2012 DJ

UCD Teaching and Learning

Introducing the Scholarship of Teaching

Contributing Lecturers David Jennings & Tim mcMahon

Please note the materials in this workbook are based on the contents of UCD Teaching and Learning Open Educational Resources website, for further details and online activities visit: www.ucdoer.ie

DJ_Edt 2012

An Introduction to the Scholarship of Teaching as a Concept

The term scholarship of teaching was used by Boyer (1990) to express the view that the rigorous and systematic creation of knowledge about teaching and learning is a form of scholarship similar in importance to that of traditional academic research. Further, he intended establish the principle that the activities associated with the scholarship of teaching (namely, exploration, experimentation and dissemination of results) should be conducted by academics from all disciplines, not just those who work in the field of education. Boyer argued that the work of university academics should be thought of as having four separate, yet overlapping, functions, which he called, the scholarships of discovery, integration, application and teaching. 1. Discovery - is where new knowledge is created and includes what we traditionally call research. 2. Integration is where new relationships between facts and / or theories are discovered or postulated. On integration Boyer wrote: In proposing the scholarship of integration, we underscore the need for scholars who give meaning to isolated facts, putting them in perspective. By integration, we mean making connections across the disciplines, placing the specialities in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating non-specialists too. (p 18) 3. Application is applied research where the emphasis is on the use of new knowledge to solve problems. On application Boyer wrote: The first two kinds of scholarship discovery and integration of knowledge reflect the investigative and synthesising traditions of academic life. The third element, the application of knowledge, moves toward engagement as the scholar asks, How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems? How can it be helpful to individuals as well as institutions? And further, Can social problems themselves define an agenda for scholarly investigation? (p 21) And The scholarship of application, as we define it here, is not a one-way street. Indeed, the term itself may be misleading if it suggests that knowledge is first discovered and then applied. The process we have in mind is far more dynamic. New intellectual understandings can arise out of the very act of application 1

DJ_Edt 2012

whether in medical diagnosis, serving clients in psychotherapy, shaping public policy, creating an architectural design, or working with the public schools. In activities such as these, theory and practice vitally interact, and one renews the other. (p 23) 4. Teaching, Boyer said, should encompass: (a) creatively and systematically building bridges between our own understandings (as teachers) and those of our students and (b) presenting examples of our own successful teaching for review and evaluation. (Note: this idea of presenting successful teaching for review and evaluation is still a matter of considerable controversy in the literature.) On teaching Boyer wrote: Finally, we come to the scholarship of teaching. The work of the professor becomes consequential only as it is understood by others. Yet, today, teaching is often viewed as a routine function, tacked on, something almost anyone can do. When defined as scholarship, however, teaching both educates and entices future scholars. Indeed, as Aristotle said, Teaching is the highest form of understanding. (p 23) And, As a scholarly enterprise, teaching begins with what the teacher knows. Those who teach must, above all, be well informed, and steeped in the knowledge of their fields. Teaching can be well regarded only as professors are widely read and intellectually engaged (sic). One reason legislators, trustees, and the general public often fail to understand why ten or twelve hours in the classroom each week can be a heavy load is their lack of awareness of the hard work and the serious study that undergirds good teaching. (p 23) And, Further, good teaching means that faculty, as scholars, are also learners. All too often, teachers transmit information that students are expected to memorize and then, perhaps, recall. While well-prepared lecturers surely have a place, teaching, at its best, means not only transmitting knowledge, but transforming and extending it as well. Through reading, through classroom discussion, and surely through comments and questions posed by students, professors themselves will be pushed in creative new directions. (p 24) In his re-conceptualization of role of academics in higher education, Boyer intended to elevate the status of teaching so that it became equal with that of the other forms of scholarship that he identified. Boyer argued that the academy should recognize and reward all four components of scholarship. 2

DJ_Edt 2012

References:
Boyer E. L. 1990 Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate Carnegie Foundation, Princeton.

