Enhancing Learning Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: The Challenges and Joys of Juggling (JB - Anker)

ENHANCING LEARNING THROUGH THE Scholarship of Teaching and Learning ENHANCING LEARNING THROUGH THE Scholarship of T...

Author: Kathleen McKinney

119 downloads 846 Views 1007KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

ENHANCING LEARNING THROUGH THE

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

ENHANCING LEARNING THROUGH THE

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning THE CHALLENGES AND JOYS OF JUGGLING

K AT H L E E N M c K I N N E Y Illinois State University

Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Bolton, Massachusetts

Enhancing Learning Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning The Challenges and Joys of Juggling Copyright © 2007 by Anker Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of the publisher. ISBN 978-1-933371-29-0 Composition and cover design by Dutton & Sherman Design Anker Publishing Company, Inc. 563 Main Street P.O. Box 249 Bolton, MA 01740-0249 USA www.ankerpub.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data McKinney, Kathleen. Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and learning : the challenges and joys of juggling / Kathleen McKinney. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-933371-29-0 1. Education, Higher—Research. 2. College teaching. 3. Effective teaching. I. Title. LB2326.3.M34 2007 378.1’2—dc22

2007008022

I dedicate this book to all my students past, present, and future.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

About the Author Foreword Preface

1. What Is the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning?

xi xiii xvii

1

A Bit of SoTL History Example Definitions Related Concepts Conclusion

2. Why Do SoTL?

13

Functions of SoTL Value and Fit in the Reward Structure Standards for SoTL Work Conclusion

3. How Do I Get Started?

25

Challenges for First Timers (and Others) What Is the “Problem”? Example SoTL Research Problems and Questions The Role of Theory and the Importance of Definitions Refining Your Question(s) vii

viii

Enhancing Learning Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Searching for Literature Conclusion

4. How Can I Move My Project Forward?

41

The Importance of Collaboration Collaborations With Colleagues Involving Students as Coresearchers Integrating SoTL Projects Into Your Existing Professional Life and Workload Resources for SoTL Work Think Outside the Box: Resources Broadly Defined Tips for Grant Writing SoTL Funding Opportunities Conclusion

5. What Are the Practical and Ethical Issues I Must Consider?

55

Practical Issues Ethical Issues—Overview Institutional Review Boards Three Ethical Criteria Informed Consent Right to Privacy Protection From Harm Starting to Put It All Together Conclusion

6. How Do I Design My SoTL Project? Two General Issues The Quantitative and/or Qualitative Choice Time Frames for Your Study Typologies or Categories of Methods Specific Methodologies and Examples Course Portfolios and Other Reflection and Analysis Interviews and Focus Groups

67

Table of Contents

ix

Observational Research Questionnaires Content Analysis Secondary Analysis Experiments and Quasi-Experiments Case Studies Multimethod Studies Analysis and Interpretation How Far Have We Come? Conclusion

7. How Do I Make My SoTL Public and Document My Work?

83

The Meanings of Making Public and Peer Review How Common Is Making Public? Tips and Outlets for Making Public Publications Presentations Web Postings Documenting SoTL Work for the Reward System Conclusion

8. What Are the Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts of SoTL? Disciplinary Context Similarities and Differences in Views of SoTL Status of SoTL in the Disciplines Example SoTL Projects in the Disciplines Meanings of Cross- and Interdisciplinary SoTL Examples of Cross-Disciplinary SoTL Institutional Context Campus Support—Some Data Campus Support—Possible Models Strategies for Campus Support Conclusion

101


x

9. Where Do We Go From Here?

119

SoTL and Transforming Culture Using SoTL Levels and Forms of Application Some Data on Application Thinking About Use and Application The Future of SoTL Challenges and Opportunities in the Field of SoTL Future Images Conclusion Appendix A: Example Campus Survey on Status of SoTL

135

Appendix B: Additional Resources on SoTL—Web Sites, Articles, Chapters, and Books

141

Appendix C: List of SoTL Journals and Newsletters

149

Appendix D: Example Call for Proposals for Campus SoTL Small Grants

157

Appendix E: Possible Funding Sources for SoTL Work

161

Appendix F: Example IRB Form Questions and Responses for an Interview Study

163

Appendix G: Sample of Useful Books on Portfolios, Classroom Assessment/Research, and Methods

167

Appendix H: Example Tenure and Promotion Language re SoTL

169

Bibliography Index

171 185

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kathleen McKinney received her Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1982. Currently, she is professor of sociology at Illinois State University (ISU). In addition, she serves as the K. Patricia Cross Endowed Chair in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), a university-wide endowed chair reporting to the Office of the Provost. From 1996 to 2002 she held the administrative position of director of the Center for the Advancement of Teaching at Illinois State University, where she supervised the center staff and the University Assessment Office, as well as engaged directly in faculty development efforts. McKinney is a social psychologist with interests in relationships, sexuality, sexual harassment, higher education, and college teaching. She has numerous scholarly publications, including several coauthored and edited books, and dozens of refereed articles in the areas of sexual harassment, pedagogy, and close relationships. She served three years as editor of Teaching Sociology, the refereed journal of the American Sociological Association (ASA). She is also a member of the ASA Department Resources Group, a group of about 50 sociologists who assist their colleagues across the nation conducting teaching workshops and program reviews, and writing teaching materials. McKinney is also active in other service related to teaching and learning, including serving on the council of the ASA Section on Teaching and Learning and on the recent ASA Taskforce on the undergraduate major. She also works closely with students outside of class, for example, as a mentor in the ISU Women’s Mentoring Network and coadvisor to the ISU Equestrian Club and Team. xi

xii


McKinney is involved in the SoTL movement at the national level, working with the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) Campus Program as well as being involved in SoTL initiatives within the American Association for Higher Education (Cluster Leader) before it closed. McKinney was a 2003–2004 Carnegie Scholar and is active in the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL). She has received several teaching awards including Illinois State’s College of Arts and Sciences Junior and Senior Distinguished Teacher, Illinois State Outstanding University Teacher, the ASA Section on Teaching and Learning Hans Mauksch Award for Contributions to Undergraduate Education, and the ASA Distinguished Contributions to Teaching Award.

FOREWORD

Occasionally, a book comes out at the right time with the right stuff by the right person. This is the right time for Enhancing Learning Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning because the interest in learning and how to produce it is at an all-time high, fueled by growing criticism of the quality of higher education and accompanied by significant advances in our knowledge about the brain and student learning. This practical guide contains the right stuff because it is addressed directly to classroom teachers, who are actively engaged in efforts to improve student learning. And Kathleen McKinney is the right author. She is a teacher (a professor of sociology with several awards for outstanding teaching to her credit), a founding director of the Center for the Advancement of Teaching at Illinois State University, and a Carnegie Scholar, working with a widespread network of national and international scholars engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Friends as well as critics of higher education contend that change in higher education is glacial, and that while academics are insightful and creative in recommending change for others, they are reluctant to change themselves. That is changing. I have been observing, studying, and participating in higher education for almost 50 years, and I have never seen as much interest in teaching and learning at the college level as I have seen in the past decade. I think there are four compelling reasons for the major change that is taking place: 1. The knowledge explosion. No one is immune from unprecedented change in the world, least of all academics. From technology to transportation to medicine to communication to archeology to xiii

xiv


biology to astronomy, to the way people live and interact with each other, the changes are gigantic. Anyone preparing students to live in this new world has to be concerned about how people learn—and continue to learn—about the changing world around them. Increasing knowledge about the brain, cognition, and learning are part of the vast explosion in knowledge. 2. Growing diversity in the preparation and expectations of college students. While diversity has enriched the learning experience for students in classrooms as well as on campus, the new generation of students is noticeably more diverse than past generations, in so many ways. Many are poorly prepared for academic work, with low accomplishments and low expectations; some are struggling to learn English; many are more sophisticated in the uses of technology than their instructors, and their experiences with learning are quite different. New attention to the assessment of student learning outcomes is increasing the discomfort of teachers who, upon finding that students are not learning what teachers are trying to teach, are challenged to find new approaches to instruction. 3. Political pressure from government, employers, parents, and the general public to bring about major reform in education at all levels. The Commission on the Future of Higher Education was appointed in 2005 to develop a comprehensive national strategy on higher education, tackling major tasks of access, affordability, accountability, and productivity in higher education. Accountability rapidly became the flash point of the discussions. Harsh criticism focused on lack of information about how much and how well students are learning. Many colleges and universities are rising to the challenge, and assessment of student learning is playing an increasingly prominent role in strategic planning. 4. The leadership of the respected Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The scholarship of teaching and learning has been the focus of the signature program of The Carnegie Foundation for 10 years now. Carnegie’s role in providing central leadership for responding to the above three “pressures” for change has been highly influential. Not only has Carnegie produced a raft of thoughtful studies of teaching in the individual disciplines and professions, thus catching the interest and active participation of discipline-oriented faculty and national professional associations, but the second-generation studies

Foreword

xv

and publications by scholars such as McKinney are now spreading the influence and adding depth to the movement. Cynics about change in higher education (myself included more than 20 years ago, see Cross, 1984), have written that fads come and go in education, and not much really changes. While changes in society and resulting policy change have produced undeniable change on a national level, (e.g., the G.I. Bill and the civil rights movement) teachers and students in classrooms go on much as they have for centuries—teaching and learning new things certainly, but in familiar settings with age-old methods. But a closer examination reveals significant change now taking place. The knowledge explosion is changing both the goals and the practices of education. We used to talk about “how much” students were learning: Now we talk about “how well.” The mastery of content is important today, not so much as the product of education but as an essential part of the process that enables one to continue to build knowledge about a world that is changing so rapidly that lifelong learning has become a necessity. Teachers recognize this. The Number One teaching goal in both community colleges and four-year institutions is to “develop ability to apply principles and generalizations already learned to new problems and situations” (Angelo & Cross, 1993, p. 399). The knowledge explosion is also changing the practices of education. The central conclusion from research on cognition and learning is that students must accept responsibility for and become actively engaged in their own learning. But faculty too must accept responsibility for encouraging students to become active learners, and evidence is accumulating that college teaching practices are changing. The old practice of lecturing, once the reported practice of a majority of college teachers, has tipped to a minority in just the past decade as it is replaced by methods that engage students more actively in their own learning (Huber & Hutchings, 2005). The path to change is rarely smooth, and in any organization as extensive and diverse as higher education, spread over thousands of campuses and with more than a million teachers, it is especially difficult. The leadership of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has helped smooth the bumps in the road. In 1990, Ernest Boyer, then president of CFAT, asked the higher education community to consider expanding the meaning of “schol-

xvi


arship” to include the now famous four ways in which scholarship is demonstrated: discovery, teaching, application, and integration. To date, the scholarly function of teaching has received the greatest attention, and the Carnegie Foundation, under the leadership of Lee Shulman, has given the scholarship of teaching and learning high credibility, high visibility, and encouragingly high rates of implementation across a wide variety of academic disciplines and colleges. While much remains to be done, there is already impressive evidence of accomplishment. Among college teachers from a variety of disciplines who have been actively involved in the Carnegie program, an amazing 80%–90% felt that it contributed to their excitement about teaching, that they changed the design of a course since becoming involved, and that their work with the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) had influenced colleagues at their institution (Cox, Huber, & Hutchings, 2004). McKinney’s self-assigned task is to aid the traveler on the bumpy road to change, and she brings her own fine scholarship to the task. McKinney has also had extensive experience conducting workshops and working with faculty and administrators in different kinds of colleges and universities. This book is packed with helpful tips on everything from framing questions to be studied, to designing the research, to considering practical and ethical issues, to obtaining funding and writing for publication, and it is loaded with references and citations to the best that has been said and written about the scholarship of teaching and learning. This book is specifically targeted to faculty members who are interested in advancing knowledge about teaching in their academic discipline—which goes a step beyond improving their own teaching competence. Thus, McKinney adheres consistently to the Carnegie definition of the scholarship of teaching and learning, with its four requirements of framing questions for study, gathering evidence and reflecting on it, trying out new insights, and going public with information that others can critique and build upon. But this book can be read with profit by anyone from graduate students preparing for faculty careers to department chairs and central administrators interested in changing the climate for learning in higher education. K. Patricia Cross Berkeley, California September 2006

PREFACE

In recent years, involvement in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) has increased and become more visible. There has been growing demand for workshops and materials to help those in higher education conduct and use SoTL. Thus, I wrote this book to help spread the message of the scholarship of teaching and learning, that is, to offer advice on how to do, share, and apply SoTL work to improve student learning and development. I intend the book to be used as a practical guide. I provide some history and background about SoTL and a look to the future of SoTL but, primarily, my objectives are to offer suggestions, sources, strategies, examples, and resources to help readers engage in and use SoTL. As I will argue later, doing SoTL is a bit of a juggling act for most of us. It is my hope that this book will help you become a more successful juggler. The audience for this book is, primarily, college-level faculty members but also includes faculty developers, administrators, academic staff, and graduate students. The book will also help undergraduate students collaborating with faculty on SoTL projects. Though targeted at those new or somewhat new to the field of SoTL, more seasoned SoTL researchers and those attempting to support SoTL efforts on campus will find the book useful as well. The book can be used as an individual reading, as a shared reading in SoTL writing and research circles, as a resource in workshops or institutes on SoTL, and as a “text” in graduate courses on SoTL or seminars on teaching. xvii

xviii


I offer a few caveats here. I make no attempt in this brief, practical guide to summarize all of the ballooning literature about SoTL. The book is more akin to a brief survey course on SoTL. For those interested in delving further into particular issues, I offer a lengthy bibliography, an additional resources list, and several appendices. Furthermore, although there is an SoTL movement in K–12 teaching (see, for example, Hatch, 2006), my focus is on SoTL in higher education, in all types of higher education institutions. I do believe those interested in doing SoTL at the K–12 level will, however, find this book helpful. In addition, SoTL is an international movement and although I include some issues, examples, and citations from outside the United States, due to the volume of material and space limitations, I emphasize trends and examples from the United States. Finally, this book is only one resource to help individuals, especially those new to SoTL, engage in and make use of SoTL work. Depending on your discipline, skills, background, and the nature of your SoTL questions and studies, you may need to draw on additional resources. I suggest many other sources of support and resources throughout the book. The book is organized into nine chapters. In Chapter 1 I focus on definitional issues related to SoTL. Thus, I discuss some history of SoTL as well as definitions of SoTL and related concepts. In Chapter 2 I summarize information and issues related to the functions, values, rewards, and standards for SoTL work. How to get started on a SoTL project, including forming a research question or problem and reviewing the literature, is the topic of Chapter 3. Chapter 4 continues the getting started discussion and focuses on working with colleagues, involving students, writing grants, integrating SoTL into your professional life, and finding useful resources. The material in Chapter 5 is about ethical issues associated with SoTL work, including institutional review boards and forms and three common ethical criteria: informed consent, right to privacy, and protection from harm. Designing a project, broadly defined, is the topic of Chapter 6 where I consider two general issues, categories of methods, different specific methodologies and types of data, example projects, and analysis and interpretation. SoTL is not scholarship unless it is made public. Thus, Chapter 7 comes back to some issues raised in Chapter 2 and focuses on the

Preface

xix

meaning of making public, tips and outlets for doing so, and documenting your SoTL work in the reward structure. Chapter 8 deals with the status of SoTL in various contexts: SoTL in and across disciplines and within institutional settings. The ultimate goal of SoTL is to apply what we learn to enhance student learning and development. This is the first topic of Chapter 9 including creating a teaching-learning culture conducive to SoTL as well as levels, strategies, and examples of using SoTL. This chapter ends with a peek into the future that incorporates challenges and opportunities as well as possible structures and initiatives related to SoTL work. I could not have found my home in SoTL, achieved what I have, or written this book without the support and help of many. Thus, I wish to acknowledge several individuals and groups of people. I want to thank Patricia Jarvis, Gary Creasey, and Amy Smith for reading earlier versions of all or part of the book, and Sharon Naylor for her contributions to one of the chapters. Second, I am grateful to Carolyn Dumore and Wendy Swanson of Anker Publishing for the careful work on the book. Thanks, also, to Beth Welch for her work on the references. In addition, thanks go to many administrators at Illinois State University who have been supportive of SoTL, including current President Al Bowman, Provost John Presley, Associate Provost Jan Shane, and Assistant Provost Charles McGuire. Finally, the following individuals deserve much credit and my deepest gratitude: Dr. K. Patricia Cross, the David Gardner Professor of Higher Education, Emerita, University of California–Berkeley; Carla Howery, American Sociological Association; my major professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Dr. John DeLamater; wonderful colleagues and supportive administrators at Oklahoma State University and Illinois State University; friends, Dr. Susan Sprecher, Dr. Patricia Jarvis, Dr. Krista Moore, and Dr. Tom Gerschick (among many others); and my family—my parents, brother and sister, husband and fellow sociologist, Robert Wazienski, my stepson, Benjamin, and my daughter, Claire. Kathleen McKinney Illinois State University

CHAPTER ONE

What Is the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning? In this chapter, my purpose is to provide you with background on the concept and field of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). I begin with a brief review of some of the history of SoTL. I then offer a variety of definitions or conceptions of SoTL that exist in the literature, as well as some thoughts on variations in definitions by group and context. Finally, I offer a discussion of the meanings of related or overlapping concepts.

A Bit of SoTL History Let’s begin near the beginning with a bit of history and background on the concept and field of SoTL. My emphasis in this book is on SoTL in higher education. For a recent book on SoTL at the K–12 level, see Hatch (2006). As I have discussed elsewhere, the actual term the scholarship of teaching has been in existence in a public sense for about 15 years (McKinney, 2004), yet SoTL work in higher education has been around much longer. Many disciplines have long histories of interest in teaching and learning and the systematic study of these topics using a disciplinary perspective. In my own discipline of sociology, for example, our pedagogical journal, Teaching Sociology, has been in existence for more than 30 years. Our professional organization, the American Sociological Association, has had a strong teaching movement since the early 1970s. Some other disciplines have similar, long histories of SoTLlike work. Salvatori and Donahue (2002) write, “over the past 40 1

2


years . . . because of specific historical, economic, and institutional contingencies, composition studies has witnessed a remarkable proliferation of research in writing pedagogy” (p. 70). The discipline of communication studies also has a long history of work in what we now term SoTL (Morreale, Applegate, Wulff, & Sprague, 2002). The field of chemistry has had a pedagogical journal, Journal of Chemical Education, dating back to the 1920s. Yet, there are other fields with much shorter histories and even in those with long histories, colleagues frequently note the gaps and problems in SoTL (Huber & Morreale, 2002; see Chapter 8). Though Boyer’s (1990) work on, and coining of the term, the scholarship of teaching has probably been most often cited, many individuals have written about related concepts in the years before and just after Boyer’s seminal book. For example, in 1987, Lee Shulman highlighted the phrase pedagogical content knowledge. The scholarship of pedagogy was discussed by Pellino, Blackburn, and Boberg (1984) in their work on multiple forms of scholarship. Others have viewed teaching activities and products such as course content as a form of scholarship (Braxton & Toombs, 1982). Goldsmid and Wilson (1980) struggled to make sense of the similarities of and standards for research and teaching, arguing that “collaborative inquiry is at the heart of both activities” (p. 32). In the early 1980s, Baker proposed ideas about the relationships among the following: what we know about teaching as sociologists, our work as teachers, and our writing about teaching (Baker, 1980, 1985, 1986). Pat Cross’s discussions of classroom research go back to at least 1986 when she argued: I believe that research on teaching and learning should be done in thousands of classrooms across this nation by classroom teachers themselves. What is needed if higher education is to move toward our goal of maximizing student learning is a new breed of college teacher that we shall call a Classroom Researcher. (p. 13) In 1991 Rice argued that the scholarship of teaching had three parts: synoptic capacity, pedagogical content knowledge, and what we know about learning. Thus, there is a rich history of ideas related to what we now call SoTL that dates back several decades.

What Is the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning?

3

Skipping ahead to a sample of the many current conversations about the field of SoTL, Huber and Hutchings (2005) frame SoTL as “viewing the work of the classroom as a site for inquiry, asking and answering questions about students’ learning in ways that can improve one’s own classroom and also advance the larger profession of teaching” (p. 1). Kreber (2005) has written that “the scholarship of teaching is the intellectual, practical and critical work done by college and university teachers; that is, aimed at pursuing significant educational goals” (p. 393). Weimer (2006) prefers the term pedagogical scholarship. Consider whether these definitions make sense to you and in your context. I discuss other current conceptualizations of SoTL later in this chapter. There are many indicators of the growing interest and involvement in SoTL in higher education. To mention just a few, there have been large investments of time, staff, and resources by national organizations in the United States and elsewhere, including by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching with the American Association for Higher Education or AAHE (before its demise) through the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning or CASTL program, the Carnegie Scholars program, and the AAHE Summer Academy and small grants to campus clusters. Campus clusters were groups of institutions formed around SoTL themes that worked together for a three-year period and were one part of the CASTL program. In 2002 we created the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) with a variety of opportunities for doing and sharing SoTL work. Disciplinary societies are also showing more interest in supporting SoTL work, for example, as seen in new association publications and new sections or groups, as well as by cooperative efforts between these societies and the CASTL program. Huber and Hutchings (2005) point to, for example, the new Journal of Political Science Education, as well as the new Association for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, which is a part of the Mathematical Association of America. In addition, there are many local, regional, national, and international conferences on college teaching and/or SoTL with more—it seems—each year. For example, there are the Lilly Conferences, the Teaching Professor Conference, the SoTL Colloquium, the ISSOTL

4


conference, regional conferences in the United States, and SoTL conferences in the United Kingdom (U.K.). Past and new SoTL journals abound. These are both online and traditional, both general and discipline based (see www.ilstu.edu/~sknaylor/sotl.htm for a list and links to the journal web pages; Chapters 2 and 6 provide more on conferences and journals). Thus, SoTL is clearly a growing international initiative in higher education that we can consider, in some ways, a limited social movement. This social movement to enrich SoTL in higher education has characteristics of social movements more generally including the impetus to the movement such as increasing concern about the lack of knowledge and application of such knowledge for teaching and learning in higher education disciplines as well as frustration over the value and rewards for SoTL. Those active in the movement share some beliefs about the importance and legitimacy of SoTL. Mobilization and the strengthening of the movement are occurring through the leadership, funds, credibility, recruitment of members, and formation of new organizational structures at universities, the Carnegie Foundation, and disciplinary societies. We even have some outside allies such as supportive colleagues and administrators who are not directly involved in SoTL as well as funding agencies and donors (McKinney, 2004). What is the context to this social movement? There are a number of factors. We have all seen and felt changes in higher education in recent years. These changes have included new technologies, more diverse (broadly defined) student bodies, greater understandings of learning and brain functioning, greater external pressures for accountability about learning, budgetary concerns, and a rejuvenation of interest in and the value of teaching across institutional types. The SoTL movement is a powerful force in helping us avoid “the great tragedy of teaching” which is the “collective amnesia” about what works and why in teaching and learning (Shulman, 2001).

Example Definitions To move forward on our discussion of doing SoTL, we must all be on the same page (or at least the same chapter in the same book!) in our understanding of the meaning of SoTL. I cannot begin to cite


5

the burgeoning literature on the meanings of the scholarship of teaching and learning that exists. Such writings include discussions about Boyer’s (1990) original idea of the scholarship of teaching, how more recent understandings differ from that idea, other conceptualizations of SoTL, disciplinary differences and similarities, comparisons to overlapping types of work, and related topics (see, for example, Braxton, Luckey, & Helland, 2002; Cambridge, 1999, 2000; Glassick, 2000; Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Healey, 2003b; Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Huber & Morreale, 2002; Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Kreber, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2005; Kreber & Cranton, 2000; McKinney, 2003b, 2004, 2006; Paulsen & Feldman, 2003, 2006; Rice, 1992; Richlin, 2003; Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin, & Prosser, 2000). We need to recognize the diversity in definitions or understandings of SoTL that exist even among experts in the field (e.g., Kreber, 2002a). I believe such diversity is mostly a good thing in that it makes sense and can be functional that the meaning of SoTL would vary by disciplinary, department, institutional, and national context. In addition, the field will likely be stronger with as inclusive a definition and understanding of SoTL as possible (Huber & Hutchings, 2005). Yet, communication and success in this social movement can also be hampered by the lack of shared meaning. For example, 90% of Carnegie Scholars (Cox, Huber, & Hutchings, 2004) agree or strongly agree that “confusion among faculty about what constitutes the scholarship of teaching and learning is an obstacle to greater faculty involvement in the scholarship of teaching and learning at my institution” (p. 148). Thus, I offer just a few example definitions for you to consider and discuss with colleagues. In addition, I propose some definitions of key terms for the purpose of delineating SoTL for the remainder of this book. For your work with colleagues, staff, and students on your campus or in other appropriate situations, I offer the following discussion questions about the meanings of SoTL that are useful in workshops, planning sessions, and similar settings: • How is SoTL defined or conceptualized in your discipline? How do you “know?” • Is SoTL different from scholarly teaching? How so?

6


• What aspects of a discipline and/or a department might affect the conceptualization of SoTL? In what ways? • How do colleagues on your campus define SoTL? • Is there or should there be a campus-wide, cross-discipline definition of SoTL? Why? Why not? What might that be? In early work at the Carnegie Foundation and AAHE, the following definition has been used: “problem posing about an issue of teaching or learning, study of the problem through methods appropriate to the disciplinary epistemologies, applications of results to practice, communication of results, self-reflection, and peer review” (Hutchings & Cambridge, 1999, p. 7). Richlin (2001) proposes, “The scholarship part of the process involves composing selected portions of the investigation and findings into a manuscript to be submitted to an appropriate journal or conference venue” (p. 61). Martin, Benjamin, Prosser, and Trigwell (1999) argue that the scholarship of teaching is three related activities: engagement with the existing knowledge on teaching and learning, self-reflection on teaching and learning in one’s discipline, and public sharing of ideas about teaching and learning within the discipline. Weston and McAlpine (2001) describe a continuum of growth and development toward the scholarship of teaching. This has three phases: 1) growth in one’s own teaching, 2) growth in dialogue with others about teaching and learning in the discipline, and 3) growth in the scholarship of teaching— developing scholarly knowledge with substantial impact in both the disciplinary and institutional settings. In Kreber’s work (2001c) using a Delphi study with various SoTL experts, there was high agreement and strong consensus on some statements defining SoTL. For example, this was the case for “Those who practice the scholarship of teaching carefully design ways to examine, interpret, and share learning about teaching. Thereby, they contribute to the scholarly community of their discipline” and “Engaging in classroom research is important but is not sufficient for the scholarship of teaching” (p. 15). Huber and Hutchings (2005) write: In the face of the different images of the scholarship of teaching and learning, the two of us have come to embrace a capacious view of the topic, wanting to draw this movement in the broad-


7

est possible terms—as a big tent, if you will, under which a wide range of work can thrive. The core of that work includes the kinds of inquiry and investigation that faculty are most likely to undertake when they examine and document teaching and learning in their classrooms in order to improve their practice and make it available to peers. (p. 4) Definitions vary by institution as I learned when I attempted to obtain some formal definitions of SoTL provided in various college and university documents. Colleagues from several universities shared these definitions with me. Many institutions appear to have no formal definition of SoTL. Others, such as Portland State University, have incorporated ideas from Boyer’s (1990) work into campus documents. At Belmont University (2006), a handbook describes faculty who are engaged in SoTL as those who consciously reflect on the goals, methods and strategies of teaching; who strive to create classroom communities where student learning is supported, encouraged and finely honed; and who strive continuously to refine their teaching methods and effectiveness and explore new methods. (pp. 57–58) Personnel policy documents at Buffalo State College (2003) discuss SoTL in the following way: The scholarship of teaching involves integrating the experience of teaching with the scholarship of research and producing a scholarly product out of those integrative activities. It is the ongoing and cumulative intellectual inquiry, through systematic observation and longitudinal investigation by faculty, into the impact of teaching on learning. Peer review is the evaluation of a scholarly product by an editor or editorial board, review committee, publisher, critic, established scholar or professional outside the scholar’s institution but authoritative in the scholar’s field. (§3, ¶s4–5) Though not suggesting a specific definition, Sperling (2003) offers an interesting discussion of the view and understanding of SoTL at community colleges. Sperling writes “This new ‘scholar-

8


ship’ encourages faculty to understand themselves both as practioners who can utilize research to enhance practice and researchers who can contribute to their profession through significant practice-based research” (p. 593). At Dominican University SoTL refers to “the scholarship of teaching which reflects on and systematically analyzes the learning process, then furthers an understanding of the process by communicating the scholarly results to the academy” (N. Carroll, personal communication, October, 2004). At Illinois State University, we have agreed to conceptualize SoTL as the systematic reflection/study of teaching and learning made public. This definition was written in an attempt to include a wide range of research (broadly defined) on teaching and learning in the disciplines that is presented, performed, or published. Additional ideas about SoTL in the context of different institutions are discussed in Chapter 8. Definitions may also vary by who we ask. For example, in a comparison of the understandings of SoTL by regular academic faculty/staff to those of SoTL experts, Kreber (2003b) reports that regular academic faculty/staff related the scholarship of teaching primarily to effective and good teaching. The experts, in comparison, tended to associate the concept with ideas about peer review and scholarship. In a small questionnaire study on one campus, results showed significantly greater awareness and understanding of SoTL by tenured and tenure-line faculty than by nontenure-track faculty and academic staff (McKinney, et al., 2004). Finally, often cited are the characteristics of scholarship and, thus, of SoTL. These are that scholarship is an act of intelligence that possesses at least three attributes: it becomes public; it becomes an object of critical review and evaluation by members of one’s community; and members of one’s community begin to use, build upon, and develop those acts of mind and creation. (Shulman, 1999, p. 15) I think you can see diversity as well as consistency or overlap in the many conceptualizations of SoTL. Perhaps most commonly shared are the notions of SoTL as involving some form of reflection on teaching and learning, and that this reflection or some product of the reflection is shared with peers.


9

Related Concepts The diversity of views on the meaning of SoTL is demonstrated by even the small number of conceptualizations of SoTL and the brief discussion of related literature presented in this chapter. Definitions vary in terms of breadth, ranging from a narrow definition specifying SoTL as a specific type of empirical research published in peer reviewed journals to a broad definition including many kinds of activities that involve reflection on teaching and learning with some sharing of that reflection. Definitions also vary on whether they emphasize process and/or product. Is SoTL the reflection or the inquiry and/or is it the presentation or publication? My definitional preferences, based on reading many others in the field (especially Hutchings & Shulman, 1999) and influenced by the contexts in which I work, are for the following distinctions among three related concepts: good teaching, scholarly teaching, and SoTL. These preferences are shared by many but certainly not all who are working in and writing about the field of SoTL. Though I recognize and accept the diversity of definitions, this book is written keeping these distinctions in mind. Though good teaching has been defined and operationalized in many ways (e.g., student satisfaction ratings, peer observation judgments, self-reflective portfolios), good teaching is that which promotes student learning and other desired student outcomes. Good teaching will support department, college, and institutional missions and objectives. Decades of SoTL and other educational research provide us with a great deal of information on the practices that help promote learning (e.g., Astin, 1993; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Scholarly teaching involves taking a scholarly approach to teaching just as we would take a scholarly approach to other areas of knowledge and practice. Scholarly teachers view teaching as a profession and the knowledge base on teaching and learning as a second discipline in which to develop expertise. Thus, scholarly teachers do things such as reflect on their teaching, use classroom assessment techniques, discuss teaching issues with colleagues, try new things, and read and apply the literature on teaching and learning in their discipline and, per-

10


haps, more generally. Scholarly teaching is closely linked to reflective practice (e.g., Brookfield, 1995; Schön, 1983). This conception of scholarly teaching is related to what Boyer (1990) labeled the scholarship of teaching. The scholarship of teaching and learning goes beyond scholarly teaching and involves systematic study of teaching and/or learning and the public sharing and review of such work through presentations, publications or performances. “Study” is broadly defined given disciplinary differences in epistemology and the need for interdisciplinary SoTL. SoTL, then, shares established criteria of scholarship in general, such as that it is made public, can be reviewed critically by members of the appropriate community, and can be built upon by others to advance the field (Shulman, 2001). SoTL focuses on teaching and learning at the college level, and is primarily classroom and disciplinary based. Ideally, SoTL also involves application and use. (McKinney, 2004, p. 8) Thus, though we should all be good and scholarly teachers, not everyone will choose to do SoTL as defined here—it is a research agenda. The focus of this book is on the scholarship of teaching and learning as defined above. There are, of course, other concepts and activities closely related to or overlapping with SoTL in addition to good teaching and scholarly teaching. Pat Hutchings (2002b) has noted that SoTL builds on many past traditions in higher education, including K–12 action research, classroom and program assessment, the reflective practice movement, peer review of teaching, traditional educational research, and faculty development efforts to enhance teaching and learning. Several books and articles on these topics are listed in the bibliography and additional resources pages of this book. Cross and Steadman (1996), in their book on classroom research, discuss the overlap between classroom assessment, classroom research, and SoTL: “Classroom Research may be simply defined as ongoing and cumulative intellectual inquiry by classroom teachers into the nature of teaching and learning in their own classrooms” (p. 2). “Classroom Assessment is usually the more limited concept . . . usually addresses the ‘what’ questions about classroom behaviors . . .


11

whereas Classroom Research is concerned with the ‘why’ questions” (p. 7). Both are seen as part of, or related to, SoTL but Pat Cross (personal communication, February, 2006) notes that her “emphasis in classroom research has been—and I think continues to be—on the intrinsic motivation of ‘wanting to know,’ in other words on teacher as life-long learner.” At workshops, I am often asked about the differences between SoTL and assessment (not assessment as in grading students but assessment as in gathering evidence of learning usually at the program level, often for formal purposes). I have made an explicit comparison between assessment and SoTL (McKinney, 2006), which I summarize below. It seems to me that there are differences in degree or emphasis on at least the following characteristics, though this is somewhat oversimplified. Obviously, this comparison depends on the general definitions of and assumptions about assessment and SoTL that you bring to the table. The purpose of assessment is primarily for internal use for improvement and limited external use for accountability. SoTL, on the other hand, is for internal use for improvement (though, unfortunately, less so than it should be) but also for wide public external use in terms of adding to the literature and shared knowledge base and for faculty productivity (via presentations, performances, and publications; see Chapter 7). The audience for assessment is usually a local audience and is not public; SoTL, by definition, is public. It can be local, but also is meant to be widely shared with an external audience as is traditional disciplinary scholarship. Due to these differences, SoTL work is more likely than assessment to be traditionally peer reviewed. In terms of a disciplinary base or focus, assessment may have either a disciplinary or broader (college, institution) focus. SoTL is very much discipline based though we now have increasing work across the disciplines (see Chapter 8). Assessment occurs at classroom, course, program/department, college, and institution levels but is often at the broader, more macro levels; SoTL is primarily at the classroom/course or program levels. In my experience, assessment work is much less likely than SoTL to draw (explicitly) on past research. As assessment work is for local, internal improvement and accountability, it is often not considered research in the sense of

12


requiring Institutional Review Board (IRB) review related to use of human subjects. SoTL research must have IRB review at some level due to the intent to make the work public via presentations, publications, performances, and so on (see Chapter 5). Both assessment work and SoTL use a wide range of methodologies to gather and analyze data but I think assessment, much more often than SoTL, uses institutional data, large surveys, and measures about things other than learning (e.g., retention, satisfaction, graduation rates). SoTL less often involves this type of data. In addition, SoTL often uses the methodologies known, used, and understood in the particular discipline, perhaps somewhat less true of assessment. Finally, in terms of resistance, I believe that assessment has had (especially years ago) more resistance from faculty and more acceptance (albeit resigned) by administrators. SoTL, in comparison, has greater acceptance by faculty and, perhaps, somewhat less interest by administrators—an implication being that SoTL can sometimes be used to encourage and support faculty involvement in assessment.

Conclusion SoTL has a long and growing history in higher education beginning, in fact, before the term SoTL was coined. Debates about how to define and understand SoTL continue and may never be resolved given different disciplinary emphases and institutional contexts. Yet, it seems to me that there is some agreement by those most involved in the SoTL movement and the differences that do exist are mostly a matter of degree. As I proceed in this practical guide to SoTL, my focus is on SoTL as the systematic reflection or study of teaching and learning made public.

CHAPTER TWO

Why Do SoTL?

In this chapter, I discuss the many positive functions of the scholarship of teaching and learning. These functions relate to views about the value of SoTL work and its fit in the reward structure. More specifics on documenting your SoTL projects and outcomes are discussed in Chapter 7. Finally, it is important to consider some of the ideas put forth by various authors about standards for quality SoTL.

Functions of SoTL The fact that you are reading this book would indicate you see some purpose to the scholarship of teaching and learning! Let’s make some of the issues around why we should do this work more explicit. Shulman (2000) wrote a classic piece on the topic of “Why a scholarship of teaching and learning?” He argues that there are three rationales for SoTL: professionalism, pragmatism, and policy. Essentially, it is our professional obligation to be scholars in our disciplines and as educators. In addition, SoTL is practical and will help us and others (as it is made public) improve teaching and learning. Finally, SoTL can help us provide evidence for important discussions about policy decisions. SoTL can serve many functions for disciplines, departments and institutions, faculty, staff, and students. Most importantly, SoTL has the function of improving student learning. In addition, however, we can use the process of doing SoTL and/or the results of SoTL work to do the following: 13

14

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •


Help with classroom and program assessment efforts Use in program review and accreditation Revitalize some senior faculty members Strengthen faculty development efforts Involve new networks and partnerships among faculty, staff, and students Strengthen K–12—higher education connections Provide research opportunities for students Bring in outside funding Add publications, presentations, and performances to faculty accomplishments Improve reflection on teaching and learning Become involved in a national/international higher education initiative Strengthen budget requests for operational or personnel funds Broaden graduate student training and preparing future faculty Increase faculty credentials for major internal and external teaching awards Demonstrate to faculty job candidates that you value teaching

Ed Kain’s work at Southwestern University illustrates several of these functions of SoTL, including involving students in research, obtaining external funding, forming partnerships between faculty and students, and adding to faculty accomplishments (personal communication, February, 2006). Kain received both internal funding and funding from the American Sociological Association (ASA) Teaching Enhancement Fund for an SoTL project involving faculty and student researchers that will culminate in at least one publication. Using content analysis, the students are examining course syllabi in sociology at two-year schools to see whether/how curriculum is incorporating the recommendations from a recent ASA task force report on the undergraduate major. Or consider some of the work in the field of physics: for example, the Activity-Based Physics Program. This work strengthens K–12—higher education and cross-institutional networks, brings in outside funding, adds to faculty accomplishments and more. As described on the program’s web site:

Why Do SoTL?

