Teaching and Learning News

At the end of November, Jon Driver, Vice-President, Academic, sat down for a conversation about his academic vision for the next five years. He emphasized the importance he attaches to teaching within the university culture, addressed the subject of learning outcomes, and talked about some key priorities in the next Academic Plan. Here are excerpts from his comments.

What is the relationship between teaching and research?

There’s a real connection between teaching and research, a two-way connection. First of all, when people are active in research, that makes their teaching more interesting. But also, we can take our research methods and apply them to try and understand our teaching.

How would you compare the place of teaching vis-à-vis research at SFU?

We value teaching and research equally. We try to evaluate faculty members equally based on their teaching and their research. And so it would be nice if we had a culture in which people talked about “What have I done new in teaching” as well as “What have I done new in research.”

What can be done to make good teaching a priority?

On research we’re very good at being able to say, “Your performance is not as good as it should be”, or “your performance is satisfactory”, or “your performance is really good” … On teaching, we tend to say either “Your performance is not as good as it could be” or “It’s satisfactory.” And we stop at satisfactory … In fact, I just reviewed all of the guidelines that every department in the university has for how they evaluate their colleagues during salary review and during tenure and promotion, and what I found was that most – not all, but most – of the departments talk about satisfactory teaching, and then they talk about what you should be doing if your teaching isn’t satisfactory, but they don’t talk about how they’re going to measure outstanding teaching and how they’re going to reward outstanding teaching. And so, having reviewed all of these documents, I’m going to go back to the departments and make some suggestions about what methods they could use to identify the outstanding teachers and reward them through the salary review process or through the tenure and promotion process.

Are there other obstacles to good teaching?

The issue that would be raised by many people is the time issue. If I don’t get rewarded for being a really good teacher and I’ve got a lot of pressure to do research, why would I focus on teaching and learning? One of my answers to that is [that] I wouldn’t expect people to be doing this continually, but … that maybe every few years they would … spend a semester working primarily on some changes in their teaching or getting some new skills around teaching.

You’ve raised the issue of learning outcomes. Why do you think they are important?

I think one of the most important reasons for stating [learning] outcomes and trying to assess them is to communicate to students. Students want to know what the purpose of the course is. They want to know, “How does this course that I’m about to take fit into my overall major?” … The second thing relating to students is that you can explain to them how the evaluation that you’re using relates back to the outcomes … I think for students it’s really important that they get that sense of why they’re in a course and why they are doing the things that they’re being asked to do … The other component of learning outcomes is partly about ensuring that we’re getting the results that we think we’re getting. And one of the ways to do that is to define what you want students to get out of your course and then to try to assess that.

Some people see this process as a threat to academic freedom.

My attitude is [that learning outcomes are] up to the department. I don’t want to tell people what to do. We’re still in the process [of considering learning outcomes] here, but I think one of the outcomes of this project ought to be that assessing how well you are doing should not be a function of my office. It should be your own colleagues who [do that] in the context of external review.

But there do seem to be concerns about a loss of control.

The other problem is that we do have some external bodies that accredit our programs. So, for example, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board accredits our Engineering programs, and they have very specific requirements around learning outcomes that are much more narrowly defined than what I would expect a department to do, and there’s a tendency for what happens in Engineering to be cited as though this is what it’s going to be like for everybody.

In May you released an Academic Plan for 2013–2018. How would you compare that plan to the previous one?

I’ve tried to put less detail into the upcoming plan and I’m trying to encourage academic departments to come up with their own [approaches for] the way they would like to handle some of the goals of the program … My aim with the Academic Plan is to have some general goals and then encourage departments to find ways that they can meet those goals.

Is the new plan a continuation of the previous plan or does it represent a shift?

I think it’s more a continuation. The plan that we’re just wrapping up now certainly had a focus on the undergraduate student experience. I think perhaps the current plan has got more of a focus on teaching as a component of the undergraduate experience. It references some projects that we have actually already started – like the support we can give to students for whom English is not the first language, that’s mentioned, the learning outcomes [initiative] is mentioned very specifically, getting to a better system for evaluating teaching is mentioned – so there is some reference to ongoing projects, and there probably is more reference generally to teaching and learning rather than the overall student experience.

How do you see teaching contributing to the undergraduate experience in the next few years?

What I would like to see in terms of support for students in the classroom is, firstly, that a more supportive environment is created by having a greater range of teaching practices, so that the way in which teaching is done matches the learning outcomes better … We know that students or people generally don’t learn by sitting in a classroom and having people tell them things. They learn by doing things … We need to worry less about the content and speaking the content of a discipline to students, and we need to worry more about them getting the major principles and the theories and the methods and somehow experiencing that.

