You are here
Stephanie Chu - 2015-02-02 - SFU Burnaby
Primary tabs
Stephanie Chu - 2015-02-02 - SFU Burnaby
Simon Fraser University Library
Holly Hendrigan, Interviewer |
SFU Library Oral Histories |
Tech BC Memory Project
Holly Hendrigan, Interviewer |
SFU Library Oral Histories | Tech BC Memory Project
Hendrigan: This is Holly Hendrigan of the TechBC Memory Project. Today is
February 2, 2015 and I’m interviewing Dr. Stephanie Chu, who is Director of the Teaching and Learning Centre at SFU. We are having a face-to-face conversation in Stephanie’s office on Burnaby Mountain. Hello Stephanie.Stephanie Chu: Hi Holly.
Hendrigan: Hi. I’m here to ask you some questions about your experience at the
Technical University of British Columbia, which offered classes in Surrey between 1999 and 2002. So first of all, what year did you begin working at TechBC?Stephanie Chu: I started, the first day of work on, beginning of January, 2000,
so it was right after the holidays, Christmas break.Hendrigan: Right. And, where had you worked before?
Stephanie Chu: SFU -
Hendrigan: Ok.
Stephanie Chu: So I used to work in the Centre for Distance Education before I
went to TechBC.Hendrigan: Ok. And how did you come to work at TechBC?
Stephanie Chu: I just finished up my Master’s in Education and heard from a
colleague that he was working at TechBC, and that was John Nesbit, at the time 1:00and he had an Educational Analyst position or actually two positions up, so I applied for them in the late Fall, was interviewed right before Christmas and was offered the position. So that’s how I ended up at TechBC.Hendrigan: Right. And why did you apply for that job?
Stephanie Chu: The main reason why I applied for it was because of the potential
of starting something new, starting something exciting, a new institution, I heard a lot about the ideas around why TechBC was being formed, what it meant to offer students in terms of experience, and I was really looking forward and excited to be part of it.Hendrigan: Right. And what was your job title when you began?
Stephanie Chu: Educational Analyst.
Hendrigan: Ok. Now what does an Educational Analyst do?
Stephanie Chu: In that particular role I did, pretty much everything to do with
education in terms of being, advising on curriculum, faculty development, working with new faculty, faculty orientation, doing orientations for students 2:00on how to use the Learning Management System, figuring out, being part of the design team on what the Learning Management System, cause it was homegrown, what it should look like, what, how it should be set up, creating the delivery models that TechBC implemented, we had I think five or six different delivery models, the Educational Analysts actually helped to develop those models with the rest of the teams. So anything really to do with educational development, faculty development, R and D, design and delivery, and curriculum.Hendrigan: So how did what you were doing at TechBC differ from what you had
been doing at SFU?Stephanie Chu: SFU I was focused on, advising or consulting with faculty on the
instructional design of their Business Ed courses, and helping them to create the courses. So, that was different in that I did everything from the media development, to the consultation, and support, whereas in this case it was working with teams of people but having a broader view. So I would work on the 3:00broader curriculum instead of just one course, for example. But I had, there was Media Designers, so I didn’t have to try and figure out how to create the media, I would advise from an educational perspective, the appropriate use of media, and work with the media expertise, and the faculty member, the subject matter expert. So it’s more of, really working with people on their, with their particular expertise rather than being the person that tried to do a whole bunch of things.Hendrigan: Right, right. What was it like there in 2000? So they, they had just
gotten their first crew of students in September?Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm. TechBC even though it’s what, fifteen years ago now,
it’s hard to believe for me that it’s been fifteen years, quite frankly. It just seems a short time ago. And part of the reason why I think that it, it stuck in my mind and I believe a lot of my peers and people who used to work there, it was a very different environment. So it was a place of excitement, it 4:00was a place of a lot of energy. I think, I can probably, definitely speak for myself but a number of people, we’ve probably put so much effort and enthusiasm and hard work into that institution, that has been unparalleled. I have in other areas now, [ in my work] but, for everybody to devote that much energy and commitment to something, I’ve never seen before and I don’t know if I’ll ever see it again. So, and the collaboration across all what you would see as, ”traditional roles”, so from, like students, to staff, to administration, to faculty, to learning support associates, the lines were not drawn, there was a lot of collaboration, there was a lot of teamwork occurring, there’s pockets of course of things just not working that well at times but, people worked very closely together, and were respectful of each other, and very inclusive in terms of perspectives and experience. So like students were on 5:00every committee and participated in helping with the development of everything from the Learning Management System to the curriculum to, they were, had a very active voice which I haven’t seen before, and not really as much now either in other institutions. So I think there, back at that time it was a lot of work, we were trying to get all sorts of things like developing the programs as people were actually moving through them. So in a way that’s a good thing because you can get the feedback and help, you know refine things, but meanwhile it’s also a lot of stress because you have to get the programs in place because they’re about to move on to the next year. Same with Learning Management System you know, making any changes to that, finding that, Ok there’s little things that didn’t quite work out here, We need to rethink this, but it’s, happening live, it’s happening as we were, things were rolling out.Hendrigan: Right. Sounds pretty intense.
Stephanie Chu: Yeah. Oh yeah it was.
Hendrigan: [Laughs] And, and, and you’re in Surrey so, you worked at the, at
the, at the mall then?Stephanie Chu: I was, well I was one of, the, the newer, like, well I think, I
6:00think when I started I think I was staff member 30 or 29 or something so, there weren’t that many of us then, and we were actually over on the Guildford side tucked away in a strip mall, first, then moved to the Surrey Central Mall.Hendrigan: Right, right. What was it like in Surrey at that time?