15

Activity-Based Physics is a multi-institutional project to sustain and enhance current efforts to render introductory physics courses more effective and exciting at both the secondary and college level. This program represents a collaborative effort by an informally constituted team of educational reformers to use the outcomes of physics education research along with flexible computer tools to develop activity-based models of physics instruction. This project includes the refinement of existing written materials, apparatus, instructional techniques, and computer software and hardware; the creation of new instructional materials and approaches; as well as classroom testing in different settings. (Dickinson College, 2003) The work is shared via the web site, presentations, publications, and workshops for instructors. I am seeing more articles published about how to combine SoTL with faculty development efforts related to teaching and learning (e.g., Cambridge, 2001; Healey, 2003a; Richlin & Cox, 2004; Saylor & Harper, 2003; Thompson, 2003). Others have written on SoTL as part of graduate training and preparing future faculty, including how common this is and what it looks like in a particular discipline (e.g., Cohen, 1997; Cohen, Barton, & Fast, 2000; Kreber, 2001b). Though there are many such examples of living the values and functions of SoTL, projects need not and often are not large and complex. It is my belief that most SoTL work is at the classroom level with improving the learning of one’s own students as the main function. The classroom is a critical point for intervention, but not a sufficient application or use of SoTL work in terms of the field (McKinney, 2003a). For a more detailed discussion of application see Chapter 9. The survey of Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) scholars conducted by Cox, Huber, and Hutchings (2004) also provides us with some information about the functions of SoTL. For example, 98% of these SoTL researchers agreed or strongly agreed that their involvement in SoTL has contributed to their excitement about teaching; 93% agreed or strongly agreed that they have changed the design of a course(s) since becoming involved in SoTL; 80% believed colleagues at their institution in other departments have been influenced by their SoTL work; 72%

16


agreed/strongly agreed that they have found new colleagues and communities outside of CASTL for work on teaching and learning and that their SoTL work has influenced teaching in their department beyond their personal practice; 71% agreed/strongly agreed that SoTL participation has led to a new career focus; 68% believe more of their students have achieved high standards of work since they became involved in SoTL; and 44% reported that SoTL is integrated into the priorities and initiatives of the institution. When asked, via an open-ended question, what do you see as the benefits to pursuing SoTL for faculty, staff, students, institutions, and the wider community, 70% of colleagues at my own institution indicated a response in the category “to improve teaching and learning.” In addition, on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), these colleagues had a mean response of 4.06 to the item, “SoTL has practical value” (McKinney, Broadbear, Gentry, Klass, Naylor, & Virgil, 2004). Thus, many faculty members see value and usefulness in SoTL.

Value and Fit in the Reward Structure Whenever and wherever I present about or conduct workshops on SoTL, the topics of value and reward are raised. Though related to the idea that SoTL is functional, SoTL having value and being rewarded are slightly different. Experts in Kreber’s (2001a) Delphi study were asked about their agreement with some statements related to unresolved issues, one of which was about value and reward. There was high agreement and strong consensus by these experts on the following statement: “The assessment, recognition, and reward of the scholarship of teaching and learning remain a primary challenge” (p. 16). Healey (2003b) conducted a study with 77 scholars in the U.K. who attended a teaching-related workshop or symposium. These respondents were split into almost equal thirds in disagreeing, being neutral, or agreeing with the following statement by Richlin (2001), “It will only be by separating the different activities [scholarly teaching and SoTL], and focusing on the scholarly process, that each can receive the honor and reward it deserves” (p. 67). Carnegie scholars report the following views about value and reward (Cox, Huber, & Hutchings, 2004). Thirty-seven percent

Why Do SoTL?

17

agree that department norms encourage participation in SoTL; 48% agree that SoTL is viewed favorably by the department when considering faculty job candidates; and 54% agree that top-level academic leaders at their institution have taken significant steps to support SoTL. The studies I just noted include findings from specialized groups: SoTL scholars and experts. An important task on many campuses or in many departments or disciplines is to assess the current status of SoTL, including value and reward in a local context and with a more diverse and representative group of respondents. As one detailed example, I offer the strategies used on my own campus to do this a number of years ago (McKinney, et al., 2004). We are preparing to redo this study in spring 2007 to compare changes over time. The goal of such research is to obtain data to improve planning and services that will enhance SoTL work and its application to improve teaching and learning on a campus. I encourage others to conduct similar research on the status of SoTL on your campus if you have not already done so. In order to assess the status of SoTL on our campus, two types of data were used: existing data and questionnaire data. First, by contacting chairpersons, research offices, and others or by reviewing published reports and web sites, we obtained the following types of existing data: • Titles of completed theses and dissertations in a one-year period that were coded as SoTL theses/dissertations (from the graduate school) • Titles of external grants received (as documented in an annual report from research and sponsored programs) in a one-year period that were coded as SoTL grants • Titles of university research grants administered through each college in a one-year period that were coded as SoTL grants • Titles of small grants from our teaching center in a one-year period that were coded as SoTL projects • Lists or examples of faculty SoTL presentations and publications in a one-year period based on annual faculty productivity reports

18


• Copies of department annual evaluation and tenure/promotion guidelines and if/where/how SoTL or related concepts were included • List of faculty positions in departments or colleges specifically designated as SoTL positions Second, an online questionnaire assessing understandings of, involvement in, and views of value and reward for SoTL was created. The questionnaire consisted of open- and closed-ended items (see Appendix A) and, after Institutional Review Board or ethics review, a request to complete the questionnaire was sent to random samples of tenured and tenure-line faculty, nontenure-line faculty, and lab school faculty and professional staff. From these two methodologies, we learned a number of things about the value and rewards of SoTL on our campus in 2002. Though the existing data had problems (it was often incomplete), we concluded that there was very little SoTL grant activity except in special internal SoTL grant programs and that departments are neither explicit nor consistent about the value of and rewards for SoTL in their tenure and promotion documents. The questionnaire results were also viewed with some caution due to a low response rate. Respondents were generally favorable toward SoTL work, reporting benefits to teaching and learning and agreeing with a variety of positive statements about SoTL. At the same time, they were ambiguous about how SoTL is valued and rewarded on our campus. Participants were neutral about whether SoTL is used at various levels on campus. The most common responses to how the university can promote SoTL fell in the category of monetary support, that is, increased funding or grants. A survey of faculty was also conducted at Buffalo State College (C. Albers, personal communication, February, 2006). Several of the items dealt with the value of SoTL. Eighty-three percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that those who do SoTL in their discipline make a valuable contribution to the college and profession; 93% believed that being aware of SoTL in the discipline is important for good teaching; and 60% agreed/strongly agreed that faculty who do SoTL are valued and supported at Buffalo State. Based on my experiences leading an SoTL Cluster (American Association for Higher Education and Carnegie) and giving SoTL

Why Do SoTL?

19

workshops at many institutions, I’ve found that the formal value of SoTL in the reward system is quite variable as you can imagine (or, perhaps, as you have experienced!). Context, history, and leadership of the department and institution are important factors here. Some personnel policies (annual evaluation or tenure and promotion) explicitly mention SoTL; most do not. How SoTL is defined, of course, influences where it fits in personnel documents and how it is valued. Of the CASTL scholars, 52% agreed/strongly agreed that their institutions have broadened the criteria for evaluating teaching in accordance with the ideas of SoTL. Only 20%–40%, however, felt that submitted SoTL work strengthened their case in various personnel decisions (e.g., hiring, tenure, promotion) and 79% agreed/strongly agreed that the tension between traditional research demands and SoTL is an obstacle to greater involvement in SoTL by faculty at their institution (Cox et al., 2004). On my campus in 2002, 94% of the respondents in the survey discussed earlier indicated that the impact of doing SoTL on their career would be neutral (48%) or negative (46%)! Mary Huber (2004) offers us a different lens with which to view issues surrounding value and reward of SoTL. Her book, Balancing Acts: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Academic Careers, consists of case studies of the SoTL careers of four faculty members in various disciplines and institutions (though, generally, all research institutions). The focus of these cases is on the career trajectory of these individuals, the ways this work was viewed by others, and the path to tenure and promotion. Shapiro (2006) writes about the slow and segmented changes in terms of value and reward for SoTL, especially in research universities: “Scholarly contributions to teaching and learning are considered add-ons. They are nice, and in some cases mandatory, but they do not mitigate demands for traditional disciplinary productivity” (p. 42). He argues this problem is structural and that upper level administrators must go beyond supportive rhetoric to truly equate the value of SoTL to traditional disciplinary research, including in the tenure and promotion process. I must also acknowledge that there have been recent papers critical of SoTL and its value in higher education—at least SoTL as these authors perceive it today. These papers have included Kreber’s (2005) piece taking a critical and postmodern view of SoTL with implications related to how we define SoTL, how we use SoTL, and

20


the content of our teaching. In addition, Nicholls (2004) argued that “the use of such language [scholarship] attempts to raise the importance of teaching by giving greater symbolic capital. Introducing the notion of scholarship in/of teaching into the academic community’s vocabulary . . . does not help the enhancement of teaching and learning” (p. 30). Based on an interview study of 25 academics in the U.K., he concluded that these individuals did not have an understanding of the scholarship of teaching and, thus, it could not be an accepted core professional value at that time. Finally, in a recent editorial in Change, Cross (2006) notes a problem in the SoTL movement: I think the pendulum is swinging too far toward pursuit of the extrinsic rewards of publication, scholarly recognition, and tenure. . . . the current overemphasis on research and publication is shifting the motivation for doing such work from intrinsic (the desire to know how one’s own teaching is affecting learning) to extrinsic (the desire for external recognition and reward). (p. 5) There are also probably biases in the research discussed earlier on perceptions of the value of SoTL in higher education, including that the studies often involve people who are already members of the SoTL choir such as CASTL scholars. Other studies attempt to randomly sample faculty and staff but are likely affected by a response bias where those interested in SoTL are more likely to respond. Thus, this research may not be documenting, empirically, some of the negative attitudes and resistance to SoTL on the part of some faculty and staff. Although there are many positive views about SoTL, those of us who have been active for years in the SoTL movement can, however, discuss some of these negative perceptions based on our faculty development work with colleagues, conversations at professional meetings, and attempts to influence positive change related to SoTL on campus. The following is a list of some of the common concerns and sources of resistance to SoTL that I have heard or others have shared with me: • SoTL is not really research or scholarship. • SoTL is poor quality research or scholarship.

Why Do SoTL?

21

• SoTL results cannot be generalized. • SoTL should not count as research or scholarship, but only as teaching. • Many faculty/staff lack the expertise to do SoTL. • There are insufficient resources (money, time, help) to do SoTL. • SoTL work will not be adequately valued and rewarded on campus. • SoTL work will not be adequately valued and rewarded in the discipline. • SoTL will take away from real research and scholarship in the field. • There is no network of SoTL scholars on campus. It is difficult, however, to know how widespread such beliefs may be or how valid they are in given institutions and disciplines. Do these statements ring familiar to you, on your campus or in your discipline? I have learned that some less than positive attitudes stem from an assumption that the definition of SoTL includes scholarly teaching and, perhaps, good teaching. This leads to the concern by some colleagues or administrators that, for example, attending a teaching workshop would count as scholarship. As I have defined terms in this book and as many others do, attending a teaching workshop is scholarly teaching, not SoTL and would not count under research or scholarship. Thus, I believe clarifying the meaning of terms and gathering data on the current status of SoTL in the local context are very important and useful. Perhaps as readers of this book, you can take an active role in starting or furthering such conversations and research.

Standards for SoTL Work What are the implications, then, for the quality of SoTL work? Can SoTL work be of good quality and how is that defined? The standards of scholarship include clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997). Theall and Centra (2001) discuss the following characteristics of SoTL that can

22


serve as criteria for assessing SoTL work at various levels (individual, department, institution): a “shared public account of teaching,” an “emphasis on learning outcomes and relevant teaching practices,” and “discipline and pedagogical knowledge and innovation” (pp. 37–39). Recently, several authors have proposed rubrics or checklists to help evaluate SoTL in terms of these or related standards (Bernstein, Burnett, Goodburn, & Savory, 2006; Savory, Burnett, & Goodburn, 2007). You might use or adapt these rubrics or checklists to facilitate important conversations on campus about standards, value, and rewards as well as to evaluate SoTL work. Weimer (2006) has also written on this critical issue, arguing that virtually every field has some literature containing flaws. SoTL, similar to other fields, has work both of questionable quality as well as of high quality. Further, she reminds us that standards vary by the particular approach to the scholarship that is used. Weimer outlines different, though often overlapping, standards for various forms of pedagogical scholarship (a concept closely related to SoTL as defined here). For example, she proposes five standards for the category of pedagogical scholarship she calls “personal accounts of change.” Such work should note the knowledge base that supports the change, critically analyze the change, report evidence that adaptation occurred, provide reasonable implications, and use appropriate assessment methods. In contrast, good research design, fit with the research methods, an interesting and relevant research question, and implications or generalizability are the standards she discusses for the category, “quantitative research.” Similarly, as I have written elsewhere: It is critical to maintain high standards in SoTL work. But what does that mean? . . . Do we always apply traditional standards of social science research such as large N sizes, preferences for quantitative work, settings beyond the local, application of macro level theories, and generalizability only in terms of probability samples? What then becomes of classroom research, for example, for those of us doing SoTL but not using quantitative questionnaires with students in mass classes of Introduction to Sociology across the nation? Can SoTL that uses small Ns, is local, qualitative, and social psychological, for example, offer

Why Do SoTL?

23

anything? I think so. I think there is value to readers of a strong and informative literature review, of modeling methodologies that might be replicated by others, of contributing a study that is one piece of the puzzle that forms an important picture in conjunction with other studies in the literature, of offering findings from students in one setting that provoke reflection, experimentation and changes in practice by other instructors in their settings, of helping to support existing theory or results from other literatures, and of confirming what we believe to be “obvious.” (McKinney, 2005, p. 418) If you are interested, there have also been some fairly recent, discipline-specific studies or discussions about standards and quality of SoTL work in discipline-based pedagogical journals (e.g., Bullard, 2002; Calder, Cutler, & Kelly, 2002; Chin, 2002; Frost & Fukami, 1997; Jenkins, 1997; Matthews, 2002; Perkins, 2004; Shaw, Fisher, & Southey, 1999).

Conclusion Ideally, SoTL can serve many positive functions for individuals, courses, programs, institutions, and higher education more broadly. We still have progress to make, however, on living up to this ideal. Value and reward for SoTL is highly variable and still problematic, but is on the increase in many disciplines and institutions. Resistance to SoTL work by faculty and administrators may be reduced when the meaning and uses of SoTL are clarified and better understood by such individuals. A number of authors have written about the standards that should be used to judge SoTL work which are, generally, broader applications of standards similar to other forms of scholarship.

CHAPTER THREE

How Do I Get Started?

For many of us, getting started on an SoTL project is exciting yet a bit overwhelming. In this chapter, I offer practical advice about many of the decisions we face as we begin to consider and plan an SoTL project. I begin by acknowledging some of the challenges for firsttime SoTL researchers (and, perhaps, the rest of us!). I continue with some strategies and examples for delineating your topic. I also offer a brief discussion on the development of theory and creating good definitions of your important concepts. Finally, I offer tips on ways to refine your questions and to successfully find relevant past literature.

Challenges for First Timers (and Others) In my work with faculty, staff, and students on SoTL projects, whether first-time SoTL researchers or those with a bit more experience, a number of challenges appear on the horizon for starting (and completing!) SoTL projects. Many of these same challenges were discussed in a recent session by University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire faculty members at the 2006 SoTL Colloquium in Madison. These challenges include finding and narrowing the research topic and moving to research questions, crossing from scholarly teaching to SoTL, finding and using appropriate extant literature, handling ethical issues and obtaining Institutional Review Board review, coping with time limitations and/or insufficient resources, finding others with whom to collaborate and doing so well, making measurement and methodological choices, analyzing and interpret25

26


ing data, finishing the work and making it public, and getting the work to count. Weimer (2006) notes some similar challenges or fears to those above and adds another: having something creative to report and getting published. What others are you or your colleagues facing? This and later chapters offer advice to help you overcome these challenges. Huber and Hutchings (2005) discuss pathways into SoTL. First, they note that SoTL scholars move into SoTL over time as interest, experience, and opportunities increase. Second, they discuss the importance of the discipline (see Chapter 8) in that these scholars often start with the expertise and understandings they have from their disciplinary background. Yet a third pathway is the role of interdisciplinary connections and collaborations that nurture and support SoTL work. I find the description of these pathways right on target as I strolled all three of these as I headed in the direction of SoTL as an area of research. In addition, I see the role of one or more of these pathways in encouraging involvement in SoTL by many of my colleagues. Have these been the pathways you have followed or are following as your SoTL activity increases? I find it useful to get started or help others get started on a possible SoTL project by providing the following types of discussion questions. Generally, I have individuals reflect on these, then talk about them with a partner, then share their thoughts, if possible, with others (the famous, “think-pair-share” discussion technique). Of course, you may only want to consider or have others consider various subsets of these questions depending on what point you or others are in doing SoTL work. I will provide information and resources related to these questions in this and later chapters of this book. I also return to this list of questions, providing a concrete set of example responses at the end of Chapter 6. 1. Think about a teaching and/or learning issue, problem, or question that you have about your students, a course, an assignment, a pedagogical strategy, your program, etc. Briefly state that issue, problem, or question as a question(s). 2. What do you know about this topic and about ways to study this question from the extant literature in your discipline and in higher education more broadly?


27

3. Given your question, what types of information or artifacts do you already have that will help you to answer this question? 4. Given your question, what other types of information or artifacts will you need (and from what sources) to answer this question? 5. Given your question and the information you need, what research strategies (e.g., self-reflective portfolio or other product, interviews, focus groups, analysis of existing data, content analysis, questionnaires, quasi-experiment, multimethods) might you use to obtain this information and answer this question? 6. What time frame will be most appropriate to answer your question? 7. What are some practical problems you might face in doing this study? What resources would you need and how might you obtain these? 8. What ethical issues should you consider in doing this study? 9. In what ways and in what outlets (broadly defined) will you be able to obtain peer feedback on this work and make this work public?

What Is the “Problem”? According to the survey of Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) scholars by Cox, Huber, and Hutchings (2004), 81% of these scholars rate “I had questions about my students’ learning that I wanted to explore” as a very important reason for their involvement in SoTL. Furthermore, there was strong consensus and high agreement by the experts in the Delphi study with the statement “Learning to pose questions about teaching and learning is a starting point in the scholarship of teaching and learning” (Kreber, 2001a, p. 15). Thus, a teaching-learning issue, question or problem is usually the place we begin. Laurie Richlin (2001) stated: The scholarly process begins with an observation, which identifies a problem or situation the teacher would like to improve or an opportunity the teacher would like to seize . . . A problem could be as simple as wanting to improve mathematics test

28


scores on a midterm or as complicated as wanting students to improve their critical thinking skills. An opportunity could present itself in the form of newly available technology or equipment. (p. 60) Hutchings (2000) describes a taxonomy of SoTL questions including “what is” questions, “what works” questions, visions of the possible, and questions related to developing new frameworks. “What is” questions move us toward a picture of what the problem or issue or behavior looks like. For example, you might ask, what is the current level of understanding by my students of this important disciplinary concept? “What works” questions, of course, engage us in finding evidence for the effectiveness of various strategies or interventions. Thus, you could ask, to what extent is this new assignment I added to this class impacting student learning of that skill? Visions of the possible relate to questions about what could be. This category would include a question such as, what would happen if I used learning logs to increase student reflection on their learning in this program? Finally, in developing new conceptual frameworks, we choose to answer questions that lead to new models and ways of understanding practice. For example, what themes or what typology emerge when I analyze student responses about what helps them to learn in this class? Many SoTL projects, of course, attempt to answer more than one of these questions. The case studies of SoTL in Hutchings’ (2000) book offer other examples of these types of questions and of scholars’ efforts to refine and answer the questions. Perhaps the most well-known statement on where to begin an SoTL project comes from Randy Bass (1999) who wrote the following: One telling measure of how differently teaching is regarded from traditional scholarship or research within the academy is what a difference it makes to have a “problem” in one versus the other. In scholarship and research, having a “problem” is at the heart of the investigation process; it is the compound of the generative questions around which all creative and productive activity revolves. But in one’s teaching, a “problem” is something you don’t want to have, and if you have one, you probably want to fix it. Asking a colleague about a problem in his or her


29

research is an invitation; asking about a problem in one’s teaching would probably seem like an accusation. Changing the status of the problem in teaching from terminal remediation to ongoing investigation is precisely what the movement for a scholarship of teaching is all about. (p. 1)

Example SoTL Research Topics and Questions Sometimes one of the best ways to think about your teaching-learning problem, issue, or question is to consider some of the SoTL questions posed by others. In this brief section, I provide a variety of examples from various disciplines and institutions. I begin with my own recent Carnegie Scholar SoTL project. The impetus to my project was that I was teaching our senior experience in sociology class—basically a senior capstone thesis course—where senior majors must design, conduct, and report on (oral presentation and written thesis) an original, empirical sociological research study in one semester (very small scale, of course!). Over the course of several semesters teaching this class, it became more and more obvious and distressing to me that some of the students, despite being senior majors about to graduate, lacked the level of understanding of the sociological imagination and of sociological research skills that I believed they should have. That is, I had a problem. In this case, a problem both in terms of something distressing and in terms of something that was available for inquiry. Reflecting on this issue led me to the literature on how students, especially majors, learn sociology. Unfortunately, I found very little. This then led me to the decision that I wanted to study how my own sociology senior majors believed they best learned my discipline as well as to uncover factors statistically associated with learning or success in the discipline. My two primary SoTL research questions, then, were the following: 1) What are senior sociology majors’ beliefs about how they best learn sociology? 2) What factors relate to learning or success in the major? Keep in mind, however, that SoTL teaching-learning problems or research questions can vary tremendously even within a discipline. For example, about 11 sociologists have been selected as Carnegie Scholars over the years of that program. Of these, seven focused their

30


SoTL work specifically on sociology students or courses. The topics of these projects included assessment of learning in the sociology major capstone (Catherine Berheide); practices of self-reflection in courses on disciplinary teaching preparation (Vaneeta D’Andrea); integrating service-learning into a principles of sociology course (John Eby); the use of web-based discussions to enhance student engagement and deep understanding (Caroline Persell); “stylized” assignments to improve performance (Deirdre Royster); and study in depth across the sociology curriculum and the sociology core (Ted Wagenaar). These projects, then, involve topics at micro and macro levels ranging from a focus on one pedagogical tool in one course to the status of SoTL in this discipline (see www.carnegiefoundation .org/programs/sub.asp?key=21&subkey=63&topkey=21). Next, let’s take a look at a few examples of SoTL research questions or topics from researchers in other disciplines at a range of institutions. Clark (2006) asked the following questions about students in an English course: What benefits and drawbacks do students see to service-learning, how do they view and assess the ideologies and assumptions of service-learning, and what do they find the most and least valuable about service-learning? The questions asked by Haavisto (2005) included whether the integration of developmental portfolios would improve students’ learning and understanding of their learning in an honor student colloquium. Prehar, McCarthy, and Tucker (2004) asked what factors influence the decision by business majors to participate in community service and how effective is a service-learning pedagogy in encouraging future involvement in community service. Questions about the impact of various pedagogical strategies (checklists, rubrics, email) on student grades and motivation in an introductory psychology class at a private university were the topic of work by Fleming (2001). The focus of a study by Denton, Adams, Blatt, and Lorish (2000) in a physical therapy graduate program was to determine whether a problem-based learning approach was as effective as a more traditional approach in promoting students’ abilities to perform essential job functions. Clinton and Kohlmeyer (2005) asked, what are the outcomes of group quizzes on students’ motivation to learn and their performance in accounting? Focusing on students at a Midwestern community college, Clark and Jones (2001) were interested in any


31

possible differences in student characteristics, apprehension, and quality of speeches between those who enrolled in online versus traditional sections of public speaking courses. For an American government class at a community college, Dille (2005) asked: Does engaging in community-based research enhance student learning? Finally, Chizmar (2005) studied the links between different grading schemes and learning in an economics course at a state university. Thus, we can readily see the wide range of “problems” and SoTL research questions within and across disciplines and institutions.

The Role of Theory and the Importance of Definitions Good inquiry on any topic generally has some form of theory, broadly defined. A theoretical approach may be deductive or inductive, or some combination of both. That is, you may begin with a general theory related to your teaching-learning problem or a broader, related area. This leads you to more specific questions, influences your definitions (see below) and data-gathering strategies, and is supported or not by your specific evidence (deductive). Or, you may begin with concrete and specific data, observations or evidence, and through analysis create a theory about your teaching-learning issue that emerges from this data (inductive or grounded). Often, but not always, quantitative studies are deductive and qualitative inquiries are inductive. I suggest you think about theory in a broad way. A theory is an explanation of an outcome or event, a set of assumptions and propositions about a phenomenon, or beliefs about how/why something happens. Theories can be paradigms that are, essentially, worldviews and can be applied to many/most phenomena in a broad area (e.g., general theories of human learning). There are also midrange theories or models that have a narrower focus (e.g., models of successful learning in a discipline). Finally, there are also very narrow models of a specific set of data or a specific phenomenon (e.g., how your students learned in a certain way in a given class). In other fields, these narrow models are often seen as less useful, because they cannot explain a great deal in a general sense. These narrow models, however, are not uncommon in SoTL work. Given our purpose of application to our own students, these models have a

32


purpose different from general application. The latter two categories of theories may come out of or derive from a particular paradigm. Theories also differ in their level of formality and whether they were created deductively or inductively, as noted earlier. Some characteristics of “good” theories include that they fit the data, are logically consistent, are testable, and are parsimonious (explain a lot with as little complexity as possible). If you need a little nudge for your theory development, consider these strategies and important processes when creating or adapting and applying theories to your SoTL topic and research questions: • Read up on theories related to teaching and learning in your field and in higher education in general. Some of my favorite readable and useable books containing theoretical ideas, broadly defined, related to teaching or learning include Bain (2004), Baxter Magolda (1999), Halpern and Hakel (2002), Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005; Leamnson (1999), Light (2001), Svinicki (2004), Tagg (2003), Weimer (2002), and Zull (2002). There are many more. • Consider if and how theoretical propositions and conceptual frameworks from your or a related discipline might relate to or help explain your teaching-learning problem. For example, what ideas from psychology or communication or sociology might be useful in shedding light on your topic? • Think about concepts and ideas that relate to and might inform your topic, and how these might be ordered and combined to create a model. You have implicit beliefs about the relationships among variables or differences between groups of students and so on; make these explicit. • Draw out your model in diagram form such as a concept map to help you articulate implicit theories and refine them. • Look at prior research on your topic, specifically, and borrow or adapt existing theories. • Make the adaptation and application of a theory to your topic very concrete and specific in a deductive process; don’t just repeat the general theory or model. For example, what can your theory or model tell us about the processes or the intervening variables between your independent and dependent variables, if


33

you designate such variables? How, exactly, would the assumptions and propositions in your model explain differences between groups on your variables? How does your theory account for the particular context of your teaching-learning problem? • Go from specific evidence to general patterns and themes when using an inductive or grounded approach to let the data lead you to a theory. • Talk through your theoretical ideas out loud and with others. Get feedback from colleagues and students with knowledge of the teaching-learning problem. Refine your ideas. • And, of course, cite and give appropriate credit to those from whom you borrow theory or models, including when you adapt someone else’s ideas. As you begin to refine your problem or question, you will also need to clarify your concepts for yourself and others as well as to best match your data-gathering technique and measurements to your concepts. Though exact uses of these terms vary a bit by discipline or epistemological assumptions, you need to consider nominal or conceptual definitions of your key concepts and variables as well as operational definitions (how you will measure these concepts and variables). A nominal or conceptual definition is a verbal, working definition of the term. There is no one perfect or exact such definition; there are usually many possibilities. Rather, you consider a variety of factors in forming your working nominal definition. What is key is that the way you choose to measure this concept or variable (your operational definition) matches or fits your nominal or conceptual definition. As this is all a bit abstract, let us consider a concrete example. I was interested in student success in the sociology major. What is success? How would I define it (nominal or conceptual)? How would I measure it (operational)? I had many ideas based on my observations of what I thought were more and less successful students. I read past studies. I discussed the concept with colleagues on a teaching sociology electronic discussion list. I thought about relevant theoretical perspectives on learning and achievement. I decided that my working definition of success and the one for which I needed measure-

34


ments was success as a multifaceted concept that involved academic achievement, the ability to apply a key way of thinking in sociology, and positive affect toward the discipline. Thus, success, in my studies, included measures of academic achievement such as sociology grade-point average and expected senior thesis grade, score on a question assessing the ability to use the sociological imagination, and the students’ self-perception of how engaged they were in the discipline of sociology. What are the key concepts in your SoTL problem or question? How would you define them? How have they been defined in the literature? Finally, remember that these definitions can, and likely will, evolve as your project progresses. In addition, if your approach is more inductive than deductive, as is often the case with qualitative designs and data, your definitions may, to varying degrees, emerge from the data rather than be set by you ahead of time.

Refining Your Question(s) Of course, there are a variety of strategies for further posing and refining SoTL research questions, most of which are similar to the strategies many of us use in our traditional disciplinary research. You will want to be aware of related ideas, questions, and research as you really do not want to reinvent the wheel. You may, however, want to repair the wheel or create a new wheel design or add a new spoke or check the wheel’s functions in a new environment. As noted earlier, our questions often come directly from our teaching experiences. Reflecting on and responding to the questions listed earlier in this chapter is also a useful strategy. Another is to discuss your ideas with colleagues in your discipline or those teaching the same course. Attending SoTL and teaching tips sessions at conferences will also be helpful. Check out some of the well-known and popular teaching and learning newsletters in higher education such as The National Teaching and Learning Forum or The Teaching Professor. Such newsletters may help you clarify or refine a research question and point you to related literature and colleagues working on similar questions. Reading the literature on teaching and learning in your field and especially research related to your teaching problem is critical.


35

Other sources for examples of, and refining your, SoTL research topics and questions include the pedagogical journals in your discipline and in higher education more generally (see what follows and Chapter 7). Read the web snapshots or project descriptions of CASTL Scholar work on the Carnegie Foundation web site. Check out the work posted to the web for the Visible Knowledge Project or the course portfolios on the National Repository for Course Portfolios (URLs for these web resources are in Appendix B). If you have the chance, try to become involved in an SoTL network through the Carnegie Foundation or your disciplinary society or on your campus. Your teaching problem and research questions will also likely be affected by practical and ethical (see Chapter 4) issues. On the practical side, what time frame do you have in which to do this work? That is, is there a deadline or a limited window of opportunity? How many hours can you devote to the project given the other professional and personal demands in your life? Given the research question, is a longitudinal study best? What type of funding, if any, do you have or might you find for this work? Will you have any assistance in terms of a colleague, graduate assistant, or undergraduate student? Do you have the expertise in terms of the best research methods and analyses to answer the research questions? Are the methods (broadly defined) typically used for scholarship in your discipline, and with which you have expertise, appropriate to your question? As you refine your question, search for literature, and begin designing your study, you will need to consider these and other practical limitations and supports. I offer some solutions later in the book. Other important advice in refining your question and moving your project forward includes the importance of finding, replicating, and building on past knowledge and research. You must find and consider the extant work involving related research questions and work in different disciplines or settings. For example, in some recent work on student engagement in sociology, I looked for related literature in sociology, other disciplines, and higher education more broadly. I looked for work on engagement but also for work on involvement, participation, motivation, and related concepts. Be sure to seek assistance from your expert library faculty in searching for past relevant SoTL work. Finally, keep the scope of the project reasonable (you can’t study everything at once!).

36


Searching for Literature Though SoTL work is often discipline-based, there are multiple potential sets of literature (and outlets) to check for prior related work. Most disciplines have discipline-specific pedagogical journals such as Communication Education or The Journal of Economic Education. In addition, there are now many online or traditional cross/interdisciplinary SoTL journals such as The Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, MountainRise, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, and College Teaching. There are teaching-learning journals that focus on narrower topics. For example, there is Active Learning in Higher Education or the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Finally, there are more traditional education journals including The Journal of Higher Education. On the up side, this means there is a wealth of potentially relevant prior literature for your SoTL project. On the down side, it means a somewhat confusing search in areas and outlets with which you may not be familiar. For a nice list of many of these journals, see Appendix C. To find live links to the journal web sites, go to www.ilstu.edu/~sknaylor/sotl.htm. What does this literature look like? Weimer (2006), in a detailed and elaborate review of pedagogical scholarship, outlines the features of this literature focusing specifically on pedagogical scholarship by practioners published in scholarly journals or magazines, especially discipline-specific outlets. She lists the following characteristics of this work: Editors are usually college faculty and have some type of editorial board assisting them; the work is peer reviewed, often via blind review, by those in the same or a similar field to the author; rejection rates vary but are on the rise; the journals are published anywhere from annually to monthly; most look like traditional academic journals but some look more like magazines; the discipline-based journals usually have some type of relationship with a disciplinary association or society; advertising is often included in the journals; most outlets provide for a variety of different types of content such as notes, featured articles, brief tip or best practice pieces, commentaries, book reviews; audiences vary but are primarily college faculty, sometimes also primary or secondary faculty; and the content, both topics and methods, is so varied it can not be readily summarized. Weimer (2006) also notes five key features of past published scholarly work on teaching and learning. First, the work is applied as


37

it is most often about how to teach. Second, the literature is a mixture of experience-based and research-based work. Third, the content of this body of work is very diverse, covering a tremendous range of issues and topics. Fourth, the literature goes beyond content and method, including more holistic aspects such as affect and development. Finally, though much of the work is based in a disciplinary context, there are more shared characteristics and issues across the disciplines than there are distinct ones (see Chapter 8). New resources for finding extant SoTL work and literature are being developed and refined all the time. For example, in work related to the Visible Knowledge Project (VKP) at Georgetown University and through a Carnegie SoTL Cluster, an online index is being created to access online representations of SoTL work, including that by Carnegie Scholars, SoTL descriptions posted on the VKP pages, and projects in a University of Kansas SoTL repository. As the index progresses, other repositories of SoTL work as well as articles will be added to the searchable index. In addition, a repository (and index) of course portfolios is being developed through the work of an SoTL Cluster and housed at the University of Nebraska. (URLs are in Appendix B). The final pages of this section on types of and searching for literature were written specifically for this book by Sharon Naylor, faculty member in Milner Library at Illinois State University. Naylor’s expertise is in educational literature, and she has been active in SoTL support efforts and our CASTL involvement on campus. She offers the following information and advice (personal communication, May, 2006): Conducting a thorough literature review when researching areas related to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning requires using several different strategies. Traditional database searching, while useful for locating peer-reviewed journal articles, will probably not prove to be as comprehensive as researchers may have come to expect when conducting research in other disciplines. Similar to most disciplinary areas, SoTL has a relatively small core of journals that are recognized as key resources. Because SoTL falls under the larger category of education, relevant articles will also appear in education-related

38


journals that do not have SoTL as a primary focus. Additionally, as SoTL is frequently conducted within disciplinary boundaries, journals related to teaching in specific disciplines also constitute an important body of information. In general, those journals falling into the larger category of education and those journals related to teaching in specific disciplines have been in existence longer and receive more thorough coverage in standard databases. The common theme running through all of the relevant journals is education, and the primary database for searching education-related topics is ERIC. ERIC is by far the largest database for education and is available from numerous vendors as well as being free from a government site. It would appear to be the obvious best choice. However, only 10 of the 26 titles identified at www.ilstu.edu/~sknaylor/sotl.htm as core SoTL journals/newsletters are indexed in ERIC. Another smaller education-related database is Wilson’s Education Abstracts (although the title might vary slightly depending on the vendor). Only four of the core SoTL journals are indexed in this database. Another alternative would be to turn to a larger, interdisciplinary database. EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier falls into this category and is available to many researchers, but it indexes only eight of the 26 core journals. The indexing in Academic Search Premier in general is more current than the indexing in ERIC, so it may be an attractive alternative for searching the eight journals it does cover, but it clearly will not be sufficient. The majority of the journals related to teaching in specific subject disciplines are indexed only in ERIC. So while ERIC will probably prove to be the best source of citations for journal articles, there are some clear limitations. SoTL, like other disciplines, is turning to the Internet as a publisher. Several of the core journals, e.g., MountainRise, Journal of Cognitive and Affective Learning, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Inventio, and The Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, are available only online. Although these are peer-reviewed publications, indexing services have been slow to add online publications.


39

Internet search engines such as Google probably provide the best access, but important articles may not rise to the top of results lists unless the journal title is included in the search strategy. Working from reference lists and bibliographies has traditionally been a valuable research strategy and this is particularly true in the area of SoTL. Utilizing bibliographies in extant articles or web sites as a starting point could potentially save hours of time, and in some cases may be critical to success. Identifying relevant books also involves challenges. The most relevant Library of Congress subject heading is “college teaching” and an analysis of the books included in standard bibliographies indicates that this subject heading has been almost universally applied. “College teaching,” however, includes many titles that do not qualify as SoTL. Many of the topics scholars may be researching will not have specific Library of Congress subject headings. Combining the subject heading “college teaching” with another key word may be the best strategy. The bottom line, however, is that the library catalog records may not supply enough information to allow the searcher to easily retrieve the most relevant books. Once again, utilizing existing bibliographies should prove to be extremely valuable. Although the focus of the previous paragraphs has been on locating traditional sources, both books and peer-reviewed journal articles, numerous web sites include valuable information and excellent bibliographies. Several university teaching centers have extensive web sites that provide a wealth of up-to-date information. The web sites of organizations such as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching will also prove invaluable to researchers. The key to successful literature reviews involves combining traditional searching techniques with mining information compiled by researchers familiar with the literature. This strategy, of course, is how researchers generally approach completing literature reviews, but in the case of SoTL, one can probably anticipate placing somewhat more emphasis on the use of existing bibliographies and knowledgeable colleagues.

