Facult y Perspect ive, Chapt er 6: Get t ing There: Leadership for t he Fut ure
Utopia University: A Faculty Member Reflects on
Recommendations for the Future of SoTL
Krist a D. Forrest , PhD Professor of Psychology Universit y of Nebraska at Kearney
I am fort unat e. I w ork in a depart m ent w here t he scholarship of t eaching and learning ( SoTL) is act ively pursued and has been for over 20 years. Colleagues have present ed at sev eral t eaching conferences w it hin t he discipline of psychology , and m any have published art icles on subj ect s ranging from w orking w it h undergraduat es in r esearch part ner ships t o t he effect s of using differ ent t echnologies in t he classroom . I n addit ion t o depart m ent al suppor t , m y sm all m idw est er n univer sit y’s pr om ot ion and t enure policy has a st at em ent t hat specifically recognizes peer - reviewed SoTL as count ing t ow ar d prom ot ion and t enure. This st at em ent includes a web link t o t he fir st Carnegie Foundat ion for t he Advancem ent of Teaching Report , Ret hink ing What it Means t o be a Scholar ( Rice, 1990) . 2
This does not m ean t he fight for SoTL has ceased on m y cam pus. As st at ed by Hut chings, Huber , and Ciccone ( 2011) , som et im es t he bat t le is not w it h t he universit y , but w it h indiv idual depar t m ent s t hat hold ont o t he not ion t hat only discipline specific scholar ship is wor t hy of praise. Alt hough I oft en encouraged facult y w ho developed new pedagogical t echniques t o wr it e about t hese experiences and subm it m anuscript s t o relevant t eaching j ournals in t heir discipline, t hey oft en replied, “ Why would I do t hat , it won’t count ?” and “ I t ’s not real scholarship.” I t appears t he great er concern about t he role of SoTL does not com e from t he univ ersit y , or even t he college, but oft en st ar t s w it h each facult y m em ber.
One of t he highlight s of Hut chings et al. ( 2011) is t he aut hors’ discussion of Ut opia Univ ersit y. They descr ibe a cam pus of t he fut ur e where facult y m em bers’ SoTL has gone on t o change depart m ent s and as t he depart m ent s changed, so did t he inst it ut ion. The goal at Ut opia U is t o assist st udent s in becom ing “ exper t learners” ( p. 113) . The Univ ersit y does t his t hrough first year sem inar s, capst one courses t aken by j uniors, and ongoing pr ogram s designed t o help each st udent under st and t he learning process t hat best works for him or her. Facult y also st r iv e t o learn by conduct ing resear ch in t heir own classes. These out com es are t hen used in changing courses t o best respond t o cur rent and even fut ure st udent s. Those sam e facult y feel encouraged t o conduct t his research because t hey k now t hat , if published, it w ill count t owar d prom ot ion and t enure. The adm inist rat ion at Ut opia U is happy t o financially suppor t t his w or k because t hey know t hat one way t o guarant ee t he accredit at ion crucial t o t heir exist ence is t o have excellent , product iv e facult y who inspire t heir st udent s t o perfor m at t heir best .
Hut chings et al. ( 2011) go on t o m ake sev er al r ecom m endat ions for inst it ut ions t o follow if t hey want t o int egr at e SoTL int o t heir clim at es. The goal of
Note
2 To best under st and m y reflect ions, I t hink it is im por t ant for t he reader t o consider
74 V olu m e 8
●
2 0 1 3t his paper is t o respond t o t hese suggest ions for educat ing a new pr ofessor iat e fr om t he point of v iew of an educat or, a SoTL r esear cher, and a form er t eaching cent er direct or.
1. Understand, Communicate, and Promote an Integrated Vision of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Hut chings et al. ( 2011) ar gue t hat t he t er m inology , “ scholar ship of t eaching and learning,” can be it s own nem esis. Facult y m em bers disagree over whet her r esearch conduct ed in SoTL is rigorous enough, prom ot ion and t enur e com m it t ees disagree about it s relevance, and adm inist rat ors disagr ee over whet her it should be funded. The aut hor s go on t o argue t hat know ing w hen t o use t he phrase and w hen t o find alt ernat iv e, accept able w ay s of referring t o t he discipline can det erm ine whet her SoTL will be accept ed on a cam pus. I w ould lik e t o suggest t hat t he issue m ay be less about t he label SoTL and m or e about it s im plicat ions.