Stephanie Chu: I think it was, people didn’t really know that much about
Surrey, you know we were trying to really figure out what the community needed in terms of the education, educational experience. I, it was, it was still being formed or growing, I think the City of Surrey hadn’t really figured out what it was doing with Guildford, and Surrey Central and all this like, things were coming, so we were in one, tucked away in one little place that meanwhile there were other staff and the students in the central place, the old Zellers space, then when we moved we were all in one place but really in a mall, so that was different, I don’t know that many people who have worked in a mall, and 7:00there’s advantages and disadvantages to that, then we moved into the tower or further expanded so there’s been, there’s been a lot, there was a lot of change in a very short period of time. So it was different in that, I think it was a really strong sense of community, yet there’s also the sense of, things were always changing.Hendrigan: Right, right. I’ll move on to, kind of the, TechBC’s master plan
pedagogically and what did TechBC hope to do, differently that other universities were doing?Stephanie Chu: I think TechBC was really focused on, having students’
experience be the best it could be, and really supporting them on, providing a range, that was, tied to the community, tied to the skills they needed in order to, work when they graduated, so there was a lot of emphasis on teamwork, soft skill development such as communication, project planning and such that, you may 8:00not get in more of a traditional academic setting because the courses don’t necessarily all link together, and there wasn’t this idea of, having a capstone in some programs or, how project management would actually tie through the whole thing, or working on multidisciplinary teams. There was, we had TechOne program where, all the no matter what three, what stream the students were in, they were in the same program so that they would actually start seeing the benefits of working with someone say from IT versus business, versus the arts, and see how those roles, cause that mimics what’s really happening in the, like when you graduate when you’re working, the working world, you’re not all in the same area, you actually bring different expertise so I think, trying to provide those types of experiences early on, and weaving that through the curriculum was a key difference from other I think curricula that I've seen.Hendrigan: Yeah. And, and how well did that work, in terms of there was, there
9:00was kind of the artistic side -Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm.
Hendrigan: The Interactive Arts, but also the IT and the Management, did, did
you think it, it worked, it, it jelled?Stephanie Chu: I think yes and no. I think there were challenges in, each area
was also trying to establish itself in why, how it was leading and different. So in some cases there were some tensions across like, in terms of, even resourcing, which program would get what resources of, of just at the institution level, or staffing, or whatever else, how much emphasis was there on even understanding what was distinct about these three areas, but also how they fit together. So there’s tensions there and trying to balance that out. They, they also were very different from their traditional counterparts, like the Business programs like, I think TechBC was ahead of itself, like ahead of the times when it came to fruition and what it wanted to do, and the programs there 10:00already were forward thinking, like talking about data mining, talking about understanding where technology was going, and trying to develop programs that way. So it was different from traditional programs, of say, typical Business, typical IT, or Arts, it had that technology piece to it that not necessarily people externally understood, so in some cases where it seemed to be, more tension occurred was externally, some of the programs or things that we were doing were not viewed to be of a certain caliber, because of traditional views of that field, not necessarily recognizing where we’re trying to push the boundaries. So I think that was a tension there and a stressor for the people who were responsible for those programs, so that added more to kind of trying to figure out who they were, and how that all fit together.Hendrigan: Right. Right. Did you work, or sorry did you, work on the Online
11:00Learning Management System that was set up?Stephanie Chu: Yes. So I was part of the team, within Educational Technology and
Learning (ET and L) that developed the system and, created the, learning delivery models because the each, we had to, different ways of teaching but the, the Learning Management System had to reflect that in its setup. So if somebody had a studio course there was a model and ways that the system actually support the studio model. If it was partly online like the, we had a mix, I forgot what it was called but, classes would meet every two weeks online or face to face you would alternate. So that had to be reflected in the Learning Management System and how it supported it. So I was the, I was one of the two Educational Analysts that was actively involved in the development of the, the Learning Management System.Hendrigan: Right. So, and, and, and since then you’ve worked with a couple of
different Learning Management Systems - 12:00Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm.
Hendrigan: WebCT and, Canvas now -
Stephanie Chu: Yes.
Hendrigan: Of the three, which one was your favourite, or did you find it
easiest to work with?Stephanie Chu: That’s a difficult question because you know, fifteen years
ago, systems, that was cutting edge for that type of system, right? Where it was homegrown but it was really to try to address the model that the institution was going for. So that was unique in its own way. The technology has changed a lot, in the fifteen years, and if anything now there’s more and more tools that you can integrate with a main system, and that’s where Canvas is currently at at SFU, is that the potential is, is not only that we can shape what we have with Canvas because we have the open source and we house it here, but the integration with tools such as, Instagram, to Facebook, whatever, other, that, that’s out there that wasn’t there then, that we couldn’t integrate. So it’s a difficult question for me to answer in that I think it did really well back then, fifteen years ago where it was trying to, also to support a 13:00particular model for that institution. SFU can’t really have an LMS really support the model for the institution because there isn’t one. It’s, different programs have different needs and different ways of doing things -Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: WebCT I think was good in its own time, where it provided people
with a stable foundation but things have really changed over the years, and I think some people are getting, not, not really wanting to have their systems or their design of the courses be contingent upon a business’s ideas of what, of what needs to be done, and wait for the upgrades. So that’s why I think for Canvas, for us to have it we actually define how we’re going to change the system, based on the input of the community.Hendrigan: Right, right. So it’s almost that Canvas is a bit closer to the
homegrown -Stephanie Chu: Yes -
Hendrigan: Yeah -
Stephanie Chu: Yeah -
Hendrigan: Yeah. How would you describe your relationship with the TechBC faculty?
