News
-
Undergraduate Student Evaluation: Summary of key revisions
On May 29, 2024 Brock University Senate unanimously approved a set of revisions to the section of the Faculty Handbook that concerns undergraduate student evaluation (FHB III: A.10.).
This approval was the culmination of months of consultations, including the collection of feedback from stakeholders across the campus community, discussions at the Senate Teaching & Learning Policy Committee on February 13 and April 7, the Senate Undergraduate Student Affairs Committee on March 26, 2024, and Senate on April 17, all of which informed the drafting and refining of the final set of revisions.
The following are the key revisions approved by Senate and that now constitute university academic policy:
1) Two additional guidelines have been added to the requirements that apply to the distribution of final grades:
- a) A single item cannot count for more than 50 percent of the final grade. This requirement does not apply to thesis and independent/directed study courses. (FHB III: A.10.1.2.)
- b) The final grade shall reflect grades from no fewer than 3 assessments. This requirement also does not apply to thesis and independent/directed study courses. (FHB III: A.10.1.2.)
2) The various requirements to be communicated “at the beginning of each course” have been clarified and consolidated into a single list, including for independent studies courses. A format, such as a syllabus, was not assumed, nor was any precise timing. (FHB III: A.10.1.3.B.)
3) The reference to the Composition of Final Grade Form has been removed. Chairs and/or Deans may in turn choose to remove this obligation from instructors. (FHB III: A.10.1.3.)
4) References to course goals have been replaced with references to the course learning outcomes. (FHB III: A.10.1.1., 10.1.3., 10.2.1, 10.2.2., 10.2.3.)
5) The responsibility to “return to the Office of the Registrar” the equivalent letter grade component of final grade submission has been removed. Only the submission of a numerical grade is now required. (FHB III: A. 10.1.6.)
6) Revised the section on software used to assess student work (FHB III: A.10.4.)
- a) Removed references to a specific vendor/software such as Turnitin (used the more generic descriptor of “phrase matching software”).
- b) Updated the section to clarify multiple services instructors may consider submitting student work to, while underscoring the obligation to only use technologies that have been reviewed to ensure they meet Brock University accessibility, privacy and information security obligations.
- c) Added language advising instructors that the use of artificial intelligence detection tools is not condoned.
7) Improved language
- a) Revised the description of grading schemes (which previously included phrases such as “a rare talent,” “craftsman-like,” “of a certain flair,” “incisive mind,” etc.). (FHB III: A.10.2.2.) b) Used more precision when describing evaluation that is conducted “fairly.” The language now refers to reliable and valid evaluation. (FHB III: A.10.1.5.)
- c) Standardized use of terms such as academic unit/department, etc.
- d) Standardized capitalization of terms such as “academic integrity” and “academic misconduct.”
- e) Used inclusive terminology where possible.
8) Update language to reflect current practice
- a) Reflected and referenced the current Course Information – Course Outlines & Curriculum Development retention schedule (FHB III: A.10.1.3.)
- b) Reflected university practices around student accommodations and accessibility (FHB III: A.10.1.2.)
- c) Added “Hold” and “Not Reported” to table of final grades (FHB III: A.10.3.)
- d) Removed the reference to the examination schedules being published “prior to the beginning of term.” (FHB III: A.10.1.4.) 9) Clarified the scope of the policy a) Indicated that examinations are addressed by a different policy (FHB III: A. 9.)
- b) The deadline for the reporting of final grades remains in the examination section (FHB III: A. 11.9.1.).
10) Relocated language with minor changes:
- a) Added titles to FHB III: A. 10.6. (formerly 9.6.) CHALLENGES FOR CREDIT subsections.
- b) Amended FHB III: A. 10.5.4. (formerly 9.3.6.) Report to Faculty to reflect digital transmission of statistical information about final grades.
