Moving From Scholarly Teaching and Learning to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Global Imperative

Getting to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Professional Development in University Faculty

The Scholarship of Learning and Teaching (SoLT) has the chief goal of improving student learning, which can be achieved through scholarly inquiry, reflection, and dissemination of research findings on learning and teaching. The idea originates from the report written by Boyer (1990), who suggested that teaching in higher education should be regarded as a serious intellectual work similar to research. Researchers after Boyer have further elaborated and clarified the concept, no matter in the names of Scholarship of Teaching (SoT), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), or, less frequently, SoLT, with more emphasis on learning. The concept has been implemented in higher education institutions around the world, and there are research reports exploring the different aspects related to its implementation. In this chapter, building on previous models of SoLT as well as empirical studies, we put forward a holistic conceptual framework that takes into consideration the higher education institution, teaching staff and students altogether. Our framework highlights four important themes: (1) staff professional development; (2) enhanced student learning experience; (3) assessment; and (4) digital technology. Digital technology is especially a theme less studied in the literature on SoLT, but should be included in the framework of SoLT in a digital technology era.

The teaching and learning activities of any undergraduate curriculum will have a specific set of learning outcomes that should be successfully achieved by the students. The balance between the workload of a student and the available time to achieve the learning outcomes plays a major role in achieving these learning outcomes, as well as a good student satisfaction score and excellent final grades for that particular module (Whillier & Lystad, 2013). In a traditional educational experience, a teacher stands in front of the classroom, delivers a lecture to a group of students, who sit in rows, quietly listening to the lecture and taking notes. At the end of the lecture, students are given homework or an assignment to be completed outside of the classroom environment. This characterises the principle of “sage-on-the stage”, and is synonymous with the present day term of teacher-centered learning. This is also referred to as the transmittal model (King, 1993), which assumes that the students are passive note-takers, receivers of the content or accumulators of factoids (Morrison, 2014). Usually, the teacher does not have time to interact with the students individually during the class (Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight & Arfstorm, 2013), thus neglecting those students who do not understand the lecture. The traditional didactic way of teaching is primarily unidirectional and consists of limited interactions between the source of knowledge (teacher) and the passive recipients (students). One of the main challenges faced by lecturers is the overload of academic content that needs to be taught in a relatively short period of time. Equally, the main challenge faced by the students is loss of interest or motivation to learn within the stipulated period of time (Prober & Khan, 2013). The traditional way of teaching, therefore, discourages the students from active learning and critical thinking. There is also increasing pressure from accreditation institutions, which demand “an ability to communicate effectively”, “an ability to identify, formulate and solve problems”, and “an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams” (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). As such, there is a need to transform the current pedagogical strategies, in order to enhance active learning in a more effective way (Al Faris et al., 2013). Synthesis of research on the effectiveness of lectures shows that lectures are not very effective for teaching and developing values or personal development, and may only be effective for the sole goal of transmitting information (Bligh, 2000). Taking these points together, it is important to explore methods that have the potential to maximise the use of classroom time and transform the classroom into a platform for teacher-student interactions and critical thinking (Rui et al., 2017). Numerous factors have cumulatively led to several challenges for traditional teaching in health professional education (HPE), including the availability of digital technologies, digitally-empowered learners, the prolific expansion of courses, the amount of factual knowledge that has accumulated in the courses, prolific growth of health knowledge, advancement in healthcare disciplines, and investment into the scholarship of teaching and learning. To this end, newer delivery systems encompassing active learning in HPE have been developed. Studies have reported that active participation is an effective method to improve learning and understanding (Freeman et al., 2014; McCoy et al., 2015). Thus, to enhance