Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc
Enhancing Higher Education,
Theory and Scholarship
Proceedings of the
30th HERDSA Annual Conference
8-11 July 2007
Adelaide, Australia
Roxå, T., Olsson, T. & Mårtensson, K. (2007) Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a
strategy for institutional change, in Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship,
Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference, Adelaide, 8-11 July 2007: pp 487.
Published 2007 by the
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc
PO Box 27, Milperra, NSW 2214, Australia
www.herdsa.org.au
ISSN: 0155 6223
ISBN: 0 908557 71 X
This research paper was reviewed using a double blind peer review process that meets
DEEWR requirements. Two reviewers were appointed on the basis of their independence,
expertise and experience and received the full paper devoid of the authors’ names and
institutions in order to ensure objectivity and anonymity. Where substantial differences
existed between the two reviewers, a third reviewer was appointed. Papers were evaluated
on the basis of originality, quality of academic merit, relevance to the conference theme and
the standard of writing/presentation. Following review, this full paper was presented at the
international conference.
Copyright@ 2007 HERDSA and the authors. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review,
as permitted under the Copyright, Design and Patent Act, 2005, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any for
or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the
terms and licenses issued by the copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to
the publishers at the address above.
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a strategy for
institutional change
Torgny Roxå
Lund University, Lund, Sweden
[email protected]
Thomas Olsson
Lund University, Lund, Sweden
[email protected]
Katarina Mårtensson
Lund University, Lund, Sweden
[email protected]
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is discussed as a strategy for institutional
improvement of teaching and learning. Engagement in SoTL could be an individual
enterprise focusing external networks including conference presentations and journal
publications. This strategy could lead to development and improved teaching for the
individual but not necessarily contribute to the development of the local institution. An
alternative strategy is to engage in networks with colleagues sharing the same context. We
argue that this could lead to institutional change and that an institution needs an increasing
proportion of individuals choosing this approach if long-term change and development is to
be achieved.
Academic teachers are also researchers and aware of the importance of a theoretical base in
scholarly work. This might make them hesitate to engage in SoTL. It is important that the
theoretical level is realistic so that a high enough proportion of teachers engage in local
scholarly work within teaching and learning. We argue that if SoTL is used as an
institutional strategy the use of theory should be monitored within the local context.
We present an institutional strategy including several activities supporting SoTL. Academic
developers work to promote good practices, support scholarly dialogues both horizontally
and vertically among practitioners within the institution, and monitor the use of theory to
increase the engagement of teachers. The academic developers fulfil an act of balance
monitoring the use of theory – ensuring high engagement and at the same time gradually
raising the theoretical level of the local SoTL.
Keywords: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, institutional change, strategy
Introduction
In this paper we – as academic developers – discuss Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(SoTL) as a strategy for institutional improvement of teaching and learning. We focus on
three related issues. Firstly, how can individual engagement in Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning be related to patterns of communication within academia and subsequently have an
effect on issues concerning academic identity and status; and how can this be related to an
institutional strategy for development? Secondly, when academic teachers make inquiries into
their own teaching, what would be the appropriate use of educational theory taking into
consideration that in most cases they are not scholars in education? Finally, while a higher
education institution evolves as gradually more scholarly in relation to teaching and learning,
what would be the most efficient role of the academic developers?
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning – as an institutional strategy for
development
Since Boyer reinterpreted the concept scholarship and made an effort to draw attention to the
quality of teaching (Boyer, 1990) it has gained a lot of attention internationally and appeared
promising as a pathway for individual teachers to follow. It could give them legitimacy for
their interest in student learning, and also give them an opportunity to gain merits for a further
career within higher education, previously dominated by traditional research. This
opportunity, however tempting in its possibility to reward good teachers, involves several
problematic issues. One is the link between a teacher’s capability to deepen his or her
knowledge within the fields of student learning and the teaching to support it, and his or her
capability to actually support student learning as a teaching practice. This problem has been
discussed by Kreber (2002). Another issue is the link between teaching and traditional
research. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning opens a pathway for institutions to reward all
those people who might be excellent teachers but who do not focus traditional research. By
rewarding individual teachers for their endeavours exclusively in teaching and learning,
higher education institutions may support a further division between teaching and research –
if these rewards are not sufficiently linked to the institutions research agenda. Yet another
issue, discussed more thoroughly in this paper, is to what extent Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning is an individual enterprise in relation to its potential as a strategy for institutional
change.
