College of Arts
and Sciences, Fine Arts/Communications
& Humanities Committee
Toward Defining the "Scholarship of Teaching"
within Academic Departments
Objective: At the department level, to engage faculty colleagues
in a dialogue on defining what the "Scholarship of Teaching"
might mean within our respective disciplines. As prompts to
initiate a dialogue, the following are two definitions widely
cited in faculty discussions across the country.
". . . A scholarship of teaching will entail a public
account of some or all of the full act of teaching --- vision,
design, enactment, outcomes, and analysis --- in a manner
susceptible to critical review by the teacher's professional
peers, and amenable to productive employment in future work
by members of that same community."
--Lee S. Shulman, The Course Portfolio (1999, AAHE)
". . . The scholarship of teaching is problem posing
about an issue of teaching or learning, study of the problem
through methods appropriate to disciplinary epistemologies,
application of results to practice, communication of results,
self-reflection, and peer review. . . "
-- the Carnegie Teaching Academy's working definition
Our immediate task:
To generate a listing of faculty activities that may be used
to illustrate what we mean by the Scholarship of Teaching
within our respective departments and disciplines. Given the
following five illustrations, what are some additional items
that may be included in such a listing of faculty activities.
- Producing a teaching portfolio
- Participating in a mentoring system focused on teaching
issues
- Participating in a process of reciprocal peer review of
teaching
- Documenting aspects of professional development resulting
from team teaching
- Facilitating departmental workshops focused on discussions
of teaching enhancement
Q: What are additional activities (efforts, products) that
illustrate faculty engagement in the Scholarship of Teaching?
College of Arts and Sciences, the
Social
and Behavioral Sciences Committee
Bill Thomas will meet with Associate Dean for Social Sciences
in Arts and Sciences to elicit the input of the deans office.
- Structures, practices and policies in the college that
support scholarship of teaching.
- Structures, practices and policies in the college that
inhibit scholarship of teaching.
Conversation with the chairs, executive committees, and students
of departments of social and behavioral sciences on the scholarship
of teaching.
- Explain how teaching is important to them.
- Explain that the provost says teaching is valued! It is
important to all faculty.
- Good teachers will be recognized and rewarded.
- Use the teaching portfolio as an instrumental outcome
of the process.
Suggestions for implementing conversations:
- Private meetings with stakeholders.
- Brown bag lunches or some alternative.
- Bring in video and/or expert.
- Set up departmental list servs (open to all members).
- Focus groups with students.
- Ask faculty to submit structured narratives by private
email or memo.
- Ask faculty to submit free lists by private email or memo.
Plans for having the Conversation.
Fine Arts/Communications & Humanities departments
Toward Defining the "Scholarship of Teaching"
within Academic Departments
Objective: At the department level, to engage faculty colleagues
in a dialogue on defining what the "Scholarship of Teaching"
might mean within our respective disciplines. As prompts to
initiate a dialogue, the following are two definitions widely
cited in faculty discussions across the country.
". . . A scholarship of teaching will entail a public
account of some or all of the full act of teaching ---
vision, design, enactment, outcomes, and analysis ---
in a manner susceptible to critical review by the teacher's
professional peers, and amenable to productive employment
in future work by members of that same community."
--Lee S. Shulman, The Course Portfolio (1999, AAHE)
". . . The scholarship of teaching is problem posing
about an issue of teaching or learning, study of the problem
through methods appropriate to disciplinary epistemologies,
application of results to practice, communication of results,
self-reflection, and peer review. . . "
-- the Carnegie Teaching Academy's working definition
Our immediate task:
To generate a listing of faculty activities that may be used
to illustrate what we mean by the Scholarship of Teaching
within our respective departments and disciplines. Given the
following five illustrations, what are some additional items
that may be included in such a listing of faculty activities.
- Producing a teaching portfolio
- Participating in a mentoring system focused on teaching
issues
- Participating in a process of reciprocal peer review of
teaching
- Documenting aspects of professional development resulting
from team teaching
- Facilitating departmental workshops focused on discussions
of teaching enhancement
Q: What are additional activities (efforts, products) that
illustrate faculty engagement in the Scholarship of Teaching?