The Experiential Education Project concluded that there is breadth but not depth of experiential learning opportunities at SFU. Do we need to do more?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a large number of courses with a smallish component of experiential [education]. What we really need to do is select some areas of the university for a deeper experiential education, and when I say select, I don’t mean I would select them. I mean people could self-select … I think we just need to encourage departments to approach it strategically, to identify an area within their curriculum where they think a deeper experiential component would be really valuable to students and to try to build those areas first.

Related links:

Academic Plan 2013–2018

Report of the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Working Group (draft report; see link in right sidebar)

The State of Course Based Experiential Education at SFU (report)

In fall 2011, Jon Driver, Vice-President, Academic (VPA), appointed the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Working Group (LOAWG) to “consider whether and how SFU might move to a process of defining and assessing learning outcomes for academic programs.” The group was chaired by Paul Budra, Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and included representatives from various Faculties as well as the VPA’s office, Institutional Research and Planning (IRP), and the Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC). It released a draft report on November 1 with a call requesting feedback and comments by December 7. The final report and a response from the VPA will go to Senate some time in the new year.

Here are some excerpts from the document.

Why an LOA approach?

“Increasingly universities are facing competition from alternative education institutions such as professional schools, which often publicize student learning outcomes data … Given this reality, universities must take the initiative to proactively identify and solve perceived shortcomings in their teaching and learning systems, rather than have these identified arbitrarily by outsiders who may have their own ‘solutions’ in mind.”

“The onus is on Canadian universities to act now in assuring the public that students are achieving expected learning outcomes. Recognizing that quality assurance in the postsecondary education sector is a growing global concern, Ontario has recently established a Quality Assurance Framework … Earlier this year, Quebec publicized official recommendations to review and ‘adjust’ its universities’ quality assurance mechanisms … Also this year, British Columbia solicited public opinion on enhancing quality assurance at its own educational institutions and issued a Quality Assurance Consultation Document stating that provincial quality assurance processes must ‘adapt’ in order to remain current with international standards, better market BC’s postsecondary institutions, and reassure employers and students alike that a university education is relevant to their needs.”

“Research shows that university students respond favourably when clearly articulated learning outcomes are built into their programs, courses and assignments. Dr. Richard S. Ascough of Queen’s University explains how ‘the pressure to articulate [learning] outcomes is not simply a top-down process; it also arises from our students themselves … [who] want and often demand a clear idea of the return on investment of a given activity.’ “

Crucial definitions

“Learning Outcome – A ‘learning outcome’ is an area of knowledge, practical skill, area of professional development, attitude, higher-order thinking skill, etc., that an instructor expects students to develop, learn, or master during a course or program. Learning outcomes are observable and measurable by quantitative or qualitative assessment models. For some examples see the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence website at Carnegie Mellon University.

“Teaching Goal – A ‘teaching goal’ is anything that an instructor or a program coordinator intends that students will learn in their course or program (note: in this report it is assumed that instructors will retain autonomy to determine the pedagogical approach they will use to meet the learning outcomes, as well as the autonomy to teach material falling outside defined outcomes).

“Program – A ‘program’ is a set of coherent curricular requirements leading to a Senate-approved academic credential (e.g., bachelor or graduate degree, certificate or diploma, etc.). The definitive list of such programs is included in the SFU Calendar.”

Principles for investigating and making recommendations concerning LOA

“1. The primary purpose of learning outcomes and assessment processes is to communicate transparently the purposes of all degree, program and course requirements.

“2. As per its Strategic Vision, SFU is committed to academic and intellectual freedom. Learning outcomes for courses and programs will be developed and determined at the local academic unit level and will reflect local disciplinary cultures. These will be aligned with enduring institutional goals, values, and principles as articulated in the SFU Strategic Vision.

“…”

Current LOA use in academic units

“Over the summer of 2012 all academic units at SFU were asked to complete an online survey of their current practices (if any) surrounding LOA … Out of 457 programs solicited by the survey, a total of 273 were completed … 8% of respondents reported that they are already accredited by an external accrediting body (in most cases by a disciplinary professional body) while a further 4% reported that they are currently seeking accreditation by an external accrediting body … A handful of programs indicated they are currently implementing some form of learning outcomes and/or assessment process for some or all of their undergraduate and/or graduate programs or courses. 18% reported having program-level learning outcomes and 64% within this group said they are also assessing students to determine whether these outcomes are being achieved …”

Current curricular assessment processes

“We have found no consistent curricular assessment process used across SFU’s academic units. Curriculum committees meet anywhere from annually to bi-weekly. The units that are currently employing some form of learning outcomes assessment have different approaches to administering them: some have formal meetings of curriculum committees, some use a Dean’s or Chair’s advisory council, and others use departmental retreats … For the majority of SFU programs, creating and adopting meaningful course and program learning outcomes, and undertaking assessment of those, will be a significant change.”

