The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) And Variations

1. The Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning(SoTL)And Variations Karl A. Smith University of Minnesota ksmith@umn.edu www.ce.umn.edu/~smith

2. Participant Survey • Published articles on teaching & learning? • Subscribe to teaching journals? • Read/skim teaching journals? • Attended teaching conferences/workshops? • Other activity in scholarship of teaching and learning?

3. Agenda • What is SoTL? • Characteristics of SoTL • Difference between SoTL & scholarly teaching • Why do it? • How to do it • Organizational challenges

4. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate Ernest L. Boyer Scholarship of Discovery, research that increases storehouse of new knowledge within disciplines; Scholarship of Integration, efforts by faculty to explore connectedness of knowledge within and across disciplines, brining new insights to original research; Scholarship of Application, leads faculty to explore how knowledge can be applied to consequential problems in service to community and society; and Scholarship of Teaching, views teaching not as a routine task, but as perhaps highest form of scholarly enterprise, involving constant interplay of teaching and learning.

5. What is SoTL? “The systematic reflection on teaching and learning made public”—Illinois State University http://www.cat.ilstu.edu/sotl

6. SoTL IS: • public • peer-reviewed and critiqued • exchanged with other members of our professional communities (Pat Hutchings and Lee Shulman of the Carnegie Foundation)

7. Scholarly Teaching and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning* • Scholarly teaching: The instructor • is aware of modern pedagogical developments and incorporates them in his/her teaching where appropriate • reflects on, assesses, and attempts to improve his/her teaching (classroom research) • Scholarship of teaching and learning: Research, publication, possibly grants on work related to education *Shulman & Hutchings

9. Basic Features of Professional and Scholarly Work • It requires a high level of discipline-related expertise • It is conducted in a scholarly manner with clear goals, adequate preparation, and appropriate methodology • The work and its results are appropriately and effectively documented and disseminated. This reporting should include a reflective critique that addresses the significance of the work, the process that was used, and what was learned. • It has significance beyond the individual context. • It breaks new ground or is innovative. • It can be replicated or elaborated on. • The work both process and product or result is reviewed and judged to be meritorious and significant by a panel of ones peers. Diamond, R., “The Mission-Driven Faculty Reward System,” in R.M. Diamond, Ed., Field Guide to Academic Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002

10. Guiding Principles forScientific Research in Education • Question: pose significant question that can be investigated empirically • Theory: link research to relevant theory • Methods: use methods that permit direct investigation of the question • Reasoning: provide coherent, explicit chain of reasoning • Replicate and generalize across studies • Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique National Research Council, 2002

11. Research Inspired By: Use (Applied) Understanding (Basic) Stokes, Donald. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Wash, D.C., Brookings.

12. Why do SoTL? • Fosters significant, long-lasting learning for all students • Enhances practice and profession of teaching • Brings faculty’s work as teachers into the scholarly realm. CASTL project purposes http:www.aahebulletin.com

13. Types of Questions • Instructional Knowledge—components of instructional design • Pedagogical Knowledge—student learning & how to facilitate it • Curricular Knowledge—goals, purposes & rationales for courses or programs

14. 3 types of reflection within each form of knowledge • Content—What should I do… • Process—How did I do… • Premise—Why does it matter…

15. Examples for process reflection: How did I (we) do at: • Course design, methods & assessing effectively? (instructional) • Facilitating student knowledge? Was I successful? (pedagogical) • Arriving at goals & rationale for courses? (curricular)

16. How to do it? • Question: pose significant question that can be investigated empirically • Theory: link research to relevant theory • Methods: use methods that permit direct investigation of the question • Reasoning: provide coherent, explicit chain of reasoning • Replicate and generalize across studies • Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique National Research Council, 2002

17. Research Thrust Areas • Define bodies-of-knowledge required for disciplinary practice and use of discipline study for other careers. • Develop strategies that value diversity in the formulation and solution of disciplinary problems. • Develop cost-effective and time-efficient strategies and technologies for • Improving student learning, and • Enhancing the instructional effectiveness of current and future faculty. • Develop assessments of student learning and instructional effectiveness.

18. Organizational Opportunities & Challenges • Work collaboratively within departments • Provide faculty leaves of absence, fellowships, & sabbaticals • Establish departmental reading circles • Provide base workshops on educational theory & practice • Change emphases within disciplines

19. Think-Pair-Share • Are you interested in developing a SoTL project? Why-why not? • If yes, what question(s) would you explore? • What organizational challenges do you face?

20. Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Diamond, R., “The Mission-Driven Faculty Reward System,” in R.M. Diamond, Ed., Field Guide to Academic Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002 Diamond R. & Adam, B. 1993. Recognizing faculty work: Reward systems for the year 2000. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Research Council. 2002. Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles in Education. Shavelson, R.J., and Towne, L., Editors. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17. Wankat, P.C., Felder, R.M., Smith, K.A. and Oreovicz, F. 2001. The scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering. In Huber, M.T & Morreale, S. (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: A conversation. Also presented at American Association for Higher Education Faculty Roles & Rewards Conference, February, 2001.