4 4 V olu m e 9 ł 2 0 1 4
Le a d in g t h e Ch a r g e f or SoTL – Em br a cin g Colla b or a t ion
Anit a Cassar d, PhD
Disser t at ion Chair and Ment or, School of Adv anced St udies Univ er sit y of Phoenix
Br ian Sloboda, PhD Econom ist
US Depar t m ent of Labor , Assist ant Secr et ary for Policy
The scholar ship of t eaching and lear ning ( SoTL) enables colleges and univ ersit ies t o assess st udent lear ning and m easur e t he out com es by engaging in m eaningful r esear ch, and t o dissem inat e this r esear ch. The obj ect ive of t his paper is to giv e a
snapshot of and assess t he cur r ent t hinking behind t his scholar ship by pr esent ing ex am ples of SoTL, and t o pr ov ide insight s int o t he m easur em ent of SoTL r esearch by facult y m em ber s. By present ing a car efully cr aft ed r esear ch agenda in SoTL,
colleges and univ er sit ies can dissem inat e t his r esear ch as a m eans of prov iding useful assessm ent s of st udent lear ning and m easurem ent s of r elev ant out com es.
" Educat ion is t he m ost pow erful w eapon w hich you can use t o change t he w or ld." Nelson Mandela
Any educat ional oper at ion can be deem ed inefficient whenever facult y capacit y goes unused, w hen policies dict at e m ore r estr ict ions t han necessar y t o accom plish t he w or k at hand, and w hen dr iv ers at t he decision- m ak ing w heel em phasize out dat ed and inefficient m et hods or m odels inst ead of ser v ing facult y and st udent needs. Know ing w hat t o look for is im por t ant , since t her e is usually w ar ning signs of inefficiency that can also point t o oppor t unit ies for cost savings and product iv it y incr ease.
The obj ect iv e of t his paper is t o descr ibe how a cross- disciplinar y pr ogr am prom ot ing t he scholarship of t eaching and lear ning at colleges can prov ide v alue and r ichness. The div ision of t his paper is as follow s: Sect ion 1 prov ides an over view of past and pr esent pract ices; Sect ion 2 pr ov ides a review of t he lit erat ur e addressing t he pr om ot ion of cr oss- disciplinary r esear ch and it s benefit s; Sect ion 3 provides ex am ples of cross- disciplinar y discour se in scholar ly of t eaching and lear ning act iv it ies; Sect ion 4 prov ides m easur em ent issues in SoTL resear ch; and Sect ion 5 concludes t he paper w it h quest ions about t he fut ur e of SoTL.
At m any college cam puses, st udent s oft en ex pr ess dism ay about how academ ic- specific resear ch im pact s t heir lear ning. Boyer ( 1990) , as w ell as Glassick, Huber , and Maer off ( 1997) st ar t ed prom ot ing a shift from t he t r adit ional t hem e of a univ er sit y t o a new par adigm for r ecognizing t he full r ange of scholar ly act iv it y by univ ersit y facult y . As a consequence, m any univ ersit ies hav e cr eat ed an envir onm ent t hat prom ot es t he values of scholarship of t eaching and lear ning. SoTL pr ov ides v alue- added, discipline- specific r esearch, w hich m ost academ icians pur sue. Throughout m any academ ic depar t m ent s, it is now com m on t o t ak e an act ive role in t he scholar ship of t eaching; t he em er gence of cam pus conv ersat ions am ong facult y m em ber s is leading t o a prom ulgat ion of int er est s r egar ding t eaching and lear ning pr act ices t hat enhance lear ning based on t he ev idence of nov el t eaching pr act ices.
Se ct ion 1 : Ov e r v iew
defined, and m any m em ber s of academ ia v iew SoTL as an illegit im at e for m of r esear ch, claim ing it ought not t o be pur sued as a ser ious for m of resear ch ( Cunsolo, Elr ick , Middleton & Roy , 1996; Kr eber & Cr ant on, 2000; Ziolk ow sk i, 1996) . McKinney ( 2006) concluded t hat t he SoTL is not linked t o im pr ov ed t eaching pr act ices at univ ersit ies as or iginally proclaim ed and int ended. Despit e div erse perspect iv es by academ icians about SoTL, it has blossom ed ex t ensively in r ecent y ears, and st ill ser v es as a for um for facult y scholar ship in congr uence w it h t he t r adit ional r esearch discipline.
