Assessing So TL
Assessing So TL
Background
Prior to Boyer’s development of the phrase scholarship of teaching (1990),
there was a distance between teaching and other aspects of faculty life
and responsibility. The classic teaching-research-service triad treated the
three aspects of faculty performance differently, and evaluation practice at
the time suggested that although it was assumed that data for judgments
about research and service were both accessible and understandable, infor-
mation about teaching was more of a problem because it was complex and
time intensive. From the mid-1960s, the emphasis on student ratings dra-
matically increased the amount of use of these data. One important change
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING, no. 86, Summer 2001 © Jossey-Bass, A Publishing Unit of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 31
32 SCHOLARSHIP REVISITED
Definitions
Boyer (1990) said, “The work of the professor becomes consequential only
when it is understood by others. When defined as scholarship, however,
teaching both educates and entices future scholars” (p. 23). Further, Boyer
noted the importance of deeply knowing content, building bridges between
the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learning, carefully planning
and examining of pedagogical procedures, stimulating active learning, and
going beyond transmitting knowledge to transforming and extending it.
These criteria and explanations served to enliven the discussion, but
they did not provide sufficient clarity to be operationally useful in the assess-
ment of the scholarship of teaching. Boyer began his investigation of schol-
arship in the 1980s, and he was deeply involved in the work leading to the
publication of Scholarship Assessed (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff, 1997, for
which Boyer also wrote the prologue). Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff propose
“that there is a common language in which to discuss the standards for schol-
arly work of all kinds,” and they further identify six standards for scholarly
work: “clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant
results, effective presentation, and reflective critique,” noting that these six
criteria are “appropriate to the full range of scholarly work” (p. 35).
The authors further explain each criterion through a short series of
general questions. But are these criteria and attendant questions sufficient
to allow the valid and reliable assessment of teaching as scholarship? On the
one hand, there is a problem because the questions in the list are phrased
only in terms of the teacher-scholar. For example, with respect to the crite-
rion of significant results, the question is “Does the scholar achieve the
goals?” (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff, 1997, p. 36). In an instructional set-
ting, this language does not sufficiently distinguish between instructional
ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 33
a scholar of teaching, and that effective teaching can take place even if the
faculty member is not engaged in the formal scholarship of teaching. Finally,
the panel agreed that effective teaching and demonstrations of the scholar-
ship of teaching must be valued and supported, and that many faculty need
training in the design of effective instruction, the process of classroom
research, and the documentation of their efforts.
What does the study tell us about the relationship of scholarship to
instructional improvement? Despite the lack of unanimous agreement, what
stands out is quite simply that the two must coexist. In a discussion of the
evaluation of teaching, Theall and Franklin proposed “a multipurpose sys-
tem for evaluation, improvement, and research” (1990, p. 31). In this sys-
tem, theory, research, and practice interact, with the various components
constantly informing each other. A similar model is proposed here in Fig-
ure 3.1 to demonstrate the important and necessary synergy between the
scholarship of teaching and the improvement of teaching.
In Figure 3.1, current scholarship from three general areas is repre-
sented within the circles. The italicized terms are typical contributions of
the research to day-to-day practice. For example, the literatures of research,
evaluation, and assessment provide processes for data collection and analy-
sis. The central triangle represents day-to-day teaching practice, which is
informed by the research, theory from the circles, and the disciplinary spe-
cialty and practical experience. The bidirectional arrows indicate that schol-
arship of teaching involves both the use of existing research and theory and
the contribution of new understanding through the application of scholarly
process to day-to-day practice. Improvement comes about through the
teachers’ investigation of specific teaching and learning contexts, and this
process adds to pedagogical content knowledge by incorporating important
factors in teaching and learning across disciplines. Thus one way to improve
practice is to carry out classroom research (Cross and Steadman, 1996),
which contributes to the realms of research and theory as well as to better
understanding of the immediate context.
This research is brought back to practice in two ways: by the direct con-
tributions of faculty who carry out the classroom research and by the work
of instructional design and faculty development practitioners who help fac-
ulty to enhance instructional effectiveness and to improve learning. When
faculty participate in this cycle, they use skills from the arena of the schol-
arship of discovery, which, according to Boyer (1990), is aimed at the pro-
duction of knowledge in a given field through research. They bring together
information from varied sources and integrate it into the perspectives of
their disciplines and classrooms. They apply it to their own and others’
teaching and learning situations. And in doing all this, faculty demonstrate
the scholarship of teaching.
Collaboration. The literature of instructional consultation (for exam-
ple, Brinko and Menges, 1997) has concentrated on the interactions of fac-
ulty and professionals in instructional design and development for the
ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 35
Research Teaching
Evaluation and
Assessment Learning
Analysis Resources
Data
References
Collection
Practice
Action
Interpretation Prescription
Improvement
Development
Planned
Change
Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2) can be grouped into three areas: (1) a shared public
account of teaching, (2) an emphasis on learning outcomes and relevant
teaching practices, and (3) discipline and pedagogical knowledge and inno-
vation. I identified these three areas or dimensions by grouping the items
that the panel of experts agreed were significant.
To assess the scholarship of teaching for each of the three areas, I first
identified criteria in the form of questions. Each set of criteria relates to
scholarship at the individual, the department, or the institutional level.
Next, I identified the sources of information or methods of evaluation for
the criteria. By so doing, I present a template that allows valid decisions to
be made about the scholarship of teaching. The three areas or dimensions
of the scholarship of teaching, along with specified items that illustrate the
dimension, follow. I list examples of criteria or questions under the three
levels (individual teacher, department, and institution).
Individual Teacher Level. We can identify several criteria that help deter-
mine whether the person practices a shared public account of teaching.
