Graduate Student University Teaching Conference:Transitioning to Teaching: Getting the most out of your experience

Thursday, August 29th, 2013

CONFERENCE REPORT

Prepared by Madelaine O. Khan, BAS Candidate

Educational Development Resource Assistant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Overview………………………………………………………….. 3Participant Data………………………………………………….. 4Registration………………………………………………………. 6Opening Plenary…………………………………………………. 7Morning Break…………………………………………………… 8Concurrent Sessions……………………………………………... 9Lunch……………………………………………………………... 11Closing Plenary…………………………………………………... 12Review and Conclusions…………………………………………. 13Appendix A……………………………………………………….. 16Appendix B……………………………………………………….. 17Appendix C……………………………………………………….. 18

The Graduate Student University Teaching Conference was made possible by the following generous sponsors:

CSAHS, College of Arts,College of Management & Economics, Ontario Veterinary College, College of Biological Science, Graduate Student Association ,Graduate Studies, Office of the Associate Vice President (Academic), Graduate Student Learning Initiative, College of Physical and Engineering Science, Ontario Agricultural College, and Open Learning and

Educational Support

2

OVERVIEW

The Graduate Student University Teaching Conference (GSUTC) is an annual conference at the University of Guelph for the purpose promoting teaching excellence among both course instructors and teaching assistants. Hosted by the office of Open Learning and Educational Support, this year’s planning committee consisted of Erin Aspenlieder (OpenEd); Kaitlin Roke, PhD student, Human Health & Nutrition; Jodie Salter, Learning & Curriculum Support Librarian; Shara Inotay, Program Logistics Coordinator (OpenEd); Gavan Watson, Educational Developer, (OpenEd); Nick Strazalkowski, PhD student, Human Health & Nutrition; Zaman Ank, PhD student, Computer Science; Mike Stachowsky, PhD student, Engineering. Special thanks to a number of volunteers, listed under Appendix B, who contributed to the success of the conference itself. This year, the GSUTC was held on Thursday August 29th, 2013, and ran from 9:00am to 3:30pm. The conference was held in both the MacNaughton and MacKinnon buildings on campus, and had a total of 242 participants.

This year’s conference theme was Transitioning to Teaching: Getting the most out of your experience. The conference began with the awarding of the Associate Vice President Academic Teaching Assistant Award to Braden Evans. Then there was an opening address from Daniel Jeffery (Co-Chair, TA Advisory Council), and Natasha Kenny (Manager, Educational Development, Open Learning and Educational Support). These comments were followed by a keynote address from Dr. John Dawson that consisted of his presentation entitled Dare to Care, which will be discussed in further detail on page 6 of this report. Participants were then invited to attend a series of three concurrent sessions, during which they could learn about teaching/teaching assisting-related duties including, leading discussions, providing feedback, technology in the classroom, developing a teaching dossier, and a number of other important teaching-related topics. The conference was concluded with a panel discussion of five University of Guelph instructors who demonstrate exceptional classroom teaching: Braden Evans (School of Environmental Sciences), Dr. Bettina Kalish (Biomedical Sciences), Dr. Ian Spears (Political Science), Dr. Jacqueline Murray (History and First Year Seminars), Dr. Lori Vallis (Human Health and Nutritional Sciences).

The total cost of the conference was $6107.00. The cost of Hospitality Services (food) for the conference was $4550.00, thus comprising the majority of the total conference cost. The remainder of the cost was attributed to the printing and office supplies required for the registration packages $698.00, as well as administrative/AV support $350.00. In addition we had one-time costs this year of $509.00, for the purchase of volunteer t-shirts. Total donations from all Colleges, as well as COLES, the Graduate Student Association, and Graduate Program Services, was $6800.00. Therefore, all donations were fully utilized in the organizing of the conference. Registration for the conference was free of charge.The following report is an overall analysis of the conference that is derived from the GSUTC evaluation forms completed by the participants. This report will make note of the successes of the conference, as well as make suggestions for improvement for future years.