11) Relocated (without any change) policy language better suited to other sections of the Faculty Handbook to prevent repetition or reinterpretation, and general improve instructors’ ability to identify what is expected of them:
a) Moved the following sections from FHB III: A. 9. (Examination) to FHB III: A. 10. (Evaluation):
- i) FHB III: A. 10.5.1. (formerly 9.1.4.) Grade Report
- ii) FHB III: A. 10.5.2. (formerly 9.3.5.) Final Grades for First-Term Half Credit Courses
- iii) FHB III: A. 10.5.3. (formerly 9.5.3.) Aegrotat Standing
- iv) FHB III: A. 10.5.4. (formerly 9.3.6.) Report to Faculty
- v) FHB III: A. 10.6. (formerly 9.6.) CHALLENGES FOR CREDIT
- vi) FHB III: A. 10.6.1. (formerly 9.6.1.) Purpose of The Challenge for Credit Process
- vii) FHB III: A. 10.6.2. (formerly 9.6.2.) Intentions of The Challenge for Credit Process
- viii)FHB III: A. 10.6.3. (formerly 9.6.3.) Procedures and Oversight of The Challenge for Credit Process
- ix) FHB III: A. 10.6.4. (formerly 9.6.4.) How to Challenge for Credit 12) Removed language
b) The paragraph concerning admission standards and prerequisites in FHB III: A. 10.2.1. was removed (FHB III: A. 3.3.0. Admissions already addresses this).
Categories: news -
Educator Professional Learning Survey
As part of the Brock University Academic Plan Action 1.b: Invest in the development of robust professional development opportunities for faculty, academic staff, and graduate students, including in the design of effective learning experiences and assessments across all course delivery modes, CPI invited feedback in June 2024.
CPI invited instructional staff (faculty, TAs, librarians, course coordinators, marker-graders) to share their professional learning needs for 2024-25. We received a total of 80 responses (79 instructors, 1 librarian) from all six faculties.Forty respondents identified themselves as being from Applied Health Sciences (6); Education (6); Goodman School of Business (5); Humanities (9); Social Sciences (8); Math & Sciences (5); Other (1).
Respondents identified a need for more resources on the CPI website on a wide variety of topics. In response, CPI has added new teaching resources related to:
- Student Engagement
- Generative AI
- Using Brightspace
- Teaching Large Classes
- Working with Teaching Assistants
- Assessment and Grading Strategies (with and without TAs)
- Strategies for Accommodations and Accessibility
- More voices from Brock faculty (Faculty Spotlight)
Respondents indicated that current workshop timings during the week, and some availability in the evenings across all modalities, were preferred. CPI Workshops are posted on experienceBU, including online drop-ins.
Respondents indicated they wanted to know more, now that they are familiar with Brightspace. Advanced Workshops on topics were offered this fall and more are planned. Instructors are welcome to review the recordings.
Certificate Programs for Instructors
- Instructor Certificate Program in University Teaching and Learning is a program of professional development available for Brock instructors.
- Teaching Squares are designed to enhance teaching and learning practices and build community connections through peer observations, self-reflection, and group discussion.
Certificate Programs for Teaching Assistants
CPI offers a workshop program which allows TAs to complete the following certificates:
- Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (8 credits),
- Advanced Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (16 credits and a statement of teaching philosophy), and
- The Graduate Teaching Assistant Practicum (a self-directed program of professional development whose components together reflect growth as a facilitator of student learning, documented through a teaching dossier).
Being better prepared to use Brock’s classrooms and Classroom Technology
- As funds are available, feedback from this survey and other sources are being directed towards planning for renovations to spaces, like TH325
- ORES and CPI collaborated on updating the Campus Portal for room and scheduling information to include current pictures and accurate descriptions
Categories: news -
Faculty Spotlight: Denise Smith, Leveraging Wikipedia
Brock University Head, Research Lifecycle, Denise Smith’s article It’s Time to Recognize Wikipedia as a Health Information Resource
Categories: faculty spotlight