I n t his paper , t he t er m cr oss- disciplinar y r efers t o facult y fr om different subj ect areas invest igat ing and prom ot ing m or e effect iv e w ays of t eaching and lear ning. Cr oss- disciplinary effor t s in pr om ot ing t he scholar ship of t eaching and lear ning are cr ucial since t hey enhance t he
t eaching and lear ning process, t her eby cr eat ing av enues for facult y t o under st and how lear ning acr oss t he curr iculum is possible. We need to ask our selv es, What ar e t he st r uct ur al v ar iables in t oday ’s educat ion, and how can w e achieve educat ional sust ainabilit y ? We can apply cr oss-disciplinar y resear ch in SoTL t o: a) m inim ize t ox ic sit uat ions, b) enhance a pr osocial environm ent , and c) creat e m eaningful st eps for
facult y and st udent s alik e. The face of higher educat ion is changing and at t r act s m ore st udent s from diver se backgrounds w it h different individualized cognit iv e needs. Because of t hese changes in higher educat ion, educat ors m ust car efully assess t heir st udent s in or der t o align t he appr opriat e educat ional cont ent and m eet lear ning out com es ( Cant or , 1997) . Caffar ella and Bar net t ( 1994) st at e t he need t o clear ly ident ify t he cour se obj ect iv es t o t he st udent s ear ly on, w hile em phasizing t he cont ent of t he course. I n addit ion, highlight ing t he cont r ibut ions of st udent ’s w or k ought t o be em phasized in t he cour se design. That is, how can st udent s cont r ibut e t o t he cour se by incorpor at ing t heir per spect ives? The goal in cour se developm ent is t o have st udent s depend less on t he guidance of t he inst r uct or s but inst ead r efine t heir com prehension of t he course m at er ial v ia engaging in discussions w it h ot her st udent s w hile t he inst r uct or serv es as facilit at or in t he classroom ( Benander , 2009) . Shift ing pow er fr om t he inst r uct or t o t he st udent w ill pr esum ably gener at e posit ive consequences such as incr easing st udent s’ sk ills, inst ead of t he sole focus being on gr ades. Addit ionally , t his shift w ill cr eat e an inclusiv e classroom t hat r espect s all backgr ounds and pr ior know ledge. A good w ay t o evaluat e t he accur acy of such act ions and t o uncover pr oblem ar eas is t o t r ack planned versus act ual deliv er ables.
We need m or e engagem ent of a br oader ty pe v er sus engagem ent as usual. Why do we produce cont ent ? Because w e act as cur at or s of t hat par t icular cont ent , w e can disper se t his cont ent t o ot her s. Educat ional w ays change; w e have t o m easur e t o lear n in t hat environm ent , and w e need t o focus on w hat w e underst and and m ax im ize t hat underst anding. We need t o creat e unique cont ent and focus on t he best dist r ibut ion channels w hile sim ult aneously r ecognizing t hat t hese channels and t ools ( applicat ions) com e and go. For exam ple, a r ecent st udy by Ox ford pr edict s t hat alm ost 50 percent of US j obs w ill be r eplaced by r obot s and AI ( Ar t ificial I nt elligence) ov er t he nex t 20 y ear s. For people inv olv ed in scholar ly t eaching and lear ning act iv it ies t o under st and t hese fut ur e t r ends is im por t ant , and r epr esent s an oppor t unit y t o r einvent and ov er haul t he past and pr esent syst em s. I t is t he t sunam i of educat ion; st ay on t op of it , or be w ashed aw ay .
Se ct ion 2 : Ex a m ple s of SoTL Lit e r a t u r e Re vie w
One of t he m ain char act er istics of t he SoTL dom ain is t hat SoTL st eers facult y t ow ard discussion, peer r eview , and r esear ch t o im pr ov e t eaching st r at egies. That is, t he SoTL m ov em ent tends t o focus m or e heav ily on t he facult y . One of t he m ain deliv er ables of scholar ly resear ch from SoTL is a com pr ehensive lit er at ure
Sh ift in g pow e r fr om t h e in st r u ct or t o t h e st u de nt w ill pr e sum a bly ge n e r a t e posit iv e conse qu en ce s su ch a s in cr e a sing
4 6 V olu m e 9 ł 2 0 1 4 r ev iew . One of t he far - r eaching dev elopm ent s in SoTL is t he inst it ut ional cult ur e suppor t ing SoTL by t he facult y act ually pr oducing it ( Cox , 2003; Kr eber , 2001; Theall & Cent r a, 2001) . This sect ion pr esent s m ore exam ples of SoTL t hat do not only focus on discussions, peer r ev iew , and resear ch, r esult ing in a r ev iew of t he lit er at ur e ( Alber s, 2008; Wat er m an et al., 2010) .
Tenenberg and Wang ( 2005) pr esent an ex am ple about a concer n am ong facult y in com put er science at bot h t w o- year and four - year inst it ut ions t o ensur e a sm oot h t r ansit ion for st udents bet ween inst it ut ions. They descr ibe a collabor at ive effor t in br idging t hese inst it ut ional div ides by opening classroom s t o ot her facult y m em ber s as a m eans t o cr it ically exam ine t he pedagogical m et hods and assess st udent out com es fr om t his lear ning. They ex am ine t he st udent w ork subm it t ed, look ing for st udent lear ning, and t his cr it ical ex am inat ion of st udent lear ning is achieved t hrough t he developm ent of cour se por t folios for each course t hat is t aught . The por t folios ar e used t o exam ine differ ent cour ses w it hin a discipline and cur r icula across t he inst it ut ions. Fr om t his int r ospect ion, t hey can obt ain lessons about t he assessm ent of t heir t eaching in t heir cour ses and t he use of cour se por t folios as a m eans for dissem inat ing know ledge and developing new pr act ices t o prom ot e lear ning.