Further Reading
Most Highly Recommended Kreber C 2002 Teaching Excellence, Teaching Expertise, and the Scholarship of Teaching Innovative Higher Education 27, 1: 5-23* Kreber C. & Cranton P. A. 2000 Exploring the Scholarship of Teaching The Journal of Higher Education 71, 4: 476-495 Trigwell K. 2001 Judging University Teaching International Journal for Academic Development 6, 1 65-73** Others Adcroft, A & Lockwood, A (2010) Enhancing the sotl, and organic approach Teaching in Higher Education 15(5) 479-491 # Andressen L. W. 2000 A Useable, Trans-disciplainary Conception of Scholarship Higher Education Research and Development 19, 2: 137-153 Beattie D. S. 2000 Expanding the View of Scholarship: Introduction Academic Medicine 75, 9: 871-876 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, 9: 877-880 Kreber C. 2002 Controversy and Consensus on the Scholarship of Teaching Studies in Higher Education 27, 2: 151-167 Marx, W 2010 The Publishing Paradox: Appropriate Methods of Peer-Reviewing the Scholarship of Teaching Essay submitted for assessment for the module The Scholarship of Teaching UCD 2010: (Available on UCDOER site.) McArthur J 2010 Time to Look Anew: Critical Pedagogy and Disciplines Within Higher Education Studies in Higher Education 35, 3: 301-315 Rice R. E. 2002 Beyond Scholarship Reconsidered: Towards and Enlarged Vision of the Scholarly Work of Faculty Members New Directions for Teaching and Learning 90: 7-18 Schulman, L 2005 The Signature Pedagogies of the Professions of Law, Medicine, 3

DJ_Edt 2012

Engineering, and the Clergy: Potential Lessons for the Education of Teachers. Presentation to Math Science Partnerships (MSP) Workshop: "Teacher Education for Effective Teaching and Learning" Hosted by the US National Research Councils Center for Education February 6-8, 2005 Irvine, California Available at: http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/11172 Simpson D., Fincher R., Hafler J. P., Irby D. M., Richards B. F., Rosenfeld G. C. & Vigglano T. R. 2007 Advancing Educators and Education by Defining the Components and Evidence Associated with Educational Scholarship Medical Education 41, 10: 1002-1009 Sorcinelli M. D. 2002 New Conceptions of Scholarship for a New Generation of Faculty Members New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2002: 90, 4148. Trigwell K., Martin E., Benjamin J. & Prosser M. 2000 Scholarship of Teaching: A Model Higher Education Research and Development 19, 2: 155-168 Trigwell K, & Shale S, 2004*** Student Learning and the Scholarship of University Teaching Studies in Higher Education 29, 4: 523-536


Clear Goals

Scholarly Teaching in Practice

Notes/Comments

Does the work relate to identified issues extant in the literature? Are the intended outcomes of the work clearly stated? Are these realistic and achievable? Adequate Preparation Is the work adequately resourced? Does the work demonstrate an understanding of existing scholarship in the field? Appropriate Methods Are the methods used appropriate to the intended outcomes? Are the investigatory or developmental methods rigorous and effectively applied? Do procedures take account of changing circumstances?

Adapted from Glassick, C. E.; Huber, M. T.; Maeroff, G. I. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997; p. 36


Significant Results

Scholarly Teaching in Practice

Are the intended outcomes met? Is the work a significant addition to the field ?

Does the work reveal additional areas in need of further exploration and development? Effective Presentation and in a forum relevant to the target audience? Is the presentation well-structured and coherently organised Is the work presented with clarity and integrity? Reflective Critique her own work? Is there an appropriate breadth of evidence underlying this self- evaluation? Does this self-evaluation have the potential to improve the quality of future work? Does the author critically evaluate his or Is the work presented in a suitable style

Adapted from Glassick, C. E.; Huber, M. T.; Maeroff, G. I. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997; p. 36