In 2011, the First-Year Review Steering Committee developed five program goals that were originally envisioned to be introduced in a student’s first year of Arts and Science (Appendix A1). For the sake of feasibility, this plan was revised so that students would be expected to meet these goals by graduation. The fifth goal was that students should, by graduation:

Cultivate an understanding of and appreciation for the unique socio-cultural position of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

This Learning Goal, along with four others, was approved by Arts and Science Faculty Council in 2011. Over the following years, departments mapped their program goals to show the extent to which they aligned with College learning goals. Of the five goals, the Aboriginal Learning Goal was found to receive the least programmatic attention across the College. During a Curriculum Renewal Retreat in 2014, 79% of faculty supported creating a cross-college Aboriginal learning requirement to address the issue that many students were not meeting the Aboriginal goal in their programs.

Beginning the Work: Working Groups #1 and #2: In 2014 and in 2016, the College created two separate working groups of faculty members to explore how the College could best implement the Indigenous Learning Requirement. These two groups developed different proposed plans:

Working Group #1’s Central Recommendation: Create an ‘Aboriginal requirement’ for all Arts and Science degrees. This requirement can be met by taking three credit units from a list of Aboriginal-focused courses from across the College.

Working Group #2’s Central Recommendation: Create four thematically organized interdisciplinary classes with a capacity of 500 students each. Each of the classes will be divided into a series of weekly modules. Individual modules will be team-taught by participating faculty throughout the college.

For more detail on the recommendations and rationales from these two working groups, see Appendix C4.

While both groups did substantial work, neither of their recommendations achieved the necessary buy-in from across the College. It became clear that broader and deeper consultation was necessary in order to move forward with the Indigenous Learning Goal.

Structured Decision Making: Working Group #3: Faced with the two divergent recommendations from the first two Working Groups and significant disagreement about how to move forward on the Indigenous Learning Goal, the College leadership decided to approach the question through a structured decision-making process that is designed to deal with complex, multi-faceted decisions. This carefully planned process involving thorough research and consultation, followed by a structured method for weighing alternative courses of action.

Formed in 2016, the Indigenous Requirement Implementation Group (IRIG) was larger than the previous working groups, involving seven faculty members from across the disciplinary areas of the College, academic support staff, and three student representatives from the Arts and Science Students’ Union, the Indigenous Students’ Council, and the Graduate Students’ Council. (For membership of this group, see Appendix C3.)

The IRIG also included two significant additions from outside the College. Vincent Bruni-Bossio, a faculty member from Edwards School of Business and an experienced expert in institutional decision- making, joined us, and played an important role in advising on the decision-making process. Dr. Stryker Calvez, Manager of Indigenous Education Initiatives at the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning, joined the group to act as an advisor and an external facilitator in the decision making process, and assisted in shaping the process to include Indigenous principles.

The IRIG initially met to agree on a decision-making process, and to decide what information and consultation would be necessary to come to a final decision. A smaller sub-committee was then tasked with this significant information- and perspective-gathering project, which was carried out from January to April 2017.

Who Was Consulted?

Students:  1019 students (or 13%) responded to an online survey about the Indigenous Requirement.

• Go beyond high school curriculum.
• Incorporate student interest areas.
• Include interaction and engagement.
• Ensure options in scheduling.
• Beware unintended negative results.

Faculty:  95 faculty members (or 33%) responded to an online survey about the Indigenous Requirement.

• Almost 8 in 10 faculty support the learning outcome goal, and 65% strongly support the goal.
• Faculty echoed many of the same priorities as students.
• Faculty broadly supported the importance of multiple course options for students.
• 14% of faculty already include Indigenous-learning outcomes in their courses.
• 58% of faculty expressed interest in including Indigenous learning outcomes in their courses.

Undergraduate Student Office Academic Advisors:  14 (or 50%) responded to an online survey about the Indigenous Requirement.

• 100% of Academic Advisors supported multiple course options for students.

