Pub Date : 2019-09-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.2
A. Cook‐Sather, Sophia Abbot, P. Felten
In a classic 2010 article, Craig Nelson critiques his own previously held “Dysfunctional Illusions of Rigor” that for years had constrained his teaching. He demonstrates that certain “rigorous” pedagogical practices disadvantage rather than support learners, and he argues for an expansion of what counts as legitimate pedagogical approaches. We evoke Nelson’s assertions to make a parallel argument regarding the traditional conventions of academic discourse. While formal scholarly writing may be well suited to capturing some of the outcomes of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), these genres can also be exclusive; inadequate to the task of conveying the complex, incomplete, and messy aspects of the work; and neither interesting nor accessible to those who are not required to produce or to read SoTL publications. We propose that reflective writing be legitimated as a form of writing for SoTL, and we use examples from a growing body of reflective writing about pedagogical partnership to illustrate our points. Echoing Nelson, our four reasons for this expansion of legitimacy are: (1) the process of reflection is an essential component of learning; (2) reflective writing captures the complexity of learning; (3) reflection is an accessible form of writing for both new and experienced SoTL authors; and (4) reflective writing is accessible to a wide range of readers. We conclude by emphasizing the potential of including reflective writing among those modes of analysis valued in SoTL to expand what counts as rigor in the construction and representation of knowledge about teaching and learning.
{"title":"Legitimating Reflective Writing in SoTL: “Dysfunctional Illusions of Rigor” Revisited","authors":"A. Cook‐Sather, Sophia Abbot, P. Felten","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.2","url":null,"abstract":"In a classic 2010 article, Craig Nelson critiques his own previously held “Dysfunctional Illusions of Rigor” that for years had constrained his teaching. He demonstrates that certain “rigorous” pedagogical practices disadvantage rather than support learners, and he argues for an expansion of what counts as legitimate pedagogical approaches. We evoke Nelson’s assertions to make a parallel argument regarding the traditional conventions of academic discourse. While formal scholarly writing may be well suited to capturing some of the outcomes of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), these genres can also be exclusive; inadequate to the task of conveying the complex, incomplete, and messy aspects of the work; and neither interesting nor accessible to those who are not required to produce or to read SoTL publications. We propose that reflective writing be legitimated as a form of writing for SoTL, and we use examples from a growing body of reflective writing about pedagogical partnership to illustrate our points. Echoing Nelson, our four reasons for this expansion of legitimacy are: (1) the process of reflection is an essential component of learning; (2) reflective writing captures the complexity of learning; (3) reflection is an accessible form of writing for both new and experienced SoTL authors; and (4) reflective writing is accessible to a wide range of readers. We conclude by emphasizing the potential of including reflective writing among those modes of analysis valued in SoTL to expand what counts as rigor in the construction and representation of knowledge about teaching and learning.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89027954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.4
Chng Huang Hoon, E. Minnich, J. Draeger, Johan Geertsema, T. Roxå