Appropriate processes for SFU

“Given the number of academic programs at SFU and their diversity, it is not clear that there can or should be one approach for LOA across the institution. SFU’s academic units have different structures, histories, faculty complements, pedagogies, and needs. Therefore LOA processes at SFU need to reflect the University’s decentralized culture as well as commitment to academic freedom and integrity.

“Nonetheless … any approach adopted for SFU should have the following components:

“1. Learning outcomes are made explicit to students in course outlines and other materials, course assignments, and other assessments.

“…”

“In summary, the infrastructure to support implementation of LOA processes at SFU already exists. However, the work of the multiple existing units which comprise that infrastructure needs to be identified and coordinated …

“Given the breadth of disciplines, forcing a single approach on units would be unlikely to yield the best possible results vis-à-vis student learning and course/program improvement. The choice of approach taken to the development and articulation of course- and program-level learning outcomes, along with corresponding assessment practices, should be within the purview of the individual Faculties, schools and departments. Academic units should have the option to retain LOA data that is generated locally. When cyclical processes (such as departmental reviews) require it, University-level evaluation of academic programs’ LOA activities can and should be performed using aggregated data from the units …”

Pending Senate approval

“If Senate approves the LOA initiative, we propose that:

“1. As new courses and programs are developed, learning outcomes will be brought forward to SCUS [Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies] and SGSC [Senate Graduate Studies Committee].

“2. Learning outcomes will have to be developed gradually and systematically for existing courses and programs.

“3. … We propose that academic units have learning outcomes for all of their courses and programs in place by their next regularly scheduled external review, beginning in spring 2014. Units that have an external review scheduled for 2014 will be expected to include reference to learning outcomes and assessment in self-study documents prepared in fall 2013, but will not be expected to be able to comprehensively respond to this in their review of curricula.

“4. A mechanism by which University-wide LOA affairs are facilitated and supported should be set up or identified.

“5. Assessment approaches must be integrated into academic units. These will vary from discipline to discipline … The most important assessment will take place during the regular external reviews that all academic units presently undergo every seven years, and subject to a mid-term review report between full reviews.”

Providing support

“To perform … the implementation of LOA at SFU, we recommend consideration of the following options.

“Option 1: Align and Enhance Capacities of Existing Resources

“The first option proposed for consideration is to expand the services currently embedded in the TLC, and IRP, with coordination to ensure continuous improvement and alignment with institutional goals …

“Option 2: Add Capacity to the Office of the VPA with a New Unit

“The second option is to establish a compact LOA unit that, at least during SFU’s period of transition to an ongoing process of LOA, would report to the VPA …

“Option 3: Blended or Evolving Services

“The third option would be to begin with the services currently in place, with additional responsibilities and resources assigned in each. Over time, as needs evolve and/or service gaps are identified, a new unit can be developed …”

Recommendations

“1. Programs that do not already have processes built into part of their disciplinary accreditation adapt either or both of the approaches to learning outcomes described above (program- to course-level outcomes, or course- to program-level outcomes).

“2. Academic units will continue to complete the learning outcomes sections of the new course and program proposal forms used by SCUS and SGSC.

“3. Academic units have the option to retain within the unit assessment data that is generated locally. When cyclical processes require it, University-level analysis related to learning outcomes assessment will use aggregated data received in report form from the units, which will be provided with standardized templates for the purpose.

“4. The cycle of regular assessment of learning outcomes should be built into the external review cycle, beginning with units externally reviewed in spring 2014. LOA will become part of the regular process of external reviews, incorporated into the self-study documents as part of curricular review as of fall 2013 and subsequently every seven years. Curricular review, including comments on the assessment of learning outcomes, will also form part of the external review mid-term report.

“5. The VPA will establish enhanced supports for LOA via one of three options: enhanced capacities in the existing units of the TLC and IRP; or added capacity to the office of the VPA via a compact unit responsible for LOA that would be in place by summer 2013 with a mandate as described above or an evolving blend of these options.”