Tenenberg and Wang’s ( 2005) approach holds unifor m in t he classr oom t he v ar iances in educat ional backgrounds, lear ning st y les, apt it udes, and t im e/ energy const r aint s. As a consequence, m any educat or s design classr oom act ivit ies by
“ aim ing dow n t he m iddle,” which is not necessar ily t he best st r at egy to encour age st r ong pedagogy . I n fact , League ( 2008) st at es m any academ icians w ould sim ply disr egard t he low er half of a class r at her t han r isk ext inguishing t he ent husiasm of t he best and br ight est by m oving too slow ly in t he present at ion of t he cour se m at er ial. To im pr ov e pedagogy result ing in im pr oved st udent out com es t hat League ( 2008) dev eloped in an under gr aduat e cour se in ar t ificial int elligence, a w or kbook- st y le of lab assignm ent s w as developed in accor dance w it h Bloom ’s t ax onom y t o cov er all apt it udes and lear ning st y les. The developm ent of t he w or kbook st yle lab assignm ent s w ould cr eat e a disciplinary com m ons t hat includes a r eposit ory of sour ce code, lect ur e not es, hom ewor k ex ercises, and addit ional lear ning act iv it ies. Cour se por t folios as espoused by Tenenberg and Wang ( 2005) prov ide an im por t ant m odel for m eet ing t he cr it er ia for SoTL w ork t o prom ot e int er disciplinar y t eaching, and ar e able t o docum ent t he com plex processes by w hich facult y and st udent s engage in int er disciplinar y pr oblem - solv ing ( Ber nst ein, Bur net t , Goodbur n, & Savory , 2006) .
Wilner ( 2009) descr ibes an ongoing facult y developm ent proj ect called BRI DGE ( Br idging Resear ch, I nst r uct ion, and Discipline- Grounded Epist em ologies) t hat dr aw s upon t he insight s of Angelo and Cr oss ( 1993) , w ho st at ed t hat effect iv e classroom t echniques also include effect iv e t eaching st rat egies, and t hat t hese st r at egies differ fr om inst it ut ional pr ogr am assessm ent because of t heir focus on specific t eaching envir onm ent s. The success of BRI DGE focuses on t he sim ult aneit y of t he discipline- based classroom resear ch and m ult i- disciplinar y w or kshops. This t w o- pronged approach allow s facult y t o connect pedagogy w it h t he epist em ologies t hat under lie t heir ow n t r aining ( t he for m er ) w hile t he lat t er approach confer s a num ber of adv ant ages t hat enhance bot h facult y sat isfact ion and leading t o successful classr oom r esear ch. The m ain t hr ust of BRI DGE is t he “ going public” approach at t he end of t he academ ic year , in w hich facult y share t heir m et hods and find and solicit peer r ev iew . The solicit at ion of peer r ev iew confirm s t he scholar ly nat ur e of t heir work and prov ides m ot iv at ion for ot her educat or s t o build upon t hese approaches.
Jaafar and Baishansk i ( 2012) dev eloped an int egr at ive appr oach to lear ning in int r oductory STEM ( Science, Technology , Engineer ing, and Mat hem at ics) cour ses and relat ed cour ses. Mor e specifically , t hey applied t heir case st udy
Cou r se port folios…prov ide a n im port a nt m ode l for m e e t ing t h e cr it e r ia for SoTL w or k t o pr om ot e
approach in a college algebr a cour se by incor por at ing cross- cur r icular sk ills, and t his approach m easur es t he effect iv eness of cour se out com es by analyzing st udent w ork on t he proj ect and responses t o surv eys t hr oughout t he cour se. The r esult s find t he assignm ent affect s st udent s’ m ast er y of specific quant it at iv e sk ills posit iv ely , t heir percept ions of lear ning ar e im proved, and t hey develop a st r onger appr eciat ion for t he r elev ance of st udy ing m at hem at ics, especially at t he int r oduct ory lev el. Because of t he uniqueness of int r oductory courses, Jaafar and Baishansk i carefully cr aft ed suggest ed guidelines for designing cour se act iv it ies w it h t he obj ect iv e to t each t he w hole st udent in t hese cour ses.
Wat er m an et al. ( 2010) prov ided a collabor at iv e ex am ple of t he Scholarship of Teaching and Lear ning Fellows Pr ogr am at Sout heast Missour i St at e Univ er sit y . This pr ogr am enrolls an annual cohor t of 10 facult y fellow s t o ev aluat e, t hr ough indiv idual r esear ch pr oj ect s, t he effect iv eness of t heir t eaching on st udent lear ning of at least t w o of t he univ er sit y ’s gener al educat ion cour ses. This progr am is m eant t o be an int er act iv e collabor at ive peer consult at ion. The colleagues m eet m ont hly t o addr ess t he resear ch quest ions and consult w it h t heir peers as t hey progr ess t hr ough t heir r esearch as applied t o t heir specific r esear ch proj ect s. At t he conclusion of t he academ ic y ear , t hese Fellow s present t heir r esear ch t o t he univ er sit y com m unit y . An analy sis of t hr ee cohor t s from t he pr ogr am show ed t hat 66% of t he pr oj ect s had coher ent out com es t hat show ed m easur able im pact s on st udent lear ning. Mor e specifically , t hese sur vey ed Fellow s im pact ed ov er 4,500 st udent s in 100 courses. Most of t he pr oj ect s em phasized a new t eaching approach, new cur r iculum m at er ials, int egrat ed applicat ions, and act iv e lear ning. Som e of t he Fellow s pr esent ed t heir resear ch at professional conferences and seven of t hem published t heir resear ch r esult s in scient ifically r eview ed j our nals. The feedback by t he Fellows r evealed t his progr am as a posit ive influence on t heir t eaching and r esearch.
