2.4 Conclusions and Caveats

The ICE framework offers a conceptual model that is congruent with the principles of my practice in and across the multiple domains of teaching, learning, research, and educational development. Throughout my career I have used the ICE framework in various post-secondary contexts as a disciplinary agnostic tool as I’ve discovered that it often resonates with faculty and students alike. For me, it just makes good sense to start with an approach that intentionally aligns with my values as an educator and inspires me and the faculty and students that I work with to reach further and dig deeper in search of meaning.

References

Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with Rubrics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559213

Fostaty Young, S. (2005). Teaching, learning and assessment in higher education: Using ICE to improve student learning. Proceedings of the Improving Student Learning Symposium, London, UK, 13, 105-115.

Healey, M., Marquis, B., & Vajoczki, S. (2013). Exploring SoTL through international collaborative writing groups. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 3-8.  

Brian Stanfield R, (2008). The Art of Focused Conversation: 100 ways to Access Group Wisdom in the Workplace. Canadian Institute for Cultural Affairs.

Wilcox, S. (2009). Transformative educational development scholarship: beginning with ourselves. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(2), 123-132. DOI: 10.1080/13601440902970007

Wyatt, J., & Gale, K. (2014). Introduction to the special issue on collaborative writing as a method of inquiry. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 14(4), 295-297. DOI: 10.1177/153270861430299