I n order t o prom ot e an int elligible vision of t eaching and learning scholarship acr oss a cam pus or cam puses, one of t he first t hings facult y need t o do is over com e t he fear of failur e. Not every discipline specific brings it s r esear cher a preferred out com e. When t he findings are not significant or t he out com e is count er int uit ive t o t he hypot hesis, m ost resear cher s r eevaluat e t heir w ork and conduct t he r esear ch again using different var iables, cont rols, or part icipant s. Scholarship in t eaching and lear ning is no different . Each t im e facult y m em ber s evaluat e classr oom t eaching st rat egies, academ ic program s, or curricula, t hey r un t he r isk of discovering t hat t he t echniques or courses t hey t hought worked, t hat t hey lov e, do not cont ribut e t o st udent learning. Som e of t heir beloved t eaching t echniques, assignm ent s, lect ures, and courses are not going t o pass t he t est . I nst ead of seeing a negat iv e out com e as an end- all failure, facult y need t o use t hat opport unit y t o change w hat t hey do and how t hey do it . Finding out one t echnique does not work m eans t her e is an opening in t he course t o t ry som et hing new. As a result , facult y m em ber s grow as inst r uct ors. I t follow s t hat academ ic m aj ors or program s w it h such innovat ive t eaching w ill becom e m or e popular w it h st udent s. Perhaps t he pr oposed confusion about t er m inology is less about t he w ords and m or e about t he possible consequences of resear ching and evaluat ing t eaching.
At t he program m at ic level, inst it ut ions need t o not only r ecognize discipline specific resear ch in t eaching and learning as scholarship, but also offer facult y t he resources t o m ake dat a- dr iven changes and t he opport unit y t o share t hese experiences w it h ot hers. There are m any ways in w hich univer sit ies can suppor t t hese t ypes of endeavor s.
2. Support a Wide Range of Opportunities to Cultivate the Skills and Habits of Inquiry into Teaching and Learning.
As suggest ed by Hut chings et al. ( 2011) , colleges and univer sit ies should provide suppor t ive clim at es t hat encourage facult y t o engage in t he scholarship of t eaching and learning. Ex am ples of support ive m easures include funding for t eaching- r elat ed expenses such as conferences, t rav el, and new m at er ials.
Teaching cent ers can also be int egral in changing t he cam pus clim at e concerning t he scholarship of t eaching and learning. Working wit h facult y in t heir first year is one of t he fast est ways t o change t he accept ance of and expect at ion for SoTL. Hav e facult y w ho r egularly publish in t he ar ea of t eaching and learning shar e t hese exper iences w it h new facult y ( Richlin & Cox, 2004) . I n m y exper ience as a direct or, new er facult y are m ore likely t o have com e from graduat e progr am s w hich include t raining in pedagogy ; t herefore, t hey t end t o be m ore int er est ed in acquir ing new t eaching skills. I t is harder t o convince seasoned facult y t hat exam ining t eaching and learning issues is w ort hw hile, because m any do not believe t hey hav e som et hing new t o learn. Yet ev en t hose w ho have been in t he classroom for a long t im e can benefit from dialogue w it h facult y in t heir fir st fiv e years of t eaching. New facult y ar e oft en m ore educat ed in innovat ive pedagogical st rat egies, m ore current in t echnology , and m ore fam iliar wit h a syst em at ic approach t o exam ining t heir course st r engt hs and weaknesses because of t heir recent experiences wit h pedagogical inst ruct ion. One way t o encour age novice facult y and t heir experienced count er par t s t o t alk about t eaching is t o set up m ent or ing pairs ( McGr at h, 2012; Richlin & Cox , 2004; Tr ask, Mar ot z- Baden, Set t les, Gent r y, & Ber ke, 2009) . Experienced facult y share t heir k now ledge of inst it ut ional hist ory as w ell as t heir t hought s about t eaching, and newer facult y ask t heir quest ions and share w hat t eaching t echniques t hey hav e lear ned.
