CONTENTS

2 4 6

The RRU Learning and Teaching Model The Challenge Our Educational Mandate: The Learning Experience at Royal Roads University Foundational Frameworks RRU Teaching Philosophy Core Elements of our Learning and Teaching Model Description of the Core Components

8 12 14 18

32 Conclusion 34 References

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 1

During 2011 and 2012, Royal Roads University undertook a rebranding exercise. As part of the process, interviews were carried out with students, alumni, faculty, and staff to discover the essence of Royal Roads University. At its heart, Royal Roads is about the personal and professional transformation ofourstudents;thebrandingexercisereaffirmedthis,resulting in the tag-line Life.Changing. But how do we accomplish this? I asked Dr. Doug Hamilton, our chair of faculty development and Dr. Pedro Mrquez, our dean of the Faculty of Management to investigate the elements of our learning model that contribute to transformative learning. They were joined by Dr. Niels Agger-GuptafromtheSchoolofLeadershipStudiesinthefinal drafting of the model after extensive consultation. I encourage all who learn and teach at Royal Roads University to read this model. The individual elements may not be new, but when combined there is no doubt that they result in a powerful learning experience.

Dr. Stephen L. Grundy Vice-President Academic and Provost February 2013

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 3

Howdowecreateeducationalenvironmentsthatreflectwhat we know about effective learning? How do we shift the focus from teaching to learning to better serve our students now and in the future? What does learning look like that has practical relevance and applicability? These are some of the provocative questions that Russell Ackoff and Daniel Greenberg (2008) ask and answer in their book, Turning Learning Right Side Up, to provoke dialogue and action regarding how to make education, learning, and schooling more relevant for the 21st Century. Ackoff and Greenberg argue that In the age of the Internet, we educate people much as we did during the industrial revolution (p.i), emphasizing a discipline-based, highly compartmentalized, teaching-centred curriculumthatisoutofstepwithaworldcharacterizedbyflux, unpredictability, diversity, spiraling technological innovation, and globalized communications a world that Barnett (2000) has described as supercomplex (p. 415). Ackoff and Greenberg further contend that this outdated curriculum model is a hallmark of our colleges and universities as well as our schools. This serves to compound the challenge because the undergraduate and graduate students in our programs at Royal Roads University (RRU) are, or shortly will be, the leaders within our societal, organizational and educational systems. Our students, as leaders, need to be inquirers who know, as Raelin (2006) suggests, how to construct new knowledge when faced with problems for which there is no known solution or even for which there is no known conceptual lens (p.7). Adding to this challenge, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2011) recently published a summary of a workshop held in March 2012 for university leaders that called for a new narrative (p.1) for higher education in Canada as a result of the almost universal sentiment among senior

leaders that a high-quality learning experience, especially for undergraduates, has lost the centrality of focus with the collective university mandate. What if, however, universities were able to provide innovative ways to better prepare graduates for todays supercomplex world? What if universities provided advanced learning opportunities for emerging and current leaders and other professionals that supported the enhancement of 21st Century skills and knowledge? What if universities were able to provide learning opportunities that were authentic, relevant, and integrative? In this document, we answer these questions by describing the learning and teaching model at RRU. The model is designed to create the context of a learning community within which we provide our students with authentic learning experiences that mirror the kinds of complex learning, performance, and leadership challenges found in todays organizations, communities, and educational institutions. In this document, we articulate many of the distinct and unique qualitiesofthismodel,describetheirbenefits,andillustrate how these elements work together to provide an authentic, relevant, and integrative learning experience for our students. We examine the teaching philosophy, key curriculum design elements and learning processes that are a common foundation for all RRU programs including both credit and non-credit programs. This foundation is central to producing citizens oftheworldwhoarepassionate,determined,andconfident lifelong learners, integrated into a broad network of like-minded learners,andwhocanconfidentlymanageandresolvecomplex, real-life problems the kinds of holistic, contextualized, multidimensional issues that Ackoff and Greenberg (2008, p.27) refer to as messes because they are seldom simple, non-interactive, and isolated.

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 5

At the heart of the student experience is a focus on meaningful, relevant, and lifelong learning that permeates all educational offerings at RRU, including degree, non-degree, and continuing education programs. UNESCOs Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century (Delors, 1996) and subsequent work by UNESCOS Education for Sustainable Development Initiative (2012) presented a conceptual framework for ongoing, lifelong learning that applies very well to the RRU context.1 This model organizeslearningintothefollowingfivepillars: 1. LEARNING TO KNOW the development of skills and knowledge needed to function in this world e.g. formal acquisition of literacy, numeracy, critical thinking and general knowledge. 2. LEARNING TO DO the acquisition of applied skills linked to professional success. 3. LEARNING TO LIVE TOGETHER the development of social skills and values such as respect and concern for others, and the appreciation of cultural diversity. These are fundamental building blocks for social cohesion, as they foster mutual trust and support and strengthen our communities and society as a whole. 4. LEARNING TO BE the learning that contributes to a persons mind, body, and spirit. Skills include creativity and personal discovery, acquired through reading, the Internet, and activities such as sports and arts. 5. LEARNING TO TRANSFORM ONESELF AND SOCIETY when individuals and groups gain knowledge, develop skills, and acquire new values as a result of learning, they are

equipped with tools and mindsets for creating lasting change in organizations, communities, and societies. RRU President Allan Cahoon, in his June 16th 2011 Convocation address,assertedthesepillarsarefirmlyplantedinthebedrock of our applied, team-based, experiential learning model supported by highly committed faculty and staff.2 He concluded his address by suggesting that at RRU, We have, by design, taken on the challenge of re-envisioning postsecondary education to make it meaningful to the world in which we live. Progress results because of the powerful connect between knowledge and action. Thesefivepillarsarelinkedtogetherbyasocialconstructivist approach to individual learning and a social constructionist approach to the development of learning communities that significantlyinfluenceshowstudentslearnandhowfaculty and staff support their learning at RRU. Proponents of a social constructivist approach maintain that learning is an active social process an individuals acquisition of new knowledge and skills isheavilyinfluencedandsupportedbythesocialenvironmentin which the learning occurs (Mayes and de Freitas, 2004). Students make meaning from their experiences by being actively engaged with others and the environment in which they are situated rather than passively receiving information from their professors or texts (Stage, Muller, Kinzie and Simmons, 1998). Although there are some inconsistencies in the literature on the interpretation of constructivism (Lui and Matthews, 2005),

