Engaging New Faculty in the Scholarship of Teaching

P1: GRA/GGTInnovative Higher Education ph153-ihie-453018 November 13, 2002 14:10 Style file version March 31, 1999

Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 2, Winter 2002 ( C© 2002)

Engaging New Faculty in the Scholarshipof Teaching

Lynn C. Koch, Lisa A. Holland, Daniel Price, G. LeticiaGonzalez, Pam Lieske, Alison Butler, Kathryn Wilson,and Mary Louise Holly

ABSTRACT: This article describes how scholarly teaching projects were conceived, im-plemented, and evaluated by junior faculty from a variety of disciplines at a medium-sized midwestern university. The authors explore: considerations in designing schol-arly teaching projects, methods used to evaluate teaching effectiveness, and outcomesof the teaching projects. Finally, two of the teaching projects illustrate how junior faculty

All authors were faculty at Kent State University during the conception and implemen-tation of this project. Lynn Koch earned her B.S. and M.S. degrees from the Universityof Arizona and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Lynn’s interests are thecareer development of people with disabilities and reflective counseling practice. LisaAnn Holland obtained her B.S. degree in Chemistry from the University of Maryland,College Park. She completed her Ph.D. in Chemistry at the University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill. Currently a recipient of a National Science Foundation Career Award,Lisa is a faculty member at West Virginia University. Dan Price received his B.A. fromthe University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, his M.A. from the University of Texas at Austin,and his Ph.D. from Binghamton University in Political Science. He is a former FulbrightScholar and his research focuses on human rights, civil liberties, and crime policy in theIslamic world. G. Leticia (Lettie) Gonzalez earned her B.S. in Physical Education fromTexas A&M University, College Station; M.S. in Physical Education from Tarleton StateUniversity; and her M.B.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Iowa. Her research interestsinclude Latinos in major league baseball and the use of technology in higher education.Pam Lieske holds B.A. and M.A. degrees from Portland State University and a Ph.D.from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Her research interests include thehistory of gender and science, early modern print culture, and 18th C. British womenwriters. Alison Butler received her B.A. with distinction from Sonoma State Universityand an M.S. and Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Oregon. Her research in-terests focus on how technological change affects economic growth, business cycles, andincome distribution as well as how monetary policy affects income distribution. KathrynWilson received a B.A. degree from Trinity College in Deerfield, Illinois, and a Ph.D. inEconomics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests focus on is-sues of poverty, including teen pregnancy, education, disability, and health. Mary LouiseHolly holds bachelor’s degrees in Education from Bowling Green State University andin Art from Michigan State University and her M.A. and Ph. D. degrees in Curriculumand Instruction with an emphasis on Human Development and Learning from Michi-gan State University. Her research and teaching focus on the arts, human development,and professional development. A professor in the College of Education, she has servedas director of Kent State University’s Faculty Professional Development Center since1998.

83 C© 2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.


84 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

with diverse courses, class sizes, and teaching concerns approached the task of improvingtheir teaching.

KEY WORDS: pedagogy; scholarship; scholarly teaching.

The concept of scholarly teaching emanates from Boyer’s seminal re-port (1990), published by the Carnegie Foundation, on the reconsid-eration of scholarship. Boyer argued that the concept of scholarshipmust be expanded to include the other types of intellectual work car-ried out by faculty members in addition to basic research. The fourtypes of scholarship that he depicted are discovery, integration, appli-cation, and teaching. As a scholarly enterprise, teaching is “a dynamicendeavor involving all the analogies, metaphors, and images that buildbridges between the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learn-ing” (Boyer, 1990, p. 23). Boyer further noted that “pedagogical proce-dures must be carefully planned, continuously examined, and relatedirectly to the subject taught” (pp. 23–24). In a similar vein, Johnston(1998) described teaching as “not simply a matter of dissemination butof scholarship, transforming and extending knowledge by a process ofclassroom debate and a continual examination and challenging of bothcontent and pedagogy” (p. 253).

