Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reading Suggestions
This selection of recent articles along with the key report by Glassick and colleagues provides a useful starting point for exploring the scholarship of teaching and learning. Also see the suggested links at the start of this section.
Annotated Bibliography
R. Benson and C. Brack. 2009. Developing the scholarship of teaching: what is the role of e-teaching and learning? Journal of Teaching in Higher Education. 14(1), 71-80. Abstract: Discourse about the scholarship of teaching and learning appears to represent some views about higher education more than others. For example, disciplinary perspectives have been acknowledged, and ideas from critical theory and phenomenography have been presented, with the role of reflection receiving considerable attention. While approaches to e-teaching have been examined as examples of scholarship, there has been limited exploration of whether e-learning discourse has potential to extend the concept of scholarship. In this paper we ask: Can ideas about e-learning add to current understandings about the nature of the scholarship of teaching and learning? If so, what additional perspectives might they add? We begin by reviewing some conceptual and contextual dimensions of the scholarship of teaching and learning, before exploring the role that understandings from e-teaching and e-learning might play in developing the concept of scholarship. We use an academic professional development programme from our institution as an illustration.
Angela Brew. 2011. Higher Education Research and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: The Pursuit of Excellence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 5(2). Available fromhttp://www.miamijewishhealthsystems.org/resources/content/2/8/0/documents/E_Learning_as_Evidence_of_Educational_Scholarship__20%5B1%5D.pdf Abstract: The scholarship of teaching and learning includes many activities all of which are focused on critically reflecting on teaching and learning in some way. In the last 10 years or so I have worked at two different universities in Australia both of which have devised ways of rewarding scholarly activities related to teaching. These activities take the form of a) engaging in sustained study and gaining qualifications in teaching in higher education, b) being in receipt of institutional and/or national awards for teaching excellence and c) presenting scholarly work on higher education teaching and learning in conferences and journals. In this piece I want to raise a number of issues related to the latter. Specifically I want to ask some critical questions about the implications of public presentation of scholarly work on teaching and learning for the field of higher education.
Dobbins, K. 2011. Reflections on SoTL by a Casual Lecturer: Personal Benefits, Long-Term Challenges. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 5(2). Available at http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl Abstract: I have just completed my second year as a casual lecturer and have enjoyed engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). However, my casual status has brought a number of challenges to ensuring my SoTL work has both long term and institutional impact. As the trend for casualisation in higher education continues across the world, I believe that the potential detriment it can cause to SoTL needs to be addressed by the SoTL community. This paper describes firstly a SoTL project I have carried out using a wiki-based assessment method. Secondly, it presents my reflections on the difficulties I face in continuing my SoTL work and feeding it into my department. Finally, it argues that employment on a casual basis can restrict SoTL potential and, consequently, it is time to ask how SoTL can still flourish in this type of environment.
Elliott-Johns, Susan. E., 2011. Reclaiming a Writing Voice as a New Teacher Educator: SoTL as Portal. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 5(2). Available at
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Abstract: This essay explores the author’s self-directed experience of re-claiming a writing voice as a new teacher educator in a faculty of education after many years as a practitioner in public school systems. The benefits of an increased understanding of SoTL became critical to the individual’s own development as a member of faculty, specifically in overcoming obstacles encountered in writing for academic audiences. Presenting reflections on experience, notes, and journal entries over time, the piece offers insight into one individual’s struggles in transitioning to sustained ‘scholarly’ writing for publication, but also suggests this is not an unfamiliar tale. The author concludes there is much more that could be done to mentor and support the ongoing development of academic writing and the work of new scholars.
Glassick, C., Huber, M T & Maeroff, G. I. 1997. Scholarship Assessed: A Special Report on Faculty Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Abstract (Carnegie site): This report follows up the hugely popular Scholarship Reconsidered, which defined four areas of scholarship: scholarship of discovery, scholarship of integration, scholarship of application, and scholarship of teaching. The authors argue that it is essential to have standards applicable to all forms of scholarly work if interdisciplinary inquiry, professional service, and teaching are to receive the recognition and rewards now afforded to research.
Glassick, C. E. 2000. Reconsidering Scholarship. Journal of Public Health Management Practice. 6(1), 4–9.