For more details on the faculty survey results, see Appendix C5.

Indigenous Community Stakeholders:  IRIG reached out to eleven local or provincial Indigenous organizations about the Indigenous Learning Goal, and met with or substantially corresponded with representatives from seven organizations about the goal. (For more detail on the consultation with these organizations, see Appendix C6.)

• Overall support for an Indigenous Curricular Requirement.
• Emphasis on quality learning experience for students and faculty.
• Need for grounding in community.
• Warnings about potential harm. 

What Information was Gathered and Considered?

Proposals from Working Groups #1 and #2: The proposals from the previous working groups were considered and their pros and cons carefully discussed. (For more information on these Working groups, see Appendix C4.)

Review of the Relevant Literature: A Research Assistant was hired to survey the relevant academic literature on the effectiveness of “diversity courses” and “diversity requirements.” For a full summary of this literature review, see Appendix C7.

• Most American colleges have diversity course requirements (62% by 2000).
• Overall, diversity and anti-prejudice courses have had a positive impact on students in other western countries.
• Careful and meaningful course design and facilitation are necessary to achieve a positive and transformative experience for students that lasts beyond university.
• Critical reflection was found to be key for transformation and coping with emotions brought on by the courses.
• Even with proper course design and facilitation, there will be many challenges, including student discomfort, resistance, and complaints.
• To address these challenges, extra training of instructors and extra student supports may be necessary. 

Review of Key Theoretical and Practical Considerations: In our research and consultation, two issues arose that IRIG felt needed further research: 1) Decolonization and 2) Indigenous Stewardship of Knowledge. Dr. Damien Lee and Dr. Stryker Calvez, members of IRIG, conducted further investigation of these concepts.

• Rather than only teaching about Indigenous peoples, we need to include pedagogical approaches that ‘flip the lens’ back onto non-Indigenous peoples and their histories as recipients of unearned benefits resultant of settler colonial processes.
• A focus on decolonization can be achieved through assignment design, course content selection, and appropriate instruction. 

For more detailed information on decolonization in the classroom, see Appendix C8. 

• Indigenous knowledge, history and practices are the intellectual property of Indigenous peoples.
• The use and misuse of this knowledge in the classroom can perpetuate colonialism.
• Indigenous people, including off-campus Indigenous community members, must participate as stewards of Indigenous knowledge used in Arts and Science.
• We must support the use of Indigenous knowledge, history, and practices in courses in a good way by providing education about and access to Indigenous community.
• For more information on Indigenous stewardship of knowledge, see Appendix C9. 

Experiences of other Universities: Members of IRIG interviewed an administrator, a faculty member, and a student at Lakehead University, which recently implemented an Indigenous Course requirement. We also interviewed the Vice President, Indigenous Engagement at the University of Winnipeg, which has also implemented such a requirement. The Chair of IRIG also participated in a conference panel on Indigenous curricular requirements, which included representatives from the University of Winnipeg, Simon Fraser University, and Vancouver Island University. These universities are at different stages in terms of their experience with these requirements:

• Importance of creating a positive community around an Indigenous requirement, where faculty and students feel supported and encouraged.
• Importance of creating a safe and supportive space for students and instructors to deal with difficult issues.
• Students should see this requirement as relevant to their programs and useful to their careers.
• Ensuring capacity for all students can be a challenge. 

For more information on Consultations with other universities, see Appendix C10.

College of Arts and Science Capacity

Given the size of our College, the question of our capacity to meet an Indigenous Requirement for all our students by graduation is key. IRIG considered the following:

• Arts and Science currently has approx. 8500 undergraduate students.
• In order to ensure that all students have an opportunity to achieve the Indigenous Learning Goal by graduation, approx. 2300 students would need to reach the goal each year.

• Arts and Science has 290 faculty members (probationary and tenured).
• 29 faculty members do research related to Indigenous people.
• Over seven in ten faculty are either interested in including or already include Indigenous learning outcomes in their own courses (survey results).