Stephanie Chu: I found it really, really nice. Really respectful, really
collaborative, I still keep in touch with a number of them. Even some of them 14:00who are no longer with SFU or, have gone elsewhere, because I think the experience really resonated with a number of us, that there were the relationships in a very short period of time for those relationships to have occurred, and then to, when we see each other or connect there’s still that memory, which is very different. So the relationships I found very, enjoyable because people, I think faculty for the most part when they came on board, they knew what they were getting into, they weren’t necessarily going to expect the kind of traditional way of doing things, even in orientation, me being a big part of their faculty orientation, or the hiring, when they were coming in and learning about the, TechBC, I was part of that, to show them, this is the, this is the type of thing that we do, you’ll be on various projects, you’ll be working with a number of people on this, and we also had all faculty go through a faculty development program, they all had to do this program that was run by my department –Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: On how to teach online and things to keep in mind when you’re
15:00designing courses and all that.Hendrigan: Yeah, yeah. And that, that, that was mandatory kind of, unlike the
setup now where it is more optional, right?Stephanie Chu: Yeah I don’t think any institution in Canada that I know of,
it’s, it’s very difficult to mandate it because of the faculty unions and, academic freedom.Hendrigan: Right, right. Yeah. And, I’m gonna move on to language, as I’ve
conducted these interviews, I've learned that TechBC had its own rules around language use, for example students were “learners” –Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm.
Hendrigan: And the term lecture wasn’t allowed. Can you remember any other
kind of, linguistic rules specific to TechBC?Stephanie Chu: Well even like, here we have TAs, but there, like Teaching
Assistants, there they were Learning Support Associates, LSAs, and I think 16:00partly because they actually had a, a broader role. They were more of a team, but I’m not quite sure because I wasn’t one of them, but I think it’s because of the team model that we had, we had faculty members who were leads, and then the LSAs would work with them, but I think they were a little different that they contributed much more than say a TA does -Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: So it might have been language, but it might have been also a
slightly different role. Yes we did, definitely did not have, well even the idea of delivery model was different right, it was a combination of the, some sort of standards around instructional design and, like how, how a course would be designed, and also the technology that would be associated with that design, that was, I think now people have used that model, or that, that wording more so, but it was fairly new back fifteen years ago -Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: Concept of delivery model. What else did we have? We had modules,
we didn’t have courses per say. Or a course that had three modules so the 17:00intent, the original intent was to allow people to take like, what they needed when they, when they needed it, but also allow people that if they’ve already accelerated or, or already knew a fair bit they could start with the second module, they didn’t have to go through the whole thing, like a whole twelve week course--Hendrigan: Hmm.
Stephanie Chu: Where we hit some challenges were, is when they’re contingent
upon, or dependent upon one another, and if they weren’t offered all of the time, then what do you do because then a student would have to wait for a whole new cycle, and then they were also out of sync with the group that they actually started with -Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: So that you know, that was a bit of a hiccup, the intent was
there but never quite worked it out, I guess if we had more modules or more programs it would have been different. In terms of language what else was there? I pointed out the learner one, I thought there was something to do with faculty but I can’t remember what it was.Hendrigan: Well, you, we -
Stephanie Chu: Yea -
Hendrigan: We can come back to that. But, was having your own language, did that
18:00kind of make it difficult to talk to people in other institutions about what, what you were doing?Stephanie Chu: I think it, it did. I think, the, the advantage of us having that
language or focus was that it did try to shift our perspective. So it’s about, not a student in the traditional way it’s like we’re enabling learning, learning’s more active, student’s a noun whereas learning, learner they were, doing something, you would anticipate that they’d be learning something. So it did shift our, or try to shift our perspectives that way, made it difficult where, where I think more of the processes and procedures so, I didn’t work on articulation and transfer of, from high school to, to, to the university and such, but I did, I did hear from colleagues that that was an area that wasn’t quite clear you know, the whole module versus courses and, we, we also had outcomes we already, we expected people to have learning outcomes - 19:00Hendrigan: Mm-hmm.
Stephanie Chu: Or learning objectives depending on what you wanted to call them
then, back then. And, in some cases you know how they mapped with other programs wasn’t necessarily, well some programs elsewhere didn’t necessarily have them, so it was a bit of a challenge I think the Provincial Government sometimes didn’t have really clear idea of what we were doing.Hendrigan: Yeah.
Stephanie Chu: Because there were differences in language, and just perhaps
maybe communicating what we’re trying to do.Hendrigan: Yeah. Do you ever find yourself these days speaking in or thinking in
kind of TechBC jargon?Stephanie Chu: Not as much the jargon, more of the concepts -
Hendrigan: Yeah.
Stephanie Chu: Like the idea of working very closely in teams, working,
respecting peoples’ expertise, working across the institution, is something that I actually have, I believed in, and I implemented as Director of the centre when I re-orged it, so partnerships, collaboration, working with people and, and, at all levels like, equitably, like, it’s no different if you’re senior 20:00administration versus a student versus a faculty member, we all bring expertise to the table, and in order for the institution to move forward, we need to work together, and that has been something that I’ve, I saw worked well then -Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: That I’ve applied here, so not, to answer your question not the
language or jargon -Hendrigan: Mm-hmm.
Stephanie Chu: More of some of the approaches and philosophy.
Hendrigan: Right -
Stephanie Chu: And I’ve applied that in my own, work at SFU now.
Hendrigan: Right. Moving on to students did, did you have much contact with the students?