Carnegie Discussions of the Scholarship
of Teaching
College of Education Implementation Plan
|
Step
|
Activity
|
Data Collection
|
Person Responsible
|
Date Beginning/Ending
|
| 1. |
Bring all associates up to speed |
None |
COE Facilitator |
9/27-10/1 |
| 2. |
Identify Key Opinion Leaders (KOL) in Each Department |
None |
Dept. Associates |
9/27-10/4 |
| 3. |
Individual Discussions with Dept. Chairs |
Field Notes |
Dept. Associates |
9/27-10/8 |
| 4. |
Schedule time to show tape at Dept. Faculty Meeting |
None |
Dept. Associates |
9/27-10/8 |
| 5. |
Individual Discussions with Dept. Faculty and Academic
Affairs Reps |
Field Notes |
Dept. Associates |
9/27-10/8 |
| 6. |
Commence BBS Development |
None |
Dist. Ed. Director |
9/27-11/1 |
| 7. |
Team Discussion with Dean |
Field Notes |
COE Facilitator/ Dept. Associates |
9/27-10/5 |
| 8. |
Key Opinion Leaders Identify other keys |
None |
Dept. Associates & KOLs |
10/4-10/11 |
| 9. |
KOL Departmental Group Meeting |
Field Notes/Tapes/Written Response |
Dept. Associates |
10/11-11/1 |
| 10. |
Discuss with Classes as appropriate |
Field Notes/Survey |
KOLs et al |
10/11-11/15 |
| 11. |
Discuss with practicum students as appropriate |
Field Notes/Survey |
KOLs et al |
10/11-11/15 |
| 12. |
Discuss with Doctoral Fellows |
Field Notes/Survey |
Fellows Advisor et al |
10/11-11/15 |
| 13. |
Chairs Discuss |
Field Notes/Tape? |
Chairs/ Dept. Associates |
10/27 |
| 14. |
Faculty & Academic Affairs Discuss |
Field Notes/Tape? |
Dept. Reps. |
TBD |
| 15. |
COE TEAS |
Field Notes/Tape/Survey |
Dept. Associates/ Facilitator |
11/1 |
| 16. |
BBS Discussion Begins |
BBS |
Dist. Ed. Director |
11/1 |
| 17. |
Complete Data Analysis/Write Report |
None |
Dept. Associates/ Facilitator/GRA |
11/15-11/22 |
| 18. |
Present Report |
None |
Dept. Associates/ Facilitator |
11/22 |
CENTER FOR TEACHING AND
LEARNING (CTL)
THE CARNEGIE TEACHING ACADEMY CAMPUS PROGRAM
CAMPUS CONVERSATION PROGRAM – PART I
J. MACK ROBINSON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS (RCB)
As evidence of their commitment to the scholarship of teaching
and learning, the RCB Associates of CTL designed the following
plan to initiate the conversation about the scholarship of
teaching and learning among the faculty members of the RCB.
- Use WebCT to survey the RCB faculty members on the following
issues:
- Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
- Relevant publications discussing the scholarship of
teaching and learning will be posted on the WebCT site
or made accessible by a hot link to the CTL web site.
- Several working definitions of the scholarship of
teaching and learning will be posed.
- Faculty members of the RCB will be asked to state
their agreement with one or another of those definitions,
or to offer versions that they believe are better.
- Teaching vs. Learning Paradigm
- The Illustration entitled "Shifts in Paradigms"
prepared by Associate Provost Yezdi Bhada will be posted
on the WebCT site.
- Faculty members of the RCB will be asked to state
their opinion about these paradigms and the their attitude
toward adopting the learning paradigm as the desired
paradigm for the future.
- Support structure for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning in the RCB
- A list of committees, programs, policies, and procedures
in the RCB will be provided to the faculty members in
the RCB.
- Faculty members of the RCB will be asked to state
their opinion about any and all policies and procedures
in the RCB that support, foster, encourage and aid faculty
members undertake the scholarship of teaching and learning.
- Inhibitors affecting the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
in the RCB
- A list of committees, programs, policies, and
procedures in the RCB will be provided to the faculty
members in the RCB.
