Hi Jim,

I rarely respond to these messages, but find them very interesting and useful.  Please cointinue to send whatever you think is appropriate.  It is better to delete than to miss out!

-----Original Message-----
From: Teaching Breakfast List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Greenberg, James ([log in to unmask])
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Future Visions for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning


My apologies for filling your email boxes with these constant postings...
but I know these are topics that some of you are interested in.  Please
accept my apology and delete these if they do not interest you.


Mr. James B. Greenberg
Director Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
Milne Library 
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820

email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 607-436-2701

"Ignorance is curable, stupidity lasts forever"


"I believe that every instructor (broadly defined) who signs a
contract to teach is ethically obligated to become at least a
scholarly teacher and some will also choose to engage in SoTL
(Scholarship of Teaching and Learning).  This is the case whether one
teaches ten or 1,000 students, one or eight classes. Just as we do
all we can to be scholarly in traditional areas of our disciplines,
we must be scholarly about and (for some) practice scholarship in
teaching and learning.  This is part of what if means to be a
professional, and the practice of SoTL is critical to the improvement
of teaching and learning.  For those involved in doing SoTL, in this
vision of the future, reward structures throughout the institution
will truly recognize the value of this work.:

Folks:

The posting below looks at some of the things we must do to support,
understand, and evaluate the Scholarship of Teaching and learning. It
is from Chapter 1: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Past
Lessons, Current Challenges, and Future Visions, by Kathleen McKinney
in To Improve the Academy, Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and
Organizational Development,  Catherine M. Wehlburg, Editor, Texas
Christian University, Sandra Chadwick-Blossey, Associate Editor,
Rollins College, and Kathleen McKinney Illinois State University. POD
Network: Professional and Organizational Development Network in High
Education, ANKER PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. Bolton, Massachusetts.
Volume 22. Copyright © 2003 by Anker Publishing Company, Inc.  All
rights reserved. ISBN 1-882982-65-7 Anker Publishing Company, Inc.,
176 Ballville Road, P.O. Box 249, Bolton, MA 01740-0249 USA
[www.ankerpub.com]. Reprinted with permission.


        Future Visions for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

What might a future version of SoTL (Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning) look like?  A strong history of SoTL exists on many
campuses and in other higher education organizations.  Yet, to make
significant progress that will impact student learning and
development, and faculty lives, we must change the culture.  Though
this is becoming a worn out phrase, the idea remains true.  This
change must come on campus from both the grassroots and the upper
administrative levels, as well as from various higher education
organizations.  We must consider factors that will increase the
legitimacy of SoTL as work and as a social movement.  For example, we
can work, in different ways, with innovators and early and middle
adopters of this work; be inclusive by recruiting new faculty, senior
faculty, staff, and students; utilize highly respected, key faculty
leaders; make use of existing governance structures and strategic
plans to effect changes in value and reward; and provide adequate and
useful faculty development, information, and resources for doing and
using SoTL.

This cultural shift must include a change in our views of our roles
as faculty and staff who work to enhance student learning.  I believe
that every instructor (broadly defined) who signs a contract to teach
is ethically obligated to become at least a scholarly teacher and
some will also choose to engage in SoTL.  This is the case whether
one teaches ten or 1,000 students, one or eight classes. Just as we
do all we can to be scholarly in traditional areas of our
disciplines, we must be scholarly about and (for some) practice
scholarship in teaching and learning.  This is part of what if means
to be a professional, and the practice of SoTL is critical to the
improvement of teaching and learning.  For those involved in doing
SoTL, in this vision of the future, reward structures throughout the
institution will truly recognize the value of this work.

In this future vision, we need to consider various models of doing,
supporting, understanding, and evaluating SoTL work.  The models will
vary by institutional, disciplinary, or departmental culture and
structure.  We will need models at multiple levels: individual
career, department, discipline, institutional, and national.  On the
one hand, we could continue to work toward common definitions,
standards, supports, career models, etc. for SoTL in higher education
that cut across contexts and fit more traditional disciplinary
scholarship.  That is, we could work toward a SoTL that is simply
"S." Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff (1997), for example, offer general
standards for scholarly work, including clear goals, adequate
preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective
presentation, and reflective critique.