interaction during their learning, there are educational strategies, which promote active learning in traditional lectures by engaging students in doing things and encouraging them to think about what they are doing. A classic example of active learning is a think–pair–share discussion, in which a student thinks individually for a moment about a question posed on the lecture, then pairs up with a classmate to discuss their ideas, and subsequently shares their answer with the entire class (King, 1993). There are various modifications which can be incorporated into traditional lectures that enable active learning in the classroom, for instance; (a) the feedback lecture, which consists of two mini lectures separated by a small-group study session built around a study guide, and (b) the guided lecture, in which students listen to a 20- to 30-min presentation without taking notes, followed by their writing for 5 min on what they remember, and spending the remainder of the class duration in small groups for clarification and elaboration on the study material (Ellis, 2010; Johnson, 2013). Moreover, there are other active learning pedagogies, which include visual-based instruction (Johnson et al., 2016), small group problem based learning, cooperative learning, debates, drama, role playing and simulation and peer teaching. One innovative approach in education delivery system is the “flipped classroom,” an educational technique that consists of two parts, interactive group learning activities inside the classroom and direct personal computer-based individual instruction outside the classroom (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). As such, work typically done as homework in the didactic model (e.g., problem solving, essay writing) is better undertaken in class with the guidance of the teacher. Listening to a lecture or watching videos is undertaken at home. Hence, the term flipped or inverted classroom is used (Herreid & Schiller, 2013). The essence of a flipped classroom is that the activities carried out during traditional class time and self-study time are reversed or “flipped” (Veeramani, Madhugiri & Chand, 2015). Approaches to undergraduate teaching have improved over the years as the scholarship of learning and teaching has provided evidence of what works to improve the outcomes. However, educational delivery approaches have shown little change in many disciplines and have remained the same for the majority of the sectors (Van Vliet, Winnips & Brouwer, 2015). The flipped class is flexible itself and can be tailored (Tetreault, 2013). Historically, the concept of flipped classroom started in early 1990s. General Sylvanus Thayer created a system at West Point in USA, where a set of learning materials was given to engineering students so that they obtained core content prior to attending class. The classroom space was then used for critical thinking and group problem solving (Musallam, 2011). Many credited the rejuvenation of this idea with the development of, and increased access to, educational technologies (Moffett, 2015). For instance, the School of Business at the University of Miami proposed an ‘inverted classroom,’ which had events that traditionally took place inside the classroom now taking place outside the classroom and vice versa (Lage, Platt & Treglia, 2000). In 2000, a conference paper entitled ‘The Classroom Flip’ was presented by J Wesley Baker and the phrase ‘flipping the classroom’ was coined. Baker described how flipping the classroom could allow the trainer to become the ‘guide on the side’ rather than the ‘sage on the stage’ (Baker, 2000). In a sense, this reversal also flips the Bloom's revised taxonomy because the lower level of cognitive work/knowledge acquisition is done by the students, while educators work interactively with the students to develop the higher forms of cognition (Figure 1). To date, this approach has attracted a large amount of attention in the HPE and a subsequent surge of literature. A comparison between the traditional learning and the flipped classroom in the Bloom's taxonomy [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] Fundamentally, a flipped classroom encompasses two established elements of education, the recorded lecture (off campus learning) and active learning (on campus learning). Lectures are given as homework, as an aid to learning. Homework is important because it is a time where students can share their learning progress with their family, reflect on their learning, and review the material as well as the educator's feedback (Fulton, 2012). The key characteristics of a flipped classroom compared to a traditional classroom and other existing teaching methods are summarised in Table 1. It has been highlighted that the flipped classroom fits into the broader context of blended learning (Tetreault, 2013). Blended learning as defined by Staker is ‘a formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through online delivery of content and instruction with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace and at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home’(Staker & Horn, 2012, p.3). The flipped classroom consists of a formal education program, and online learning as a mechanism of informal learning through educational video quizzes/games. The flipped classroom approach is connected between what the students learn online (e.g., video lecture) and what they learn face-to-face (e.g., in-class active case study), and vice versa, which is a common feature of blended learning (Tetreault, 2013). In principle, the flipped classroom assigns relatively low-level cognitive learning such as memorising and understanding, outside of the classroom and teaching in class is accomplished mostly through teacher-student interactions and cooperation between peers, thereby stimulating the students’ intellectual potential (Rui et al., 2017). The option to view video lectures (as an example) outside of classroom has beneficial effects for the learners as they can replay the videos as many times as needed to better understand the key concepts at their own pace. Furthermore, this allows each student to be able to comprehend the topics being covered to his/her satisfaction, whereas this might not be possible in the context of conventional teacher-centred teaching. This is an important pedagogical consideration for international students for whom English is their second language (Moraros, Islam, Yu, Banow & Schindelka, 2015). From the teacher's perspective, a flipped classroom setting makes it easier to engage students and empower them as active participants of their own learning. There are several theoretical constructs that are applicable for a flipped classroom. Two of these include: the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). These theoretical constructs provide a framework for the analysis and identification of relevant outcomes. We will outline how these two theories of flipped classroom learning can improve the learning outcomes such as student satisfaction and improved scores. TAM includes two theoretical constructs: (a) perceived usefulness and (b) perceived ease of use. These constructs are defined as "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance" and "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort", respectively (Davis, 1989, p320). The first theoretical construct relies on students’ prior knowledge, gained from the pre-class video lecture (for example), in enhancing their understanding (and overall learning performance) in the active in-class activities such as problem solving. The second theoretical construct is based on students' perceptions that if a flipped class room is more user friendly than the traditional teaching mode, then they would be more likely to accept it. The goal of the UTAUT model is to explain the intentions of a user to use a given information system and the subsequent behaviour of the user. The model is based on four primary constructs: 1) performance expectancy, 2) effort expectancy, 3) social influence, and 4) facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p447). The first three constructs reflect the motivation of the users (i.e., students). The fourth construct reflects the characteristics of a flipped classroom setup when students engage with the pre-class materials that are uploaded on an e-learning portal. These material could be a video, an interactive presentation, a questionnaire or sometimes a recorded audio. With regard to these theoretical constructs, if students perceive that a flipped class room is user friendly and the academic environment facilitates their learning, then it will promote students' engagement, interactions and cooperation in learning, which will further improve their performance. There are potential advantages of a flipped classroom, including increased opportunities to provide individualised education to learners (Johnson, 2013; Kachka, 2012), increased student engagement with course material (Gross, Pietri, Anderson, Moyano-Camihort & Graham, 2015), and increased educator-student interaction, compared to a ‘performing’ lecture. The Kirkpatrick model of educational outcomes (Barry Issenberg, McGaghie, Petrusa, Lee Gordon & Scalese, 2005; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 1994) comprises ‘learners’ reaction’ (to the educational experience); learning (modification of attitudes/perceptions and the acquisition of knowledge and skills); behaviour (self-reported changes in practice and observed changes in practice, including new leadership positions); and results (which refers to change at the level of the organisation) (Figure 2). For instance, regarding the 'results' outcome, the flipped classroom allows the teacher to gain advanced, real-time insight into how students learn and quickly identify and better address curriculum content that the students find most challenging. This insight can be used to better inform decisions with regard to effective curriculum organisation, structure and the delivery of future classes. Four levels of learning in Kirkpatrick's model [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] The success of a flipped classroom approach relies on a number of assumptions. Stimulation of students’ interest in learning and guided self-study (Moraros et al., 2015), primarily depends on the opportunities to actively engage students in self-directed learning and encourage progressive improvement (Bergmann, Overmyer & Wilie, 2012; Moraros et al., 2015) in assessment performances. Thus, a flipped class will not support effective learning if students fail to engage with the assigned pre-class or in-class activities (Kachka, 2012), for reasons which might include poorly designed educational materials (e.g., long, poor audio quality) or students feeling ‘lost’ (Moffett, 2015). As such, a number of contextual and structural factors that can influence flipped classroom learning include resources (inputs to the program), activities (aspects of implementation), outputs (observable products of the completed activities) and outcomes (effects or impacts within various time frames) as depicted in the conceptual framework (Figure 3). Logic model of flipped class learning [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] There are individual studies, which have evaluated flipped classroom in medical education, allied health education and health science education, using a pre-and post-test design or comparative designs to explore how learning outcomes are improved. Some studies showed positive outcomes with flipped classroom (Galway, Corbett, Takaro, Tairyan & Frank, 2014; Van Vliet et al., 2015), while others showed the opposite (Whillier & Lystad, 2015). For instance, a study on integrated flipped lectures with online teaching techniques assessed learning experiences and participation through active learning. The findings suggested that the students in the integrated flipped-online lectures had achieved an increase in active learning components compared to the group that were put in a didactic model (Galway et al., 2014). It is important to understand the factors that could have contributed to this difference. As an example, for balance of the safe learning environment (to be free from discomfort and fear) between the two groups of students, a comparability of the personality traits between the students in each group needs to be considered. On the other hand, another individual study, which assessed the effectiveness of flipped classroom in ophthalmology clerkship reported that the students in flipped classroom had more burden and pressure in preparing for the pre-class compared with the students in lecturer-based classroom group. Thus far, these published individual studies varied in design, sample size and outcome measures. It is unclear, if these findings would be generalised to other HPE. A non-Campbell systematic review of the flipped classroom reported how the flipped classroom has been applied in nursing education and the achieved outcomes associated with such teaching (Betihavas, Bridgman, Kornhaber & Cross, 2016). Due to the focus on a particular educational context (i.e., nursing or ophthalmology), the generalisability of their findings to other courses in undergraduate HPE is uncertain. Another non-Campbell collaborative systematic review, consisting of 82 studies reported on the effectiveness of flipped classroom in medical education where a pooled estimate of a subset of six experimental studies showed generally positive perceptions of the students to the flipped classroom. However, there were no significant changes in knowledge and skills (Cohen's d = −0.27 to 1.21, median: 0.08; Chen, Lui, & Martinelli, 2017). These systematic reviews, focused on a particular area (either nursing education or medical education) had a limited number of included studies, considerable variation in study designs, a lack of methodological quality assessment of the included studies, and the quality of evidence reported by these systematic reviews is poor. A systematic review which combines the results of interventions, using flipped classroom compared with alternative learning or traditional learning, will help us to make recommendations for the development and implementation of successful flipped classroom amongst health professionals. The current review also aims to serve as a reference for decision makers to support evidence-based approaches to flipped classroom in HPE. The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of flipped classroom intervention for undergraduate health professional students on academic performance and course satisfaction. The influence of context in the design, delivery and outcomes of the flipped classroom interventions in undergraduate health professional education; The barriers and facilitators of flipped classroom learning effectiveness for undergraduate health professional students. Specifically, this review is designed to answer the following research questions: What are the effects of flipped classroom learning on undergraduate health professional students' academic performance? What are the effects of flipped classroom learning on undergraduate health professional students' course satisfaction? Do any moderator variables affect the effectiveness of flipped classroom learning on academic performance outcomes? Moderators will include (if data are available), study design, student related factors such as the amount of out-of-class preparation time, classroom availability and limited high speed internet access for rural and remote students, quality of interactive tools, and faculty related factors such as faculty members' preference to a more didactic approach. Randomised designs, which include individual-level randomised trials, cluster-level randomised trials and natural experiments, where assignment to treatment or control conditions is functionally random. Non-randomised designs, which include at least one treatment group and at least one comparison group, matching designs, two-group pre-post designs, regression discontinuity designs. We do not include qualitative research. We included all undergraduate health professional students, regardless of the type of healthcare streams (e.g., medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy), duration of the learning activity (e.g., one or two semesters) or the country where the study is conducted. Any educational intervention that includes the flipped classroom as a teaching and learning activity in undergraduate programmes, regardless of the type of healthcare streams (e.g., medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy) will be considered. To be included, a study must explicitly indicate that the teaching/learning activities for undergraduate students included in the flipped classroom, reversed classroom or flipping class, aiming to improve student learning and/or student satisfaction. Standard lectures and subsequent tutorial formats will not be considered as flipped classroom. Studies on flipped classroom methods among undergraduate or postgraduate students who are not from the healthcare streams (e.g., engineering, economics, computer science) will be excluded. We explored the impact of flipped classroom learning in undergraduate health professional students on academic related outcomes. The primary outcome is academic performance measured by examination scores, final grades or other formal assessment methods at immediate post-test. The secondary outcome is student satisfaction measured at immediate post-test using a self report scale, which may include the training institution's own format of assessing student satisfaction. Following the guidelines of the Campbell Collaboration (Kugley et al., 2016), in order to a of studies to review, an in this research will an of in the area and in related of and Collaboration of of of for on for and and and to in and of and and the available of of The following is an example of the of to professional In the final review, all used will be included so that they can be will be using the for the given so that they will include in of and in from the will be connected with within each and by between We will the information studies from to a balance of various approaches to flipped classroom learning while primarily on those that in most educational and are provided in 1. We will for the studies from the regardless of language or study and such as for will be to identify any relevant of of review and reference may also provide information about the used in their of published reviews relevant to the current study will be obtained and for to the included (and studies We will also the We will the key in the they have any studies in progress or research. will be by of the using and to of We will also review the reference of the relevant studies for any studies that have not been in the Two review and will the and to the for this of all that might the will be and for by and Any will be by and by to a review if We will with of the primary studies, where to study A & will be used to the study and a with the characteristics of studies will be of study setting of study participants group, at of the education duration of the flipped classroom, of intervention such as video lecture, lecture of the other interventions in to the education outcomes and secondary of outcome, used to outcome, time points of outcome Any information that the studies will be on variables related to the information that include study the of the intervention and how it is the characteristics of the the outcome variables and and contextual such as of and so The the for in order to in of studies is provided in of in the individual randomised trials will be at the study level by using the of & 2011). For designs, will use the of from the and of which of outcome of outcome of outcome and other of For most of the will answer the following with of of or of to make of of methodological quality will be by two and there is any it will be by taking a between the two a of the review will be to the We will present an overall of the evidence related to each of the main outcomes using the of and approach. The approach the quality of a of evidence as the to which one can be that an estimate of or is to the of a specific The quality of a of the consideration of within of of of and of et al., 2011). A level of evidence for the of will be from to very as part of the et al., We will not studies on the of of of are reported when the results of We to present all included studies and provide a of of with the potential of the review as well as of in the of the results the of the In trials, the of is a group, rather than an within to in a the data be as being and thus have to be A of analysis typically