Stephanie Chu: Oh yeah, everybody had contact with the students -
Hendrigan: [Laughs]
Stephanie Chu: They were, well you’re in kind of this same space right, so you
did see them, there were some that you saw a lot more because they were really actively involved on various committees, or providing feedback and such. They were very, involved in peer mentoring and, supporting their own, supporting students. So we had a number of them that would volunteer or be part of leadership, leading things related to students. So actively working with Student Services or actively working with us, in understanding these delivery models, 21:00why something’s being taught the way it is, getting their feedback, there was a lot of student engagement, and, even some of them have gone often in I think very visible leadership roles, or very active because they’ve just been more community oriented -Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: So definitely I was always involved in the student orientations
every year, when we had to talk about how teaching and learning occurred at this, this university versus others, and our Learning Management System training.Hendrigan: Right. Was there anything unique about the TechBC students that you,
hadn’t seen before or haven’t seen since?Stephanie Chu: I think, and, and I don’t know if it’s because of, they were
like that coming in, or if that part of their experience or a combination of things.Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: I don’t know if those who selected to come to TechBC might have
already self-selected to be part of that kind of, of community environment. To be able to participate in developing a new institution. Because some people 22:00might have been kind of like, Oh I’m not too sure about this one, I want to go to a traditional one that I’m quite familiar with, and, and go through those programs right -Hendrigan: Mm-hmm.
Stephanie Chu: So I, I see there was a lot more, community orientation with,
like within the Surrey community, working with Surrey, but also within the institution. There was much more active involvement, they weren’t afraid to say what didn’t work for them, but also were very good about recognizing what worked well for them, so I, I heard more of a voice that I haven’t really seen, in other places or heard about. Very impassioned about their learning, I think very, generous of their own time right, so they had a commitment to the institution as much as the people who were working at it. Because they were giving up, not only were they studying, they were giving, a lot of them were giving up their own personal time to contribute back to the community.Hendrigan: Wow. Yeah. This kind of segues into culture, that the TechBC culture,
23:00can you describe it?Stephanie Chu: I think the TechBC culture was one of, people had a shared
vision. Now, I’m using vision very broadly, I think there were differences on individuals; visions and how they would play out, or how things should play out, there were tensions so don’t get me wrong, there were tensions, there were some, areas that just didn’t work well or didn’t, or individuals that, you know there’s always individual differences, I think overall the culture was about, it was really focused on the students and trying to provide an educational experience that was unique and addressing the needs of the Surrey, and kind of the Fraser area. Also really, understanding where technology was going, I think we have, we had some really leading edge, faculty members and, that had an idea, really where things were going and, were able to try to work 24:00that into the curriculum and their own research, and I think some of it has, like I’ve seen continues on -Hendrigan: Mm-hmm.
Stephanie Chu: So I think the culture was of something really forward thinking,
willing to put risk into it, willing to put a lot of hard work into it, so somehow that brought a group of people together that were very committed and I think did a lot more than I've ever seen in a short period of time .Hendrigan: Yeah. You’ve mentioned a couple of times that it is quite student
focused -Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm.
Hendrigan: Or it was quite student focused and that, but I look at SFU now and
they, but the rankings, university rankings and things it, it, it, seems to be more focused now on, on research, so how did, the TechBC faculty and staff square that in terms of, as a, as a university, their research needed to be done as well?Stephanie Chu: Yes. So, I think the difference between SFU and say, TechBC is
25:00that, SFU is a research university right, it’s a comprehensive university but a research university, research intensive, TechBC was a, a technical university that did research as well, so faculty who came in knew, or I think should have known that teaching was just as important as research. So they would have their own research agendas and be supported in that, but they also had to teach, and the teaching was taken seriously. Where other institutions we’ve struggled with is that research, for research institutions that’s always a bit of a challenge. Sometimes tenure and promotion is really much more focused on research contributions than teaching, and that’s something that’s part of more the, traditional institutions I would say or institutions that have been here longer. Whereas if you’re already hiring people that have that understanding across pretty much the entire institution, give or take you know 26:00pockets, that’s different way of starting an institution or moving forward in that, compared to a larger institution that, depending on which department you go into or which discipline, may or may not value teaching as much.Hendrigan: Right. Kind of going off script here but I, I’m sort of, I’m
trying to think of the career ladder for faculty at, at TechBC I mean it’s pretty clear at SFU in terms of your, of a ladder but, was there a ladder there?Stephanie Chu: We had, I think we had, we had research faculty and I think there
were different steps but I can’t remember what they were. So there was like, I think Assistant Professor and all that, but I think there was something about the, even just the language around the faculty roles that was different, but I can’t exactly remember what -Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: So I think to answer your question, yes there was laddering, how
it was, what it was called, and how that worked I can’t remember - 27:00Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: But there was a difference there.