Scholarly teaching requires a systematic process of inquiry into one’sown teaching practices and students’ learning (Cross & Steadman,1996; Kreber & Cranton, 2000). This process begins with the identi-fication of a specific problem or teaching dilemma, which is turned intoa pragmatic question. This question then serves as a guide for investi-gating potential teaching strategies to address the identified problem.The scholarly teacher then selects strategies for implementation andevaluates the impact on student learning.

A variety of approaches can be used to evaluate one’s effectivenessregarding scholarly teaching and its impact on student learning. Thesewill be dependent on the problem or question being posed as well asthe context of the teaching dilemma. Sources of assessment data mayinclude, but are not limited to, reflective critique, student feedback,analysis of student work, and classroom observations. A scholarlyapproach to teaching also requires faculty to share what they havelearned through their systematic inquiry into their own practices andto receive critiques from their colleagues (Kreber & Cranton, 2000).Outlets for making their classroom research public range from teach-ing circles to scholarly journals and meetings of professionalassociations.


Engaging New Faculty in the Scholarship of Teaching 85

Although the concept of scholarly teaching is well received, it still re-mains an elusive endeavor for many. As Hutchings and Bjork (1999) as-serted, “a challenge in the next few years is to assist [faculty] to pursuetheir questions about student learning through the scholarship of teach-ing and learning in ways that will make a real difference” (p. 4). Withthis challenge in mind, we describe our experiences in designing, im-plementing, and evaluating scholarly teaching projects over the courseof a yearlong professional development program for junior faculty.

Ohio Teaching Enhancement Program

Eight institutions of higher education participate in the Ohio Teach-ing Enhancement Program for Junior Faculty. This program provides acollaborative approach to enhancing undergraduate and graduate edu-cation through the professional development of tenure-track faculty intheir first five years of teaching in higher education. Applicants to theprogram submit essays that describe commitment to quality, teachingneeds, openness to new ideas, and potential contribution to a schol-arly community. The teaching scholars are then selected from theseapplications to create a balanced learning community that will be cul-tivated and sustained for a year. This collaborative program, developedover the last twenty years by Miami University at Oxford, Ohio, hasreceived national recognition for its impact on scholarly teaching andlearning. (Teaching Scholars Program Description, 2001).

The goals of the yearlong program are to: (a) enhance undergradu-ate and graduate learning; (b) improve the participants’ teaching andlearning; and (c) build a community of teaching scholars at the local,statewide, and national levels (Teaching Scholars Program Description,2001). The program provides an opportunity for participants to developand evaluate a self-selected facet of their teaching. Each participant de-signs an individualized learning plan delineating project goals, learningactivities, and evaluation techniques. Over the course of the year, eachworks with a faculty mentor and a student associate of their choice todesign, implement, and assess their project. Regularly scheduled meet-ings of the teaching scholars lead to cross-disciplinary collegial relation-ships and productive approaches to scholarly teaching. The anticipatedoutcome of this program is the development of a pedagogical protocolfor the scholarship of teaching.

In May 2001, the first cohort of teaching scholars at our institutioncompleted the Ohio Teaching Enhancement Program. This cohort con-sisted of 14 faculty members from various colleges and departments.



We, the authors of this article, are members of the original cohort. Werepresent the disciplines of Chemistry; Justice Studies; Economics; En-glish; Exercise, Leisure, and Sports; and Rehabilitation Counseling. Inthis article, we share our insights and experiences in designing, im-plementing, and evaluating scholarly approaches to teaching. Morespecifically, we examine considerations in designing scholarly teachingprojects, various methods used to evaluate teaching effectiveness, andoutcomes of the teaching projects. Finally, we provide examples of twodifferent projects to illustrate how faculty with diverse courses, classsizes, and teaching concerns approached the task of improving theirteaching.