1 This conceptual framework also serves as the basis for the development of the Canadian Council on Learnings Composite Learning Index (CLI). For more information, see www.cli-ica.ca/en.aspx. 2 Cahoon, A. (2011). Presidents Address: Taking stock: The value of continuous learning. RRU 2011 Spring Convocation, June 16, 2011, Royal Theatre, Victoria.

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 9

there is general agreement that a social constructivist orientation includes the following key elements (Mayes and de Freitas, 2004; Beetham and Sharpe, 2007): Self-responsibility for learning that enables students to actively construct their own understanding of concepts; Complex problems to support a discovery-oriented approach to learning; Open-ended activities and challenges to encourage experimentation and risk-taking; Collaborative inquiry with peers and faculty members to help learn faster or deeper than when solely engaged in individual activities; Shared ownership of the learning process to facilitate a common understanding and shared meaning of the tasks and experiences involved in learning; Discussionandreflectionthatdrawsonexistingconcepts, contexts and skills; and Timely and effective feedback to guide correction and improvement in concept and skill attainment.

The social constructivist/constructionist orientation is a foundation for both a set of principles that guide the learning and teaching process, i.e. the RRU Teaching Philosophy, and a constellation of practices, i.e. Core Elements of our Learning and Teaching Model. These principles and practices will be described in the following sections. The cohort learning communities which spring up to support individual learning, socially construct (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Gergen, 2000) a common language of shared experience, creating metaphors, humour, feedback, and indeed, a whole transformative culture, that supports the student throughout their time in the program, and beyond, into the broader realm of the working life of RRU alumni. Taken together in a summary fashion, we understand learning as a socially constructed activity and we conceptualize lifelong learning as a process of social and personal discovery beyond the acquisition of knowledge.

Figure 2: Foundational Frameworks for Learning and Teaching at Royal Roads University SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST FRAMEWORK
Self Responsibility Complex Problems Collaborative Inquiry Open Ended Learning Activities DiscussionandReflection People Learn in a Diversity of Ways

UNESCO FRAMEWORK
Learning to Know Learning to Do Learning to Live Together Learning to Be Learning to Transform Oneself and Society

10 Learning and Teaching Model Royal Roads University

The implementation of curriculum development and teaching strategies that reinforce the social constructivist view of learning at RRU is supported by a robust teaching philosophy collaboratively developed by faculty and staff. This philosophy indicates that, at Royal Roads University, faculty members and academic staff: share a passion for learning and teaching; value students as individuals who bring expertise and life experience to their education, and support them as they construct knowledge in a personally relevant way and enhance their lifelong learning skills; focus on applied and professional learning and integrate research into the curriculum; are experts in many substantive areas of knowledge and take steps to share this knowledge in ways that do not interfere with the adult student responsibility to learn andreflect forthemselves; are knowledgeable in their areas of expertise and in current adult learning theory;

know how to use appropriate learning technologies for the desired learning objectives; believethatteachingisacriticallyreflectivepractice; foster learning environments that are respectful, welcoming and inclusive; facilitate learning experiences that are authentic, challenging, collaborative and engaging; model and encourage academic integrity; aspire, as lifelong learners, to create experiences where new learning changes all members of the learning community and where students contribute meaningfully to the learning of others; and actively participate in the universitys global learning community. This teaching philosophy is complemented by the ways in which our programs are designed, our courses are developed and taught, and our students are supported.

Figure 3: RRU Teaching Philosophy

RRU Teaching Philosophy

Demonstrate passion for learning Value students Focus on applied research-informed learning Share expertise Know how to use learning technologies Viewteachingandlearningascriticallyreflectivepractices Create learning conditions that are respectful, welcoming and inclusive Support lifelong transformative education Facilitate authentic, challenging, collaborative and engaging learning experiences Model and encourage academic integrity Actively participate in the RRU learning community

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 13

Despite the different contexts and mandates, most programs at RRU share a number of fundamental curriculum design elements, learning processes, and support services that work together to support authentic, relevant, and meaningful student learning. These curriculum design elements and learning processes, summarized in Figure 4 and Table 1, are described in more detail below.

Figure 4: Core Components of the RRU Learning Model OUTCOMES BASED TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED EXPERIENTIAL AND AUTHENTIC LEARNING COMMUNITY TEAM-BASED INTEGRATIVE APPLIED ENGAGED LEARNING ACTION RESEARCH SUPPORTIVE FLEXIBLE
Learning outcomes are used to make the purpose of programs and courses clear Combination of face-to-face and online strategies aid in accessibility and participation Strategies employed to provide practical relevance Students stay together to support each other through a whole program Up to 50% of course assignments are team-based Subject matter from a variety of disciplines enables complex problem solving Faculty are scholars and practitioners Learning techniques that require active participation of students are employed Students engage in practical and participative research Academic and student services are integrated to support engagement and success Strategies are put in place to enable access and the working lives of students

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 15

1. OUTCOMES-BASED CURRICULUM Royal Roads University has been using program and course learning outcomes since its inception in 1995. Outcomes playacentralroleinthedesignofprograms,theflowof courses, and the assessment of learning within those courses. Within the context of the university, the goal of the learning outcomes approach is to assist students to acquire, integrate, and apply the requisite learning so that it may be transferable to an applied, professional context. Therefore, in many ways, the RRU outcomes-based approach is a promise to students, employers, and external quality reviewers that graduates willhavedemonstratedcompetencyinkeyareasidentified in their programs. A learning outcome is a statement of what the student is expected to know, or be able to do, at the end of his/her study (Battersby, 1999; Driscoll & Wood, 2007; Stiehl & Lewchuk, 2002). At RRU, learning outcomes describe the knowledge and skills that graduates will attain upon completion of their course or program of studies. Some programs use the term competencies to describe the combination of knowledge, skills, performance tasks, and behaviours that have been agreed upon as being highly desirable in the workplace. Theoutcomes-basedapproachisameansoffocusingspecifically on what students should be learning, not what content should be covered or what the intended focus of the course should be. Learning outcomes can bring transparency, fairness, andflexibilitytotheprocessofcurriculumdesign,delivery, and assessment.

