Search

In the wake of policy, technology, and ideological disruptions in Western higher education, it is in universities' interests to improve the quality of their learning and teaching to meet changed expectations. In some countries, particularly anglophone countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, the medium for this improvement is often professional development of academic staff provided through a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (GCHE). This paper presents mixed methods research conducted at an Australian University. It addresses the questions of how a GCHE contributes to teaching quality and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) from the perspective of course participants and their educators in the context of a university wide strategy to promote a culture of excellence in learning and teaching. Data and analysis indicate significant benefits to academic staff, their students, and the host institution from completion of a GCHE. However, tensions around academic workloads, compulsion, and some contradictions in espoused educational values and managerialist impositions emerge in these advancements. The educators in the GCHE (academic developers) were sometimes caught in the crossfire. Their reflections on this experience are included in the data and analysis.

In recent years, as pressures for accountability have increased in higher education, some members of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) community may worry that the inquiry-based, improvement-focused practices they advocate could be put at risk by easy-to-administer, one-size-fits-all forms of assessment, quality assurance, and administrative control. But while acknowledging both real and perceived tensions between these two movements, we also examine some of the ways and settings in which they are converging, featuring a number of international examples in which external quality and assessment mandates have been employed to support SoTL-like work. We look, too, at the roles that scholars of teaching and learning can play as mediators and brokers between the two movements, helping to translate accountability requirements into opportunities for improvement. In short we argue that these two movements present opportunities for each other. SoTL can contribute to what is, or should be, the central goal of accountability: ensuring and improving the quality of student learning. The accountability movement, for its part, can provide a new context for integrating and valuing SoTL as a force for positive change on campuses and beyond. Taken together, the two approaches can make meaningful contributions to higher learning today. The paper concludes with recommendations to the SoTL community for building bridges between the two movements.

In this paper, I discuss SoTL as a methodology for the professional development of academics. I propose that as an agentic form of inquiry that focuses on processes, boundary-crossing, and making public its findings, SoTL is a sophisticated methodology that brings the activities of teaching and research in close alignment, and contributes to developing an approach to inquiry that differs from what I have called "managed" research. I propose that, as a methodology for professional development, SoTL provides a space for dialogic critique of singular investigations into practice that contribute to advancing individual and collective knowledge of the field of higher education. I argue that in a context where approaches to practice have become driven by competitivity and international rankings that rely on objectivist understandings of practice for their judgments, SoTL presents an alternative, rich model of practice.

Faculty are increasingly interested in engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) across disciplines, necessitating educational development support. While many institutions utilize one-time workshops and faculty communities offering professional development funding, the case study presented in this article takes a different approach. The aim of the Engaged Teacher-Scholar (ETS) program is to support faculty growth in a process of becoming ETS leaders across the university campus. ETS leaders advance an individual SoTL research project and are trained to develop a plan for and offer professional development events to their department, college, and university related to SoTL. The article presents an overview of the program's objectives, organization, and outcomes over four years of implementation. The article concludes with implications for implementation at other institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Metacognitive instructors incorporate awareness and timely self-regulation in their teaching practice to support their current students' learning. This exploratory study, using mixed methods, gathered empirical data to extend the work on student metacognition by documenting teacher experiences with metacognitive instruction, the impact of instructor use of a guided journal on the development of metacognitive instruction practices, and students' perceptions of instructor responsiveness to their learning and engagement. Journal Intervention (N = 40) and Control (N = 33) instructors from five institutions and their students (N = 796) responded to multiple questionnaires throughout a semester. Data revealed significantly more baseline familiarity with and engagement in reflective teaching than metacognitive instruction for both groups. Within the Intervention group, qualitative data consistently suggested a positive impact from engagement with the journal, especially with respect to an increased focus on learning objectives and student engagement (rather than on content coverage) in pre-lesson planning, and on being aware of how students were achieving the learning objectives. Significant positive correlations were found between instructor use of the journal and student ratings of instructor responsiveness to their learning and engagement, and instructor use of effective instructional practices. Although instructors were enthusiastic overall about using the journal and incorporating metacognitive instruction, they did report barriers including time, existing habits, and uncertainty about alternate instructional practices. Based on our findings, we share strategies for using our journal prompts as a tool to facilitate faculty development of metacognitive instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]