At the ISSOTL Conference in Bergen, Norway (October 2018), we were privileged to have heard a lecture by Professor Elizabeth Minnich, on “People who are not thinking Are capable of anything: What are students learning, how are students learning it, and does it make them better people?” As a follow up, in November 2019, Chng Huang Hoon (then-ISSOTL Vice President - Asia Pacific) invited the ISSOTL community to field their questions for Professor Minnich. Questions from four ISSOTL members were received. TLI has provided the platform to enable us to continue that important conversation. The participants are: Elizabeth Minnich, philosopher, author, teacher, Distinguished Fellow (Association of American Colleges & Universities). John Draeger, Professor of Philosophy and Director, Teaching and Learning Center, SUNY Buffalo State, USA. Torgny Roxå, Associate Professor and Academic Developer, Excellent Teaching Practitioner, Centre for Engineering Education, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Sweden. Johan Geertsema, Associate Professor (University Scholars Programme) and Director, Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning, National University of Singapore. Chng Huang Hoon, Associate Professor (English Language & Literature), Associate Provost (Undergraduate Education) and Director (Chua Thian Poh Community Leadership Centre), National University of Singapore. This conversation is in 3-parts: 1) Part One: Thoughtfulness, Thoughtlessness, Thinking and Teaching 2) Part Two: Thoughtlessness, scholarly reflection, and Outcomes-based teaching and learning 3) Part Three: Intensive and Extensive SoTL
{"title":"Dialogue: In Conversation with Elizabeth Minnich","authors":"Chng Huang Hoon, E. Minnich, J. Draeger, Johan Geertsema, T. Roxå","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.4","url":null,"abstract":"At the ISSOTL Conference in Bergen, Norway (October 2018), we were privileged to have heard a lecture by Professor Elizabeth Minnich, on “People who are not thinking Are capable of anything: What are students learning, how are students learning it, and does it make them better people?” As a follow up, in November 2019, Chng Huang Hoon (then-ISSOTL Vice President - Asia Pacific) invited the ISSOTL community to field their questions for Professor Minnich. Questions from four ISSOTL members were received. TLI has provided the platform to enable us to continue that important conversation. \u0000The participants are: \u0000 \u0000Elizabeth Minnich, philosopher, author, teacher, Distinguished Fellow (Association of American Colleges & Universities). \u0000John Draeger, Professor of Philosophy and Director, Teaching and Learning Center, SUNY Buffalo State, USA. \u0000Torgny Roxå, Associate Professor and Academic Developer, Excellent Teaching Practitioner, Centre for Engineering Education, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Sweden. \u0000Johan Geertsema, Associate Professor (University Scholars Programme) and Director, Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning, National University of Singapore. \u0000Chng Huang Hoon, Associate Professor (English Language & Literature), Associate Provost (Undergraduate Education) and Director (Chua Thian Poh Community Leadership Centre), National University of Singapore. \u0000 \u0000This conversation is in 3-parts: \u00001) Part One: Thoughtfulness, Thoughtlessness, Thinking and Teaching \u00002) Part Two: Thoughtlessness, scholarly reflection, and Outcomes-based teaching and learning \u00003) Part Three: Intensive and Extensive SoTL","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91123850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.6
Debjani Chakravarty
In this paper I analyze the way “globalization” is deployed in U.S. universities as a value-addition. I explore issues of teaching about the global “other,” as well as the “third world” and other unfamiliar, objectified spaces. Through critical discourse analysis of syllabi I outline some representational and pedagogical trends. I also draw from my experience of teaching globalization-focused courses, including courses on transnational feminisms, international literature, social movements, migrations and socio-economic exchanges to undergraduate students. Teaching about "the other" often leads to a multiplier effect of "othering" within the classroom. Using transnational feminist perspectives, I argue that teaching such classes, on "global" "transnational" or "international" women, gender, sexuality and feminisms require de-centering not just dominant paradigms but also of oneself as purveyor of insider/global knowledge. I also argue, like many others before me, that a classroom can serve as a site for epistemic injustices and colonizing acts, and we must attempt to find ways in which such neo-colonial damages can be mitigated. This paper is an exercise in finding some ways to de-center and decolonize dominant discourses on the global "other” and suggest critical and compassionate pedagogical strategies.