A review of literature discussing Scholarship of Teaching and Learning show that peer-review
is at the focal point of the scholarly process (Trigwell, Martin et al., 2000; Kreber, 2002;
Taylor Huber & Hutchings, 2005). Since peer-review is a communicative activity it will most
likely have an impact – within an institution – on social issues such as identity and status. In
their classic book, Academic Tribes and Territories, Becher and Trowler (2001) discuss a
duality in academic communication. On the one hand the development of the academic
society is driven by communication, often in terms of peer review. On the other hand
academics seem remarkably reluctant to engage in discussions, and when they do they are
often cautious about what they say. Academics, in their research, relate to two networks, one
large (several hundreds of individuals) and one small (around ten individuals). The first is
used for referencing and orientation, the second for, among other things, developing and
testing new ideas.
In our recent research it has been shown that this pattern of a large and a small network is
relevant also in relation to teaching and learning (Mårtensson, Olsson et al., 2006; Roxå,
Mårtensson et al., 2006). Academic teachers have a few individuals, colleagues and others,
with whom they discuss personal experiences of teaching and test new ideas and perspectives.
We call these small networks significant networks. But the discussions take place within the
framework of a large network, which in turn is influenced by socially constructed norms and
expectations, so called Teaching and Learning Regimes (Trowler & Cooper, 2002).
This complex social landscape of academic communication could make a teacher’s initial
engagement in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning somewhat problematic. It may render
negative responses from colleagues because, if it is a new activity within the specific social
context, it could possibly jeopardise or question the existing Teaching and Learning Regime.
If so, an engagement in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning may have a negative effect on
the individual teacher’s status and/or identity.
A possible solution is of course to engage in a way which does not threaten the Teaching and
Learning Regime. A way to do this is to engage with colleagues not sharing the same social
context. Such a strategy could lead to individual development and improved teaching for the
individual teacher. In the long run and with a continuing development such a strategy can
even be rewarded in terms of research grants directed towards Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning and academic positions. We call this Trajectory 1. Another solution for the
individual teacher is to engage with the local Teaching and Learning Regime and in
discussions with colleagues sharing the same context try to influence and change the local
Regime. If successful this could lead to change and long term development for an institution,
and it could be rewarding for the individual. We call this Trajectory 2.
In comparison Trajectory 1 is less precarious for the individual; a failure could always be met
by a withdrawal from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning scene even without the
colleagues’ knowledge. It also appears more rewarding in terms of status, especially if it
attracts external research funding. Trajectory 2 could be more promising for the institution in
terms of organisational development. It could eventually lead to a radical shift in the local
Teaching and Learning Regime and thereby, possibly, improve student learning. Trajectory 1
have a more limited impact on the local culture but could instead support a group of scholars
in teaching and learning who then could function as brokers (Wenger, 1998) and leaders in
further development.
In Wenger’s terminology, used in his theory of Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998),
Trajectory 2 could lead to emerging Communities of Practice within an institution, each
pursuing teaching and learning enterprises. Trajectory 1 could support brokers and specialists
travelling through the system for inspiration, research and consultancy.
A preliminary conclusion is that if Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is to be used as an
institutional strategy there has to be a balance between the number of individuals choosing
Trajectory 1 and Trajectory 2. A point for debate and inquiry is how to identify the optimum
of such a balance. But an obvious imperative for academic leaders choosing Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning as a strategy is that the balance has to be observed and managed. If
many individuals choose Trajectory 1 it may be a sign of strong and conservative Teaching
and Learning Regimes requiring perhaps local rewards and local arenas for mutual support
among the individuals who despite resistance have chosen Trajectory 2. We argue that an
institution needs a certain proportion of individuals who choose Trajectory 2 if long-term
change and development in teaching and learning is to be achieved. If only some individual
teachers choose Trajectory 2 an effect could be that colleagues, in terms of status and identity,
degrade them. A risk described by Becher and Trowler (2001) as an explanation for
academics’ reluctance to engage in discussions and debates.
We propose the term Proportion of Locally Engaged Teachers (PLET) as a label for this
optimal proportion of teachers engaging in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and
following Trajectory 2. We acknowledge that it is a preliminary term. We also acknowledge
that the optimal PLET varies between different contexts.