40


Conclusion SoTL researchers face a range of challenges in starting this work. Starting an SoTL project is quite similar to starting other research and scholarly activities. We have a problem, issue, speculation, inspiration—about teaching and learning that triggers a desire to know more. These problems are positive events in that they lead to action to further the knowledge base and improve teaching and learning. As staff at the Carnegie Foundation often remind scholars, the need to know may be the need to know what is, what works, and/or what if. We proceed by situating our project in the past literature, replicating and building on this extant work. We also must consider theoretical frameworks and the meanings of the concepts in our teaching-learning problem. There can be some special issues in searching for past SoTL literature, but there are many feasible strategies to find relevant literature, including checking key SoTL journals, working from other bibliographies, using electronic databases, and getting assistance from library faculty and colleagues doing SoTL work.

CHAPTER FOUR

How Can I Move My Project Forward? In this chapter, I continue the discussion of getting started on SoTL projects. I argue for the benefits of doing SoTL collaboratively and for involving students as coresearchers, providing concrete suggestions related to both topics. I then offer some strategies to help you integrate SoTL into other areas of your professional life. Finally, I suggest tips for grant writing and ideas about other possible resources for your SoTL work.

The Importance of Collaboration Collaborations With Colleagues Just as teaching should be community property (Shulman, 1993), so should the processes, products, and applications of SoTL. Collaborating with colleagues and sharing expertise is critical to your SoTL work. Regardless of discipline or department and institutional context, it is likely that you have one or more colleagues who do, use, or read SoTL work. Looking at data from some recent surveys gives us a sense of the levels of participation by faculty members in SoTL work. By definition, the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) Scholars all participated in SoTL, broadly defined. But there is some variability in participation. For example, 88% of the scholars indicated they have worked with colleagues at their institution in framing and investigating questions about teaching and learning and 89% reported working on a current SoTL project (Cox, Huber, & Hutchings, 2004). 41

42


Relevant data also come from a national study of faculty in four disciplines at five types of institutions about all four domains of Boyer’s scholarship (Braxton, Luckey, & Helland, 2002). These researchers asked about three sets of activities under the scholarship of teaching. Some of the second set of activities and the third set fit the definition of SoTL used here: unpublished scholarly outcomes on teaching and learning (e.g., presentations, creation of new materials) and publications on teaching and learning. While 99.4% of the respondents report one or more unpublished scholarly teaching outcomes in the last three years, only 25.3% report one or more publications in the domain of the scholarship of teaching in the prior three years. Thus, this study indicates that making SoTL public often occurs in ways other than traditional publications (see Chapter 7). It may also be the case that some of the unpublished scholarly products of the years just prior to the study were still working their way through the sometimes lengthy publication process. When we look at data from two campus-level surveys, we find additional information on involvement and collaboration. On my campus in 2002, 31% of a probability sample of faculty and academic staff indicated they had conducted SoTL work. Twenty-nine percent reported they collaborated with colleagues on at least some of this work (McKinney, Broadbear, Gentry, Klass, Naylor, & Virgil, 2004). At Buffalo State, 59% of faculty respondents strongly agreed or agreed that “some of my current research agenda involves studies that could be classified as SoTL” (C. Albers, personal communication, February, 2006). Finally, a third of the Buffalo State sample strongly agreed or agreed that they are interested in starting new studies related to teaching and learning. Thus, most of you should have colleagues at your institution and in your discipline with whom you can brainstorm on SoTL ideas and conduct SoTL work. In an effort to provide a way for individuals interested in networking or collaborating with others on SoTL projects, our CASTL Cluster, “Organizing to Foster the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” created the SoTL Collaboration Database (see Appendix B for the web site). This is a simple online database. You enter and first must register by adding your profile and saving that. When you enter again you may edit your profile as well as search the database for others. You can search by a variety of factors including name,

How Can I Move My Project Forward?

43

institution, discipline, and SoTL area interests. The number of people self-registered at this time is small but I urge all of you to register on this database and search for colleagues with whom to network on SoTL projects. Collaboration in SoTL work can take a variety of forms just as it does for our traditional disciplinary scholarship. You may choose to work independently yet brainstorm and discuss your projects at various phases with colleagues, gathering ideas about refining your question or measuring concepts, for example. At the other end of your project, colleagues can read or view drafts of your work serving as informal peer reviewers before you formally make your work public. Collaboration can be deeper and more structured or formal by working with a colleague(s) who plays a consultant role assisting you in a variety of ways with his or her expertise in, for example, methods or statistics, or working in research or writing circles to move multiple projects along. A useful book on writing that includes ideas for writing circles, suggested readings on writing, as well as tips on completing your writing is Rankin (2001), The Work of Writing. Another form of collaboration in SoTL work involves two or more of you sharing a research question but gathering data in different courses, departments, or institutions. You can then pool your data and work together on the analysis, interpretation, making public, and application of results. Finally, you may choose to collaborate with a coresearcher with whom you engage in all phases of the project from start to finish. Of course, all such collaborations should be acknowledged in a thank you footnote, by coauthorship, with compensation, or via other appropriate means.

Involving Students as Coresearchers Obviously students are most often involved in SoTL as the subject of the research, that is, as our research participants. Certain methodologies (see Chapter 6) are better than others, however, at obtaining the student voice. Giving students the opportunity to express in more detail and in their own words attitudes and actions related to teaching and learning is important to our SoTL work. For example, colleagues in my cohort of Carnegie Scholars used the following strategies to obtain data in ways that give voice to students. These scholars generally used two or more of these methods.

44

• • • •


Interviews Focus groups Think-alouds Content analysis of student journals or logs

In what specific ways might students be involved in SoTL beyond their role as research subjects or participants? If we think about how any colleague or research partner could be involved in scholarly work with us, we can generate a continuum of potential forms of student collaboration ranging from subject or participant only to full-fledged collaborator. Thus, in addition to being the research participant in our SoTL work, students can remain as participants but also serve as validity “checkers” of our initial data summaries or interpretation, especially in qualitative work. For example, after interviewing students about their study behaviors for our class or major, we can ask them to read our account of their interview and let us know whether this seems valid to them. Students can help us to refine our research questions, think about a conceptual framework, and design a study. They often have good insight into interview probes or questionnaire items that did not occur to us. With proper training and guidance, they may contribute to and learn from engaging in important research tasks such as library searches, summaries of past work, administering questionnaires, conducting interviews, inputting or analyzing data, coauthoring reports or papers, copresenting the research findings, developing applications of the SoTL results and reflections, and helping to implement applications. Involving students, not merely as research participants, but as coresearchers in our SoTL work is a critical tenet of this work. As noted in Chapter 5, involving students in various phases of SoTL projects is one way to decrease potential ethical problems. In addition, the student perspective or student voice can enhance the design of the study and the interpretation of the data. Furthermore, this activity provides a special and important learning opportunity for our students, which we hope will enhance learner motivation and autonomy (an empirical question for another SoTL study!). You should also think about whether and how to reward or compensate students for their help. One reward, of course, is the intrinsic value of the experience. In addition, there is the public recognition of


45

their efforts. If possible and appropriate, however, consider offering independent study research credit or funding student research assistants. Faculty and staff working with students on SoTL work should be careful and honest about students’ contributions and, therefore, their place as coauthors or in terms of other recognitions. A few examples are in order. In my Carnegie Scholars project discussed earlier, I had graduate research assistants involved in various aspects of the project: literature searches, distributing questionnaires, conducting interviews, and inputting data into SPSS. These assistants, as appropriate, were either thanked in the cover page footnote or were second author on a published research note. On a more informal level, I have presented preliminary qualitative findings to students (not participants) and asked for their reactions and interpretations. In the work that examines course syllabi, undergraduate students are fully involved as coresearchers in many phases of the project (E. Kain, personal communication, February, 2006). One of the CASTL SoTL Clusters, “Sustaining Student Voices in SoTL,” focused on the role of students in SoTL at five institutions. Structures used to obtain the student voice included 1) a campus-wide group of individuals who met in weekly study groups to discuss institutional issues related to teaching and learning, 2) support of SoTL research by various campus offices, 3) a student-led research group working with faculty members, and 4) teaching centers offering various services to facilitate faculty-student collaborations (see www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=9843158). In the latest phase of CASTL work, the CASTL Leadership Program, one of the themed groups of institutions is focusing on “Student Voices in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” Over the next three years our institutions will be involving students in various ways in SoTL projects and making those projects and the students’ efforts public in presentations and publications with the students. In the internal SoTL grant program that I administer, proposals must come from a team of researchers, at least one of whom must be an undergraduate or graduate student. For example, psychology colleagues (Creasey, Jarvis, & Gadke, 2006) have conducted a questionnaire study assessing the role of contextual (e.g., classroom size), student (e.g., attachment), and instructor (teacher immediacy) variables influencing achievement motivation and learner autonomy.

46


The student member of the research team helped gather relevant literature, pilot all study materials, recruit participants, and collect all of the data. In addition, he entered all of the data and helped with data analysis and interpretation. The student attended the sessions of our grant recipient research circles when possible. He is also included as an author on the most recent SoTL convention submission and will be coauthor and funded in yet another related SoTL grant with these researchers. Thus, institutional structures, including grant programs, can be used to encourage and facilitate the involvement of students in our SoTL work.

Integrating SoTL Projects Into Your Existing Professional Life and Workload Given the concern, so often expressed, that SoTL is an “add on” to our workload and that there simply is not enough time to do SoTL, I offer some tips in this section. This is part of the juggling act of SoTL. First, I ask that you go back to Chapter 1 and remind yourself of the many, positive functions that SoTL can serve. Second, I ask you to remind yourself that, ethically, any activity that can improve our teaching and enhance student learning is something we must seriously consider doing—time consuming or not. Third, SoTL may, in the long run, help you be more efficient by, for example, dropping a time-consuming assignment that is not helping learning or changing how you grade. Finally, I suggest that there are ways to do SoTL more efficiently, that is, to integrate SoTL work into your current workload and professional life. In what follows, I offer some of these strategies and raise questions for you to consider in order to help you better integrate this work into your current workload and professional life. One way to do this is to attach your SoTL work to existing campus priorities and initiatives (e.g., assessment, program review, strategic planning, budget process). For example, on my campus we are heavily invested in the first-year experience, the American Democracy Project, and CASTL, as noted above. I plan to ask faculty members in future SoTL grant calls to think about projects related to these initiatives. Colleagues already involved in committees or other structures working in these areas can integrate an SoTL proj-


47

ect into that assignment. Thus, I suggest you consider the following questions. What are at least two key campus priorities and initiatives on your campus? How might SoTL work fit with or support these? What resources (broadly defined) might you obtain for SoTL from these priorities or initiatives? Who do you need to contact to help with this? Consider the various internal pots of funds already in existence on your campus. Many institutions have a wide range of such funding opportunities at department, college, or university levels. Writing for such grants is likely already an existing expectation and one that is usually rewarded. What types of programs or funds exist in internal competitions that might be used for SoTL work? Are there internal research grant programs? What about grant or development programs from a teaching center? How can you find out? How will these grants be valued should you obtain them? Integrate SoTL with as many of your other professional roles as possible: teaching, traditional research, committee/service work. Design SoTL projects where the teaching-learning problem is of strong intrinsic interest to you and connects to your traditional, scholarly research. For example, perhaps you are a developmental psychologist who studies self-esteem and you are interested in selfesteem and promoting learner autonomy in your late adolescent students. Or maybe you are in theater and are curious about the value of role playing for learning controversial ideas. Second, relate SoTL to something you are already doing in your teaching role. For instance, you use journaling in your class so you add a requirement that students write about their reflections on their learning from a specific course assignment. With IRB approval, you can then use this as SoTL data. Third, connect SoTL to the committee/service work in which you are already involved. If you sit on the department curriculum committee, for example, gather SoTL data to help you make decisions about curricula and share this both locally and beyond. Ask yourself now about one or more concrete connections you can make between an SoTL project and other aspects of your professional life. Connect SoTL to other more general teaching support or faculty development opportunities. SoTL can sometimes be a part of or supported by teaching support opportunities in which you are already involved or could be involved. What I am thinking of here

48


are opportunities such as teaching circles, teaching brown bags or seminars, and teaching conferences. In these settings, SoTL work could be presented by local researchers, the published SoTL work of others could be discussed, and so on. What are two such possibilities in your department or on your campus? (See Chapter 8.) Use team work. Team work helps you share the labor, generate good ideas, and keep on track (see also the earlier discussion of collaboration). Collaborators could be colleagues, staff, students, or alumni. They may be on your campus or elsewhere. They may be in your discipline or in another (see Chapter 8). In the grant programs over which I supervise, I require team rather than individual submission. For Carnegie Scholars, team projects are sometimes accepted and even those doing individual projects work in “critical friend” teams and small groups for peer review and feedback. Specifically, with whom could you collaborate on SoTL work? Who would you like to have on your team? What would you have to offer to this collaboration? What would you like others to contribute that could help you and the project? How might you find such people? Apply the results of your SoTL work to improve teaching and learning, and “efficiency” of good teaching and learning. Consider specific and concrete applications of your SoTL results. Often, what we learn from SoTL can help us teach better and/or more efficiently. These SoTL results could be from a study you conducted or from reading studies conducted by other people in the SoTL literature. You might learn from your SoTL work, for example, that your students improve to a greater degree in their writing of papers with revised multiple drafts, peer review, and example edits from you compared to you reading one or more drafts and correcting every error or making detailed edits yourself. How can you apply some SoTL results to your own teaching in order to increase learning without significant increases in your time and effort? (See Chapter 9.)

Resources for SoTL Work Think Outside the Box: Resources Broadly Defined Though I write more about institutional support for SoTL in Chapter 8, here I discuss resources (broadly defined) to look for and consider as you get started on an SoTL project. These are resources


49

that may exist or could be created at the department, discipline, institutional, and national levels. Do not be afraid to ask! The worst that can happen is someone says no. This list, as well as the funding sources that follow, was developed in collaboration with my colleague, Patricia Jarvis, and then elaborated on during a discussion on funding for SoTL entitled “Show Me the Money . . . ” at the 2005 International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning meetings in Vancouver: • Get students involved in the work as research assistants. • Work with honors program students on SoTL work (at some schools students in the honors program must engage in research with faculty and receive pay or credit through the honors program). • Supervise thesis and dissertation SoTL projects. • Add an SoTL piece to a discipline grant as an evaluation or assessment component. • Look for resources for SoTL, such as small grants, in disciplinary associations (the American Sociological Association Teaching Enhancement Fund grant program is one example). • Apply for internal grants from teaching centers or other campus programs (see Appendix D). • Include SoTL projects in more traditional internal research grant programs. • Connect SoTL work to department or program assessment studies and use assessment resources. • Develop and/or get involved in teaching-learning communities (TLCs) and summer institutes/seminars/workshops on teaching and/or SoTL; there may be funds associated with such participation. • Seek support from alumni classes (e.g., 10 years, 20 years) or major donors. At many colleges and universities, alumni classes support a specific SoTL project. Their contributions would go into an endowment account for that project. Such an account can provide SoTL initiatives with independence from administrative support and increase the program offerings of the teaching/learning center. (The Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning at the Georgia Institute of Technology

50

•

•

• • •


has such a program. My own position as Endowed Chair in SoTL was created from a gift by K. Patricia Cross.) Register on the SoTL Researcher Database and network with other SoTL researchers at other schools to pool your resources (www.sotl.ilstu.edu/sotlcollaboration/). Check out resources and opportunities in national and international SoTL initiatives such as the Carnegie Scholar program. Large-scale projects might be funded via foundation, state, or federal grants (see next section). Request reassigned faculty time for doing and applying SoTL. Write a sabbatical request around a SoTL project.

Tips for Grant Writing Though most SoTL work is probably accomplished without extra funding, seeking funds is a good idea. Do not, however, hesitate to engage in SoTL without special funding, if that is feasible for you. Grants do, however, allow you to conduct larger, more long-term projects, collaborate more broadly, and fund student researchers and travel. You also generally receive credit and reward for the grant itself. There are many sources with advice related to writing grants (e.g., Ogden, 1991; Reis & Leukefeld, 1995). Thus, in this section, I briefly suggest some general tips for grant writing—many of you will already be familiar with these. I also offer a few comments about SoTL grants, more specifically, as well as resources for funding. Writing a grant is similar to conducting research, writing an article, and submitting something for publication. That is, the process and product (proposal and submission) share features with the research process (e.g., having an innovative idea or question, reviewing past literature), the writing process (e.g., doing multiple drafts, obtaining feedback), and the submission process (e.g., looking for a good fit, following guidelines). It is not always quite clear where to begin. That is, do you start with your idea? Or do you start with hunting for requests for proposals (RFPs)? In actuality, there is a dialectic and a balance between these two starting points. You must have a very good idea—something innovative, exciting, with strong potential impact. Your objec-


51

tives must be clear. Yet, you must also find an organization interested in funding that idea, in that area—an organization with a mission and interest in your topic. Generally, then, you will have an idea for a SoTL project probably arising directly from a teaching-learning issue or problem. As you look for funding sources and RFPs, you will likely need to adapt somewhat or add to or make an argument for your problem/issue to increase the fit between that and the funding area of the RFP. You should contact the relevant person, usually the program officer, at a potential funding agency or organization to discuss your idea and obtain some feedback on the chances of funding or how the idea might better fit the RFP. You may also want to discuss your idea with a colleague who has received funding from or reviewed for the agency or organization. You will need to consider the deadline(s) for the proposal in light of any time frames you must manage due to collecting data in a given course at a given time or within the limited time frame of a typical semester. SoTL, therefore, is often somewhat inflexible in terms of timing. Other time constraints include having to gather pilot data if appropriate, obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) review or exemption (see Chapter 5), and following the institutional submission process and paperwork for external grants. Given that you must meet grant proposal deadlines, sometimes this means waiting to submit to a later round of the grant program than you initially hoped. Along with your great idea and clear objectives that fit the grant RFP, you will want to engage the reviewers early in the proposal with a brief but relevant and fascinating anecdote, data, or argument. For SoTL, you need to encourage the level of passion and excitement you have about the teaching-learning issue in the reviewers reading your proposal. Consider your audience and the language you use in the proposal in terms of jargon and technical language. For SoTL, we have to remember (especially for other types of grants where SoTL is one component) that many people are still unfamiliar with SoTL—what it is, appropriate standards for evaluation, its value. Thus, you may choose to do some tactful educating of the reviewers in terms of a brief discussion of these issues with appropriate scholarly sources about SoTL (there are many useful ones cited in this book). A context is also critical, both a local context as well as situating the work in the past literature and frameworks. As Sharon Naylor

52


and I have discussed, searching for literature for an SoTL project can be a bit tricky and requires us to look in multiple prior literatures. As in any grant proposal, you should be complete but concise, very clear, and follow all guidelines (e.g., format, deadlines, required and optional information, budget details). Organizing your proposal with sections and headings that mirror exactly what is requested in the guidelines is very important. Do not forget any parts! For SoTL work, you need to be especially clear about methodology and outcomes or impact. In the case of SoTL, be sure to talk about the benefits to student learning, not simply how you will change your teaching. Find the criteria for evaluation of the proposal and be certain you address all of these explicitly. You may have to be creative or very explicit in some cases to show that the SoTL grant meets the criteria. Some common criteria for scholarly research grants include the importance and uniqueness of the idea, a clear and appropriate methodology, an appropriate time frame for the project, the potential for powerful outcomes and impact, an investigator(s) who is qualified (you will want to demonstrate your experience in research and grants in general and for SoTL specifically), facilities that are acceptable (for SoTL this may be an appropriate course or context, support from a teaching center, or local expertise), a reasonable and well justified budget, and strategies for dissemination. Given all the web sites, conferences, and publication outlets now available for SoTL work, there is much you can say for the latter (see Chapter 7). You must, of course, write multiple drafts, get feedback from colleagues—those familiar with SoTL and those who are not—and revise and rewrite. If not funded, consider reviewer feedback, find another RFP to which your idea can fit, revise, and try again! Experts indicate that proposals are not funded for a range of reasons, but most commonly for the following reasons—all of which can happen in an SoTL grant proposal: inappropriate or inadequately described methods or approaches (including measures and outcomes), insignificant or illogical or unclear problem or topic, limited qualifications or experience of the investigators, and concerns about the budget (e.g., Coley & Scheinberg, 1990). In addition, those of us who have done many grant reviews would add to that list both a lack of fit between the project and the program objectives and not addressing all the criteria explicitly in the proposal. For assistance in addition to


53

grant officers and colleagues, seek out the staff in your college and university research and budget offices. Look for grant writing workshops on campus or elsewhere.

SoTL Funding Opportunities Funding opportunities for SoTL work are generally one of two types. First, there are sources or grants that are explicitly for SoTL work. Generally, outside the field of education these are not yet very common and most likely to be small and local. Second, there are other types of sources or grants where an SoTL project could be a component of another, larger grant. Examples of the latter are an assessment grant or a curriculum reform grant where some of the research or the evaluation component is SoTL. In addition, you can look for both internal and external sources of funds. Funding opportunities are still a challenge for SoTL work, however. For example, of the CASTL scholars, 35% indicated there was no campus funding for projects on teaching and learning; another 17% indicated funding existed but was not important for their work. Similarly, 41% reported no funding from external sources and another 12% indicated external funding was present but not important (Cox, Huber, & Hutchings, 2004). As noted earlier, check out the grants given, internally, at your institution. There may be general research grants that allow SoTL topics, as well as SoTL grants specifically. There may be various grant programs through your teaching center or a similar structure that can be SoTL or have an SoTL component. These often provide “seed” money or money for small projects. These grants, then, can often get you started with some funding on a project relevant to your campus and one that colleagues value. There are numerous web sites and books designed to list funding agencies and help people find grants (of all types and in all areas). For example, the University of Wisconsin Grants Information Collection has many useful links at http://grants.library.wisc.edu/organizations/ proposalwebsites.html. In the past, though these are always changing, I or my colleagues have come across some possible external sources of funding for SoTL work or projects with an SoTL component. Some of these, of course, are restricted to certain regions of the

54


country or certain nations or to particular fields. These are listed in Appendix E.

Conclusion Making SoTL community property by collaborating with colleagues is key to high quality, shared, and meaningful projects. Involving students in our SoTL efforts beyond the role of research subjects is an important, defining characteristic of our work. Given the level of professional demands most of us face, we can best do SoTL by integrating such projects into our existing professional lives in terms of our roles as researchers, teachers, and university/community citizens. Finally, as we think about practical constraints of the project and our needs to bring the project to fruition, we must also be creative about grant writing as well as the other types of resources we can request to support this important work.

CHAPTER FIVE

What Are the Practical and Ethical Issues I Must Consider? I begin this chapter with a brief discussion of two practical issues in doing SoTL. As SoTL is scholarship involving some sort of inquiry and evidence, and often involving human subjects and/or data belonging to others (e.g., student work), ethical issues are paramount. I begin the section on ethical issues with an overview of some issues related to the ethics of doing SoTL. Next, I turn to a discussion and tips related to institutional review boards and processes. Finally, I go into a more detailed discussion of three common ethical criteria in dealing with human subjects, both in general and as related to SoTL.

Practical Issues I want to begin this chapter, then, with two opening points. First, as noted in the preface to this book, I think it is important to start with some truth in advertising, so to speak. In a book of this length for a general academic audience with widely varying expertise and experience, it is impossible to claim to offer all that you need to know to design a good SoTL study, conduct analyses of various forms, interpret results, and apply your findings. I believe, however, I offer you much information and inspiration for a good start as well as strategies and resources to find out more of what you need to know. If your SoTL research question permits, you can utilize a way of doing SoTL that is familiar to you and within your realm of expertise. That is, sometimes a methodology with which we are familiar 55

56


and experienced due to our disciplinary ways of knowing is a good fit to our SoTL research question(s). For example, if you are a quantitative social scientist interested in student attitudes about a new technology used in the classroom and the correlates of those attitudes, using a quantitative survey questionnaire as you have in your disciplinary work will make good sense. Or, perhaps you are a scholar in the humanities who reflects on and analyzes various texts and materials produced by members of the group you are studying. If your SoTL research question is, what key learning issues over the semester in your class are reflected in student course products, you may be able to utilize your disciplinary methodologies. Some of you, in certain situations, will need to do retraining and/or get assistance to conduct SoTL. Generally, this would be because 1) you have little or no training in some of the methods commonly used in SoTL work, 2) your SoTL research questions are best answered by a method or way of knowing outside your disciplinary expertise, and/or 3) due to the nature of your past positions, you have had little opportunity to obtain experience with inquiry or researchbased projects. This chapter (and others in this book) will get you started and, under certain circumstances, will be sufficient. If not, how can you obtain additional learning and assistance? You can consult with colleagues who are experts in the types of methodologies and analyses you must conduct. You can audit research methods or statistics classes if you choose. On your own, you can read methods-related textbooks (see Appendix F). Some other books you might find useful include Brookfield’s (1995) work on becoming a reflective teacher, Kember’s (2000) book on action research, Hatch’s (2006) summary of K–12 SoTL projects, and examples of higher education SoTL work in Hutchings (2000, 2002a). You can study and learn from the methodologies used in the studies in your SoTL project literature review or by reading “exemplary” studies using various methods as highlighted by Weimer (2006). You may be able to find study designs or measurement tools/instruments (e.g., questionnaires or scales to measure some concept) created by other SoTL researchers that you can use or adapt. For example, as part of the Flashlight Project, there are some available online tools for gathering data about the use of instructional technology (see www.tltgroup.org/programs/flashlight.html).

What Are the Practical and Ethical Issues I Must Consider?

57

Finally, you can collaborate with a partner who has the skills you need and that complement the skills you have to offer. Thus, depending on the circumstances, assistance or retraining can be as simple as asking a colleague for advice or as complex as engaging in a variety of behaviors as a lifelong learner to increase the expertise and skills you need to successfully conduct, share, and apply your SoTL project. Second, designing a quality research study is always a juggling act as we try to balance numerous demands and concerns. I believe this is true in any research, including SoTL. SoTL is usually not traditional education research done by experts in education with large external grants. It is done by regular faculty in the disciplines, often with few resources, and focuses on our students. As in most research and scholarship, we juggle several balls including the researcher expertise ball, the best methodological design ball, the match the research question with the most appropriate type of data ball, the practical constraints balls, and the ethical responsibilities balls. It can be easy to drop one or more balls. This juggling act, however, should not be seen in a negative light. Juggling (and doing SoTL), though it requires some existing skill, can be learned and is fun, exciting, challenging, and rewarding. For example, ideally we might hope to obtain some data to draw causal conclusions about the relationships between certain teaching practices and student learning in our course. Yet, providing evidence for causal relationships generally requires a true experimental design with random assignment of subjects (students) to control and experimental groups (different teaching practices), and the control of other extraneous factors (much easier in a laboratory situation than in a field setting). Such designs are rare, though not impossible, in SoTL research. Why? Because we are also thinking about and attending to the fact that our department does not have the practical procedure (or right) to randomly place students into different sections of the same class, and furthermore, that there may be some ethical issues surrounding withholding some potentially beneficial teaching practices from a subset of students. We just dropped a couple of balls. Similarly, we sometimes struggle in SoTL work with wanting a large, representative group of students in our studies to increase the generalizability of our results. Yet, by definition, much SoTL work is

58


local and involves small sample sizes. Another ball just fell to the ground. Thus, we try (as do all researchers in all studies) to design the strongest SoTL project we can while also following ethical principles and meeting practical constraints.

Ethical Issues—Overview Now you have a research idea, and you have begun to find prior related research and to refine your research questions. You are beginning to think about sources of data or evidence, types of inquiry or research methodologies (see Chapter 6), and practical considerations. You need to be thinking about any potential ethical issues as well. Hutchings (2002a) published a book on ethical issues in SoTL that discusses and presents case studies related to a wide range of ethical dilemmas in doing this work. Reading about these cases and the ethical issues involved can help you to think through potential ethical issues in your SoTL projects. The cases, for example, deal with using student work as data, obtaining consent, striking a balance between your role as teacher and your role as researcher, increasing validity, and making SoTL results public. In a more recent article related to these cases, Hutchings (2003a) argues that three sets of issues emerged repeatedly from the cases analyzed. These were 1) issues surrounding the use of student work (e.g., when and how to obtain permission, is informed consent really possible, should students play a more active role in the research), 2) issues related to the choice of research strategy (e.g., possible harm to students due to a research design), and 3) issues connected to making research results—whether good or “bad”—public (e.g., harm to a program’s reputation, political battles). Burman and Kleinsasser (2004) offer a paper on the ethical issues surrounding the use of student work; student work is often the data in SoTL research. They provide a brief review of writings and views about ethical issues related to teaching, concluding that there is no one set of clear standards. In terms of research ethics, however, they argue that there is. They highlight the research subject’s right to selfdetermination or autonomy and how informed consent and privacy are critical to this. They also discuss nonmaleficence or do no harm and justice or the fair selection of participants. Several of these issues


59

are discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Burman and Kleinsasser also point out that SoTL involves both the teaching and research roles, and that there are no clear ethical guidelines in existence for SoTL. A good example is a course portfolio posted on a web site. Virtually everyone would probably agree that we should obtain student permission to use any student work in the portfolio. But when do we need Institutional Review Board (IRB) review? What if the faculty member gathers evidence of student learning, reflects on this learning, analyzes student work, and includes all this in a course portfolio made public on a web site? Is such a course portfolio “research” and should such a “study” receive prior IRB approval? For a recent discussion of ethical issues and course portfolios, see Bernstein, Burnett, Goodburn, and Savory (2006). Thus, given this overlap in the teaching and research roles, there are many ambiguities about ethical practice when doing SoTL work. You should consult with your local IRB representatives. You can generally also read relevant policies and find needed forms on your campus web site. For example, you can see appropriate policy and forms as used on my campus at www.rsp.ilstu.edu/policy/.

Institutional Review Boards As I (and many others) have defined it, SoTL involves some type of research, broadly defined, and the public sharing (presentations, publications, web sites, performances, shows, portfolios) of that work. In addition, one is often working with human subjects. For these reasons, in most institutions and for some professional associations, SoTL work is subject to some form or level of review by your Institutional Review Board. My colleague in psychology, Gary Creasey, has served on our IRB and offers explanations of the three levels of review for SoTL (personal communication, July, 2006). The exact meaning and process of these three levels may vary somewhat from place to place. 1. Exempt. Exempt projects involve very low risk to adult subjects (e.g., no audio or videotaping, responses are anonymous, for example, benign survey research). Adult subjects cannot be from a protected population. If the IRB department or local

60


representative marks exempt, it is sent to the IRB Chairperson who quickly reviews the proposal to make sure the rating is acceptable. If he or she signs off, the principal investigator (PI) never has to approach the IRB again for approval for this study. Much SoTL work probably falls in this category. 2. Expedited. Expedited proposals may involve minors, but very minimal risk is involved (SoTL work involving 17-year-old college freshmen often falls here). Alternatively, research that involves adult subjects (not within a protected population) where minimal to moderate risk is present (e.g., audio/videotaping; deception; possibility of mild emotional arousal) is likely in this category. The IRB local representative will mark Expedited in these cases, and then send the proposal and forms to the IRB Chairperson who takes a closer look to make sure this should not be marked for Full review. If he or she signs off, the research approval period is for one year. That is, in order for a continuation, the researcher must file a brief report discussing that there have not been any adverse reactions associated with the study. This report would be reviewed by the IRB Chairperson. 3. Full. It is extremely rare for SoTL research to fall under Full review because this category is reserved for studies involving minors where more than minimal risk is present or for adults where moderate to high risk is involved. Further, studies involving prisoners, clients receiving psychological services, wards of the state, and such protected populations fall here. Obviously, these are very unlikely in SoTL work. In all these situations, the local IRB representative marks Full Review and then the executive committee reviews the protocol at their monthly meeting. These are the only protocols reviewed by the executive committee. This level of research can be renewed annually; however, the executive committee makes the call regarding continuation. Thus, most, if not all, SoTL work is usually rated as Exempt or Expedited. In a 2001 online survey of more than 100 Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) scholars about ethical issues, about two-thirds of the scholars indicated that IRB


61

approval would be necessary for SoTL work (Hutchings, 2003a). Whether subject to IRB approval or not, I believe those involved in SoTL work are professionally and morally obligated to consider the ethical issues involved in their work and to make every effort to protect our human “subjects,” usually our students! In addition, IRB comments may improve your study and IRB approval helps to legitimize the work. I often hear the echoes of frustration and distress from faculty about obtaining IRB review. Generally, these come from individuals who have not had much experience with this process. I believe it really is not that difficult and, as noted above, is important. Furthermore, it has been my experience that IRB members, our hard-working colleagues, want to help us see our projects come into being. I offer the following tips in working with and obtaining IRB review. First, though sometimes difficult, you must plan ahead. That is, you cannot obtain IRB review and approval after the fact. If you want to gather some data or use some course assignment/student work as data in a given semester, you will need to file IRB forms before you gather that data and allow enough time for IRB review and approval. Generally, you may engage in classroom assessment to obtain data and results for your own formative uses without going through the IRB if you do not make such data/results public. Second, reach out to your IRB representative, get to know them, and share your SoTL project ideas with them to obtain their advice. Work with your campus governance structure or administrators to include a member with SoTL expertise or who will represent and review SoTL projects on the IRB. Third, follow the ethical guidelines discussed later in this chapter. Fourth, look at successful IRB protocols completed by colleagues. Fifth, have a knowledgeable colleague review your draft IRB forms before you submit them. Finally, if methodologically sound, do some good juggling. That is, avoid project features that trigger IRB higher level review (e.g., protected populations, use of minors, experimental designs, deception studies, use of audio or videotaping) that can take longer and be more problematic. Actual IRB or Human Subjects Committee forms vary from place to place. In fact, the policy may vary as these are based on federal guidelines that are locally interpreted to a certain degree. Such forms, however, often have similar sections you must complete. In

62


Appendix F, I list these sections and offer hypothetical example responses for an SoTL interview study. Keep in mind that additional questions and information may be required at your institution. Also, reviews will be at higher levels if you wish to include students under the age of 18, use data that are not anonymous, use audio or videotaping, or use quasi-experimental and experimental designs. In addition to these questions, there may be one or more checklists that you must read and complete along with a cover page and various appendices (a copy of any instruments, for example).

Three Ethical Criteria When considering research that involves humans, three ethical standards or criteria are frequently discussed and should be considered. Each of these is briefly explained and illustrated in terms of SoTL. It is the case that somewhat different terminology or standards related to research ethics may be used, depending on the discipline and/or institution. You should also check the ethical guidelines for your professional association. Finally, talk to the members of your IRB for their thoughts on these ethical standards when doing SoTL.

Informed Consent There are two parts to this standard: “consent” and “informed.” Essentially, the people participating in our research have the right to give or refuse to give consent to participate. In order to give meaningful consent, they must be adequately informed about the nature, risks, purpose, privacy, consequences, and use of the study. Thus, in doing research, including SoTL research, we must obtain informed consent from the participants. There are a variety of ways to do this that range from passive (if they participate they gave consent) to active consent (e.g., provide a written statement and obtain signatures). Some IRBs, and depending on your methodology, require that informed consent be obtained in a certain way and/or that particular content be contained in any informed consent statement. One dilemma with SoTL and informed consent is due to the power relationships among faculty members and students. That is, given the power (e.g., grading, status, age) a faculty member has rel-


63

ative to a student, is voluntary participation really possible? In addition, informed consent is an issue when some of our participants are 17-year-old college freshman who are considered minors. Also, in some SoTL research, informed consent may seem unnecessary as your study or data may be collected as part of course requirements. Yet in many institutions if you are planning to present or publish the research (not just use it for course improvement or program evaluation), you need informed consent. For example, in one part of my Carnegie Scholar project, I asked students to keep a learning log. The log was a required class assignment but was also potential data for my SoTL study. I obtained IRB approval and I made clear to my students that they could deny me the right to use the logs as data in the study and could do so after grades had been submitted. Better yet would be to have a colleague or research assistant obtain consent and hold it until after grades are submitted. Here is one example of an informed consent statement containing the elements often needed by IRBs: The purpose of this self-administered questionnaire study is to obtain some information about the out-of-class learning experiences of our sociology majors. We hope to use this information to improve the cocurriculum and to enhance student learning in sociology. In addition, we will share the aggregate results in presentations and/or publications. Your participation in this study will take about 15 minutes. Participation is voluntary and you may quit at any time without penalty. Your data are anonymous and will be destroyed via secure recycling when the study is completed. Your grade in this class will not be influenced by your participation in this study. If you have any questions about this research, please contact Kathleen McKinney ([email protected]). You may also contact staff in the University Research Office at 309-438-2528. We greatly appreciate your assistance with this important study.

Right to Privacy Participants in our research have the right to expect that their data or responses or behavior in the study be kept private. Data can be anonymous, where no one can connect the specific person to their data (e.g., self-administered questionnaires with no names or code numbers or identifying questions), or confidential, where at least one person can connect a specific person to their responses or actions,

64


but the researchers promise to keep the data private (e.g., an interview study or analysis of the content or quality of a student product). Aggregating the data also helps maintain privacy as does destroying raw data when it is no longer needed. A statement about protection of privacy is usually included in the informed consent statement. It can be difficult at times to maintain confidentiality or anonymity of data in SoTL work due to the situation, the overlapping roles, and the study design. In SoTL research, privacy is most often an issue in terms of the confidentiality of the content or quality of student work. Another possible ethical issue in this area would be protecting not only the student participants but, perhaps, the student’s peers or faculty members who might be discussed in an SoTL study. For example, in both the learning log and interview studies in my Carnegie project, students revealed specific information and attitudes about other faculty members identified by name or course taught. I kept such data confidential by not revealing specifics to others, not reporting identifying information, or making only summary statements, so as not to violate the privacy of the student or those colleagues. SoTL researchers must consider issues of privacy, offer reasonable protection of privacy, and make the level of privacy clear to participants.

