Teaching as a Scholarly Activity

Drafted 8/98 by Douglas Allchin

An introduction to the scholarly dimensions of teaching, including a summary of discussion at UTEP in Spring '98 about the nature of scholarly activity in research, as a basis for thinking about parallels in teaching

This website is founded on the premise that teaching, like research, is a scholarly, professional activity. But what does this mean? Here, we list some of the features of peer review that are important to research, as a basis for undertanding the sharing and review of teaching by peers. In addition, we discuss the role of academic freedom in defining one's teaching goals (as a standard for evaluation)--and the corresponding responsibilities. Finally, we consider two dimensions of professions: reflective practice and continued intellectual development.

The Analogy from Research

Scholars are familiar with the professional dimensions of research, including the sharing of research with peers, especially for evaluation. Here are some of the features and values of the peer review process identified in discussion by UTEP faculty in spring, 1998:

Rehearsing these generally familiar aspects of peer review in research is valuable in eliciting parallel thoughts about teaching. (For example, review the list again in the context of peer evaluation of teaching, instead...) In a broad view, scholarship is worthless if not shared. Publication of research is certainly one dimension of this sharing, but teaching and sharing one's knowledge through education are also (and service, as well). Historically, this is why the university as a teaching institution has always been coupled with the university as a research institution. This perspective on teaching leads to several consequences, outlined below.

Academic Freedom & Responsibility

Who decides what good teaching is? --And towards what end?

When one views teaching as a scholarly activity, akin to research, one can see more clearly how it is one element of academic freedom. The professor sets the standards for and decides the content of his or her own classroom. Indeed, most discussion of academic freedom in recent decades has centered more on teaching and the views that are expressed in the classroom rather than in the arena of research. Any evaluation of teaching, therefore, must ultimately begin with how the individual faculty member has reflected on and articulated his or her educational goals and values, standards, institutional roles and responsiblities, and methods of teaching. The personal teaching philosophy, in particular, is central to the whole process -- and is far more important than many popular discussions of teaching "dossiers" or portfolios (e.g., Seldin, 1993, 1997) suggest.

Of course, such freedoms are coupled ethically with certain corresponding responsibilities. For example, one may claim that it is incumbent upon the professional to articulate those standards and, further, to communicate them clearly both to students and colleagues. The classroom, like claims in research, must be open to public scrutiny. In this forum, they are subject to common ethical norms, such as respect for persons and accountability to one's community. This principle of openness underlies the expectation of, or requirement for, a statement of teaching philosophy--either in a teaching portfolio or in a syllabus for any specific course.

The freedom to define one's own teaching, though fundamental, may be partially qualified. For example, the goals of an individual and his or her parent institution should ideally be commensurate. The university might well expect, then, that an individual who is a member of its community be able to articulate how his or her teaching philosophy exemplifies or intersects with its mission statement and/or vision. In particular, such a philosophy should help clarify or define one's roles and responsibilities within the university setting--from the courses taught to other advising, leadership or fund-raising activities related to education. It may be worth emphasizing that in this view, these roles and responsibilities are secondary to, or downstream of, one's teaching philosophy: they are generated by the individual, not the institution (as parameters of some "job description," for example).

The university, in turn, should respect the historical dynamics by which mission statements and individual research agendas can grow and change (perhaps sometimes diverging). Establishing a relationship with any faculty member has historical ethical dimensions.

Reflective Practice

The view of teaching as a profession (profiled here) parallels views in medicine, law, engineering and other professions. One expectation of such professionals is that they reflect upon their practice, in order to improve and to understand and appreciate more deeply the values that permeate the professional activity. Professionals are largely accountable to themselves and to their peers. Reflection and self-analysis is certainly an ideal for any form of work or employment, but it is especially important in the tradition of professions that serve the community and (generally) are accorded a degree of respect and sometimes privilege. The teaching portfolio can be both a tool for reflection and self-analysis and also for demonstrating the reflective process to others. Getting information relevant to reaching one's self-defined goals in teaching is also important for documenting the effectiveness of that enterprise for others. In this perspective the concepts of feedback and evidence are intimately related.

Professional Development

Another expectation of professionals is that they continue to grow intellectually and develop their expertise. This standard is common in research, where investigators are expected to keep up to date on methods and to stay current with theoretical developments in their field. Indeed, one is often expected to contribue to those developments. Keeping abreast of new knowledge is certainly one important responsibility for the instructor committed to developing fully prepared students. But the teacher should also continue to grow intellectually and develop expertise in terms of the ability to teach itself. That is, there is an implicit duty for professional development within pedagogy or the practice of teaching.

Such development may assume many forms. It may mean reading literature on education, education theory, or instructional methods. It may mean attending workshops or seminars on campus, at professional society meetings or at other special educational conferences. It may mean working with peers in a teaching team or teaching circle, perhaps even collaborating on course development. It may mean conducting educational research in one's own classroom. It may even extend to sharing one's expertise through publications, leadership, or mentoring other teachers, or it may involve pausing to deliberately shape one's future goals in an educational context.

One concept of professional development that forms a framework for this website is teaching capital -- the repertoire of intellectual resources and skills that can support or guide productive teaching. As in any profession, one's capital should increase in depth, breadth and quality as one matures or advances through one's career. In addition to documenting one's teaching, therefore, the professional teacher also shows evidence of development that leads to an increase in teaching capital. Hence, in evaluating teaching, it may be important to consider how an individual progresses through stages of professional development (that would be documented in a teaching portfolio that also develops with time).

Professional Communities

A final dimension of professions is their organization into communities of mutual support. This ranges from intellectual dialogue and sharing of skills to exchange of expert critiques and lively, respectful debate. Education, in particular, involves a constellation of individuals who collectively guide any given student through several stages of intellectual and emotional development. Teaching takes place in a teaching community. It is likewise appropriate that the evaluation of teaching occur through peer review.

More Information...

Bibliography

Ernest L. Boyer. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Washington, D.C.: The Carnegie Foundation.

Edgerton, Russell, Pat Hutchings, and Kathleen Quinlan. 1991. The Teaching Portfolio: Capturing the Scholarship in Teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Glassick, Charles E., Mary Taylor Huber and Gene I. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lyons, Nona. 1998. "Portfolio Possiblities: Validating a New Teacher Professionalism" and "Portfolios and Their Consequences: Developing as a Reflective Practitioner. Pp. 11-22, 247-64 in Nona Lyons (ed.), With Portfolio in Hand, Teachers College Press (New York).

Schön, Donald. 1983. The Reflective Practioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books (Harper Collins).

Shulman, Lee and Patricia Hutchings. "Teaching as Scholarship: Reflections on a Syllabus." From Idea to Prototype: The Peer Review of Teaching. Washington, D.C.: AAHE.

Teitel, Lee, Maria Ricci and Jacqueline Coogan. 1998. "Experience Teachers Construct Teaching Portfoilios: A Culture of Compliance vs. a Culture of Professional Development." Pp. 143-155 in Nona Lyons (ed.), With Portfolio in Hand, Teachers College Press (New York).

Teaching Portfolios