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning – appropriate use of theory
During the 2006 conference of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning (ISSoTL) in Washington DC, Professor Graham Gibbs gave a significant plenary
speech where he severely criticised the conference for a lack of theory. Most of the sessions
he had attended, he claimed, did not use theory and they were therefore unable to reach the
potential he could see in them. On the conference’s last day, the new co-president of ISSoTL,
Keith Trigwell, cautiously acknowledged the critique offered by Gibbs and presented it as a
challenge for the society.
A month later, in the inaugural issue of the International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching & Learning, Pat Hutchings made a comment on the same issue (Hutchings, 2007).
In her comment she advocates generosity. Theory may come in many forms and we should be
generous in our treatment of the contributions in the domain of Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning.
The issue of this paper is Scholarship of Teaching and Learning used as an institutional
strategy for educational/academic development. One critical feature of Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning is making use of educational literature, theories and research in order
to promote one’s own understanding of educational phenomena in the local context. Another
aspect is analysing and documenting this understanding and making it public for peer review
and scrutiny. One crucial problem then occurs, as pointed out both by Gibbs and by Hutchings
above, what kind and what quality of theoretical underpinning to demand from contributors in
this, for them and perhaps for the institution, new scholarly field. Our argument would be that
this would differ depending on what kind of development that is in focus (individual,
collegial, institutional, epistemological….etc) and in what context this SoTL-work is
presented, peer reviewed and discussed.
Most academic teachers are also researchers, and thereby utterly aware of the potential
offered by good theories. But they are also aware of what it takes to learn and to make use of
advanced theories. And this, of course, varies between disciplines. Different academic
disciplines offer, in themselves, varying perspectives and theories. Some of these disciplinary
perspectives might be more rewarding and useful in educational inquiry than others. For
example, researchers in physics may find that their own theoretical knowledge does not
answer their educational questions as appropriately as researchers in for example psychology.
So, when starting to use educational theory for SoTL-inquiry – as requested by the definition
of SoTL – academics may feel more or less comfortable with this kind of theoretical
perspectives, and consequently make use of it in different ways. Together with many other
factors this calls for an attention to identity- and meaning-making issues (Berger & Luckman,
1966; Wenger, 1998; Säljö, 2000, Trowler & Cooper, 2002).
Demanding rigorous use of theory from the domains of education and psychology may
produce high quality results from inquiry but also frustration and non-engagement from many
individuals. Therefore the use or non-use of theory is not so much a matter of quality in
reasoning and results as a matter of Proportion of Locally Engaged Teachers (PLET). Firstly,
the debate between Gibbs and Hutchings is unsolvable unless focused on a specific context.
Secondly, since the level of theory in the conversations about teaching and learning is a
variable dependent on the condition within the local context, it will change over time as the
quality of the conversation within the context evolves. Finally, if Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning is used as an institutional strategy, the development of theory-use over time must be
monitored and not considered as self-regulated.
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning – the role of the academic developers
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is based on inquiry into teaching and learning, the
integration of what has been found, and the application of new and more developed
knowledge about student learning in relation to teaching practice. This can very well be an
individual enterprise leading to developed teaching without any involvement of others. But, in
order to be scholarly it also has to include going “public” and peer-review, which makes it a
social activity. This could, as discussed, take the routes of Trajectory 1 or Trajectory 2.
The fact that peer-review indicates some sort of communication may have implications for the
use of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a strategy. All communication in groups or
communities supports, over time, by style and the use of words, a dialect specific for the
group or community (Wenger, 1998; Säljö, 2000). In relation to the small and large networks
described by Becher and Trowler (2001) and the further development and description of
significant networks (Mårtensson, Olsson et al., 2006; Roxå, Mårtensson et al., 2006), peer
review will result in more or less distinct dialects. These dialects will eventually create
borders limiting the migration of ideas and practices within an institution (Wenger, 1998;
Trowler & Cooper, 2002). The phenomenon may be recognised as the “not-invented-herephenomenon”. An answer like: “It may be possible to do that in organic chemistry but you
could never expect it to work in inorganic chemistry”, could also be a sign of a border created
by group specific communication over time.