Se ct ion 3 : Ex a m ple s of cr oss- disciplina r y discou r se of t h e SoTL Because of som e of t he difficult ies inv olv ed in com m unicat ing am ong cross-disciplinar y pr ogr am s, it m ay be beneficial t o look at tools such as infor m at ion m apping. I nform at ion m apping is based on how t he m ind processes and ret r ieves m em or ized and r ead infor m at ion. I t is an alt er nat iv e to conv ent ional reading and provides an int egr at ed set of easy- t o- learn- and- underst and guidelines and t echniques for analyzing user needs. I nfor m at ion m apping or ganizes t he infor m at ion int o m anageable block s or pods t hat can be m aint ained and r eused, and pr esent s t he infor m at ion in a for m at t hat is easy to find and under st and.
I n addit ion, do w e as facult y and educators need t r aining on root cause analy sis? Valuable SoTL k now ledge r esides w it h facult y and is cont ained at a specific point . How ever , from a cr oss- disciplinar y st andpoint , a sense of m eaning and shar ed com m unicat ion is absent . Cr it ical dat a and infor m at ion is not shar ed, and w e have developed a cult ur e of passivit y . I n m ost cases, educat ion- specific know ledge is deeply engr ained and becom es par t of t he way t hings ar e done, t hus becom ing an unconscious com pet ence.
Kuh and I k enber ry ( 2009) creat ed a sur v ey w it h r esponses from provosts for t he Nat ional I nst it ut e for Lear ning Out com es Assessm ent aim ing t o under st and st udent lear ning assessm ent . The r epor t st at ed “ Gaining facult y inv olvem ent and suppor t r em ains a m aj or challenge…” Six ty - six per cent of pr ov ost s at all inst it ut ions said m ore facult y engagem ent would be helpful, and “ about four - fift hs of provost s at doct or al r esear ch univer sit ies r epor t ed great er facult y engagem ent as t heir num ber one challenge” ( p. 24) .
4 8 V olu m e 9 ł 2 0 1 4 t he lear ning com m unit ies built high lev els of tr ust t hr ough par t icipat iv e decision- m aking. The ensuing sense of com m unit y and t he scholar ship of t eaching and lear ning pr ov ided t he social dynam ics and t he int ellect ual linkage bet w een t heory and pr act ice for successful change m anagem ent . The capacit y building inher ent in lear ning com m unit ies fed off it self because successful gr aduat es of t he pr ogr am ar e now facilit at or s of subsequent lear ning com m unit ies. ( 2006, p. 97)
I n spit e of t he changes in univer sit ies t o encour age m ore scholar ly act ivit ies acr oss t he curr iculum , each discipline has it s ow n unique hist or y and debat es in t he discipline and t he m et hodological approaches t hat influence how it is t aught , t he cont ent of w hat is t aught , t o w hom , and w hy it is t aught . Mor e specifically , each discipline has it s ow n st yle of pedagogical approaches, e.g., dat a analysis, com put er pr ogr am m ing, and pr oblem set s in t he business disciplines. I n fact , each discipline’s par t icipant s can act ively engage in discussions relat ed to r esear ch and pedagogy via peer - r ev iew ed
j our nals, it s v ar ious associat ions, and confer ence venues t hat oft en pr om ot e scholar ly exchange. However, resear chers in SoTL m ust address discipline- specific issues if t hey w ish t o
be hear d in t heir discipline and int er act w it h t heir colleagues in a language t hey under st and. That is, not all disciplines speak in t he sam e language, and Joseph Schw ab ( 1964) descr ibes it elegant ly as “ subst ant ive and sy nt act ic st r uct ur es,” t he " concept ions t hat guide inquiry" and t he " pat hw ays of enquir y [ scholars] use, w hat t hey m ean by v er ified k now ledge and how t hey go about this v er ificat ion" ( p. 25) .