Protection From Harm In research with human participants, we are obligated to protect our participants from physical, emotional, and social harm. More specifically, any potential harm must be clearly outweighed by the benefits to the participants or to society as a whole. This is clearly a subjective evaluation, thus, risk of harm is also one of the areas an IRB will consider. As noted earlier, we must also protect participants’ privacy and refrain from sanctioning anyone who declines to participate or who ends his/her participation before the study is completed. Thus, this ethical standard of harm also relates to the standards of privacy and consent. In SoTL research, physical harm is unlikely but it would be possible to damage the self-esteem of a student (emotional harm), for example. This might occur in a study where the student reflects on his or her performance or interacts with other students and learns


65

about their level of work, and is embarrassed by his or her own performance. Generally, instructors should consider having a colleague or a research assistant gather the data in many SoTL projects. It is also possible to contribute to the situation where a student learns less or earns a lower grade than he or she might in another situation (social harm). For example, this could occur in a quasi-experiment where one section of a course receives a learning opportunity or pedagogical innovation that the researcher believes (and the study later confirms) enhances student learning, but the other section of the course is not offered this opportunity/innovation. Thus SoTL researchers must consider these risks, reduce them via study design considerations, and weigh the benefits of doing such SoTL work. In this example, the faculty member could change the study from an experiment to a correlational study or could alter the experimental design such that all students receive the beneficial intervention but half at one time and half at another time. Burman and Kleinsasser (2004) offer nine principles to guide our ethical decisions in doing SoTL. Of course, ethical principles, though they may seen black and white, vary by contextual factors including your institution, IRB policies, discipline, professional code of ethics, research strategy, and purpose. Therefore, based on your situation, you may or may not agree with all of these principles. According to these authors, we should identify or label SoTL projects as inquiry or research. The projects should be planned before the class starts. We must have and follow an informed consent process. It is appropriate to seek external review of the project as well as to keep students informed about the project at appropriate points. Furthermore, if using data from previous classes where student consent was not obtained, we should proceed very cautiously. In some institutions, of course, you would not be permitted to use such data as that would be a violation of informed consent. Finally, it is important to honor and respect our students and, thus, to do the following: recognize that students have control over how their work is used, involve students in the SoTL project beyond their role as subjects, and share our findings with the students. If you reflect on and follow these guidelines while also obtaining IRB approval and considering local and disciplinary standards, you should be able to address ethical problems in your SoTL work.

66


Starting to Put It All Together It is time to go back to some of the questions posed in Chapter 3. Given your teaching-learning problem and related research question(s), what types of information or artifacts do you already have that will help you to answer your question? What other types of information or artifacts will you need (and from what sources) to answer this question? What time frame will be most appropriate to answer your question? What research strategies (e.g., self-reflective portfolio or other product, interviews, focus groups, secondary analysis or analysis of existing data, content analysis, questionnaires, quasi-experiment, multimethods) might you use to obtain this information and answer this question? What are some practical problems you might face in doing your study? What resources would you need and how might you obtain these? What ethical issues should you consider in doing this study? Think about and discuss these questions with others as you continue to design and implement your SoTL project.

Conclusion As we plan our SoTL work, there are a number of practical considerations and decisions to make. We are not all experts in the methods we might need to use to best answer our teaching-learning problem and questions. There are also constraints related to resources and study design. As we proceed to designing our projects, consideration of ethical issues, especially those pertaining to the use of humans, usually students, in our SoTL work is critical. There are special ethical concerns in SoTL related to the use of student work and issues of power, for example. As research, you should obtain IRB review of your SoTL projects and suggestions are offered here to assist you with this. As we plan our studies, we must carefully consider informed consent, right to privacy, and protection from harm.

CHAPTER SIX

How Do I Design My SoTL Project? Though SoTL projects can range from small, local, and simple designs to large, international, and complex designs, they all involve many design decisions. In the first section of this chapter, I discuss two general issues or choices (qualitative/quantitative and timeframes) to consider in planning your project. Numerous possible specific methodologies for reflecting on and studying teaching and learning (e.g., course portfolios, interviews, quasi-experiments, questionnaires) are also summarized in this chapter. I elaborate on these by discussing some of the advantages and disadvantages of each and offering examples of the various methods. Finally, I include brief sections on putting it all together as well as on the analysis and interpretation of results.

Two General Issues The Quantitative and/or Qualitative Choice As in any good scholarship involving empirical data of any sort, the research question guides the methodology within the constraints of practical realities and ethical guidelines. We are trying to keep all those balls in the air. Related to the big decision about what more specific research strategies or methodologies you will use is the general design issue of whether to obtain quantitative, qualitative, or both types of data. Let’s begin by reviewing some basic ideas about quantitative and qualitative data (see Appendix G for books related to these types of data). 67

68


At the risk of oversimplifying these two forms of data, quantitative data are data in numerical form. Your measures are represented by numerical codes. Your analyses generally involve descriptive and inferential statistics. You are able to use larger samples. You have the potential to look at relationships between variables, to assess differences between subgroups, to discuss probabilities, to report incidence or prevalence, to test models, and to make generalizations. If your SoTL research questions need to be answered with numbers, you need quantitative data. If, for example, your goal is to determine the level of involvement of your students in important cocurricular learning experiences—the percentage of students involved, the number of hours spent, their general rating of the usefulness of such experiences—you need quantitative data. As a concrete example, Ross and Lukow (2004) used a quantitative questionnaire to answer the following: Were attitudes toward instructional technology by students in a leisure study curriculum predicted by gender, class standing, major area, and learning style? Has there been an increase in the use of email and the Internet by these students? On the other hand, qualitative data are data in verbal or textual or visual form. Such data are more detailed and more directly reflect the voice of the participant. Qualitative work generally uses a naturalistic and interpretive strategy. The participants’ understanding of the meaning of the phenomenon is critical. You can obtain rich and elaborate data, look for emergent themes, draw some ideas about process, and quote the actual words of your respondents. For instance, if you want to know what students are thinking and feeling—expressed in their own words—about working with peers on a difficult group task, you want to collect qualitative data. In a study of the reflective abilities of preservice teachers, for example, Verkler, Wiens, Lynch, Gureny, and Higginbotham (2001) used a qualitative survey to obtain student perspectives on whether and how a professional portfolio improved their reflective skills. Though you may hear expressed, or even express yourself, the notion that quantitative work is more objective than qualitative, I do not believe that to be the case. All research is subjective, just in different ways and at different stages of the process. Certainly, qualitative work involves subjective interpretation of descriptive, verbal data. Yet, quantitative work involves numerous subjective choices

How Do I Design My SoTL Project?

69

along the way, including how to operationalize or measure concepts, what range of numbers to use, what criterion to use for statistical significance, and so on. There is nothing wrong with subjectivity when the research has features such as being systematic, validated by participants, public/peer reviewed, and able to be replicated. So, which is better for SoTL—quantitative or qualitative? Which is right? Well, of course, we know it is not as simple as that. As I have already indicated, you must fit the type of data needed (and the particular research strategy) to the question asked. You must consider your practical and ethical limitations. Keep those balls in the air. In some cases, your questions are best answered (and validity and generalizability are improved) when you gather both qualitative and quantitative data and/or make use of two or more research method strategies. Jeff Sommers, for example, in work in a community college setting, was interested in the question, “How do students read literary texts in a literature course that emphasizes Problem-Based Learning?” Sommers analyzed student exams as a primary data source but, in addition, used student interviews, student online discussions, a teacher’s log, and an attitude survey as secondary sources of data—quantitative and qualitative (see www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=76560535).

Time Frames for Your Study Much of SoTL work involves gathering data at one point in time and making comparisons across groups or engaging in other types of comparisons or noncausal analyses. Such time frames are often called cross-sectional, though the exact meaning of this term may vary slightly by discipline. For example, you decide to conduct interviews of students about their reactions to a change in teaching style, interviewing each student once, or you pass out questionnaires in week six of the semester to assess the learning outcomes of a new assignment. When we gather data at one point in time, we take a “snapshot” of attitudes or feelings or behaviors. Some SoTL research questions can be adequately addressed by this time frame. If you are interested, for example, in comparing the reactions of majors and nonmajors to a new assignment soon after they have completed it, you could measure their attitudes at that one time. Another example could be a project answering the question of whether there is

70


a relationship between engaging in a service-learning activity in a course and the short-term attitudes of students about community service measured once near the end of the semester. Studies where data is gathered at one point in time, however, are not a very clear window into phenomena such as processes and changes over time. An example of a straightforward cross-sectional design is that by Clark and Jones (2001) who report on a study comparing community college students’ perceptions and skills related to public speaking, measured at one point in time in a traditional versus an online course format. On the other hand, if you are interested in how students’ reflection on learning develops over the course of the semester—as represented in multiple journal entries, using a pre-post test design to assess changes in content knowledge from the beginning to the end of your class, or by following the development of your students’ thinking from when they declare a major to graduation to post-graduation—you are looking at longitudinal designs. Longitudinal designs gather data at more than one point in time. By definition, longitudinal studies are generally more costly in terms of time and resources. Most SoTL longitudinal work is still fairly short term (one semester) and involves the specific type often called panel studies where we gather data from the same set of students at different points in time (in contrast to trend or cohort studies where we examine different, but similar in some way, individuals over time). Lifton, Cohen, and Schlesinger (2004), for example, conducted a longitudinal study looking at the role of a discipline-specific, first-year seminar when connected to a traditional introductory course in the curriculum and the impact on business students’ retention and grade-point averages over time. We sometimes attempt to infer longitudinal conclusions from particular types of cross-sectional data; for example, when we are certain about the temporal order of two variables that we are relating to each other such as biological sex and level of participation in classroom discussion. As we know one’s sex is determined before his or her level of participation, we can infer that participation levels did not cause biological sex, though, of course, we cannot infer that biological sex caused participation levels. In addition, we may ask questions in a one-time interview or questionnaire about attitudes or behavior that occurred at different points in time. For example, we could ask seniors about their study behaviors during their first course in the major and their study behaviors in a senior-level course. We could


71

then compare these sets of responses. Obviously, there are methodological weaknesses with these proxy longitudinal efforts (e.g., we still cannot make causal conclusions; there may be memory bias). Of course, in a multimethod or especially large project or in a continuing line of research, we often do both types of studies. We may begin, for instance, by gathering data at one point in time for a “what is” descriptive study and the results may lead to more elaborate questions about “why” or “what could be” that we need to study via a longitudinal design. As you refine your SoTL problem and questions, consider which time frame will provide the best data to answer these problems and questions.

Typologies or Categories of Methods Note that the value and legitimacy of SoTL work using particular methodologies vary by discipline and institution. Thus, conversations with others in your discipline, local colleagues, and personnel committee members are important. There is a range of possible research strategies and methodologies that have been and can be used for SoTL work. Nelson (2003) wrote an often cited piece called “Doing It: Examples of Several of the Different Genres of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” He outlines five groups of SoTL work with subtypes in each. The typology is based on general types of work, time frame, breadth of study, as well as a qualitative or quantitative dimension. I want to point out, however, that not everyone in the SoTL field would agree that all of these constitute SoTL work. For example, some with narrower conceptions of SoTL might argue that an “it worked” piece (also known as the “I tried it, I liked it” genre) or an annotated bibliography are not SoTL. Group 1: Reports on particular classes • “It worked”—A description of a teaching idea or practice that, anecdotally, an instructor felt was successful in her/his class • Qualitative before and after assessment—gathering qualitative data from students pre and post some change in your teaching practice • Quantitative before and after assessment—gathering quantitative data from students pre and post some change in your teaching practice

72


Group 2: Reflections on several years of teaching experience • Essays about teaching and learning that develop good ideas based on experience, reflection, conversations with others, and so on • Summaries of expertise about teaching and learning obtained via self-reflection and innovation over time • Integration and analysis of broader models or theories related to teaching or learning with one’s own teaching practice Group 3: Comparisons of courses and of student change across time • Qualitative studies focusing on a critical issue in teaching and learning • Quantitative comparisons of multiple courses or sections to study processes or outcomes of different teaching practices • Comparisons of many different courses usually within a discipline with a shared measurement instrument Group 4: Nonclassroom experimental work on human and animal learning (though Nelson acknowledges this may be better categorized as learning science or psychology, than as SoTL) Group 5: Synthesis of sets of extant SoTL work • Annotated bibliographies of an area of SoTL or other work on teaching and learning • Annotated summaries of key results from the past research literature on teaching and learning • Quantitative meta-analyses where groups of similar studies are selected and statistically analyzed for overall patterns and conclusions Weimer (2006) offers a different, but overlapping, typology of approaches to what she calls pedagogical scholarship. The two main categories in her classification scheme are wisdom-of-practice scholarship and research scholarship. In the former, which is work by practitioners that is based in direct experience, are personal accounts of change, recommended-content reports, recommended-practices reports, and personal narratives. Again, not everyone would view all the types of wisdom-in-practice scholarship as SoTL. In the research scholarship category of empirical inquiry, she includes quantitative investigations (experiments with numerical data), qualitative studies


73

(several types that study phenomena in natural settings using interpretive analysis), and descriptive research (most often collecting and analyzing survey data to describe beliefs and behaviors). Especially useful in Weimer’s book are the exemplars she offers of each type of work in her category system that have been published in scholarly journals.

Specific Methodologies and Examples Still another way to think of research strategies or methodologies is simply as a list of many different types of research strategies drawing from a variety of disciplines. In this next section, I list nine categories with a brief description, a few strengths and weaknesses, and an example. Remember, those seen as appropriate for your SoTL project depend on the research question, practical and ethical considerations, your disciplinary conventions, and your expertise. Again, given space limitations, I offer only a brief discussion of each of these. As noted earlier, many of us must learn new research skills to answer some of our SoTL questions. Appendix G contains a list of recommended books related to creating portfolios, conducting a range of qualitative or quantitative studies, doing classroom assessment and research, and understanding basic statistics to assist you in this process.

Course Portfolios and Other Reflection and Analysis This category includes items such as a course portfolio, a teaching portfolio, an essay on your teaching, or a play about your teaching/student learning. Generally the data are qualitative and interpretive in nature with the primary common feature of self-reflection. Such strategies can be viewed very differently based on discipline; that is, they may be seen as very appropriate scholarly work in some fields such as in areas of the Fine Arts or Humanities while not at all appropriate in, perhaps, the sciences or even social sciences. Generally, such reflection and analysis will require a fair amount of time but may not require IRB approval or the gathering of additional data. Fran Ansley, for example, used a teaching portfolio to represent and reflect on the use of community-based field work with her law students at the University of Tennessee (see www.law.utk.edu/ Library/teachinglearning/overview/welcome.html). Much has been

74


written to assist instructors in creating a teaching portfolio (e.g., Richlin, 2006; Seldin, 2004). I focus more specifically in this category on the course portfolio (Bernstein, Burnett, Goodburn, & Savory, 2006; Hutchings, 1995, 1998; Savory, Burnett, & Goodburn, 2007). Bernstein and colleagues define a course portfolio as “a reflective investigation of how course structures, teaching techniques, and assessment strategies enhance or detract from student learning . . . a window into what occurred during the course, highlights what worked and what did not, and showcases the student learning that resulted” (p. 8). They provide detailed information on the process to create and make public two types of course portfolios: benchmark and inquiry. This process involves the creation of three “memos” and peer input into the portfolio. In general, the elements of a course portfolio include the following: • A reflective discussion of the content and goals of your course • A description of your plans to accomplish key objectives in student learning • Evidence, assessment, and evaluation of student achievement of these goals • A reflective narrative on the relation among the above three elements (p. 11)

Interviews and Focus Groups These methods generally involve face-to-face conversations, using open-ended questions, with students or others yielding rich qualitative data. Phone interviews are also possible but much less common in SoTL projects. Interviews are one on one; focus groups are similar to a group interview. Anonymity for the participants is impossible with such methods, because the researcher and/or a facilitator or recorder is present and directly part of the process. Interviews and focus groups require trained interviewers or facilitators and can be quite time consuming both in terms of conducting the sessions as well as transcribing and analyzing the qualitative data. Yet, if your question is best answered with the participant’s voice and with data in the form of verbal text, you should consider such methods. Saunders and Klemming (2003) used interviews to obtain a detailed


75

understanding of student views of and reactions to the addition of information and communication technology to a more traditional learning environment. Faculty members who have made use of “think-alouds,” where we listen to students (or faculty) reflect out loud on how they accomplish an academic task while performing that task, are also engaged in a form of interviewing (e.g., Calder, 2002).

Observational Research As the name implies, observational research involves watching behavior. This includes, for example, classroom observations of some activity or of faculty/student behaviors using note taking and/or audio or videotaping. Analysis, depending on the observational method, nature of the data, and coding scheme could be quantitative and/or qualitative. There are some practical and ethical issues in observational research related to the possible roles of the researcher: to be a participant or nonparticipant in the group or behavior and to be covert or overt with the participants about the fact that you are a researcher. Thus, we must juggle the balls of informed consent and reactivity. Reactivity, also known as the Hawthorne Effect, is the process whereby participants alter their usual behavior because they know they are being observed. Of course, we do not really want to observe this changed behavior; we want to observe behavior as it normally occurs. As a practical matter, coding schemes may need to be developed in observational research and use of more than one coder to check inter-coder reliability is beneficial. In his study of how scientific visualizations of natural phenomena impact student learning, Raj Chaudhury of Norfolk State University used qualitative analysis of videos of student think-aloud sessions (see www.cfkeep.org/ html/snapshot.php?id=45896948171684).

Questionnaires Questionnaires, similar to interviews, are a form of self-report data. Questionnaires are most often self-administered and can contain items generating quantitative and/or qualitative data, though quantitative items are more common. They may be, literally, paper and pencil questionnaires or online questionnaires. SoTL online questionnaires are becoming more common. We can borrow or adapt

76


(with permission, of course) items or scales from prior research or create our own. Published, well-developed measures are likely to have high reliability and validity but may not be tailored to the concepts and variables in your specific research question or to your local context. As with all self-report data, questionnaires can be subject to social desirability and other response biases. It can also be difficult sometimes to include all the items you wish or to write concise items to tap complex constructs or processes. Questionnaires, however, can be easily and quickly administered to large numbers of respondents, and can lead to solid quantitative data that can be analyzed statistically, allowing the report of results such as prevalence, correlational relationships, and statistically significant group differences. If properly administered, questionnaire data can also be truly anonymous. This is not possible with some of the other methodologies. A questionnaire measuring a variety of student attitudes and behaviors was used by Finlay and Faulkner (2005) in their study of students’ reactions to the use of reading groups to encourage engagement in the literature. Questionnaires and various measurement instruments may also be administered twice in a pre-post design study. Stover (2005) used such a design in assessing the relationship among various civic engagement assignments in his community college humanities and composition classes and beliefs and attitudes about civic engagement.

Content Analysis This type of methodology involves the analysis of written text (or, less common, visual images) such as student papers or other student products to find patterns and themes (qualitative) or to count categories (quantitative). An advantage of this method is that we may already have the data available (e.g., student work). Instructors may also be able to use data obtained from classroom assessment techniques (CATs) such as the one-minute paper or concept maps or background knowledge probes (Angelo & Cross, 1993). CATs are used for formative assessment purposes but, with IRB review, one could use such data to answer some SoTL questions. Depending on the specific nature of these data, we may also be able to use such data to make group comparisons or look at process or development over time. Hunt, Simonds, and Hinchliffe (2000), for example, analyzed


77

the content of 20 student portfolios in an introductory communication course. They were interested in, among other things, the degree to which the student portfolios provided evidence that general education goals at a state institution were being met. Kain’s work analyzing the content of sociology course syllabi and their fit to disciplinary best practice suggestions is also an example of content analysis (personal communication, February 2006).

Secondary Analysis Occasionally, we have access to data already gathered for another purpose that we can use to answer our own SoTL questions. Data and analysis in this category are, most often, quantitative. Resources are generally saved by using existing data sets. On the other hand, the measures contained in such data sets may not be the best for the questions we want to answer; yet, we are stuck with those measures. We almost lost our grip on one of those balls as we tossed it back in the air. We can, for example, interpret student records or test data to answer our question or reanalyze other survey data that exist on campus such as data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). It may be possible, for example, to get a quantitative estimate of how often students in various majors are involved in active learning opportunities based on the NSSE data collected on your campus.

Experiments and Quasi-Experiments In a true experiment, subjects are randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, one or more independent variables are manipulated, and confounding factors are controlled; data are usually quantitative. The main advantage of a true experiment is the ability to draw causal conclusions, that is, the strength of internal validity. In fact, a true experiment (designed and managed well) is really the only methodology that allows us to determine causal relationships. Unfortunately, this strength often comes at the cost of external validity as the experimental situation will often be very limited and contrived—even in a laboratory setting. In addition, given practical and ethical considerations in the area of SoTL work, it is often unrealistic to design and implement a true experiment. Quasi-experiments have some, but not all, of the features of a true experiment. Quasi-

78


experiments can often handle the practical and ethical constraints and allow various comparisons (depending on the particular quasiexperimental design) but you can never really demonstrate causality. We are keeping all those balls in the air but our technique is, perhaps, a bit sloppy. An example of a longitudinal, quasi-experiment is one by Prehar, McCarthy, and Tucker (2004) who studied business majors that either were or were not required to engage in service-learning (the independent variable). They were interested in the role of servicelearning in the attitudes, beliefs, and intentions of the students for future community service (the dependent variables).

Case Studies Case studies focus on one class or course or assignment (i.e., a single case) using multiple forms of data, often both quantitative and qualitative. The data usually come from analysis of records, observation, and interviews with “informants.” Most often, data are gathered over a relatively long period of time. Case studies can be very rich and detailed. They often allow for triangulation of results given the multiple sources of data. They may be able to get at process and changes over time. Yet, by definition, they involve a sample size of one. Thus, we cannot generalize the findings to other cases. A course portfolio could be considered a presentation of a case study of one course including various forms of reflection and evidence. Onsrud (2005) describes his research as a case study of various aspects of the use of distance courses to offer geographic information science graduate courses.

Multimethod Studies As noted earlier, SoTL questions may be best answered by using a variety of different methodologies. Carnegie scholars, Curt Bennett and Jackie Dewar of Loyola Marymount University, conducted a project looking at the following questions: What are undergraduate students’ understandings of mathematical proof? How does mathematical knowledge transfer? What is the role of the mathematical workshop in enhancing mathematical knowledge and understanding of proof? To answer these questions, Curt and Jackie used the following research


79

methods: interviews, a focus group, questionnaires, analysis of audio tapes of class sessions, and “proof-alouds” (similar to think-alouds; see www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=7295132071986).

Analysis and Interpretation The nature of the analysis and interpretation of SoTL data will vary by research question, method, and type of data or evidence. For example, some questions require statistical analyses that can range from simple descriptive data about the prevalence of behaviors or the average score on student attitudes, to complex multivariate analyses to predict an outcome from multiple variables, to assessing the size and significance of differences in student learning over time or between various subgroups of students. Other questions and data beg for thematic analysis, looking for patterns and generalities in the thoughts and words of our participants or the creation of a taxonomy of behaviors or attitudes. If the method and, therefore, data analysis, used is one that is common to your discipline and in which you have expertise, this should not be problematic for you. For example, an experimental psychologist analyzing quantitative data from a quasi-experiment should be comfortable with this task, as would a sociologist analyzing and interpreting questionnaire or interview responses. Similarly, many in communication or English will have experience with content analysis. Colleagues in the fine arts may develop some type of creative product synthesized from their interpretive analysis of their teaching-learning reflections. Most faculty members would likely be comfortable engaging in the critical reflection of their teaching and learning work, and making that public in some way. Yet, as noted above, it is often the case that SoTL researchers venture out of their methodological and analytical comfort zones. Our SoTL questions may require the use of methods, analyses, and interpretation not common to our discipline or our area of expertise. Once again, if this is the case, you will need to avail yourself of resources such as books and web sites on analysis, opportunities for new training (e.g., take a statistics course), assistance from or collaborations with colleagues who have the expertise you need, and use of the many quantitative (SPSS, SAS) and qualitative (Nudist, Qualrus, Ethnograph) software packages.

80


How Far Have We Come? We have reached the point where it is time to go back to our project worksheet questions, which I first raised in Chapter 3 (except for question nine, which I save for the end of Chapter 7). Here, I answer each question in terms of an SoTL project I am considering. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to do the same with a teaching problem you wish to explore, attempting to keep all those balls in the air. 1. Think about a teaching and/or learning issue, problem, or question that you have about your students, a course, an assignment, a pedagogical strategy, your program, etc. Briefly state that issue, problem, or question as a question(s). I am interested in how to better promote student engagement in the discipline of sociology and, thus, in sociology courses, the major, and so on. I view engagement as not merely behavioral but also as an affective and cognitive process. Based on my interactions with and observations of sociology students, I believe they are not sufficiently engaged. I believe this is related negatively to learning through a variety of intervening processes (e.g., motivation, time on task). I am also curious about the role of social demographics in these processes. Thus, my questions—at this point—are the following: How engaged are sociology students in the major and in sociology courses? Is level of engagement related to learning? What factors are correlated with engagement? What do students think are useful strategies to increase engagement? 2. What do you know about this topic and about ways to study this question from the extant literature in your discipline and in higher education more broadly? So far, I have found the literature on engagement per se quite limited, especially in terms of my discipline. I know about the National Survey of Student Engagement. I have found research on related topics such as participation or interest in a course or the major. I am thinking about different conceptualizations of engagement. Based on an examination of the literature, survey research seems to be the most common method used in past research. I need to do more searching of related work. 3. Given your question, what types of information or artifacts do you already have that will help you to answer this question?


81

I have some student responses to certain items on course evaluations (e.g., about how motivated they were to take the class) or classroom assessment questions I have posed that might be useful. Perhaps I could also look at the quality of student work by students that seem to vary on level of engagement based on questions and observation. 4. Given your question, what other types of information or artifacts will you need (and from what sources) to answer this question? I need more information on how engaged my students are and why, on factors that relate to or encourage engagement, on connections between engagement and learning, on processes that might mediate the relationship between engagement and learning, and on students’ understandings of engagement. Thus, I need responses from students on these issues and, perhaps, copies of student work. 5. Given your question and the information you need, what research strategies might you use to obtain this information and answer this question? To answer all the questions posed, I would probably need at least interviews and self-administered questionnaires with students. A reflection assignment on interest, passion, motivation, etc. in the course or major could also be designed. I think I need both quantitative and qualitative data. 6. What time frame will be most appropriate to answer your question? A longitudinal study of some sort would be best as I could get closer to understanding causal relationships and have a better description of process. For example, following majors from when they first declare the major through graduation (or even beyond??) would be great. But, practical and ethical issues might make that difficult. At a minimum, I should probably gather data at two points in time even if just at the beginning and end of a semester. 7. What are some practical problems you might face in doing this study? What resources would you need and how might you obtain these? There would be time constraints and costs (though this project should not be too costly and there are small grants available on campus). I would also like to involve a student researcher for pay or credit— maybe a sociology major or an honors student. Creating good conceptual and operational definitions of my variables could be a bit of a challenge. What is engagement?

82


8. What ethical issues should you consider in doing this study? I need to obtain informed consent and be sure to keep everything confidential. If I use my own current students, they must know they really have a choice to participate and not feel coerced. I should use a colleague or research assistant to collect data in this situation. If I use student work, I need permission for that and I need to keep it confidential. I must consider whether the project could somehow negatively affect engagement or learning. I will, of course, file IRB forms.

Conclusion In this chapter, my goal was to offer an overview of designs and methodologies for conducting SoTL work. As noted in earlier chapters, it is essential that you build on past work. You will need to weigh the advantages, disadvantages, and appropriateness to your research question of taking a qualitative and/or quantitative approach and choosing a time frame for gathering data. There are many factors to consider in designing a good SoTL study. Your research questions largely dictate the method and type of data needed. Yet, you must balance those factors with any practical and ethical considerations you face. There are a variety of methods on which we can draw to do SoTL work; some familiar to us, others perhaps not. These range from reflective products to case studies to interviews or observations to quantitative questionnaires and experiments. SoTL work can benefit from a multimethod approach. Many of us will need to become learners again in the area of reflection and research in order to use the most appropriate method and analysis for our SoTL research question. But have faith, as there is a wealth of resources from books to courses to software to colleagues to help us learn new skills and/or form collaborations to conduct our SoTL projects.

CHAPTER SEVEN

How Do I Make My SoTL Public and Document My Work? A defining criterion for SoTL (and all scholarship) is that the work is made public. That is the focus of this chapter. In the first two sections, I offer a discussion about the complex meanings of the notion, “making public,” including peer review, and provide some example data on how many of our colleagues do make their SoTL work public. I then turn to a discussion of three common ways to make this work public (publications, presentations, and web postings), offering tips for success as well as information about specific outlets. I end the chapter with some suggestions related to documenting your SoTL work in your reward system—perhaps another form of making public in a very limited way.

The Meanings of Making Public and Peer Review My focus here is on the issue of making our SoTL work public. I raise some issues to encourage future discussion as well as offer a few concrete suggestions on making your work public and documenting the value of your work. What does the phrase “making public” mean or encompass? In the academy, we tend to think of a somewhat limited number of ways or types of media to make our scholarship public or to share it with others. These include mechanisms such as publications, presentations, web sites, shared reflective artifacts (e.g., portfolios), performances, and juried shows of various types of work. Are there other ways of sharing in your field? Would these ways be appropriate for making SoTL public? In terms of value, does it mat83

84


ter whether these ways of making public occur at the local, regional, national, or international levels? I would wager that in many institutions or disciplines, it does, with a greater value going to national and international sharing. Another issue is whether such ways of making public are considered peer reviewed and, thus, how we define peer review of SoTL work. Some of the debates related to peer review I have heard over the years include the following. How do we peer review more informal ways of making public? Must peer review be blind? Is it peer review only when the peers are external to your campus? Does review by an editor constitute peer review? Must peer review occur before the SoTL is made public or would reviews after the work is shared, such as a published book review, be counted as peer review? Is peer review that is solicited by the SoTL researcher legitimate peer review? How does peer review differ for traditional print versus online ways of making public or other forms of sharing (e.g., performances)? To what extent and in what ways can, or should, peer review be reciprocal and interactive? You need to have conversations with those in your discipline and on your campus about what it would mean for your SoTL work to be peer reviewed. The notions of making public and of peer review are socially constructed; they vary by time or history, context, and the groups involved in defining them. In a recent email exchange, Pat Cross (personal communication, February, 2006) noted changes over time in the meaning of making SoTL public. She wrote, Originally, as I understood it, “going public” connoted taking one’s teaching out of the privacy of the classroom. But now, that particular phrase, while broader than “publication,” has the ring of one-way communication, i.e., of an “announcement” or informing others about what you have learned about teaching, usually via publication, presentation and the like . . . In teaching and learning, the shift is from lecture and presentation to involvement, collaboration, and cooperation. In research the emphasis is moving toward team work, interdisciplinary projects, etc. . . . Maybe it is time to find a single term or phrase that will encourage sharing and benefiting from the experience, thinking, and experimentation of faculty colleagues.

How Do I Make My SoTL Public and Document My Work?

85

As an example of disciplinary differences, in my discipline of sociology, publications and presentations are the primary ways of sharing one’s scholarship. But in theater, making public might encompass publications, presentations, productions, or performances. In areas of art it could also include juried shows. There are also disciplinary differences in norms about peer review. For example, in sociology we generally use blind review; my anthropology colleagues tell me that is usually not the case for their discipline. In addition, various types of institutions differing in mission or funding may have broader or narrower ideas of these concepts of making public and peer review and, thus, accepting and valuing SoTL products in different ways. In some institutions, for example, a course portfolio shared on a web site would be seen as a legitimate form of SoTL and way of making public; in others, it would not. As a socially constructed concept and given power differences and traditions in higher education, it is likely that some ways of making public are privileged over others in the academy. Though I have just indicated that there are differences in views of peer review and making public and that there is a range of possible ways to make public, I believe that in higher education, traditional peer reviewed presentations and publications are privileged—in part for good reason (peer review as quality control). Yet, other forms of making public—portfolios, web sites, shows—can be peer reviewed. Certainly, as an editor of a pedagogical journal and someone in a social science discipline, I probably have a bias for traditional, peer reviewed publications. But, I have learned to take a broader view of making public, to be inclusive of colleagues in a range of disciplines and at a range of institutions. Those doing SoTL work sometimes report that it is a challenge to make their work public, that is, a challenge moving from scholarly teacher to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Some of the barriers I have heard mentioned include insufficient time, energy, and resources; lack of experience or prior training in a particular way of sharing work; difficulties in completing the writing; inadequate value in the reward structure; and biases in defining “making public.” More generally, in terms of limitations to greater involvement in SoTL, 35% of Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) scholars report that the single biggest obstacle is the tension between SoTL and (traditional) research productiv-

86


ity, and 24% said the biggest obstacle was lack of time and/or money (Cox, Huber, & Hutchings, 2004). So, how can we confront these challenges? We can make use of all sorts of existing resources (see Chapters 4 and 8). We can also set priorities; connect SoTL work to other important initiatives in our department or on campus (e.g., assessment, budget proposals, program review); retrain—learn new skills; work with a research or writing team; obtain help from peers or staff at teaching centers; do the highest quality SoTL work we can; be involved in the international SoTL movement and help your institution to be involved; and act as agents of social change locally and beyond, working to change the value and reward structure for SoTL. In a panel discussion on “Going More Public” at the meetings of ISSOTL in Washington, DC (Hutchings, Hatch, Miller, & Parker, 2006), several suggestions and issues were noted. As we write, submit, review, and edit, we must be aware of language and style differences, both interdisciplinary and international. SoTL publications need to be stronger in terms of theory and critical reflection. As SoTL researchers sharing our work, we must be aware of “audience,” think about our “voice,” and make good arguments with evidence. Web-based forms of making public must go beyond transmitting content to include/consider pedagogy, context, and representation with peer review.

How Common Is Making Public? An interesting question at this juncture is just how common is it to make SoTL work public? As I discussed earlier, making public is one of the necessary conditions for this type of scholarly teaching to be considered scholarship. Are many or a few faculty sharing work on teaching and learning via the various mechanisms discussed earlier? Data are limited on these questions and, primarily, ask only about traditional, formal ways of making public such as conference presentations and journal articles. But, I offer some of those results here. Think about your own department, campus, and discipline. How often and in what ways are reflection and research on teaching and learning made public? Carnegie Scholars, not surprisingly, are active in making their work public. Cox et al. (2004) report the following responses: 82% have presented their SoTL project at a conference; 67% have pub-


87

lished it in a book or journal; and 57% have posted it to a web site. Braxton, Luckey, and Helland (2002) gathered survey data from nearly 1,500 faculty members in four different disciplines at a range of institutions. They report that 25% of the respondents indicated having at least one publication of SoTL work in the last three years. As examples of data on a more local level, 31% of respondents at Buffalo State agree that they have presented or published their SoTL work (C. Albers, personal communication, February, 2006). Similarly, 38% and 31% of respondents at Illinois State University indicated they had presented or published, respectively, their SoTL work (McKinney, Broadbear, Gentry, Klass, Naylor, & Virgil, 2004). Related questions about sharing this work and making public our SoTL products include: 1. What are the characteristics of those who make their work public? 2. Are they more concentrated in certain fields or institutions than others? 3. What are the most common and most accepted ways to share? 4. Are most of the public products created by a small number of our colleagues? One recent study in my own field attempts limited answers to some of these questions by studying authorship of articles in Teaching Sociology (the pedagogical journal in my field) for the decade of the 1990s. Marx and Eckberg (2005) reach several conclusions. First, publication rates by faculty members in Teaching Sociology do not vary significantly by program type (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.). Second, “while variety in the attributes of universities and colleges is clearly shown, we find large, public schools a more realistic characterization of colleges that successfully publish in this area” (pp. 258–259). Finally, more than 95% of Teaching Sociology authors published only one or two pieces in the 1990s, thus authorship is spread across many in the field. Yet, some institutions dominate as several sociology departments have multiple authors, hinting at the importance of department culture for making SoTL work public in this traditional fashion. Future research is needed on these important questions and across disciplines about making SoTL public.

88


Whether publishing a manuscript, giving a presentation or performance, creating a web site or posting, or sharing a portfolio or other creative product, most ways of making public involve some writing. It is not yet clear whether a genre will emerge for our written discourse of sharing our SoTL work. At this point in time, you will need to consider what genre will provide the best representation of your SoTL work given the topic, purpose, methodology, audience, and so on. What genre will help you make the biggest impact on student learning with your SoTL work? Also, you will want to fit the genre of your SoTL product to that of the specific public outlet you have chosen (e.g., particular journal or type of web site). Consider, as well, the genre(s) of your discipline. Will it be best (e.g., for success in making your work public, for maximum impact of your work, for having your work rewarded) to follow the genre of your discipline or disciplinary area? These are important questions you will want to discuss with colleagues and, perhaps, administrators locally and beyond.

