ELT505 Presentation

Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSituating Aboriginal Studies & critically appraising Nicholls (2004)

Dr Kristyn HarmanSeptember 2009

Introduction•‘The work of the professor [University

lecturer] becomes consequential only as it is understood by others’ (Boyer 1990).

•How, then, might our University teaching – in theory and in practice – become consequential?

•To begin to approach this issue is to engage in what has been termed ‘the Scholarship of Teaching’ – but what does this mean?

Structural outline•Part one:

▫What is Aboriginal Studies?▫Situating Aboriginal Studies within SOTL

•Part two (Nicholls 2004):▫Introducing Nicholls▫Research problem▫Research questions▫Methodology▫Research findings▫Argument▫A local perspective▫Situating Nicholls within SOTL

Origins of Aboriginal Studies•Emerged as an anthropologically-based

course at a Perth teachers’ college in the mid-1950s

• Initial emphasis: recording the details of a ‘dying race’

•1960s: field widened to include human biology, prehistory, and linguistics

http://w

ww

1.aia

tsis.gov.a

u/fin

din

g_a

ids/

ima

ge

s/MS

375

2/co

nfere

nce1

96

1.jpg

National Conference on Aboriginal Studies, Canberra 1961

•Aimed to give ‘voice’ to minorities (c.f. histories from below, women’s studies)

Aboriginal Studies: A dynamic field• Changes over time in line with Government

policy and federal/state/local politics

• Aims shifted from giving voice to indigenous peoples and educating trainee teachers to:

▫Seeking to redress enduring indigenous disadvantage with colonisation touted as sole cause (see Grossman (ed.) 2003; Maddison 2009); and/or

▫Critically engaging with diverse complex issues, with multiple causation explanatory framework for enduring indigenous disadvantage (see Sutton 2009).

Aboriginal Studies: A multi-disciplinary interchange

Aboriginal Studies & SOTL

•SOTL literature on teaching Aboriginal Studies pertains to primary & secondary school curricula

•Dearth of SOTL literature on Aboriginal Studies at tertiary level (research opportunity)

•Generic SOTL literature therefore important

•Peer discussions also highly pertinent & relevant (within and beyond Aboriginal Studies)

Aboriginal Studies & SOTL @ UTAS•Current emphasis on implementing CRA

•Driven by compliance with policy, but also desire to engage in best practice

•Rubrics designed for tutorial presentations and journals & training session run for tutors

•Given rise to research project on best practice in co-ordinating & assessing tutorial presentations (literature review, interviews, personal experience)

Introducing Nicholls

•Professor Gill Nicholls

•Currently Pro-Vice Chancellor, Academic, at Salford University, Manchester

•Previous appointments at Durham University, King’s College, London, and SurreyUniversity

•Has published nine books, includingChallenge to Scholarship (2006)

http://ww

w.corporate.salford.ac.uk/

leadership-managem

ent/gill-nicholls/

Nicholls: The research problem• In the UK, the Institute for Learning and Teaching [ILT] exists

to enhance learning and teaching in higher education

• Nicholls sought to critique the way in which the ILT promotes ‘a commitment to scholarship in teaching…’ as a professional value, asking what does this mean?

• The issue is compounded by ‘Boyer’s untimely death’, which ‘left the concept [of SOTL] open to examination and reinterpretation’ (Nicholls 2004)

The research questions

•What does the term ‘Scholarship of Teaching’ mean to academics & the academic community?

•Has the use of certain language to attach professional value to the scholarship of teaching led to confusion?

•Do individual academics and disciplinary groups share similar or different conceptions of ‘the scholarship of teaching’?

Methodology•Review of Boyer (1990) to revisit principal notions

attached to ‘the scholarship of teaching’ & to ground the research findings

•Use of Bourdieu’s (1986, 1988, 1989) concepts of symbolic cultural & social capital as theoretical framework to analyse how people may try to enhance the status & value of teaching

• Interview with 25 academics & analysis of data to ascertain what they understood by ‘the scholarship of teaching’

Building on BoyerNicholls built on Boyer’s (1990) foundation of interpreting the scholarship of teaching as an integrated & inclusive activity entailing:

•Synoptic capacity – drawing together diverse ideas to make coherent meaning

•Pedagogical content knowledge – overcoming ‘split between intellectual substance and teaching process’