Hendrigan: Yeah, yeah. But also they just didn’t have tenure -
Stephanie Chu: Right -
Hendrigan: So -
Stephanie Chu: No and that was one of the reasons why we had some challenges
with, just with our optics with, outside of our institution.Hendrigan: Right, right, yeah -
Stephanie Chu: Yeah -
Hendrigan: I talked to Jane Fee about that -
Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm -
Hendrigan: That kind of stuff, yeah. So I’ll move on to the transition then,
what were the early signs that the university’s days as a standalone institution were numbered?Stephanie Chu: I can’t remember the exact time, but I knew we were, there were
some, senior administration you can tell there was some stresses up there, and there could have been a number of reasons for that but, we also, the level, the amount of growth that we were supposed to have in terms of students, the development of our programs, it was happening quickly but perhaps not quickly enough. There’s a lot of costs associated with setting up, this institution, there was a lot of, because there were so many activates around celebrating and, 28:00I think which is important, orientations and such I think, it, it maybe was perceived, that a lot of money was going some, like, to, for very, like I guess the cost benefit, so we started hearing bits about that, the government changes, the change from NDP to Liberal was coming and, I think there was a proactive approach to try to educate and inform the government, but it might have been either the point was moot or, a little too late. They, we did have changes in the Presidency as well, and that might have, I don’t know contributed to it or what I don’t know, but if that, that head person doesn’t necessarily, or had a different relationship with incoming or outgoing governments I don’t know if that had an affect but so we already had some changes happening and some things happening at the senior level, that I think people were aware of, but then when 29:00the government, when the government started shifting or changing that’s where we really started seeing it. Also, trying to, get a sense of where our programs were going like things were still growing, and trying to map that out it seemed like there was, there was a lot of, there were challenges outside of the institution like such as you said like we didn’t have tenure, I think we were blacklisted by something or another I can’t remember what -Hendrigan: Hmm.
Stephanie Chu: Yeah, so you know there, there was all, all these things that
were happening that were probably being communicated back, or the government was actually hearing that and things were coming back to us, so it wasn’t any clear set time in my view, it was more like things started changing, or messaging or communicating and even though we were trying our best, to, and even the students were rallying and trying to show what was happening, that messaging either wasn’t becoming clear or didn’t matter at that time.Hendrigan: Right, right. And plus you didn’t have a permanent building to, to -
Stephanie Chu: No.
30:00Hendrigan: To be in, yeah, so -
Stephanie Chu: Right.
Hendrigan: Yeah. So at that time you made sense of it because, by, by thinking
that, it was a, a matter of just not, having the, the student numbers and so the cost per students -Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm.
Hendrigan: Was there, was there anything else that you thought was, was going on
that contributed to that, that period of uncertainty?Stephanie Chu: Frankly I think there were some, from what I heard or saw, some
disagreements at the senior administration level about, where the institution was going or how we were doing things. I think that the, the administrative team wasn’t completely jelling as a team at times, so I think that, probably contributes to it to some extent too.Hendrigan: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. So over time, has your rationalization of why it
changed, sorry why it was shut down, has is changed at all? There must have been 31:00sort of like what you thought then, and now fifteen years later, did, did, has that changed?Stephanie Chu: Yes and no. I can point actually, going back to when it happened -
Hendrigan: Mm-hmm.
Stephanie Chu: Something changed, at that point. I never knew much about media,
never knew how media coverage occurred or anything like that, never experienced it, and I was appalled to put it bluntly when, when things started changing and became more public. The misrepresentation of the media of what TechBC was doing or its intent or what happened to it, was completely off. And I never experienced that before, and I was appalled, and people were really upset and disappointed because, it, it, there was, the rationales, the stories, they were wrong, they were not well researched out, so I don’t know if it ever came out to people why, you know what TechBC was ever trying to do, and the great work that it did do, I think it, it became a wash when the media got to it. I've 32:00never seen anything quite like it. So that was back then, that changed my view then, that this is not good, don’t know where you know if it was just media, or government, or what or a combination of things, but I've never seen such misrepresentation before, and it was consistent misrepresentation that people weren’t fact finding, yet they weren’t following up, or I don’t see why anybody would, but people within, I think we were interviewed, a number of people were interviewed by media and government, but somehow the message was completely changed. So, that was one piece that has always made me wary now, of how things are presented. Since then though I think, I don’t know if my perceptions of, of what happened, have really changed that much I think there was a group of people that were very vested, I don’t know if we could have been more strategic, it’s more of I’m left with questions rather than saying, Yeah I think you know we could have done this, or we could have done that, I’m not sure what we could have done. ’Cause I know, all I see was a 33:00group of people that were really committed and vested, and fought to the end. But, could we have maybe had cut costs more? Could we have really developed the programs, or program, or programming better, faster? I doubt it because everybody was putting in more than anybody would ever expect, and it does cost a lot of money when you’re trying to really think through everything, if there’s an ad hoc approach to curriculum development and yeah you pick whatever system that might kind of fit it and make it fit, yep it would cost less. But that went against the whole idea of trying to create this experience for people. I think the space issue was a problem, because that never really allowed us to establish ourselves as a, as a place, a clear place for this educational experience, so the joke of, Oh there’s a university in a mall? Or something, it’s, yes, it could have been more than that but it’s, and like, 34:00kind of like Surrey is now, it’s kind of established but it’s prominent right, we never even got to that point. So I, I don’t know, I don’t know what, my view would be more of, what can we learn from it? I think we could have done more of gaining from the experience of TechBC and applying it at SFU quite frankly, I think there was a lot of intent by the senior, administration who took on SFU, SFU Surrey, but I think some of the stuff that we did ended up being quite lost.Hendrigan: Right. So there was a period of uncertainty -
Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm.
Hendrigan: And then it was announced in February of 2002 that it would be SFU
that was -Stephanie Chu: Yeah.
Hendrigan: Assuming administrative control, how did you feel at that point?