Tips and Outlets Publications My focus in this section is on tips for making SoTL work public via journal articles. These tips will be especially relevant to those of you new to the world of traditional scholarly publishing and/or from disciplines where scholarly work usually takes a form other than scholarly journal articles. For those of you with experience in writing for and publishing in scholarly journals, these tips will be familiar as there are few differences in publishing scholarship of teaching and learning and traditional disciplinary scholarship in journal outlets. Of course, you may also publish your work in newsletter articles, book chapters, monographs, and so on. Some of the same tips given here apply to those publications but such outlets are more likely to have an editorial review, rather than a traditional peer review, process. And, the exact process will vary by outlet, publisher, and editor. For more details on different types of publication outlets see Weimer (2006). Though it is likely that there are disciplinary differences in tips for publishing SoTL, I offer here some general suggestions for getting your articles published. These suggestions come


89

from my experience as an author submitting to refereed journals, a reviewer for many SoTL journals, and a past editor of Teaching Sociology. Think long and hard about your purpose and intended audience. You will need to investigate possible publication outlets (various discipline-specific or more general pedagogical journals, journals in your discipline that are not pedagogical but do publish some SoTL, online and traditional journals, scholarly magazines, newsletters, and edited books in progress) before you have “completed” your paper. Consider the mission of the publication, article restrictions, and so on. The mission of a pedagogical journal will be somewhat different than that of traditional research journals. There may be more acceptable types of or formats for submissions. There may be stricter page limitations. You need a good fit between your article—topic, format, purpose, potential audience— and a publication outlet. This is critical! This may mean finding an outlet with a good fit to your article and/or reworking your piece somewhat to increase that fit. Most journals have a page that explains the mission and the types of material they publish. In addition, you can look at the notes or articles published in recent issues. Look for special issues that are being planned with a focused theme for which your article would be appropriate. Do not be afraid to call or email editors of outlets that look promising and discuss whether and how your article might fit in an upcoming regular issue or whether they are planning or might consider a special issue on your topic. Unless you are writing a very brief “teaching tips” note, do not simply describe something you have tried in the classroom and why you liked it. A fairly common complaint by those of us who have served as editors of and reviewers for pedagogical journals is that we receive many submissions that are pedagogical tips and strategies, with no effort to embed them in the existing literature, to connect them to theory, or to assess their effectiveness. Most SoTL articles, then, should have the following: some type of a conceptual framework (e.g., fit with or proposing a learning or developmental theory and/or why this issue or strategy is relevant and important; deductive or inductive), a review of relevant, extant literature (e.g., cite other papers, presentations, and web sites that report on the use or evalu-

90


ation of the same or similar techniques or ideas), description of your methodology (e.g., details about how you obtained your evidence), data/evidence about effectiveness or other outcomes (e.g., qualitative or quantitative data about student learning or student satisfaction obtained via focus groups or questionnaires or evaluation), and interpretation, discussion, and implications of that data. Exactly what this all looks like, however, will vary by research question, publication outlet, purpose/audience, and discipline. Be certain that your literature review is up to date and thorough, yet concise. There are no hard and fast rules on this but you should have literature from the most recent five to ten years, as well as any older but classic or very relevant citations. Try not to miss previous work (in both your own and related disciplines) that looks at the same teaching “problem.” Be careful to cite any relevant work published in the same outlet to which you plan to submit. Be sure to cite key people in the area. Given the cross-disciplinary nature of SoTL, be sure to look for relevant work in general higher education SoTL journals and the key pedagogical journals in other disciplines (see Chapter 3 and Appendix C). Write, rewrite, write, and rewrite . . . Share your drafts with many people and obtain plenty of reviews/feedback. Do not expect journal reviewers to do this work! Reviewing an article that clearly has not undergone many drafts is very frustrating and not likely to lead to a positive outcome. As mundane as it sounds, be sure to follow all directions and requirements for submission to the outlet you choose (e.g., length, format, number of copies, extra material, traditional or electronic submission, hard and/or electronic copies, name/address of contact person, due date if any). Editors find it very annoying when potential authors do not follow basic directions. Remember that in many disciplines and for many journals, including pedagogical ones, it is considered unethical to submit an article to more than one outlet at the same time. Be sure you check the policy on that for the outlets you are considering. Include a cover letter to the editor. Briefly explain your article and why you are submitting it there. Include your contact information. It is good practice to request acknowledgement of receipt (send a self-addressed, stamped postcard or your email address) of your manuscript so that you know if and when it was received.


91

Find out the average number of weeks a review and editorial decision takes for that journal or outlet. You can usually obtain this information from the editor, an editorial board member, an editor’s note in the journal, the journal web site, or an annual report of the journal. Then wait another two or three weeks. This gives you a reasonable time frame after which you can comfortably contact the editor and tactfully ask about the status of your article if you have yet to hear anything. If accepted at this point, there will still probably be minor changes. Do those promptly and as requested. Return any page proofs within 48 hours and do a good job of proofreading. Provide any other requested information (e.g., a brief bio, running heads) immediately. Find out what materials, and in what form, they want at this time (e.g., hardcopies, copies on electronic media). More likely, an initial and positive decision will be a conditional accept or a revise and resubmit. These are good decisions! Be sure to take your time and read the reviews and decision letter carefully. I confess that my initial reaction to reviews is often something like the following. Didn’t they read the paper? I did that; I addressed that. Why are they in disagreement? I can’t do what they have asked with my data. Thus, I read the reviews and decision letter, then put them all aside for a week or so and then read them again later. Amazingly enough, they make a lot more sense, seem a lot more positive, and I feel I can handle the suggestions much better after that cool down period. Pay special attention to your letter from the editor as this should summarize the most important changes you need to make and clarify any conflicting requests from reviewers. It can also be useful to ask a colleague to read all these and give you a sense of what to prioritize or how to handle the suggestions. If you have questions or get a sense that an acceptance after revisions is not likely, do not hesitate to email or call the editor and talk about the manuscript and the reviews. If you choose to revise and resubmit, make a list of what the reviewers and editor are asking you to do. Give serious consideration to all their requests. Make a list of which you are able to do (sometimes reviewers ask authors to correct or change things they cannot correct or change given the study design or nature of the data). Make a list of those items with which you agree and plan to do. Make a list of those you cannot or choose not to do and why. Given multiple

92


suggestions from multiple reviewers and your own ideas, you are doing another juggling act here. Do the rewrites, get feedback, and do them again. Update your literature review. Write a resubmit letter to the editor and reviewer. Thank them for the suggestions and be positive about the changes and the new version. In some detail, indicate all the requested changes and corrections you made and how (briefly) you made them. List all the requested changes and corrections you did not make and explain why you did not. Be tactful but confident. In some situations, this letter can be as important as the revised manuscript. Follow all the directions for resubmitting. Resubmit promptly before you lose interest or the editor changes or the mission of the journal changes or there is too big of an accepted article backlog! You may be asked to go through the above process more than once. If rejected, it is time to consider your second-choice publication outlet (you should have one in mind). But do not wait too long, because someone may be doing similar work or your literature review can become out of date. Even though you are sending the piece to another journal, update the manuscript based on the latest reviews and adjust it in line with mission, format, discourse, etc. of the new outlet. Update your literature review if some time has passed. Do not submit to a different journal without revising your manuscript. Revisions will improve the paper and you could receive one of the same reviewers again. Many of us sit on multiple review boards. Imagine our reaction after reading a paper we have reviewed previously and seeing none of our suggestions implemented. Then, you begin the submission process again. My best piece of advice in this whole process is simple—be persistent (McKinney, 2001)!

Presentations Presentation, too, is a rather broad category ranging from local, informal, collegial discussions where we share our SoTL work to formal, national-international, peer reviewed conference paper presentations . . .and much in between these extremes. Often we present papers but we could also present or perform an essay or poem, for example. The presentation might also be of a portfolio or web page containing your SoTL work. Each has value though, perhaps, in dif-


93

ferent ways. Think about the purposes of your work, who will benefit most from learning about your work, how you will benefit from certain types of exchanges with others about your work, and what type of (and where and with whom) presentation or sharing will result in the most impact to enhance student learning. That is, how can various types of presentations enhance impact in terms of others using your work, the future development of your work, improving student learning, and having your work be valued and rewarded? There are now many (and new ones start each year, it seems) formal opportunities to present your SoTL work. Consider the formal but local possibilities such as a “brown-bag” session in your department or a teaching-learning symposium or conference on your campus or a nearby campus. Such sharing is important for the application and replication of SoTL results. There are also SoTL sessions at disciplinary-based conferences. Check the call for proposals for the conferences in your discipline. If you see nothing on SoTL, consider offering to organize such a session next year. There are also crossdiscipline and more general conferences (I am using that term broadly here) where SoTL work can be presented. For example, SoTL work is presented at Lilly Conferences, at the annual Teaching Professor conference, at the annual meeting of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL), and at the annual SoTL conference in the U.K. These and more are listed with links at www.sotl.ilstu.edu/sotlConf/ and many teaching center and SoTL web sites contain such lists. When submitting an SoTL proposal for a formal conference presentation, some of the tips for submitting articles apply. Most importantly, of course, is to have high quality, interesting, and relevant ideas. Have colleagues review your submission before you submit it. Look for a good fit between your work and the type of conference, conference themes, and audience. Make explicit what theme, if any, your proposal fits and how. Follow the guidelines for submission very carefully (e.g., deadlines, format, page limits, required materials). If appropriate, suggest more than one way you are willing to present (e.g., paper, panel, roundtable, poster). Contact session organizers if you are unsure whether your submission has been received or you are unclear about its status, and respond promptly to any additional information or actions that they may

94


need on your part. If your proposal is not accepted, look for a similar conference and try again. In most disciplines, presenting the same paper at two or more conferences is not acceptable; presenting different papers based on the same project or different representations of the work is acceptable. In addition, in some disciplines, presenting a paper that is in press or has been published is unacceptable. Presenting a paper in review or in progress is fine. You should follow disciplinary conventions and the rules of the specific conference in these matters. Of course, the nature of the verbal sharing of your SoTL work may be informal or formal, in a poster or paper or other form, very brief or much longer, local or international, and so on. Thus, one set of tips will not work for all situations. I will just quickly remind you of some of the basic tips for professional presentations. We probably all know these from various past experiences, but we have also all witnessed colleagues who seem to have forgotten them! Think about the purpose of your presentation. Know your audience in terms of their knowledge and interest in your SoTL work and their academic background. Presenting SoTL work may be different in that your audience (unless at a disciplinary conference SoTL session) will be diverse in terms of disciplines. Check out or ask about the physical location in which you will present (e.g., size, arrangement, equipment, lighting). If you have some say in the physical arrangement, request features to best communicate your work to that audience given your purpose. Think about what is most important to share, if and how you will make the session interactive, and how to logically organize the presentation. Consider appropriate attention getters and a meaningful conclusion, allow time for questions, and match your level of jargon with the audience’s expertise. Create appropriate handouts and visual aids and always have a back-up plan for these, especially when technology is involved! Remember that audience members, just like our students, differ in preferred modes of learning. Thus, offering your ideas via multiple channels is important. Furthermore, keep in mind that a presentation is a teaching situation; thus, we should be using and modeling exemplary teaching-learning behaviors. Use PowerPoint only when it enhances your ability to share your ideas and follow good practice (e.g., 50 PowerPoint slides in a 15-minute presentation


95

or slides that are each dense with text, or slides overwhelmingly busy with color, figures, and moving graphics are not good practice). Rehearse your presentation and obtain feedback for improvement. Think about the content, results, and implications of the SoTL project you are presenting. If possible and appropriate, demonstrate those implications in your presentation with this audience and make that explicit at some point. For example, students in my multimethod SoTL project indicated that connecting material to realworld situations and aspects of their lives helped them to learn that material (McKinney, in press). In a presentation about this SoTL work, I would not only share these findings, I could also model or use them by having participants discuss their specific teaching situations and students, making applications to their teaching world and lives. Many people are nervous when presenting in certain situations. There are a variety of techniques to help you relax and feel confident. Be well prepared and practice. Take deep breaths. Don’t consume too much caffeine. Have a glass of water. Remind yourself that you probably know more about your SoTL project than the audience members do. Do tension/release exercises in your hands and legs. Practice tongue twisters or walk a flight of stairs before entering the room. Visualize yourself giving a successful presentation. Remember, if you get so nervous that a formal presentation is dysfunctional for you, consider alternatives such as a poster or panel session. It has been my experience, however, that colleagues at SoTL sessions or conferences are very supportive and offer friendly, helpful feedback. In terms of the actual presentation, be certain that everyone in the room can hear you. Look for nonverbal cues from people in the back of the room and/or simply ask the audience whether they can hear you and adjust if necessary. Gage the speed of your speech; speak slowly enough for everyone to grasp the important elements of your topic/research. Eye contact is essential to maintaining audience attention. Thus, you should look around the room at everyone in the audience and speak to the audience, not to any visual aids. Depending on the situation and physical layout, you may also wish to move around the space. Do not be simply a talking head. If at all possible, work in some time for audience interaction. Absolutely allow time for questions and comments. Finally, be passionate; try to convey the excitement you have about your SoTL work to your audience.

96


Web Postings As you are likely aware, there are newer representations—beyond traditional print media and academic conferences—for making our SoTL work public. The Internet offers a number of possibilities. First, of course, are online SoTL journals. Though online, these outlets best fit in the category of publications as discussed earlier. Second, there is your own traditional web site. Adding a section on your SoTL work to your professional or course web page is a way to share your work. Be sure to provide enough detail that a colleague can understand your question or problem, methodology, results, and implications. Take the time to find and offer links to related work or sites of others. Provide a way for site visitors to interact with you or to post responses to your work. You can also look for and post a web representation of your work on various online repositories of SoTL work. Check to see whether your campus or your disciplinary association has such a repository and/or consider creating products that can be posted to other repositories. These include, for example, the Carnegie Foundation Gallery of Teaching (http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/), the Georgetown University Visual Knowledge Project (http://crossroads.georgetown.edu/vkp/), the Indiana University Peer Review Project (www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/portfolio/), the MERLOT Project (www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm), and the course portfolio site at the University of Nebraska (www.courseportfolio.org/ peer/pages/index.jsp). It is very likely that new SoTL online repositories will come into being on a regular basis. Perhaps you have the interest and expertise to establish a new repository for your field or campus or area of SoTL research! When doing your own web work, be sure to learn about best practices in creating web pages. The book Web Style Guide: Basic Design Principles for Creating Web Sites (Lynch & Horton, 1999) is a good place to start. In addition, many of us can obtain assistance with web pages or other digital representations of SoTL from various support or faculty development units on campus. Sometimes we find help from highly qualified graduate or undergraduate students. Having students help you summarize and represent your SoTL work in an online environment is another way to involve students in that SoTL work (see Chapter 4). There are other alternatives. For those of you with limit-


97

ed time, web skills, or interest in learning more web skills, I strongly recommend the Carnegie Foundation’s KEEP Tool Kit. This online, free software allows you to make a snapshot—rather like an online poster—of your SoTL work, including text, pictures, graphics, and links in an easy, quick way. There are instructions, a tutorial, and examples at www.cfkeep.org/static/index.html. On my own campus, we have just begun a local SoTL KEEP snapshot page and are offering small stipends to faculty members to create a KEEP snapshot of their SoTL work for our page (www.sotl.ilstu.edu/examples/KEEPShots.shtml). We hope to have several posted by the end of the spring 2007 semester and, in the future, local SoTL grant recipients will be required to do a KEEP snapshot.

Documenting SoTL Work for the Reward System SoTL is important work because of its main goal to enhance student learning and development, and because it is scholarship. Thus, as discussed in Chapter 2, SoTL should be valued and rewarded. This means you will need to document your SoTL work (see also a brief discussion in Richlin, 2006 and the book on course portfolios by Bernstein, Burnett, Goodburn, & Savory, 2006). You might also find the four case studies in Mary Huber’s book, Balancing Acts: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Academic Careers (2004), of interest and assistance as you consider issues of value, reward, and documentation. A large part of documenting SoTL is, of course, making it public and obtaining peer review. Though there are many similarities in documenting SoTL and documenting traditional disciplinary scholarship, there are some special issues or concerns as well. For example, colleagues may be uncertain what you mean by SoTL or whether it is really research or scholarship rather than teaching or service. Others may not understand your methodology if you have ventured outside the usual way of knowing in your field. Many of our colleagues are unfamiliar with pedagogical journals (even the ones in their own discipline), online SoTL journals, and newer forms of making public (e.g., online course portfolios, other web presentations of SoTL work). What follows are a few general tips or suggestions about documenting your SoTL work in the reward structure.


98

• Talk with others in your discipline (local and beyond) and on your campus about SoTL, how it is currently understood, documented, and rewarded. You need to understand the current culture on your campus and in your field. There are disciplinary and probably institutional differences in documentation preferences. • Show how your SoTL work meets standards discussed for SoTL in the higher education literature. There are many resources for this including articles galore (see the discussion of standards in Chapter 2). • Draw on the ideas in Appendix H, which is a brief document on language related to SoTL for annual evaluation, and tenure and promotion documents. Specific standards and ways to argue the quality of each of those standards are described (written by the Carnegie Organizing to Foster SoTL Cluster team). The four standards are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

SoTL exhibits methodological rigor. SoTL has substantive implications/outcomes. SoTL is peer reviewed. SoTL is made public.

• Demonstrate the high quality of your work using appropriate disciplinary standards. • When possible and appropriate, document SoTL as you would other scholarship in your field so that colleagues can understand the documentation and see it as legitimate. • Add an SoTL section to your teaching portfolio. • Provide concrete evidence (e.g., the conference program, published article, URL for web page or portfolio) for your work— the quality, public nature, and so on. • If the form of documentation used is not peer reviewed in some traditional sense, obtain peer review. How could you do this? You could ask colleagues from your own or another campus to review the work. Check with your disciplinary society to see whether they have a mechanism or referral list of potential reviewers for teaching, SoTL, or personnel decisions. In addition, include relevant data such as the acceptance rate of the journal or for the conference or show, or the attendance at the performance of your SoTL project.


99

• If necessary, work to change your reward structure to value and appropriately reward quality SoTL work. What are some issues about documentation of SoTL in your discipline or on your campus? In the previous chapter, we went back to the nine-question worksheet on starting an SoTL project. I presented example responses to questions 1–8 based on an SoTL project on student engagement in which I am interested. Here I continue with question 9: 9. In what ways and in what outlets (broadly defined) will you be able to obtain peer feedback on and/or review of this work and to make this work public? Informally, I will have trusted colleagues (here in sociology, sociologists elsewhere, other SoTL researchers on my campus, Carnegie scholar buddies . . . ) read drafts of the work. I will most likely write up one or more scholarly papers to give at a teaching (Lilly or Teaching Professor) or SoTL (ISSOTL) or sociology conference. I will probably submit the work for publication in Teaching Sociology. I would also want to share the work and any implications for recruitment, teaching, curriculum, and so on locally with students and colleagues in my department. Evidence of these forms of making public (e.g., conference program or paper, reprint of journal article, letter from chairperson that I presented to department colleagues, reflective statement, and/or data about ways I have changed my teaching or courses as the result of the project) would all be useful in documenting my work in the reward structure on my campus.

Conclusion In this chapter, I focus on the complex issue of making SoTL work public and documenting your SoTL efforts and products. I realize that I probably raised more questions than I answered. I suggest you consider the various meanings of and ways to make SoTL work public and have it reviewed by peers. It is important to come to understand these in your particular context or circumstances. You must also consider the purposes of your SoTL work and how those impact the best way to make your work public. A variety of ways to share

100


your work and some tips for success are offered in terms of publications, presentations, and web-based outlets. Finally, I list a few strategies related to documenting your SoTL activities and products for the reward structure under which you operate. You may need to take the initiative and be somewhat creative to ensure that your SoTL work is documented and rewarded.

CHAPTER EIGHT

What Are the Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts of SoTL? SoTL work does not exist in a vacuum; it exists in a number of contexts or settings including disciplinary and institutional. In this discussion of disciplinary contexts, I offer examples of disciplinary similarities and differences in views of SoTL, information about the status of SoTL in some disciplines, and a few examples of disciplinary-based SoTL work (which constitutes the vast majority of such work as that is a defining characteristic in some views of SoTL). This is followed by some ideas, issues, and examples related to cross- and interdisciplinary SoTL. In the second half of this chapter, I focus on the institutional context, including data related to department or campus support as well as models of and strategies for campus support of SoTL.

Disciplinary Context Similarities and Differences in Views of SoTL One way to assess similarities and differences in the views of SoTL across disciplines is to think about various definitions, conceptualizations, or critical questions about SoTL and related constructs noted by those in different fields. For your consideration, I offer several of these here. In chemistry, Coppola and Jacobs (2002, p. 202) offer the following, “The scholarship of teaching and learning puts the focus of the academic enterprise on students’ learning and urges the instructor to investigate, document, and present these results.” In 1998, members of the Society for College Science Teachers (SCST) produced a doc101

102


ument outlining a teaching scholar. One item reads “demonstrates creative scholarship that contributes significantly to college science teaching. Reports of activities are published in refereed journals and presented at professional meetings and other appropriate venues” (Society for College Science Teachers, 1998, p. 68). In reviewing the history of SoTL in Management Sciences, Bilimoria and Fukami (2002) summarize that: The methods used in the scholarship of teaching and learning in management have clearly evolved and matured. The work is more cumulative and presented with more statistical rigor. More voices are included in the evidence provided. Yet the work retains the balance of reflection and introspective scholarship that marked the beginning of this journey. (p. 134) Salvatori and Donahue (2002) writing about English Studies say, “a scholarship of teaching suggests more than conversations about the classroom and descriptions of instructional methods. Rather, it is the result of critical analysis, theorized reflections, and thoughtful enactment” (p. 71). In history, Calder, Cutler, and Kelly (2002) write: What would happen if they ignored the invisible wall separating “scholarship” and “teaching” and examined classroom problems in ways that are systematic, grounded in evidence, informed by relevant theory, mindful of their discipline’s standards for what constitutes convincing claims to knowledge, and accountable to public review? (p. 55) Sociologists . . . ask themselves what the goals are of a particular course or pedagogical approach, what the means are to achieve those goals, and what the demonstrable outcomes are . . . editors of Teaching Sociology have encouraged more empirical work on teaching and learning that follows this basic structure. (Howery, 2002, p.150) Darling (2003) in an article in Communication Education, writes: Like traditional communication education work, SOTL/C focuses on questions about how best to teach/learn communication.

What Are the Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts of SoTL?

103

Like traditional work in instructional communication, SOTL/C can examine the ways in which communication functions in a variety of pedagogical contexts. Unlike either of those areas in their most familiar applications the SOTL/C merges the inquiry process with the teacher/scholar’s own teaching. (p. 47) An important activity early in your work on an SoTL project is to learn and articulate the view(s) of SoTL in your discipline. There are a number of ways to get at these views. Ask local colleagues. Attend relevant sessions at and join appropriate sections or special interest groups of your professional association. Read the primary pedagogical journal in your field. Look for key articles in your discipline such as those cited earlier. Propose a panel to discuss this topic at a disciplinary meeting. Check for a chapter on your discipline in Huber and Morreale’s (2002) book.

Status of SoTL in the Disciplines Some of the questions asked of the Carnegie Scholars (Cox, Huber, & Hutchings, 2004) shed light on the status of SoTL from a disciplinary lens. For example, about 80% of these scholars report both attending and presenting at an SoTL session at a disciplinary-based conference. Twenty percent report an increase in the last five years of journals focusing on teaching and learning in their field; 38% indicate an increase in articles on SoTL in top traditional journals in the field; and 42% state an increase in SoTL sessions at the main annual disciplinary conference. In addition, 66% report that efforts of professional associations to promote SoTL are present and are somewhat to very important to their work. Are there differences by discipline in participation? Based on one major study, no. In the research on faculty from four disciplines (Braxton, Luckey, & Helland, 2002), there were no statistically significant differences among faculty in biology, chemistry, history, and sociology in the frequency of unpublished scholarly outcomes on teaching and learning or publications on teaching and learning. Lueddeke (2003) reports some disciplinary differences in teaching scholarship in the U.K. His focus, however, was really on scholarly teaching, not SoTL as these terms are defined here.

104


In considering SoTL in the disciplinary context, the role of disciplinary societies is critical. In general, associations and disciplinary societies can support and advance SoTL by helping to identify and spotlight leading and emerging SoTL researchers in the field (through conferences, websites and other publications), by sponsoring academies and institutes to introduce and advance SoTL among members . . . and by compiling bibliographies of SoTL work within the discipline or field. (Robinson, 2006, p. 4) Some of the chapters in Huber and Morreale (2002) discuss the role of the disciplinary society in SoTL. In addition, there are several recent discussions of the role of professional associations, methods, research topics, barriers, and related issues for SoTL in a specific discipline (e.g., Bilimoria, 2000; Booth, 2004; Boyd, 2004; Darling, 2003; Healey, 2000, 2003a; Hutchings, 2003b; Pace, 2004; Salvatori, 2002). In my own field of sociology, for example, there have been a number of discussions and debates about the status of SoTL. Hanson (2005) argues there are serious limitations in the scholarship of teaching and learning in sociology, including insufficient attention to a sociological perspective. He suggests two likely reasons for this limitation: no coherent history of higher education research in the sociology of education and the development of SoTL outside our discipline. Howery (2002) has discussed the status of the scholarship of teaching and learning in sociology as a part of our culture of teaching. She writes: Politically, the scholarship of teaching and learning must become part of each discipline and engage a reasonable proportion of respected experts and scholars. While this strand of scholarship can enfranchise and tap the talents of sociologists at teaching-oriented institutions, the work will suffer if it is “interest-group scholarship,” that is, located primarily with faculty at teaching-oriented institutions. (p. 155) Chin (2002) and Marx and Eckberg (2005), in studies of work published in Teaching Sociology, found evidence for variability in who


105

is engaged in SoTL in sociology. They report variability in rank and type of institution represented. In addition, most of the authors had published only that one piece in Teaching Sociology during those years; thus, there were many different authors (see the second half of this chapter on institutional context for some other results, however). Howery and I (McKinney & Howery, 2007) have argued that SoTL has increased and developed as a scholarly specialty within sociology. At the same time, we face continuing challenges and opportunities to further SoTL (McKinney, 2005). These challenges include the need for more SoTL on learning, more SoTL work on graduate student teaching-learning in addition to undergraduate, more SoTL at levels beyond the classroom level, spreading interest in this work to more individuals and departments, increasing our involvement of students in this work as coresearchers, and increasing replication of this work within the discipline but across institutions as well as across disciplines and international borders. If you are interested in analyses and discussions of the nature and quality of work in SoTL discipline-based journals, check out various articles on this topic (e.g., Baker, 1985; Chin, 2002; Daniel, 1992; Wankat, 2004; Whitin & Sheppard, 2004). Generally, these articles are critical of past and current work as reflected in the papers in these disciplinary pedagogical journals (e.g., questionable methodological quality, lack of ties to past work, lack of data) yet optimistic about future SoTL publications in these fields. Finally, we can look at groups of disciplines as well. Huber and Morreale (2002) conclude that the humanities are both very strong and very weak in their attention to teaching and learning depending on the subfield and situation. In the social sciences, faculty members are able to connect directly their methodologies and conceptual frameworks to the study of teaching and learning. Finally, in the sciences there is a tendency to have a subfield and subset of instructors doing the SoTL or science education research—with both pros and cons to this model. Based on my reading of the disciplinary-based chapters in their book, I also noted the feelings of progress and pride in that progress combined with a sense of how far there is yet to go in terms of SoTL work being done, applied, supported, and valued in all the disciplines. Again, you will want to investigate the literature in your own field for the place of SoTL in your discipline.

106


Example SoTL Projects in the Disciplines Most of the examples of SoTL work in this book are disciplinary based (see Chapters 3 and 6, especially). To stimulate your interest in and thought about such projects, however, I share here a few more example topics of SoTL projects in the disciplines. Bacon, Stewart, and Stewart-Belle (1998) studied the factors that predict team performance in marketing. In a chemical engineering course, researchers used conversational analysis to better understand teaching and learning in cooperative learning groups (Haller, Gallagher, Weldon, & Felder, 2000). Views of faculty and students about the content and expectations of Introduction to Psychology was the topic of a project by Miller and Gentile (1998). Varner and Peck (2003) discuss the role of learning journals used in business courses. Student beliefs about learning mathematics were the focus of work by Burtch (2005). Miller (2004) studied the use of standardized client cases in courses in social work. Thus, these discipline-based projects involve a range of methodologies.

Meanings of Cross- and Interdisciplinary SoTL Work In addition to discipline-based SoTL projects, there has been discussion of the possibilities of work that crosses disciplinary boundaries. If we see a move across disciplinary boundaries, what might that look like? It seems to me it could fall along a continuum or be put in to types reflecting the degree and the nature of the disciplinary interaction. Thus, SoTL work blurring disciplinary lines would include sharing the results of separate SoTL projects from different disciplines with people in other disciplines at cross-disciplinary conferences or by reading SoTL work in pedagogical journals from other disciplines. We are also doing this type of SoTL when we replicate SoTL work conducted in one discipline in another discipline or when we consult or assist a colleague in another discipline with their SoTL project (e.g., advise them on methodology or participate in and contribute to a writing circle). SoTL crosses disciplinary lines when one or more researchers study interdisciplinary courses or programs. Another form of this relationship is when researchers in different disciplines engage in separate and somewhat different studies but share a broad, overarching issue or question they discuss and may


107

jointly make public. Finally, when individuals from multiple disciplines work collaboratively on a joint SoTL project, the work falls in this crossing the disciplines category. It is likely that understandings of cross- and interdisciplinary SoTL, specifically, will vary. One set of distinctions is offered by Yakura and Bennett (2003). They argue that cross-disciplinary SoTL focuses on studies about similarities and differences among and between disciplines. Interdisciplinary SoTL work, on the other hand, involves studies of teaching and learning in interdisciplinary situations (e.g., courses, programs). Yakura and Bennett recognize difficulties in working across disciplines. The first difficulty has to do with differences across the disciplines in theories, concepts, and meanings. This can cause problems in shared understandings, defining of concepts, and valuing questions or interpretations. Second is the issue of time or the lack of it, or the difficulties in finding shared time to work on these collaborations across disciplines, including needing to learn about teaching and learning in another discipline. They also argue, however, that SoTL work that crosses two or more disciplines is useful because it “creates new synergies by connecting ideas and concepts across disciplines, and it allows us to identify and fill knowledge gaps within our own discipline” (p. 135). Weimer (2006) also argues that there are several benefits from taking a broad view of SoTL work that goes beyond disciplinary boundaries. These benefits include learning by those in one discipline from the SoTL work of those in another discipline; strengthening of replication and reliability of findings across disciplines that advances our profession; providing a literature that is very helpful to those who work to promote social change related to a teaching-learning agenda; and reading a diverse and powerful literature to improve our individual teaching practice. As Huber and Morreale (2002) state: What matters is not what the disciplines can do for the scholarship of teaching and learning, nor even what the scholarship of teaching and learning can give back to the disciplines in return. What matters in the end is whether, through our participation in this new trading zone, students’ understanding is deepened, their minds and characters strengthened, and their lives and communities enriched. (p. 21)

108


They, too, believe that interdisciplinarity adds greatly to SoTL work and to student learning by revealing to all what each discipline has to offer to a given project or question.

Examples of Cross-Disciplinary SoTL Although researchers in different disciplines may appear to ask different questions, there are frequently common threads or themes to these questions. For example, I collaborated, doing peer review and joint presentations, with a number of colleagues doing SoTL in disciplines other than my own through a group of Carnegie Scholars. Our foci seemed different yet, over time, we came to realize that we were all looking at some type of epiphany in terms of student awareness or understanding about some aspect of disciplinary learning. Common themes were transferability, student perceptions of learning in a discipline, and the impact of a given course on learning or development. The questions about learning asked in some of these projects and the research methodologies used were the following: • What knowledge from their mathematics learning do students transfer to the rest of their life? What is the evolution of students’ perception of the role of and need for proof? What is the role of the mathematics workshop sequence in students’ understanding of proof and how do they see their knowledge applied more liberally? (Curtis Bennett and Jackie Dewar of Loyola Marymount University used think-alouds, interviews, analysis of proofs.) • How do undergraduate students in engineering conceive of themselves as professionals? How does a course on engineering ethics affect the development of a student’s professional identity and potential for moral courage? (Michael Loui of the University of Illinois used before-and-after course responses to open-ended questions.) • Why do some sociology seniors “get it” and others do not? How do sociology seniors believe they best learn the content and skills of the discipline? (My project at Illinois State University used a focus group, interviews, and learning journals.)


109

Yakura and Bennett’s work (2003) provides another example of cross-disciplinary SoTL collaboration. They crossed the boundaries of mathematics and labor and industrial relations. Both were concerned with learning behaviors and epistemological beliefs of students in specific courses that could be hampering student learning and success. They each used a variety of methods to gather data about student learning and attitudes in the course. They wrote, “One benefit of our cross-disciplinary work, then, was discovering common features of successful tasks across our disciplines in order to create better and more effective tasks” (p. 141). Another example is the work of Carnegie scholars, Kate Berheide (sociology) and Michael Marx (humanities), who studied the use of an idea notebook. Students keep the idea notebook all semester and use it to reflect on their thought processes in an effort to promote critical thinking. They studied this with sophomore students of various majors in a required, interdisciplinary first-year seminar (see www.carnegie foundation.org/master/sub.asp?key=21&subkey=63). SoTL work that intersects two or more disciplines at a deeper level such as replicating a study from one discipline in another or researchers from two different disciplines working together on the same SoTL project is less common than other forms of cross-disciplinary work. For some this may be a satisfactory state of affairs as the notion of “discipline based” is key to their concept of SoTL. For others, this state of affairs is a weakness in the field of SoTL and a limit on our ability to improve student learning with SoTL. Think about your SoTL questions and research ideas. What other disciplines might have similar teaching-learning problems? What colleagues do you know in other fields who might be interested in these questions?

Institutional Context Most of us engage in our SoTL work within some type of institutional context. This context influences our ability to do, use, and be rewarded for SoTL in meaningful ways. In this section I discuss a bit of data on campus support, models and best practices related to campus support, and a variety of possible support strategies. It is important that you learn about your institutional context for SoTL as well

110


as to understand other possible views and supports for SoTL that you may choose to request or help institute on your campus or in your department.

Campus Support—Some Data As Robinson (2006) wrote: Institutions can support and advance SoTL by differentiating between excellent teaching, scholarly teaching and SoTL in the hiring, review, promotion and tenure process . . . and utilizing SoTL as a research-based approach to challenges such as retention, introductory classes and learning outcomes assessment. (p. 4) In the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) Scholar survey (Cox, et al., 2004), the following percentages of scholars agreed or strongly agreed with these statements about institutional support for SoTL on their campus: established formal structures to support SoTL (63%); upper level academic leaders support SoTL (54%); support for SoTL is widespread on campus (27%); SoTL is integrated into other campus initiatives (47%); there are adequate funding opportunities for SoTL on their campus (32%); and the institution offers adequate release time for SoTL (3%). Turning more specifically to the department level, these scholars respond with agree or strongly agree to the following items: my department offers adequate release time to faculty engaged in SoTL (31%); offers adequate financial support (24%); department norms encourage participation in SoTL (37%); SoTL is considered positively in hiring decisions (48%); and the department chair has actively encouraged SoTL (52%). It seems clear that some institutions are more supportive of SoTL than others, but no clear pattern emerges from the very limited data and information. We often hear of exemplary work at campuses such as those leading or involved in the CASTL Campus Cluster Program (the cluster leader schools were Georgetown University, Illinois State University, Indiana University, Malaspina University-College and the University of Portland, Middlesex Community College, Oxford


111

College of Emory University, Portland State University with the University of Akron, Texas Tech, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Rockhurst University, Western Washington University; see Appendix B for the URL to links about the work of these clusters and the core member campuses). Campuses have also been recognized with awards for SoTL development work (e.g., Indiana University). Finally, in late summer 2006, as I wrote this book, campuses leading the next phase of the CASTL Campus Leadership Program (coordinating institutions) were announced and included Buffalo State College, Carleton College, Indiana University Bloomington, Malaspina University-College, Middlesex Community College, Oxford College at Emory University, Rockhurst University, St. Olaf College, The Ohio State University, University College Cork, University of Wisconsin System, and Western Washington University. Note the tremendous diversity in type and location of these institutions. One significant difference in frequency of performance of scholarship of teaching by institution type was found by Braxton, Luckey, and Helland (2002). They report that faculty at liberal arts I and II colleges had significantly more frequent performance of unpublished scholarly outcomes on teaching and learning than did faculty at research universities. The researchers also report the percentage of respondents at various institution types that agree or strongly agree with a two-item measure indicating the degree to which they value the scholarship of teaching. The percentage that agree or strongly agree with this value measure ranges from 76% of research university faculty to 91% of liberal arts II faculty. Based on this study, then, we see a bias in favor of SoTL from those working in a liberal arts school environment.

Campus Support—Possible Models There is no one, right or best model for the support of SoTL on campus. Rather, it is likely that institutional type, size, mission, resources, culture, and so on will all impact what best works where. The different models of support range from an informal, loosely structured group of people who do SoTL on their own to formal, highly structured and well-supported programs and centers. The

112


models also vary in terms of level of centralization, time frame of activities and existence, and level of faculty ownership. What follows is a list of possible models for support of SoTL on campus: • Establish SoTL liaisons at the department or college level. • Hold a semi- or biannual institute or conference about SoTL. • Work through an existing teaching center or similar faculty development unit to support SoTL activities. • Create a new unit such as a center for research on teaching and learning. • Form (if not already in existence) and use the members of a teaching academy or group of teaching fellows. • Create system-level SoTL initiatives (if in a multicampus situation). • Offer courses on SoTL for students; do SoTL projects and support in the course. • Use existing governance structures such as a faculty senate to promote SoTL. • Create special SoTL positions such as endowed chairs at university or college levels or SoTL faculty positions in departments. • Use a model that combines one or more of the above models. Campus support models can also be seen as developmental or occurring in stages or types. Schroeder, Baron-Nixon, and Bo-linn (2006) have been gathering data to create a model or matrix called SoTL Program Pathways to Maturity. In this still evolving matrix, three ideal types of institutional SoTL programs are described: emerging, stable, and thriving/effective. Each of these are characterized in terms of leadership, participants, program design and format, individual project design, program resources, dissemination, recognition, program accountability, institutional value, institutional alignment, institutional impact, and national involvement/alignment. What model(s) of support for SoTL exists at your institution? How might this be improved or strengthened? If you hope to strengthen the support for SoTL on your campus, consider the following suggestions for success when working to change institutional polices and practices:


113

• Hold inclusive, wide-ranging, long-term conversations. • Find, hire, and co-opt strong, committed leaders. • Involve key faculty members with high credibility on your campus. • Look for external support (funds, intellectual, philosophical). • Join national/international SoTL initiatives and groups (e.g., CASTL, ISSOTL). • Think about roles and rewards and the impact on the status of SoTL. • Make connections between SoTL and major campus initiatives. There is a growing number of publications reporting and assessing efforts to support SoTL at the campus level (e.g., Cambridge, 2004; Cox, 2003; Robinson & Nelson, 2003; Saylor & Harper, 2003; Thompson, 2003). These authors note several features of the faculty development work for SoTL that increase the success and impact of those faculty development efforts: using a developmental approach with the scholars, treating SoTL as any other field of research, encouraging a community of scholars, enhancing the relationship between SoTL and scholarly teaching, and using multiple venues and strategies for making SoTL public. Weimer (2006) also discusses campus support for SoTL in a chapter focusing on advice for administrators and academic leaders. She suggests we use a broad definition of pedagogical scholarship. In addition, administrators must help to ensure that pedagogical scholarship is available to faculty, that they lead by example, raising important issues of teaching and learning in various contexts, and that they encourage the use of data to find answers to these important questions. She also suggests a number of support strategies similar to those I discuss in the following section and in the section on resources in Chapter 4.

Strategies for Campus Support There are now many strategies used on campuses around the world to promote, support, and reward SoTL work. What follows is a list and brief description of some of these strategies.