• We considered that there is a limited number of large classrooms (over 300), and that these classrooms are currently fully booked during the day.

• Based on our research and consultation, it is clear that we will need to work with existing partners (such as the Aboriginal Student Centre and Student Counselling Services), and develop additional college-level support for students and instructors.

For more information on capacity, see Appendix C11.

Having carefully considered all of the information coming out of this consultation and research, the IRIG gathered in April 2017 to make a decision on how to implement the Indigenous Learning Goal. To make a decision, the group decided to use the following weighted educational criteria:

Criteria	Weighting
Achieves the learning outcome in the context of reconciliation	35%
Ensures instructional expertise and cultural integrity	25%
Ensures quality learning and student engagement	25%
Engages and supports faculty	15%
Total	100%

The group also agreed to use the following weighted feasibility criteria:

Criteria	Weighting
Mitigates harm to students	40%
Fits within existing instructional capacity and support	20%
Fits within existing spaces and schedules	20%
Accommodates all Arts and Science students by graduation	20%
Total	100%

 

The group considered four options:

• Students would select three credit units from a cross-college list of courses.
• Students would choose from a suite of four modular co-taught courses.
• We would create a hybrid model between options one and two, where we would offer the large introductory first-year classes (option two), but students would also have the option of taking a department-run course (option one).
• The College would offer an introductory one credit unit course to provide some initial exposure to students (one hour per week), and then have students select a relevant three credit unit course later in their program.

On each of these options, the group held an anonymous vote on how well it would meet the educational and feasibility criteria. The results of the vote were calculated as follows:

In light of these results, the group had an extensive conversation about the four different options. We discussed the high scores under options one and three. Many group members began to agree that option three felt like a reasonable compromise between options one and two. Within an hour’s time, the group had unanimously voted in favour of option three, a hybrid model between the recommendations of the first and second working groups.

IRIG recommendation: That the College create a list of courses that will meet the Indigenous Requirement, and also work towards innovative first-year option(s) that will give students a broad, interdisciplinary introduction to Indigenous learning.

Developing the Plan
Over the summer of 2017, the IRIG carried out a second round of consultation within the College, this time intending to explore the practical feasibility of the group’s recommendation.

Consultation with Departments: The Associate Dean of Aboriginal Affairs met with all Department Heads to share the progress on the Indigenous Learning Goal, explain IRIG’s specific recommendations, and explore the department’s ability to and interest in offering or participating in Indigenous Requirement courses.

Key Findings from Departmental Consultations:

• Strong support for requirement and for overall recommendation.

Course List

• Capacity to contribute is mixed (10 of 21 departments have current Indigenous courses).
• Desire to contribute in future.
• Course criteria must be flexible enough to allow Department Heads to accommodate changes in courses and instructors.

New interdisciplinary courses

• Capacity of faculty and departments to contribute is mixed.
• Concerns about resource allocation, assignment of duties, and pedagogical effectiveness in interdisciplinary courses.

Consultation with Indigenous Studies: Recognizing that the Department of Indigenous Studies will play a key role in the meeting of the Indigenous Learning Goal, IRIG carried out a more intensive consultation with this department. Vincent Bruni-Bossio and Dr. Stryker Calvez carried out individual interviews with every faculty member in Indigenous Studies to discuss their thoughts about the goal and the course requirement. The department also held a three-hour departmental retreat on the subject, facilitated by Dr. Stryker Calvez. Finally, the Department met with College leadership to share their conclusions.

Key Findings from Indigenous Studies Consultation:

• Overall, Indigenous Studies endorses the Indigenous Requirement.
• Indigenous Studies wants to play a strong role in the Indigenous Requirement, especially in the offering of first-year courses.
• Indigenous Studies needs more time to determine what kind of first-year course(s) it will offer (considering existing 107 course, faculty and staff capacity, resources, and pedagogical issues).