{"title":"Strata and Strategies of Teaching about the Global “Other” Using Critical Feminist Pedagogical Praxis","authors":"Debjani Chakravarty","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.6","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I analyze the way “globalization” is deployed in U.S. universities as a value-addition. I explore issues of teaching about the global “other,” as well as the “third world” and other unfamiliar, objectified spaces. Through critical discourse analysis of syllabi I outline some representational and pedagogical trends. I also draw from my experience of teaching globalization-focused courses, including courses on transnational feminisms, international literature, social movements, migrations and socio-economic exchanges to undergraduate students. Teaching about \"the other\" often leads to a multiplier effect of \"othering\" within the classroom. Using transnational feminist perspectives, I argue that teaching such classes, on \"global\" \"transnational\" or \"international\" women, gender, sexuality and feminisms require de-centering not just dominant paradigms but also of oneself as purveyor of insider/global knowledge. I also argue, like many others before me, that a classroom can serve as a site for epistemic injustices and colonizing acts, and we must attempt to find ways in which such neo-colonial damages can be mitigated. This paper is an exercise in finding some ways to de-center and decolonize dominant discourses on the global \"other” and suggest critical and compassionate pedagogical strategies.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86765785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.8
T. Lowe, C. Shaw
The construction of what students constitute to be “good” feedback often plagues the minds of academics, who seem to continuously search for the holy grail of what it is exactly students want from their feedback in Higher Education. This aspect of the student experience in assessment and feedback continues to elude institutions by the nationally lower average scores in the United Kingdom annual National Student Survey questions on timely/prompt feedback (NSS, 2017, Gartland et al 2016) which makes this a topical area for exploration and discussion. To investigate student perceptions of feedback in an alternative method, this article examines the qualitative data from three years of Student-Led Teaching Awards (STLA) nominations for the category “Best Lecturer for Constructive and Efficient Feedback” at the University of Winchester. From this study, new revelations in regards to the student perception of the ‘best’ lecturer(s) feedback practice have come to light including terminology, language and emphasis on email turnaround, rather than the actual format of the feedback itself (handwritten, e-submission etc.). In order to tease out the repetitive emerging themes for what students are perceiving to be “good” feedback, this paper will outline the findings of this study, including the methodology and nomination process of the SLTAs at Winchester.
学生如何构成“好的”反馈，经常困扰着学者们，他们似乎一直在寻找学生在高等教育中究竟想从反馈中得到什么。在英国年度全国学生调查中，关于及时/及时反馈的问题(NSS, 2017, Gartland et al 2016)的全国平均分数较低，这使得学生在评估和反馈方面的体验继续逃避机构，这使得这成为一个值得探索和讨论的主题领域。为了以另一种方法调查学生对反馈的看法，本文研究了温彻斯特大学“建设性和有效反馈最佳讲师”类别中学生主导教学奖(STLA)三年提名的定性数据。从这项研究中，关于学生对“最佳”讲师反馈实践的看法的新启示已经浮出水面，包括术语，语言和对电子邮件循环的强调，而不是反馈本身的实际格式(手写，电子提交等)。为了梳理出学生认为是“好的”反馈的反复出现的主题，本文将概述本研究的发现，包括温彻斯特大学slta的方法和提名过程。
{"title":"Student Perceptions of the ‘Best’ Feedback Practices: An Evaluation of Student-Led Teaching Award Nominations at a Higher Education Institution.","authors":"T. Lowe, C. Shaw","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.8","url":null,"abstract":"The construction of what students constitute to be “good” feedback often plagues the minds of academics, who seem to continuously search for the holy grail of what it is exactly students want from their feedback in Higher Education. This aspect of the student experience in assessment and feedback continues to elude institutions by the nationally lower average scores in the United Kingdom annual National Student Survey questions on timely/prompt feedback (NSS, 2017, Gartland et al 2016) which makes this a topical area for exploration and discussion. To investigate student perceptions of feedback in an alternative method, this article examines the qualitative data from three years of Student-Led Teaching Awards (STLA) nominations for the category “Best Lecturer for Constructive and Efficient Feedback” at the University of Winchester. From this study, new revelations in regards to the student perception of the ‘best’ lecturer(s) feedback practice have come to light including terminology, language and emphasis on email turnaround, rather than the actual format of the feedback itself (handwritten, e-submission etc.). In order to tease out the repetitive emerging themes for what students are perceiving to be “good” feedback, this paper will outline the findings of this study, including the methodology and nomination process of the SLTAs at Winchester. ","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86492397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.9
Rebecca D Martin, D. J. Kennett
Most postsecondary students have to deal with academic disappointments at some point in time, with many of them succumbing to their anxieties and failing to learn from these lived experiences. Our study aimed to understand the “why and how” disappointments unfolded in a sample of 20 undergraduate students, using a design whereby interview text was concurrently analyzed across the continuum of learned resourcefulness in conjunction with an inductive, data-driven coding, and theme generation perspective. Reasons for attending university, attributional style, coping and learning, and perceptions of others markedly differed for high- and low- resourcefulness scorers. Whereas high-resourceful scorers used academic disappointments as a motivator to engage in more effort and problem-solving strategies, low scorers ruminated and tried to forget about them. Suggestions are provided on ways to effectively help students become more resourceful and in control of their studies.