Oft en m issing fr om inst it ut ional suppor t , r egardless of t he pr esence of a t eaching cent er, is m ore time in our hect ic schedules. This is w hy I lik e Hut chings’ and colleagues’ suggest ion t o t ransfor m t he random t eaching work shops int o a syst em at ic and int egrat ed facult y- dr iven research program on t eaching and lear ning. Most univer sit ies, like m y ow n, already have a core group of facult y w ho are int er est ed in or are curr ent ly conduct ing resear ch in t eaching issues. Alt hough t hey are awar e of each ot her, t hose facult y m em bers m ay have no idea what t heir colleagues are curr ent ly st udying or what issues int erest t hem . Let universit ies offer facult y m em ber s course release t im e in r et urn for com plet ing a research com m it m ent t arget ing a cour se, m aj or, or program .
Anot her use of release t im e t hat could encourage SoTL t o encourage facult y is t o offer classes, workshops, and m ent ors in t he st at ist ical sk ills necessary t o evaluat e curriculum changes or encourage int erdisciplinary aut horships and publicat ion so t hat aut hors’ st rengt hs can be recognized and st rat egies can be shared. Accor ding t o Daw son, McLaughlin, Carson, and Zadnik ( 2012) , one of t he largest barrier s t o successful com plet ion of such work is facult y m em ber s’ difficult y in underst anding research m et hodology out side of t heir specific field. Facult y could also t ak e t his t im e t o par t icipat e in SoTL orient ed cer t ificat e pr ogr am s. One such program is housed at t he Univer sit y of Br it ish Colum bia ( Hubbell & Burt , 2006) . There, facult y can lear n t o define SoTL, conduct resear ch in t heir area, dissem inat e t heir findings and evaluat e ot her SoTL over t he cour se of eight m ont hs. Regardless of t he for m at , facult y w ould lear n sk ills such as how t o dist inguish SoTL from sim ple course evaluat ion and under st and t he benchm arks associat ed w it h good st at ist ical r igor in t he field ( Wilson- Doenges & Gur ung, 2013) .
Regardless of t he form at , once facult y m em ber s com plet e t heir SoTL proj ect s t hey can dissem inat e t hose findings t o ot her const it uencies on cam pus. I f t hose out com es are t hen present ed at r egional or nat ional venues, t he facult y m em ber and cam pus benefit again. A universit y sponsored program such as t his not only offer s t im e t o facult y researchers int erest ed in t eaching and learning issues, but also shows t hat t his t ype of work is a recognized and valued cont r ibut ion t o st udent lear ning and success.
3. Connect the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning to Larger, Shared Agendas for Student Learning and Success.
76 V olu m e 8
●
2 0 1 3al. ( 2011) address how facult y can w ork t oget her t o build or renovat e ex ist ing program s such as General St udies. Alt hough a valid suggest ion, facult y conduct ing SoTL can also w ork side by side w it h ot her exist ing depar t m ent s whose obj ect ives are t o increase st udent success by cocr eat ing new , innovat ive program m ing t hrough t heir involv em ent w it h ot her depar t m ent s ( Schum ann, Pet er s, & Olsen, 2013) . Exam ples from m y univer sit y include Academ ic Success and Car eer Services, The Lear ning Com m ons, Disabilit y Ser vices, The Fir st Year Progr am , et c. Goals for st udent perfor m ance are sim ilar for a t eaching cent er and ot her depart m ent s on cam pus. All w ant st udent s t o lear n and pr ofessors t o t each w ell. How ever, t her e is m ore t o t he collaborat ion t han t hat . Bot h part ies have inform at ion t o share w it h each ot her . I n t urn, t his facult y–st aff collaborat ion m ak es each of t he program s bet t er ( Schum ann et al., 2013) . Specific t o m y univer sit y ar e collabor at ions such as advising as t eaching, using t echnology in t he classroom , and flipped lear ning. None of t hese program s would have been possible if t he t eaching cent er had not part ner ed w it h ot her offices on cam pus. Because every int eract ion t hat a facult y or st aff m em ber has w it h a st udent is t he opport unit y for a t eaching m om ent , facult y m em ber s engaging in pedagogical work and st aff providing suppor t services t o st udent s can learn from each ot her .