In the 100-page Scholarship in the Postmodern Era: New venues, New
Values, New Visions (Zahorski, 2002), the scholarship of teaching and
learning is discussed explicitly only once in a brief section and
alluded to in only two or three other places.  None of the chapters
address SoTL as the primary topic.  How do we interpret this?  Is
SoTL still thought of as different or less legitimate and, thus, not
worthy of space in this volume?  Or, have we made such great progress
in the transition from SoTL to "S" that SoTL holds an equal place
with other scholarship and is presumed to be a part, implicitly, of
the entire discussion in this volume?

On the other hand, it is more likely that SoTL will remain somewhat
distinct from traditional disciplinary scholarship. Individuals,
departments, and institutions will view this work and organize this
work in various ways.  For some, SoTL will be their primary line of
research; for others it may be a secondary area. SoTL work may be
done at only some stages in a faculty member's career cycle.  Some
might work on SoTL only during a sabbatical; others may integrate it
into their ongoing professional life.  Some department may reward
SoTL within their existing, traditional reward structures; other may
need to create new, special roles or assignments.  Huber (2001)
illustrates some of these models and paths for doing SoTL work with
specific individual case examples.  Brief discussions and examples of
institutional models and national collaborations have also been
offered (Cambridge, 2002).  As I finish this chapter, a discussion
about the possibility of forming a national organization for SoTL is
just beginning.  Additional systematic research is needed to assess
the nature and outcomes of the models currently used to structure
this work at all levels.

A small number of individuals or small teams of faculty members in
relative isolation accomplish must of the current SoTL support and
work on many campuses.  In a vision of the future, we will increase
the breadth of involvement in SoTL as well as collaboration on SoTL,
both within disciplines and in what Huber and Morreale (2002) call
the interdisciplinary trading zones.  We will work to broaden the
base and increase the diversity of people working together to do and
use SoTL work through both research support and development
activities.  Live and electronic SoTL communities can be created on
campuses via brown bags, symposia, lunches, small grants that require
teams of investigators, workshops, elections discussion lists, web
pages, etc.  We can begin to connect these communities across
campuses and disciplines with the help of disciplinary societies,
CASTL, and AAHE, for example.

Clearly a future vision of SoTL includes improvements in development
and support for such work.  There are many possible strategies (many
already in use at a variety of institutions and organizations) for
new services and structures to help faculty, staff, and students do
this work and do it well (see, also, Kreber, 2001b; Lacey, 1983;
Shulman, 1999).  Those involved in faculty development should
consider managing SoTL small grant programs, designing an institute
or course on doing and publishing SoTL work, helping to form and
facilitate SoTL writing circles, providing resources (books,
journals, web sites) to assist those doing SoTL work, editing draft
SoTL grants or articles, finding SoTL mentors, assisting in the
identification of SoTL funding sources, and serving as a resources
for college and department personnel committees on evaluating and
rewarding SoTL work.

                References

Cambridge, B. (2002).  Linking change initiatives: The Carnegie
Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the company
of other national projects.  In D. Lieberman & C. Wehlburg (Eds.), To
improve the academy: Vol. 20. Resources for faculty, instructional,
and organizational development (pp. 38-48).  Bolton, MA: Anker.

Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997).  Scholarship
assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate.  San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Huber, M.T. (2001).  Balancing acts: Designing careers around the
scholarship of teaching and learning.  Change, 33(4), 21-29.

Huber, M.T., & Morreale, S.P. (Eds.).  (2002).  Disciplinary styles
in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground.
Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Kreber, C. (Ed.).  (2001a). Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on
the scholarship of teaching and learning.  New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, No. 86.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lacey, P.A. (1983).  Revitalizing teaching through faculty
development.  San Francisco, CA: Joseey-Bass.

Shulman, L.S. (1999).  Visions of the possible: Models for campus
support of the scholarship of teaching and learning.  Retrieved April
28, 2003, from 
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/docs/Visions.htm

Zahorski, K.J. (Ed.).  (2002). Scholarship in the postmodern era: New
venues, new values, new visions.  New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, No. 90.  San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

---------------------------
Kathleen McKinney is Cross Chair in the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning and Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University. She
served from 1996 to 2002 as the Director of the Center for the
Advancement of Teaching.  She directs the CASTL program at Illinois
State University and is a 2003-2004 Carnegie Scholar.  She serves as
a member of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on the
Undergraduate Major and the ASA Department Resources Group.
Currently, he teaches the Sociology Senior Experience course.  She
has numerous publications in the areas of sexual harassment in
academia, personal relationships, and teaching and learning in
sociology.