Stephanie Chu: I laughed because I left SFU because I wanted to try and do
something different. [laughs] Because I've been at SFU, for twenty five years now pretty much, other than my two year hiatus, so I, I was quite familiar with 35:00SFU, I was excited about trying something new so I kind of laughed when I found out I was going back to SFU, because my department was one of the few that was absorbed, by SFU and taken back. So, I boomerang back without even trying, I, I felt that when I did meet with senior administration at that point though, because I was part of the group that was helping with the transition, to raise awareness about what we were trying to do, particularly from a student’s perspective, and our curriculum and such, and I felt that people really were excited about it, and passionate about it, and interested in it, where I think it wasn’t an issue with senior administration, some of those ideas, they didn’t really flow through to the academic side, you know the potential for academic programming here and such, and maybe it’s because they weren’t involved in the conversations as much, at that time, so, I think there were, there’s still a number of us here and there that have now, I think influenced or carried on some of the ideas in wherever we’ve gone to. 36:00Hendrigan: Right, right. So, you never ended up getting a layoff notice?
Stephanie Chu: Yeah I did.
Hendrigan: Oh you did, ok.
Stephanie Chu: Oh yeah everybody was laid off.
Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: Everybody got laid off at one of three phases, so I was phase two.
Hendrigan: Okay.
Stephanie Chu: Because I needed to, I was part of the group that had to kind of
help wrap things up, and, but not like the, the final help wrap things up and pull the plugs, not that group, I was the second group.Hendrigan: Ok. So how long were you laid off for? Did you, reapply?
Stephanie Chu: You can negotiate, no, because we knew that my, our unit were,
most of the positions in my unit were absorbed into SFU so we were going through the process with, HR had to figure out where we fit, on the pay scale and such, and then most of us could actually negotiate, kind of within a couple weeks when we’re coming back -Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: So I, I received, I was laid off, I received severance because
that was my first time I took a break, in I don’t know how long, so I took four weeks off or something like that, and just vegged and then started my job 37:00at, I think was it four or six weeks, then started the job with SFU.Hendrigan: Right. And, and you were back in Surrey?
Stephanie Chu: Yup.
Hendrigan: Ok, yeah, yeah. And what’s your assessment of how well SFU handled
the transition?Stephanie Chu: I think it, my sense with it is that, from my department’s view
it went ok. I think we were kind of put into, it, we didn’t, I don’t think like Human Resources or administration looked at what we had to offer and slated, put us where we would best fit necessarily, or where we should fit on a pay scale or anything it was just like, Ok these people were here, let’s just get them over here, and it wasn’t, there was no real plan about this, I think but on the other hand, we were allowed to work, we could work on certain projects and, at one point our unit was merged with the LIDC, Learning Instructional Development Centre, again that wasn’t really that planned out though so it wasn’t quite clear what we were supposed to do and, so I think 38:00that could have from my department’s view, could have been planned out more, who could have been or should have been at that table I don’t know. I think other areas though I've heard particularly from the academic side, that didn’t, some areas have been smoother than others, in terms of like some sort of, for example some of the Business faculty now are part of the Business faculty here and doing very, some of the courses that they did before and the research they did before, SIAT program I think had, had transitioned, but lost you know their TechOne program and or, other first year programs actually came out in Surrey and then, then kind of disappeared again. So, you can see there was some influence and some change so there was a recognition of some value there, but yet how did that all kind of continue on and really, affect the programs at Surrey or anywhere else, I don’t know. I've heard of other people who’ve just been very, were very, very, very unhappy, and felt that, there was 39:00definitely no recognition and appreciation for what TechBC brought to the table, and if anything there was a discounting of it. So it’s been from my view it was ok, could have been better, I think you will find and you probably have, there’s quite a, a, an assortment or a range of views.Hendrigan: Yeah. Well, my sense, a lot of the really unhappy people won’t talk
to me so -Stephanie Chu: Oh. [laughs]
Hendrigan: Most, most people that, that, that have agreed to be interviewed are,
have been ones that kind of ended up alright, but I’m aware there’s a whole contingent of people that, that, you know it’s still kind of a very painful kind of, kind of memory.Stephanie Chu: Yeah I think when it came down to the end I don’t know maybe
pockets of people, or people started, became, it was less of a, a unit and more, I think people were really trying to survive on their own, and trying to figure out where they’re going to end up and some people were pretty much axed and 40:00suddenly left feeling like the hard work that they put into the, institution didn’t matter anymore. And then also hearing that depending on who you were you might have got a payout that was so big, versus that or whatever, and just be given positions in wherever else, or how people were let go or, it just become, I think at the end painful overall because it was a sad situation -Hendrigan: Yeah.
Stephanie Chu: But some people really were hit hard.
Hendrigan: Yeah, yeah, sure. So the, the university only had three years of
students, probably not a long enough time to properly assess but do you think that TechBC accomplished what it was trying to do?Stephanie Chu: I think given the graduates that I know who have moved on,
they’ve really demonstrated and taken on much more [senior] positions now that they’ve moved ahead. They’ve established themselves partly because of their experience, partly because of who they are. And maybe that’s how they went to, to TechBC to begin with--again trying to, not, I don’t know. I think 41:00it’s accomplished: providing those students that we had with that experience. But in a short time, I know it was hard for them, because they had to graduate at SFU, and then trying to figure out how that was going to work. People were really trying to make it work for them, make sure they graduated but, it was probably was bumpy -Hendrigan: Yeah.
Stephanie Chu: You know I still remember somehow being in conversation about
what regalia do they wear, like what colours and things, ‘cause they had to figure out which faculty they belong to and all this stuff.Hendrigan: Yeah.
Stephanie Chu: I think the ones that have really succeeded they’ve, they’ve
already been resilient I think there’s, if, if anything, it provided students with this experience that life changes, things happen, in the workplace or not, that’s a certain level of resiliency that needs to, like everybody needs to have that, unfortunately some of them had to gain it at that point probably, so I think it gave, the intent was really for students to gain much more of an 42:00experience that they can apply to their own lives in the future, and I think it did that even in ways that we didn’t intend.Hendrigan: Yeah, one of, one of the students that I spoke with has been in a
number of mergers and acquisitions -Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm.