The st udent ev aluat ion process for facult y is anot her place where SoTL has pr ovided insight int o st udent lear ning. Galbr ait h, Mer r ill, and Kline ( 2012) exam ined t he t eaching evaluat ions of 116 business classes. Thr ee different analyses failed t o dem onst rat e t hat st udent evaluat ions of t eaching effect iveness ( SETEs) direct ly relat ed t o t eaching effect iveness or st udent learning. Perhaps in addit ion t o ev aluat ing facult y, st udent s should also be encouraged t o evaluat e t hem selv es and t heir accom plishm ent s each sem est er. Our univ ersit y’s evaluat ion quest ions include t he degree t o which t he inst r uct or is st im ulat ing, know ledgeable, ent husiast ic, responsiv e, w ell- pr epared, clear, fair, et c. Changing course evaluat ions from facult y cent ered “ w hat k ind of person is he or she” t o a st udent -cent er ed “ here is w hat I learned” could bet t er offer inst ruct or s, t heir depart m ent chair s, and ot her adm inist r at ors a t rue gauge of t he course’s success. This addit ional evaluat ion could occur during t he regular evaluat ion process of a course by adding t hese quest ions t o t he st andar d evaluat ion form or during academ ic advising. The lat t er could use t he sam e form , but st udent s would hav e a conversat ion wit h t heir facult y adv isor concerning t heir courses and w het her t hese courses m eet t heir expect at ions. There ar e m any w ay s t o assess a course, and facult y m em bers, depar t m ent s, and ot her subdiv isions can t urn t o t he depart m ent of assessm ent for assist ance wit h t his process.
4. Foster Exchange between the Campus Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Community and Those with Responsibility for Institutional Research and Assessment.
Even w hen pr ogram s ar e pr esent ed, t he t opics m ay lean t oward handling assessm ent issues and not providing pedagogical infor m at ion. When a Teaching/ Assessm ent cent er focuses prim ar ily on assessm ent , facult y m ay int erpr et t his bias as an unw r it t en m essage t hat t he educat ion and r esearch associat ed w it h t eaching as scholar ly w ork is t olerat ed at best and unim por t ant or frow ned upon at w orst .
5. Work Purposefully to Bring Faculty Roles and Rewards into Alignment with a View of Teaching as Scholarly Work.
Many facult y conduct ing pedagogical research feel st randed on an island and even w it h a lapt op and WiFi feel isolat ed nonet heless. When t he pr ofessor iat e st ill believes t hat scholarship in t eaching and lear ning is eit her second- rat e t o subj ect r esearch or not valued at all, inst ruct or s suffer. However, t he st udent s suffer t he m ost . They cont inue t o go t o t he sam e classes, read from t he sam e books, and t ak e t he sam e ex am s ( Hodges, 2013) .
Accor ding t o Hut chings et al. ( 2011) , one of t he best w ays t o br ing facult y roles and r ew ards int o alignm ent w it h t eaching as scholarly w ork is t o have a st r ong, v iable Teaching Cent er on cam pus. As indicat ed ear lier , t eaching cent er s can be t he hub of facult y int eract ion concerning t eaching and learning issues. The abilit y for a professor t o say, “ I have a problem ” and having fellow facult y offer solut ions ( rat her t han disdain) cont ribut es great ly t o t he percept ion t hat it is “ OK” t o t alk about t eaching.