PARTICIPANT DATA3

A total of 242 attended the conference, 160 of which completed the full registration form from which the following participant data was gathered. Participants from all University of Guelph Colleges attended the conference. The representation from each of the seven colleges is shown in Table 1. The highest number of participants came from the College of Arts (21%), followed by a tie between the College of Biological Science and Ontario Agricultural College (both at 16%).

Table 1: Registrant Number by CollegeCollege Registrants Percentage (%)

College of Arts 34 21College of Biological Science 26 16College of Management and Economics 9 6College of Physical and Engineering Science 20 13College of Social and Applied Human Sciences 21 13Ontario Agricultural College 26 16Ontario Veterinary College 18 11No response 6 4

The majority of participants (60 %) were graduate students at the Master’s level, as shown below in Table 2.

Table 2: Registrant Number by Degree/PositionDegree/Position Registrants Percentage (%)

Masters 96 60Ph.D. 55 34Post-Doctoral 2 1Graduate Diploma 1 1Undergraduate 3 2No response 3 2

The majority of participants (68 %) currently held Teaching Assistant positions for the 2013-2014 academic year, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Number of Registrants Holding TA Positions for 2012-2013 Academic YearTA Position for 2012-2013 Count Percentage (%)

No 52 32Yes 108 68

The vast majority of participants (75%) heard about the conference from their departmental graduate secretary. Social media was largely unsuccessful in informing participants about the conference (1%), as illustrated in Table 4.

4

Table 4: Distribution of Where Participants Heard About the Conference FromWhere They Heard About the Conference Count Percentage (%)

Open Learning and Educational Support Website 8 4Email from Graduate Secretary 136 75Other Departmental Communication 11 6Word of Mouth 20 11Social Media 2 1Other 5 3

As shown in Table 5, the most common reason for attending the conference was to prepare for a TA position at the University of Guelph, followed closely by a desire to enhance one’s professional development skills and/or build a CV, as well as to address a general interest in teaching and learning in higher education.

Table 5: Reasons for Attending the Conference*Reason Count Percentage

(%)General interest in teaching and learning in higher education 98 17Connect with peers from my department and across the University 71 13Enhance my professional development skills and/or build my CV 112 20Learn more about the University of Guelph's teaching and learning community 88 16

Prepare for a TA position at the University of Guelph 118 21Prepare for a faculty or sessional teaching position at the University of Guelph or elsewhere 66 12

Prepare for an elementary or secondary school teaching position 8 1

* Registrants were given the option to select all reasons that applied.

In sum, participants came from all University of Guelph Colleges, with a slight majority coming from the College of Arts. This difference is important to make note of for future conference development; as the inclusion of art-specific sessions may serve to suit the needs of many conference attendees. The majority of the participants were Masters-level graduate students holding Teaching Assistant positions for the first time. This finding also has implications for future conference planning, as sessions catered specifically to first-time TA positions would benefit the majority of participants. However, there were a significant number of Doctorate-level TAs; perhaps having some sessions for advanced teaching would be beneficial. Most participants heard about the conference through their departmental Graduate Secretary, so this should continue to be a means of communication about the conference. Finally, the majority of participants attended the conference because they will be taking up Teaching Assistant positions, have an interest in teaching, and want to enhance their skills and CV. Thus, future conference sessions should focus on these specific needs and interests.

5

REGISTRATION

This year, the registration process was an overall success, as depicted in Figure 1. The registrants appreciated the ease and efficiency of registering, even those who had not pre-registered online. The name tags with departmental affiliations were a tremendous success; registrants enjoyed the ability to meet new people from their programs, and thought they served as great ice-breakers/conversation starters as well. Overall, registrants felt that the registration process was simple, well-organized, and in an easy-to-access location (front lobby of the MacNaughton Building).

