Mecanismo de garantía del derecho a la verdad en el Acuerdo Final

This section discusses the importance of formalising and systematically recognising teachers’

reflective practices –researching one’s own teaching. Given that teachers who verbalise their thinking and reflections are able to share their thoughts with their community of practice, it follows that writing could capture these reflective processes. When informed by educational theories this reflection can be developed into research papers for publication, leading us to the scholarship of teaching.

The scholarship of teaching concept took root when Ernest Boyer, the President of Carnegie

Foundation published his work called Scholarship Reconsidered. Stemming from his concern

in three major demands of faculty work: teaching, services and research, Boyer (1990) reconceptualised and broadened the meaning of scholarship beyond the scope of traditional research. He proposed four types of scholarship: the scholarship of discovery, integration,

application and teaching. Relevant to this study on quality teaching is the scholarship of

teaching aspect of SoTL. As this concept is explored and the relationship with quality teaching is discussed, references will be made to SoTL issues.

The scholarship of teaching, as described by Boyer, refers to teaching being the “highest form

of understanding”, comprising “hard work” and “serious study” as university professors are

meant to be “widely read” and “intellectually challenged”. Teachers as scholars, in Boyer’s view, continuously “transform” and “extend” knowledge in creative ways, making the teaching function in scholarship one that ensures continuity of knowledge (Boyer, 1990, pp. 23-24). Since Boyer, the scholarship of teaching has taken on various conceptualisations and definitions.

Several conceptualisations of SoTL are cited. Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin and Prosser (2000) outline five categories of approaches to SoTL:

A. knowing the literature on teaching by collecting and reading the literature;

B. improving teaching by reading and collecting the literature;

C. improving student learning by investigating the learning of one’s own students and of one’s own teaching;

D. improving one’s own students’ learning by knowing and relating the

literature on teaching and learning to one’s own discipline-specific literature and knowledge; and

E. improving student learning within the discipline generally, by collecting and communicating results ofone’s own work on teaching and learning within the discipline(Trigwell et al., 2000, p.159).

Category E being the most sophisticated view of scholarship (Prosser, 2008) comprise three important elements: (i) conducting teaching that is informed by perspectives and literature of teaching and learning in the discipline; (ii) collecting and presenting rigorous evidence of teaching effectiveness in the discipline; and (iii) disseminating the research findings to the disciplinary community of practice. Other definitions of SoTL are suggested by Dewar (2008):

“the intellectual work that faculty do when they use their disciplinary knowledge to investigate

a question about their students’ learning, submit their findings to peer review, and make them

public for others in the academy to build upon” (p. 18) and Haigh et al. (2011): “teachers [engaging] in some form of systematic inquiry into, and critical reflection on, aspects of

students’ learning and/ or teaching with the intention of improving learning” (p. 10). Both stress on SoTL being a systematic investigation into teaching for the purpose of improving

student learning. Basically, SoTL aims to “make transparent how we have made learning

possible” (p. 156).

Another aspect of the scholarship of teaching to note is its discipline-based approach (Barnett, 2005; Budge, Clarke, & de la Harpe, 2007; Healey, 2000, 2005a, 2005b, 2008; Healey, Jordan, Pell, & Short, 2010; Huber & Morreale, 2002; Hutchings, 2000). Prosser (2008) argues for

generic descriptions and ways of thinking in education research to be “contextualised and situated within individual disciplines and classes” (p. 4).

The final feature of the scholarship of teaching to be highlighted in this study is the extent of sharing and disseminating information, with many studies recognising peer-reviewed publications as a prominent element (Boshier, 2009; Dewar, 2008; Kreber, 2003). Alternatively, Kreber (2002) suggests a broader view of disseminating scholarly research findings that includes the sharing of teaching ideas in various modes and platforms like internet

forums and faculty development programmes. Critical reflections within teachers’ learning

communities, discussed previously, can be seen as a softer option of the SoTL.

