1. STLHE 2007 The Course Design and Teaching Workshop: A Canadian educational development initiative Cynthia Weston, McGill University Cheryl Amundsen, Simon Fraser University Janette Barrington, Concordia University Catherine Caws, University of Victoria Trevor Holmes, University of Guelph Tracy Penny-Light, University of Waterloo Jeanette McDonald, Wilfrid Laurier University Mariela Tovar, McGill University Geraldine VanGyn, University of Victoria

2. In 1988 at McGill: Short topical workshops Individual faculty consultations Instructional materials development (Emerson & Mosteller, 2000; Weimer, & Lenze, 1991; Levinson-Rose, & Menges, 1981)

3. Faculty Discussion Groups (semester-long) Course Design and Teaching Workshop (week-long)

4. Characteristics of the CDTW Design or redesign of a particular course.  Consider the various elements of course design and the learning process through the lens of disciplinary expertise. Engage in collaborative discussion and peer critique with colleagues in the design of a course.  Instructional team includes past participants of the CTDW.

5. Underlying Assumptions 1.Linking disciplinary knowledge to teaching actions (Donald, 2002; Neumann, 2001; Rowland, 1999) (Donald, 2002; Neumann, 2001; Rowland, 1999)

7. Underlying Assumptions 1.Linking disciplinary knowledge to teaching actions (Donald, 2002; Neumann, 2001; Rowland, 1999) (Donald, 2002; Neumann, 2001; Rowland, 1999) 2. Learning-centred teaching (Saroyan & Amundsen (Eds.), 2004) 3. Coherence and alignment of course design elements (Fields of Instructional Design and Systems Theory)

8. Learning Outcome Assessment Strategy Context Content A matter of coherence and alignment

9. Underlying Assumptions 1.Linking disciplinary knowledge to teaching actions (Donald, 2002; Neumann, 2001; Rowland, 1999) 2. Learning-centred teaching (Saroyan & Amundsen (Eds.), 2004) 3. Coherence and alignment of course design elements (Fields of Instructional Design and Systems Theory) 4. A reasoned approach to teaching decisions (Saroyan & Amundsen (Eds.), 2004; Shulman 1986,1987)

10. Underlying Assumptions 1.Linking disciplinary knowledge to teaching actions (Donald, 2002; Neumann, 2001; Rowland, 1999) (Donald, 2002; Neumann, 2001; Rowland, 1999) 2. Learning-centred teaching (Saroyan & Amundsen (Eds.), 2004) 3. Coherence and alignment of course design elements (Fields of Instructional Design and Systems Theory) 4. A reasoned approach to teaching decisions (Saroyan & Amundsen (Eds.), 2004; Shulman 1986,1987 ) 5. Reflection as basic to transformational learning. (McAlpine & Weston, 2000; Cranton, 1996; Mezirow, 1991; Schon, 1987) (Your learning logs)

12. Why begin with the analysis of course content? Begins with a professor’s expertise Engage with subject matter from a different perspective Prepares the way for the consideration of learning

15. McGill/SFU CDTW Process \30-hour Rethinking Teaching Workshops \Year-long (or longer) follow up groups \Classroom research studies At SFU - (New) Institute for the Study of Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines

16. Micro-teaching

18. Additional materials can be found at: http://cdtw.wikispaces.com/ The book that details the workshop and faculty development approach described in this paper is available from Stylus Publishing www.styluspub.comwww.styluspub.com Rethinking Teaching in Higher Education: From a Course Design Workshop to a Faculty Development Framework (2004)