How SoTL-active faculty members can be cosmopolitan assets to an institution
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.35Keywords:
cosmopolitan, institutional asset, assessment evidence, visible learning, public inquiry, reflective practice, effective instruction, institutional imageAbstract
Faculty members engaged in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning generate visible analyses of the learning taking place in their institutions, provide excellent models of practice for local colleagues, generate high-quality evidence for internal and external assessment, and offer accessible examples of quality education to prospective students. SoTL contributions of this kind should be nurtured by institutions as a basic expectation of high-quality instruction. I discuss these faculty contributions as assets derived from a cosmopolitan social role within their organizations, and I develop a recommendation for institutional strategy from that perspective.
Metrics
References
Blau, G.J. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 277-288.
Gouldner, A.W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles—I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2 (3), 281-306.
Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 11-15.
Kristof, A.L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Merton, R.K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
Reichers, A.E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. The Academy of Management Review, 10 (3), 465-476.
Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change, 44 (1), 6-15.