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

20

40

60

80

100

120

0% 0% 0% 0%7%

0%

18%

0%

75%

Rating1(Poor); 3(OK); 5(Excellent)

# of

Res

pons

es

Fig. 1: Quality and/or Usefulness of Registration OPENING PLENARY

This year, the welcoming address was given in the MacNaughton building (room 105) by Daniel Jeffery (Co-Chair, TA Advisory Council), and Natasha Kenny (Manager, Educational Development, Open Learning and Educational Support). Following the welcoming address, a keynote address was given by Dr. John Dawson. His presentation, entitled Dare to Care, addressed the opportunity for instructors to connect research and teaching. Dr. Dawson noted that teaching and research are mutually reinforcing:

“Great teachers care and share.  Their caring about teaching is the fundamental thread that weaves the many aspects and duties of great teaching and teachers: they care about their students, how they teach, what they teach, and the goals of their teaching. Their caring about teaching drives them to share their experiences with others. In this

6

address, I will share my experiences and thoughts regarding student motivation, current trends in university teaching, and how caring about teaching has taken me to places I didn't know were possible” (Dr. John Dawson).

Overall, participants were informed about the need to encourage self-confidence among students, which underlined the theme of the conference and served as a great segue into the concurrent sessions.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0% 0% 0% %06%

1%

28%

1%

64%

Rating1(Not Useful); 3(Somewhat Useful); 5(Very Useful)

# of

Res

pons

es

Fig. 2: Usefulness of the Opening Plenary

In general, participants felt that the opening and keynote address was useful, as shown in Figure 2 above. In particular, participants felt that the keynote address was clear and concise, and set the stage for the day’s theme. Participants appreciated Dr. Dawson’s ability to inspire and motivate faculty in an engaging and organized fashion. Many participants were particularly interested in hearing Dr. Dawson’s advice based on his personal experiences towards practical teaching.

MORNING BREAK

A morning refreshment break was offered in the MacNaughton front lobby after the Opening Plenary, before participants headed off to their first concurrent session. Coffee, tea, juice, and an assorted of baked goods were offered. This year, as in last year, conference organizers sent registrants an e-mail reminder to bring a travel mug so that less waste would be produced in using paper cups. The morning break was well received, as depicted in Figure 3.

7

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0% 0% 0% 0%

11%

0%

34%

0%

55%

Rating1(Not Useful); 3(Somewhat Useful); 5(Very Useful)

# of

Res

pons

es

Fig. 3: Usefulness of the Morning Coffee Break

Positive Feedback:The majority of the participants felt that there was a great selection of refreshments to

choose from, and enjoyed the quality of the baked goods and coffee provided. Participants were especially pleased with the option of fruit and juice as a healthier alternative to muffins. They also noted that the volunteers were exceptional in orchestrating the event and that vegan options were appreciated.

Constructive Feedback:Many participants expressed their desire for healthier baked goods and more

alternatives to coffee and juice. Some suggested that tea and water be included as available refreshments, in addition to whole-wheat baked goods. A few participants also noted that the space felt cramped and confusing. Perhaps having the refreshments spread out at different stations would decrease the cramped atmosphere. Finally, many participants expressed their desire to facilitate more networking and discussion between other participants.

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Concurrent sessions were run on 3rd floor of the MacKinnon building, from 10:30-11:20am, 11:30am-12:20pm, and 1:30-2:20pm. Each concurrent session offered an assortment of 9 different workshops, presentations, and panel discussions that participants could choose from. Volunteer presenters, including faculty, staff and graduate students ran these sessions.. The content of the sessions dealt primarily with: the roles/responsibilities of Teaching Assistants; how to effectively plan lessons, lead classroom discussions and engage students; how to give constructive feedback; how to interact with students from varying

8

backgrounds; and how to develop a teaching dossier. All sessions were, to a certain degree, underlined by the conference theme of “transitioning to teaching.” A complete list of concurrent sessions and accompanying participant attendance is provided in Appendix A.