Those engaged in SoTL acknow ledge t hese differ ences across disciplines and do not view t hem as a bar r ier t o prom ot ing cross-disciplinar y discussions, because each discipline has it s ow n unique ident it y and st yle t hat can be w oven across disciplines. Mem ber s of each discipline have t he goal t o expand t he bor ders of t he discipline by ex am ining new issues t hat can be r esear ched, and SoTL as it s ow n unique discipline can also exam ine new issues and fur t her expand t he discipline. One of t he dr aw back s of w ork ing across disciplines is t hat t he lit er at ur e is oft en obscur ed because of language, m et hods, and ot her specific concer ns. However, t her e has been a grow t h of for um s for cross-disciplinar y conv ersat ions, and t hese for um s have served as a br idge for t he lit er at ur e across disciplines and great er access to out side m em ber s of a discipline. As int erdisciplinar y conv er sations becom e m ore com m on, t he spr ead of SoTL is w idening int o w hat hist or ian of science Pet er Gallison ( 1997) calls a " t r ading zone" ( 781- 884) . I n r eference t o Gallison, scholar s acr oss disciplines could com e t oget her and share t heir ideas, insight s, and findings despit e t he differences in language, m et hodological appr oaches, and cont em por ar y discussions.
I t can be infer red t hat scholars in t heir r espect ive disciplines w or k w it h t he t r adit ional appr oaches of t eaching and lear ning and ar e oft en not fully aw ar e of t hose in t heir disciplines t hat are act ively engaged in SoTL. There is a w ave of change occurr ing in academ ia t oday t hat is at t r ibut ed t o t echnological changes, gr eat er em phasis on account abilit y , and ot her fact ors that br ing t eaching and lear ning int o focus. Giv en the lat t er , w hat happens w hen academ icians becom e m ore int er est ed in exam ining m or e closely t heir ow n t eaching, assessing st udent lear ning, and shar ing t heir findings w it h t heir colleagues?
Se ct ion 4 : M e a su r e m e nt of SoTL Sch ola r sh ip Act iv it ies
One of t he m aj or, persist ent difficult ies in t he m easur em ent of SoTL act iv it ies is t he lack of coher ence in t he definit ion of SoTL, and t his lack of coherence m ak es it difficult for t he colleges and univer sit ies t o use t his academ ic discour se t ow ards academ ic pr om ot ion of facult y m em bers ( Andresen, 2000; Sm it h, 2001) . The lat t er poses a challenge for academ icians as a legit im at e for m of academ ic discour se ( Boshier, 2009) . Over t he year s, m uch effor t has been
ex pended t o cr aft t oget her v ar ious int er pr et at ions of SoTL t hr ough t he dev elopm ent of m odels, e.g., Tr igwell, Mar t in, Benj am in, and Pr osser ( 2000) and West on and McAlpine ( 2001) . Despit e t his dev elopm ent , t hese m odels hav e difficult ies in inst it ut ionalizing t he concept of academ ic discour se of SoTL ( Boshier , 2009) , and t hese difficult ies have per sisted, result ing in a poor under st anding of w hat it m eans in pr act ice and how to m easur e t he v alue and im pact of SoTL r esear ch ( Nicholls, 2004) .
For scholar ship to be v aluable t o a discipline, t her e is gener ally a process t o ev aluat e it s qualit y . Diam ond ( 1993) sum m ar ized t he cr it er ia t hat ar e used t o car efully ex am ine scholar ly cont r ibut ions ver sus ot her ty pes of academ ic work . These scholar ly cont r ibut ions r equir e a solid under st anding of t he lit er at ur e of t he discipline, t he scholar ship cont r ibut ion br eaks new ground in t he discipline, t his scholar ship can be replicat ed, t he scholar ly cont r ibut ion can be docum ent ed, it can be peer - r eview ed, and it cont r ibut es value- added to t he lit er at ur e of t he discipline. The Car negie Foundat ion for t he Adv ancem ent of Teaching pr oposes a new set of st andar ds for ev aluat ing facult y scholarship contr ibut ions ( Glassick et al., 1997) . I n fact , Glassick et al. ( 1997) posit ed t hat t he t r adit ional assessm ent of scholar ship cont r ibut ions t hat adher ed t o t he Mer t onian cr it er ia are no longer applicable because t hese cr it er ia w er e developed dur ing a t im e w hen facult y m em bers w ere evaluat ed exclusiv ely on t he advancem ent of know ledge, not scholar ship act ivit ies in gener al. The adv ent of t he Boyer ’s m odel in 1990 ex panded t he role of scholar ship, because m any facult y m em ber s also engage in scholar ship act ivit ies ot her t han t he advancem ent of know ledge of t he discipline. To com plem ent Boyer , Glassick et al. ( 1997) proposed t hat all facult y m em ber s at a univ er sit y " m ust be held t o t he sam e st andards of scholar ly per for m ance" ( p. 22) . I n fact , Glassick et al. ( 1997) proposed t hat t he follow ing six st andar ds be applied w hen evaluat ing facult y scholar ly cont r ibut ions: t he scholar ship act ivit y should have clear goals, r equire adequat e pr epar at ion, m ak e use of t he appropr iat e m et hods, pr oduce significant r esult s, dem onst r ate effect iv e present at ion, and inv olv e reflect ive cr it ique ( p. 25) . How ever , t hese st andar ds ar e not m eant t o decipher bet w een com pet ent and scholar ly t eaching. One of t he difficult ies in m easur ing SoTL cont r ibut ions effect iv ely is t hat SoTL is dom inat ed by t he or t hodox pr inciples of higher educat ion. Consequent ly , t he appr oach of t hese or t hodox pr inciples has led t o t he m ar ginalizat ion of SoTL as a field of st udy . I n fact , t he Carnegie Foundat ion st at es t hat SoTL “ builds on m any past t r adit ions in higher educat ion.” These tr adit ions include classroom m anagem ent , t he assessm ent of st udent lear ning, r eflect ive pr act ice, facult y dev elopm ent, peer r ev iew of t he t eaching facult y , and t r adit ional educat ional resear ch ( Hut chings, 2007) .
