The challenge of contextualising the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.127Keywords:
context, environment, space, practice and perspectiveAbstract
Much of the literature in the field of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) discusses the need for SoTL and how critical inquiry can support teaching and learning. This article supports much that has been said before but further suggests that, in order for SoTL to fulfil its ambitions, practitioner-researchers should consider the way that their environment shapes them. It is suggested that, by reflecting on their specific context, practitioner researchers can engage in a practice that is more suited to supporting those who learn within such a context. Further, it is recommended that sharing such reflections through published work could help secure the development of such practice within and across the academy.
Metrics
References
Akerlind, G.S. (2007). Constraints on academics’ potential for developing as a teacher. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 21-37.
Atkinson, M.P. (2001). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Reconceptualising scholarship and transforming the academy. Social Forces, 79(4), 1217-1229.
Bleek, W. (1979). Envy and inequality in fieldwork: An Example from Ghana. Human Organization, 38(2), 200-205.
Brew, A. & Ginns, P. (2008). The relationship between engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning and students’ course expectations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 535-545.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. University of Princeton: New Jersey.
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series: Touchstone.
Foucault, M. translated J. Miskowiec. (1986). Of other spaces. Diacritics, 16(1), 22-27.
Frederickson, L.F. & Beck, S. (2010). Caught in the crossfire: Education research in context. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 33(2), 135-149.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Towards an interpretive theory of culture, in C. Geertz (Ed.) The investigation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gordon, J.B., Levine, R.J., Mazure, C.M., Rubin, P.E., Schaller, B.R. & Young, J.L. (2011). Social contexts influence ethical considerations of research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 11(5), 24-30.
Hutchings, P. & Schulman, L. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5) 10-15.
Johnson, B. E. (2002). Contextual teaching and learning: Why it is and why it is here to stay. California: Sage Publications Ltd.
Kreber, C. (2002). Controversy and consensus on the scholarship of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 151-167.
Macdonald, J. & Black, A. (2010). Disciplinary knowledge in distance education: Testing a new methodology for teaching enhancement in History. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9(1), 69-86.
Murray, R. (2008). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Helping students learn. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Parlett, M. (1991). Reflections on Field Theory. The British Gestalt Journal, 1, 68-91.
Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 299-325.
Stenhouse, L. (1983). Research as a basis for teaching. Inaugural lecture from University of East Anglia, in L. Stenhouse (Ed.) Authority, education and emancipation. London: Heinemann.
Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2008) Student-focused approaches to teaching in relation to context and teacher characteristics. Higher Education, 55(3), 255-267.
Trigwell, K.E., Benjamin, M.J. & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 155-168.