The most popular concurrent sessions among participants were: Active Learning and Introverts Marking with Integrity; Marking with Empathy, Providing Effective Feedback on Student Writing

The least popular sessions among participants were: Facilitating Effective and Engaging Small Group Discussions Ask a TA: Open Discussion and Question and Answer Teaching in Tutorials and Seminars Using Problem Sets

Figures 4, 5, and 6 depict participants’ attendance of each concurrent session:

Fig. 4: Concurrent Sessions 1.0 Attendance

Fig. 4: Concurrent Sessions 1.0 Attendance

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

17%

15%

0%

11% 11%

18%

26%

1% 1%

Session #

# of

Par

ticip

ants

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

9%

18%

1%

12%13%

24%

8%

13%

2%0%

Session #

# of

Par

ticip

ants

Fig. 5: Concurrent Sessions 2.0 Attendance

Fig. 6: Concurrent Sessions 3.0 Attendance

Positive Feedback:By and large, participants enjoyed the sessions that exemplified how to mark student

writing and how to provide feedback. Participants enjoyed the sessions with discussions where they were able to interact with other participants and receive advice from the instructor.

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

9%

18%

1%

12%13%

24%

8%

13%

2%0%

Session #

# of

Par

ticip

ants

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

5

10

15

20

25

13%

7%

10%

8%

13%

9%

11%

14%15%

Session #

# of

Par

ticip

ants

Sessions that allowed participants to apply the concepts learned (i.e. hands-on activities such as marking exercises) were highly favored. Finally, participants appreciated the sessions that were well-organized, clear, concise, and well-timed.

Constructive Feedback: The majority of the concern that came from participants surrounded how to mark

assignments in different disciplines, especially scientific reports and examinations. Many participants also wished that there was more opportunity for discussion and more time to go through further examples of marking. Furthermore, participants were left wondering how to engage students in less engaging subjects, especially shyer students. Perhaps a session on engaging students, particularly more reserved ones, could be included in the future.

LUNCH

Lunch was served between the 2nd and 3rd concurrent sessions (12:30-1:20pm), in the Science Complex. Pizza was served, with meat, vegetarian, and vegan options, and was accompanied by a choice of salads, fruit, and water/pop/juice. Lunch was well-received by the majority of the participants, as illustrated below in Figure 7.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0% 0% 1% 0%

11%

1%

25%

2%

60%

Rating1(Poor); 3(OK); 5(Excellent)

# of

Res

pons

es

Fig. 7: Quality and/or Efficiency of Lunch

Positive Feedback:The majority of participants enjoyed the variety of options available for lunch, and

appreciated that both vegetarian, vegan, and gluten-free pizza varieties were provided. Many participants appreciated the time to chat and network with fellow students and instructors.

11

Constructive Feedback:While many participants appreciated that salad and fruit were offered, a few

participants expressed a desire for a healthier option than pizza offered as the main meal. A few participants also commented on the lack of vegan salad dressing, and many expressed a desire for more fruit and vegetables. Perhaps a designated table for vegans and those with gluten allergies could be clearly displayed and set apart from other tables. One participant suggested including veggie trays for the next conference. Furthermore, participants commented that the cutlery and condiments table was crowded and suggested that two different tables be set up for easier access. Finally, a few participants suggested that other beverages, such as milk, chocolate milk, and juice be offered instead of pop.

CLOSING PLENARY

Participants returned to the MacNaughton building, room 105, for the closing plenary, which involved a panel discussion with the University of Guelph instructors. Panelists were specifically selected as each has received recognition for their outstanding teaching abilities. The panel included Braden Evans (School of Environmental Sciences), Dr. Bettina Kalish (Biomedical Sciences), Dr. Ian Spears (Political Science), Dr. Jacqueline Murray (History and First Year Seminars), Dr. Lori Vallis (Human Health and Nutritional Sciences). Each panelist discussed their most salient learning experiences that they endured while teaching, and provided, what they deem to be the most important advice to take into consideration while teaching. The discussion was followed by a question-and-answer period between conference participants and the panel. The closing plenary was well-received by most of the conference participants, as shown in Figure 8 below.