Considerations in Designing Teaching Projects by theTeaching Scholars Cohort at Kent State University

The diverse nature of the teaching scholars and their teachingprojects called for substantially different project goals, course activi-ties, and methods for evaluating process and outcomes. The projectsdesigned by select members included:

• the incorporation of web technology and formative assessment toenable and empower students with diverse knowledge, abilities,and career trajectories to succeed in the classroom by setting andachieving their own learning goals;

• an action research study designed to increase student participationin classes and active reflection outside of class among graduatestudents in rehabilitation counseling;

• the revision of the curriculum in a Principles of Macroeconomicsclass to narrow its focus and incorporate more active learningconcepts;

• the inclusion of a larger variety of teaching strategies in sportsmanagement courses to address more effectively differences in stu-dent learning styles;

• the development of new ways to use English student responsepapers to encourage critical thinking and writing;

• the introduction of technology into Justice Studies courses to enga-ge students in active learning and greater class participation;

• and the development of cooperative learning activities to engageeconomics students more actively in the learning process.

The common features in designing our projects included (a) profes-sional reflection and problem identification achievable through



alteration or replacement of teaching strategies, (b) information gath-ering to assist in the development of our projects, (c) delineation of as-sessable goals and objectives, (d) development and implementation ofactivities and course content to meet established goals, and (e) processand outcome assessment. Some important considerations that came tomind as we carried out each of the above steps are discussed below.

Professional Reflection and Problem Identification

In reflecting upon our teaching dilemmas, most of us used a deduc-tive style of reasoning to design and implement our teaching projects.We asked ourselves, “What is the problem I face, and what are the nec-essary steps needed to address the problem?” Examples of problemsidentified include difficulties in teaching large classes of students withdiverse learning styles and background preparation, student struggleswith learning activities that require critical thinking, lack of studentparticipation, and minimal follow-through in completing assignments.

Development and Implementation

Identifying the problem enabled each of us to examine how our ownteaching styles and strategies may contribute to the problem and toconsider potential solutions. For example, if our students were not en-gaged in class discussions, we considered alternative strategies to in-crease opportunities to participate. As another example, if our studentswere not able to think critically, we considered classroom exercises todemonstrate this process by example.

Information Gathering

An important component of scholarly teaching is research and infor-mation gathering focused on problem resolution. In this second stepof project development, we each sought out a variety of resources toacquaint us with strategies to find a promising solution. These re-sources included professional literature, teaching conference presen-tations, workshops, teaching mentors, professional peers, and studentassociates. The teaching scholars met once a week to discuss teachingdilemmas, share effective strategies, and learn innovative approaches.Additional resources included small group meetings, presentations bynotable faculty across campus, and listserv conversations.



Delineation of Goals and Objectives

During this stage, we all found that it was imperative to identifyspecific goals and objectives that could be achieved within the time re-straints of the program. In other words, goals were narrowly defined andfocused on either the improvement of a particular course (e.g., Macroe-conomics, Chemistry in Our World) or one aspect of teaching (e.g., fa-cilitating class discussions, designing cooperative learning activities).

We also established the importance of identifying goals that couldbe assessed through qualitative, quantitative, or combined procedures.Concrete goals that were defined were evaluated in terms of progresstoward goal achievement. For example, the goal of increasing studentparticipation was evaluated by looking at the frequency of student com-ments generated in class discussions prior to and following the imple-mentation of each teaching strategy.

In developing and initiating our learning plans, we benefited fromboth our successes and failures. Some discovered the importance ofbeing organized and not attempting to implement too many changes atonce. Others learned that alternative plans were crucial, in the eventthat a teaching strategy was ineffective. We relied on research andliterature reviews to ensure that the strategies used were empiricallysupported. Perhaps the most important lesson we learned was thatimplementing new strategies did not automatically result in positivechanges, even if the strategies were well planned and researched.