The Elementary School Journal Volume 85, Number 3 ? 1985 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 001 3-5984/85/8503-0003$01 .00 State policies intended to improve education generally try either to set educational standards or to shape the educational process. Although states also seek to improve education through the allocation of funds, in recent years they have placed more emphasis on regulation-setting standards in the form of tests to be passed or educational procedures to be followed. Some policies are targeted on students; others, on teachers. The policies, of course, also affect schools, school systems, and, in certain cases, schools of education. In this paper, however, we focus on how policies affect the teacher-learner relationship as it occurs in classrooms.

In this paper the researchers sought to examine the role of academic developers in universities in the promotion of scholarly teaching (ST) and scholarship of learning and teaching (SOLT). The concepts scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education are explained and their differences outlined. The researchers further discuss the significance of SOL T in the enhancement of teaching and learning in higher education. In the paper the researchers also examine the role academic developers should play in ensuring the nurturing and development of SOL T among academics by suggesting practical activities academic developers should engage in ensuring the promotion of SOL T. Possible hindrances and challenges in academic developers' role in promoting SOLT are also evaluated and solutions suggested.

The Joy and Responsibility of Teaching Well

Background and Purpose. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the emerging field of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL); an historic overview of SoTL tracing back to Boyer's landmark book, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate6; a survey of approaches for doing scholarly inquiries into teaching and learning; and an analysis of the scholarship of teaching and learning in physical therapy education from both an historical and an institutional perspective. Position and Rationale. This article provides a theoretical framework with examples from the literature that help conceptualize and contextualize the scholarship of teaching and learning. Describing what SoTL is and is not, distinguishing between scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching, discussing a variety of approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning, and providing future directions for this critical area of scholarship, the authors unveil the breadth and depth of SoTL as a valued and accepted form of critical inquiry. This article also provides a brief historical view of the field in general, and also as it has been unfolding in physical therapist education. Results from a survey distributed to all physical therapist education programs provide insight into how the scholarship of teaching and learning is perceived and valued at institutions across all relevant Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Teaching classifications. Discussion and Conclusion. The short history of SoTL in physical therapist education parallels that of other disciplines. There remains confusion about the distinction between scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching as well as an inherent lack of understanding or respect for this discipline of inquiry. Physical therapist educators must work with their colleagues across disciplines to advance the important science of teaching and learning. Keywords: Scholarship of teaching and learning, Education, Physical therapy. THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING: CHARACTERIZING THE FIELD Introduction Pat Hutchings, vice president of the Carnegie Foundation, gave a talk1 at the 2004 Rockhurst Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Summer Institute, and stated that the scholarship of teaching and learning is not new, is not only for improving our own teaching, is not the exclusive domain of education, is not dependent on a single method of inquiry, is not a publication machine, is not all figured out, and is not for everyone. She went on to say that SoTL is about bringing the values, habits, and skills of scholarship to the work of teaching and learning. It is about asking questions that we care about regarding what our students are learning. It is about designing a method for researching these questions, and it is about sharing what we learn with our colleagues.1 It is reasonable to ask why we might want to take a more scholarly look into what is occurring in our classrooms. As you might imagine, there is more than 1 answer. Hutchings proposed that we do this work because we want to explore new lines of scholarly work and make a contribution. We do this work because we'd like to find colleagues with whom we can explore questions about our teaching. But primarily, we do this work because teaching is hard and we have questions about our students' learning.1 Lee Shulman suggested that we do this work because it is inherently part of what it means to be a teacher and helps us ensure that, as educators, we are constantly improving and meeting our responsibilities to our students, and as professionals, it helps us address the legitimate questions of our stakeholders in the legislature and on our governing boards.2 This article will provide: (1) an overview of the emerging field of the scholarship of teaching and learning; (2) an historic overview tracing back to Ernest Boyer's landmark book Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate6; (3) a survey of approaches for doing scholarly inquiries into teaching and learning; and (4) an analysis of SoTL in physical therapist education from both an historical and institutional perspective. …

In this chapter, understandings of the scholarship of teaching and learning and of education research are reviewed, exploring the boundaries of each and the possibilities for overlap. Distinguishing these concepts has practical value in defining the components of academic work, and the form of credit given for academic activities. The conclusion reached is that an academic activity may involve both scholarship of teaching and learning and education research, provided that, inter alia, it involves systematically investigating a contentious issue or a gap in current understandings of education, in a form sufficient to warrant conclusions that have the potential to contribute to current understandings of pedagogy or other aspects of education. A sample of current publications concerning scholarship of teaching and learning is reviewed to illustrate possible relationships between writing related to the scholarship of learning and teaching and education research.

This paper presents a model for small, interdisciplinary groups of faculty to work together to improve their teaching while engaging in research that provides evidence of improved student learning. In doing so, we have developed a four-step process of faculty-driven scholarship of teaching and learning: Genesis, Organization, Implementation and Dissemination. We illustrate this model by describing our use of Fink’s (2003) concepts of course design to reshape our courses and assess the effectiveness of these changes through examination of student learning. We describe how others may follow this approach with a variety of applications. A Model for Faculty-driven, Cross-Disciplinary Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) Upon arriving at a university or college setting, faculty are expected to excel immediately in their classrooms with little to no formal preparation. While in graduate school, most Ph.D.'s spent their time preparing for their future role as researchers and theoretical experts in their field instead of preparing to be teachers (Buskist, Tears, Davis, & Rodrigue, 2002; Vangelisti, Daly, & Friedrich, 1999). Although teaching is seen as important, many faculty are judged on their ability to publish within their field and are more often rewarded for their scholarship than their International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl Vol. 1, No. 2 (July 2007) ISSN 1931-4744 © Georgia Southern University 2 teaching. In addition, without formal instruction on how to excel as a teacher, many tend to have bad experiences in the classroom that negatively affect their development as educators. The more negative classroom experiences they have, the less they are interested in developing their teaching abilities (Boice, 1998). For these reasons and more, formal programs are needed to provide professors with the skills to excel in the classroom. Professionally staffed faculty development centers can have a great impact on teaching and learning in institutions of higher education (Caldwell & Sorcinelli, 1997). However colleges do not always have the funding or support for such a center. At Central Connecticut State University, a small group of faculty began an initiative 13 years ago that has culminated in our Center for Teaching Excellence and Leadership Development (CTELD). This center functions entirely at the initiative of faculty members, with no professional faculty development staff. (The CTELD website can be found at http://www.ccsu.edu/Forum/resources, journals, publications on SoTL.htm) How do we, as faculty, teach ourselves how to improve our instruction? We learned to follow the model of the scholarship of teaching and learning, which has been described as “ teaching that involves inquiry into learning and that is being made public in a way that can be critiqued, reviewed, built upon, and improved” (Huber, 2001, p. 22). This paper presents a model for small, interdisciplinary groups of faculty to work together to improve their teaching while engaging in research that provides evidence of improved student learning. In doing so, we have developed a four-step process of faculty-driven scholarship of teaching and learning: Genesis, Organization, Implementation and Dissemination (Figure 1). We will use this model to provide an overview of our experience with this collaborative, faculty-driven SOTL project. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl Vol. 1, No. 2 (July 2007) ISSN 1931-4744 © Georgia Southern University 3 Figure 1. Our model of small group SOTL project

Staff and students grumble about how research allegedly obscures the merits of exemplary teaching at universities. Modern efforts to move teaching from the periphery to the centre of the university were marked by books on the scholarship of teaching (SoT). Starting in the 1990s it became possible for academic staff to cite their SoT in claims for promotion. After being criticised, advocates of SoT hurriedly added ‘learning’ and now speak of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Unfortunately, within the house of SoTL, teaching lives upstairs and learning in the basement. For SoTL to flourish there must be a more willing embrace of learning. The concept could gain traction by embracing work on adult education, lifelong education, self-directed learning, farm-gate intellectuals, communities of practice and learning communities. With SoTL struggling, it is time to launch the Scholarship of Learning and Teaching (SoLT).

Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) refers to an active, conscious and continuous act of research in teaching by lecturers with specific aims to share it with other fellow lecturers later on through scholarly writing or publication [24]. It is proposed that scholarship of teaching and learning is fundamental to improve the teaching practice of lecturers which will influence students' learning [1]. The scholarship of teaching and learning is highly contextualised because it involves the culture of disciplines in which it is applied [25]. Therefore, it is important to investigate the conceptions of scholarship of teaching and learning that lecturers held in which it might influence their effort in engaging in any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning such as research in teaching which can be done through action research. Findings from a study showed that unfamiliarity with the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning by lecturers might lead to their indifference attitude toward the practice of scholarship of teaching and learning [26]. Therefore, this study aims to examine the conceptions and practice in scholarship of teaching and learning in various institutions of higher education in Malaysia especially in the scientific and technological based faculties. This article describes a preliminary study using a case study approach in which two lecturers from an engineering faculty will be selected as the respondents. Purposive sampling will be used as sampling design to investigate the conceptions and practice of teaching and learning that Malaysian lecturers held in which it might influence their effort and engagement in any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning such as by two lecturers of a scientific and technological based faculty i.e. engineering faculty. They will be selected based on the different experiences that they have in teaching and also working in the industry. For data analysis, the researchers will use thematic analysis to analyse qualitative data. The findings of this study might uncover the perceived importance of the practice of teaching and learning that Malaysian lecturers held in which it might influence their efforts and engagements in any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning such as by two engineering lecturers. In addition, the findings of this study will be used to prompt future research in which the emerging themes could be used as constructs in constructing questionnaire items that explore the practice of teaching and learning that Malaysian lecturers held in which it might influence their efforts and engagements in any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning such as using quantitative method.

The purpose of this qualitative instrumental case study was to explore how faculty at a private research university utilize the service-learning pedagogy to advance their scholarship of teaching and learning. Of specific interest was what influences them to utilize the service-learning pedagogy in their scholarship of teaching and learning, and how they perceive that utilizing the service-learning pedagogy affects student learning. Boyer’s work on the scholarship of teaching and learning framed the study. The findings of this study are that the experiential components of the service-learning pedagogy are effective in connecting students to real-world problems. As part of the curriculum it engages students in deeper learning and its use changes students’ perspectives about the importance of community involvement, establishing a community consciousness to those students involved. The study supports that the service-learning pedagogy is important to higher education faculty and has led to supporting their scholarship of teaching and learning.

The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education is an idea and a practice that is relatively new and still in its early stages of development. What it means, how to engage in it, what are its expected outcomes, etc. are still issues of debate. In this short essay, I argue that the scholarship of teaching and learning should be about individual and groups of academic staff within disciplines engaged collegially in working to improve student learning within the disciplines. It is not research in the traditional sense, its focus should be on better understanding our student learning experiences and outcomes within our disciplines, and on ways to improve those experiences and outcomes.

The link between Academic Development (AD) and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in the South African Higher education quality context is as blurred as the conceptualisation of the terms. Academic development is a relatively 'young' discipline. It has come into being due to a wide variety of education pressures and needs locally and worldwide. Currently in South Africa, there appears to be no unified understanding of the purpose, role and practices among Academic Development practitioners. As such, managing AD practices is still quite 'ad hoc' and needs driven to the extent that even in one institution there are possible differences in how the practitioners conceptualise their roles and practices as data herein will show. Using three South Africa Universities and the 'Best Practices' frame of reference, this paper attempts to reveal the assumptions and perceptions that underline AD practitioners' understanding of their (AD management) roles which ultimately shape their (scholarship of) teaching and learning practices. The intention is to establish if respective AD models and practices influence significantly on teaching and learning within respective institutions. Five purposively selected AD practitioners responded to a questaview that sought to unravel these assumptions and perceptions. Data were qualitavely analysed to discern trends if any. Recommendations and implications on higher education quality and access and teaching and learning policy are discussed within the context of the results.

SOTL has an originary moment and a well-rehearsed history. It has been constructed as an approach to understanding teaching and learning with a focus on reflective practice to improve practice and student learning, but it excludes sociocultural influences. This paper argues that by concentrating on the ‘classroom’, and cognitive measures of success, SOTL conforms to a Western view of what is valuable in education. This instrumentalist perspective allows the process of SOTL to seem universally applicable. It is argued that this instrumentalist approach is a black-box perspective, analogous to the black box of the mind seen in behaviourism. Using Chakrabarty’s notion of “provincializing Europe”, some structural elements of SOTL history are analysed with an eye to provincialising SOTL. Following this, a personal teaching experience across two cultures is described to demonstrate the inability of SOTL to comprehend the behaviour of students across different cultures without providing more contextual information. Differences between East Asian and Western views of cognition are presented to suggest that cultural differences in conceptions of learning have a significant effect on what happens in the classroom. In conclusion, if SOTL is to be meaningful internationally, it needs both to embrace and be explicit about sociocultural influences and, crucially, it needs to be decentred from Western hegemonic practice.
 How to cite this article:
 LOOKER, Peter. Contextualising contexts – Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and cultural difference. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the South, v. 2, n. 1, p. 112-128, Apr. 2018. Available at: http://sotl-south-journal.net/?journal=sotls&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=32
 
 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/