Hendrigan: In the corporate world, and he’s like, it’s the same thing, you know?
Stephanie Chu: Yeah, yeah. Because, sticking with one job and one company or,
or, anything like that that’s not really usual anymore, that’s not really, there’s been a lot of research and data collected about that, so in a way that maybe better prepared them.Hendrigan: Right, right. So, my next question you, you’ve actually kind of
alluded to it a bit but, I’ll, I’ll just kind of get, get it down, so even though TechBC was taken over by SFU, have you seen any positive impact that TechBC has had on the larger institution?Stephanie Chu: Well I think a lot of the passion and the drive and some of the
ideas, especially the community focus has occurred, in SFU. Like I think, SFU Surrey has really established itself based on some of the work that was done by TechBC, but because of the people that are there, because of the programs that are there and, and the former Executive Director, I think things grew out of 43:00that, so it might’ve, it’s just one piece of it, I think that’s my point is that people took some of the work or ideas and ran with it, it’s also just the notion of community engagement, I think SFU’s really talking about that more and again it’s leadership but also some seeds were already in different places, and involving so even like Vancouver, Burnaby, we’ve, we’re I think more visibly engaged and working with the community, again, partly the work that TechBC did. I think some of the curricular work that, and the ideas of, I guess students being more active in their learning, has, occurred and, and again different programs and places. I think SIAT is doing well in its programming and what it’s doing, it took a long time for them to get there and I, I know it was pretty stressful, they’ve really settled, they have some really strong and 44:00committed faculty there, and staff as well, where else have I seen? I can’t think of anything else right now, I think it’s more of, threads and, and, and seeds rather than, a big influence that it has now shaped this -Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: At SFU -
Hendrigan: Right.
Stephanie Chu: Right.
Hendrigan: Well and I also, other people have mentioned very forward thinking
and that it could -Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm.
Hendrigan: Be that, some of these ideas have just kind of coming into fruition
now when, at TechBC was doing that -Stephanie Chu: Mm-hmm.
Hendrigan: You know already, years and years ago.
Stephanie Chu: Yeah, so we’ve kept that in mind, some of us chuckle about it,
that we were actually doing but maybe before our times -Hendrigan: Yeah.
45:00Stephanie Chu: Yeah. And some of us now are in different positions right,
different leadership roles, that if, if an idea or principle resonated with us back then we were more likely to continue keeping that in mind in our own day to day work, and if we’re in a leadership role that affects what, whatever group we’re working with.Hendrigan: Right. So what’re you most proud of as a TechBC pioneer?
Stephanie Chu: I’m proud of the fact that we had, I had, I don’t know if
proud of, I think what I really appreciated was that experience. It was a lot of hard work, like really hard work, intensive, extremely intensive, but yet rewarding in its own way. So I’m proud of the fact that we had such a great group of people that were committed, like students, faculty, admin, everybody was really committed and, had a very positive attitude right, even when times were tough people were always trying to, try to figure out the best way of moving things forward, and it wasn’t necessarily all about, us as individuals, for the most part people were looking out for the best interests of the 46:00students, like there was a lot of worry and concern about what would happen to the students in these transitions, and that kept people focused, so I’m proud of the fact that we all pulled it together and it didn’t, yeah it unravels here and there but, that’s I think, things could have unravelled a lot more in other institutions or different groups, so I’m proud of the fact that that group is, did what it did. I wish we actually, some people we’ve lost touch with and we have no idea where they’re gone, and I know for a while afterwards there was attempts at TechBC reunions and such, and there’s a Facebook page and, I actually was, on the online moderator for a couple of years of an online space for the spirit of TechBC, but it’s hard to do that and maintain and such.Hendrigan: Right, right. Do you have any final thoughts or parting words on
TechBC’s legacy? 47:00Stephanie Chu: I would, I would you know, I’d be interested in getting a sense
of what other people thought, and if there was a way, I’m glad you’re capturing this, I’m glad that somebody’s interested and that other people would be interested as well, I wish there was a way to, go back and look at some of these ideas that we had or where things have gone since then, or where people have gone, and what, what they’ve done, because, partly because of the experience or partly because of who they are, but where, where does this legacy or where does the influence now occur? I think that would be an interesting question, because of, because of those experiences, because of, where everybody has ended up, because so the legacy may live on but we don’t know how.Hendrigan: Yeah. More work to be done -
Stephanie Chu: Yeah.
Hendrigan: For sure.
Stephanie Chu: So if you want another project. [laughs]
Hendrigan: [Laughs] Yeah, yeah, more detective work. Now, is there anything
you’d like to say about TechBC that, hasn’t come out, like that you were 48:00hoping I would ask and I haven’t asked?Stephanie Chu: No, I think, I think you know I've, I've tried to provide a view
that was based on my own experiences, knowing that, like I, I, I've glossed things over a bit and generalized right, there were some real significant challenges within, but those were more kind of an individual basis or a specific like, Oh must go this way, Oh no must go that way. But for the most part I, I guess, I think we’ve covered it ’cause we’ve covered about the different models, the expectations around what you did at TechBC, you know it was team oriented and it was collaboration and you had to walk the talk because if you, we’re teaching, we’re working with students on, You have to develop these soft skills like communication, teamwork, project management, we had to demonstrate it and we took it seriously in that we were very communicative, internally as much as possible, with the students back and forth. I think we really tried to walk the talk and I hope that came out, even though it was more 49:00of kind of a holistic view, not specific things about TechBC, so I think you covered it. And hopefully I covered a big enough picture for people too.Hendrigan: Well if you ever want to go into detail about the parts you glossed
over, I’m happy to, [laughs] to put it out there, but in the meantime I want to thank you for taking the time to have this conversation with me, I really appreciate it.Stephanie Chu: Well thank you Holly, I appreciate you interviewing me and for
your project.Hendrigan: Thank you.