Project Evaluation

Evaluation of the activities being implemented to achieve instruc-tional goals was a crucial component of all projects. We conducted on-going and frequent evaluations, and most of us used both qualitativeand quantitative methods to evaluate our progress. In addition, wesought input from our mentors and student associates to assist us indeveloping assessment strategies and evaluating our teaching.

The data sources for assessment included student comments, facultyobservations, student performance on exams and assignments, and self-reflection by both students and teaching scholars. Student commentsabout the effectiveness of the strategies we used were solicited throughone-minute papers and informal discussions with either entire classesor select students. Some of us gathered formative feedback throughoutour courses by requesting students to respond to targeted questions(connected to project goals) in written or verbal formats. Several of



us also asked our student consultants to gather and provide us withanonymous feedback.

Another assessment strategy that several of us used was faculty ob-servation. Some teaching scholars provided their mentors with formalevaluation worksheets to record their observations while others usedmore informal methods to collect data (e.g., a discussion over lunch af-ter the classroom observation). Many of the scholars also met with theirmentors prior to the observation to review their course goals and objec-tives for the class session. This strategy provided the mentors with aframework for conducting their evaluations. In addition, the teachingscholars visited each other’s classes and exchanged feedback.

Quantitative assessment was facilitated by comparing student eval-uations and student scores on exams and assignments administered be-fore and after the teaching intervention. Notable improvements in post-test scores would then be indicators of the effectiveness of the teachingstrategy, whereas unchanged or lowered post-scores would suggest thatthe teaching strategy was ineffective.

Teaching Projects: Two Examples of Diverse Approaches

In this section, we describe two of our teaching projects to illustratethe application of different assessment strategies to evaluate teachingeffectiveness. The first project was evaluated using qualitative data,and the second project was evaluated using both quantitative and qual-itative data.

Project One

I teach graduate students in rehabilitation counseling. My course en-rollments typically range anywhere from 6 to 20 students with widelyvarying levels of rehabilitation counseling experience. Some studentsare practitioners who have been working in the rehabilitation field formany years while others are new to the field. Regardless of their back-ground experiences, all of my students have very busy lives with numer-ous responsibilities other than their schooling. This presents challengesto teaching and classroom management.

Because my students often give priority to their other responsibilities,relegating homework and reading assignments to the “back burner,”they sometimes come to class unprepared to engage in scholarlydiscussions. Their lack of participation is indicated by their reluctance



to respond voluntarily to questions about the homework and readingassignments, their inability to describe the key points of theassignments, and their unfamiliarity with important concepts intro-duced by the readings. Therefore, my first project goal was to encouragestudents to assume greater responsibility for the learning process.

To accomplish this goal, I designed a cooperative learning activityfor students in my Psychosocial Impact of Disability class. The activityrequired students to have completed the readings assigned for home-work prior to class. After watching a 20-minute videotaped case scenarioabout a college student, Josh, who had sustained a spinal cord injury ina car accident, students broke out into small groups of four and appliedthe concepts from a theory of psychosocial adjustment (Smart, 2000) toJosh’s experiences. Each group was then required to report back to therest of class in a large group discussion. In previous semesters, I hadcovered the topic with an interactive lecture. However, students knewmy lecture would cover the material in the reading assignment and,therefore, did not feel compelled to complete the readings before class.As a result, the lecture was less than “interactive.” On the other hand,the cooperative learning activity required the readings be completedahead of time so that the students could apply the theoretical conceptsto real life situations. Because they would have to work cooperativelywith other students to complete the in-class activity, I hypothesizedthat they would come to class better prepared to avoid embarrassmentin front of their peers.

To evaluate the activity in relation to my anticipated goal, I solicitedthe assistance of my teaching mentor and student associate. Using aclassroom observation worksheet, they observed the class session inwhich I implemented the cooperative learning activity and recordedtheir impressions. Prior to the class, I had met with them individuallyto discuss the class objectives, how the cooperative learning activityfit within the overall framework of the course, and the project goal Iwas hoping to achieve. I asked them to pay particular attention to thelevel of student participation in the small group activity and large groupdiscussion and the accuracy of student responses to my questions aboutkey points and concepts. At the end of the session, I also completed theworksheet in order to record my own observations.

