Teddy’s Reading Log 01.25.10

Posted by on January 25, 2010 
Filed under Reading logs

Teddy’s Reading Log 01.25.2010

 

Scholars around the world would probably agree that there is a need for a standard definition of scholarship of teaching and learning. With so many people trying to define the scholarship of teaching, I am not surprised that we are confused concerning this topic. Someone once said to me, “we are all part of the problem or the solution”. In the text Enhancing Learning Through The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, scholars are seeking ways to resolve the many challenges that colleges and universities face in determining how we learn, how we are taught and how learning and teaching should be assessed. Chapters 1& 2 gives a great overview of what scholarship and teaching is all about. McKinney (2004), states that the phrase “scholarship of teaching has only been around for about fifteen years, but the SoTL has been around longer. SoTL is connected to organizations like the Carnegie Foundation, AAHE and the CSTL Foundation. Also, it states that Ernest Boyer coined the phrase scholarship of teaching (Carnegie Report 1990) and  Shulman phrased what we know as the pedagogical content knowledge.

 

 

Over time, a host of great minds have defined the scholarship of teaching. From the Carnegie Foundation, AAHE, Richlin Benjamin, Prosser and Triwell to Belmont University, we have a mixing bowl of criteria. Personally, I give preference to the article “Course Anatomy” which states that teaching is an extended process that unfolds over time and has five key parts: vision, design, interactions, outcomes and analysis. Shulman suggests that scholarship should be public, susceptible to critical review and evaluation and accessible for exchange and use by society. Many scholars have struggled to formulate a conclusive and definitive meaning including Rice (1991) who suggested that the scholarship of teaching is three-fold. Synoptic capacity, pedagogical content and what we know about learning. Others such as Kreber (2005) stated that the scholarship of teaching is intellectual, practical and critical work done by college and university teachers. So many others have shared similar theories; however, no common approach has thoroughly been adopted. I think they all should co-exist!

 

The article continues on the topic of course design. Course design can take form as a course syllabus, course outline an argument for the development of a class. A collaborative inquiry is needed to clearly stabilize the terminology. Chapter 2 discusses the rationales for advocating the scholarship of teaching and learning. A list of great reasons, including the revitalization of older faculty is mentioned. Value and rewards become the center piece and I found myself biased in this regard. Without reward structures colleges and universities will not attract the best and brightest. There must be a balance in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Teachers and students must have equated access to research data and possess the means to share, assess and interpret the data for proper use in the context needed. Even though teaching is a private act, I believe learning is most effective when we’re amongst like minds. We tend to be more excited and motivated when we can engage and attach ourselves to others with differing pedagogies. I am not sold on one definition of the scholarship of teaching and learning, but feel that there are as many criteria as there are scenarios in life to define the scholarship of teaching and learning. Therefore, we should explore them all!

Comments



Leave a Reply