Related links:

LOAWG draft report (PDF)

LOAWG web page

This post is drawn from an article on the Beedie School of Business News blog. Read the full article here.

For a group of undergrads (above) in the Beedie School of Business, classroom theory has been complemented by practical experience in the world of finance, with positive results on multiple levels.

The students act as managers of the Beedie Endowment Asset Management (BEAM) fund, an investment fund launched in 2011 with $5 million in Canadian equities, fixed income, and cash. It’s the largest undergraduate-run fund in Canada and is designed to give students hands-on experience in investment research, analysis, and trading in bonds and equities markets.

During the third quarter of this year, the fund yielded a return of just over 3% and a profit of $147,000, bringing the portfolio above its starting level for the first time since it was established. Ryan McCutcheon, a student who acted as chief risk officer and diversified sector co-manager of BEAM, notes that the program’s benefits go beyond dollars and cents: “Managing the BEAM fund is an incredible hands-on experience, one which I would recommend to anyone with an interest in finance. The calibre of technical knowledge and networking experience you gain from taking part in such a real-world exercise is amazing. Participating in BEAM is far above and beyond regular school and forces you to learn many things which you would not otherwise be exposed to.”

As part of their experience, the BEAM program participants travelled to Toronto for a tour of the city’s financial sector, including visits to the head offices of several banks and hedge funds and guided tours of some of the largest trading floors in North America.

“The trip to Toronto was an amazing experience and really gave us an insight into what it would be like to pursue a career in Canada’s financial hub,” says McCutcheon. “At each visit we had industry professionals waiting to talk to us about their roles and what it was like to work for each company, which was very impressive. Just being able to network with that level of professionals and hear their insights into the markets was a major highlight of the trip.”

The BEAM program is one of many initiatives at Beedie designed to extend student learning experiences beyond the classroom.

This post is drawn from an article on the Beedie School of Business News blog. Read the full article here.

Related links:

Beedie Endowment Asset Management program >>

Beedie School of Business News blog >>

Beedie teaching website and teaching news blog >>

“I assumed university would be the best years of my life,” writes SFU student Zahra Abdulla in the most recent issue of The Peak, SFU’s student newspaper. But academic pressures – some of them self-imposed – soon left her feeling isolated and depressed, and she was forced to withdraw from her classes during her first year.

Abdulla’s case isn’t unusual. What’s somewhat unexpected, and potentially of great interest to instructors, is her account of the role experiential learning played in her recovery. She credits experiential learning, and particularly three work placements, with helping her to move beyond a narrow focus on grades and academic success. In her article, she suggests a number of ways in which experiential elements could be beneficially incorporated in the classroom:

• “Universities could implement a variety of interactive for-credit courses for their students. Course topics [could] include ‘developing compassion’ or ‘living in balance’ and could require students to volunteer in the community, interact with community leaders, and engage in community projects.”
• “Students would benefit from a more collaborative and deep learning style, rather than traditional lectures and exams that foster memorization and a passive approach to learning.”

Abdulla returned to SFU after a break for counselling and will be graduating next summer. Her article concludes on a hopeful note, both for students dealing with pressure and anxiety and for instructors wondering whether their efforts in the classroom make a difference: “Depression may never be eliminated, but meaningful learning options can help students to recognize their full potential and to enjoy their years in university.”

Read Abdulla’s full article (“The Dark Days Are Over”) in The Peak here.

Related links:

Peak article by Zahra Abdulla >>

SFU Health and Counselling Services resources for instructors concerned about their students >>

Workshops on “Dealing with Students in Distress and Distressing” >>

In a guest column published in the Globe and Mail this week, President Andrew Petter argues that post-secondary education is more important than ever to the Canadian economy and to individual workers. He suggests that universities deliver the kinds of workers Canada will need in coming years: individuals “trained to learn and adapt – not simply to know specific facts or functions or to perform a particular task.”

Petter sketches a portrait of university graduates who are “able to conduct research, to think critically, to write effectively, to analyze problems and develop solutions, and to have a propensity to learn. In addition, they require civic literacy, global awareness, an understanding of social behaviour and human diversity; and an appreciation of the natural world. These competencies and capabilities are transferable. Many promote flexibility and agility in the workplace and job market. And most contribute to enhanced citizenship.”

