The Scholarship of Teaching

Abstract

A new star has appeared in the educational firmament. It is called the ‘scholarship of teaching’ and, according to its followers, it has the potential to lead us towards an enhanced status for teaching in higher education. But what does the term scholarship of teaching actually mean and will it make a difference? This paper provides a simple introduction for those not yet au fait with a concept which has recently become prominent in the higher education world.

Introduction

The professional life of academics is often made unnecessarily complicated by educational terminology, jargon and acronyms. New forms of language, fashions and concepts enter the higher education world with such rapidity that even seasoned campaigners can experience a sense of uncertainty or sometimes bewilderment. “What does it all mean?” One such apparently new term or concept is the ‘scholarship of teaching’. For many of us working in HE this is a phrase which seems quite suddenly to have leapt from obscurity to prominence and which is now being liberally sprinkled across the educational literature both in the GEES disciplines and more widely. Conferences are organised on it, articles are written about it and lip service is paid to it in meetings and workshops up and down the land. So, for anyone in need of illumination this PLANET paper seeks, very briefly, to outline where the term has come from and what it appears to mean.

The Concept’s Origins

The concept of the scholarship of teaching was first developed by Ernest Boyer in1990 and was subsequently taken forward by his colleagues at the USA Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Science (Glassick et. al. 1997, Hutchings 2000). Boyer and his colleagues were concerned about higher education becoming excessively focused on discipline-based research, which is often seen as the only form of properly valued and recognised scholarship. They argued that the honourable term ‘scholarship’ should instead be given a broader interpretation which would bestow legitimacy on the full range of academic work. Boyer therefore identified four separate, though related, areas of scholarship, namely: the scholarship of discovery research, the scholarship of integration and synthesis (e.g. writing textbooks), the scholarship of service (including the application of research knowledge) and, of course, the scholarship of teaching.

Interestingly, Boyer himself did not attempt to define the scholarship of teaching or to describe in detail its essential or principal characteristics. However, since the publication of his seminal text many others have stepped into the breach (e.g. Hutchings & Shulman 1999; Huber & Morreale, 2002), including some who have related the concept to their own discipline (e.g. Healey, 2000, 2003a, 2003b for geography). The result, for the enthusiast, is an increasingly rich, pluralistic and subtle seam of literature. Given, however, that few busy academics are likely to find time to dig into this rich seam of work, the purpose of this PLANET article is simply to lay bare some of the main features of the scholarship of teaching concept.

The Key Elements

Lest there be any doubt, we must begin by underlining that the term means much more than simply striving to be a good teacher and keeping up-to-date with one’s subject. The key additional ingredients are as follows:

• Keeping abreast of developments in the theory and practice of teaching, particularly in one’s own discipline or specialist field. This may, for example, be achieved by studying the relevant literature or attending appropriate conferences and workshops.

• Reflecting carefully and critically on one’s own teaching and on its successes and failures in promoting high quality learning. Here the scholarship of teaching closely aligns with the model of the reflective practitioner (Kolb, 1984).

• Engaging in pedagogic research so as to help provide a firm basis of evidence for the adoption or rejection of particular learning and teaching methods. Such pedagogic research might on occasion involve large-scale surveys spanning different departments and institutions. More commonly, however, it takes the form of small-scale ‘action research’ designed to evaluate aspects of one’s own teaching.

• Contributing to the communication and dissemination of good practice in the learning and teaching of one’s discipline or specialist field. In our own case this might, for example, take the form of writing for PLANET or for journals such as the Journal of Geography in Higher Education, the Journal of Geoscience Education or Environmental Education Research.

• Bringing to one’s work in teaching and curriculum development the same high standards of intellectual rigour and peer review which are commonplace in research.

Attitudes to Scholarship

In the United States the agenda outlined above has been given particular prominence through the work of the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) which funds a variety of schemes designed to disseminate examples of good educational practice at individual, departmental and institutional level. A key goal for the Carnegie Academy is to raise the status of higher education teaching and to promote the idea that staff reward systems need to value teaching as well as research.

Here in the UK the scholarship of teaching concept is increasingly prominent in the work of agencies such as the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILT) and the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA). Our own Subject Centre (LTSN-GEES) is in effect contributing to the application of the scholarship of teaching through our conferences, workshops and publications and through our projects on pedagogic research and fieldwork and on linking teaching and research. With respect to the literature on the actual concept, we have also benefited from the work of Mick Healey, our Senior Advisor for geography, who is one of the leading authors on the scholarship of teaching concept (2000, 2003a, 2003b).

For many academics who see themselves first and foremost as educators, the scholarship of teaching concept may seem self-evidently to be a good idea and one whose time has come (or is indeed long overdue!) Few, for example, would argue with the need to raise the status of teaching or to treat it as a serious intellectual activity. However, the concept does need to be examined critically. Among the questions which might be asked are the following:

• Is this a utopian model with little relevance to busy academics facing high student - staff ratios and low levels of resourcing? Is there time for pedagogic research? Is the scholarship model only for an elite minority or, more positively, is it essentially a statement of what most good teachers already do?

• How far is it appropriate to impose a partly research-based model and culture on teaching and learning?

• Will pedagogic research raise the quality of teaching and learning?

• Should staff rewards go to excellent practising teachers or to those who write about education?

• More positively, might the scholarship of teaching provide the conceptual basis and the political banner under which to unite those in HE keen to advance the cause of teaching?

Conclusions

Before coming to a judgement on the merits or otherwise of the scholarship of teaching concept or on the kinds of questions raised above, do bear in mind that this article provides only the quickest glimpse of the emergent scholarship of teaching arena. The references listed below could help you, of course, to dig deeper and to achieve a more scholarly understanding than that demonstrated here by the present author! In any event, if you have views on any aspect of the scholarship of teaching agenda, PLANET would be delighted to hear from you.