Learning outcomes are important because they: Make explicit the purpose of the course or module; Help instructors select and design materials more effectively by providing a framework for instruction; Ensure that assessments are based on the competencies, knowledge, and skills delivered; Help instructors select assessment and teaching strategies that are matched to the outcome(s); Providealevelplayingfieldregardingtheassessment of learning in multiple-cohort courses or programs; Provide a means for relatively consistent assessment practices across different faculty members teaching the same course; Allows faculty to assess whether or nor learning has occurred through conducting several assessments, over time, against the learning outcome usually in the form of one or more formative assessments prior to a summative assessment of learning for a given course; Help anchor the teachable content of the course; Facilitate the transfer of knowledge and skills to practical applications in the workplace and everyday life; and Provideflexibilityinchangingoradaptingcoursecontent to better meet the needs of the students (Battersby, 1999; Fink, 2003; Nilson, 2010; Stiehl & Lewchuk, 2002). All the programs at RRU are designed and delivered using an outcomes-based or competency-based approach. Nevertheless, a unique characteristic of the university is that the outcomes-based model has evolved in different ways within different programs to customize the outcomes model to their unique needs. This distinction is important here because the

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 19

learning milieu in each program is socially constructed and relies on the demonstration of competency in practical contexts as much as on traditional forms of knowledge (Gergen, 2000). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the appropriate learning outcomes and relevant learning activities will differ between programs based on differing systems perspectives, including the professional, organizational, cultural, economic, political, as well as the appropriate scholarly literature. 2. TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED LEARNING Technology plays an important role in supporting the learning and teaching process at RRU. For instance, it is fundamental to the design of our program delivery structures which combines online learning and short residency periods. This model minimizes disruption to the work and home lives of students and fosters team-based learning on and off campus. Secondly, technology supports the use of both online and face-to-face learning strategies in course design and delivery. In all cases, access is the key driver. The integration of the online communication and learning components serves as an intentional design strategy to enhance students ability to access instruction and learning resources in ways that would not be possible without the use of Internet-based information and communication technology. Although RRUs blended delivery model has been very successful, there is general recognition that the particular deliverymodelhastorespondtothespecificneedsofthe targetedstudentpopulation,theexigenciesoftheidentified market, and the universitys capacity to support a highquality learning experience. As a result, we have seen the development of a broader range of delivery models aimed at specifictargetmodels,includingbothfullyonlineprograms and fully residency-based programs. For instance, many of our undergraduate programs are also delivered through intensive,
20 Learning and Teaching Model Royal Roads University

longer-duration residencies on our campus in Victoria, B.C. These alternative options accommodate the different needs of students to balance work, family and education, or to focus on expeditiously completing an undergraduate degree in an intensive, face-to-face format. Furthermore, to support the design of creative and innovative approaches to delivering blended learning programs, the Centre for Teaching and Educational Technologies in June 2009 authored Rethinking Res: Envisioning Alternatives to Traditional RRU Residencies which examined a number of alternative designs for residencies that can help address issues such as attracting prospective students, improving accessibility, providing alternative educational opportunities, and managing program delivery costs (Royal Roads University, 2009). Nevertheless, despite the importance of making learning accessible, attractive, and cost-effective, Garrison and Vaughan (2008) note that the main purpose of blended learning is to more actively engage students in their own learning processes. At RRU, this purpose is of paramount importance. Residencies are highly effective in helping to orient students, build a supportive learning community, provide opportunities for students to learnnewspecificskillsandknowledge,andpracticenew behaviours in a feedback-rich environment involving classmates and instructors. Nevertheless, online technologies have enabled different approaches to learning, including providing for in-depth engagement of students who are working together collaboratively to make sense of complex issues and to create extended opportunities to achieve the higher-order learning outcomes associated with our undergraduate and graduate programs. Clearly, the university will continue to exploit the synergies that exist in technology-enhanced program delivery and delivery in the service of our current and future students.

3. EXPERIENTIAL, AUTHENTIC LEARNING STRATEGIES Authentic learning can be described as experiences characterized by a high degree of personal relevance that permit students to practice skills in environments similar to those in which the skills will be used (Lebow, 1993, p.7). Proponents of authentic learning view these experiences as having practical relevance and being consistent with the kinds of tasks, activities, or experiences a person would encounter at work, at home, or in the community (Herrington, Reeves, & Oliver, 2010; Herrington & Herrington, 2006; Newman & Wehlage, 1993). Authentic learning activities usually involve complextasksthatareusedtoinvestigateill-definedormessy problems over a sustained period of time (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2002). These kinds of activities help students achieve four major objectives in learning: (1) to make connections between personal interestsandthosegermanetothefieldofstudy;(2)tobe more motivated to engage and persevere as a result of the increased relevance of the activity; (3) to facilitate absorption, retention, and transfer of skills and knowledge; and (4) to provide a sense of enculturation into the profession or discipline (Lombardi, 2007). Examples of authentic learning include activities associated case-based learning; experiential learning; collaborative learning; leadership challenges, applied capstone projects with real organizations, including the organizational consulting projects or organizational leadership projects; games, simulations and role-playing; problem-based learning; useofreal-datasets;portfoliosthatpromotereflectionandselfassessment; apprenticeships; service learning; design charettes; and performance tasks consistent with professional applications, which could involve writing newspaper articles, preparing and submitting bids, developing design proposals, etc. Table 2 describes the key characteristics of authentic learning compared to more traditional classroom-based learning approaches.