And he suggests that, far from offering an obsolete product, good universities are building on the traditional foundation of a “liberal arts” education by offering experiential learning programs that demonstrate innovation and engagement. He cites SFU’s co-op work placements and field courses; the Venture Connection program, which “helps undergraduate students develop business aptitudes and opportunities”; the SFU Semester in Dialogue program, which “connects students with community leaders, creating teams that explore pressing social, economic, and environmental issues”; and an undergraduate research awards fund that permits students to “spend a semester working on high-end university research of the kind that can expand the scope of human knowledge.”

To read the full column, visit http://ow.ly/eYICs.

This semester, Michael Silverman (above) will teach a course in cell biology and biochemistry to more than 200 second-year students. But before he delves into questions like the effect of gene mutations on proteins, he will ask – in fact, require – his students to read an article titled “What is education for?” by David Orr.

“I want to encourage people to think about why they’re here,” he says. Silverman, an associate professor in the Department of Biological Sciences, has observed that many students display an overly narrow focus on grades and job prospects. The reading assignment is an attempt to encourage them to “think more broadly.”

And although it might seem like an unusual way to begin a science course, Silverman thinks some of the key themes in the article – for example, about the interconnectedness of all things and the need to consider the bigger picture – echo the observations that he hopes his students will make as they examine complex biological systems.

“One of the things I want to accomplish in my classes is to have them make the connection to the larger world,” he says.

Silverman is candid about the response the article gets: “If anything, the students think it’s weird.” But he has been sharing it for a number of years and plans to continue.

“I do have the ideal that we should be educating the whole person and taking the opportunity to be a bit more contemplative,” he says. “I feel that’s part of my university duty.”

What do you think?

Read the article for yourself and tell us whether you agree with the author’s vision for education. If you are an instructor, consider sharing it – and your thoughts about it – with your students.

Related links:

David Orr article: What is education for? Six myths about the foundations of modern education, and six new principles to replace them >>

Michael Silverman’s profile page >>

Are student evaluations of teaching simply popularity contests? Do the results of student evaluations provide any useful information?

Two reports released last week by SFU’s Teaching and Course Evaluation (TCE) Project provide context for such questions by presenting an overview of the research literature on student evaluation of teaching and courses. The first, entitled “Report on Key Research Findings,” outlines some of the broad questions and issues raised by the practice of such evaluations. For example:

• Given the multi-dimensionality of teaching, how do you define “teaching excellence” or a “good teacher”?
• Can student evaluations be valid and reliable, and can biases be avoided?
• What can be done to ensure the proper use and interpretation of evaluation results?

The second report, entitled “Report on Key Research Findings: Instrumentation,” digs deeper into questions of bias, reliability, and validity with respect to the design of evaluation questions and forms. Both reports, along with executive summaries, are available on the TCE project website.

The Teaching and Course Evaluation Project was launched in 2011 by the Office of the Vice-President, Academic, to implement the recommendations of several reports (read about the history of the project here). According to project leader Corinne Pitre-Hayes, the goal is to recommend a flexible and effective instrument for teaching and course evaluations by students and to develop guidelines and documentation for proper use and interpretation of the data generated by this instrument.

“There has been extensive scholarly research on the effective, appropriate, and responsible use of student evaluation of teaching in the 30 years since SFU first developed its evaluation forms,” says Pitre-Hayes. “We are using that research knowledge as a foundation and context to make SFU’s evaluation process more useful for instructors, administrators, and students.”

She notes that consultations with the SFU community will be an important part of the process. An initial focus group with faculty members from the Faculty of Education was held on May 31. Similar discussions will be held with members of other faculties and many other members of the community in the months ahead.

“The people we’ve talked to tend to agree that we can do better,” says Pitre-Hayes. “I’m excited to be involved with a project aimed at replacing SFU’s outdated teaching and course evaluation form with one that will be flexible to the needs of the community and can provide useful data with practical value.”

Ultimately, she says, the project is about enhancing teaching and learning at SFU by providing information that will enable instructors to engage their students more effectively.

Read more about the TCE project and view the reports on the project website: www.sfu.ca/teachingandcourseeval

With names like “Marshmallow Death Blaster”, it’s no wonder that these grade nine and ten girls are having fun participating in the “Girls Exploring Physics” workshops. Started by Physics faculty members Sarah Johnson, Pat Mooney, Barbara Frisken, Jenifer Thewalt and Nancy Forde, these free workshops aim to encourage more girls to continue taking physics beyond high school and into university. As Johnson says, “the main goal is to keep girls excited about physics.”

Using hands-on experiential education techniques, the girls get the chance to work on two projects: “Exploring Physics Through Candy” and “LED’s: Lighting for Efficiency and Drama”. They learn what kind of options are available to physics grads and have the opportunity to talk to women physics professors and students.