114


Involvement in the CASTL Program. Become a member or affiliate of the newly formed CASTL Leadership campus groups. Request travel support for a group of colleagues to attend ISSOTL. Help colleagues apply to be Carnegie Scholars. Self-study. Engage in ongoing study of the status of SoTL on your campus. Document, so you can take relevant action, what SoTL work is being done, by whom, for what uses, and so on. Campus conversations on SoTL. Create opportunities that encourage faculty to examine critically their teaching practices and student learning. Do not forget the old faculty development adage of “feed them and they shall come.” Several options include the following: • Teaching and Learning Symposium: Hold a campus teaching/learning conference or symposium. Such an event provides an opportunity for faculty, graduate assistants, students, and staff to share teaching resources, strategies, and research on college teaching and student learning/development, including SoTL. A notable speaker external to campus could be invited to give a keynote presentation. • Campus Sessions on SoTL: Invite guest speakers and organize workshops, panels, visits by SoTL journal editors, discussion hours, and so on related to using and rewarding SoTL. • SoTL Teaching-Learning Communities (TLCs) or Writing Circles: Create and support TLCs or writing circles for faculty, staff, and students interested in or engaged in SoTL work. These groups provide opportunities for faculty members of varying ranks and graduate students from differing disciplines to meet on a regular basis to discuss issues related to teaching and learning and/or provide peer feedback on work in progress. Promote SoTL with new faculty. Offer a session on SoTL at orientation for new faculty. Send an email message to all new faculty with information about SoTL and local SoTL resources and opportunities. Encourage new faculty to attend an SoTL summer institute and have SoTL mentors.


115

Involve students. Engage students in conversations about SoTL in and out of the classroom. Offer a course in SoTL for students with SoTL projects conducted in the course. Ask students for ideas for collaboration on SoTL projects. Collaboration. Identify common student learning challenges within and across departments to encourage cross-faculty, cross-discipline SoTL work. SoTL Community of Scholars and SoTL Resources Group. Create a virtual community of people interested in SoTL at your institution through an electronic discussion list and/or email nickname group. SoTL resources and opportunities can be shared with this group. Set up an SoTL Resources Group—“a bank” of faculty with expertise in specific areas related to SoTL. These individuals, their contact information, and their areas of SoTL expertise can be listed as resources/possible mentors in a database distributed on campus and posted on your SoTL web site. Summer institute on SoTL. Implement a summer institute on SoTL, ranging from two days to a week. Pay faculty members stipends as funds permit. Provide opportunities for participants to do the following: • Learn more about SoTL, including what it is, how to conduct it, how to make it public, how to document it for evaluation, and how to use it to enhance teaching and learning. • Begin working on ideas for doing and/or making public an SoTL project. • Share ideas and information about SoTL with colleagues. Sponsor “follow-up” sessions for people to get together and discuss the progress of their work. Connecting SoTL to institutional mission. Incorporate SoTL into institutional mission statements and strategic plans. Promote the value of SoTL work among department chairs and promotion and tenure committees. Solicit public support of SoTL by upper level administration and alumni.

116


Integrating SoTL into hiring and evaluation. Consider SoTL in hiring, evaluation, and promotion and tenure policies to allow faculty to pursue and be rewarded for engaging in SoTL. Administrative unit support of SoTL. Provide sustained support for SoTL from an array of campus entities such as instructional technologies, library, institutional advancement, student life or dean of students, research office, and labor unions as applicable. Shared governance. Faculty who understand and support SoTL need to volunteer and be elected to committees that advise administrators, deal with budget allocation, rewrite evaluation and reward policies, and so on. Faculty positions or endowed chair in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Create full- or part-time SoTL positions to offer faculty development for SoTL; provide special support to those in these positions for conducting and disseminating SoTL work. Create SoTL teacher-scholars or SoTL fellows. These individuals would be selected on a competitive basis and provided with some support for SoTL work. In addition, they would be expected to share their work locally and beyond, and to help colleagues with SoTL ideas. Funding. Identify funding sources for SoTL; include SoTL in prioritizing for research funding; offer SoTL small grants to faculty; and provide faculty development funds for SoTL conferences and workshops. Travel opportunities. Organize trips, offer small travel grants, share resources, and so on to encourage and support travel to teaching and SoTL conferences. SoTL as a criterion for awards. Consider SoTL in selecting recipients of teaching, service, and research awards as appropriate. SoTL web sites. Create a web site of information and resources for the SoTL. Link to other SoTL sites.


117

SoTL publications. Start a campus newsletter or journal or annual book as an outlet for local SoTL work or encourage contributions to existing local publications. SoTL book give-aways. Purchase multiple copies of SoTL books. These can be offered to faculty and staff, free, when they receive an SoTL grant, participate in an SoTL TLC, come to the teaching center as a new faculty member, help with CASTL work, and so on. Books can also be used as door prizes at certain events. Appendix B and the bibliography to this book contain many great possibilities. Some of the books I have enjoyed giving away in the past include Bernstein, Burnett, Goodburn, and Savory (2006); Brookfield (1995); Cambridge (2004); Cross and Steadman (1996); Huber (2004); Huber and Hutchings (2005); Huber and Morreale (2002); Hutchings (1998, 2000, 2002a); Kreber (2001c); and Weimer (2006). A final component of institutional context is the reward structure and the fit of SoTL in that structure. This has been discussed in Chapter 2 as well as Appendix H. Which types of SoTL support are offered on your campus? Which have you used? What other support strategies would you like to see on campus and how can you help that happen? There are many concrete examples of models and strategies for campus support for SoTL in the books, Campus Progress: Supporting the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (Cambridge, 2004) and The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons (Huber & Hutchings, 2005).

Conclusion Most SoTL work is discipline based, although many teaching-learning problems cut across the disciplines. There are similarities and differences in meanings of SoTL, preferred methodologies, and in the current status of SoTL in various disciplines. SoTL is making headway in most disciplines, but much work remains for SoTL to be adequately supported and valued in the disciplines. SoTL work also resides within an institutional context, but there is no one best model for SoTL support on the campus level. Several models exist and are at work on many campuses. In addition, there are numerous ways,

118


mostly various faculty development and funding strategies, to support SoTL at the campus level. Many institutions are already using many of these strategies such that colleagues and developers at other schools can be a source of information for new ideas on your campus.

CHAPTER NINE

Where Do We Go From Here?

I begin this chapter with a brief discussion of the reciprocal relationship between SoTL and a structural transformation toward cultures of teaching and learning. Next, I have argued that SoTL serves a variety of functions (see Chapter 2), the most critical one being to enhance student learning. This is possible only if we use or apply the results of our SoTL work. Doing so is the first main topic of this chapter, as application is one important answer to the question, “Where do we go from here?” I discuss the levels at which we can use SoTL and forms of application, a bit of data on how often we apply our results, barriers to applying SoTL, and strategies for using SoTL. I also offer some examples of use and application. The field of SoTL is still developing. The future is, in many ways, wide open. In the final sections of this chapter, I discuss some of the challenges and opportunities facing SoTL now and in the future. I also summarize images of the future and suggestions for future directions made by a number of writers.

SoTL and Transforming Culture I believe that SoTL and a culture that promotes teaching and learning have a reciprocal relationship. That is, the scholarship of teaching and learning can aid in creating and nurturing a culture of teaching and learning in departments, institutions, and disciplinary societies. At the same time, a culture of teaching and learning is needed for adequate support and acceptance of SoTL. So, what are 119

120


the factors important to promoting or developing a culture of teaching and learning? I list several below. These ideas draw on personal experience, conversations with faculty development colleagues, my knowledge of culture and organizations as a sociological social psychologist, and the writings of many others in the field (e.g., Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Pescosolido & Aminzade, 1999; Tagg, 2003; Wright et al., 2004). We now need empirical research to validate the importance of these factors. • Community, collaboration, and inclusion • Both bottom-up and top-down support and persuasion • Importance of key, respected campus leaders (faculty, staff, students, and administrators) • Student involvement • Communication via multiple channels • Shared language and symbols • Consensus on values • Integration with mission, values, strategic plans, budget, key initiatives • Use of the reward system • Support of assessment, classroom research, and SoTL • Use of existing structures such as the research office, graduate school, teaching centers, technology centers, and faculty senate • Put the impact on student learning at the forefront of every campus conversation and every campus decision • Everyone is responsible; everyone is a social change agent

Using SoTL Levels and Forms of Application I believe that the applications of SoTL results that do occur are somewhat limited and, most often, at the course or classroom level. This belief is based on my reading of the literature, local observations, discussions with faculty members at other institutions, and involvement in the use of SoTL in my own discipline. The fact that applications are limited in frequency is a serious problem for those of us who believe that application is the primary function and value of SoTL. The fact that most applications are at the course or classroom


121

level is less problematic. On the one hand, SoTL has been viewed— even defined—as classroom or course-based work, as local work, as practitioner scholarship. Thus, a course/class focus makes perfect sense. This may also be where individual faculty can have the most direct and powerful impact. On the other hand, focusing mainly on application at this level means SoTL is not living up to its full potential power for change, for enhancing learning. This is a concern I have raised in the past (McKinney, 2003a, 2006). Appropriately, the theme of the 2006 annual meeting of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning was “Making a Greater Difference: Connecting to Transformational Agendas.” Quoting from the conference web site: Increasing the vitality of the scholarship of teaching and learning depends on the strength of its linkages with larger systems of change. These linkages matter in reciprocal ways: the influence of systems on individual choices of inquiries into teaching and learning and the ways in which those inquiries can have impact beyond individual practice. (¶2) Thus, there are multiple levels and forms of application of SoTL work. SoTL work can be used to inform and transform teaching and learning in the classroom, program, department, institution, discipline, and broader higher education contexts. For example, at the classroom level, you can use SoTL results to redesign an assignment to increase achievement of the learning outcomes. In fact, SoTL (and assessment data, of course) can be used in, as well as grow out of, course design or redesign. Four recent, practical books should prove very useful if that is the level and way you hope to apply SoTL: Bernstein, Burnett, Goodburn, and Savory’s (2006) guide to course portfolios and their use in fostering campus collaboration related to enhancing student learning; the related book on inquiry into teaching and learning using portfolios by Savory, Burnett, and Goodburn (2007); Richlin’s (2006) book on constructing college courses; and Wehlburg’s (2006) book on meaningful course revision. At the program level, volunteer to sit on your department curriculum committee and present proposals to faculty colleagues that contain explicit reference to relevant, extant SoTL work. At the department level,

122


you can help your chairperson use SoTL results to strengthen the arguments in your budget request. At the institutional level, you can serve as an advocate for using strategic planning, program reviews, or assessment processes as “places” to apply relevant SoTL results and implications. In your discipline, you could volunteer to help produce a disciplinary association task force report on best practices in your major that draws on past SoTL work. Beyond your institution or discipline, you can become involved in one of the national or international initiatives seeking to advance SoTL causes such as the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (see www.carnegie foundation.org/CASTL/highered/). (See Chapter 2 for some concrete examples of the functions of SoTL.) Various forms or types of SoTL work can be used in these applications depending on the context and the goals of application. The following list suggests some of the many forms of SoTL work or results we might use: • SoTL past work in your discipline • SoTL past work in other fields or higher education more broadly • Results from your classroom assessment studies made public • Results from your classroom research made public • Results from your course or program assessment studies made public • Results from your course or program research made public • SoTL work conducted and shared by a colleague • Combined or synthesized results from multiple colleagues doing SoTL in your department, program, discipline, or institution I think we often focus on doing our own SoTL work and applying that to improve learning. This is as it should be, but we also need to remember the value of applying the SoTL work of others. Walvoord (2000) discusses how readers of SoTL can use that work as a “heuristic,” offering perspectives and strategies the reader has never considered; providing a range of varied ideas such that the reader can pick and try one or two; presenting a theory or approach


123

that could be altered to fit a new situation, context, or culture in which the reader lives and works; and, through many pieces of SoTL work, giving the reader a sense of important and useful patterns and themes common to a set of SoTL work. What is it we hope to change with our applications? On what do we hope to have an impact? We might want to transform our course objectives or course content. Perhaps, we wish to improve our method pedagogy, such as specific assignments or teaching-learning modalities or use of technology. We may be interested in better integration and connection within or across courses, in curricular reform or program review. We could use SoTL to help us with assessment, accreditation, resource planning, and budget requests. We can use the applications to help us rethink our institutional values and goals. Our focus might be on figuring out better topics and strategies for faculty development efforts related to teaching and learning. Have you thought about applications of SoTL to alter the nature of current educational policy? Again, many of these may be local efforts; but they can also be at broader levels. All of these, of course, relate, directly or indirectly, to efforts to improve teaching and learning.

Some Data on Application I do not believe we have a handle on how much application of SoTL work actually occurs and in what forms or at what levels. A few items from the survey of CASTL scholars are relevant (Cox, Huber, & Hutchings, 2004). Ninety-three percent of the scholars agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I have changed the design of my courses since becoming involved in SoTL.” Similarly, 92% agreed that “I have changed the kinds of assessments I use in my courses as a result of my participation in SoTL.” Finally, 81% agreed with the item, “I have documented improvements in my students’ learning since becoming involved in SoTL.” At my institution, 63% of respondents said they had “used SoTL (own or others) to improve teaching and learning” (McKinney, Broadbear, Gentry, Klass, Naylor, & Virgil, 2004). Finally, 63% of a group of faculty at Buffalo State agreed or agreed strongly that “As a group, my department is open to using the results of studies that aim to improve student learning within our discipline” (C. Albers, person-

124


al communication, February, 2006). Of course, these are only the selfperceptions of application of SoTL by these respondents. We have no independent data on their validity. What would you and colleagues at your institution say about whether and how they apply SoTL? One estimate of the application of SoTL in a field consists of the frequency and nature of any discussion of application of results by the author(s) of published SoTL articles. I looked at articles (N = 26) and notes (N = 19) containing empirical evidence of the impact of a teaching/learning strategy, assignment, course, change, and so on in Teaching Sociology for two issues, five years apart. As I expected, such applications were limited. About half of the articles and notes included a brief discussion of how the authors themselves have made or plan to make changes based on what they learned from the study. For example, they suggested changes in the assignment or its use for their class or how they might adapt it for another class. They suggested strategies to improve the situation for or learning by their students based on the data. Thus, most application was local, individual, and class or course based. Less than one-fourth of the papers contained any discussion of application beyond the individual faculty member and classroom, such as discussion of the implications of the findings for other teachers or students, the department, the discipline, or the institution. There was virtually no discussion of specific processes (e.g., using SoTL results in developing a new course or in program review) that might be used to achieve such applications. I encourage each of you to do a similar exercise with articles in the pedagogical journal of your field and to consider applications and sharing applications as you conduct and make public your own SoTL work. I have argued elsewhere that there are several problem areas or gaps in our application of SoTL work (McKinney, 2003a). These include the following: • Discussions of how the results/conclusions of SoTL work are applied are missing or lack sufficient detail. • Application most often occurs at the individual classroom level rather than also at program or institutional levels. • Extant literature is not always used; new pedagogical knowledge often does not build on what is already known.


125

• Efforts to involve others within and across institutions in SoTL and its application are not as successful as many hope. • Generalizations, when possible, from the SoTL work of others (both in our own and related disciplines) to our own situations are often not made. • Applications of SoTL results are not regularly shared in public or published venues. (p. 1) Why are we not applying more of our SoTL work, in more ways, and at more levels to improve our teaching and learning practices and outcomes? I have seen or heard mentioned a number of barriers to application. First, of course, application cannot occur if people are not doing or, at least, reading SoTL work in order to draw implications and plan applications. There is also the fear of being evaluated as someone who needs to fix his or her teaching and/or the fear of making your teaching public, both of which limit collaboration and feedback that could aid in meaningful application. There is the general fear of or resistance to change. There may be department or institutional politics that make application more difficult then we would like. Sometimes, there are multiple and different possible interpretations of the data and implications. Finally, there are limited resources (money and time) and rewards (actual or perceived) to application of SoTL. Once again, we are probably trying to juggle a number of balls as we attempt to use, concretely, SoTL results. What other barriers can you list? Are there barriers unique to or put in place because of your campus structure, climate, or culture? What might help us do more and better application, including that beyond our individual classrooms? There are a number of features important to the process of using SoTL results. There must be open, honest, and low-risk communication among all those involved. Processes of application should be faculty driven and inclusive. There must be multiple opportunities for quality feedback about our applications over time. We should increase the quantity and quality of student involvement in the application of SoTL results. Visible support from colleagues as well as from top administrators for these efforts is also important. Finally, we must study/assess the value or outcomes of our applications to refine and continue our applications.

126


Thinking About Use and Application Of course, some applications of SoTL do occur though, as noted earlier, most are at the classroom or course levels. For example, at the University of Michigan, Mary Wright’s SoTL projects are classroom based. She has analyzed student writing, work, and discussions to study how students learn in her qualitative methods class. She is using her results to make changes in her course assignments and teaching strategies, and to write and publish an article (personal communication, February, 2006). Jenkins (2006), in a community college setting, used content analysis to study the representations and coverage of rural life in introduction to sociology textbooks. Analyses revealed serious gaps in the quality and quantity of information to which students were exposed. Thus, she designed a set of assignments to close the gaps. An example of ongoing, integrated efforts at SoTL and its application is by Mauer and La Lopa (2003). They implemented total quality management (TQM) processes in a senior-level course in the food science department, involving students in the design, assessment, and redesign of the class. TQM was integrated with assignments and obtaining data on student attitudes and learning. During the course, results from these efforts were used to make suggestions and changes to improve the course. Finally, Crouch and Mazur (2001) have studied and adapted the use of peer instruction in various introductory-level physics courses over a 10year period. With each new set of data, they have made changes to improve the implementation of the peer instruction. To help instructors in workshops and other settings to think about use and application of SoTL work, I often distribute my “Using the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning for Improvement—Worksheet.” Below, I list the questions on that worksheet along with some brief example responses for an area of application I have considered. I suggest you take some time to complete this worksheet yourself. • List one or more aspects of teaching and learning at your institution you would like to change or improve. These could be at the class, course, program, department, college, or institutional levels.


127

I would love to improve the breadth and depth of student engagement in learning on campus. I am particularly interested in the program level (my department) but also in the institutional level. • Select one of the above and think about what types of SoTL data or information or research results are already available or that you could obtain that would be useful to impact this aspect of teaching and learning. Describe these here. We have several years of NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) data and, more recently, FSSE (Faculty Survey of Student Engagement) data. I would also need to check the types of data my department has collected for assessment—there may be something useful in the exit interviews or alumni surveys. I have some limited information from senior majors from a small-scale questionnaire study I conducted. I could look at participation in cocurricular activities such as sociology club or in activities related to learning in the discipline that require extra effort and initiative by our students. • What mechanisms could you use to apply this data or information to this aspect of teaching and learning? Consider the culture of your course or department or school. Think about existing processes that could be used or new ones that could be created. My department is in the process of creating a strategic plan. We are also doing program review next year. These would both be processes I might be able to use to apply some of the data on engagement to make potential changes in pedagogy or curriculum or . . . Some faculty, but not all, would be interested in related discussions in informal meetings or brown-bag sessions and would be open to making possible changes in their courses based on data. Concrete ideas to increase engagement based on data that require funding could become items in the department’s next budget enhancement request.

The Future of SoTL Challenges and Opportunities in the Field of SoTL Elsewhere, I have proposed seven interrelated categories of challenges and opportunities for the future of SoTL (McKinney, 2006). My beliefs about these challenges and opportunities are based on my

128


experiences doing SoTL, my work over the years trying to support SoTL in the day-to-day life of a campus and within a discipline, as well as on extant literature and discussions with many colleagues on my home campus and at other institutions. I summarize six of these opportunities here—the seventh is increasing applications, discussed earlier. Many of these have also been noted in previous chapters of this book. First, there is the challenge to increase the emphasis of the scholarship of teaching and learning on the learning part! At this time, SoTL often focuses on teachers, teaching strategies, teaching situations, and teaching assignments. If you take a quick look at the papers in the pedagogical journal in your discipline, I believe you will see this trend. In my discipline, for example, looking at the articles and notes published over two recent years in Teaching Sociology, about 75% of the papers are about teaching tips or strategies and contain little, if any, empirical data. Of the 25% or so with data, about half deal with student satisfaction or other reactions, faculty reflection, and occasionally some very specific measure of learning for a particular teaching strategy or assignment; the other half are about learning in the discipline more generally. Teaching strategies, situations, and assignments are all very important and interesting topics for SoTL work but we must move toward an emphasis on learning, including student outcomes as well as affective and cognitive processes from the teacher’s and students’ perspectives. Many Carnegie Scholar projects focus on learning as can be seen from reviewing the web snapshots at www.carnegie foundation.org/general/sub.asp?key=21&subkey=63&topkey=21. Second, we must increase the SoTL that focuses on the teaching and learning of graduate students. In a review of the more than 100 Carnegie Scholar projects, almost all are about issues related to undergraduate students. Although this focus on undergraduates is logical for many obvious reasons, we cannot simply assume that we understand the best practices for teaching graduate students or how they learn in class and in other academic activities in various disciplines (e.g., theses, dissertations, lab settings, advanced performances). It is time to take the opportunity to do more SoTL work on the learning of graduate students.


129

Third, although SoTL at the classroom level is at the heart of this work and of most faculty members, it is time to do more SoTL work at other levels, including the course, program, and department levels. This could increase networks and collaborations among those working on SoTL, improve the integration of SoTL into institutional cultures, strengthen linkages between SoTL and assessment, and provide additional and better opportunities for student involvement in SoTL research. Such efforts can also move us further along the road of understanding the larger landscape of learning in a discipline, including pedagogical content knowledge and signature pedagogies (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Shulman, in press). Furthermore, we are challenged to expand the role of students in SoTL. We need to bring in the student voice not merely in the role of subject but as coresearchers and interpreters of our data, and as individuals equipped to use the results to improve their own learning. We must invent creative ways to involve our students and use their experience-based expertise (see Chapter 4). The spread of involvement in SoTL work to members of the academy, additional disciplines, and more nations is in progress but is a fifth opportunity. In my experience there are still too many administrators and faculty members almost entirely unaware of the international SoTL movement despite the fact that virtually all these individuals are involved in some way in teaching and learning. Membership in the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) is predominantly North American and Western. Though certainly not everyone will engage in SoTL work, everyone should be aware of and should be using such work to improve teaching and learning. Finally, we have the opportunity to fertilize innovative forms of collaboration across institutions and across disciplines. Such collaboration is already on the rise, thanks to initiatives such as the Carnegie Scholar Program, CASTL, new organizations and conferences, cross-disciplinary SoTL journals, and web-based SoTL outlets. We also need more replication of studies and findings to similar disciplines and settings at other institutions as well as more work in the interdisciplinary trading zone (Huber & Morreale, 2002). Both of these efforts add to the validity and legitimacy of local SoTL find-

130


ings. Thus, we need to continue to expand the teaching commons (Huber & Hutchings, 2005). Others have also written about opportunities or needs for the scholarship of teaching and learning. For example, several authors discuss ways to improve the future of SoTL in a given discipline (e.g., Bilimoria, 2000; Booth, 2004; McKinney & Howery, 2006; Mennin & McGrew, 2000). I focus here on more general or crossdiscipline discussions of the future of SoTL. I briefly summarize a few of these here so you can get a better sense of the thinking about the future of the field. You will notice overlap in ideas among the various authors. Huber and Hutchings (2005) propose changes for the future of SoTL. They offer five areas of future action needed to move SoTL and the teaching commons forward: • Establish more and better opportunities to talk about learning. • Make students part of the conversation about learning. • Recognize teaching as substantive, intellectual work. • Create new forms to document the work of teaching and learning. • Build and maintain the infrastructure needed to make high quality pedagogical work accessible to everyone. (pp. 130–131) Weimer (2006) also discusses a variety of future needs related to SoTL and, more specifically, the improvement of and use of pedagogical scholarship. She argues that we need to increase the credibility of this scholarship and the viability of the literature. Weimer believes it is beneficial to have a broad definition of pedagogical scholarship and that teachers need to be able to do pedagogical scholarship to varying degrees; it is not a one-size-fits-all activity. Furthermore, she makes the case that we must come to view experience-based (not just research-based) knowledge as a legitimate way of knowing. We need to come to value and to connect the related scholarships of integration and application with SoTL, and to do a better job using pedagogical scholarship to improve practice. She also discusses the place of pedagogical scholarship in terms of the dis-


131

ciplines and argues that it can neither belong to the disciplines or stand alone; rather, it must somehow do both. Six strategies for moving SoTL into the larger conversation and community of teaching and learning as presented by Lee Shulman are summarized by Chick (2006). Shulman believes it is time to take teaching from community property to public property. First, Shulman advises that we publicize, even flaunt, our SoTL research and its importance (practical and conceptual knowledge and understandings) with many audiences and groups including practitioners in the professions and the disciplines. Second, he proposes that we learn from the efforts, success, and measurement strategies of work such as NSSE and College Learning Assessment (CLA). Good tools are important, he reminds us. We should create and share tools to make our results readily accessible. This builds networks and a research base. Third, we need to expand the choir; socialize more faculty and graduate students to do SoTL. He suggests that we should expect SoTL (broadly defined) of everyone. He reminded us that we especially need this work by those not in the field of education. Fourth, Shulman argues we should continue to grow the field with conferences, journals, organizations, sessions at disciplinary society meetings, and so on—such nurturing grows our power as well. Fifth, it is time to institutionalize SoTL in our universities and colleges by connecting SoTL to teaching centers, institutional research and assessment offices and initiatives, departments, the graduate school, the research office, various initiatives, and so on. Finally, we must become more active in policy conversations. We should use SoTL to ask the important questions and to provide evidence for answers via policy. Kreber (2005) argues that SoTL “has not fully realized its potential to become a catalyst for curricula changes in higher education” (p. 391). She believes we have not adequately dealt with some key questions about the purpose of the SoTL movement and that we must do so. More specifically, she examines SoTL from a critical, postmodern perspective. She argues there are at least three implications for SoTL when taking this perspective. First, this perspective influences our definitions or understandings of SoTL and of whom we view as practicing the scholarship of teaching. Second, our SoTL questions may change or broaden in scope to consider the curricula

132


we offer. Finally, SoTL would go beyond the topic of teaching your subject matter to include teaching and learning related to empowerment and social responsibility. Badley (2003) briefly reviews the ideas about SoTL of several leaders in the field. He suggests that, to improve SoTL, those of us who are studying teaching and learning in higher education should use Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff’s (1997) framework of criteria for evaluating SoTL as “guidelines to help plan, implement, and evaluate investigations into the practice of teaching” (p. 308). To review, these criteria include clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique. Badley argues that the most important of these is the reflective critique of our scholarly work which, he says, means we “examine critically whether it is consistent with what we claim to be our academic values” (p. 308). We can also think about the future of SoTL from the perspective of a specific discipline. Weiss (2006) offers three categories of recommendations for SoTL in sociology. I believe, however, that those in other disciplines will find these relevant. First, he recommends that we continue to work on conceptual and organizational clarity of the term and field of SoTL. He suggests we prioritize the disciplinary perspective but also emphasize inclusiveness. Second, he urges us to broaden the content of SoTL work, including, for sociology and related fields, increased attention to faculty socialization around teaching and learning, the application of social psychological theories about learning and motivation, the organizational context in which teaching and learning takes place, and models of faculty-student relationships. Finally, Weiss notes that we can expand the range of methodologies used, including more observational research, interviews, conversational analysis, and vignette analysis. Thus, many suggestions about building the future of SoTL have been made. Looking across the writings of multiple authors in the field, several suggestions emerge repeatedly: increase the breadth of involvement in SoTL, increase various forms of collaboration on SoTL, build an infrastructure at several levels in support of SoTL, maintain a fairly broad and inclusive definition of SoTL, work to improve the credibility of SoTL work, and engage in more and better practical applications of SoTL in multiple contexts.


133

Future Images In addition to offering concrete suggestions for actions to improve SoTL and its impact in the future, others have written briefly about future images of the field. What might SoTL or support for SoTL look like in the future? For example, Shulman (2004) describes four possible models for the future of campus support for SoTL. In general, he views all four of these as “a combination of support structures and sanctuaries, that is, places where faculty whose scholarly interests include teaching and learning can find safety, support and even colleagueship for doing good work on the pedagogies of their fields” (p. 9). The four models are 1) the interdisciplinary center, where faculty (and, presumably, staff and students) whose scholarly areas include teaching and learning come together to collaborate on and share this work; 2) the graduate education academy, in which SoTL is linked to graduate education and the graduate school via doctoral preparation and other aspects; 3) the center for technology, which focuses SoTL work on key questions about instructional technology and learning, and uses the structure and support of the technology center; and 4) the distributed academy, where SoTL is not housed in any one organizational unit but, rather, is encouraged and supported at many local levels (e.g., departments) on campus. Huber and Morreale (2002) forecast that “Of one thing we can be certain. Whatever the future of the scholarship of teaching and learning, it will no longer be mostly a matter of parallel play” (p. 20). That is, SoTL will move toward greater cross- and interdisciplinary work. CASTL scholars have also offered their views on the image of SoTL in the future (Cox, et al., 2004). Reporting the percentage of the scholars who believe each of the following will occur in the next 5 to 10 years, 45% indicate SoTL will become a fully legitimate form of scholarship on their campus that counts; 56% feel SoTL will become a respected specialty in their discipline or professional field; and 50% say SoTL will contribute to widespread changes in how students learn in postsecondary classrooms. Seventeen percent state SoTL will become an expectation of all faculty members at various points in their careers. Only 2% believe SoTL will disappear and leave no trace.

134


Thus, in these views of the future, SoTL will be supported in diverse ways at the campus level, will contain greater cross- and interdisciplinary work, will have increased respect and legitimacy in the disciplines and on campus, and will lead to important impacts on student learning.

Conclusion We all need to work toward creating and nurturing a strong, positive culture of teaching and learning in our departments, institutions, and disciplines. Though limited evidence indicates that many of us believe SoTL should be applied and can improve teaching and learning, not enough actual application and assessment of that application occurs. This is especially true for work beyond the individual instructor at the classroom level. SoTL can never reach its full potential unless we all strive to become better users of this knowledge base in more ways and at more levels. The future of SoTL is unknown. Many experts in the area have discussed challenges or needs, opportunities, and visions for the future. Most are optimistic and believe in the value and the long-term existence of the scholarship of teaching and learning. As we work to overcome the challenges, to take advantage of the opportunities, to create new visions, and to improve student learning, I hope you will join in this creative and worthwhile work.

APPENDIX A

Example Campus Survey on Status of SoTL

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Questionnaire The purpose of this self-administered questionnaire study is to obtain some information about your views on and involvement in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) at Illinois State University. The study is part of a larger institutional change project sponsored, in part, by the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE). We hope to use this information as part of a broader study on the current status of SoTL at Illinois State University. We have Institutional Review Board approval for the study. Your participation is both voluntary and confidential. Upon completion of the study, the data will be destroyed via secure recycling. You may refuse to participate or withdraw at any time without penalty. If you have questions about the study, you may contact Kathleen McKinney at 438-7706 or the Research and Sponsored Programs Office at 438-2528. We thank you for your participation. You may submit this questionnaire electronically or print it out, complete it and send to Kathleen McKinney, Campus Box 3990. AAHE Summer Academy 2002 ISU Team Members: Jim Broadbear, Deb Gentry, Trish Klass, Kathleen McKinney, Sharon Naylor, and Nicky Virgil 135


136

1. Your department or unit name: ____________________________ 2. Position you currently hold in your department: 1 Assistant Professor 3 Full Professor 5 Nontenure-Track Instructor

2 Associate Professor 4 Administrative/Professional 6 Other

3. Number of years you have taught at the university level: ______ 4. Are you aware of the Illinois State University (CASTL) definition of the SoTL? 1 yes

2 no

5. How would you define the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning? _____________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 6. What are the similarities and differences between SoTL and other types of scholarship? _______________________________ ______________________________________________________ In responding to the rest of the questionnaire, please keep in mind the Illinois State University definition of SoTL. SoTL is the “systematic reflection on teaching and learning made public.” SoTL refers to reflection and research (broadly defined) on teaching and learning in higher education, usually discipline based, that is made public via professional presentation, publications, and other peer reviewed scholarly outlets appropriate to the discipline. 7. Have you conducted any research in the area of SoTL? 1 yes

2 no

If yes, please briefly describe or provide the title of one of your recent SoTL projects. ___________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

Appendix A

137

8. Have you ever collaborated with colleague(s) on any research related to SoTL? 1 yes

2 no

9. How often have you given professional presentations of SoTL work? 1 never

2 rarely

3 sometimes

4 often

5 very often

10. How often have you published SoTL work? 1 never

2 rarely

3 sometimes

4 often

5 very often

11. Is there any other way you are involved in work on the SoTL (e.g., on the editorial board of an SoTL journal)? 1 yes

2 no

If yes, please briefly describe the type of work in which you are involved. ___________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 12. What type of impact, if any, does or would conducting SoTL have on your professional career? very positive 1 2

neutral 3

very negative 4 5

13. What do you see as the benefits, if any, to pursuing the SoTL for faculty, staff, students, institutions of higher education, and/or the community at large? ___________________________ ______________________________________________________ 14. What role can students play in SoTL? _____________________ ______________________________________________________ 15. What kind of actions/initiatives do you think that the university community should engage in, if any, to promote SoTL? ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________


138

16. If you present or publish some SoTL work, where would it “count” in your department/unit annual evaluation? 1 under service 2 under teaching 3 under scholarship/research 4 I would have a choice 5 it depends or other (please explain) ______________________ ______________________________________________________ 17. How often have you used/applied your own or others’ SoTL work in an attempt to improve teaching/learning? 1 never

2 rarely

3 sometimes

4 often

5 very often

If you have used SoTL work, please give one example of how you have done so. __________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ For questions 18–31 please indicate, by circling the number, whether you: 1—strongly disagree; 2—disagree; 3—neither disagree or agree; 4—agree; 5—strongly agree 18. SoTL is important. 1

2

3

4

5

19. SoTL has practical value for teachers. 1

2

3

4

5

20. SoTL has practical value for students. 1

2

3

4

5

21. SoTL has practical value for institutions of higher education. 1

2

3

4

5

22. SoTL has practical value for the community. 1

2

3

4

5

Appendix A

139

23. There is adequate funding for SoTL. 1

2

3

4

5

24. SoTL is valued in my department. 1

2

3

4

5

25. SoTL is valued in my college. 1

2

3

4

5

26. SoTL is valued in my university. 1

2

3

4

5

27. Results from SoTL work are used/applied in my department. 1

2

3

4

5

28. Knowing the SoTL work in one’s discipline is important for good teaching. 1

2

3

4

5

29. Everyone should do some SoTL work. 1

2

3

4

5

30. SoTL work is a form of “real” scholarship. 1

2

3

4

5

31. SoTL work can help us fulfill our institutional strategic plan. 1

2

3

4

5

APPENDIX B

Additional Resources on SoTL—Web Sites, Articles, Chapters, and Books Important SoTL Web Sites Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching www.carnegiefoundation.org/CASTL/highered/index.htm Carnegie Scholars www.carnegiefoundation.org/programs/sub.asp?key=21&subkey=63 &topkey=21 CASTL Leadership Clusters www.carnegiefoundation.org/programs/sub.asp?key=21&subkey=68 &topkey=21 Course Portfolio Repository www.courseportfolio.org Flashlight Program at the Teaching-Learning-Technology Group www.tltgroup.org Illinois State University Scholarship of Teaching and Learning web site: www.sotl.ilstu.edu/ SoTL conferences and institutes www.sotl.ilstu.edu/sotlConf/ SoTL funding opportunities www.sotl.ilstu.edu/funding/ SoTL publication outlets www.sotl.ilstu.edu/pubOuts/index.shtml 141

142


Bibliography of readings related to SoTL www.sotl.ilstu.edu/resLinks/bibl.shtml Links and resources www.sotl.ilstu.edu/resLinks/index.shtml SoTL Researcher Collaboration Database www.sotl.ilstu.edu/sotlcollaboration/ Indiana University SoTL web site www.indiana.edu/~sotl/ Indiana University Peer Review of Teaching Project www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/portfolio/ International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) www.issotl.indiana.edu/ISSOTL/ MERLOT Project—peer reviewed online teaching and learning materials www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm University of Wisconsin System SoTL web site http://sotl.uwm.edu Visible Knowledge Project and Index http://crossroads.georgetown.edu/vkp/ Links to other SoTL web sites www.sotl.ilstu.edu/resLinks/sites.shtml

Articles, Chapters, and Books Not Listed in Bibliography Albers, C. (2003). Using the syllabus to document the scholarship of teaching and learning. Teaching Sociology, 31, 60–72. Andersen, L. W. (2000). A usable, trans-disciplinary conception of scholarship. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 137–153. Atkinson, M. P. (2001). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Reconceptualizing scholarship and transforming the academy. Social Forces, 79, 1217–1229.

Appendix B

143

Babb, M., & Hutchings, P. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Idea and impact. HERDSA News, 24, 7–9. Baker, P. (2002, July). Teacher-scholars and the scholarship of teaching in a research-intensive university: Reflections on a slow revolution. Paper presented at the meeting of Mission, Values, and Identity: A National Conference for Carnegie Doctoral/Research Intensive Institutions, Normal, IL. Becker, W. E., & Andrew, M. L. (Eds.). (2004). The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: Contributions of research universities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Benjamin, J. (2000). The scholarship of teaching in teams: What does it look like in practice? Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 191–204. Benson, E., Haney, W., Ore, T., Persell, C., Schulte, A., Steele, J., et al. (2002). Digital technologies and the scholarship of teaching and learning in sociology. Teaching Sociology, 30, 140–157. Bernstein, D. J. (2005). The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: Contributions of research universities [review]. Review of Higher Education, 28(3), 425–426. Braxton, J. M. (Ed.). (2006). New directions for institutional research: No. 129. Analyzing faculty work and rewards: Using Boyer’s Four Domains of Scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Breslow, L., Drew, L., Healey, M., Matthew, B., & Norton, L. (2004). Intellectual curiosity: A catalyst for the scholarships of teaching and learning and educational development. In E. M. Elvidge (Ed.), Exploring academic development in higher education: Issues of engagement (pp. 83–96). Cambridge, UK: Jill Rogers Associates. Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 22, 3–18. Callister, L. C., Matsumura, G., & Lookinland, S. (2005). Inquiry in baccalaureate nursing education: Fostering evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Education, 44, 59–64. Cambridge, B. L. (2001, April). Campus conversations on the scholarship of teaching. Paper presented as part of the symposium “More on the scholarship of teaching: Follow-up studies, reactions, and the possible future,” conducted by the American Research Association, Division J, Post-Secondary Education, Seattle, WA.