Stephanie Chu: I look forward to learning more about it.
Hendrigan: Thank you.
0:00 - Hiring at TechBC
Direct segment link:
2:34 - Collaboration set TechBC apart
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: So how did what you were doing at TechBC differ from what you had been doing at SFU?
Segment Synopsis: Describes the kind of projects that she was working on at TechBC, and the collaborative and inclusive nature of the workplace.
Keywords: Curriculum, Cooperative Planning, Organizational Culture, Employees -- Workload
Subjects:
5:52 - Working in Surrey
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: And you’re in Surrey so, you worked at the mall then?
Segment Synopsis: Describes the different TechBC locations. Talks about how it seemed like the City of Surrey did not yet have a plan for the Guildford or Central City areas.
Keywords: School Location, Shopping Malls
Subjects:
7:25 - Innovative pedagogical approaches/Interdisciplinary education
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: I’ll move on to TechBC’s master plan pedagogically, and what did TechBC hope to do differently that other universities were doing?
Segment Synopsis: TechBC’s focus on interdisciplinary collaboration more closely represents the reality of the workforce; describes how this was both beneficial and challenging for students.
Keywords: Student Centered Learning, Interdisciplinary Approach, Teamwork,
Subjects:
10:58 - Learning management systems (LMS)
Direct segment link:
15:43 - Students as learners
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: And, I’m gonna move on to language. As I’ve conducted these interviews, I've learned that TechBC had its own rules around language use. For example students were “learners” –
Segment Synopsis: Talks about TechBC’s intentional vocabulary shifts: i.e., students as “learners” and TAs as “Learning Support Associates.” Speaks to the benefits and drawbacks of this approach, and suggests that she has integrated some of this method in her current work at SFU.
Keywords: Jargon, Minicourses, Institutional Cooperation
Subjects:
20:27 - TechBC students
Direct segment link:
23:02 - TechBC culture
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: This kind of segues into culture, the TechBC culture. Can you describe it?
Segment Synopsis: Describes TechBC as having a “shared vision” to which all of the students, staff, and faculty ascribed. Discusses the student centric and technologically progressive approach of TechBC, and how this was reconciled with teaching and research obligations.
Keywords: School Culture, Research Universities
Subjects:
26:20 - TechBC career trajectories
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: I’m trying to think of the career ladder for faculty at TechBC. I mean it’s pretty clear at SFU in terms of a ladder but, was there a ladder there?
Segment Synopsis: Recalls that TechBC did have set career trajectories, but that the language describing different roles/positions at the University was different than SFU’s.
Keywords: Faculty
Subjects:
27:21 - Rumours of closure
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: So I’ll move on to the transition then, what were the early signs that the university’s days as a standalone institution were numbered?
Segment Synopsis: Describes the rumours that were circulating about the reasons for TechBC: mostly related to cost (cost per student, costs associated with building projects, celebration costs), but also changes in government, and the relationship between senior management and the changes in Presidency.
Keywords: Institutional Survival, Enrollment, Expenditure Per Student, University Presidents, Government School Relationship
Subjects:
30:52 - Negative portrayal of TechBC in the media / Reflections on demise
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: So over time, has your rationalization of why it changed, sorry why it was shut down, has is changed at all? There must have been,what you thought then, and now fifteen years later, has that changed?
Segment Synopsis: Claims that news reports of TechBC misrepresented the institution; stories were poorly researched and facts were not checked. Neither the government nor the media understood TechBC’s innovative programming. The school’s (temporary) mall location resulted in being seen as a joke. SFU did not retain TechBC’s innovative pedagogical approaches.
Keywords: Mass Media Effects, News Reporting, Reputation, School Location,
Subjects:
34:37 - Announcement of SFU takover / Layoffs
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: So there was a period of uncertainty…and then it was announced in February of 2002 that it would be SFU that was assuming administrative control. How did you feel at that point?
Segment Synopsis: Describes how she laughed bitterly when she found out SFU was assuming control of TechBC, after having deliberately left SFU for TechBC. She was layoff process laid off, and took vacation, but did not need to reapply for her job because her department was absorbed by SFU.
Keywords: Consolidated Schools, Organizational Change, Job Layoff
Subjects:
37:11 - Transition from TechBC to SFU Surrey
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: And what’s your assessment of how well SFU handled the transition?
Segment Synopsis: Reflects on the transition from TechBC to SFU, and notes a mix of opinions on how well SFU handled the transition. Some were very disappointed that SFU ignored and/or discounted TechBC’s curriculum and pedagagy.
Keywords: Organizational Change, Grief,
Subjects:
40:31 - Success of TechBC students
Direct segment link:
Partial Transcript: So the university only had three years of students, probably not a long enough time to properly assess, but do you think that TechBC accomplished what it was trying to do?
Segment Synopsis: Despite the fact that it was only operational for three years, she describes why she believes TechBC was a success, because its students have succeeded.
Keywords: School Effectiveness, Educational Benefits
Subjects:
42:38 - Lasting impact of TechBC on SFU
Direct segment link: