Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 11 November 2014, At: 16:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20
The Pedagogy Excellence Project: aprofessor–student team approach toauthentic inquiryLynn McAlpine a , Steve Maguire a & Mary Dean Lee aa McGill University , CanadaPublished online: 24 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Lynn McAlpine , Steve Maguire & Mary Dean Lee (2005) The PedagogyExcellence Project: a professor–student team approach to authentic inquiry, Teaching in HigherEducation, 10:3, 355-370, DOI: 10.1080/13562510500122255
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510500122255
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Pedagogy Excellence Project:
a professor�student team approach
to authentic inquiry
Lynn McAlpine*, Steve Maguire and Mary Dean LeeMcGill University, Canada
Claims are often made for the value of integrating teaching and research, yet how this may be done
effectively is not always evident. The Pedagogy Excellence Project (PEP) was an innovative and
authentic inquiry into teaching conducted by a student�professor team within a six-credit two-
semester course. MBA students were principal players in an inquiry which exemplified teaching as
scholarly and community property. Acting as consultants to a Faculty of Management, they
generated questions, collected and analyzed data, summarized results and made recommendations
which are still influencing the faculty today.
Introduction
Claims are often made for the value of integrating teaching and research, yet how to
do so effectively is not always evident. The Pedagogy Excellence Project (PEP) was
an innovative authentic inquiry into teaching and learning designed to improve
pedagogy excellence. It was conducted by a student�professor team within a six-
credit two-semester course conceived and designed by the second and third authors,
professors in the Faculty of Management at McGill University in Canada (the former
specializing in strategy, the latter in organizational behavior, both with management
consulting experience). The first author, from the university’s faculty development
unit, the Center for University Teaching and Learning (CUTL), participated as a
pedagogical consultant. During the academic year 2000�2001, a team of nine MBA
students acted as consultants to the faculty; they conducted research into teaching
and learning, and developed recommendations. Project outcomes were powerful:
students developed a range of skills, and PEP recommendations are still influencing
faculty practices and policies today.
The inquiry was also conceived as action research (Kemmis, 1993; Stenhouse,
1993) aimed at improving professional practice; the co-authors were actively
involved in a change effort while documenting the process with the aim of examining
it later. The three co-authors kept individual files and, collectively, gathered
*Corresponding author. McGill University, 3700 McTavish, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A
1Y2. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/05/030355-16
# 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/13562510500122255
Teaching in Higher EducationVol. 10, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 355�/370
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
numerous other project documents (e.g., memos, emails, mid-project deliverables,
etc.). This repository provided an archive for reconstructing the story. Of particular
value in assessing the impact on student learning were data collected at project
completion: students prepared personal reflections on what they had learnt.
After introducing the conceptual framework for the integration of teaching and
research, PEP and its outcomes are described in detail. The final section draws upon
the framework and case details to examine and draw lessons from this authentic
inquiry.
Conceptual framework
The potential benefits of better integration of teaching and research have been
addressed by a number of authors (Boyer, 1990; Kenny, 1998; Brew, 1999, 2003),
and several themes from this literature are suggestive of paths to follow in pursuit of
greater synergy between the two. One theme involves re-evaluating the relation
between teaching and research. Another is treating teaching and learning as
malleable and contestable, as disciplinary community property that can be shaped
by members of the community. A third theme involves treating students as equally
vested stakeholders in both teaching and research.
The relation between teaching and research
Teaching and research can be in tension despite calls for valuing them equally
(e.g., Centra, 1993) and integrating them better (Brew, 1999). Boyer (1990)
proposed a way of viewing teaching and research that treats each in the same fashion.
He believed that scholarship should be conceptualized as having four dimensions:
discovery of knowledge or research; transformation of knowledge or teaching;
integration or synthesis of knowledge (e.g., writing a textbook); and application of
knowledge to real problems, (e.g., consulting). Thus research is just one of the four
scholarships that professors engage in. Other scholars have drawn attention to the
nature and use of knowledge, and how this affects both research and teaching.
Barnett (2000)*/given today’s knowledge society*/calls for a rethink of the very
functions of the university with implications for teaching, while Brew (2003)
proposes that variations in academics’ conceptions of knowledge also have important
consequences for teaching and its relation to research.
Teaching as disciplinary community property
Academics learn to view themselves through the lens of their discipline (Jenkins,
1996); subject matter expertise shapes their identities in addition to their pedagogy.
Further, subject areas tend to be isolated administratively within individual
departments and faculties, and the culture (Becher & Trowler, 2001) of these units
influences what is held to be important. Business schools, for example, often place a
356 L. McAlpine et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
premium on hands-on, action-oriented activity. Academics’ and students’ experi-
ences of teaching and learning are thus nested within the lived worlds of departments
and faculties. They result from explicit policies as well as tacit unexamined practices,
not to mention a system of incentives and disincentives*/of enabling and constrain-
ing forces*/that affect teaching and learning (Biggs, 2001). Teaching and learning
are thus ‘achievements’ emerging from the collective activities of diverse stakeholders
who may hold different views of what constitutes pedagogy excellence. There is
value, therefore, in ‘chang[ing] the status of teaching from private to community
property’ (Shulman, 1993, p. 6) while acknowledging that the development of
consensually-agreed policies (and, ultimately, examined and shared practices) is
potentially difficult. The view that pedagogy excellence is an emergent and
contestable outcome guided the PEP project.
Students as equally vested stakeholders in disciplinary enterprises
Boyer (1990) noted that undergraduate teaching and advanced research have
traditionally existed on different planes. Undergraduate students (and Master’s
students in non-thesis, course-based programs such as the MBA) rarely contribute
directly to research-derived learning, so often have little understanding of authentic
inquiry. The Boyer Commission (Kenny, 1998) proposed integrating research more
actively into undergraduate teaching, arguing for a culture in which junior scholars
(i.e., students) would be equally vested with senior scholars (i.e., professors) in
collaborative disciplinary inquiry. Two principles associated with the commission’s
vision are: make research-based learning the standard, and culminate with a capstone
experience. The PEP embodies these principles, and thus provides an opportunity
for critically examining them.
The Pedagogy Excellence Project
Context
In 2000, the Faculty of Management at McGill University, one of Canada’s oldest
and most prominent research-intensive universities, comprised about 50 tenured or
tenure-track academics, approximately 30 full-time lecturers and numerous part-
time instructors, who together taught students in undergraduate (BCom), non-thesis
Master’s (e.g., MBA) and PhD programs, with annual new enrollments of around
500, 135 and 15 respectively. In fall 1997, the faculty had undertaken a strategic
planning effort, from which emerged a reaffirmation of the faculty’s commitment to
teaching excellence. A new Pedagogy Committee, chaired by the second author of
this paper and with the third author as a member, was thus appointed in fall 1999,
with a mandate to consider the status of teaching and learning in the faculty, to
investigate best practices elsewhere and to make recommendations for change.
The context was a challenging one. Since 1993, the faculty had experienced cuts in
excess of 20% of its base budget as a result of changes to government funding and, to
The Pedagogy Excellence Project 357
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
compound matters, government rules precluded raising tuition fees to compensate
for this revenue shortfall. Cost cutting and innovative revenue-generating programs
had also put new pressures on pedagogy*/with larger classes, increased use of full-
time but untenured lecturers and students with high expectations. And all this
occurred during a period of substantial technological change that was rapidly
redefining business education.
Poorly resourced, the new Pedagogy Committee concluded that the necessary
work to fulfill its mandate was beyond its capacity. There was no objective evidence
of pedagogy problems or successes beyond anecdote, other than standard student
course ratings whose interpretation and utility were highly contested. But an
innovative idea emerged: to draw on the help of carefully selected second-year
MBA students to do research*/a hands-on consulting engagement with the
faculty*/within a six-credit, two-semester independent study course. Funds were
needed for this initiative, the Pedagogy Excellence Project (PEP), and in winter 2000
the second and third authors sought and were awarded funding from the CUTL.
The award also provided access to a CUTL member*/the pedagogical consultant co-
authoring this paper. The faculty provided matching funds, course releases for both
professors and a budget of $5200 to cover miscellaneous costs.
Goals
One goal was to generate a snapshot of teaching and learning in the faculty: first, to
document and analyze practices, policies and issues; second, to allow different
stakeholders to be heard; and third, to discuss and debate pedagogy excellence.
Thus, from its inception, the PEP conceived pedagogy excellence as a contest-
able*/and contested*/concept; not all stakeholders could be assumed to share the
same priorities.
Another goal was to identify possible alternatives through a process of ‘scanning
the landscape’ for, and benchmarking against, practices working well elsewhere.
Students
A critical step towards realizing the PEP was the selection of second-year MBA
students to form the project team, from a pool who had applied to participate in this
unique capstone experience. Applications were screened using several criteria: the
ability to think strategically about the ‘big picture’, operationalized as having
achieved an A or A� in a required first-year MBA course on organizational strategy;
the capacity to view issues from others’ perspectives; motivation; and interpersonal
skills. One of the professors had taught the relevant course, so had a good sense of
the strengths, weaknesses and personalities of the 15 students who submitted
applications, and this information was drawn upon as the professors built the project
team together, ultimately selecting nine students.
358 L. McAlpine et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Learning outcomes
The learning outcomes intended for students were extensive (see Appendix A for a
complete list), and can be summarized as follows: develop a varied knowledge base;
apply the knowledge to an authentic inquiry; and sharpen and critique their own
professional skills.
Course structure
During six initial seminar-style classes, the focus was on the first outcome: providing
students with the tools they needed*/a coherent framework and vocabulary for their
work as consultants to the faculty. Readings addressed: management education in the
21st century; teaching and learning in the university; business process reengineering;
benchmarking; management consulting as a profession; and organizational change,
transformation and learning. The remainder of the course focused on the other
learning outcomes. Students collaboratively designed and carried out hands-on data
collection in the field and applied their consulting skills to a series of tasks: project
planning and organization; data collection, data analysis and organizational
diagnosis; development and justification of recommendations; and ongoing manage-
ment of client relations.
Student assessment
Assessment, as initially conceived, focused mainly on students’ individual perfor-
mance: professors’ evaluation of a paper on a topic of the student’s choice which
applied conceptual material to the project experience (50%); professors’ assessment
of each individual’s contribution (30%); and peer assessment of each individual’s
contribution (20%).
However, early in the course this was re-negotiated by the students who
unanimously felt more emphasis should be placed on team deliverables to recognize
the importance of teamwork to the PEP’s success, and to establish the proper
incentive structure. The revised assessment covered: evaluation of the PEP team’s
final deliverables (i.e., everyone got the same mark on this portion, worth 30%);
evaluation of an individual paper (20%); professors’ assessment of each individual’s
contribution (30%); and peer assessment of each individual’s contribution (20%).
The assessments of individual contributions used a real-world performance
evaluation tool developed by a major global consulting firm, focusing on: personal
skills; quality of work; job administration; communication skills; managerial
qualities; and training. Students met with the professors twice (once near the
midpoint and again at completion) for one-on-one performance evaluation meetings.
At the end, the students evaluated each of their peers, anonymously, using the same
tool.
The assessment was modified slightly again near the end of PEP; the scope of
students’ individual papers was narrowed in recognition of the long hours and hard
The Pedagogy Excellence Project 359
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
work that all the students had put in (throughout PEP, actual hours worked
were logged against those budgeted in the work plan developed by the students), and
the real-world learning that had resulted. The individual assignments became
personal reflections on the PEP project and experience, guided by a series of
questions.
The lived course
The students did nearly all of the data collection and analysis, although some
interviews were conducted by the pedagogical consultant to preserve anonymity.
Interviews were conducted with tenured, tenure-track and non-tenured faculty, plus
those in leadership roles such as associate deans and program directors. In total,
more than half of the tenure/tenure-track faculty participated in interviews, and
others were invited to a focus group. A representative sample of full-time untenured
lecturers and part-time instructors was also interviewed.
Facilitated focus groups were held with full- and part-time graduate and under-
graduate students. Also consulted were: administrative staff; information technology
support staff; career centre and placement office staff; alumni; and the business
community. Information on admissions and career placement processes, the views of
alumni from surveys, and data from course ratings and other evaluation mechanisms
were all assembled, in addition to information on trends in management education
and the use of information technology in education.
Students also conceived and implemented a range of communication strategies to
keep stakeholders informed: regular ‘news release’ articles about the PEP for staff to
use in official student, faculty and alumni newsletters; regular project status reports
at monthly meetings of the Faculty Council; and a mid-project status report to the
project’s steering committee (assembled at the beginning of the project and with
faculty members and student association representatives) and to the Faculty Council.
Later, the PEP team invited faculty members and student representatives to a
presentation of preliminary findings, and a draft of the final report was reviewed by
the steering committee.
Throughout this time, the team worked together on research and communication
tasks in multiple settings. Team meetings were held weekly, more or less, occasionally
over dinner at a restaurant, and sometimes as late as 2 a.m., huddled around a
computer while revising slides for a presentation the next day.
Outputs
At the end of the academic year, the final report was presented to the Faculty
Council. The students’ recommendations were structured around an integrated view
of pedagogy (shown in Figure 1, which is from their presentation) and addressed a
wide range of factors*/beyond simply what occurs in classrooms*/that all contribute
to the quality of teaching and learning, including: processes for hiring new faculty
360 L. McAlpine et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
members and providing them with pedagogical development opportunities; admis-
sions mechanisms designed to ensure ‘fit’ between students and the other elements in
their integrated model; and four ‘pillars’ of pedagogy excellence*/support services
for students as well as faculty members, appropriate physical infrastructure,
information technology and alumni relations. Overall, the report highlighted the
common ground shared by students and faculty members regarding pedagogy
excellence (shown in Figure 2, which is also from their presentation), a summary list
of enablers and hindrances to pedagogy excellence as seen by students and
Admissions
Faculty research
Teaching– Learning / ‘The classroom’
Hiring
Careerplacement
Careeradvancement
Business solutions
g gogy
Business problems
Learners
An integrated view of pedagogy
Facultyand
studentsupport
PhysicalInfra. Alumni IT
Leaders
Figure 1. The PEP students’ integrated view of pedagogy
Figure 2. The PEP students’ findings re: pedagogy excellence
The Pedagogy Excellence Project 361
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
professors, best practices identified from other business schools, and what was
needed to support and enhance pedagogy excellence.
Impact of the PEP
Student learning
Based on an analysis of the students’ final assignments, their learning can be
characterized as extensive, powerful and positive. As one student asserted:
Overall, I sincerely believe that the course was . . . structured with a sense of‘intellectual movement’ where we emerged with not only more information, butalso new skills and capabilities. . . . The Pedagogy Excellence Project was a rich andrewarding learning experience for me.
Similar statements were found in the reflections of each student. In the words of one:
‘We walked away with a great learning experience.’
One intended learning outcome was the development of a broad understanding of
key issues in university teaching and learning. Whereas at the beginning of the course
students had narrow conceptions of pedagogy excellence that emphasized classroom
activities, at the end of the course it was clear from their papers that they understood
more clearly the complexity of the institutional processes relevant to teaching and
learning outcomes. As one student put it: ‘Above all, I came to recognize that the
presence of a culture that is supportive of teaching clearly enhances the effectiveness
of any strategy to improve pedagogy.’ Another student articulated pedagogy
excellence as something achieved when there is a ‘fit’ between various elements*/
students, teachers, academic and financial resources and so on. Clearly, these
sophisticated views are congruent with Ramsden’s (1992) point that it is the totality
of experiences in a program that influence learning.
Another learning outcome was to apply knowledge directly to the inquiry process,
and this was evidenced by students developing their abilities to plan and execute the
phases of a consulting assignment. One student summarized:
I’ve also seen how project goals need to take into account such practicalconsiderations as departmental expectations. . . . We were in a better position tocope . . . because planning began well in advance . . . . For a student, this was a greatdemonstration of what we are supposed to know: the necessity to give seriousthought to an overall [project] design.
Besides project design and management, students achieved the following: they
improved their skills in interviewing and in facilitating focus groups; they gained
experience in rigorous qualitative data analysis; they confronted and overcame the
challenges of collecting data in a real-world consulting setting where particular bits of
information may not exist or may not be quickly volunteered by organizational
members; and they developed new appreciation for how effective communication
and good interpersonal relationships can facilitate real-world change efforts.
The third major learning outcome was for students to have increased insight into
their own and others’ professional skills. As a result of heavy project demands, tight
362 L. McAlpine et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
deadlines and frequent opportunities for formal and informal presentations
with clients, students received a great deal of feedback from peers, project managers
and*/indirectly*/from clients. In their final reflective papers they reported that
they better understood their strengths and weaknesses, that they had learned to
deal with personal and group inadequacies and that they had acquired an
appreciation of the necessity of dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty in their
tasks and roles.
Despite the enormous time investment, many of the students were extremely
enthusiastic about all they had learned: ‘This was unequivocally the best course I
have taken in the program.’ One explanation for this endorsement is that the PEP
was an authentic inquiry. Students dealt with something real, with intrinsic feedback,
with consequences and the possibility of failure, and their responses to all of these.
The learning that took place went beyond just realizing the insufficiency of theory or
knowledge in the face of new and different contexts and fallible humans. Students
also had to take stock, consider alternatives, evaluate options, adapt plans and so on.
They had to make decisions, take risks, make mistakes, go down blind alleys and, in
fact, live with unexpected and imperfect outcomes. The uniqueness of this course
was in the way it offered students a chance to learn from experience, from doing,
deciding, acting, making mistakes*/and from having an opportunity truly to
question, confront, challenge and negotiate in real time, about issues that really
have an impact.
Professor learning
For the professors involved, the experience was more nuanced and complex. Being
involved in innovative course development was highly stimulating, challenging and
relevant; it was meaningful to them to use their expertise relating to project and
change management, not ordinarily drawn upon in more traditional courses. Still,
this particular inquiry was challenging for several reasons: it required them to act as
both instructor of the course and project manager of the inquiry; it presented two
distinct collaborative challenges, with each other as co-instructors and with the
students; and it focused on a system in which they had high stakes.
The role of project manager was awkward and ambiguous at times. It was not easy
to manage the project as a true business consulting engagement because of the
logistical issues arising from dealing with full-time students with different schedules.
This was aggravated, ironically, by the rigorous admission requirements: the student
consultants were among the best students, meaning they typically also had many
other commitments (participating in case competitions, organizing a conference,
etc.).
Another difficulty was that the professors felt like both ‘buddy’ and ‘boss’ and, as
in many supervisory relationships, they found it difficult to maintain distance with
the students. Several students also mentioned in their final papers some confusion
The Pedagogy Excellence Project 363
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
about how to relate to the professors, since many interactions did not take place in
typical academic places and circumstances.
The professors also struggled with the tension of being, on the one hand, members
of the designated client organization, the faculty, while on the other hand they
had initiated the project and were perceived as co-consultants. They had trouble
letting students fail at any task, because they had a real stake in the results of the PEP,
and this meant that they, like the students, invested large amounts of time*/beyond
what they had originally imagined. Much time was ultimately devoted to the
‘management of meaning’ (Pettigrew, 1977) in the faculty, ensuring that the project
and its recommendations were well received and legitimated, and seeking to avoid
political difficulties for themselves, especially as one of the professors was not yet
tenured.
However, team teaching had its rewards, in that the professors learned from
each other and found that their complementary knowledge and skill sets were
strategically invaluable at times; their consulting experience, understanding of
the faculty and its key players and sensitivity to what were potentially explosive
issues were all important to project success. And, in spite of the awkwardness of
multiple roles and the enormous investment of time, there were extraordinary
rewards involved in having a different kind of relationship with students. The
connections were meaningful and gratifying due to heightened engagement at an
emotional level.
In the faculty
The PEP has certainly produced legacy effects in the faculty. We mention only four.
First, involvement in the PEP was found to be such a powerful learning experience
for the nine graduate students that a similar, smaller course was offered in the fall
of 2001 so that a new set of students could follow up on the PEP recommendations.
Second, a significant new faculty-wide project*/Enhancing the Educational Experi-
ence (E3), which built upon the recommendations of the PEP*/was initiated
the following year and has continued and grown. Third, a new Pedagogy
and E3 Committee was assembled and its work is ongoing. This committee’s terms
of reference explicitly cite the PEP: ‘[I]t will assist the Faculty to implement
recommendations of the Pedagogy Excellence Project, including bringing research
and alumni into teaching and learning.’ Finally, by formally putting teaching
and learning issues front and center in the faculty for two complete semesters*/with
with regular updates at the Faculty Council meetings, official communications
and presentations by students, numerous focus groups, interviews and other data
collection activities and the high-profile involvement of CUTL*/the PEP has
increased the profile of pedagogy issues in the faculty. In other words, the project
highlighted the need for, justified and legitimated the allocation of resources and
attention to achieving pedagogical excellence.
364 L. McAlpine et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Discussion and conclusion
We end by elaborating on our initial assertion that the PEP can be fruitfully
examined as an interesting example of integration of teaching and research viewed
from three perspectives: the relation between teaching and research; teaching as
disciplinary community property; and students as equally vested stakeholders. We
begin with the last two, which contribute to our understanding of the first.
Teaching as disciplinary community property
Weston and McAlpine (2001) proposed that the approach to teaching in a scholarly
way can range along a continuum from a focus on the personal (one’s own teaching
and students), to the local community (one’s departmental and faculty colleagues), to
the disciplinary community (one’s national and international colleagues). The PEP
exemplifies the mid-point of this continuum; there was a strong and intentional focus
on interacting with a range of stakeholders within the local community, the faculty.
The project conceived of teaching and learning as rooted in a particular subject
matter, management education, and strongly influenced by shared experiences of
programs, practices and policies within a faculty. Before the PEP began, the
Pedagogy Committee from which this project flowed had already identified systemic
factors as underpinning a number of pedagogical issues and challenges. They already
understood that without the appropriate institutional supports, individual efforts to
enhance teaching could have little effect (Johnson, 1997). The PEP explicitly
rejected an approach focused on individual instructors and their practices. Instead it
viewed pedagogy excellence as an organizational-level outcome, in which everyone
had a stake and could contribute. Teaching and pedagogy excellence were conceived
as debatable, and problematic issues were contested since the various constituencies
brought different perspectives and expectations to the collective achievement of
pedagogy excellence.
This view echoes Laurillard’s (2002) contention that an institution should hold an
espoused theory of teaching and learning and have built-in mechanisms for continual
review and improvement. The professors involved in the PEP wanted the faculty to
make explicit their theory*/in fact, varied theories*/of teaching and learning, and
create a mechanism to initiate review and improvement. The focus on institutional
reflection meant that policies and practices particular to management that influence
all in the faculty were highlighted, such as the impact on teaching and learning that
results from relying more on part-time lecturers than tenure-track professors.
Another demonstration of the community-based nature of the inquiry was the
substantial investment of financial, human and other resources made by the faculty
to support the PEP. In addition to funding provided for the inquiry, the two
professors were appropriately credited for their PEP teaching responsibilities; the
PEP course counted toward fulfillment of MBA degree requirements for students;
and faculty committee structures were the basis for many of the communication
strategies throughout the project.
The Pedagogy Excellence Project 365
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Lastly, the group process for the PEP was congruent with the disciplinary culture
in business; it exemplified authentic inquiry in a field that often places a premium on
hands-on, team-based, action-oriented inquiry. Interestingly, the students recog-
nized this, and they took the initiative to propose a change in the weighting of
different elements in the final grading scheme to recognize more fully the importance
of collaborative teamwork.
Students as equally vested stakeholders in disciplinary enterprises
Particularly striking is the pivotal role played by students. Although the professors
involved were essential, from the time students were ‘hired’, they shared responsi-
bility for all aspects of PEP and carried out much of the research. They were acting
on the world and seeing the impact of these actions.
Laurillard (2002) has noted that much academic learning is acting on descriptions
of the world rather than the world itself. The PEP was unusual in incorporating
into a credit course an environment in which students experienced both. They acted
on descriptions of the world by, for instance, researching and critiquing the
literature. They acted on the world in their multiple activities with other faculty
stakeholders, for instance in data collection and in trying to initiate change through
their reports. They received structured and formal extrinsic feedback through the
course assessment structure, yet even this was negotiated and, in addition, modeled
on typical business practices. They also received particularly powerful intrinsic
feedback that emerged naturally from their actions on the world*/their interactions
with each other, the professors involved in PEP and other faculty stakeholders. They
were able to use the feedback to adjust their decisions and actions, to reflect on the
relation between their goals and their actions and to learn from this.
We see the PEP as exemplifying what the Boyer Commission (Kenny, 1998)
proposed*/a culture of inquiry in which scholars with varying degrees of expertise
engage in the research of the discipline, in this case research into the teaching and
learning of the faculty, thus contributing to the knowledge of the discipline. And
while this occurred at the graduate level, it was in a non-thesis program, so could be
implemented in a senior-level undergraduate course as a capstone experience given
similar selection procedures. Since students are rarely conceived of as responsible for
enhancing teaching and learning institutionally, this inquiry broadened under-
standing of the powerful role students can play in helping university constituencies
investigate teaching. Thus, we move now to a discussion of how the PEP can help us
examine the relation between teaching and research.
The relation between teaching and research
One of our goals in this paper has been to document and then examine a particular
exemplar of the complex relation between research and teaching, a for-credit course
that treated the practice of teaching as rooted in the discipline in the same way as the
366 L. McAlpine et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
practice of research. The course balanced acquiring disciplinary knowledge and
actually doing research.
Brew (2003) proposes that the variation in academics’ conceptions of knowledge
and research have consequences for the relation between teaching and research.
She proposes two conceptions of knowledge: one as absolute and the other as
tentative. In the latter, which was the view of knowledge that underpinned the PEP,
knowledge results from communication and negotiation and thus the personal
relation between research and learning can be more intimate and symbiotic,
including the development of self knowledge (Brew, 1999). This was the case for
both professors and students involved in the PEP; in fact, as noted, some students
commented on existential life issues. In turn, the personal nature of the relation
between research and learning impacted the negotiated nature of teaching; note that
this negotiated view was held by many of the students at the end of the project.
However, a view of knowledge as tentative rather than absolute makes issues of
power somewhat more complex. Relationships of power define what knowledge is
acceptable, whether in the design of curricula or research programs (Brew, 1999). In
a negotiated view of knowledge, who has power and how it is used is less clear; we see
this reflected in the students’ and professors’ concerns about their own relationships
as well as overall concern about what and how to report to the faculty.
So far, we have examined perceptions of knowledge; now we shift to uses of
knowledge. Barnett (2000) calls for a rethink of the knowledge functions of the
university, which has implications for teaching and research. He notes that the more
traditional view of knowledge in universities*/knowledge as an objective reading of
the world*/is no longer sufficient in today’s society. Knowledge has to be
performative, to help us live purposefully. It needs to take forms of action with and
in the world. This echoes the elaboration of Boyer’s (1990) scholarship of application,
which has come to be called the scholarship of engagement (Glassick et al ., 1997).
This scholarship involves using the resources of the university to address pressing
social and ethical concerns. The goal is engaged collaborative forms of learning, of
inquiry, that are academically relevant and can engage both professors and students.
We see the PEP as an exemplar of this scholarship; knowledge of teaching and
research in the discipline was applied to substantial faculty issues with the outcome
having the potential to impact future generations of students and faculty. However,
such a view, which may be appealing to many, has clear difficulties in enactment.
Appendix B summarizes lessons learned that are potentially transferable to similar
course-projects*/tensions to be managed in the professor�student relationship, as
well as key factors for ensuring an effective configuration of context, professors and
students. Beyond these issues, the broader applicability of this approach hinges on
the question of viability in the long term. To what extent is this view of the relation
between research, teaching and learning acceptable to sufficient numbers of people
(professors, students and administrators)? What are the resource implications and
the workload implications? What changes are required in relationships between
students and professors?
The Pedagogy Excellence Project 367
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
In closing, the PEP project, through collaborative, negotiated inquiry, generated
learning, understanding and knowledge about teaching practices and policies within
the faculty.
What had begun as an idea between two professors led to a year-long faculty-wide
engagement in which many issues about inquiry and about teaching and learning were
examined, and whose effects*/including the higher profile of pedagogy in the
faculty*/are felt to this day. The PEP experience provides fertile ground for further
exploration if we value scholarly teaching and engaging students in authentic inquiry.
We hope that others see potential here for their own research�teaching projects!
References
Barnett, R. (2000) University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity, Higher Education, 40(4),
409�422.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001) Academic tribes and territories (2nd edn) (Buckingham, Open
University Press).
Biggs, J. (2001) The reflective institution: assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and
learning, Higher Education, 41(3), 221�238.
Boyer, E. (1990) Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate (Princeton, Princeton
University Press).
Brew, A. (1999) Research and teaching: changing relationships in a changing context, Studies in
Higher Education, 24(3), 291�301.
Brew, A. (2003) Teaching and research: new relationships and their implications for inquiry-based
teaching and learning in higher education, Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1),
3�18.
Centra, J. (1993) Reflective faculty evaluation (San Francisco, Jossey Bass).
Glassick, C., Taylor Huber, M. & Maeroff, G. (1997) Scholarship assessed: evaluation of the
professoriate (San Francisco, Jossey Bass).
Jenkins, A. (1996) Discipline-based educational development, The International Journal for
Academic Development, 1(1), 50�62.
Johnson, S. (1997) Educational development units: aiming for a balanced approach to support
teaching, Higher Education Research and Development, 16(3), 331�342.
Kemmis, S. (1993) Action research, in: M. Hammersley (Ed.) Educational research: current issues
(London, Paul Chapman), 177�190.
Kenny, R. W. (1998) Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America’s research
universities (Princeton, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching).
Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching (2nd edn) (London, Routledge Falmer).
Pettigrew, A. (1977) Strategy formulation as a political process, International Studies of Management
and Organizations, 7(2), 78�87.
Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to teach in higher education (London, Routledge).
Shulman, L. (1993) Teaching as community property, Change, 23(6), 6�7.
Stenhouse, L. (1993) The teacher as researcher, in: M. Hammersley (Ed.) Controversies in classroom
research (Buckingham, Open University Press), 222�234.
Weston, C. & McAlpine, L. (2001) Integrating the scholarship of teaching into the disciplines, in:
C. Kreber (Ed.) New directions for teaching and learning: the scholarship of teaching (No. 86)
(San Francisco, Jossey-Bass), 89�97.
368 L. McAlpine et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Appendix A. PEP learning outcomes
1. Develop a varied knowledge base
. current issues in university teaching and learning
. current and past trends in management education
. differing perspectives within the field of organizational change, transformation
and learning
. a broad understanding of current issues in research and practice in management
consulting
2. Apply the knowledge to an authentic inquiry
. plan and carry out the diagnostic phase of a consulting assignment, including
managing the client relationship, designing the data collection process,
analyzing the findings and presenting results and recommendations
. use a variety of data collection and analysis methodologies to learn about a
given phenomenon
3. Develop and critique professional skills
. use conceptual frameworks on teaching and learning and organizational change
to analyze and reflect on your own experience
. enhance interpersonal skills through client interaction, interviewing, facilitation
of focus groups, working in teams and making presentations
. work effectively in a project team context.
Appendix B. Lessons from the PEP potentially transferable to similar
projects
Tensions to be managed in the professor�student relationship
1) traditional, hierarchical interactions v. more egalitarian, peer-like interactions
2) hands-off stance to allow students to learn by doing v. more hands-on approach
because stakes are real and high
3) role as consultant v. role as client
Key success factors
1) Context
� supportive of project philosophy and design
� open to innovation and change
� willingness to make commitment (professors’ time, financial resources, official
endorsement)
The Pedagogy Excellence Project 369
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
2) Professors
� consulting and project management experience
� credibility within faculty
� willingness to make commitment (time, emotional energy)
3) Students
� above average intellectual and social skills
� maturity and comfort with ambiguity
� willingness to make commitment (time, emotional energy)
370 L. McAlpine et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:13
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