{"title":"Interpreting Students' Experiences with Academic Disappointments Using Resourcefulness Scores as a Lens","authors":"Rebecca D Martin, D. J. Kennett","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.9","url":null,"abstract":"Most postsecondary students have to deal with academic disappointments at some point in time, with many of them succumbing to their anxieties and failing to learn from these lived experiences. Our study aimed to understand the “why and how” disappointments unfolded in a sample of 20 undergraduate students, using a design whereby interview text was concurrently analyzed across the continuum of learned resourcefulness in conjunction with an inductive, data-driven coding, and theme generation perspective. Reasons for attending university, attributional style, coping and learning, and perceptions of others markedly differed for high- and low- resourcefulness scorers. Whereas high-resourceful scorers used academic disappointments as a motivator to engage in more effort and problem-solving strategies, low scorers ruminated and tried to forget about them. Suggestions are provided on ways to effectively help students become more resourceful and in control of their studies.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85868207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.12
N. Chick, L. Nowell, Bartlomiej A. Lenart
Scoping reviews offer a rigorous and systematic approach to examining the range and nature of literature in a particular field, identifying the existing literature and highlighting gaps where further exploration is required (Arksey & 0'Malley, 2005; Levac, Colquhoun, & O'Brien, 2010). In this article, we share our scoping review protocol—the explicit, step-by-step description of the plan for conducting the review, published separately and before completing the review. This genre of public documentation of our process is essential in scoping reviews to support careful planning and documentation, enable others to compare the protocol and completed review, support others in evaluating and/or replicating its methods, and encourage collaboration and development of follow-up research on the field (Shamseer et al, 2015).
{"title":"The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Scoping Review Protocol","authors":"N. Chick, L. Nowell, Bartlomiej A. Lenart","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.12","url":null,"abstract":"Scoping reviews offer a rigorous and systematic approach to examining the range and nature of literature in a particular field, identifying the existing literature and highlighting gaps where further exploration is required (Arksey & 0'Malley, 2005; Levac, Colquhoun, & O'Brien, 2010). In this article, we share our scoping review protocol—the explicit, step-by-step description of the plan for conducting the review, published separately and before completing the review. This genre of public documentation of our process is essential in scoping reviews to support careful planning and documentation, enable others to compare the protocol and completed review, support others in evaluating and/or replicating its methods, and encourage collaboration and development of follow-up research on the field (Shamseer et al, 2015).","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"30 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72619128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.1
C. McClurg, Margy MacMillan, Nancy Chick
This paper encourages thoughtful discussion on cross-disciplinary partnerships between scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) researchers, practioners, and librarians. Through personal reflection, examples from the literature and a belief in meaningful collaboration, the authors describe various models of engagement that provides multiple points of entry for librarians to work others on common SoTL interests.
{"title":"Visions of the Possible: Engaging with Librarians in SoTL","authors":"C. McClurg, Margy MacMillan, Nancy Chick","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.1","url":null,"abstract":"This paper encourages thoughtful discussion on cross-disciplinary partnerships between scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) researchers, practioners, and librarians. Through personal reflection, examples from the literature and a belief in meaningful collaboration, the authors describe various models of engagement that provides multiple points of entry for librarians to work others on common SoTL interests.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81942911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-16DOI: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.3
M. Healey, K. Matthews, A. Cook‐Sather
LOCATE: There are many general books and articles on publishing in peer-reviewed journals, but few specifically address issues around writing for scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) journals. One of the challenges of beginning to write about SoTL is that most scholars have become interested in exploring teaching and learning issues in higher education (HE) alongside their disciplinary interests and have to grapple with a new literature and sometimes unfamiliar methods and genres as well. Hence, for many, as they write up their SoTL projects, they are simultaneously forging their identities as SoTL scholars. FOCUS: We unpack the process of writing SoTL articles for peer-reviewed journals with the goal of supporting both new and experienced SoTL scholars (faculty/academics, professional staff, and students) as they nurture and further develop their voices and their SoTL identities and strive to contribute to the enhancement of learning and teaching in HE. REPORT: We pose three related sets of overarching questions for consideration when writing SoTL articles for peer-reviewed journals followed by heuristic frameworks for publishing in five specific writing genres (empirical research articles, conceptual articles, case studies of practice, reflective essays, and opinion pieces). ARGUE: Using the metaphor of being in conversation, we argue that writing is a values-based process that contributes to the identity formation of SoTL scholars and their sense of belonging within the SoTL discourse community.