Peer rev iew and t he polit ics of publishing in SoTL seem t o dom inat e. Som e academ icians hav e ar gued t hat m uch of t he w or k in SoTL flow s from t op- dow n, t eacher - cent er ed and, in som e cases, discr edit ed appr oaches t o t eaching and lear ning. Because of t hese pr eoccupat ions, t hose in academ ic adm inist r at ion and t enur e com m it t ees would have difficult ies car efully assessing t he cont r ibut ions from SoTL. Som e academ icians ar e per plex ed by t his pr eoccupat ion because m ost t eaching and m ost of t he st udent s’ lear ning m ay not occur in for m al classroom s. That is, k now ledge m ay not alw ay s be acquired in a for m al classr oom set t ing. As a r esult , SoTL m ay need t o ex pand t he concept of lear ning t o include bot h for m al and infor m al lear ning set t ings. Per haps t he m ost m ark ed not ion of SoTL is t hat t her e is a gener al reluct ance t o define SoTL, and t here is no agreem ent as t o w hat const it ut es SoTL. Consequent ly , leaders lik e Boy er and ot her s m erely t ur ned t his t ask over t o m ar ket forces or even peer r eview . That is, if t he SoTL scholar ship act iv it y passes peer rev iew , t hen it is consider ed to be scholar ship, and if t he w ork is r ej ect ed, t hen it is not considered t o be scholar ship ( Boshier , 2009) .
5 0 V olu m e 9 ł 2 0 1 4 anot her educat ional set t ing ( Huber , 2009) . As point ed out by Hut chings ( 2011) , academ icians w ho becom e engaged in SoTL m ay also be lik ely t o be engaged in ot her scholar ship act iv it ies as r elat ed t o t heir r espect iv e disciplines. Consequent ly , t his m ix of SoTL and discipline- or ient ed scholar ship can be com plem ent ary in som e w ay s t hat ar e lik ely t o becom e cum ulat iv ely ev en m or e significant ov er t im e. I n fact , t he int egr at ion of SoTL pr act ice and it s findings int o pedagogical and cur r iculum init iat ives lik e int r oduct ory cour ses, lear ning com m unit ies, ser v ice lear ning, under gr aduat e r esear ch, and ot her pr ogr am s, could r esult in w idespr ead im pr ov em ent s in lear nings and out com es t hat can be subst ant iat ed in SoTL. How does one m ak e t he lat t er a m ore r ecognizable and v iable par t of scholar ship at a college or univ er sit y? Som e academ icians m ay allude to t he fact t hat r esear ch in SoTL is pur ely qualit at iv e and not subst ant iat ed w it h em pirical dat a t o ev aluat e t he effect iv eness of t he t eaching m et hods and out com es. That is, in m any disciplines, SoTL t ends t o focus on t eacher s, t eaching st r at egies, t eaching sit uat ions, and t eaching assignm ent s. I n fact , Badley ( 2003) suggest s t here is t he challenge of incr easing t he em phasis of t his w or k on lear ning. To subst ant iat e fur t her , accor ding t o McKinney ( 2006) , t eacher s and t eaching st r at egies, sit uat ions, and assignm ent s ar e all w or t hy t opics t o ex am ine in det ail, but t he r esear ch in t hese lat t er t opics needs t o focus m or e on st udent out com es and affect iv e and cognit iv e processes.
Se ct ion 5 : W ha t is t h e Fu t ur e of SoTL?
I t is quit e possible t hat colleges and univer sit ies m ay need t o prov ide evidence of learning out com es from t heir academ ic pr ogram s. Because of t he r equirem ent s of t hese out com es, st rong r esearch design from SoTL could serv e as a pr er equisit e of pr ov iding t he effect iv eness of t his lear ning. Account abilit y is not a new concept in higher educat ion, and t her e is a gr eat er push for show ing account abilit y fr om colleges and univ er sit ies. Secr et ary of Educat ion Mar gar et Spellings conv ened t he Com m ission on t he Fut ur e of Higher Educat ion, and t he pr im or dial conclusion from t his r epor t ( t he Spellings Repor t ) rev ealed t he im por t ance of assessm ent and account abilit y . I n fact , t his r epor t did not r ecom m end holding univ er sit ies dir ect ly account able, but r at her suppor t ed t he ideal of im pr ov ed qualit y and account abilit y in higher educat ion.