- Faculty members of the RCB will be asked to
state their opinion about any and all policies and
procedures in the RCB that inhibit or discourage
faculty members from undertaking the scholarship
of teaching and learning.
- Use personal interviews to garner the opinions of two
of many influential groups in the RCB. The two groups that
will be interviewed in Part I of the Campus Conversation
Program will be the
- Deans of the RCB – Dr. Sidney Harris, Dr.
H. Fenwick Huss, and Dr. Michael Jedel
- Members of the Faculty Development Committee of
the RCB
These individuals will be interviewed about the four
issues addressed in the WebCT survey with the prospect
of an in depth presentation of their views on these
subjects. Other topics of related interest will be
explored.
- Dr. Julian Diaz III and Dr. Joseph Rabianski will draft
the report for Part I and submit it to the Associate Provost
by November 22, 1999. This report will be retrospective
and discuss the actions taken in the RCB prior to November
22, 1999; and it will be prospective in providing general
details about the plans for Part II of the Campus Conversation
Program in the RCB. The report will contain a preliminary
analysis of the results of the faculty survey and the personal
interviews. The report will also contain a discussion of
the actions in Part II of the Campus Conversation Program.
- Dr. Julian Diaz III and Dr. Joseph Rabianski will prepare
a request for funds to support the research in Part II of
the Campus Conversation Program in the RCB.
_________________________________________________________
Dr. Julian Diaz III
Dr. Joseph Rabianski
CTL Facilitator for the RCB CTL Associate Facilitator for
the RCB
College of Health and Human Sciences,
College of Law,
and Andrew Young School of Policy Studies
- Develop and distribute a survey to all faculty in the
three units regarding
- the Carnegie definition
- the disciplinary vehicles for publishing/scholarship
in teaching
- faculty scholarship of teaching products to date
- perceptions of the value of scholarship of teaching
to respondents, discipline, units, and University.
- Associates to the Center for teaching and Learning will
place the campus conversations on their respective unit's
next meeting agenda (this can include showing the 18 minute
video by Shulman as a starting point).
- Organize monthly scholarship of teaching pizza lunches
for Law, Health and Human Sciences and Policy Studies to
meet together and feature faculty exemplars of scholarship
of teaching.
- Develop unit award(s) that recognize teaching.
- Bea Yorker, Jim Wolk, and Jean Weed will use the responses
to the questionnaire to develop the 750 word response by
the middle of October.
Natural Sciences Plan for Initiating
the Conversation on the Scholarship of Teaching
- How will the conversations be structured?
- Because department chairpersons are the academic leaders
of departments, associates will meet with each respective
chair to provide information about the Campus Conversation’s
program and invite their input and suggestions as to how
to implement the discussion in their department.
- Associates will explore with their faculty possible
relations between the need to do additional work to document
effective teaching (e.g., developing teaching portfolios)
and faculty interest in the Scholarship of Teaching.
- Associates will meet with faculty who are currently
involved with teaching enhancement activities, especially
senior faculty, and invite their suggestions regarding
the Scholarship of Teaching.
- Associates will identify efforts being made by their
own professional organization to promote teaching and
call colleagues’ attention to these initiatives.
- Primary input will come from teaching faculty. The Natural
Sciences Departments teach large numbers of undergraduates
in required courses—a condition that does not facilitate
meaningful student input.
- How will the conversation be provoked? Specific details
for provoking conversations are left to the discretion of
each Associate dependent upon the climate and attitude toward
teaching in that department.
- How will the conversations be captured? Updates of Associates
progress will be posted on the CTL website for review.
- How will the information be aggregated and interpreted
in a report? Associates from the Natural Sciences will meet
on October 28 to summarize the information from their departments.
A draft report will de written at that time and disseminated
for review and modifications. The CTL Facilitator will have
the responsibility for coordinating the draft and final
reports.
- How will colleagues not in attendance be kept informed?
A copy of this plan and the draft reports will be distributed
to all Associates. Those Associates not in attendance will
be contacted by the Facilitator to discuss how their department
might be involved in the discussions and provide input for
the report.
- What support is needed to complete the report? These Associates
request no special support, beyond time to complete the
work.