This phenomenon related to increased peer-review and the following group specific styles of
communication is not only relevant for horizontal communication within an organisation. The
borders will also affect vertical communication. Notable is that these borders should not only
be considered as constraints, they also allow specific languages to evolve suitable for the
development of specific practices such as how to teach philosophy or how to head a
department or any other practice performed in academia. The trouble appears when the
borders are associated with negative enterprises such as for example defence or ownership for
its own sake.
Again, in relation to Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a strategy this has implications
for how an institution secures that ideas migrate, and practices are evaluated in sufficient
ways. Almost all of these issues have to do with how to secure that information travels within
the whole organisation in a way that encourages engagement by individuals and groups
(Trowler, 1998). Horizontal and vertical communication is to be facilitated at all times in
order to secure ongoing development through export of ideas and collegial review.
An important role for the academic developers is to secure the scholarly process. One thing is
to promote that good practices spread. Another is to support collegial and scholarly dialogues
horizontally and vertically among the practitioners (teachers, heads of departments, deans,
etc.). A third role is to monitor the use of theory in these scholarly dialogues in a way that
maintain or increase the Proportion of Locally Engaged Teachers (PLET).
At the Faculty of Engineering at Lund University the following activities are organised in
order to support Scholarship of Teaching and Learning within this large (7000 students; 1400
employees) research intensive institution:
•
Pedagogical courses are focused around action learning projects, all based in
pedagogical literature. They should result in development of teaching and learning
within a scholarly framework.
•
A system for evaluation of teaching focuses on short-circle evaluation using classroom
assessment (Angelo & Cross, 1993) and long-term evaluation using the course
experience questionnaire (Ramsden, 1991). Both are organised with the purpose of
supporting dialogue within the system. And both provide data about performance
suitable for teachers and other to make scholarly use of.
•
Research into specific domains of teaching and learning provide the practitioners with
even more data. These projects are always close to practice and include research on
assessment, pedagogical portfolios and rewarding excellent teaching, significant
networks, etc. The results are communicated and discussed at different forums within
the faculty as well as nationally and internationally.
•
An annual campus conference, where contributions are peer-reviewed and
documented in proceeding, provides an opportunity for practitioners to develop their
scholarly portfolio, and constitutes an excellent arena for scholarly dialogues both
horizontally and vertically.
•
A reward-system for scholarly approaches to teaching provides monetary incentives
for both individuals and departments to engage in Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning. The reward system is based on a teaching portfolio which is peer-reviewed
and related to pedagogical theory. It rewards teachers with a clear focus on student
learning and a developed capability to reflect scholarly on practice. The system has
been in place since 2001 and has been researched and developed from an initial
version into an improved and more informed version which also includes a model for
analysing scholarly approaches to teaching and student learning (Antman & Olsson,
2007). The model is an important qualitative tool that enables us to distinguish and
successfully examine levels of complexity in pedagogical reasoning and levels of
theory-based scholarship in pedagogical action.
•
Consultancy for individuals and groups is directed towards all levels of the
organisation. Its primary objective is to support scholarly dialogues and meaningmaking on all levels. The consultants function as brokers (Wenger, 1998) while
carrying ideas and reflections from all parts of the organisation. It is always performed
on a consultancy bases, meaning that it is always the practitioner who owns the
practice and therefore also decides what to do. The consultant supports, inspires, and
critiques the practice.
•
Utilization-focused evaluations (Patton, 1997) are directed towards all levels of the
organisation. The primary users of these evaluations are always involved all the way
through the process. Focus group interviews, individual interviews and different kinds
of evaluation forms are used and the results increase the knowledge of the specific
questions raised as well as stimulate scholarly discussions and dialogues at the faculty.
Together these parts support the scholarly conversation within the faculty. The act of balance
is to secure an enough Proportion of Locally Engaged Teachers (PLET) and at the same time,
on a long-term base, raise the level of sophistication within the conversations taking place.
The strategy has earned the faculty a growing positive reputation. Further, and notably, the
faculty has been the institution with most presentations at national teaching and learning
conferences, and most of these presentations have been by practitioners within the faculty.
Even further, the management has decided to put forward the development of teaching and
learning as a competitive advantage before the other engineering faculties in Sweden. The
strategy has also inspired other faculties within Lund University to adopt similar activities
with initially positive momentum.