4. COHORT-BASED LEARNING COMMUNITIES FOR KNOWLEDGE BUILDING AND SHARING Learning communities enable students to actively engage with one another and to work collaboratively together to address complex issues. When learning communities are cohort-based, they provide a powerful means for students to collectively (socially) construct their own cohort culture and reality, their own language, humour, and knowledge sets, and engage in the achieving of shared goals, enhance the process of meaning making, develop or enhance professional identities, and reinforce perseverance to complete the course or program (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Gergen, 2000; Wenger, 2006). Learning communities support the conversational, dialogical, and, therefore, socially constructed nature of adult learning. Faculty members engage in learning conversations with their students, who also engage in these conversations within the immediate learning community of their cohort andthebroaderlearningcommunityofthefieldandthe literature (Raelin, 2006; Vaill, 1996). In a study directly relevant to this topic, a faculty member and graduate student at Royal Roads University undertook research to identify the theoretical basis for the nature and success of the universitys learning community model (Guilar and Loring, 2008). Based on interviews with faculty and students, the researchers concluded that the success of the learning community model was enhanced by the strength of its cohort-based foundation that helped to facilitate caring and supportive relationships, access to the professional knowledge relevant to the program under study, and a focus on real-life problems that grounded the learning process. Furthermore, previous research on cohort-based learning in the area of educational leadership, reported in Barnett
Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 21

&Muth(2008),hasdiscoveredbenefitsincompetencies that have workplace relevance such as collaborative learning andself-reflection(Burnett,1999;Leithwood,Jantzi&Coffin, 1995; Norton, 1995), enhanced interpersonal skills (BrowneFerrigno & Muth, 2003; Horn, 2001), increased professional networks (Muth & Barnett, 2001), and degree completion (Dorn et al., 1995). 5. TEAM-BASED LEARNING One of the key educational strategies common to all programs at RRU is the emphasis on team-based learning. Since its inception, RRU has been a leader in developing innovative and high-quality instructional approaches that facilitate teambased learning. The applied, professional focus of the programs at RRU underscores the importance of teaching effective team skills that have direct application in the workplace. Furthermore, team-based learning extends our learning community model by facilitating the generation of innovative strategies and solutions by groups of students who bring their own experiences and perspectives to bear on the problem or issue under study. According to Fink (2002), most authors agree that the key purpose of team learning is to enhance students opportunities to engage in active and enhanced learning. As well, Fink notes that effective team learning is an intentional instructional strategy that encourages the development of high-performing learningteamsengagedinspecificandsignificantlearningtasks. Several researchers have concluded that by interacting with one another, team members share knowledge and skills which leadstoincreasedefficiencyandeffectivenessofthecollective learning process (van Woerkom & Croon, 2009: Ellis et al., 2003; vanOffenbeek,2001).Furthermore,thereisasignificantbody of research that has established a positive link between team learning and team performance (Chan et al., 2003; Edmondson,
24 Learning and Teaching Model Royal Roads University

1999; Edmondson et al., 2001a; van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005; van Offenbeek, 2001; Zellmer-Bruhn and Gibson, 2006). Other researchers have determined positive relationships between team learning and increased innovation (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2003; Edmondson et al., 2001b.) Team-based learning takes many forms at RRU from engagement in formalized, authentic activities like case competitions, leadership challenges, and action research inquiry labs, to less formal, smaller-scale activities like online discussions and collaborative papers. 6. SUPPORTING INTEGRATIVE LEARNING Ackoff and Greenberg (2008) observe that our predominant approach to educating both children and adults in Western society is highly dependent on a compartmentalized curriculum in which the solving of problems is approached from a disciplinary perspective. They contend that this is an outmoded approach that limits creativity and innovation in learning and that a different approach is required which needs to start many years prior to students entering university but is still required at the post-secondary level: There is no longer the slightest justification for introducing children to the idea that human thought is a collection of fragmented disciplines and making that idea the centrepin of the educational experience for students in schools. As a historical curio, this idea might make for an amusing aside in a general discussion of the evolution of human thought, but as a notion that is productive and useful for developing minds it is, at the very least, counterproductive. Children grow up seeing the world as a whole. Their greatest challenge one that continues to be the central task of every person throughout life is to form a worldview that makes sense of the multitude of their experiences. Indeed, human sanity depends on the integrated

nature of a persons worldview; fragmented psyches are generally considered ill adapted to the needs of adult survival (Ackoff andGreenberg, 2008, pp. 42-43). Avoiding the ultra-compartmentalization described by Ackoff and Greenberg above, integrative learning enables students tosynthesize knowledge from different sources and disciplines, make connections between theory and practice, link knowledge and skill development, and apply their learning to authentic workplace contexts (Huber and Hutchings, 2004; Scott, 2002). According to Arcario, Eynon and Clark (2005), integrative learning helps students overcome the fragmentation and make critical connections that can support academic success andprofessionalrelevance: In their hurried approach to education, students often miss the opportunities to find critical intersections between their personal, professional, and educational lives. Aspassengers on lifes express train, they usually dont have time to get off and make those connections (p.15). Furthermore, Humphreys (2005) argues that making these connections not only helps students effectively manage the complexities in their academic and working lives but prepares them for addressing the significant challenges facing broader society in the 21st Century the multilayered, unscripted problems(p. 30) that require an integrative mindset. This approach to learning aligns exceptionally well with theuniversitys mission to provide undergraduate and graduate students with applied, practical relevance, and experience. Many of our programs include a number of learning activities designed to actively promote integrative learning such ascase competitions, applied major projects, capstone projects, reflective portfolios, etc.

