Conference Reflection

Leah Macfadyen, a Research Associate in UBC’s Faculty of Science, Skylight (Science Centre for Learning and Teaching) sent in this reflection from the Innovative Teaching Forum at SFU last month. There’s lots of good info on how the some of the conference content relates directly to our UBC efforts with e-portfolios and promoting reflective learning. Thanks Leah!

———————-

From May 18th – 20th, Joanne Nakonechny and I (both of Skylight,
Faculty of Science) attended the ‘7th Annual Symposium on Innovative
Teaching’, at Simon Fraser University’s Burnaby Campus
(http://www.sfu.ca/symposium2005/)

SFU has approved sweeping changes to its degree requirements that will
apply to all undergraduates admitted for September 2006 and thereafter.
In part, these requirements ask students to complete at least six credits each of courses identified “writing intensive”.

This year’s Symposium therefore had a strong focus on the concept of
“writing intensive learning” – in theory and in practical application –
paralleling the exciting efforts of faculty members across the disciplines to develop writing-intensive courses. Keynote speakers included Chris Anson from North Carolina State University, and Daniel Shapiro of California State University, Monterey Bay. Both of these Universities have made significant strides in consciously incorporating more writing into teaching and learning across the disciplines.

For me, the key take-home message from this Symposium – and one that is
also relevant for ePortfolios work – is the understanding of writing as a tool that can promote learning, thinking and critical analysis – not simply a tool for assessment. In other words, writing has value as a formative as well as summative process for students (and not just in traditional ‘writing intensive’ disciplines, either).

Of particular interest was a session entitled “Timing and wording of low-stakes writing: Making it work to help students’ learning and thinking”, led by Kathryn Alexander of SFU’s Centre for Writing Intensive Learning (CWIL).

Kathryn characterizes ‘low stakes writing’ as short pieces of exploratory writing that “can provide the intellectual building blocks and scaffolding for formal writing assignments”. Low-stakes writing can be used in class, may typically be unassessed (or students may be assessed for participation rather than quality) and helps students develop questions, summarize ideas and develop new ones – all while developing a more natural writing praxis. She quotes Peter Elbow
(1997), who wrote:

“The goal of low stakes assignments is not so much to produce excellent
pieces of writing, as to get students to think, learn and undertsand more of the course material. Low stakes writing is often informal and tends to be graded informally. In a sense, we get to throw away the low stakes writing but keep the neural changes it produced in students heads’.

It seems to me that this perspective directly supports the reflective practice wishes in ePortfolio teaching and learning projects.

SFU’s CWIL site (http://www.sfu.ca/cwil/) is worth a visit – they regularly run workshops and other events in this area.

Other useful references and resources include:

Bean, J. C. (2001) Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating
Writing, Critical Thinking and Active Learning in the Classroom. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elbow, P. (1997). High Stakes and Low Stakes in Assigning and
responding to Writing, In M.D. Sorcinelli & P. Elbow (Eds) Assigning
and Responding to Writing in the Disciplines. New Directions for
Teaching and learning. No. 69, Spring 1997. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leah