Revision of IRIG Recommendation: Following these consultations, the IRIG decided to revise its original recommendation. While IRIG originally recommended the development of interdisciplinary courses at the first-year level, it became clear that many departments are skeptical about the feasibility of interdisciplinary courses. It also became clear that the Department of Indigenous Studies wants to be a key player in the offering of first year Indigenous Requirement courses, including possibly interdisciplinary courses, but that the department needs time to consider their own curriculum. Given these two factors, IRIG decided to alter its recommendation:

New IRIG Recommendation:

• That, at this time, we propose an Indigenous Requirement course list, including INDG 107, the current first-year Indigenous Studies course.
• That the Department of Indigenous Studies, possibly with other departments, work towards the creation of strong first-year course(s) to meet the Indigenous Requirement, which can be added to the list at any time in the future.

Based on this new recommendation, the IRIG moved forward in developing the criteria and process to create the Indigenous Requirement Course List.

Development of Course Criteria: Based on its research and consultation, the IRIG developed a set of criteria to determine which College courses will meet the Indigenous Requirement. These criteria are provided in detail in Appendix C1.

These course criteria build on the College’s existing Learning Goal by including a critical focus on settler colonialism and an emphasis on the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives. They are also intended to ensure that well-trained specialists in Indigenous RSAW and Education are teaching Indigenous Requirement Courses.

Development of Course Approval Process: Based on its consultation and especially on the research on Indigenous stewardship of knowledge, the IRIG created an Indigenous Requirement Course Approval Process, where courses are approved by an Indigenous Curriculum Advisory Committee. This process is provided in detail in Appendix C1.

It is notable that the Indigenous Curriculum Advisory Committee, in addition to faculty who are area experts, includes representation from the Indigenous community (both First Nations and Métis), from the Indigenous student body, and strong representation from the Department of Indigenous Studies and from Indigenous faculty and staff. This committee is intended to ensure academic excellence of these courses as well as Indigenous stewardship of Indigenous knowledge.

Meeting with IRIG to approve proposal: IRIG met on September 15th, 2017, to approve the above developments.

Creating the Initial Indigenous Requirement Course List

The Indigenous Curriculum Advisory Committee (ICAC) was formed in the Fall 2017, and consists of the Associate Dean of Aboriginal Affairs (Chair), five faculty members who specialize in Indigenous content, two community representatives, one Indigenous student representative and two members of the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning. Of the eleven people on the current committee, seven are Indigenous. For more details on the composition of this committee, see Appendix C1. For current membership, see Appendix C3.

The Associate Dean of Aboriginal Affairs issued a call to departments to submit courses that they believed met the four Indigenous Requirement criteria (see Appendix C1). The submissions included a course syllabus and a submission form which outlined how the course meets the criteria. Twenty-six courses were submitted from eleven departments.

The ICAC met three times over the fall of 2017 to discuss the submitted courses. The courses were assigned to committee members so that each course was carefully assessed by at least three committee members, two faculty members and one non-faculty member, and no one was assessing courses from their own program.

In this initial round, nine courses were accepted as clearly meeting all four criteria. The discussions were lengthy and resulted in detailed feedback on each course that was not accepted. In most cases, the committee was looking for more detailed information on the course or for minor revisions. In every case, the department was encouraged to resubmit the course in future. Six departments have submitted letters of support, indicating their intention to revise and resubmit courses to the ICAC (see Appendix C12). The ICAC will meet in February, 2018 to assess the next round of submissions. The work of this committee will be ongoing as it continues to assess new and existing courses, and support departments in meeting the Indigenous Learning Goal.

If passed through Arts and Science approval processes, the Indigenous Learning Requirement will come into effect for the first-year class of fall, 2020. While this delay is necessary to make this program change in all our software and processes, it also gives the College time to ensure that we prepare fully for this change in our curriculum.

Over the next two years, the College will prepare for the Indigenous Learning Requirement in the following areas:

Capacity Issues: It is essential that we offer enough seats in Indigenous Requirement courses so that this requirement does not become an impediment to timely graduation. Many Indigenous Requirement courses must also be accessible to a wide range of students, without extensive pre-requisites.