How ever, at a t im e w hen t he scholar ship and learning is receiving gr eat er recognit ion as a discipline of it s ow n and t he facult y t eaching load is increasing, m any colleges and universit ies ar e eit her m inim izing or closing t heir t eaching cent er s ( Glenn, 2009) . Regar dless of w het her it is due t o budget ar y const raint s or changes concerning t he m ission of t he inst it ut ion, t his decision is oft en short sight ed. When facult y fail t o evaluat e t heir cour ses, program s, and curr icula beyond t he st udent evaluat ion and in t urn, fail t o respond t o t hose evaluat ions by m aking changes, enrollm ent decreases. As a result , t he inst it ut ion st ands t o lose m ore m oney t han it w ould hav e paid t o suppor t t he t eaching cent er program
From t he perspect ive of a facult y m em ber, for scholar ly w ork in t eaching and learning t o increase, t hen it has t o m at t er t o som eone ot her t han him - or herself. The work has t o m at t er in t he resear cher’s depart m ent , and it has t o m at t er at prom ot ion and t enure t im e. How ever , scholar ship in t eaching and learning w ill not be count ed t owards product ivit y if facult y cont inue t o view it as secondary t o work in t heir ow n discipline. Colleges and univ ersit ies can benefit by having facult y represent at ives t rav el t o ot her univ ersit ies or confer ences wher e vibrant t eaching and lear ning scholarship is t he norm rat her t han t he except ion. Those inst it ut ions have alr eady fought t he bat t le of whet her t his t ype of research should count t oward prom ot ion and r esear ch, and how t o so convince t he cam pus const it uencies.
6. Take Advantage of and Engage with the Larger, Increasingly International Teaching Commons.
78 V olu m e 8
●
2 0 1 3discipline should especially consider at t ending in order t o best pr epare for t he developm ent of a scholarship program such as t his on t heir cam pus.
7. Develop a Plan and Timeline for Integrating the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning into Campus Culture, and Monitor Process; and 8. Recognize that Institutionalization is a Long-Term Process.
Once t he general idea of doing resear ch on t eaching and learning has becom e accept ed by a few m em ber s of a cam pus facult y , it becom es t im e t o int roduce t he plan for int egr at ing t he idea int o cam pus cult ur e; however, t hose const it uencies need t o rem ind t hem selv es t hat inst it ut ional change is slow . Tw o venues wher e t he int roduct ion m ay t ake place include t he facult y gov erning body on cam pus such as t he facult y senat e, or t he inst it ut ion’s t eaching cent er. Facult y m em ber s can t hen work t oget her t o develop clear obj ect ives for an event ual accept ance of t he scholar ship of t eaching and learning ( SoTL) and specific w ays for int erest ed facult y t o m eet t hose obj ect ives. Of ut m ost im port ance is educat ing t he adm inist rat ion of how SoTL will im prov e not only t he curricula but also t he inst it ut ion it self ( Hubball, Pear son, & Clar ke, 2013) . At t he sam e t im e, t he cam pus proponent s for t he accept ance of SoTL as a discipline need t o keep in m ind t hat inst it ut ionalizat ion is a slow process. I agree w it h t he aut hors t hat a t op- down approach would only be det r im ent al t o a budding program . Facult y should begin t he process, own it , and ev aluat e t he product s. Howev er, even when it appear s t hat SoTL has been accept ed by t he college or universit y, under st and t hat t here ar e st ill indiv iduals w ho w ill not accept t his discipline.
The recom m endat ions proposed by Hut chings et al. ( 2011) do offer excellent suggest ions for t aking an ex ist ing SoTL program and m ak ing it bet t er . I nher ent in t hese recom m endat ions is t he assum pt ion t hat som e individuals on cam pus ar e doing work in SoTL and if enough facult y int erest ed in t he t opic band t oget her , t hey have t he abilit y t o change t he cam pus, including inst it ut ional requir em ent s for prom ot ion and t enure. I t hink t he infor m at ion t hey pr ovide m ight even assist t hat group of suppor t ers in t urning t heir cam pus int o one t hat encourages SoTL. But t he r ecom m endat ions do not suggest what t o do wit h t he ext rem e naysayer and t hose scat t er ed depart m ent s t hat r efuse t o accept SoTL as a valid field, ev en when t heir univer sit y does. Do t hese few barriers t o Ut opia Universit y even m at t er? As long as t hese indiv iduals or depart m ent s serve as t he gat ekeeper s in charge of hiring new facult y ( and not prom ot ing or grant ing t enur e t o facult y w it hin t he depart m ent ) , Ut opian Universit y w ill always be 10 years down t he road.