The contribution of scholarly teaching towards the enhancement of the quality of teaching is debated. It is often assumed that research-active teachers are well-informed in teaching and that inquisitive teachers are research-active. However, Hattie and Marsh (1996) and Marsh and Hattie (2002) found no relationship between teaching and research across disciplines, in measures of research output, teaching quality and university categories. Research productivity

and teaching effectiveness were also found to be unrelated. Likewise, Halse, Deane, Hobson and Jones (2007) investigated the recipients of Australian Award for University Teaching 2005 and found that despite high publication rate, it was not common practice for these excellent teachers to research their own teaching, and to disseminate their teaching expertise to the wider

community. Barnett (2005) notes that there is no “empirically proven, mutually beneficial

relationship” between teaching and research (p. 24) As pointed out by Hattie and Marsh (1996),

the relation is “very loosely coupled” (p. 529).

On the contrary, there is a widespread acceptance of the unique symbiosis between teaching and research. Barnett (2005) argued that the issue is not whether there is a link but the quality of the link; whether it is strong or weak, direct or indirect, positive or negative, or neutral in the case of either research- or teaching-intensive universities. Ways of looking at the teaching- research nexus are diverse (cf. Healey, 2005a; Neumann, 1994; J. Robertson, 2007; Visser- Wijnveen, Van Driel, Van der Rijst, Verloop, & Visser, 2010) with all recognising the value of

scholarly teaching in enhancing students’ learning. Teaching that is more lively, interesting and

stimulating for instance, have been reported by Taylor (2007). In the changing landscape of higher education where classes are larger and students are more diverse, there is a greater need

to probe into learning outcomes – an opportunity provided by scholarly teaching (Dewar,

2008).

Scholarly teaching adds another dimension to effective and expert teaching. A scholarly teacher is one who constantly reflects on teaching and makes informed improvements based on pedagogical literature, as well as discusses the latest pedagogical innovations or research on his or her own teaching. Continuous reflection of scholarship-active teachers has been closely associated with expert teaching and student-centred teaching conceptions (Eley, 2006; Haigh et al., 2011; Kreber, 2002, 2003; Lueddeke, 2003).

The underlying principle behind the idea of effective, expert and scholarly teaching is that quality teaching, as perceived by this researcher, is a dynamic concept that is ever-changing and

responsive to students’ needs, educational development and socio-economic changes. A reconceptualised idea of expert teaching offered by Tennant, McMullan and Kazcynski (2010) is helpful. They stress appreciating the teachers’ teaching contexts as “workplaces characterised

by change, complexity and diversity” (p. 38). The development of teaching expertise, in the context of this discussion on quality teaching, is a process that is dynamic and involves continual improvement. More importantly, it is an on-going self-regulatory process that occurs in the interaction with the wider social and cultural context of university teaching. Such

dynamic and relational nature of expertise renders it to be a “lifelong project where [teacher] identity is fashioned and refashioned over time” (p. 41).

Despite finding no relation between teaching and research, Marsh and Hattie (2002) stress the importance of reconciling the two as part of on-going quality teaching enhancement efforts.

A major aim would be to increase the relations between teaching and research and devise strategies to achieve this mission. Institutions need to reward creativity, commitment, investigativeness and critical analysis in both teaching and research. The time taken to partake either, or both activities need to be recognised... Only when these attributes are recognised it is likely that the relation between teaching and research will be increased in both students and staff. This is a desirable aim of a university (p. 634).

Issues in institutionalising the scholarship of teaching are many. A major factor of the issue is the paradox between reconciling but enhancing the divide between teaching and research. Advocates of scholarly teaching have proposed ways of bridging the teaching-research link (Elsen, Visser-Wijnveen, Van Der Rijst, & Van Driel, 2009; Healey, 2005a; Kane et al., 2004) while some offered models of managing the scholarship of teaching (J. Taylor, 2007; Trigwell et al., 2000). This will be dealt with in the discussion of professional development. Despite the problematic nexus between teaching and research, the role of scholarship in enhancing quality

teaching is widely-recognised. The importance of researching one’s own teaching should be

recognised.