One example of a teaching approach designed to facilitate integrative learning that is used in many RRU programs is problem-based learning (PBL). PBL can be defined as [A] curriculum of carefully selected and designed problems that demand from the learner acquisition of critical knowledge, problem-solving proficiency, self-directed learning strategies, andteam-participation skills. Students work in small groups, generate hypotheses about the problem and learning objectives, work outside of class to fill these deficiencies, then reconvene toteach each other and solve the problem. (Kinkade, 2005, p.300) These solutions often draw on knowledge and skills that transcend traditional disciplinary structures and mirror the kinds of integrated, inquiry-oriented approaches that are considered valuable in the workplace (Donnelly & Fitzmaurice, 2005; Dunlap, 2005). PBL seems well suited to applications where students often possess or desire substantive real-life experience andare seeking ways to apply new skills and knowledge to directly enhance workplace performance. The approach attempts toreflect authentic and contextualised problemsolving processes encountered in real-life situations (Dunlap, 2005; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Boud, 1995). Therefore, Dunlap (2005) has referred to PBL as an apprenticeship for real-life problem solving, helping students acquire the knowledge and skills required in the workplace (p.65). The effective implementation of PBL stresses the importance of using authentic and relevant problems that: (1) have real-life consequences; (2) are embedded in a supportive community of practice comprised of fellow students and instructors who serve as mentors/coaches; (3)involve collaborative learning; and (4) rely on an integrated model of assessment. A noteworthy element of the PBL experience is the metaphorical nature of how a problem is conceptualized. Problems exist
Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 25

in a linguistic dyad with solutions. But, from a different cultural or even, disciplinary perspective, there may not be a problem at all. Frequently these are re-named as challenges, issues, or, opportunities, rather than problems, in order to expand student thinking on these topics. Furthermore, integrative learning can be facilitated when student assessment is treated as an integral part of the learning process and not a separate add-on at the end of a unit of study. This Assessment for Learning approach ensures that assessment is a continuous and progressive process that is used to inform instructional approaches in situ (Cooper, 2006: Fenwick & Parsons, 2000). At RRU, we have examples of programs where assessment serves diagnostic, formative, and summative purposes; relies on multiple sources (self, peers, and teachers); is outcome or competency-based; involves both oral and written components;andintegratesreflectionontheprocessaswell as the product. Many of our program assessment frameworks place the students at the centre of the process helping them learn how to assess their own performance and contribute to the assessment of their peers. According to Weimer (2002), these are the kinds of skills that independent and self-regulating learners need to develop for successful application to real-life situations. Furthermore, Moss, Osborne, and Kauffman (2008) contend that placing assessment at the centre of the learning process also helps reinforce a transdisciplinary view of the curriculum, thereby enhancing its relevance to everyday life. 7. FACULTY WITH PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Fundamental to the delivery of any program at RRU is the emphasis placed on having an overall faculty body that has extensive professional experience in addition to the requisite academicqualifications.Althoughprofessionalschoolsoften

require some faculty members to have practical, professional experience,itisraretofindauniversity,likeRRU,thatsupports this scholar-practitioner philosophy across all of its programs. Our universitys applied educational focus heightens the value placed on professional experience, especially from a students and an employers perspective. RRUs original Education Plan, developed in 1995, called for many of the universitys professors to be drawn from business, industry, government and other post-secondary institutions to ensure our programs balance theory and practice (Royal Roads University, 1995, p. 13). One way of achieving this balance, according to the Education Plan, is to intentionally attract both full-time faculty that have teaching and program management responsibilities as well asasignificantcomplementofterm-contractedfacultythathave an extensive professional experience in addition to the related academic credentials required. Eighteen years later, this rich blend of experience and expertise amongst our full complement of teaching remains a core strategic asset for the university. 8. TEACHING AS AN ACTIVE PROCESS OF FACILITATING LEARNING At RRU, the primary function of the instructor is not to just serve exclusively as the expert imparting great tomes of knowledge but it is to serve as a facilitator or mentor that guides the student process of constructing knowledge and meaning from student engagement in the learning and problem-solving process. Therefore, an expert model of education is actually limiting when compared to a facilitative, collaborative model of inquiry-based learning, leadership, and decision-making. As Knowles (1975) observed, the learning facilitator functions as more of a processoriented guide than only a content expert to help students discover what kinds of knowledge, resources, thinking strategies, and perspectives are helpful in understanding and managing

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 27

or resolving the problem that is at the heart of the learning situation. Consequently, a vitally important role of teaching is helping students understand and integrate the ideas of a given course with their own personal experience to create personally relevant and actionable knowledge (Pink, 2009). This kind of role aligns very well with the instructional orientation required to effectively manage and stimulate cohort-based learning. Serving most frequently in a guiding role and less frequently in a directing or expert-based role ensures that instructors are helping students directly build connections between the knowledge sets, perspectives, and values, both collaboratively and individually. Often this distinction is presented colloquially as the guide on the side, rather than the sage on the stage. Raelin (2006) suggests that the learning facilitator role is particularly relevant to the needs of our 21st Century supercomplex world: Our role as a teacher thus becomes much more encompassing than merely delivering content since we are either explicitly or implicitly modeling inquiry.We would like our students to know how to construct new knowledge when faced with problems for which there is no known solution or even for which there is no known conceptual lens. (p.7) Nevertheless, Nelville (1999) concludes that the degree of structure and directedness of the learning facilitation required may be higher for novice learners than for more experienced learners. Thus, RRU faculty recognize that their particular teachingapproachesneedtovarybasedonthespecificneeds of the students and the programs involved.