The critical issues where the academic developers can make a significant contribution are, as
has been discussed, to secure a growing Proportion of Locally Engaged Teachers (PLET), and
at the same time raise the sophistication within the scholarly dialogues. To fulfil this act of
balance the academic developers’ greatest asset is trust, objectivity, and integrity. All
practitioners interacting with academic developers must feel secure that the information
passing between him or her and the academic developer is first of all focused on the
practitioner’s situation and not influenced by external agendas. This condition must be met
regardless of who the practitioner is or what status he or she possesses.
Summary and conclusion
In this paper we focus on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a social activity. We do
this in relation to a possible institutional strategy for the development of teaching and
learning. The important issue is whether individuals engaging in Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning engage in scholarly conversations and peer-review activities with colleagues outside
the local context or within the local context. We call these alternatives Trajectory 1 and 2. We
argue that if an institution is to use Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a strategy for
development and change there needs to be a significant proportion of teachers following
Trajectory 2.
There is always an issue of quality. In relation to Scholarship of Teaching and Learning one
aspect of quality is the use or non-use of theory in the inquiries made and reported by teachers
engaged in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. We argue that this is dependent on the
Proportion of Locally Engaged Teachers (PLET) following Trajectory 2. If the use of theory
is principal it may discourage teachers from engaging. If the generosity in relation to use of
theory is too wide it will hamper development due to lack of accuracy and mutual
understanding. We argue that the purpose of investigation and verification of results (Ashwin
& Trigwell, 2004) should focus on the local context. Therefore, use of theory should be
monitored in relation to PLET and to a gradually developing discussion within the institution.
The flow of information is crucial if we want an organisation to develop and change. Only
with access to accurate accounts from other parts of the organisation can practitioners
evaluate their own contribution to the enterprise of the entire institution. This will eventually
increase the engagement in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
For academic developers the main task should therefore be to support the scholarly
conversation within the institution, both horizontally and vertically. Everybody, from the
teaching assistants to the dean or vice chancellor, should act scholarly in their practices, a fact
which also includes the academic developers. A slowly but gradually more sophisticated
scholarship in relation to all practices will eventually result in the scholarly institution.
References
Angelo, T. & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques. Jossey-Bass.
Antman, L. & Olsson, T. (2007). A Two-Dimensional Matrix Model for Analysing Scholarly Approaches to
Teaching and Learning. In Rust, C. (Ed.), Improving Student Learning through Teaching, The Oxford Centre
for Staff and Learning Development (to be published in September 2007).
Ashwin, P. & Trigwell, K. (2004). Investigating staff and educational development. In D. Baume & P. Kahn
(Eds). Enhancing Staff and Educational Developmen, Routledge Falmer.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham, The Society for Research into
Higher Education and Open University Press.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge. Penguin Books.
Boyer, E., L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered. Priorities of the professoriate. New Jersey, The carnegie
foundation.
Hutchings, P. (2007). Theory: The Elephant in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Room. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1).
Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching Excellence, Teaching Expertise, and the Scholarship of Teaching. Innovative
Higher Education, 27(1).
Mårtensson, K., Olsson, T. & Roxå, T. (2006). Scholarly Dialogues and Significant Networks for Educational
Development. International Conference on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, City University,
London.
Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation. The New Century Text., Sage Publication.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A Performance Indicator of Teaching Quality in Higher Education: the Course Experience
Questionnaire, Studies in Higher Education, 16(2).
Roxå, T., Mårtensson, K. & Olsson, T. (2006). Significant networks – exploring backstage as the cradle of
scholarship of teaching and learning. ISSOTL 2006, Washington DC, US.
Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken. Stockholm, Prisma.
Taylor Huber, M. & Hutchings, P. (2005). The Advancement of Learning. Building the Teaching Commons. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J. & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of Teaching: a Model, Higher
Education Research and Development, 19(2).
Trowler, P. (1998). Academics Responding to Change. New Higher Education Frameworks and Academic
Cultures. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Trowler, P. & Cooper A. (2002). Teaching and Learning Regimes: Implicit theories and recurrent practice in the
enhancement of teaching and learning through educational development programmes. Higher Education
Research & Development, 21(3).
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Copyright © 2007 Torgny Roxå, Thomas Olsson and Katarina Mårtensson: The authors assign to HERDSA and
educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of
instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also
grant a non-exclusive licence to HERDSA to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and
mirrors) on CD and in printed form within the HERDSA 2007 conference proceedings. Any other usage is
prohibited without the express permission of the authors.