Janice  Miller-­‐Young,  Michelle  Yeo,  Karen   Manarin,  Miriam  Carey   Mount  Royal  University   Banff  Symposium  on  SoTL,  Nov  2014   Outline     — Background:  MRU  and  the   Nexen  Scholars  Program   — Assessing  Impact   — Emerging  Findings  and   Discussion   Ins+tu+onal  Context   — Mount  Royal  University   — Became  a  University  in  2009   — Instructionally  focused   — Teaching  and  teaching/scholarship  streams   — Institute  and  Nexen  scholars  program  also  started   in  2009   — Initially  funded  from  Provost  and  Dean  budgets   — Now  running  on  external  donations     — New  Director  in  2013   — Background   2009 - 2014 — ‘mini’  Carnegie  Scholars  Program   — Interested  faculty  apply  in  fall  with  a  proposed     research  topic  and  brief  literature  review   — One  cohort  per  year,  has  varied  in  size  from  3  –  12   — 3  retreats  over  a  year  facilitated  by  previous   scholars   — Background       Program  format   February, year 1 3- day residency August, year 1 3- day residency February, year 2 3- day residency Refine the question Prepare for data collection Preliminary data analysis   — Background   Program     outcomes   Research  ques+ons   — What  were  faculty  member’s  goals  for  participating   in  the  program?   — Did  they  achieve  their  goals?   — How  has  the  program  and/or  their  project   impacted  their  teaching,  scholarship,  and  career   trajectory?       — Background   — Assessing  Impact   Methods   — Recruitment:  all  program  participants   2009-­‐2013  invited  to  participate  by  email   — 2-­‐phase  data  collection   — online  survey   — follow-­‐up  interview   — Confidential  but  not  anonymous   — Study  cleared  by  MRU  HREB       — Background   — Assessing  Impact   Methods   — Total  participants   — Survey:  22   — Interviews:  17   — Good   representation   across  Faculties       — Background   — Assessing  Impact   Cohort   year   #  of  participants   2009   7/10   2010   6/12   2011   3/11   2012   5/6   2013     Total   4/6     25/45   Methods   — Survey  questions:   — What  were  your  goals  for  participating  and  did  you  achieve  them?   — Describe  the  study  and  outcome   — How  much  impact  did  your  project  have  on  your  teaching/ subsequent  scholarly  activity?     — Do  you  continue  to  conduct  SoTL  investigations?     — Has  participation  in  the  Nexen  program  impacted  your   teaching/probability  of  pursuing  subsequent  SoTL  projects/ subsequent  scholarly  activity?     — Please  describe  your  professional  trajectory  since  participating   in  the  program.  Impact  of  program?         — Background   — Assessing  Impact   Most  frequently     reported  goals   — From  survey  (N  =  22)       — Background   — Assessing  Impact   Impact   — From  survey                 (N  =  22)   Interviews   — Semi-­‐structured   — Explored  survey  responses  in  more  depth   — Explored  2  emergent  themes:  levels  of  impact;   differences  in  SoTL  understanding/translation     — Conducted  by  investigator  who  had  least  involvement   with  the  program   — 17  interviews,  saturation  of  themes  reached         — Background   — Assessing  Impact   — Emerging  findings   Levels  of  Impact   — Individual  (teaching/scholarship/career)   — Department  (leadership  in  SoTL  or  influence  at   the  department  level)   — Institution  (interest  in  making  a  contribution  to   the  culture  of  the  institution)   — Disciplinary  (leadership  or  contribution  to   teaching  in  the  discipline)         — Background   — Assessing  Impact   — Emerging  findings   Individual  impact   — “I  didn’t  even  think  of  it  impacting  my  teaching  and  so  I   was  quite  surprised  when  it  did.  Especially  since  it   made  me  re-­‐examine  a  lot  of  my  different  assumptions   around  my  discipline  and  around  my  students,  and  it   challenged  some  of  my  deficit  narratives  [about  what   students  can’t  do].  .  .  and  it  started  me  focusing  more   on  what  they  were  doing,  rather  than  just  my   assumptions  about  what  they  could  or  couldn’t  do.”         — Background   — Assessing  Impact   — Emerging  findings   Individual  impact   — “It  has  increased  my  interest  in  the  scholarship  of     teaching  and  learning  more  broadly;  so  even  though   the  project  itself  didn’t  do  what  I  wanted  it  to  do,   understanding  that  there  is  a  field  out  there  and  there   are  a  lot  of  things  that  happen  in  that  field  has   encouraged  me  to  be  more  engaged  in  what  is  going  on.   So  it  has  changed  my  understanding  of  how  students   learn,  but  also  how  I  teach  right  now  and  why  I  teach   the  way  I  do.”       — Background   — Assessing  Impact   — Emerging  findings   Seniority  &  levels  of  impact   — New  to  the  institution    -­‐>  individual  goals   — Meet  other  people,  learn  about  the  institution   — Longer  at  the  institution  -­‐>  broader  goals   — Have  connections,  visible  enough  to  make  a  difference   — Implications  for  program  &  recruitment         — Background   — Assessing  Impact   — Emerging  findings   Seniority  &  levels  of  impact   — “I  am  a  believer  in  SoTL  and  I  think  sometimes  people   listen  to  me  because  I  have  been  around  a  while,   making  a  pretty  public  stand  going  into  SoTL  ”         — Background   — Assessing  Impact   — Emerging  findings   Con+nuing  work   — Further  analysis   — Levels  of  impact   — Sense  of  discomfort   — Disciplinary  translation   — Program  re-­‐design  &  action  research         — Background   — Assessing  Impact   — Emerging  findings   Stay  tuned!         — Background   — Assessing  Impact   — Emerging  findings