The College plans to ensure sufficient capacity through two paths. First, the Department of Indigenous Studies, which offers a first-year introductory course, has agreed to work with the College to ensure that there are sufficient seats available in this course to meet student demand. The College recognizes that this may put significant teaching pressure on Indigenous Studies faculty, and has agreed to support the department as needed. See the letter of support from Indigenous Studies in Appendix C12.

Second, the College is committed to working with departments to create new Indigenous Requirement courses and to revise existing courses to meet the Indigenous Requirement Criteria, as needed (see next section for details).

Indigenous Requirement Course Development: To expand our ability to meet anticipated student demand, departments in Arts and Science will need to develop or revise courses to meet the Indigenous Requirement criteria. For letters from departments that have committed to working with the College on the development of specific courses, see Appendix C12. The following strategies are intended to assist departments in this process:

• The Indigenous Curriculum Advisory Committee will continue to meet each term to give feedback and advice on submitted courses.
• The Aboriginal faculty hiring strategy, which will bring our proportion of Indigenous faculty from 4% to 15% over the next decade, is anticipated to greatly increase our capacity to offer Indigenous-focused courses.
• The College currently has a faculty member in an Academic Programming Appointment intended to support the Indigenous Requirement. The duties of this position will include supporting individual faculty members and departments in the development and revision of courses to meet the requirement. This may include individual support as well as departmental or group support.
• The Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning has two Indigenous staff members whose duties include assisting faculty and departments in the development of Indigenous curriculum.
• The Gwenna Moss Centre also has a Curriculum Innovation Fund, which supports changing or developing the content for courses. The fund currently prioritizes proposals focused on Aboriginal education. The College is exploring collaborations with the Gwenna Moss Centre to offer Curriculum Innovation funds targeted for Arts and Science faculty working on Indigenous Requirement courses.
• The Gwenna Moss Centre has an Experiential Learning Fund that provides funds for the development of experiential elements in courses, such as participating in Indigenous events.

It is notable that on the current Indigenous Requirement list, there are no courses from the Science Departments. While the Science departments have indicated their support for the Requirement and their interest in contributing, their current capacity in this area is limited. The College recognizes this challenge and will continue to work with Science Departments to explore ways in which they may contribute to the Indigenous Learning Requirement, including possibilities such as an interdisciplinary course on Indigenous people and science.

Once the Indigenous Learning Requirement is fully implemented in 2020, the College recognizes that ongoing support of Instructors and students and a careful evaluation process will be necessary. Therefore, the College will spend time over the next two years preparing in the following areas:

• We plan to collaborate with the Office of the Vice-Provost, Indigenous to create an Indigenous Speaker’s Bureau that will provide a list of highly qualified Indigenous experts from the community who can be paid a standard fee to speak on specific topics in Indigenous Requirement Courses, helping to address the requirement for Indigenous perspectives within these courses.
• The Aboriginal Student Centre is working with the College to develop Indigenous events that are specifically intended to be included as part of course assignments.
• The College, in collaboration with the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning, will create an ongoing series of workshops and discussions around particular pedagogical challenges to support Indigenous Requirement instructors.

• Indigenous Requirement course syllabi will include a brief rationale for the Requirement, the Requirement criteria, and a list of supports and resources available.
• The College is working with the Aboriginal Student Centre and with the Student Wellness Centre to develop a support plan for students who need it.
• The University has created a Trauma Guidelines working group to provide recommendations for instructors in dealing with potentially traumatizing material.
• The College will clarify a process for dealing transparently and effectively with student complaints about Indigenous Requirement courses.

• Determining what success of the Indigenous Learning Requirement looks like, for Instructors and for students.
• Collecting data (may include: surveys of incoming and graduating students; course evaluations; interviews with students and instructors; and institutional data such as grades and retention).
• Analyzing qualitative and quantitative data.
• Adjusting Indigenous Requirement as needed.