Teddy’s Reflection Log 01*26*2010
Class Session, Tuesday, Time: 7:20-10:00 p.m./ 01.26.2010
In our session on Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010, we observed that there were distinct attributes about teaching and what is considered scholarly work. What is scholarship? What is teaching? Well, according to Shulman, scholarship is public, critical to review and appropriate to be share or reused. The issue of publishing one’s scholarly work is both sensitive and complex. Critical review of the work of others can be rewarding for those investigating and humbling for the authors sharing their research. Some professors may not want to share their work. Others may consider it a chance to become noted in a field of specialty or recognized as an expert of some level. Based on my past learning experiences, I thought of scholarly work as research. After reading the article “Course Anatomy: The Dissection and Analysis of Knowledge Through Teaching”, it was clear that this is far from the truth. There is so much more to the process of creating scholarly work.
Shulman’s key components of teaching make such great sense to me when I think about how they intersect one another. He argues that teaching, like other forms of scholarship, is an extended process that unfolds over time. It embodies at least five elements: vision, design, interactions, outcomes and analysis. I believe that like a painter, one must have a clear-cut vision as to where they will start and finish a great work. It will require the artist or teacher to spend extended sets time planning a scope of activities that promote student learning. Such activities must be attractive to students of various learning styles. Lesson design or configuration must pedagogically encourage students to learn in guided and independent opportunities. Their past experiences must coincide with significant learning experiences that are innovative and worthy of further exploration. Student and teacher interactions must yield works of quality and quantity. I believe that outcomes can be favorably increased if we interject best practices that are practical and reasonably achievable within expected time frames. Analysis and knowledge of what we teach, how we teach, who we teach, sequence of activities to learn, how we learn, might be the most dominant determining factors indicating how we see our day to day lives contributing to the greatest plight of humanity. “To seek the unknown and desires to know more!”
In conclusion, I believe scholarship, teaching and scholarly work are all acts of academic engagement where teachers and students are educating and making inquiries from each other as they interact and share information and perspectives in peer and student/instructor oriented situations. It is refreshing to be amongst like minds that are not afraid to voice what they think, know and seek. Scholarship is the tank holding the gasoline needed for fueling our investigations of uncharted and charted territories. Teaching is the work that takes place to produce the fuel needed to fill the tank. Scholarly work is the final product or outcome of the work done, measured in quantity and quality.
This experience has been extraordinary!
Jason’s Class Reflection 1/26
First off, I was very interested in the idea of the scholarly article vs. the teaching portfolio as a way for the SoTL to “go public”. Before class I would have sided strongly with teaching portfolio’s. But after seeing the influence that “traditional” articles had on the definition of SoTL over time, I come to a different conclusion. While I still think that a class portfolio is the best way to publicly share a course with other teachers, the traditional article may be very useful in discussing SoTL as a practice. So, I leave the class having moved much more to the 50/50 both are necessary position.
Secondly, I enjoyed the discussion on “Pedagogical Content Knowledge”, or as I think of it, it not just knowing a lot about your discipline it’s knowing how to teach what you know that really matters. I still think this fact is glossed over all too often. As we discussed the PhD is still seen as a green light to teach. I also believe that many of the teachers today thrived in a lecture based learning environment, so they recreate what taught them well, which probably serves to disadvantage a majority of students (which by the way, I’m not fully convinced this only disadvantages “the technology generation” I think it has probably always disadvantaged students that for whatever reason don’t fit into a read/lecture learning environment).
Finally, I got a lot out of the discussion of arguments against SoTL. The arguments against going public to me break down rather easily and seem to operate as rationalizations for the status quo more than legitimate concerns. Although they do raise some concerns that would need to be dealt with, such as student anonymity in the publishing process, I think there are ways to reduce or eliminate most issues. At the community college, I think that the overloaded plate argument is less valid. Since we are not required to publish, maybe publishing SoTL could be built into the reward system somehow. Certainly a record of self reflection and student achievement should be reinforced in some way. I would love to see the community college system lead the way in the SoTL movement in the future. The freedom from publish or parish at community colleges is a real advantage creating a more favorable environment for SoTL activity.