•Scholarly enquiry into student learning

Further definitions of SOTLWhile using Boyer as a foundation, Nicholls referred to:

•Trigwell et al (2000); and

•Kreber (2002b)

to demonstrate that ‘a great deal more research is required … if the scholarship of teaching is to have clear, distinct and definitive meaning’

SOTL & terminology•Boyer and the ITL embrace different definitions

of SOTL

•Understanding why this difference is important is essential to appreciating Nicholls’ argument

•Nicholls used Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital to critique the way SOTL has been used by the ITL as a ‘mechanism for promoting teaching in academic discourse’

Use of Bourdieu & research findings•Bourdieu postulated that:

▫social agents act as the conduits for power within societies (which are arbitrary); and

▫different types of capital accrue in societies: social, symbolic and material.

•Social capital accrues through informal exchanges but this requires a cohesive group

•Using the term ‘scholarship’ with ‘teaching’ can be seen as an attempt to create symbolic capital▫ ILT teaching fellowships are an example – they

emulate research fellowships

Interviewing academicsBoyer interviewed 25 academics in the UK about their perceptions of SOTL, guided by 5 questions:

1. What do you understand by the term Scholarship?

2. What do you perceive the scholarship of your discipline to be?

3. What do you understand by the Scholarship of Teaching?

4. Do you think that there is a Scholarship of Teaching?

5. If yes what does the Scholarship of Teaching constitute for you?

Research findings•Clear set of agreed terms relating to

‘scholarship’ emerged (we will consider these later)

•Academics from same discipline agreed on ‘scholarship’, but differences between disciplines

•Questions on SOTL hard to answer – most academics did not associate ‘scholarship’ with ‘teaching’

•20 out of 25 respondents had not heard of SOTL

ArgumentAcademics are confused about the term ‘scholarship’ when it is applied to teaching & this impacts on their engagement

ITL has referred to scholarship as a professional value to accrue symbolic capital to HE teaching but confusion has led to this not being widely embraced

Exploring the term ‘Scholarship of Teaching’ further could be useful if a more systematic approach is taken & this could lead to greater engagement

Adding a local perspectiveUK academics (n = 25)

• critical thinking

• problem solving

• long-term view

• produce new knowledge

• share knowledge with others, including peers

• use variety of avenues to disseminate knowledge

UTAS academics (n = 4)

• engagement with theories of T & L

• ascertain, apply & review best practice

• knowledge of literature

• dialogue with peers

• reflection & research

• making findings public

Situating Nicholls’ findings in SOTLDeleuze and Guattari (1987): ‘principles of connection and heterogeneity … any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other’

Boyer (1990)The scholarship of

teaching – dynamic, begins with what we know. Educates and

entices future scholars.

Trigwell et al (2000) – five hierarchical

interpretations of SOT, from what teacher does to how students learn.

Andresen (2000) – what, how, and why we teach. Critical reflection,

peer review, inquiry (motivation).

Elton (2008) – collaboration between lecturers and students; teaching not separate

from research.

Kreber (2002) – four distinct areas: discovery,

excellent practice, knowledge, experience.

Nicholls (2004) – believes discourse on SOT poorly

conceptualised & confusing.

ConclusionWeimer (2006):

‘I worry that as we wallow around seeking to

differentiate between “excellent” teaching,

“scholarly” (or informed) teaching, and the

“scholarship of teaching” … the door of

opportunity opened by Boyer’s notion that we

can define scholarship differently will close

before pedagogical scholarship manages to

move inside.’

ReferencesBourke, C. and Bourke, E. (2002). Indigenous Studies: New pathways to development. Journal of Australian Studies, 26(74), 181-199.

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987). One thousand plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Continuum, London.

Grossman, M. (ed.) (2003). Blacklines: Contemporary critical writing by Indigenous Australians. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Maddison, S. (2009). Black Politics: Inside the Complexity of Aboriginal Political Culture. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Nicholls, G. (2004). Scholarship in teaching as a core professional value: What does this mean to the academic? Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 29-42.

Sutton, P. (2009). The politics of suffering: Indigenous Australia and the end of the liberal consensus. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Weimer, M. (2006). Enhancing scholarly work on teaching and learning: Professional literature that makes a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.