144


Cambridge, B. L. (2002). Linking change initiatives: The Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the company of other national projects. In D. Lieberman & C. Wehlburg (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 20. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 38–48). Bolton, MA: Anker. Chanock, K. (2005). Scholarship of teaching and learning: Investigating patterns and possibilities in an academic oral genre. Communication Education, 54, 92–99. Clark, B. R. (1997). The modern integration of research activities with teaching and learning. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 241–256. Clarke, S. E., Hutchings, P., Keeter, S., Reeher, G., Alex-Assensoh, Y., & Boyd, F. (2002). Roundtable on the scholarship of teaching and learning in political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(2), 223–228. Cohen, J. (2002). Editor’s note: The obligation of teaching and learning scholarship. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 54, 2–3. Cottrell, S. A., & Jones, E. A. (2003). Researching the scholarship of teaching and learning: An analysis of current curriculum practices. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 169–181. Cousin, G., Healey, M., Jenkins, A., Bradbeer, J., King, H., et al. (2003). Raising educational research capacity: A discipline-based approach. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory and practice—10 years on (pp. 296–306). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University. Cross, K. P. (1990). Teachers as scholars. AAHE Bulletin, 43(4), 3–5. Cross, K. P. (1990). Classroom research: Helping professors learn more about teaching and learning. In P. Seldin & R. Edgerton (Eds.), How administrators can improve teaching: From talk to action in higher education (pp. 122–142). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Diamond, R. M. (2002). Defining scholarship for the twenty-first century (pp. 73–79). In K. J. Zahorski (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 90. Scholarship in the postmodern era: New venues, new values, new visions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dorman, W. (2004). Scholarship of teaching and learning: Affecting students’ points of view in a survey of methods class. Communication Education, 53, 274–280.

Appendix B

145

Drevdahl, D. J., Stackman, R. W., Purdy, J. M., & Louie, B. Y. (2002). Merging reflective inquiry and self-study as a framework for enhancing the scholarship of teaching. Journal of Nursing Education, 41, 413–419. Eisenberg, A. (2002, August). Educational praxis: Linking the practice of teaching with the scholarship of teaching and learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, IL. Feezel, J., & Welch, S. A. (2000). What is new or different about the scholarship of teaching? JACA: Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29, 250–56. Fiddler, M. B., McGury, S., & Marienau, C. (1996). Broadening the scope of scholarship: A suggested framework. Innovative Higher Education, 21, 127–39. Foster, C. (2002). The scholarship of teaching in theology and religion: A Wabash Center Advisory Committee conversation. Teaching Theology and Religion, 5, 192–200. Franklin, J., & Theall, M. (2001, April). Faculty opinions about the value and interest of the scholarship of teaching. After a decade, have Boyer’s goals been achieved? Paper presented as part of the symposium “More on the scholarship of teaching: Follow-up studies, reactions, and the possible future,” conducted by the American Research Association, Division J, Post-Secondary Education, Seattle, WA. Fukami, C. V. (2004). The deans’ perspective—“The scholarship of teaching and learning: Putting your money where your mouth is on teaching effectiveness.” Decision Line, 35, 20–22. Gibbs, P., Angelides, P., & Michaelides, P. (2004). Preliminary thoughts on a praxis of higher education teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 183–194. Glanville, I., & Houde, S. (2004). The scholarship of teaching: Implications for nursing faculty. Journal of Professional Nursing, 20, 7–14. Halpern, D. F., Smothergill, D. W., Allen, M., Baker, S., Baum, C., Best, D., et al. (1998). Scholarship in psychology: A paradigm for the twenty-first century. American Psychologist, 53(12), 1292–1297. Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 167–187.

146


Healey, M. (2000, February 4). How to put scholarship into teaching. The Times Higher Education Supplement, 1421, 40–41. Hinchliffe, L. J. (2001). The scholarship of teaching and learning. Research Strategies, 18, 1–2. Huber, M. T. (2001). Balancing acts: Designing careers around the scholarship of teaching and learning. Change, 33(4), 21–29. Hutchings, P. (2004). Movement in the scholarship of teaching and learning. In B. Cambridge (Ed.), Campus progress: Supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 215–220). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Hutchings, W., & O’Rourke, K. (2003). Introducing enquiry-based teaching methods in literary studies. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from www.heacademy.ac.uk/profdev/case_study6.pdf Johnston, R. (1998). The university of the future: Boyer revisited. Higher Education, 36, 253–272. Kelly-Kleese, C. (2003). Community college scholarship. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 69–84. Koch, L. C., Holland, L. A., Price, D., Gonzalez, L. G., Lieske, P., Butler, A., et al. (2002). Engaging new faculty in the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 83–94. Lauer-Glebov, J., & McFarland, C. (2005, March). Ends, means, and uses: Archives, assessment, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. Session presented at the meeting of the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning colloquium, Atlanta, GA. Louie, B. Y., Drevdahl, D. J., Purdy, J. M., & Stackman, R. W. (2003). Advancing the scholarship of teaching and learning through collaborative self-study. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 150–171. Lucal, B., Albers, C., Ballantine, J., Burmeister-May, J., Chin, J., Dettmer, S., et al. (2003). Faculty assessment and the scholarship of teaching and learning: Knowledge available/knowledge needed. Teaching Sociology, 31, 146–161. Mauksch, H. O., & Howery, C. B. (1986). Social change for teaching: The case of one disciplinary association. Teaching Sociology, 14, 73–82. McCorskey, L., McCorskey, J., & Richmond, V. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Contributions from the discipline of communication. Communication Education, 51, 383–391.

Appendix B

147

McKenna, J., Bickle, M., & Carroll, J. B. (2002). Using scholarship to integrate teaching and research. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 94, 39–45. Miller, S. K., Rodrigo, S., Pantoja, V., & Roen, D. (2004). Institutional models for engaging faculty in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 32, 30–38. Moorehead, J. W., & Shedd, P. J. (1996, Summer). Student interviews: A vital role in the scholarship of teaching with discussion. Innovative Higher Education, 20, 261–276. Ottewill, R., & Macfarlane, B. (2004). Quality and the scholarship of teaching: Learning from subject review. Quality in Higher Education, 10, 231–241. Parker, J. (2003). Writing, revising and practicing the disciplines: Carnegie, Cornell and the scholarship of teaching. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 2(3), 139–153. Paulsen, M. B. (2001). The relation between research and the scholarship of teaching. In C. Kreber (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 86. Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching (pp. 19–29). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1995). Toward a re-conceptualization of scholarship: A human action system with functional imperatives. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 615–640. Quinlan, K. M. (2002). Doing the scholarship of teaching in veterinary education: Learning from the science literature. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 29, 225–226. Rice, R. E. (2002). Beyond scholarship reconsidered: Toward an enlarged vision of the scholarly work of faculty members. In K. J. Zahorski (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 90. Scholarship in the postmodern era: New venues, new values, new visions (pp. 7–17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Richlin, L. (Ed.). (1993). New directions for teaching and learning: No. 54. Preparing faculty for the new conception of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26–34.

148


Serow, R. C., Van Dyk, P. B., McComb, E. M., & Harrold, A. T. (2002). Cultures of undergraduate teaching at research universities. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 25–37. Simpson, R. D. (2001). From adequacy to excellence: Honoring the scholarship of learning and teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 26, 83–6. Smith, R. A. (2001). Expertise and the scholarship of teaching. In C. Kreber (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 86. Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 69–78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith, R. A. (2001). Formative evaluation and the scholarship of teaching and learning. In C. Knapper & P. Cranton (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 88. Fresh approaches to the evaluation of teaching (pp. 51–62). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sommers, J. (2004). Two-year college English faculty and the scholarship of teaching and learning: The journey awaits. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 32, 14–25. Taylor, K. L. (1993). The role of scholarship in university teaching. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 23, 64–79. Trigwell, K., & Shale, S. (2004). Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 523–536. Webster, N., & Chin, J. (2002, April). The scholarship of teaching and learning: An online survey of sociologists and interviews with past editors of Teaching Sociology. Paper presented at North Central Sociological Association, Windsor, Canada. Weimer, M. E. (1992). Scholarship of teaching. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 4, 41–58. Weimer, M. E. (1993). The disciplinary journals on pedagogy. Change, 25(6), 44–51. Weimer, M. E. (1996). Why scholarship is the bedrock of good teaching. In R. J. Menges & M. Weimer (Eds.), Teaching on solid ground: Using scholarship to improve practice (pp. 1–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Weimer, M. E. (2000). Better scholarship “on” teaching. Journal of Nursing Education, 39, 195–196. Zahorski, K. J. (Ed.) (2002). New directions in teaching and learning: No. 90. Scholarship in the postmodern era: New venues, new values, new visions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

APPENDIX C

List of SoTL Journals and Newsletters Core SoTL Journals and Newsletters (I encourage readers to send to me, via email at [email protected], any recommendations for additions to this list.) Academic Commons (web site) Academic Exchange Quarterly Active Learning in Higher Education Assessment Update Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning College Teaching Deliberations (web site) F-LIGHT (E-newsletter from the TLT Group) Higher Education Research and Development Innovative Higher Education Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning (IJPBL) (online journal) International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (online journal) International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (online journal) Inventio: Creative Thinking About Teaching and Learning (online journal) Journal of Cognitive and Affective Learning (JCAL) (online journal) Journal of Effective Teaching (online journal) Journal of Faculty Development Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development 149

150


Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (online journal) Journal of Student Centered Learning Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice (JUTLP) (online journal) Journal on Excellence in College Teaching LATISS—Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (LATHE) (online journal) Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning MountainRise (online journal) National Teaching and Learning Forum (NTLF) Reaching Through Teaching (online journal) Teaching in Higher Education Teaching Professor

Discipline-Specific SoTL Journals Accounting Issues in Accounting Education Journal of Accounting Education Agriculture Journal of Agricultural Education (online journal) NACTA Journal Anthropology Anthropology and Education Quarterly Architecture Journal of Architectural Education Art Education Journal of Aesthetic Education Studies in Art Education Biochemistry Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education Biology Advances in Physiology Education American Biology Teacher Bioscience

Appendix C

Cell Biology Education Journal of Biological Education Business and Economics Business Education Forum Delta Pi Epsilon Journal Issues in Accounting Education Journal of Applied Research for Business Instruction Journal of Business Education Journal of Economic Education Journal of Education for Business Journal of Management Education Journal of Marketing Education Journal of Teaching in International Business Teaching Business Ethics Teaching Economist Chemistry Chemical Educator Chemical Engineering Education Education in Chemistry Journal of Chemical Education Communications Communication Education Communication Teacher Journalism and Mass Communication Educator Media and Methods Computer Science Computer Science Education Computers and Education Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching Journal of Information Systems Education Mathematics and Computer Education Criminal Justice Journal of Criminal Justice Education Drama Research in Drama Education

151

152


Theatre Topics Education Action in Teacher Education American Educational Research Journal Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education Community College Journal of Research and Practice Educational Pathways Internet and Higher Education Journal of Blacks in Higher Education Journal of Curriculum and Supervision Journal of Experimental Education Journal of Higher Education Journal of Interactive Learning Research Journal of Negro Education Journal of Teacher Education Liberal Education On the Horizon Quarterly Review of Distance Education Review of Educational Research Studies in Higher Education Teaching and Teacher Education Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy THE Journal: Technological Horizons in Education Engineering Journal of Engineering Education English ADE (Association of Departments of English) Bulletin Assessing Writing College Composition and Communication College English Composition Studies English Education Journal of English for Academic Purposes Journal of Teaching Writing Pedagogy Research in the Teaching of English

Appendix C

Environmental Studies Journal of Environmental Education Family and Consumer Science Family Relations Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Journal of Teaching in Marriage and Family Geography and Geology Journal of Geography Journal of Geography in Higher Education Journal of Geoscience Education Health, Physical Education, Gerontology Advances in Health Sciences Education Advances in Physiology Education American Journal of Health Education Educational Gerontology Gerontology and Geriatrics Education Health Educator Journal of Food Science Education Journal of Health Administration Education Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance Journal of Teaching in Physical Education Physical Educator Quest History History Teacher Journal of American History Teaching History Interior Design Journal of Interior Design Journalism Journalism and Mass Communication Educator Law CLE (Continuing Legal Education) Journal

153

154


Journal of Legal Education Library Science Research Strategies Mathematics American Statistician College Mathematics Journal Journal of Statistics Education Mathematics and Computer Education Mathematics Teacher PRIMUS (Problems, Resources and Issues in Undergraduate Mathematics Study) School Science and Mathematics Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications Teaching Statistics TME (The Mathematics Educator) Modern Languages Foreign Language Annals IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics Language Teaching Modern Language Journal Music Contributions to Music Education International Journal of Music Education Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy Journal of Research in Music Education Music Educators Journal Philosophy of Music Education Review Update: Applications of Research in Music Education Nursing Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing Journal of Nursing Education Review of Research in Nursing Education Philosophy Metaphilosophy

Appendix C

155

Teaching Philosophy Physics American Journal of Physics Physics Education Physics Teacher Political Science Journal of Political Science Education PS: Political Science and Politics (incorporated Political Science Teacher) Psychology and Psychiatry Academic Psychiatry (formerly the Journal of Psychiatric Education) Cognition and Instruction Counselor Education and Supervision Journal of Educational Psychology Journal of Instructional Psychology Teaching of Psychology Recreation and Tourism Chef Educator Today Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism Schole: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education Sciences Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition International Journal of Science Education Journal of College Science Teaching Journal of Environmental Education Journal of Research in Science Teaching Journal of Science Education and Technology Research in Science and Technological Education School Science and Mathematics Science Education Social Work Journal of Social Work Education

156


Journal of Teaching in Social Work Sociology Teaching Sociology Teaching and Learning Matters Women’s Studies Feminist Teacher

APPENDIX D

Example Call for Proposals for Campus SoTL Small Grants

Illinois State University Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in Higher Education Small Grant Program Call for Proposals 2006–2007 (FY07) Overview The Cross Endowed Chair in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning requests proposals for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Small Grant Program. The program provides funding for small grants, at Illinois State University, in the area of scholarship on teaching and learning (SoTL) as it relates to teaching and learning at the college level. At Illinois State University, through our work with the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) Campus Program, we have developed the following definition of SoTL, “systematic reflection on teaching and learning made public.” This definition allows for work in any discipline and the use of various methodologies and epistemologies. All SoTL work must be made public and peer reviewed in some way via presentation, performance, juried show, and/or publication. The work may be quantitative or qualitative in nature. 157

158


Our definition of SoTL encompasses work in the following areas: • • • • •

Classroom research Program research Assessment in a discipline Research on teaching and learning in out-of-class experiences Reflections on teaching and learning such as a course portfolio or performance

For FY07, projects must focus on the topic (broadly defined) of promoting learner autonomy. Autonomous learners are students who take responsibility for their learning, are willing to collaborate, partnering with faculty and peers in their learning, are reflective about their learning, and are involved in shared governance. Autonomous learners are strong lifelong learners. Awards up to $5,000 are available. Funds may be used for any budget category (e.g., printing, commodities, contractual, travel, student help, salary) of which a maximum of $4,000 may be faculty/staff salary. We expect to award about four to five grants. All awards, however, are subject to the availability of funds. If the university sustains additional budget cuts in FY07, all programs, including URG Awards, will be reviewed, which may result in their reduction or elimination. Eligibility All tenured and tenure-line faculty, nontenure-line faculty, faculty associates, graduate teaching assistants, and AP staff with teaching or teaching support responsibilities at Illinois State University are eligible to apply. Each proposal, however, must be from a team of at least one faculty/staff member and at least one student (graduate or undergraduate). Requirements All award recipients (as teams) must meet five requirements: • Submission of an IRB protocol form and receipt of IRB approval before starting the project (as this research will be made public) • Participation by at least one team member in a research/writing group, meeting regularly (about three times per semester) in FY07 to discuss the SoTL projects

Appendix D

159

• Submission, electronically, of a brief progress report (one to two pages) on the status of the research and outcomes of the project to the Cross Chair by June 2007 • Presentation of their SoTL research project and any results thus far at the Teaching-Learning Symposium held in January 2007 or January 2008 • Submission of an article to a teaching newsletter, web site, or journal by December 2007 with a copy to the Cross Chair Selection Criteria Three volunteers with expertise in SoTL will review the proposals using these criteria. • Project clearly fits SoTL related to college teaching and learning as defined above. • Project focuses on promoting learner autonomy. • Proposal clearly states the teaching-learning issue or problem to be considered. • Proposal includes a relevant literature review: theory, past research. (Journals on college teaching and higher education practices are available at both Milner Library and CTLT.) • Proposal includes clearly stated changes (expected or desired) in Illinois State University students’ learning or related outcomes, and how these will be “measured.” • Project uses appropriate methodology for reflecting on/studying the teaching-learning issue or problem posed. • Project is ethically appropriate in terms of the use of human subjects. • Proposal lists specific, possible presentation, performance, or publication outlets. • Proposal contains an appropriate and detailed budget with budget justifications. Application Materials and Procedure Please send three copies of the following materials to Kathleen McKinney, Cross Chair in SoTL, Campus Box 6370 by April 28, 2006: • A cover page with name, department, and email address of applicants, project title, and signature of department chair

160


• A narrative addressing the first 8 bullet points above under criteria (maximum of five double-spaced pages) • A reference page/bibliography • A budget as described above including a budget justification • Optional appendices (e.g., draft of questionnaire or focus group questions or course portfolio outline) Time Frame • Proposals due to Cross Chair before 4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 28, 2006 • Notification of awards in late May 2006; funds available July 1, 2006 • Funds must be spent by June 15, 2007

APPENDIX E

Possible Funding Sources for SoTL Work AERA/OERI Research Grants Program (U.S.-Non Citizens) The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Association for Institutional Research; Focused Grants Student Success Carnegie Foundation (Scholars Program) Charles Stewart Mott Foundation The Coleman Foundation Corning Incorporated Foundation Ford Foundation Henry Luce Foundation Higher Education Academy Research Grant Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK (HEROP) Institutional Educational Development Fund Institute of Education Sciences Interdisciplinary training for undergraduates in Biology and Mathematics—NSF Library and Information Science Education Grant 161

162


Lumina Foundation for Education Learn and Serve America—Service-Learning grants NEA Foundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE) NSERC (National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada) NSF Research on Learning and Education (ROLE) Research Experience for Undergraduates—NSF Spencer Foundation U.S. Department of Education—Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) W. K. Kellogg Foundation Check internal funding opportunities at your institution. (Live links to these sources can be found at www.sotl.ilstu.edu/funding/)

APPENDIX F

Example IRB Form Questions and Responses for an Interview Study Project description. The purpose of the proposed project is to gather data using face-to-face interviews on the out-of-class learning experiences of students in a sociology program at a large, public university. This information would be used to answer the following questions: What is the nature of participation in out-of-class learning for our sociology majors? What barriers do students see to engaging in such experiences? How might our faculty and staff encourage such participation? What are the implications for sociology curricula and programs? We plan to use the information to improve cocurricular opportunities and student learning. Methodology and procedure. The participants in the study will be about 25 sociology majors enrolled in our Senior Experience course (a capstone course required of all majors in their final semester) during an academic year. All students in the course will be asked if they are willing to participate in an interview study on the topic described above. About 25 majors will be randomly selected from the pool of volunteers to be interviewed. The interview schedule will focus on detailed and descriptive responses to questions about supports, barriers, and benefits of out-of-class learning opportunities. They will be informed, verbally, of all ethical issues. They will be asked permission to audiotape the interview. All interview notes and tapes will be kept in a locked department office. Only the investigators and graduate assistant will have access to the raw data. No special populations, psychological intervention, deception, biomedical procedures, or video163

164


taping will be used in this study. (See, also, attached interview questions—we usually include these.) Informed consent. Participants will be informed both verbally and in writing by the research assistant that their participation is voluntary, they can quit at any time, their data are confidential, and their responses will not affect grades. The informed consent statement follows. The purpose of this face-to-face interview study is to obtain some information about the out-of-class learning experiences of our sociology majors. We hope to use this information to improve the cocurriculum and to enhance student learning in sociology. In addition, we will share the aggregate results in presentations and/or publications. Your participation in this study will take about 30–45 minutes. Participation is voluntary and you may quit any time without penalty. With your permission, we will audiotape your interview. Your data will be kept confidential and will be destroyed via secure recycling when the study is completed. Your grade in this class will not be influenced by your participation in this study. If you have any questions about this research, please contact Kathleen McKinney ([email protected]). You may also contact staff in the University Research Office at 309-438-2528. We greatly appreciate your assistance with this important study.

Risks and benefits. There are minimal risks to this study. The topic is not controversial or personal. Participation is entirely voluntary. Permission will be obtained for any audiotaping, and pseudonyms will be used. Interviews will be conducted by a research assistant, not a faculty member. All data will be kept confidential. There are no protected populations. We hope to learn about the extent and impact of out-of-class learning experiences for our sociology majors. Benefits include obtaining information to make improvements in our curriculum. These improvements are intended to increase student learning and development.

Appendix F

165

Minors as subjects, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally handicapped. Not Applicable. Special risk to human subjects. Not Applicable. Research involving psychological intervention, deception, biomedical procedures. Not Applicable.

Videotaping/audiotaping. With the permission of the respondent, we will audiotape the interviews in order to preserve the exact language of the respondent. The tapes will not include the student’s real name. If respondents do not wish to be audiotaped, we will take notes. Only the principal investigator (PI) and a graduate student assistant will have access to the tapes, which will be stored in a locked, department office. Managing data. Data will be stored in the locked office of the PI. Only the PI, the graduate assistant on the project, and building maintenance workers have access to the office. Data will be destroyed through secure recycling on campus when it is no longer needed.

APPENDIX G

Sample of Useful Books on Portfolios, Classroom Assessment/ Research, and Methods Basic/Beginning Statistics and Quantitative Analyses • Brian Cronk’s How to Use SPSS (Pyrczak, 2006) • Zealure Holcomb’s Interpreting Basic Statistics (Pyrczak, 2006) Classroom Assessment/Research • Tom Angelo and Pat Cross’s Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers (Jossey-Bass, 1993) • Pat Cross and Mimi Steadman’s Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching (Jossey-Bass, 1996) • Richard Light, Judith Singer, and John Willett’s By Design: Planning Research in Higher Education (Harvard University Press, 1990) • Catherine Wehlburg’s Meaningful Course Revision: Enhancing Academic Engagement Using Student Learning Data (Anker, 2006) Creating and Using Course and Teaching Portfolios • Dan Bernstein, Amy Nelson Burnett, Amy Goodburn, and Paul Savory’s Making Teaching and Learning Visible: Course Portfolios and the Peer Review of Teaching (Anker, 2006) • Paul Savory, Amy Nelson Burnett, and Amy Goodburn’s Inquiry Into the College Classroom: A Journey Toward Scholarly Teaching (Anker, 2007) • Peter Seldin’s The Teaching Portfolio: A Practical Guide to Improved Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions (3rd ed., Anker, 2004). 167

168


General Research Methods Texts • Earl Babbie’s The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth, 2003) • Russell Schutt’s Investigating the Social World (Pine Forge, 1996) • Lawrence Neuman’s Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (Allyn & Bacon, 2006) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design • Thomas Cook and Donald Campbell’s Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (Houghton Mifflin, 1979) • Donald Campbell and Julian Stanley’s Experimental and QuasiExperimental Designs for Research (Houghton Mifflin, 1963) Observational Research, In-Depth Interviews and Focus Groups • Bruce Berg’s Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (Allyn & Bacon, 2007) • Jaber Gubrium and James Holstein’s The New Language of Qualitative Method (Oxford University Press, 1997) Writing Questionnaires • Mildred Patten’s Questionnaire Research: A Practical Guide (Pyrczak Publishing, 2001)

APPENDIX H

Example Tenure and Promotion Language re SoTL Integrating and Supporting the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Through Annual Evaluation and Promotion/Tenure Documents (Example Tenure and Promotion Language for SoTL written by the CASTL/AAHE Organizing to Foster SoTL Cluster Members at the 2005 Summer Academy) An important goal of advancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is to incorporate it into the faculty evaluation system. We offer the following language to help campuses incorporate SoTL into the faculty evaluation system in order to provide faculty with additional scholarship options and opportunities. Evaluation Standards The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is a form of the scholarship of discovery and/or the scholarship of integration. SoTL that is methodologically rigorous, makes a significant contribution, receives peer review and is made public as described below should be rewarded as the scholarship of discovery or integration. The relative value of SoTL compared to other forms of scholarship may be less, equal, or greater depending on factors such as institutional mission, department/discipline characteristics and culture, and individual assignments.

169

170


1. SoTL exhibits methodological rigor • Systematic and deliberate study of teaching and learning • Qualitative and quantitative methods are appropriate • Evaluation is based on the standards of qualitative and/or quantitative traditions in the discipline 2. SoTL has substantive implications/outcomes as evidenced by any or all of the following • Results of research are applied to the practice of teaching • Applicability and utility of research extend beyond the site of research • Results of research enhance the quality of teaching and learning • Development of new or significantly revised theoretical understanding or applied knowledge • Illustrates how traditional course issues/materials can be addressed in new ways 3. SoTL is peer reviewed • Qualified scholars in relevant fields constitute peers • The reviewers critically evaluate the work’s rigor and implications 4. SoTL is made public • Scholars share the work to affect practice of others • Scholars use conventional academic venues appropriate to the discipline to disseminate the work including presentations, journals, juried exhibits, etc.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Stewart-Belle, S. (1998). Exploring predictors of student team project performance. Journal of Marketing Education, 20, 63–71. Badley, G. (2003). Improving the scholarship of teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40, 303–309. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Baker, P. (1980). Inquiry into the teaching-learning process: Trickery, folklore, or science? Teaching Sociology, 7, 237–245. Baker, P. (1985). Does the sociology of teaching inform teaching sociology? Teaching Sociology, 12, 361–375. Baker, P. (1986). The helter-skelter relationship between teaching and research. Teaching Sociology, 14, 50–66. Bass, R. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: What’s the problem? Inventio: Creative Thinking about Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1–10. Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and selfauthorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Belmont University. (2006). Belmont University faculty handbook. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from www.belmont.edu/hr/pdf/fhb_ 2006_rev082506.pdf Bernstein, D. J., Burnett, A. N., Goodburn, A., & Savory, P. (2006). Making teaching and learning visible: Course portfolios and the peer review of teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker. 171

172


Bilimoria, D. (2000). The editor’s corner: A new scholarship of teaching and learning: An agenda for management education scholarship. Journal of Management Education, 24, 704–707. Bilimoria, D., & Fukami, C. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning in the management sciences: Disciplinary style and content. In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground (pp. 125–142). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Booth, A. (2004). Rethinking the scholarly: Developing the scholarship of teaching in history. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 3, 247–266. Boyd, J. (2004). Scholarship of teaching and learning. Communication Education, 53, 340–347. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Braxton, J. M., Luckey, W., & Helland, P. (2002). Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship through Boyer’s four domains (ASHE-ERIC Rep. No. 29.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Braxton, J. M., & Toombs, W. (1982). Faculty uses of doctoral training: Consideration of a technique for the differentiation of scholarly effort from research activity. Research in Higher Education, 16, 265–282. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Buffalo State College. (2003). Supplemental directory of policy statements (DOPS) policy on scholarship encompassing applied research and the scholarship of teaching. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from www.buffalo state.edu/orgs/senate/dops-final.htm Bullard, J. (2002). JGHE Biennial Award for promoting excellence in teaching and learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26, 209–211. Burman, M. E., & Kleinsasser, A. (2004). Ethical guidelines for use of student work: Moving from teaching’s invisibility to inquiry’s visibility in the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Journal of General Education, 53, 59–79. Burtch, M. (2005). The evolution of conjecturing in a differential equations course. In S. K. Miller & J. Moore (Eds.), Transforming practice through reflective scholarship (pp. 93–97). Tempe, AZ: Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction. Calder, L. (2002, March). Looking for learning in the history survey. American Historical Association Perspectives, 40, 43–45.

Bibliography

173

Calder, L., Cutler, W. W., & Kelly, T. M. (2002). History lessons: Historians and the scholarship of teaching and learning. In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground (pp. 45–68). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Cambridge, B. L. (1999). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Questions and answers from the field. AAHE Bulletin, 52(3), 7–10. Cambridge, B. L. (2000). The scholarship of teaching and learning: A national initiative. In M. Kaplan & D. Lieberman (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 18. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 56–68). Bolton, MA: Anker. Cambridge, B. L. (2001). Fostering the scholarship of teaching and learning: Communities of practice. In D. Lieberman & C. Wehlburg (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 19. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 3–16). Bolton, MA: Anker. Cambridge, B. L. (Ed.). (2004). Campus progress: Supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Chick, N. (2006, May). From community property to public property: Shulman challenges CASTL participants to fill in moats and lower drawbridges. The International Commons, 1, 7. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Chin, J. (2002). Is there a scholarship of teaching and learning in teaching sociology? Teaching Sociology, 30, 53–62. Chizmar, J. (2005). The effectiveness of assignments that utilize a time-efficient grading scheme. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 16, 5–21. Clark, D. (2006). “I don’t really care”: Student perceptions of service learning in professional writing. In C. M. Schroeder & A. Ciccone (Eds.), Learning in context: The diversity of SoTL inquiry (pp. 39–48). Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Center for Instructional and Professional Development. Clark, R. A., & Jones, D. (2001). A comparison of traditional and online formats in a public speaking course. Communication Education, 50, 109–124. Clinton, B. D., & Kohlmeyer, J. M., III. (2005). The effects of group quizzes on performance and motivation to learn: Two experiments in cooperative learning. Journal of Accounting Education, 23, 96–116.

174


Cohen, J. (1997). Learning the scholarship of teaching in doctorategranting institutions. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 51, 27–38. Cohen, J., Barton, R., & Fast, A. (2000, Winter). The growth of the scholarship of teaching in doctoral programs. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 54(4), 4–13. Coley, S. M., & Scheinberg, C. A. (1990). Proposal writing. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage. Coppola, B. P., & Jacobs, D. C. (2002). Is the scholarship of teaching and learning new to chemistry? In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground (pp. 197–238). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Cox, M. (2003). Fostering the scholarship of teaching through faculty learning communities. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 161–198. Cox, R., Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Survey of CASTL scholars. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Creasey, G., Jarvis, P., & Gadke, D. (2006, November). Learner autonomy and achievement motivation as a function of teacher immediacy and student attachment representations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC. Cross, K. P. (1984, November). The rising tide of school reform reports. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(3), 167–172. Cross, K. P. (1986, September). A proposal to improve teaching or what “taking teaching seriously” should mean. AAHE Bulletin, 39(1), 9–14. Cross, K. P. (2006). Teaching for the sake of learning. Change, 38(3), 5. Cross, K. P., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970–977. Daniel, R. S. (1992). Teaching of Psychology, the journal. In A. E. Puente, J. R. Matthews, & C. L. Brewer (Eds.), Teaching of psychology in America: A history. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Darling, A. L. (2003). Scholarship of teaching and learning in communication: New connections, new directions, new possibilities. Communication Education, 52, 47–49.

Bibliography

175

Denton, B., Adams, C., Blatt, P., & Lorish, C. (2000). Does the introduction of problem-based learning change graduate performance outcomes in a professional curriculum? Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11, 147–162. Dickinson College. (2003). Activity based physics. Retrieved January 22, 2007, from the Dickinson College, Department of Physics and Astronomy web site: http://physics.dickinson.edu/~abp_web/abp_ homepage.html Dille, B. (2005). The impact of community-based research on student learning. In S. K. Miller & J. Moore, (Eds.), Transforming practice through reflective scholarship (pp. 127–133). Tempe, AZ: Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction. Finlay, S., & Faulkner, G. (2005). Tete a tete: Reading groups and peer learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 32–45. Fleming, V. (2001). Helping students learn to learn by using a checklist, modified rubrics, and e-mail. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 12, 5–22. Frost, P. J., & Fukami, C. V. (1997). Teaching effectiveness in the organizational sciences: Recognizing and enhancing the scholarship of teaching. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1271–1281. Glassick, C. E. (2000). Boyer’s expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Academic Medicine, 75, 877–880. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goldsmid, C. A., & Wilson, E. K. (1980). Passing on sociology: The teaching of a discipline. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Haavisto, J. (2005). Whither I go: Enhancing student learning through personal and professional development portfolios. In M. Repsher & M. Peters (Eds.), Investigations in student learning (pp. 26–35). Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville University, Center for Teaching and Learning. Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., & Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education, 89, 285–293. Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (Eds.). (2002). New directions for teaching and learning: No. 89. Applying the science of learning to university teaching and beyond. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hanson, C. (2005). The scholarship of teaching and learning—done by sociologists: Let’s make that the sociology of higher education. Teaching Sociology, 33, 411–424.

176


Hatch, T. (2006). Into the classroom: Developing the scholarship of teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 169–189. Healey, M. (2003a). Promoting lifelong professional development in geography education: International perspectives on developing the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Professional Geographer, 55, 1–17. Healey, M. (2003b). The scholarship of teaching: Issues around an evolving concept. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 5–16. Howery, C. B. (2002). The culture of teaching in sociology. In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Huber, M. T. (2004). Balancing acts: The scholarship of teaching and learning in academic careers. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (Eds.). (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Hunt, S., Simonds, C., & Hinchliffe, L. (2000). Using student portfolios as authentic assessment of the basic communication course. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11(1), 57–77. Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (1995). From idea to prototype: The peer review of teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (1998). The course portfolio: How faculty can examine their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Hutchings, P. (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Hutchings, P. (2002a). Ethics of inquiry: Issues in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Hutchings, P. (2002b, March). Informal handout and remarks at the SoTL Community of Practice. Distributed at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education, Chicago, IL.

Bibliography

177

Hutchings, P. (2003a). Competing goods: Ethical issues in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Change, 35(5), 26–33. Hutchings, P. (2003b). The scholarship of teaching and learning in communication: A few words from the Carnegie Academy. Communication Education, 52, 57–59. Hutchings, P., & Cambridge, B. (1999). Your invitation to participate in the Carnegie Teaching Academy Campus Program. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Hutchings, P., Hatch, T., Miller, M., & Parker, J. (2006, November). Going more public: Translating the scholarship of teaching and learning for wider audiences and impact. Featured panel session at the annual meeting of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC. Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. E. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10–15. International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. (2006). Call for proposals. Retrieved February 6, 2007, from www.indiana.edu/~issotl06/call.html Jenkins, A. (1997). Twenty-one volumes on: Is teaching valued in geography in higher education? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(1), 5–14. Jenkins, C. (2006, November). Missing—analysis of American rural life in introduction to sociology textbooks: Implications for teaching and learning in the introduction course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC. Kember, D. (2000). Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. London, UK: Kogan Page. Kreber, C. (2001a). Conceptualizing the scholarship of teaching and identifying unresolved issues: The framework for this volume. In C. Kreber (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 86. Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching (pp. 1–19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kreber, C. (2001b). The scholarship of teaching and its implementation in faculty development and graduate education. In C. Kreber (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 86. Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 79–88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kreber, C. (Ed.). (2001c). New directions for teaching and learning: No. 86. Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

178


Kreber, C. (2002a). Controversy and consensus on the scholarship of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 151–167. Kreber, C. (2002b). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 5–23. Kreber, C. (2003a). Challenging the dogma: Toward a more inclusive view of the scholarship of teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 27–43. Kreber, C. (2003b). Scholarship of teaching: A comparison of conceptions held by experts and regular academic staff. Higher Education, 46, 93–121. Kreber, C. (2005). A critical course on the scholarship of university teaching movement. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 389–405. Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 476–495. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Leamnson, R. (1999). Thinking about teaching and learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Lifton, D., Cohen, D., & Schlesinger, W. (2004). Improving in-major retention and grade point average through first-year curricula linkage: Results from a business school longitudinal study. Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 5, 21–27. Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lueddeke, G. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and “teaching-scholarship.” Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 213–228. Lynch, P. J., & Horton, S. (1999). Web style guide: Basic design principles for creating web sites. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Martin, E., Benjamin, J., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Scholarship of teaching: A study of the approaches of academic staff. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving student learning outcomes (pp. 326–331). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff Learning and Development, Oxford Brookes University. Marx, J., & Eckberg, D. (2005). Teaching scholarship in the 1990s: A study of authorship in Teaching Sociology. Teaching Sociology, 33, 252–262. Matthews, H. (2002). Editorial I: Pedagogy, research and quality publishing. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26, 5–11.

Bibliography

179

Mauer, L. J., & La Lopa, J. M. (2003). Implementing a total quality management approach in the design, delivery, and redesign of a statistical process control course. Journal of Food Science Education, 2, 41–46. McKinney, K. (2001). Getting SoTL articles published: A few tips. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 10(5), 1. McKinney, K. (2003a, August/September). Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning: How can we do better? The Teaching Professor, 1, 5, 8. McKinney, K. (2003b). Definitions of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Teaching Matters, 33, 6–7. McKinney, K. (2004). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Past lessons, current challenges, and future visions. In C. Wehlburg & S. Chadwick-Blossey (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 22. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 3–19). Bolton, MA: Anker. McKinney, K. (2005). Response to Hanson’s “The scholarship of teaching and learning—done by sociologists: Let’s make that the sociology of higher education.” Teaching Sociology, 33, 417–419. McKinney, K. (2006). Attitudinal and structural factors contributing to challenges in the work of the scholarship of teaching and learning. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), New directions in institutional research: No. 129. Analyzing faculty work and rewards: Using Boyer’s four domains of scholarship (pp. 37–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. McKinney, K. (in press). The student voice: Sociology majors tell us about learning sociology. Teaching Sociology. McKinney, K., Broadbear, J., Gentry, D., Klass, P., Naylor, S., & Virgil, N. (2004). Using data to support and enhance SoTL. In B. Cambridge (Ed.), Campus progress: Supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 171–175). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. McKinney, K., & Howery, C. B. (2007). Teaching and learning in sociology: Past, present and future. In C. D. Bryant & D. L. Peck (Eds.), 21st century sociology: A reference handbook: Vol. 2 (pp. 379387). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mennin, S. P., & McGrew, M. C. (2000). Scholarship in teaching and best evidence medical education: Synergy for teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 22, 468–471. Miller, B., & Gentile, B. F. (1998). Introductory course content and goals. Teaching of Psychology 25, 89–96. Miller, M. (2004). Implementing standardized client education in a combined BSW and MSW program. Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 87–102.