The video team at the Teaching and Learning Centre paid a visit to the most recent workshop to check out their work. Watch the video below to learn more.

Contact

For more information about the “Girls Exploring Physics” workshops, please email Sarah Johnson, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Physics at SFU, or visit the website at http://www.physics.sfu.ca/about/outreach/gep.

In the third part of our Back on Track series, BOT Program instructor Ruth Silverman, Learning Services Coordinator at the Student Learning Commons, suggests five strategies SFU instructors can employ to ease students’ transition from high school to SFU.

This voice, from a Back on Track Program student, is probably familiar to seasoned instructors. You might even recognize a younger version of yourself in these comments. First year students typically struggle with similar, interrelated issues including:

• Class attendance in an environment of newfound personal freedom;
• A lack of a personal relationships with instructors and classmates in large classes;
• The need to be self-motivated and self-directed in one’s work habits;
• The need to develop study strategies for managing a larger amount of content, delivered at a faster pace than in high school; and
• Misunderstandings related to academic culture and jargon, including the nature and purpose of tutorials.

With so much to learn even before engaging with course content, is it any wonder that many first year students find themselves on academic probation (OAP) after their first term and Required to Withdraw (RTW) after their second?

Not surprisingly, summer term is always the biggest intake term for BOT, accounting for 44% of intakes in 2010, 50% of which were students who had entered SFU from high school the previous September.  With the advent of Back on Track, students are no longer forced out of SFU just because they need more than 8 months to make the transition.

Although some instructors would note that it is not their responsibility to “fix” these problems for students, there are a few relatively simple things that you can do to ease students’ transition to SFU:

• Clearly communicate your expectations. Don’t leave anything to guesswork.  Some examples of clear articulation of expectations are found on the Student Learning Commons’ “New to SFU?” webpage.
  
• Avoid making assumptions about students’ prior knowledge (e.g. that the abstract is not the entire journal article, that students will know that class attendance is important even though slides are readily available online, or using jargon (GPA, TA, MLA, APA, SLC).  When in doubt, spell it out.
• Foster a sense of community in your classroom. Students want a sense of connection with each other and to their instructors but are often intimidated to seek that out.  Regularly encourage students to come and see you, even if it is just to introduce themselves.  One SFU instructor made a practice of this and had 390 students out of a class of 450 visit him by the end of the term.  Create opportunities for students to connect with each other, such as frequent “pair and share” discussions in large lectures. Encourage them to exchange contact information and form study groups.
• Provide reality checks about upcoming deadlines. Even a reminder as simple as “Your papers are due in 2 weeks.  If you haven’t started yours yet, you are now at the last minute” can make a difference.
• Help students familiarize themselves with SFU resources.  For example, add links for the Student Learning Commons, Health and Counselling Services, the Centre for Students with Disabilities, Academic Advising, and other services to your class’ WebCT page.  Show your students the SLC’s “New to SFU?” web page or ask for copies of the SLC handout, “Moving from High School to University – a road map” to distribute to your class.

These simple suggestions could make a significant improvement to our students’ learning experience. Imagine the difference we could make to our students if each member of the SFU community did his or her part in easing the transition from high school.

If the transition is tough for most students, imagine how difficult it must be for international students coping with the transition in an unfamiliar language, from a high school system that bears even less resemblance to SFU than the BC secondary system.  Stay tuned to Teaching and Learning News for an upcoming feature of our BOT series that considers the problems facing international students new to SFU.

For more information about the Back on Track program, please contact Annette Santos at avsantos@sfu.ca.

Have you had experience with the Back on Track program?  Give us your feedback in the comments below.

In the second part of our Back on Track series, David Lindskoog, a Career Advisor at Career Services, let’s us in on some of his ideas about students’ academic success and the career connection.

I can picture the scenario vividly: there I am, in my small, dimly lit office at SFU Career Services, listening carefully to a student vocalizing his or her anxieties about career direction and the paralysis of indecision, lost in an endless sea of invisible options.  The conversation is going something like this:

Student – “I don’t know what my options are.  I don’t even know what to study.

Me – It sounds like you’re feeling pretty lost.  Let me ask you something: When you first decided to come to university, where were you hoping that would take you?

Student – Well, to be honest I didn’t know.  I thought going to school would help me get a decent job, so I chose my degree based on what I thought would get me there. It turns out I didn’t do so well in my first year.”

I’ve heard this kind of story more times than I care to count.

(more…)