{"title":"Writing Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Articles for Peer-Reviewed Journals","authors":"M. Healey, K. Matthews, A. Cook‐Sather","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.3","url":null,"abstract":"LOCATE: There are many general books and articles on publishing in peer-reviewed journals, but few specifically address issues around writing for scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) journals. One of the challenges of beginning to write about SoTL is that most scholars have become interested in exploring teaching and learning issues in higher education (HE) alongside their disciplinary interests and have to grapple with a new literature and sometimes unfamiliar methods and genres as well. Hence, for many, as they write up their SoTL projects, they are simultaneously forging their identities as SoTL scholars. \u0000FOCUS: We unpack the process of writing SoTL articles for peer-reviewed journals with the goal of supporting both new and experienced SoTL scholars (faculty/academics, professional staff, and students) as they nurture and further develop their voices and their SoTL identities and strive to contribute to the enhancement of learning and teaching in HE. \u0000REPORT: We pose three related sets of overarching questions for consideration when writing SoTL articles for peer-reviewed journals followed by heuristic frameworks for publishing in five specific writing genres (empirical research articles, conceptual articles, case studies of practice, reflective essays, and opinion pieces). \u0000ARGUE: Using the metaphor of being in conversation, we argue that writing is a values-based process that contributes to the identity formation of SoTL scholars and their sense of belonging within the SoTL discourse community.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79519531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-29DOI: 10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.1
G. Poole, N. Chick
{"title":"The People Behind the Papers","authors":"G. Poole, N. Chick","doi":"10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46567936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-29DOI: 10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.10
M. Huber
ABSTRACT From 1981 to 2015, the US Professors of the Year program recognized 101 college and university teachers as national winners in its annual competition for faculty who demonstrated “extraordinary dedication to undergraduate teaching.” Their dossiers provide a window onto the leading edge of teaching and educational leadership over a critical thirty-five years when innovative faculty nationwide sought to engage a more diverse set of students, enliven the teaching repertoires of their fields, develop new media for instruction, and encourage more active learning in their classrooms and beyond. But that is not all. As the pace of pedagogical change picked up, so too did the level of engagement with colleagues both on and beyond campus on educational issues. The roster of national winners has always included authors of text-books and other materials, but as time went on, a growing number were also making their approaches to pedagogical problems public through workshops, conference presentations, and publications. Increasingly engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning, the US Professors of the Year reflect the emergence of a new view of the nature and source of teaching expertise and of what it means to be a “citizen” of the teaching commons.
{"title":"Citizens of the Teaching Commons: The Rise of SoTL among US Professors of the Year, 1981-2015","authors":"M. Huber","doi":"10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.10","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT From 1981 to 2015, the US Professors of the Year program recognized 101 college and university teachers as national winners in its annual competition for faculty who demonstrated “extraordinary dedication to undergraduate teaching.” Their dossiers provide a window onto the leading edge of teaching and educational leadership over a critical thirty-five years when innovative faculty nationwide sought to engage a more diverse set of students, enliven the teaching repertoires of their fields, develop new media for instruction, and encourage more active learning in their classrooms and beyond. But that is not all. As the pace of pedagogical change picked up, so too did the level of engagement with colleagues both on and beyond campus on educational issues. The roster of national winners has always included authors of text-books and other materials, but as time went on, a growing number were also making their approaches to pedagogical problems public through workshops, conference presentations, and publications. Increasingly engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning, the US Professors of the Year reflect the emergence of a new view of the nature and source of teaching expertise and of what it means to be a “citizen” of the teaching commons.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45317690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：