse de multiples documents (travail nationaux, rapports institutionnels, politiques et sites Web) révèle que le soutien aux étudiants diplômés est lié à leurs rôles (assistant d’enseignement). Les messages formels à propos des responsabilités varient également; les documents nationaux pointent les institutions, tandis que les documents institutionnels pointent les départements, les cours et les étudiants diplômés. Le soutien le plus fréquent existait déjà, selon une mise en œuvre limitée en dépit des recommandations pour programmation plus générale, flexible, ouverte et reconnue. De nouvelles recherches sont nécessaires afin de pouvoir préciser les voies passant de la vision à l’action.  &nbsp

Evidencing the value of educational development: Charting a course on the waves and winds of change

Across higher education, educational developers and theirsupporting campus communities are being called upon to scale up evidence-informedpractices, to enhance student experiences, and to document the changes. Thisarticle builds on the work of scholars who have taken up this evaluativechallenge, by examining varied aspects of the evidencing process using anadaptation of Saunders’s (2000) RUFDATA framework for evidencing value.Reflections on emerging patterns and tensions in the evidencing of educationaldevelopment are subsequently discussed. We argue for making evidencing value apurposeful and intentional process, and we chart a path forward for creatingand implementing a vision for the age of evidence.https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.171542pubpub

Like our Students’ Experience: Moving Faculty Development Online

As the TRU community moved to working remotely and teaching virtually, CELT’s coordinators of learning and faculty development moved programming online. Through these experiences of transitioning spaces and learning, we focused on guiding principles (flexibility, community, and reflexivity on our own teaching). We will share key learning that emerged through this experience of making lemonade (learning opportunity) from lemons (being remote and online)—learning that will continue to inform our faculty development offerings long after the pandemic is over

Widening our evaluative lenses of formal, facilitated, and spontaneous academic development

As conceptions of academic development expand to encompass a more diverse and flexible set of supports, traditional approaches to evaluation, including impact studies of formal programming, become insufficient. A program may appear ineffective when evaluation ignores additional supports that interact to counteract implementation or alternatively satisfy individuals’ needs. Recognizing the inherently interactive nature of academic development within systemically complex social contexts, this paper examines four evaluative lenses (traditional, ecological framework, complexity theory, and developmental) applied to graduate students’ support. By selecting an appropriate evaluation lens, based on local purposes and context, academic developers are better positioned to assess and improve supports provided

Leaving the Nest: The Evolution of CHRPP (the Course of Human Participant Protection) | Quitter le nid : l’évolution du cours d’éthique sur la protection des participants humains

Four years ago [Institution Name] University launched an online tutorial called CHRPP, the Course in Human Research Participant Protection, and published a paper based about its purpose, design, and usability in (Authors, 2009). CHRPP was originally created to raise awareness among research students about the federal policy regarding research ethics and to encourage ethical research practices. Self-assessments and interactive activities were built into the tutorial to help achieve our goals. Since the first publication CHRPP has been updated based on user feedback from a user satisfaction survey. The generally positive reception of this innovative tutorial led to it serving as the basis of a new national research ethics tutorial hosted by the Government of Canada’s Panel on Research Ethics. This paper summarizes the evolution of CHRPP from a homegrown solution for [Institution Name] University to an essential piece of Canada’s national research ethics education program. En 2008, l’Université Queen’s a lancé un tutoriel en ligne nommé CHRPP (Course in Human Research Participant Protection, cours sur la protection des participants humains à la recherche) et publié un article sur son objectif, sa conception et sa convivialité dans Balkwill, Stevenson, Stockley et Marlin (2009). Le CHRPP a été créé pour sensibiliser les étudiants qui font de la recherche sur la politique fédérale relative à l’éthique de recherche et pour favoriser les pratiques éthiques de recherche. Des autoévaluations et des activités interactives ont été intégrées au tutoriel pour nous aider à atteindre nos objectifs. Depuis sa première publication, le CHRPP a été mis à jour en se basant sur la rétroaction tirée d’une enquête sur la satisfaction des utilisateurs. La réception généralement positive qu’a reçue ce tutoriel innovateur lui a valu de servir de base pour un nouveau tutoriel national en éthique de la recherche qu’héberge le Groupe consultatif en éthique de la recherche du gouvernement du Canada. Cet article résume l’évolution du CHRPP qui, d’une solution maison pour un établissement est devenu une partie essentielle du programme national canadien d’éducation en éthique de la recherche

