Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

Principles of Good Practice in SoTL

Peter Felten
Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal
Vol. 1, No. 1 (2013), pp. 121-125
DOI: 10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.121
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.121
Page Count: 5
Subjects: Education
  • Download PDF
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item

To read the article: Download PDF

Principles of Good Practice in SoTL on JSTOR
ARTICLES

Abstract

ABSTRACT

For the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) to be understood as significant intellectual work in the academy, SoTL practitioners need to identify shared principles of good practice. While honoring the diversity of SoTL in its many forms across the globe, such principles can serve as a heuristic for assessing work in our field. These principles include (1) inquiry into student learning, (2) grounded in context, (3) methodologically sound, (4) conducted in partnership with students, and (5) appropriately public. Taken together, these five principles can be guideposts for developing and refining individual SoTL inquiries and larger SoTL initiatives. These principles also can clarify and demystify SoTL to those on our campuses who evaluate our work, helping us to make the case for institutional resources and support for SoTL. Even more importantly, these principles articulate a vision of a scholarship that enhances, perhaps even transforms, teaching and learning in higher education.

KEYWORDS principles, practice, quality, evaluation, methods, students

Author Information

Peter FeltenElon University,

Peter Felten is assistant provost and executive director of the Center for Engaged Learning and the Center for the Advancement of Teaching & Learning, and an associate professor of history at Elon University.

REFERENCES

  1. BassR. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: What's the Problem? Inventio http://doit.gmu.edu//archives/feb98/randybass.htm.
  2. BassR. & EynonB. (Eds.) (2009). New media technologies and the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Academic Commons (January). http://www.academiccommons.org/issue/january-2009.
  3. BernsteinD.J. (2008). Resource review: Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change, 40(2), 48-51.
  4. BernsteinD. (2010). Finding your place in the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 4(2).
  5. BernsteinD. & BassR. (2005). The scholarship of teaching and learning. Academe, 91 (4), 37-43.
  6. BiggsJ. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development 18(1), 57-75.
  7. GlassickC.E., HuberM.T. & MaeroffG.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
  8. GaleR. (2008). Points without limits: Individual inquiry, collaborative investigation, and collective scholarship. In D.R. Robertson & L.B. Nelson (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, 26(pp. 39-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  9. HuberM.T. (2009). Teaching travels: Reflections on the social life of classroom inquiry and innovation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 3(2).
  10. HuberM.T., & HutchingsP. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  11. HuberM.T. & MorrealeS.P., eds (2002) Disciplinary Styles in The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  12. HutchingsP., (2002). Ethics of Inquiry: Issues in the Scholarship of Teaching. Palo Alto, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  13. HutchingsP. (2000). Opening Lines: Approaches to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Palo Alto, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  14. HutchingsP., HuberM. T., & CicconeA. (2011). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered: Institutional Integration and Impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  15. McKinneyK. (2007). Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and learning: the challenges and joys of juggling. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  16. PetersD., SchodtD., & WalczakM. (2008). Supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning at liberal arts colleges. In D.R. Robertson & L.B. Nelson (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, 26(pp. 39-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  17. PotterM.K., & KustraE. (2011). The relationship of scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions, and clarifications. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1).
  18. ShulmanL. (2004). Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  19. SorcinelliM.D., AustinA.E., EddyP.L., & BeachA.L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty Development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.
  20. TrigwellK., MartinE., BenjaminJ., and ProsserM. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher education research and development, 19 (2): 155-168. Retrieved from www.clt.uts.edu.au/Scholarship/A.Model.html.
  21. WerderC. & OtisM., eds. (2010). Engaging Student Voices in the Study of Teaching and Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
  22. WoodhouseR. (2010). “Hype or hope: Can the scholarship of teaching and learning fulfill its promise?” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 4:1.

REFERENCES

  1. BassR. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: What's the Problem? Inventio http://doit.gmu.edu//archives/feb98/randybass.htm.
  2. BassR. & EynonB. (Eds.) (2009). New media technologies and the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Academic Commons (January). http://www.academiccommons.org/issue/january-2009.
  3. BernsteinD.J. (2008). Resource review: Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change, 40(2), 48-51.
  4. BernsteinD. (2010). Finding your place in the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 4(2).
  5. BernsteinD. & BassR. (2005). The scholarship of teaching and learning. Academe, 91 (4), 37-43.
  6. BiggsJ. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development 18(1), 57-75.
  7. GlassickC.E., HuberM.T. & MaeroffG.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
  8. GaleR. (2008). Points without limits: Individual inquiry, collaborative investigation, and collective scholarship. In D.R. Robertson & L.B. Nelson (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, 26(pp. 39-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  9. HuberM.T. (2009). Teaching travels: Reflections on the social life of classroom inquiry and innovation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 3(2).
  10. HuberM.T., & HutchingsP. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  11. HuberM.T. & MorrealeS.P., eds (2002) Disciplinary Styles in The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  12. HutchingsP., (2002). Ethics of Inquiry: Issues in the Scholarship of Teaching. Palo Alto, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  13. HutchingsP. (2000). Opening Lines: Approaches to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Palo Alto, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  14. HutchingsP., HuberM. T., & CicconeA. (2011). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered: Institutional Integration and Impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  15. McKinneyK. (2007). Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and learning: the challenges and joys of juggling. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  16. PetersD., SchodtD., & WalczakM. (2008). Supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning at liberal arts colleges. In D.R. Robertson & L.B. Nelson (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, 26(pp. 39-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  17. PotterM.K., & KustraE. (2011). The relationship of scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions, and clarifications. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1).
  18. ShulmanL. (2004). Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  19. SorcinelliM.D., AustinA.E., EddyP.L., & BeachA.L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty Development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.
  20. TrigwellK., MartinE., BenjaminJ., and ProsserM. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher education research and development, 19 (2): 155-168. Retrieved from www.clt.uts.edu.au/Scholarship/A.Model.html.
  21. WerderC. & OtisM., eds. (2010). Engaging Student Voices in the Study of Teaching and Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
  22. WoodhouseR. (2010). “Hype or hope: Can the scholarship of teaching and learning fulfill its promise?” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 4:1.