We believ e t hat im proved account abilit y is v it al t o ensur ing t he success of all t he ot her r eform s we propose…St udent achievem ent , w hich is inext r icably connect ed t o inst it ut ional success, m ust be m easur ed by inst it ut ions on a “ value- added” basis t hat t akes int o account st udent s’ academ ic baseline w hen assessing t heir result s. This infor m at ion should be m ade av ailable t o st udent s, and r epor t ed publicly in aggr egat e for m t o prov ide consum er s and policym ak ers an accessible, under st andable w ay to m easur e t he relat ive effect iveness of differ ent colleges and universit ies. ( Spellings r epor t , p. 4)
int ent ions w hile at t he sam e t im e t r ansfor m int er nal r igid cult ur es, and engage and inspir e facult y to acceler at e innov at ion. Who w ill lead t he char ge?
Re fe r e n ce s Albers, C. ( 2008) . I m prov ing
pedagogy t hr ough act ion learning and scholar ship of t eaching and lear ning. Teaching Sociology , 36( 1) , 79- 86.
Andresen, L. W. ( 2000) . A useable, t r ans- disciplinar y concept ion of scholar ship. Higher Educat ion Resear ch & Dev elopm ent , 19( 2) , 137- 153.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. ( 1993) . Classroom assessm ent t echniques: A handbook for college t eacher s ( 2nd
ed.) . San Fr ancisco, CA: Jossey - Bass.
Badley, G. ( 2003) . I m prov ing t he scholar ship of t eaching and lear ning. I nnov at ions in Educat ion and Teaching I nt er nat ional, 40, 303–309.
Benander , R. ( 2009) . Exper ient ial lear ning in t he scholarship of t eaching and lear ning. Jour nal of Scholarship of Teaching and Lear ning, 9,36- 41.
Ber nst ein, D. A., Bur net t , N., Goodbur n, A., & Savory , P. ( 2006) . Making t eaching and lear ning v isible: Course por t folios and t he peer r eview of t eaching. Bolt on, MA: Anker Publishing.
Boshier , R. ( 2009) . Why is t he scholar ship of t eaching and lear ning such a har d sell? Higher Educat ion Resear ch & Dev elopm ent, 28( 1) , 1-15.
Boyer , E. L. ( 1990) . Scholar ship r econsider ed: Pr ior it ies of t he professor iat e. San Fr ancisco, CA: Jossey - Bass.
Cant or, J. A. ( 1997) .͓Exper ient ial learning in higher educat ion: Linking classr oom and com m unit y.Washingt on, D.C: The Geor ge Washingt on Universit y Graduat e School of Educat ion and Hum an Developm ent .
Caffar ella, R. S., & Bar net t , B.G. ( 1994) . Ex per ient ial lear ning: A new approach. I n L. Jackson and R. S. Caffar ella͓( Eds.) , Char act er istics of adult lear ners and foundat ions of experient ial learning( pp. 29-42) . San Fr ancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Char levoix , D. J. ( 2008) . I m prov ing t eaching and lear ning t hrough classroom resear ch. Am er ican Met eorological Societ y, 89( 11) , 1659- 1664.
Cox , M. D. ( 2003) . Prov en facult y developm ent t ools t hat fost er t he scholar ship of t eaching in facult y lear ning com m unit ies. To I m pr ov e t he Academ y, 21, 109- 142.
Cox , M. D., Hunt , L., Brom age, A., & Tom k inson, B. ( 2006) . Phases in t he developm ent of a change m odel.The r ealit ies of change in higher
educat ion, pp. 91- 100. New York , NY: Rout ledge.
Cunsolo, J., Elr ick , M., Middleton, A., & Roy, D. ( 1996) . The scholarship of t eaching: A Canadian perspect iv e w it h exam ples. The Canadian Jour nal of Higher Educat ion, 26( 1) 35- 56.
Diam ond, R. M. ( 1993) , Changing pr ior it ies and t he facult y r ew ar d syst em . New Dir ect ions for Higher Educat ion,1993( 81) , 5–12. doi: 10.1002/ he.36919938103
Gallison, P. ( 1997) . I m age and logic: A m at er ial cult ur e of m icr ophysics. Chicago, I L: Univ er sit y of Chicago Pr ess.
5 2 V olu m e 9 ł 2 0 1 4 Hut chings, P., Huber , M., & Ciccone,
A. ( 2011) . Get t ing t her e: An int egr at iv e vision of t he scholar ship of t eaching and lear ning.
I nt er nat ional Jour nal for t he Scholarship of Teaching and Lear ning, 5( 1). Ret r iev ed from ht t p: / / digit alcom m ons.geor giasout he r n.edu/ ij - sot l/ v ol5/ iss1/ 31
Hut chings, P., Huber , M., & Ciccone, A. ( 2011) . Why t he scholarship of t eaching and lear ning m at t er s t oday. San Fr ancisco, CA: Jossey - Bass.
Hut chings, P. ( 2007) . Theory : The elephant in t he scholar ship of t eaching and lear ning r oom . I nt er nat ional Jour nal for t he Scholarship of Teaching and Lear ning, 1( 1) , 1–4.
Jaafar , R., & Baishansk i, Y. ( 2012) . Developing cr oss- disciplinary com pet encies t hr ough college algebr a. I nsight : A Jour nal of Scholar ly Teaching,7, 17- 30.