Fig. 8: Usefulness of the Closing Panel

Positive Feedback:Many participants commented that this was their favourite part of the entire

conference! Participants appreciated the different perspectives and practical advice from panelists that were from a variety of programs/departments. Many participants commented on

12

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

0% 0% 3% 0%

9%

0%

34%

2%

52%

Rating1(Not Useful); 3(Somewhat Useful); 5(Very Useful)

# of

Res

pons

es

the effectiveness of the question and answer period and felt that this was a very effective conclusion to the conference.

Constructive Feedback:One of the participants felt that the question and answer period should be made into

formal session because it was so well received. However, another participant felt that the closing panel was a bit lengthy after a full day of sessions and morning keynote presentation. Perhaps the period could be shorter and a question and answer period could be included after for those who wish to attend.

REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the 2013 Graduate Student University Teaching Conference was a success. The purpose of the conference was to better prepare up-and-coming graduate students, faculty, and staff for their teaching roles, with an emphasis on fostering student confidence. The conference served its intended purpose, as the majority of students reported feeling at least somewhat, if not very, prepared for teaching/teaching assisting after the conference, as depicted in Figure 9 below.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1% 0%3%

0%

25%

0%

44%

1%

37%

Rating1(Not Useful); 3(Somewhat Useful); 5(Very Useful)

# of

Res

pons

es

Fig. 9: Post-Conference Feelings of Preparedness for Teaching/Teaching Assisting

Positive Feedback:Overall, participants felt that the conference was a success. There was wide consensus

that the conference was highly informative, well-organized, and a great way to connect with fellow students, staff, and faculty on campus. Many expressed feelings of relief in now

13

knowing what their role as an instructor or TA will involve, and how they can succeed in their role. Participants were also appreciative of the variety of workshops available and enjoyed the enthusiasm and energy of the presenters. There was an immense amount of gratitude for the organizers, presenters, and sponsors for their large effort in putting this conference together. Participants expressed their support for the continuation of this conference in future years. Figure 10 depicts the overall views participants had of the quality of the conference:

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0% 0% 2% 0%

12%

1%

39%

2%

44%

Rating1(Poor); 3(Satisfactory); 5(Excellent)

# of

Res

pons

es

Fig. 10: Overall Quality of the Conference

Constructive Feedback:

What the Participants Still Want to KnowThe following is a list of common questions that participants still had after the

conference, which will be helpful in deciding what types of workshops, panel discussions, and presentations to include next year:

- How to transition from a student to faculty member- Opportunities to communicate with facilitators from various departments - How to approach students who are not respectful towards your teaching- How to manage your time between teaching and your own courses- How to transfer students from a mark-oriented focus to a learning-oriented focus- How to engage students in less engaging subjects- For international TAs, how to overcome cultural differences, language barriers, etc.- How TAs can communicate and share ideas, resources, etc.- Code of “Ethics” of “Code of Conduct” for TAs, how much help is appropriate to give

to students- Marking requirements for science-based essays/reports/midterms/exams

14

- Career path and time requirements to become a professor- If Powerpoint slides from workshops will be posted online

Suggestions for Future ConferencesThe following is a list of common suggestions made by participants in terms of how to

better organize the conference and suit the needs of all participants:

- More specific techniques/strategies for teaching effectively- Include student’s expectations of TAs- More sessions- Longer sessions- Conferences should be held more often- More small group mentoring opportunities- More geared to marking reports specifically for sciences - Improving educational strategies to encompass a wide variety of learning styles- More professors should offer sessions (a participant noted their advice was the most

useful)- Open up the conference to professors too- Session on midterm/exam marking- Session on integrating media/technology in the classroom- More advertising, lots did not know about the conference (a suggestion was to put up

posters, have mailing lists, etc.)

