Teachers developing a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at a Faculty of Medicine
Författare
Summary, in English
Many universities are actively promoting scholarly inquiry into teaching and learning to improve education. Strategies used may involve support for development projects, teaching awards and academies. The Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden, has developed a Teaching Academy with criteria for membership founded in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (Kreber, 2002; Trigwell & Shale, 2004; Ashwin & Trigwell, 2004; Lindberg-Sand & Sonesson, 2008). Furthermore, the Faculty arranges a conference in medical education and organises courses to support scholarly projects. Given scarce resources and difficult prioritisations, it is important to gain an understanding of how such efforts could improve teaching and to find strategies that realistically pay off at the level of student learning. The aim of this study was to
• find out if teachers’ scholarly inquiry into teaching and learning was also likely to contribute to development of teaching practice and student learning
• understand circumstances where teachers choose to develop towards Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in a research-intensive faculty of medicine and health sciences
Peer-reviewed articles and dissertations on teaching and learning that have been published by teachers at the faculty were analysed against two theoretical frameworks. The first considers the primary concern of the inquiry itself and the knowledge it produces using Stokes’ (1997) “Quadrant model of scientific research” (cf Wiliam, 2008). The second framework considers the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and we asked the questions: How does the object of study relate to the inquirer’s own educational practice, educational context, or students, and have the results been used to develop teaching and learning within the faculty?
We have also interviewed teachers who have published such work and/or were members of the Teaching Academy. The interviews were analysed for teachers’ motivation to engage in scholarly inquiry into teaching and learning.
The majority of the published work not only concerned what Stokes (1997) calls a “Quest for fundamental understanding” but also considered its use. Most authors in our study focussed on student learning within their own teaching practice and educational context. Our study showed several instances where published work had been used for educational development within the faculty. In most cases, the work met the criteria for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Teachers’ scholarly inquiry into teaching and learning was primarily motivated by their concern for their professional and/or academic field. Important goals were improvement of healthcare and professional skills and values, strengthening of emerging academic disciplines, and professionalization of teaching. Students were seen as future colleagues and important agents for change. SoTL was described as a shared enterprise, where colleagues and extended networks were indispensible. Courses in medical education had been important in providing theory, shared vocabulary and opportunities to exchange experiences and create networks. Award systems and career advantages had not been important, but awards were considered as post factum confirmation of achievements. All teachers had permanent positions and described having both freedom and responsibility in their work.
Universities who wish to promote scholarly educational development should create opportunities for teachers to meet and create networks across professions and disciplines as well as positions within which teachers can undertake such enterprises. Award systems are probably not as important.
This study has been undertaken in a research-intensive faculty of medicine, where teaching is considered less important than disciplinary research. Our results may not apply to other contexts, where teaching is more highly regarded. Changes in teachers’ motivation may also change when reward systems have been in place for a longer time.
References
Ashwin, P. & Trigwell, K. (2004). Investigating staff and educational development. In D. Baume & P. Kahn (Eds.), Enhancing Staff and educational development. Routledge Falmer.
Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 5-23.
Lindberg-Sand, Å. & Sonesson, A. (2008). Compulsory Higher Education Teacher Training in Sweden: Development of a national standards framework based on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 14(2), 123–139.
Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Trigwell, K. & Shale, S. (2004). Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching. Studies in higher education, 29(4), 523–536.
Wiliam, D. (2008) What should education research do, and how should it do it? Educational Researcher, 37 (7), 432-438.
• find out if teachers’ scholarly inquiry into teaching and learning was also likely to contribute to development of teaching practice and student learning
• understand circumstances where teachers choose to develop towards Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in a research-intensive faculty of medicine and health sciences
Peer-reviewed articles and dissertations on teaching and learning that have been published by teachers at the faculty were analysed against two theoretical frameworks. The first considers the primary concern of the inquiry itself and the knowledge it produces using Stokes’ (1997) “Quadrant model of scientific research” (cf Wiliam, 2008). The second framework considers the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and we asked the questions: How does the object of study relate to the inquirer’s own educational practice, educational context, or students, and have the results been used to develop teaching and learning within the faculty?
We have also interviewed teachers who have published such work and/or were members of the Teaching Academy. The interviews were analysed for teachers’ motivation to engage in scholarly inquiry into teaching and learning.
The majority of the published work not only concerned what Stokes (1997) calls a “Quest for fundamental understanding” but also considered its use. Most authors in our study focussed on student learning within their own teaching practice and educational context. Our study showed several instances where published work had been used for educational development within the faculty. In most cases, the work met the criteria for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Teachers’ scholarly inquiry into teaching and learning was primarily motivated by their concern for their professional and/or academic field. Important goals were improvement of healthcare and professional skills and values, strengthening of emerging academic disciplines, and professionalization of teaching. Students were seen as future colleagues and important agents for change. SoTL was described as a shared enterprise, where colleagues and extended networks were indispensible. Courses in medical education had been important in providing theory, shared vocabulary and opportunities to exchange experiences and create networks. Award systems and career advantages had not been important, but awards were considered as post factum confirmation of achievements. All teachers had permanent positions and described having both freedom and responsibility in their work.
Universities who wish to promote scholarly educational development should create opportunities for teachers to meet and create networks across professions and disciplines as well as positions within which teachers can undertake such enterprises. Award systems are probably not as important.
This study has been undertaken in a research-intensive faculty of medicine, where teaching is considered less important than disciplinary research. Our results may not apply to other contexts, where teaching is more highly regarded. Changes in teachers’ motivation may also change when reward systems have been in place for a longer time.
References
Ashwin, P. & Trigwell, K. (2004). Investigating staff and educational development. In D. Baume & P. Kahn (Eds.), Enhancing Staff and educational development. Routledge Falmer.
Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 5-23.
Lindberg-Sand, Å. & Sonesson, A. (2008). Compulsory Higher Education Teacher Training in Sweden: Development of a national standards framework based on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 14(2), 123–139.
Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Trigwell, K. & Shale, S. (2004). Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching. Studies in higher education, 29(4), 523–536.
Wiliam, D. (2008) What should education research do, and how should it do it? Educational Researcher, 37 (7), 432-438.
Publiceringsår
2014
Språk
Engelska
Sidor
286-286
Publikation/Tidskrift/Serie
ICED 2014. Educational Developments in a Changing World: Abstracts
Länkar
Dokumenttyp
Konferensbidrag: abstract
Ämne
- Educational Sciences
Conference name
Conference of the International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED), 2014
Conference date
2014-06-16 - 2014-06-18
Conference place
Stockholm, Sweden
Status
Published