A unique quality of the teaching environment at RRU is the opportunity that faculty members have to share teaching strategies, program design ideas, and instructional resources across courses, programs, and faculties. Some programs have formalized these sharing strategies by providing opportunities for faculty to teach together, for example, in team-taught online courses or in integrated residencies. Such teams model the concept of a high-performing group and give students an authentic look at how professionals handle different perspectives and epistemologies on a given topic, while simultaneously providing faculty an opportunity to observe students and be able to provide detailed feedback on how students are doing with the behavioural learning outcomes of the courses in the residency. In some programs, the highfeedback environment of the team teaching model, combined with the cohort-based learning community, is a fundamental element of the learning experience, and serves as a primary market attractor. 9. ACTION-ORIENTED RESEARCH AS A STUDENT-LED PROCESS OF INQUIRY Ackoff and Greenberg (2008, p. xvi) contend that education should be a lifelong process of self-discovery that is grounded in the realities that are meaningful to each individual. One strategy to accomplish this goal of connecting students to a professional context is through the use of applied, actionoriented research as a key component of a systematic inquiry process (Gosling and Mintzberg, 2004; Kachra & Schnietz, 2008; Dehler et al, 2006). By focusing on solving real-world issues, concerns and problems, the universitys applied research activities provide the critical link between advancing knowledge and the learning provided to Royal Roads students. RRUs research activity emphasizes the synergy between the universitys applied

28 Learning and Teaching Model Royal Roads University

research model and its applied and professional degree programs. The action-oriented, applied research model has been designed to complement the professional outcomesbased educational model and to advance the universitys mandate to respond to labour market needs of British Columbia, Canada and the world. Within a knowledge-based economy, our research model is action-oriented and problem-solving innature,reflectingtheevolvinglearningcommunitythatRRU has fostered. Therefore, in most programs at RRU, students engage in applied and action-oriented research activities aimed at developing solutions to real organizational problems, whether it is a class assignment, an applied organizational consulting project, or a formal thesis or dissertation. In fact, having various coursebased research-oriented activities take place throughout a program is an important way of facilitating tighter linkages between teaching and research in the academic curriculum. Jenkins, Breen and Lindsay with Brew (2003) suggest that the value of strengthening this linkage or nexus (p.2) between teaching and research is very important in an age of the knowledge economy that requires individuals with creativity andabilitytodevelop,find,andsynthesizenewknowledge (p.24). Jenkins et als (2003) perspective is supported by number ofresearcherswhohaveinvestigatedthebenefitsofstudent engagement in curriculum-based research activities such asincreasedlearningconfidenceandindependentthinking (Baxter Magolda, 2001), heightened intellectual growth (Blackmore and Cousin, 2003; Baxter Magolda, Boes, Hollis, and Jaramillo, 1998), enculturation into the profession (Baxter Magolda, Boes, Hollis, and Jaramillo, 1998), increase in deep learning as opposed to surface learning (Brown and McCartney, 1998), and increased value placed on learning (Jenkins, 2004).

10. A WHOLE COMMUNITY OF SUPPORT Creating the right environment for learning also means building a caring, service-oriented community to support students whether theyre on campus or around the world. One of the unique qualities of a students learning experience at RRU is the level of integration of services available to support students on-campus and online learning experience. Like most universities, RRU offers a range of student services, including academic program support, a comprehensive library of leading online databases, recreation centre, career services, counselling support,andfinancialawardsandscholarships.Whatmakes the RRU experience unique is how staff members providing these services work together as a whole university to support students from the application process right through to graduation. An effective support system that promotes the integrated delivery of services to students has been shown to enhance students educational experiences and improving student retention (Thomas, Quinn, Slack and Casey, 2002). Gappmaier and Rose (2001) note that an integrated system for student services in the 21st Century in support of this whole university approach feature core elements such as a common vision for student support, cross-functional teams, and collaboration across previously siloed services. 11. FLEXIBLE ACCESS TO PROGRAMS At RRU, a variety of pathways have been created such asflexibleadmissions,blocktransferagreements,dualdegree partnerships, etc. to support broadly based access and as well as seamless entry of students into our programs. Many of these pathways: (1) recognize the importance of relevant workplace and life experience; (2) acknowledge the value of both formal and informal learning that is highly relevant to the program under study; and (3) provide multiple point of entry into RRU programs.

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 29

The universitys original Education Plan noted the importance of flexible admissions to the universitys future success: Workplace experience is central to our vision of education andtraining. We feel that it is essential to recognize our applicants employment and leadership experience through prior learning assessments in addition to their academic achievements. Thisrecognition will increase the accessibility of our programs fromindustry (Royal Roads University, 1995, p.11). Applicants who do not have the formal academic education toqualify for admission may be assessed on the basis of both their formal education and their informal learning, in accordance with the universitys Flexible Admission Policy. This includes applicants with extensive informal learning experience or who have obtained considerable professional development related to their area of study. As well, the policy can apply to individuals with a complex learning history and for whom documenting their learning is either difficult or complex. Theoverall goal oftheflexible admissions process is to recognize evidence ofprior learning accomplishments, and to assure a high probability ofsuccessful program completion for both the students andtheuniversity. Applicants must show evidence of having sufficient knowledge, skills and abilities to complete a demanding academic course of study.

Furthermore, the original Education Plan proposed another means of making program entry as flexible as possible thewellestablished block transfer system. Over the last 18 years, theuniversity has developed an articulation system with other post-secondary institutions that facilitates the block transfer ofcredits into specific programs. This system permits students to enter our degree programs directly from diploma backgrounds and make transfers from other institutions asseamless aspossible. Some students entering a graduate program after a break from academic studies for a number ofyears face achallenge with academic writing and thinking. Anumber ofour schools are asking incoming students to complete an academic writing and critical thinking course prior to starting in their program, as a means of setting up students for success. Finally, in addition to the innovative strategies described above, RRU has implemented a range of institutional partnerships aimed at increasing the attractiveness, relevance, and utility of a RRU degree. For instance, some programs havedeveloped formalized agreements with professional associations that offer other credentials and certification processes inconjunction withobtaining a RRU degree.