Evidencing the Value of Educational Development: Charting a Course on the Waves and Winds of Change

Across higher education, educational developers and their supporting campus communities are being called upon to scale up evidence-informed practices, to enhance student experiences, and to document the changes. This article builds on the work of scholars who have taken up this evaluative challenge, by examining varied aspects of the evidencing process using an adaptation of Saunders’s (2000) RUFDATA framework for evidencing value. Reflections on emerging patterns and tensions in the evidencing of educational development are subsequently discussed. We argue for making evidencing value a purposeful and intentional process, and we chart a path forward for creating and implementing a vision for the age of evidence

Drawing on the Principles of SoTL to Illuminate a Path Forward for the Scholarship of Educational Development

There has been growing discourse related to the importance of the scholarship of educational development (SoED), but less discussion related to clearly defining principles for guiding engagement in SoED or contextualizing SoED within literature related to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Expanding upon Felten’s (2013) principles for SoTL, as well as evolving discourse related to principles of educational development (e.g., Gibbs, 2013; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010; Timmermans, 2014), this paper presents seven principles for SoED. Two additional principles (transforming practice and reflective practice) are added to Felten’s principles to further contextualize SoED in relation to educational development and SoTL. Three cases are provided to illustrate educational development, SoTL, and SoED within the context of these principles. The interrelationships between educational development, SoTL, and SoED are complex. While SoED offers many opportunities for further legitimizing the individual and collective practices in educational development, it also presents many additional tensions and questions for further research. On parle de plus en plus de l’importance de l’avancement des connaissances en pédagogie (ACP), mais on parle moins d’une définition claire des principes qui guident l’engagement en ACP ou de la contextualisation de l’ACP dans les publications de la recherche consacrée à l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage (ACEA). Pour élargir la portée des principes pour l’ACEA présentés par Felten (2013), ainsi que celle du discours évolutif lié aux principes de la pédagogie (voir Gibbs, 2013; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010; Timmermans, 2014), cet article présente sept principes pour l’ACP. Deux principes supplémentaires (transformation de la pratique et pratique réflective) sont ajoutés aux principes de Felten afin de contextualiser davantage l’ACP par rapport à la pédagogie et à l’ACEA. Trois cas sont présentés pour illustrer la pédagogie, l’ACEA et l’ACP dans le contexte de ces principes. Les relations entre la pédagogie, l’ACEA et l’ACP sont complexes. Alors que l’ACP offre de nombreuses possibilités pour rendre plus légitimes les pratiques individuelles et collectives en pédagogie, il présente également de nombreuses tensions et des questions supplémentaires qui pourront faire l’objet de davantage de recherche

A Comprehensive Guide to Working with Higher Education Curriculum Development, Review & Renewal Projects

“A Comprehensive Guide to Working with Higher Education Curriculum Development, Review & Renewal Projects” is a collaborative effort drawing on the collective experience of the authors, who have worked in different institutional contexts across Canada and beyond. Our goal is to provide practical guidance by describing curriculum development, review, and renewal practices in plain language, using a scholarly, evidence-informed, critical, and self-reflective approach. In writing this guide, we drew variously from theories of learning, well-established scholarship in education and curriculum studies, models of change management as applied to education, and the practice of educational development as informed by our own experiences and shared knowledges, to identify what in our view are best or promising practices for curriculum development