After the class, I met individually with both my student associate andmy mentor for a feedback session. Their feedback was extremely help-ful, and the degree of inter-rater consistency that occurred in compar-ing my self-observations with their observations was remarkable. Weall felt that, overall, the activity was successful in increasing student



involvement and ownership of the learning process. Both my studentassociate and mentor noted the high rate of participation among all ofthe students except for two. This level of participation had never oc-curred in any prior class sessions. In fact, this was the first class periodin which the majority of students (87 %) actively participated in discus-sions. The students were able to articulate their ideas in a manner thatindicated they had, indeed, completed the reading assignment. Theyelucidated key points and accurately defined and applied key concepts.We agreed that the major strengths of the assignment were the use ofa videotape to stimulate interest in the topic and facilitate animateddiscussion, the success of the activity in bridging theory and practice,and my ability to promote meaningful discussion.

We were also unanimous in our perceptions regarding how the activ-ity could be improved. Specifically, we felt that the groups could havebeen better structured. Both my student associate and mentor sug-gested providing written guidelines for the small group discussions andassigning members to groups rather than allowing them to form groupson their own. They also suggested that, instead of introducing the activ-ity just before a 15-minute class break, I should have waited until afterthe break to avoid delays in the groups’ ability to get organized and backon task. We all observed that some class members participated less thanothers; and it was suggested that, during the large group discussion, Ishould have randomly called on students rather than asking for volun-tary responses to my questions. Finally, it was suggested that, in thefuture, I should ask more follow-up questions when student responseslack clarity.

Project Two

I teach an undergraduate course, “Chemistry in Our World,” that isintended for non-science majors to fulfill a liberal elective requirement.However, it is also required for education majors interested in science.Many of the students who enroll in the course are first-year studentswho come from high schools with a broad range of science coverage.In addition to the difficulty of teaching students with widely varyingscience background, the course is large (60 to 100 students), makingclass management challenging.

Because of the challenges presented by this course, my project goalswere to (a) enable students with diverse knowledge and abilities to suc-ceed in the classroom and (b) to set and achieve their own learning



goals. To achieve my first goal, I posted lecture notes, student grades,past exams, and optional homework assignments on a course web siteso that students could voluntarily access supplemental materials andassignments. To achieve my second goal, students were asked to com-plete an open-ended questionnaire on the first day of class that requiredthem to identify three goals they wished to accomplish in the course.

I used both qualitative and quantitative evaluation strategies to as-sess whether the web site enabled students to succeed in the classroomand empowered them to achieve their own learning goals. These strate-gies included formative student assessments and web site statistics. Itaught the same course in both the fall of 1999 and 2000; however,none of the noted changes were implemented for the course taught in1999. This provided an additional opportunity for measuring changesin student success resulting from the changes in teaching strategy, bycomparing summative student evaluations.

In order to establish the effectiveness of the supplemental web sitematerials at enabling students with diverse backgrounds to succeed inthe classroom (my first project goal), I evaluated the effectiveness of theweb page both quantitatively and qualitatively. The web site containeda total of 450 viewable pages. At the end of the semester, there weregreater than 2000 hits on the web site. The web site was used to varyingdegrees by different students with mean percent page coverage of 40and a standard deviation of 33. These data were compatible with thehypothesis that the web site served as a tool to assist students withdiverse needs as there is no clear trend in the use of the web site.