180


Morreale, S. P., Applegate, J. L., Wulff, D. H., & Sprague, J. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning in communication studies, and communication scholarship in the process of teaching and learning. In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale, (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground (pp. 107–123). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Nelson, C. (2003). Doing it: Examples of several of the different genres of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14(2), 85–94. Nicholls, G. (2004). Scholarship in teaching as a core professional value: What does this mean to the academic? Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 29–42. Ogden, T. E. (1991). Research proposals: A guide to success. New York, NY: Raven Press. Onsrud, H. J. (2005). Web-casting of geographic information science graduate courses. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(1), 123–137. Pace, D. (2004). The amateur in the operating room: History and the scholarship of teaching and learning. The American Historical Review, 109, 1171–1193. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (2003). The scholarship of teaching as an action system. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 45–68. Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (2006). Exploring the dimensions of the scholarship of teaching and learning: Analytics for an emerging literature. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), New directions in institutional research: No. 129. Analyzing faculty work and rewards: Using Boyer’s four domains of scholarship (pp. 21–36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pellino, G. R., Blackburn, R. T., & Boberg, A. L. (1984). The dimensions of academic scholarship: Faculty and administrator views. Research in Higher Education, 20, 103–115. Perkins, D. (2004). Scholarship of teaching and learning, assessment, and the Journal of Geoscience Education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52, 113–114. Pescosolido, B. A., & Aminzade, R. (Eds.). (1999). The social worlds of higher education: Handbook for teaching in a new century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge. Prehar, C., McCarthy, A. M., & Tucker, M. L. (2004). Predicting and changing student willingness to engage in community service. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 15, 63–83.

Bibliography

181

Rankin, L. (2001). The work of writing: Insights and strategies for academics and professionals. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reis, J. B., & Leukefeld, C. B. (1995). Applying for research funding: Getting started and getting funded. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rice, R. E. (1991). The new American scholar: Scholarship and the purposes of the university. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 1, 7–18. Rice, R. E. (1992). Toward a broader conception of scholarship: The American context. In T. G. Whiston & R. L. Geiger (Eds.), Research and higher education in the United Kingdom and the United States (pp. 117–129). Lancaster, UK: Society for Research on Higher Education. Richlin, L. (2001). Scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching. In C. Kreber (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 86. Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 57–68). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Richlin, L. (2003). Understanding, promoting, and operationalizing the scholarship of teaching and learning: A message from the editor. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 1–4. Richlin, L. (2006). Blueprint for learning: Constructing college courses to facilitate, assess, and document learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Richlin, L., & Cox, M. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning through faculty learning communities. In M. D. Cox & L. Richlin (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 97. Building faculty learning communities (pp. 127–136). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Robinson, J. (2006, May). Disciplinary societies meet to discuss SoTL. The International Commons, 1, 4. Robinson, J., & Nelson, C. (2003). Institutionalizing and diversifying a vision of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 95–118. Ross, C. M., & Lukow, J. (2004). Are learning styles a good predictor for integrating instructional technology into a leisure studies curriculum? Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 42–53. Salvatori, M. R. (2002). The scholarship of teaching: Beyond the anecdotal. Pedagogy, 2, 297–310. Salvatori, M. R., & Donahue. P. (2002). English studies in the scholarship of teaching. In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground (pp. 69–86). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

182


Saunders, G., & Klemming, F. (2003). Integrating technology into a traditional learning environment: Reasons for and risks of success. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4, 74–86. Savory, P., Burnett, A. N., & Goodburn, A. (2007). Inquiry into the college classroom: A journey toward scholarly teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker. Saylor, C., & Harper, V. (2003). The scholarship of teaching and learning: A faculty development project. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 149–160. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schroeder, C., Baron-Nixon, L., & Bo-linn, C. (2006, November). Examining and defining pathways to institutional SoTL program maturity and impact: A matrix tool. Organized panel at the annual meeting of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC. Seldin, P. (2004). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker. Shapiro, H. N. (2006). Promotion and tenure and the scholarship of teaching and learning. Change, 38(2), 38–43. Shaw, J. B., Fisher, C. D., & Southey, G. N. (1999). Evaluating organizational behavior teaching innovations: More rigorous designs, more relevant criteria, and an example. Journal of Management Education, 23, 509–538. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 36, 1–22. Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, 25(6), 6–7. Shulman, L. S. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change, 31(4), 10–17. Shulman, L. S. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning? The Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1, 48–52. Shulman, L. S. (2001, November). Remarks. Presented at the symposium for the Cross Endowed Chair for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Illinois State University, Normal, IL. Shulman, L. S. (2004). Visions of the possible: Models for campus support of the scholarship of teaching and learning. In W. E. Becker & M. L. Andrews (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 9– 23). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Shulman, L. S. (in press). Searching for signature pedagogies. Daedalus: A Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

Bibliography

183

Society for College Science Teachers. (1998, September/October). The scholarship of college science teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 28(1), 68–69. Sperling, C. (2003). How community colleges understand the scholarship of teaching and learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 593–601. Stover, D. (2005). From reflective volunteerism to civic activism: Advancing service learning pedagogy through civic engagement. In S. K. Miller & J. Moore (Eds.), Transforming practice through reflective scholarship (pp. 107–116). Tempe, AZ: Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction. Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. Bolton, MA: Anker. Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker. Theall, M., & Centra, J. (2001). Assessing the scholarship of teaching: Valid decisions from valid evidence. In C. Kreber (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 86. Revisiting scholarship: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching (pp. 31–45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Thompson, S. (2003). From two box lunches to buffets: Fulfilling the promise of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 119–134. Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 155–168. Varner, D., & Peck, S. R. (2003). Learning through learning journals: The benefits and challenges of using learning journal assignments. Journal of Management Education, 27, 52–57. Verkler, K., Wiens, G., Lynch, J., Gurney, D., & Higginbotham, P. (2001). What our students have to say: Students’ reflections on the professional portfolio. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 12(1), 23–45. Walvoord, B. E. (2000). Building on each other’s work: Uses and audiences for the “public” scholarship on teaching. Unpublished manuscript, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN. Wankat, P. C. (2004). Analysis of the first ten years of the Journal of Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 13–21. Wehlburg, C. M. (2006). Meaningful course revision: Enhancing academic engagement using student learning data. Bolton, MA: Anker. Weimer, M. E. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

184


Weimer, M. E. (2006). Enhancing scholarly work on teaching and learning: Professional literature that makes a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Weiss, G. (2006, August). A pedagogical boomerang: From Hans Mauksch to medicine to the teaching and learning of sociology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Canada. Weston, C. B., & McAlpine, L. (2001). Making explicit the development toward the scholarship of teaching. In C. Kreber (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 86. Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 89–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Whitin, K., & Sheppard, S. (2004). Taking stock: An analysis of the publishing record as represented by the Journal of Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 5–12. Wright, M. C., Nandini, A., Kain, E. L., Kramer, L., Howery, C. B., McKinney, K., et al. (2004). Greedy institutions: The importance of institutional context for teaching and learning in higher education. Teaching Sociology, 32, 144–159. Yakura, E., & Bennett, C. (2003). Finding common ground: Collaboration across the disciplines in the scholarship of teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 135–147. Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

INDEX

AAHE. See American Association for Higher Education accountability, 4, 11, 112 accounting discipline-specific journal, 150 SoTL research and, 30–31 accreditation, 123 Activity-Based Physics Program, 14–15 Adams, C., 30 agriculture, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 150 alumni, as major donors, 49–50 American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), 3, 6, 18, 135 American Democracy Project, 46 American government courses, SoTL research and, 31 American Sociological Association (AMA), 1 American Sociological Association Teaching Enhancement Fund, 14, 49 annotated bibliography, 71

annual evaluation, 19, 169–170 anonymity, 64, 74 Ansley, F., 73 anthropology, 85 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 150 application, of SoTL, 120–127 barriers to, 125 course/classroom level, 15, 120–121, 126 data on, 123–125 department level, 121 gaps in, 124–125 institutional level, 122 levels/forms of, 120–123 program level, 121 various forms of, 122–123 architecture, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 150 art education, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 150 articles/chapters/books, on SoTL, 142–148 assessment classroom techniques, 76 185

186


difference from SoTL, 11–12 overlap with SoTL, 10–11 sample books on, 167, 168 assessment funding, 49 Association for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3 awards, and SoTL, 14, 111, 116 Bacon, D. R., 106 Badley, G., 132 Baker, P., 2 Baron-Nixon, L., 112 Bass, R., 28–29 before-and-after course responses, 108 Belmont University, 7 benchmark course portfolio, 74 Benjamin, J., 6 Bennett, C., 78–79, 107, 109 Berheide, C., 30 Berheide, K., 109 Bernstein, D. J., 59, 74, 117, 121 bibliography annotated, 71 as research tool, 39 web site for readings related to SoTL, 142 Bilimoria, D., 102 biochemistry, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 150 biology, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 150–151 Blackburn, R. T., 2 Blatt, P., 30 blind review, 85 Boberg, A. L., 2 Bo-linn, C., 112 books, identifying relevant, 39 Boyer, E. L., 2, 5, 7, 10, 42

Braxton, J. M., 87, 111 Brookfield, S. D., 117 “brown-bag” session, 48, 93 budget requests, 14, 121, 123 Buffalo State College, 7, 18, 42, 87, 111, 123 Burnett, A. N., 59, 117, 121 Burtch, M., 106 business discipline-specific SoTL journal, 151 learning journal role in, 106 service-learning study, 78 Calder, L., 102 Cambridge, B. L., 117 campus clusters, 3, 37, 42, 45, 98, 110–111 Campus Sessions on SoTL, 114 campus survey collaboration with SoTL, 42 involvement with SoTL, 42 status of SoTL, 135–139 Carleton College, 111 Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL), 3, 20, 29–30, 37 application of SoTL, 123 collaboration and, 129 collaboration with students as coresearchers, 43–44 functions of SoTL, 15–16 funding, 53 on making work public, 85, 86–87 predictions for future, 133 surveys of scholars from (See CASTL Scholars survey) team project, 48

Index

value of SoTL, 19 variability of participation, 41 web site, 35, 141 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 3, 6, 35, 39, 40, 141 Carnegie Foundation Gallery of Teaching, 96 Carnegie Organizing to Foster SoTL Cluster team, 98 Carnegie Scholar Program, 3, 50, 129 Carnegie Scholar SoTL project, Illinois State University application of SoTL, 123 confidentiality in, 64 connecting to real-world situations, 95 database creation by, 42–43 graduate research assistants, 45 methods used in, 108 presentation of, 95 research assistants, 45 research questions, 29 student voice and, 43–45 Carnegie Scholars web site, 141 See also Carnegie Scholar SoTL project, Illinois State University; CASTL Scholars survey Carnegie SoTL Cluster, 37, 42 student researcher and, 45 case study, 78 CASTL Campus Cluster Program, 42, 110–111 CASTL Leadership Program, 45 web site, 141 CASTL Scholars survey application of SoTL, 123–124

187

campus support, 110–111 consequences of involvement, 19 constraints on faculty involvement, 5, 19, 85 departmental support, 110 ethics, 60–61 functions of SoTL, 15–16 institutional support, 110–111 making work public, 85, 86–87 participation in SoTL, 41 predictions for future, 133 reasons for involvement, 27–28 status of SoTL in disciplines, 103 trends in field of study, 128 CASTL SoTL Cluster, 45 causal relationship, 77 Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, Georgia Institute of Technology, 49–50 Centra, J., 21–22 Chaudhury, R., 75 chemical engineering, cooperative learning group, 106 chemistry, 2, 101–102 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 151 Chick, N., 131 Chin, J., 104–105 Chizmar, J., 31 Clark, D., 30 Clark, R. A., 31, 70 classroom assessment/research, sample books on, 167, 168 classroom assessment techniques (CATs), 76 Clinton, B. D., 30–31 Cohen, D., 70

188


cohort study, 70 collaboration, 2, 41–46, 56 with colleagues, 41–43, 79 cross-institutional, 14–15 with students as coresearchers, 43–46 College Learning Assessment (CLA), 131 communication studies, and SoTL, 2, 102–103 discipline-specific pedagogical journal, 36 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 151 using student portfolios in, 77 community involvement, 30, 78 computer science, disciplinespecific SoTL journal, 151 concept map, 32 conference on college teaching, 3–4 Lilly Conference, 3, 93, 99 SoTL, 94, 99, 129, 141 teaching, 3, 48, 93, 99 confidentiality, 64 consumer science, disciplinespecific SoTL journal, 153 content analysis, 14, 27, 44, 66, 76–77, 79, 126 content knowledge, assessing across time, 70 contextual factors. See disciplinary context, of SoTL; institutional context, of SoTL conversational analysis, 106, 132 cooperative learning groups, 106 Coppola, B. P., 101–102 core journal, 38–39, 149–150 core member campus, 110–111 course evaluation, 81

course portfolio benchmark, 74 online, 97 as presentation of case study, 78 repository for, 35, 37 as research, 59 sample books on, 85, 121, 167 self-reflection and, 73–74 Course Portfolio Repository, 141 Cox, R., 15–16, 27, 86–87 criminal justice, disciplinespecific SoTL journal, 151 critical thinking, 28, 109 Cross, K. P., 2, 10–11, 20, 50, 84, 117 cross-disciplinary journal, 36, 129 cross-sectional design, 70 cross- vs. interdisciplinary SoTL, 107 Crouch, C. H., 126 culture, reciprocal relationship with SoTL, 119–120 Cutler, W. W., 102 D’Andrea, V., 30 Darling, A. L., 102–103 data cross-sectional, 70–71 existing, 17–18 thematic analysis of, 79 See also methodology; qualitative analysis; quantitative analysis database online, 38, 42–43, 50, 115, 142 traditional, 37 deductive approach, 31, 32–33 definitions, of SoTL, 4–9 at community colleges, 7–8

Index

faculty/staff vs. SoTL expert, 8 Illinois State University, 157–158 institutional variation, 7–8 Delphi study, 6, 16, 27 Denton, B., 30 descriptive research, 73 design, project analysis/interpretation, 79 cross-sectional, 70–71 longitudinal, 70–71 pre-post test design, 70 qualitative/quantitative choice, 67–69 “snapshot,” 69–70 specific methodology/example, 73–79 time frames, 69–71 typologies/categories of methods, 71–73 developmental portfolio, student, 30 Dewar, J., 78–79, 108 Dille, B., 31 disciplinary context, of SoTL, 101–109 cross-disciplinary SoTL work, common themes of, 108 cross-disciplinary SoTL work, example of, 108–109 cross-/interdisciplinary SoTL work, 106–108 example projects, 106 questions asked about learning, 108 similarities/differences in views of SoTL, 101–109 status of SoTL, 103–105 See also institutional context, of SoTL

189

disciplinary society, 3, 4, 35, 98, 104, 119, 131 Dominican University, 8 Donahue, P., 1–2, 102 drama, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 152 EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier, 38 Eby, J., 30 Eckberg, D., 87, 104 economics discipline-specific pedagogical journal, 36 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 151 SoTL research and, 31 editorial review, 88 education, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 152 empowerment, 132 engineering discipline-specific SoTL journal, 152 questions about learning, 108 English, 102 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 152–153 research questions about service-learning, 30 environmental studies, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 153 ERIC, 38 ethics issues confidentiality, 64 informed consent, 58, 62–63, 64, 65, 66, 75, 82, 164 institutional review boards/forms, 11–12, 18, 25

190


in observational research, 75 policy/forms concerning, 59 protection from harm, 64–65 right to privacy, 63–64 student involvement and, 44 uses of student work, 58–59 evaluation course, 81 criteria for grant proposal, 52 criteria for SoTL, 51, 132 peer review of SoTL, 7, 8, 11 student achievement, 74 teacher, 18, 19, 49, 98, 115, 116 See also evaluation standards, SoTL, example evaluation standards, SoTL, example, 169–170 implications/outcomes, 170 made public, 170 methodological rigor, 169–170 peer review, 170 experimental design, sample books on, 168 external validity, of experiment, 77 faculty constraints on SoTL involvement, 5, 19, 85 reassigned time for doing/applying SoTL, 50, 110 socializing to do SoTL, 131, 132 training/preparing future, 14, 15 See also teacher faculty development, combining SoTL with, 15

faculty survey current status of SoTL, 17–18, 19 making SoTL public, 42, 87 value of SoTL, 18 Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), 127 family and consumer science, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 153 Faulkner, G., 76 federal grant, 50 feedback on grant proposal, 52 on SoTL applications, 125 Finlay, S., 76 Flashlight Program at the Teaching-LearningTechnology Group, 141 Fleming, V., 30 focus group, 27, 74–75, 108 sample books on, 168 food science, total quality management in, 126 foundation grant, 50 Fukami, C., 102 funding, for SoTL work, 18, 47, 53–54, 141, 161–162 See also grant proposal general higher education SoTL journal, 90 general research methods, sample books on, 168 generalizability, 22, 57–58, 69 Gentile, B. F., 106 geographic information science distance graduate courses, 78 geography, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 153

Index

geology, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 153 Georgetown University Visual Knowledge Project, 37, 96 gerontology, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 153 Glassick, C. E., 132 Goldsmid, C. A., 2 Goodburn, A., 59, 117, 121 graduate research assistant, 35, 45–46 graduate student socializing to do SoTL, 131 teaching-learning and, 105, 114, 128 training/preparing as future faculty, 14, 15 grant proposal, 18, 45–47 writing tips for, 50–53 See also grant proposal, example of grant proposal, example of, 157–160 application materials/ procedure, 159–160 eligibility, 158 overview of, 157–158 requirements, 158–159 selection criteria, 159 time frame, 160 Gureny, D., 68 Haavisto, J., 30 Hanson, C., 104 Hatch, T., 1 Hawthorne Effect, 75 health, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 153 Healy, M., 16 Helland, P., 87, 111

191

Higgenbotham, P., 68 Hinchliffe, L., 76–77 hiring decisions, 19, 110, 116 history education, 102 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 153 honors students, 49, 81 Howery, C. B., 104, 105 Huber, M., 3, 6–7, 15–16, 19, 26, 27, 86–87, 97, 103, 105, 107, 117, 130, 132, 133 humanities, SoTL in, 56, 105 Hunt, S., 76–77 Hutchings, P., 3, 6–7, 10, 15–16, 26, 27, 28, 86–87, 117, 130 idea notebook, 109 Illinois State University campus survey on status of SoTL, 135–139 definition of SoTL, 8, 157–158 grant proposal, SoTL small grant example, 157–160 making SoTL public, 87 SoTL KEEP snapshot page, 97 values/rewards of SoTL, 17, 19 See also Carnegie Scholar SoTL project, Illinois State University Illinois State University Scholarship of Teaching and Learning web site, 141 in-depth interviews, sample books on, 168 Indiana University, SoTL web site, 142 Indiana University Bloomington, 111

192


Indiana University Peer Review of Teaching Project web site, 142 Indiana University Peer Review Project, 96 inductive/grounded approach, 31, 33 informed consent, 58, 62–63, 64, 65, 66, 75, 82, 164 institutes, SoTL, web site, 141 institutional context, of SoTL, 109–117 campus support, possible models for, 111–113 campus support data, 110–111, 122 campus support strategy, 113–117 administrative unit support, 116 award criterion, 116 book give-away, 117 campus conversations on SoTL, 114 CASTL program involvement, 114 collaboration, 115 community of scholars, 115 faculty positions/endowed chair, 116 funding, 116 hiring/evaluation, 116 institutional mission, 115 new faculty, 114 publications, 117 resources group, 115 self-study, 114 shared governance, 116 student involvement, 115 summer institute, 115 teacher-scholars/fellows, 116

travel opportunity, 116 web site, 116 definitional issues, 7–8 publications on models/ strategies, 117 publications on support, 113 reward structure, 117 See also disciplinary context, of SoTL Institutional Review Board (IRB), 11–12, 18, 25 interview study question/response, 163–165 biomedical procedure, 165 data management, 165 deception, 165 informed consent, 164 methodology/procedure, 163–164 project description, 163 psychological intervention, 165 risks/benefits, 164 special risk to human subject, 164 subject, 164 videotaping/audiotaping, 165 instructional technology, 56, 68 inter-coder reliability, 75 interdisciplinary journal, 36 interdisciplinary trading zone, 129 interior design, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 153 internal validity, 77 International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL), 3–4, 49–50, 93, 99, 121, 129 web site, 142

Index

Internet as journal article source, 38–39 See also technology; web site interview, 108, 132 IRB form questions/responses for, 163–165 telephone, 74 “I tried it, I liked it” genre, 71 “it worked” piece, 71

193

knowledge experience-based, 130 pedagogical content, 2, 70 research-based, 130 Kohlmeyer, J. M., III, 30–31 Kreber, C., 3, 6, 8, 16, 19–20, 117, 131–132

Jacobs, D. C., 101–102 jargon, in grant proposal, 51 Jarvis, P., 49 Jenkins, C., 126 joint SoTL project, 107, 108 See also collaboration Jones, D., 31, 70 journal core, 38–39, 149–150 cross-disciplinary, 129 cross-/interdisciplinary, 36 discipline-specific, 3, 150–156 discipline-specific pedagogical, 36–37 general higher education, 90 growing numbers of, 4 online, 96, 97 pedagogical, 35, 36–37, 89, 90, 106 publishing tips/outlets, 88–92 teaching-learning, 36 traditional educational, 36 traditional research, 89 journalism, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 153

La Lopa, J. M., 126 law, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 154 learning increase emphasis on, 128 nonclassroom experimental work on human/animal, 72 See also scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) learning journal, 106, 108 liberal arts college, frequency of SoTL performance in, 111 library science, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 154 Lifton, D., 70 Lilly Conference, 3, 93, 99 literature review, 23, 37–38, 56, 80, 90, 91, 92 Lorish, C., 30 Loui, M., 108 Loyola Marymount University, 78–79, 108 Luckey, W., 87, 111 Lucklow, J., 68 Lueddeke, G., 103 Lynch, J., 68

Kain, E., 14, 77 KEEP Tool Kit, 97 Kelly, T. M., 102 Klemming, F., 74–75

Maeroff, G. I., 132 “making public,” 8, 11–12, 42 challenges to, 85–86 defining, 83–84

194


disciplinary difference in, 84–85 documenting work for reward system, 97–99 frequency of, 86–88 peer review and, 84 presentations, 92–95 publishing tips/outlets, 88–92 web-based outlet for, 86, 97, 100, 129 web postings, 96–97 Malaspina University-College, 111 management sciences, and SoTL, 102 marketing, team performance, 106 Martin, E., 6 Marx, J., 87, 104 Marx, M., 109 mathematics, 3 analysis of proofs, 108 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 154 multimethods study, 78–79 student beliefs about learning, 106 Mauer, L. J., 126 Mazur, E., 126 McAlpine, L., 6 McCarthy, A. M., 30, 78 McKinney, K., 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 23, 42, 63, 87, 92, 95, 105, 121, 123, 124, 127, 130, 135, 159, 164 memory bias, 71 MERLOT Project, 96, 142 methodology analysis of existing data, 27 case study, 78

content analysis, 14, 27, 44, 66, 76–77, 79, 126 course portfolio, 73–74 interview/focus group, 27, 74–75, 108, 168 multimethods, 27, 78–79 observational research, 75 quasi-experiment, 27, 77–78 questionnaire, 27, 75–76 secondary analysis, 77–78 self-reflective portfolio, 27 true experiment, 77 See also methodology typology/ category; qualitative analysis; quantitative analysis methodology typology/category comparison of course/student change across time, 72 nonclassroom experimental work on human/animal learning, 72 pedagogical scholarship, 72–73 reflections on teaching experience, 72 report on particular class, 71 research scholarship, 72–73 synthesis of sets of extant SoTL work, 72 wisdom-of-practice scholarship, 72 Middlesex Community College, 111 midrange theory, 31 Miller, B., 106 Miller, M., 106 modern languages, disciplinespecific SoTL journal, 154 Morreale, S. P., 103, 105, 107, 117, 133 multimethods, 27, 78–79

Index

music, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 154 narrow model/theory, 31–32 National Repository for Course Portfolios, 35 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 77, 80, 127, 131 Naylor, S., 37–39 newsletters, 34 Nicholls, G., 20 nominal/conceptual definition, 33 Norfolk State University, 75 nursing, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 154 observational research, 75, 132 sample books on, 168 The Ohio State University, 111 online repository, 35, 37, 96, 97, 141 online SoTL journal, 96, 97 Onsrud, H. J., 78 open-ended question, 108 operational definition, 33 Oxford College, Emory University, 111 panel study, 70 paradigm, theory as, 31 Peck, S. R., 106 pedagogical content knowledge, 2, 129 pedagogical journal, 35, 36–37, 89, 90, 106 pedagogical scholarship, 3, 72–73 future needs related to, 130 peer instruction, 126

195

peer review defining, 84 disciplinary difference in, 85 documenting work in reward structure, 98, 99 as quality control, 85 of SoTL, 7, 8, 11 Pellino, G. R., 2 Persell, C., 30 personnel policy, 7, 19, 98 philosophy, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 155 physical education, disciplinespecific SoTL journal, 153 physical therapy graduate program, 30 physics discipline-specific SoTL journal, 155 peer instruction in, 126 SoTL work in, 14–15 pilot data, 51 policy, and SoTL, 131 political science, 3 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 155 portfolio course (See course portfolio) developmental portfolio, student, 30 student, 77 teaching, 73–74, 85, 98, 167 Portland State University, 7 PowerPoint, 94–95 practical issues, 55–58 additional learning/assistance, 56–57, 73, 79 juggling demands/concerns, 57–58 methodology, 55–56

196


Prehar, C., 30, 78 pre-post design, 76 presentation, 92–95 actual presentation, 95 audience for, 94 connecting to real-world situation, 95 formal opportunity to present, 93 nonacceptance of proposal, 93–94 overcoming nervousness, 95 physical location/arrangements for, 94 tips for submitting, 93 types of, 92, 94 visual aid for, 94–95 professional portfolio, and reflective skills, 68 proof-alouds, 79 Prosser, M., 6 psychiatry, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 155 psychology content/expectations of introductory course, 106 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 155 SoTL research and, 30 student researcher, 45–46 public speaking course, SoTL research and, 31, 70 publication outlet, SoTL web site, 141 See also publication tips/outlets, SoTL publication tips/outlets, SoTL, 88–92 literature review, 90, 92 mission of publication, 89

proofreading proofs, 91 purpose/intended audience, 89 rejection, 92 reviews/decision letter, 91 revise/resubmit, 91–92 submission requirements, 90 types of outlets, 88, 89 what to include in, 89–90 qualitative analysis before and after assessment, 71 content analysis, 76–77 course portfolios for, 71, 73, 74 how students learn, 126 inductive/deductive approach to, 31 observational research, 75 secondary analysis, 77 software for, 79 teaching portfolios for, 73–74 quantitative analysis before and after assessment, 71 content analysis, 76–77 inductive/deductive approach to, 31 meta-analysis, 72 observational research, 75 sample books on, 167 software for, 79 quasi-experimental design, 79 sample books on, 168 question “what is,” 28 “what works,” 28 question, open-ended, 108 questionnaire, 18, 75–76 sample book on writing, 168 on status of SoTL, 135–139

Index

Rankin, L., 43 reactivity, 75 recreation, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 155 reference lists, of readings related to SoTL, 39 reflective critique, 132 reflective skills, of preservice teacher, 68 reliability, of published questionnaire, 76 replication, of study, 109, 129 research assistant, student as, 35, 45–46 research strategy. See methodology research university, frequency of SoTL performance in, 111 resource planning, 123 resources, for SoTL work, 48–54 assessment, 49 discipline grants, 49 funding opportunities, 53–54 grant writing tips, 50–53 internal grants, 47, 49 list of broadly defined resources, 49–50 reward/compensation, for student research assistant, 44–45 reward system, 16–21, 97–99, 117 Rice, R. E., 2 Richlin, L., 6, 16, 27–28, 121 Robinson, J., 110 Rockhurst University, 111 Ross, C. M., 68 Royster, D., 30 Salvatori, M. R., 1–2, 102

197

Saunders, G., 74–75 Savory, P., 59, 117, 121 Schlesinger, W., 70 scholarship, characteristic of, 8 scholarship of teaching (Boyer), 10 scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) builds on past traditions, 10 coining of, 2 criticism of, 19–21 cross-disciplinary nature of, 90 definitional issues, 4–9 development of, 3 difference from assessment, 11–12 frequency of performance, 120 frequency of performance, by institution type, 111 functions of, 13–16 going public (See “making public”) good teaching and, 9 history of, 1–4 overlap with classroom assessment/research, 10–11 post-modern perspective on, 131–132 predictions for future of campus support models, 133 distributed academy, 133 graduate education academy, 133 interdisciplinary center, 133 from specific disciplinary perspective, 132 technology center, 133 rationale for, 13 reciprocal relationship with culture, 119–120

198


resistance to, 23, 125 scholarly teaching and, 9–10 as social movement, 4 standards for, 21–23 teaching centers and, 17, 39, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 86, 93, 112, 117, 120, 131 trends in field, 128 uses for, 123, 126 value and fit in reward structure, 16–21 See also scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), challenges/opportunities for; SoTL project scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), challenges/opportunities for, 127–130 build infrastructure at levels in support of, 132 engage in practical applications in multiple contexts, 132 expand student role, 129 improve credibility, 132 increase application, 128 increase awareness of SoTL, 129 increase breadth of involvement, 132 increase collaboration, 129–130 increase emphasis on learning, 128 increase focus on graduate students, 128 increase various forms of collaboration, 132 increase work at course/program/department levels, 129

maintain broad/inclusive definition of SoTL, 132 spread involvement to international level, 129 Schroeder, C., 112 sciences discipline-specific SoTL journal, 155 SoTL in, 105 self-reflection, 27, 73–74 self-report data. See questionnaire service-learning study, 30 Shapiro, H. N., 19 Shulman, L., 2, 13, 113, 131, 133 signature pedagogies, 129 Simonds, C., 76–77 social movement, SoTL as, 4, 5 social responsibility, 132 social sciences, and SoTL, 105 social work discipline-specific SoTL journal, 156 use of standardized client case in course, 106 Society for College Science Teachers (SCST), 102 sociology analyzing the content of course syllabi, 77 defining “success” in student success in sociology major, 33–34 discipline-specific SoTL journal, 156 faculty/student research project, 14 limitations of SoTL in, 104 “making public,” 84–85 questions about learning, 108

Index

variability research questions in, 29–30 variability of SoTL engagement in, 104–105 See also Carnegie Scholar SoTL project, Illinois State University software, research, 79 SoTL Cluster, course portfolio repository/index development by, 37 SoTL Collaboration Database, 42–43 SoTL Colloquium, 3, 25 SoTL national/international initiatives, 50 SoTL Program Pathways to Maturity, 112 SoTL project challenges for first timers, 25–27 collaboration role in, 41–46 discussion questions for, 26–27 integrating into professional life, 46–48 literature search, 36–37 new framework development questions, 28 operational definitions for, 33–34 past knowledge/research role in, 35–36 practical issues, 35 “problem” in, 27–29 refining research questions, 34–36 research topic/question, example, 29–31 theory role in, 31–34

199

visions of possible questions, 28 “what is” question, 28 “what works” question, 28 writing sabbatical request around, 50 See also Carnegie Scholar SoTL project, Illinois State University; SoTL project, worksheet questions SoTL project, worksheet questions, 80–82 ethical issues, 82 information/artifacts, 80–81 information/artifacts, need for further, 81 literature review, 80 peer feedback/review to make work public, 99 practical problems, 81 research strategy, 81 research topic, 80 time frame, 81 SoTL Researcher Collaboration Database using for pooling resources, 50 web site, 142 Southwestern University, 14 Sperling, C., 7–8 St. Olaf College, 111 standards, SoTL, 98 state grants, 50 statistical analysis, 79 statistics, sample books on, 167 Steadman, M. H., 10, 117 Stewart, K. A., 106 Stewart-Belle, S., 106 Stover, D., 76 student beliefs about learning mathematics, 106

200


community experience and, 30, 78 conversations about learning with, 30, 114 as coresearcher, 43–46, 129 evaluation of, 74 honors, 49, 81 improving reflective skills, 68 involvement in application of SoTL results, 125 as research assistant, 49 See also graduate student student journal, 44 student learning log, 44, 63, 64 student portfolio, 77 Summer Academy (AAHE), 3 summer institutes/seminars/workshops on teaching and/or SoTL, 49, 115 teacher evaluation of, 18, 19, 49, 98, 115, 116 See also faculty teacher log, 69 teaching and learning, past published scholarly research on, 37 Teaching and Learning Symposium, 114 teaching center, 17, 39, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 86, 93, 112, 117, 120, 131 teaching circle, 48 teaching commons, need to expand, 130 teaching conference, 3, 48, 93, 99

teaching-learning communities (TLCs), 49, 114 teaching portfolio, 73–74, 98 sample books on, 85, 167 Teaching Professor Conference, 3, 93 Teaching Sociology, 1, 87, 102, 104–105, 124 team work, 48 technical language, in grant proposal, 51 technology databases, 38, 42–43, 50, 115, 142 instructional, 56, 68 Internet as journal article source, 38–39 web-based outlet, 86, 97, 100, 129 See also web site technology center, 120, 133 telephone interview, 74 tenure/promotion, 18, 19, 110, 116 example language for SoTL, 169–170 Theall, M., 21–22 theater, “making public,” 85 theses/dissertations, SoTL, 49 “think alouds,” 75, 108 “think-share-pair” technique, 26 total quality management (TQM), 126 tourism, discipline-specific SoTL journal, 155 traditional research journal, 89 trend study, 70 Trigwell, K., 6 Tucker, M. L., 30, 78

Index

undergraduate research assistant, 35, 45–46 United Kingdom, SoTL conference in, 4 University College Cork, 111 University of Illinois, 108 University of Kansas SoTL repository, 37 University of Michigan, 126 University of Nebraska, 37, 96 University of Tennessee, 73 University of Wisconsin, Grants Information Collection, 53 University of Wisconsin System, 111 SoTL web site, 142 “Using the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning for Improvement—Worksheet,” 126–127 validity checking, 44 validity issues, 69, 76, 77, 124, 129–130 value, of SoTL, 18–19 values/rewards of SoTL at Illinois State University, 17, 19 Varner, D., 106 Verkler, K., 68 vignette analysis, 132

201

Visible Knowledge Project and Index, 142 Visible Knowledge Project (VKP), 35, 37 Wagenaar, T., 30 Walvoord, B. E., 122–123 web-based outlet, 86, 97, 100, 129 web site creating web pages, 96–97 funding, 53 SoTL, 141–142 Wehlburg, C. M., 121 Weimer, M. E., 3, 22, 26, 36–37, 72–73, 88, 107, 113, 117, 130 Weiss, G., 132 Western Washington University, 111 Weston, C. B., 6 “what is” question, 28 “what works” question, 28 Wiens, G., 68 Wilson, E. K., 2 Wilson’s Education Abstracts, 38 women’s studies, disciplinespecific SoTL journal, 156 Wright, M., 126 writing circle, 43, 106, 114 Yakura, E., 107, 109

Enhancing Learning Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: The Challenges and Joys of Juggling (JB - Anker)

The Emotional Experience of Learning and Teaching

Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and Learning Through Modelling

Teaching and Learning Languages

Teaching and Learning Algebra

Teaching and Learning Algebra

Learning Discourses and the Discourses of Learning

Teaching and Learning Science (Continuum Studies in Teaching and Learning)

Enhancing Thinking through Problem-based Learning Approaches

Enhancing Learning Through Human Computer Interaction

Compression: Meeting the Challenges of Sustainability Through Vigorous Learning Enterprises

ABC of Learning and Teaching Medicine

Principles of Language Learning and Teaching

ABC of Learning and Teaching in Medicine

Principles of language learning and teaching

The Learning and Teaching of Reading and Writing

Art and Science of Teaching and Learning, The

Teaching and Learning English Worldwide

Improving Teaching and Learning in the Humanities

The Guided Reader to Teaching and Learning

Learning and Teaching in the Primary Classroom

Learning and Teaching with Maps

Differentiation in Teaching and Learning

The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Teaching and Learning

Teaching and Learning in the Early Years

Learning and Teaching in the Primary Classroom

Improving Teaching and Learning in the Humanities

Teaching and Learning English Worldwide

Teaching and Learning English Literature (Teaching and Learning the Humanities Series)

Supporting Teachers, Supporting Pupils: The Emotions of Teaching and Learning

Enhancing Learning Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: The Challenges and Joys of Juggling (JB - Anker)

The Emotional Experience of Learning and Teaching

Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and Learning Through Modelling

Teaching and Learning Languages

Teaching and Learning Algebra

Teaching and Learning Algebra

Learning Discourses and the Discourses of Learning

Teaching and Learning Science (Continuum Studies in Teaching and Learning)

Enhancing Thinking through Problem-based Learning Approaches

Enhancing Learning Through Human Computer Interaction

Compression: Meeting the Challenges of Sustainability Through Vigorous Learning Enterprises

ABC of Learning and Teaching Medicine

Principles of Language Learning and Teaching

ABC of Learning and Teaching in Medicine

Principles of language learning and teaching

The Learning and Teaching of Reading and Writing

Art and Science of Teaching and Learning, The

Teaching and Learning English Worldwide

Improving Teaching and Learning in the Humanities

The Guided Reader to Teaching and Learning

Learning and Teaching in the Primary Classroom

Learning and Teaching with Maps

Differentiation in Teaching and Learning

The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Teaching and Learning

Teaching and Learning in the Early Years

Learning and Teaching in the Primary Classroom

Improving Teaching and Learning in the Humanities

Teaching and Learning English Worldwide

Teaching and Learning English Literature (Teaching and Learning the Humanities Series)

Supporting Teachers, Supporting Pupils: The Emotions of Teaching and Learning

Recommend Documents