Does the teacher
Other items in this dimension are numbers 15 and 47 (see Exhibit 1.1).
ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 39
Other items in this dimension: 6, 9, 13, 23, 32, 38, 40, and 44 (see Exhibit 1.1).
40 SCHOLARSHIP REVISITED
Individual Teacher Level. The following are criteria for assessing disci-
pline and pedagogical knowledge and innovation. Does the teacher
Sources of Information
The following are examples of sources of information that may address the
criteria for a scholarship of teaching.
At the individual teacher level, the self-report or teaching portfolio
could provide evidence of classroom assessment projects, teaching method-
ologies, and personal reflections on teaching. Course syllabi should reflect,
to some extent, a teacher’s knowledge of both the discipline and pedagogy,
as well as innovations in teaching. Analyses of assignments and examina-
tions can be a source to identify the quality and quantity of learning. Stu-
dent and peer evaluations provide another source of information on
teaching practices and student perceptions of learning.
Consulting the departmental annual review can be helpful for assess-
ing the extent to which a department exhibits a scholarship of teaching.
Although such reviews tend to emphasize faculty workload, publications,
and grants, they should also provide evidence on the quality of teaching in
ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 41
the department. Results of major field tests, the Graduate Record Examina-
tion, or other senior examinations also provide indicators of learning out-
comes. A department’s publications and public statements, which may
discuss and provide evidence of the quality of teaching and learning among
its faculty, is another source of information.
At the institutional level, several documents address the criteria listed:
the faculty handbook, the catalogue, and other publications that describe
institutional policies and practices are important sources of information. So,
too, is the institution’s annual calendar of events and, in particular, its record
of faculty attendance at relevant seminars, symposia, and workshops. In
addition to these data of record, surveys and interviews of selected admin-
istrators, faculty, and students should provide insights.
The criteria and sources of information discussed provide valid evi-
dence and are the basis for valid decisions. Those decisions can be made by
an institution as part of a self-study or as an audit of its environment.
Accrediting teams or other outside evaluators may also use the criteria to
make judgments about the scholarship of teaching at the various levels of
an institution.
Summary
Effective and scholarly teaching is deep, personal, multidimensional, and
dynamic. The scholarship of teaching requires a broad array of skills and
knowledge. It embraces scholarly teaching but requires more. In effect, one
could say that the scholarship of teaching brings together all of the kinds of
scholarship that Boyer defined.
It requires the ability to undertake and carry out the scholarship of dis-
covery, for a teacher must be versed in the habits of thought and inquiry of
the discipline and must be able to translate the principles of the discipline
to learners. The teacher must be able to solve problems and to model the
discovery process as well as to be able to discover new ways of helping
learners gain knowledge and skills. The scholarship of discovery applied to
teaching and learning is part of this benchmark.
It requires the scholarship of integration. In teaching, a world of infor-
mation must be made orderly and understandable: the teacher must place
in context what has been discovered in order to breathe life and meaning
into courses, classes, and the discipline. This process must extend across
disciplines as well, and the teacher who can put the area of specialization
into a larger context helps the learner to understand both the principle at
hand and the importance of integration itself.
But the investigation and synthesis that reflect both the scholarships
of discovery and integration are not enough. The scholarship of teaching
also involves the scholarship of application, because the theories and prin-
ciples of the discipline are meaningless if taken in isolation. As the current
terms active learning, reflective practice, experiential learning, and others
42 SCHOLARSHIP REVISITED
suggest, it is the involvement of the learner, who applies principles and the-
ories to consequential problems in and beyond the discipline, that brings
knowledge to life. If education is to have meaning and learners are to
become reflective practitioners, they must be engaged in the discipline and
its application.
Boyer said, “The work of the professor becomes consequential only
when it is understood by others. . . . When defined as scholarship, however,
teaching both educates and entices future scholars” (1990, p. 23). The per-
son who demonstrates the scholarship of teaching, then, embodies all the
forms of scholarship and directs them toward the goal of creating future
scholars and arming them with the necessary skills and habits of thought
and action that maintain the ongoing cycle of learning and teaching and
teaching and learning. Scholars care deeply about their disciplines and about
their work. In the scholarship of teaching, the teacher cares deeply about
the discipline but, equally, about the learners and their connection to both
the material, the discipline, and learning. This is the investment of self that
Palmer (1983) refers to when he speaks about “the kind of community that
teaching and learning require” (p. 89), the joint discovery of the beauty and
power of understanding and the scholarship that enables it.
References
Angelo, T. A., and Cross, K. P. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College
Teachers. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Boyer, E. L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990.
Brinko, K. T., and Menges, R. J. (eds.). Practically Speaking: A Sourcebook for Instruc-
tional Consultants in Higher Education. Stillwater, Okla.: New Forums Press, 1997.
Cross, K. P., and Angelo, T. A. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for Fac-
ulty. Ann Arbor, Mich.: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary
Teaching and Learning, 1988.
Cross, K. P., and Steadman, M. H. Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of
Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Davis, B. G. Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Ebel, K. E. The Cult of Teaching: A Guide to Mastering the Professor’s Art. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1977.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., and Maeroff, G. I. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the
Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Hativa, N., and Marincovich, M. Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: Impli-
cations for Practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 64. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Kreber, C. “Defining and Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching: The Results of a
Delphi Study.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the
Study of Higher Education, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, June 1999.
Lowman, J. Mastering the Techniques of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.
McKeachie, W. J. Teaching Tips. (10th ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999.
Palmer, P. To Know As We Are Known. New York: HarperCollins, 1983.
Schuster, J. H., Wheeler, D. W., and Associates. Enhancing Faculty Careers: Strategies for
Development and Renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 43