There was no correlation between web site usage (percent page cover-age) and student grade. Students who used the web site to a significantdegree (>75% page coverage) received an A or B, and students whochose to access the site to a lesser degree or not at all were still ableto receive high grades. While students who earned a D or F used theweb site supplements very little, it is likely that these students lackedmotivation to succeed in the class and access supplemental materialthat may have assisted them in the course. Although some hypothesescan be developed regarding these data, there is no clear correlation be-tween grade and web site usage. Students who accessed 100% of theweb site pages were not guaranteed to receive an A, and students whonever accessed the web site were not destined to receive an F. Thesedata do indicate that the web site was used to a different extent byeach student and, thus, is a practical strategy for serving students witha wide range of background exposure to science. In other words, stu-dents accessed the web site based on their own need to do so, which was



the intended purpose of this teaching strategy. Furthermore, qualita-tive data, in the form of unsolicited written comments from the studentcourse evaluations and the student questionnaires, provide additionalsupport indicating that the web site served its intended purpose.

In conducting a formative assessment, I analyzed student goal state-ments and self-evaluations of their progress in achieving their goals.Students were asked to list three goals they wished to accomplish inthe course during the first day of class. Near the end of the semester,the questionnaires were returned to the students, and they were askedwhether they had met their goals. Fifty-eight students completed thequestionnaires both times. Within this group, the three predominantgoals were related to: (a) course grades (41 responses), (b) general un-derstanding about principles of chemistry (26 responses), and (c) spe-cific knowledge/learning attainment (21 responses). In summary, 26%of the students reported that they had exceeded their goals, 57% in-dicated they had met their goals (or were satisfied with the outcome),and 7% stated that they had failed to meet their goals. This exerciseassisted students in formulating their own learning goals (the secondobjective of my scholarly project), and these data indicate that a major-ity of students either exceeded or met these goals.

Because I taught the same course in the fall of 1999, before introduc-ing changes, and again in the fall of 2000 after implementing strategiesto meet my project goals, I was able to compare student course evalu-ations for both semesters. My scores on all questions showed improve-ment. Of particular interest, were responses to items 20 (Overall, theinstructor’s teaching was . . . ) and 21 (Overall, the course was . . . ). Pos-sible responses to the items are: excellent (1), very good (2), good (3),fair (4), poor (5), and very poor (6). For 1999, the mean scores for items20 and 21 were 2.84 (SD = 1.33) and 3.05 (SD = 1.30), respectively. For2000, the mean scores for items 20 and 21 were 2.09 (SD = 1.24) and2.32 (SD = 1.24), respectively. These data suggest that the ultimateoutcome of this pedagogical exercise was a significant improvement inboth the course and instructional delivery.

Conclusion

It is clear that the realization of scholarly teaching results from di-verse preferences, practices, and field specific requirements. However,we have mapped a generic strategy based on professional reflectionand problem identification, collection of information, establishment of



assessable goals, development and implementation of strategies to meetestablished goals, and process and outcome assessment. Successful par-ticipation in the Teaching Scholars Program for Junior Faculty at KentState University has generally reflected this delineated approach. Inaddition, the case studies demonstrate that the strategy fulfills its pur-pose in diverse settings and program areas. Finally, the process outlinedis not complete without reexamining teaching pedagogy and initiatingthe sequence again. Thus, while the on-going venture of scholarly teach-ing can be addressed in terms of methodology and approach, it remainsdynamic in response to changing subject, instructor, and student.

References

Boyer, E.L. (1990) . Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton,NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Cross, P.K., & Steadman, M.H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarshipof teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hutchings, P., & Bjork, C. (1999). An annotated bibliography of the scholarship of teach-ing and learning in higher education.http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CASTL/highered/docs/bibliography.htm.

Johnston, R. (1998). The university of the future: Boyer revisited. Higher Education, 36,253–272.

Kreber, C., & Cranton, P.A. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal ofHigher Education, 71, 476–495.

Smart, J. (2000). Disability, the individual, and society. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Teaching Scholars Program Description (2001). http://dept.kent.edu/fpdc/pages/

scholar desc.htm.

Documents

Engaging New Faculty in the Scholarship of Teaching