References
Dawson, V., McLaughlin, M., Carson, K. & Zadnik, M. ( 2012) . A pilot program t o build research
com pet ence in t eaching and learning in academ ics, I n Proceedings of t he Aust ralian Conference on Science and Mat hem at ics Educat ion ( form erly Uniserv e Science Confer ence).
Glenn, D. ( 2009, Sept em ber 9) . War y of t he budget knife, Teaching cent ers seek t o sharpen t heir role. Chronicle of Higher Educat ion, 56 ( 2) .
Ret rieved from ht t p: / /
0-web.ebscohost .com .rosi.unk .edu/ eho st / det ail?sid= 6a135a4a- 76c2- 418b-
b28b-e77cb1dd8b6a% 40sessionm gr4&vid= 2&hid= 11&bdat a= JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3 Qt bGl2ZSZzY29w ZT1zaXRl# db= aph& AN= 44294845
Hodges, L. C. ( 2013) . Post car ds fr om t he edge of SoTL: A view from facult y developm ent . Teaching and Learning I nquiry, 1, 71- 79. doi:
10.1353/ iss.2013.0014
Hubball, H., Pearson, M. L., & Clarke, A. C. ( 2013) . SoTL inquiry in br oader curricular and inst it ut ional cont ex t s: Theoret ical underpinnings and em erging t rends. Teaching and Learning I nquiry, 1, 41- 57. doi: 10.1353/ iss.2013.0009
Hut chings, P., Huber, M.T., & Ciccone, A. ( 2011) . The scholarship of t eaching and learning
reconsidered: I nst it ut ional int egrat ion and im pact . San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Mackenzie, J. & Meyer s, R. A. ( 2012) . I nt er nat ional collaborat ion in SoTL: Current st at us and fut ure dir ect ion.
I nt er nat ional Journal for t he Scholar ship of Teaching and Learning, 6( 1), Ret r ieved from ht t p: / / eaglescholar .geor giasout her n. edu: 8080/ j spui/ bit st r eam / 10518/ 488 3/ 1/ I
J-SoTLv6n1_I E_MacKenzie% 20% 26% 2 0Meyers.pdf
McGr at h, A. ( 2012) . An ear ly int roduct ion t o SoTL and t he shaping of an academ ic career . I nt ernat ional Journal for t he Scholar ship of Teaching and Learning, 6( 2), Ret rieved from
ht t p: / / eaglescholar .geor giasout her n. edu: 8080/ j spui/ bit st r eam / 10518/ 542 2/ 1/ Per sonal% 20Reflect ion_McGr at h. pdf
Rice, E. ( 1990, Wint er- Spr ing) . Ret hinking w hat it m eans t o be a scholar. I n L. Ekrot h ( Ed.) , Teaching Excellence: Toward t he Best in t he Academ y. St illw at er , OK: POD Net work.
Richland, L. & Cox, M. D. ( 2004) . Developing scholarly t eaching and t he scholarship of t eaching and learning t hrough facult y lear ning com m unit ies, New Dir ect ions for Teaching and Learning, 2004, 127-135. doi: 10.1002/ t l.139
Schum ann, D. W., Pet er s, J., & Olsen, T. ( 2013) . Cocreat ing value in t eaching and learning cent er s [ Special I ssue] . New Dir ect ions for Teaching and Learning, 2013, 21- 32. doi: 10.1002/ t l.20043
Trask, B. S., Marot z- Baden, R., Set t les, B., Gent ry, D., & Ber ke D. ( 2009) . Enhancinggr aduat e
educat ion: Prom ot ing a scholarship of t eaching and learning t hrough m ent oring. I nt ernat ional Jour nal for t he Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 20 ( 3), Ret r iev ed from ht t p: / / w w w .iset l.or g/ ij t lhe/ pdf/ I JTLH E20% 283% 29.pdf# page= 132
Wilson- Doenges, G., & Gurung, R. A. R. ( 2013) . Benchm ar ks for scholar ly invest igat ions of t eaching and learning. Aust r alian Jour nal of Psychology, 65, 63- 70.