Kr eber , C. ( 2001) , The Scholar ship of Teaching and I t s I m plem ent at ion in Facult y Dev elopm ent and Gr aduat e Educat ion. New Dir ect ions for Teaching and Lear ning, 2001( 86) , 79–88. doi: 10.1002/ t l.18
Kr eber , C., & Cr ant on, P. A. ( 2000) . Ex plor ing t he scholar ship of t eaching sour ce. The Jour nal of Higher Educat ion, 71( 4) , 476- 495.
Kuh, G., & I k enberr y , S.
( 2009) .Mor e t han you t hink, less t han w e need: Lear ning out com es assessm ent in Am er ican higher educat ion. Nat ional I nst it ut e for Lear ning Out com es Assessm ent . Ret r iev ed from
ht t p: / / lear ningout com esassessm ent . org/ NI LOAsur veyr esult s09.ht m
League, C. ( 2008) . Som et hing for ever yone: AI lab assignm ent s t hat span lear ning st y les and
apt it udes. Jour nal of Com put ing Sciences in Colleges, 23( 5) , 142- 149.
McKinney , K. ( 2006) . At t it udinal and st r uct ur al fact or s cont r ibut ing t o challenges in t he work of t he scholar ship of t eaching and lear ning. New Dir ect ions for I nst it ut ional Resear ch, 129, 37- 50.
Nicholls, G. ( 2004) . Scholarship in t eaching as a core professional v alue: What does t his m ean t o t he
academ ic? Teaching in Higher Educat ion, 9( 1) , 29- 42.
O’Mear a, K. A. ( 2005) . Encouraging m ult iple for m s of scholarship in facult y r ew ar d sy st em s: Does it m ake a differ ence? Research in Higher Educat ion, 46( 5) , 479- 510.
Richlin, L. ( 2001) . Scholar ly teaching and t he scholarship of t eaching. New Dir ect ions in Teaching and Lear ning, 86, 57- 68.
Schw ab, J. ( 1964) . St r uct ure of t he disciplines. I n G. W. For d & L. Pugno ( Eds.) , The St r uct ure of Knowledge and t he Curr iculum. Chicago, I L: Rand McNally .
Sm it h, R. ( 2001) . Ex per t ise and t he scholar ship of t eaching. New
Dir ect ions for Teaching and Lear ning, 86, 69- 78.
Spellings, M., ( 2006) . A Test of Leadership: Char t ing t he Fut ur e of U.S. Higher Educat ion. Final repor t of t he Secr et ary of Educat ion’s
Com m ission on t he Fut ur e of Higher Educat ion. Retr iev ed fr om
ht t ps: / / w w w 2.ed.gov/ about / bdscom m / list / hiedfut ur e/ r epor t s/ final-r epofinal-r t .pdf/ about / bdscom m / list / hiedfu t ur e/ r epor t s/ final- r epor t .pdf
Tenenberg, J., & Wang, Q. ( 2005) . Using cour se por t folios to cr eat e a disciplinar y com m ons acr oss inst it ut ions.Jour nal of Com put ing Sciences in Colleges. 21( 1) , 142- 149.
Trigw ell, K., Mart in, E., Benj am in, J., & Prosser, M. ( 2000) . Scholarship of Teaching: A m odel. Higher Educat ion Research & Developm ent , 19( 2) , 155-168.
Wat erm an, M., Weber, J., Pr acht , C., Conw ay, K., Kunz, D., & Evans, B. ( 2010) . Preparing scholars of t eaching and learning using a m odel of
collaborat ive peer consult ing and act ion r esearch. I nt er nat ional Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Educat ion, 22( 2) , 140- 151.
West on, C. B., & McAlpine, L. ( 2001) . Making explicit t he developm ent t oward t he scholar ship of t eaching. New Direct ions for Teaching and Learning, 86, 89- 97. Wilner , A. ( 2009) . Engaging facult y in scholarship of t eaching and learning: A view from BRI DGE. Unpublished m anuscript , Rider Univer sit y, Law renceville, NJ.
Ziolk ow sk i, E. J. ( 1996) . Slouching t ow ard scholardom : The endanger ed Am er ican college. College English, 58( 5) , 568- 588.
Anit a Cassard com plet ed her under gr aduat e coursewor k at t he Econom ic Resear ch I nst it ut e and I nst it ut e of Adv anced St udies in Vienna/ Aust r ia. She r eceiv ed her MPS from The New School Univ er sit y ( Milano- The New School for Managem ent and Ur ban Policy ) NYC in Hospit al and Healt h Car e Adm inist r at ion and her doctor al degr ee fr om Walden Univ er sit y in Minneapolis ( Applied Managem ent and Decision Sciences) specializing in Leader ship and Organizat ional Change. She collabor at ively w rot e paper s published in peer r ev iewed, scient ific j our nals such as JSBHS- Jour nal of Social, Behav ior al, and Healt h Sciences. Her book The Sher pa Leader ship Model: A Model of Disem pow er m ent; w as published in Europe and t he Unit ed St at es by VDM- Publishing in Ger m any .