30 Learning and Teaching Model Royal Roads University

In a review of learning and teaching research in higher education, Entwistle (2008) cautions against attempts to identify best practice in teaching and suggests that research-based efforts to support one method over another cannot be empirically substantiated. He does suggest, however, that there are waysofthinking about pedagogy that can be generalized (p.29) and acted upon. For Entwistle, the way of thinking that emerges involves seeing the purpose ofhigher education as going beyond the acquisition of knowledge and skills, to recognize that for the demands of current society and employment, graduates need to have acquired a personal conceptual understanding of the main ideas and ways of thinking in their area of study so as to experience learning that lasts. Onlythis will provide the flexibility in applying knowledge, skillsand understanding that will suffice at a time of rapid change and super-complexity in dealing with emergent issues and new problems (p.30). We would agree with this assertion. Our goal in this document has not been to advocate for one best way to teach. We have identified a number of common design elements inherent in RRU programs. None of these methods, on their own, are effective insupporting high-quality student learning. We contend that itishow these elements work together in the service of authentic and relevant learning that create engaging and relevant experiences for todays and tomorrows students at RRU.

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 33

References
Ackoff, R. & Greenberg, D. (2008). Turning learning right side up: Putting education back on track. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing. Arcario, P., Eynon, B. & Clark, J.E. (2005). Making connections: integrated learning, integrated lives. Peer Review, Summer/Fall, 16-17. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2011). The Revitalization ofundergraduate education: A report on the AUCC workshop on undergraduate education in Halifax, March 6-8, 2011 in Canada. Retrieved September 28, 2011 from www.aucc.ca/.../the-revitalization-of-undergraduate-education-incanada-2011.psf. Argyris, C. and Schon.D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method andpractice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Barnett, B.G. & Muth, R. (2008). Using action research strategies and cohort structures to ensure research competence for practitioner-scholar leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(1), 1-42. Barnett, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. HigherEducation, 40, 409-422. Battersby, M. (1999.) So, whats a learning outcome anyway? Centre for Curriculum, Transfer and Technology. Accessed March 1, 2007 at: http://merlin.capcollege. bc.ca/mbatters/whatsalearningoutcome.htm. Baxter Magolda, M.P. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Baxter Magolda, M.B., Boes, L, Hollis, M.L., & Jaramillo, D.L. (1998, January). Impact of the undergraduate summer scholar experience on epistemological development. Oxford, OH: Miami University, National Science Foundation Division of Undergraduate Education. Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (2007). Appendix 1: How people learn and the implications for design. In H. Beetham, H. & R. Sharpe (eds). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 221-223). NewYork: Routledge. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise intheSociology of Knowledge. Anchor. Blackmore, P. & Cousin, G. (2003). Linking teaching and research through research-based learning. Educational Developments, 4(4), 24-27. Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (4), 399-413. Brown, R.B. & McCartney, S. (1998). The link between research and teaching: itspurpose and implications. Training and Technology International, 35(2), 117-129. Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2003). Effects of cohorts on learners. JournalofSchool Leadership, 13(6), 621-643. Burnett, P. C. (1999). The supervision of doctoral dissertations using acollaborative cohort model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 46-52. Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, (88), pp. 552-60. Chan, C.C.A., Lim, L. and Keasberry, S.K. (2003). Examining the linkages between team learning behaviors and team performance. The Learning Organization, 10(4/5), pp. 228-36. Cooper, D. (2006). Talk About assessment: Strategies and tools to Improve Learning. Toronto, ON: Thomson Nelson. Dehler, G.E. (2006) Using action research to connect practice to learning: A course project for working management students. Journal of Management Education, 5 (5), 636-669. Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century. Paris: Unit for Education for the Twenty-First Century, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Retrieved Dec 5, 2011 from http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0010/001095/109590eo.pdf. Dorn, S. M., Papalewis, R., & Brown, R. (1995). Educators earning their doctorates: Doctoral student perceptions regarding cohesiveness and persistence. Education, 116(2), 305-314. Driscoll, A. & Wood, S. (2007). Developing outcomes-based assessment for learnercentered education: A faculty introduction. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Education Technology, Research & Development, 53(1), 65-85. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 350-83. Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R.M. and Pisano, G.P. (2001a). Speeding up team learning. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), pp. 125-32. Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R.M. and Pisano, G.P. (2001b). Disrupted routines: teamlearning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, pp. 685-716. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2012). Education for Sustainable Development. Retrieved July 10, 2012 from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-theinternational-agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/. Ellis, A.P.J., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., West, B.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: collectively connecting the dots, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), pp. 821-35.