Abstract: Following the publication of Scholarship Reconsidered in 1990, debates began on many campuses regarding the expansion of the definition of scholarship. These debates focused on the appropriateness of the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching. These conversations were enriched by the six standards for assessment proposed in Scholarship Assessed, published in 1996. Now these concepts prosper on many campuses as individual institutions find their own interpretations and adaptations of enriched and expanded scholarship.
Glassick, C. E. 2002. The four scholarships. HERDSA News. 24(1), 1-4. This is not currently available electronically but you can ask IML for a copy.
Prosser, M. 2008. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: What is it? A Personal View. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2(2). Available at http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Abstract: The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education is an idea and a practice that is relatively new and still in its early stages of development. What it means, how to engage in it, what are its expected outcomes, etc. are still issues of debate. In this short essay, I argue that the scholarship of teaching and learning should be about individual and groups of academic staff within disciplines engaged collegially in working to improve student learning within the disciplines. It is not research in the traditional sense, its focus should be on better understanding our student learning experiences and outcomes within our disciplines, and on ways to improve those experiences and outcomes.
Ruiz, J. G., Candler, C. S., Quari S. S. & Roos B. A. 2009. E-Learning as Evidence of Educational Scholarship: A Survey of Chairs of Promotion and Tenure Committees at US Medical Schools. Academic Medicine, 84(1), 47-57.
Abstract: Purpose - To ascertain the attitudes of chairs of U.S. medical school promotion committees toward e-learning and how their institutions recognize and reward faculty for e-learning as a scholarly activity. Method - In 2007, the authors mailed a questionnaire to chairs of promotion and tenure committees at 123 U.S. medical schools. Chairs rated the importance of major areas of clinician-educators' e-learning performance using a five-point scale (1 = not important; 5 = extremely important). In another section, chairs rated the quality of information that is usually available to evaluate faculty performance in e-learning scholarship using a five-point scale (1 = low quality; 5 = excellent). Respondents were also able to enter qualitative comments about the role of e-learning and educational scholarship at their institution. Frequency distributions for each question were examined to identify any irregularities in the data, and descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses to questions. Themes were extracted from the qualitative data. Results - The response rate to the survey was 51% (63/123). Fifty-six (88.8%) participants indicated that educational scholarship was at least moderately important to a candidate's chances of promotion. Forty-eight (76%) respondents recognized e-learning as a meaningful contribution to scholarship. The chairs rated several levels of evaluation as well as types of e-learning activities and products: changing learner outcomes, developing and disseminating materials, authoring publications, receiving grant awards, serving on editorial boards, and directing a program. Conclusions - Promotion chairs value selected e-learning activities and products as evidence of teaching scholarship.
Trigwell, K., E. Martin, Benjamin, J. & Prosser, M. 2000. Scholarship of Teaching: a model. Higher Education Research & Development 19(2): 155-168.
Abstract: In this paper we present a model which describes the scholarship of teaching. We first explore what scholarship of teaching means, both in terms of the way it is represented in the literature and also the way it is understood by academic staff themselves. From this information, we derive a multi-dimensional model of scholarship of teaching which captures the variation found in the literature and empirical studies. In the final section, we illustrate how the model is used in informing the design of programs for development of the scholarship of teaching in universities.
Trigwell, K. & Shale, S. 2004. Student Learning and the Scholarship of University Teaching. Studies in Higher Education. 29(4) 523-537.
Summary: Trigwell & Shale discuss “the scholarship of teaching as about making transparent, for public (peer) scrutiny, how learning has been made possible” (p. 525, Trigwell et al 2000). They use the phrase ‘pedagogic resonance’ to describe the practice of teaching which makes learning possible. Emphasising a practice based and learner centred scholarship of teaching they use their model to argue for the need to make ‘pedagogic resonance’ more visible for peer scrutiny, open to critique and review and in a form that can be built upon by others.
Vardi, I, 2010. The changing relationship between the Scholarship of Teaching (and Learning) and universities. Higher Education Research & Development. 30(1) 1-7.
Summary: This is the introduction to a whole issue of this journal that is devoted to the Scholarship of learning and Teaching. It provides a good contemporary selection of the Australasian perspective as well as an update by Patricia Cranton who has been writing about SOTL, from a US perspective, for many years.
For more sources:
An extensive bibliography of The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning can be found here: SoTL Bibliography (pdf ). Compiled by K. McKinney, Illinois State University, Summer 2010.