Appendix A:Graduate Student University Teaching Conference – Concurrent Sessions

10:30-11:20Making the Most Out of Your First Tutorial (Workshop)

15

Lauren Wallar, PhD student, Population MedicineImproving Your Teaching Through Universal Instructional Design (Workshop)Dr. Natasha Kenny, Manager Educational Development, OpenEd and Christine Smith, OpenEdFacilitating Effective and Engaging Small Group Discussions (Workshop)Nathan Lachowsky, PhD Candidate, Epidemiology

Teaching in the Canadian Classroom (Workshop)Dr. Gavan Watson, Educational Developer, OpenEdEasy Active Learning Strategies for Every Classroom (Workshop)Daniel Jeffery, PhD Candidate, Molecular and Cellular BiologySurviving Science Seminars: Giving and Getting the Most from Lectures, Tutorials and Workshops (Workshop)Melanie Wills, PhD Candidate, Molecular and Cellular BiologyActive Learning and Introverts (Presentation)Julieta Correa, PhD, Food ScienceAsk a Librarian: Creative Assistance for Your Research and Teaching (Workshop)Judy Wanner, Learning and Curriculum Support LibrarianAsk a TA: Open Discussion and Question and Answer (Informal drop-in)Conference Volunteers – all current or past teaching assistants

11:30-12:20Making the Most Out of Your First Tutorial (Workshop)Lauren Wallar, PhD student, Population MedicineImproving Your Teaching Through Universal Instructional Design (Workshop)Dr. Natasha Kenny, Manager Educational Development, OpenEd and Christine Smith, OpenEdFacilitating Effective and Engaging Small Group Discussions (Workshop)Nathan Lachowsky, PhD Candidate, EpidemiologyTeaching in the Canadian Classroom (Workshop)Dr. Gavan Watson, Educational Developer, OpenEdEasy Active Learning Strategies for Every Classroom (Workshop)Daniel Jeffery, PhD Candidate, Molecular and Cellular BiologyMarking with Integrity; Marking with Empathy (Workshop)Marjorie Hopkins, PhD Candidate, HistoryPreparing to Effectively Teach a Language Course (Presentation)Magda Tichelaar and Luiza Guimaraes-Santos, Masters students, School of Language and LiteratureMarking Lab Reports (Workshop)Amy Wotherspoon, School of Environmental Sciences

Ask a Librarian: Creative Assistance for Your Research and Teaching (Workshop)Judy Wanner, Learning and Curriculum Support LibrarianAsk a TA: Open Discussion and Question and Answer (Informal drop-in)Conference Volunteers -- all current or past teaching assistants

1:30-2:20Marking Lab Reports (Workshop)Amy Wotherspoon, School of Environmental SciencesTeaching in Tutorials and Seminars Using Problem Sets (Workshop) Jeremy Levick, PhD Candidate, Mathematics and StatisticsMarking Presentations (Workshop)Wendy Pons, PhD Candidate, Public HealthTeaching Labs (Workshop)Mike More, M.Sc Candidate, ChemistryTeaching in Tutorials and Seminars Using Discussions (Workshop)Sarah Baldwin, M.Sc, International DevelopmentMarking Essays (Workshop)Marjorie Hopkins, PhD Candidate, History

16

Teaching Dossier Basics (Workshop)Janet Wolstenholme, Educational Developer, OpenEd

Developing Strategies to Effectively Teach and TA First Year Students (Workshop)Kaitilin Roke and Jessica Ralston, PhD students, Human Health and Nutritional Science

Providing Effective Feedback on Student Writing (Workshop)Kim Garwood, Manager, Writing Services and Lenore Latta, Writing Specialist, Writing Services

Appendix B: Conference Budget

(n = 300 participants)Item Description Revenue ExpenseCollege/Unit Contributions College of Arts

500

College of Management and Economics 500

College of Biological Sciences 500

College of Social and Applied Human Sciences 500

College of Physical and Eng. Sciences 500

Graduate Student Learning Initiative (Library) 500

Assoc. Vice President Academic 500

OpenEd 900

Graduate Students Association 500

OVC 500

Graduate Program Services 900

OAC 500

Registration Packages Print Charges / TA guide/ TA passport 521

Office Supplies 177

T-Shirts 509

Hospitality, Lunch and breaks Coffee, tea, juice, cookies, fresh fruit, granola bars, and delivery

4,550

Pizza, salad, pop and delivery

17

Administrative Support/AV Support 350

Total 6,800 6,107

Conference Budget (carry forward for 2014) 693

18