34 Learning and Teaching Model Royal Roads University

Entwistle, N. (2008). Taking stock: Teaching and learning research in higher education. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Teaching and Learning Research in Higher Education, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, April 25-26. Fenwick, T. (2002). Problem-based learning, group process and the mid-career professional: Implications for graduate education. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 5-21. Fenwick, T. & Parsons, J. (2000). The art of evaluation: A handbook for educators. Toronto: Thompson. Fink. D.L. (2002). Beyond small groups: Harnessing the extraordinary power of learning teams. In L.K. Michaelson, A.B. Knight, D.L. & Fink (eds.), Teambased learning: A transformative use of small groups (pp 3-26). London: Praeger. Fink,D.L.(2003).Creatingsignificantlearningexperiences:Anintegrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass. Gappmaier, M. and Rose, R. (2001). BPM-Based Systems Integration in Higher Education: U.S. Student Services for the 21st Century. Proceedings from the Systems Integration Conference, 2001.Retrieved July 5, 2011 from http://si.vse.cz/archive/proceedings/2001/bpm-based-systems-integrationin-higher-education-us-student-services-for-the-21st-century.pdf. Garrison, D.R. & Vaughan, N.D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gergen, K. (2000). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Glenn, W.J. (2008). Rethinking our focus on the future: reading assessment in the transdisciplinary secondary English classroom. In Moss, D.M, Osborn, T.A. & Kaufman, D. (eds.). Interdisciplinary education in the age of assessment. (pp. 119-134). New York: Routledge. Gosling, J and Mintzberg, H. (2006). Management education as if both matter. Management Learning, 37(4), 419-428. Guilar, J.D. & Loring, A. (2008). Dialogue and community in online learning: Lessons from Royal Roads University. Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 19-40. Hayes, T. & de Freitas (2004). JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study - Stage 2: Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. Retrieved from http://www. jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20 (Version%201).pdf. Herrington, A. & Herrington, J. (2006). What is an authentic learning environment? In A. Herrington & J. Herrington (eds.), Authentic learning environments in higher education (pp. 1-14). Melbourne, Australia: Information Science Publishing.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?. Educational Psychology Review 16 (3): 235266. Horn, R. A., Jr. (2001). Promoting social justice and caring in schools and communities: The unrealized potential of the cohort model. Journal of School Leadership, 11(4), 313-334. Huba, M.E. and Freed, J.E. (2000). Learner-centred assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. The academy in transition. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Humphreys, D. (2005). Why integrative learning? Why now? Peer Review, Summer/ Fall, 30-31. Jenkins, A. (2004). A guide to the research evidence on teaching-research relationships. York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved July 6, 2011 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resource_database/ id383_guide_to_research_evidence_on_teaching_research_relations. Jenkins, A., Breen, R., & Lindsay, R., with Brew, A. (2003). Re-shaping higher education: Linking teaching and research. London: Routledge. Kachra, A. and Schnietz, K. (2008). The capstone strategy course: What might real integration look like. Journal of Management Education. 32(4), 476-508. Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Toronto: Prentice-Hall. Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles towards a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4-16. Leithwood,K.,Jantzi,D.,&Coffin,G.(1995).Preparing school leaders: What works. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Liu, C.H. & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotskys philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v6n3/ liu/paper.pdf. Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: an overview. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Retrieved on June 12, 2008 from http:// www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf.

Royal Roads University Learning and Teaching Model 35

Macleans Magazine (2012). How students rate their experiences at 62 Canadian schools: results from the National Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved October 3, 2012 from http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/02/08/ how-students-rate-professors-at-62-canadian-schools/. Meeth, L.R. (1978). Interdisciplinary studies: A matter of definition. Change, 10(10),6-9. Mok, M.M.C., Lung, C.L., Cheng, D.P.W., Cheung, R.H.P. and Ng, M.L. (2006). Self-assessment in higher education: experience in using a metacognitive approach in five case studies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 415-433. Moss, D.M, Osborn, T.A. & Kaufman, D. (2008). The promise ofinterdisciplinary assessment. In Moss, D.M, Osborn, T.A. & Kaufman, D. (eds.) Interdisciplinary education in the age of assessment. (pp. 1-6). NewYork:Routledge. Muth, R., & Barnett, B. (2001). Making the case for professional preparation in cohorts: Using research for program improvement and political support. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 13, 109-120. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2012). What is NSSE? RetrievedOctober 3, 2012 from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm. Nelville, A.J. (1999). The problem-based tutor: Teacher? Facilitator? Evaluator? Medical Teacher, 21(4),393-401. Newmann, F. M. & Wehlage, G. G. (2003). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50 (7), 8-12. Nilson, L.B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resources for college instructors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Norton, M. S. (1995, October). The status of student cohorts in educational administration preparation programs. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, SaltLake City, UT. Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Toronto: Riverhead Trade, an imprint of Penguin Books. Raelin, Joseph A. (2006). Taking the Charisma Out: Teaching as Facilitation FirstPerson, Organization Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 4-12. Retrieved from www.omj-online.org Randall, N., Roberts, T., & Rogers, S. (2005). Connected assessment: Getting real with authentic assessment online. Presented at the ETUG Spring Workshop onEducational Technologies, Nanaimo, BC, June. Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury (Eds). Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.

Reeves, T.C, Herrington, J., & Oliver, J. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. Presented at the Annual Conference of Higher Education Research andDevelopment Society of Australasia. Perth, Australia. Retrieved May7,2008 from http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/ ref/pdf/Reeves.pdf. Royal Roads University (1995). Education Plan for Royal Roads University: AUniqueVision. Victoria, BC. Royal Roads University (2009). Rethinking Res: Envisioning Alternatives to Traditional RRU Residencies. Centre for Teaching and Educational Technologies, RoyalRoads University, Victoria, BC. Scott, D. K. (2002). General Education for an Integrative Age. Higher Education Policy, 15(1), 7-18. Stage, F.K., Muller, P.A., Kinzie, J. & and Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learnercentered classrooms: What does learning theory have to say? Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education and the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Stiehl, R. & Lewchuk, L. (2002). The outcomes primer: Tools for reconstructing thecollege curriculum. Corvallis, Or. : Learning Organization. Thomas, l., Quinn, J., Slack, K. & Casey, L. (2002). Student Services: Effective Approaches to Retaining Students in Higher Education: Full Research Report. Institute for Access Studies, Staffordshire University Stafford, UK. Vaill, P. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. van der Vegt, G.S. and Bunderson, J.S. (2005). Learning and performance inmultidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification, Academy of Management Journal, 48, pp. 532-47. van Offenbeek, M. (2001). Processes and outcomes of team learning. EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (3), pp. 303-17. van Woerkom, M & Croon, M. (2009). The relationships between team learning activities and team performance. Personnel Review, 38(5), 560-577. Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Quinn Patton, M. (2007). Getting to maybe: Howtheworld is changed. Toronto, Canada: Vintage Canada, a Division ofRandom House of Canada Ltd. Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centred teaching: Five key changes to practice. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. Zellmer-Bruhn, M. and Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, pp. 501-18.

36 Learning and Teaching Model Royal Roads University