Fostering a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

161

Cox, M. D. (2003). Fostering the scholarship of teachingthrough faculty learning communities. Journal on

Excellence in College Teaching, 14 (2/3), 161-198.

Fostering the Scholarshipof Teaching and Learning

Through Faculty Learning Communities

Milton D. CoxMiami University

For 25 years an important goal of Miami University’s facultyteaching development programs has been to foster scholarlyteaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL).Although individual teaching grants and campus-wide semi-nars and workshops have been part of these programs, facultylearning communities (FLCs) have been far more effective inachieving this goal (Cox, 2004a). The author describes theSoTL—FLC connection, how and why this connection works,its products, individual developmental stages of its participants,and evidence of its success.

The information in this article is intended to supplement and extrap-olate the reports and examples of others, for example, the CarnegieAcademy for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (CASTL),launched in 1998 as a national initiative to explore and implement ap-proaches to fostering and developing the SoTL (Cambridge, 2001). CASTLhas three programs: the Carnegie Scholars, which brings together select-ed scholars to carry out SoTL projects in their disciplines (Hutchings,2000); the Campus Program, coordinated by the American Associationfor Higher Education, in which faculty members at an institution deter-mine what the SoTL means on their campus and how to build a culturethat will foster the SoTL (Beaudry & Bruce, 2003), or in leadership clus-ters, investigating SoTL projects across institutions; and the Scholarlyand Professional Societies Program, which connects with professionalsocieties to foster the SoTL in the disciplines (Huber, 2002; Huber &Morreale 2002). Miami University’s Faculty Learning Communities Pro-

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching162

gram is unique in that it provides a long-term picture of how the firsttwo CASTL programs above can evolve and produce the SoTL at an in-stitution during a quarter of a century.

In addition to the contents of this special issue of the Journal on Excel-lence in College Teaching, much has been written about the scholarship ofteaching and learning (SoTL), especially in the last five years: explora-tion of its definition and meaning (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Kreber,2001a; Kreber & Cranton, 2000; Richlin, 1993, 2001a; Richlin & Cox, 1991);how to do the SoTL (Angelo, 1998; Cross, 1998, Cross & Steadman, 1996,1998; Hutchings, 2000); the SoTL’s connection to practice (Menges, We-imer, & Associates, 1996; Weimer, 2001); publication of the SoTL (Richlin,2001b; Weimer, 1993); assessment of the SoTL (Glassick, Huber, & Maer-off, 1997; Theall & Centra, 2001); the SoTL’s relationship to teachingportfolios (Hutchings, 1998; Kreber, 2001b); disciplinary approaches tofoster the SoTL (Healey, 2000; Huber, 2002; Huber & Morreale, 2002);current and future trends (Angelo, 2000; Richlin, 2000); ethical issues(Hutchings, 2002); related promotion and tenure issues (Huber, 2004);stages of individual development of the SoTL (Ronkowski, 1993; Smith,2001; Weston & McAlpine, 2001); and development of an institutionalculture supporting the SoTL along with faculty producing it (Angelo,2002; Cox, 2003; Kreber, 2001c; Thompson & Nelson, 2000).

This article focuses on the last two of the above items—the stages ofindividual development of the SoTL and the development of an institu-tional culture supporting it along with the faculty doing it—in atime-tested, nationally recognized program that has created a universi-ty-wide culture fostering a community approach to faculty developmentand production of the SoTL.

Faculty Learning Communities

Miami University’s faculty learning community (FLC) Program hasadapted student learning community models to its approach to facultydevelopment, with many of the same positive outcomes. For example,there has been increased faculty retention, faster intellectual develop-ment, greater civic contributions, and more active, learner-centered,multidisciplinary approaches to teaching (Cox, 2001). The goals of Mi-ami’s FLC Program include enhancing learning by increasing facultyinterest, practice, and expertise in teaching. This is achieved by provid-ing safe, supportive communities in which faculty can investigate andtake risks in implementing new approaches to teaching and by increas-ing the collaboration and coherence of learning across disciplines. An

Fostering the SoTL Through FLCs 163

important goal of the Miami University FLC Program is to foster excel-lent teaching, scholarly teaching, the scholarship of teaching and learning,and their application to student learning.

Developed over 25 years, Miami’s FLC Program has had 80 FLCs of23 types, including 11 FLCs in 2002-03 and 9 in 2003-04. A brief descrip-tion of each type is listed in Cox, 2004b. Each FLC is a cross-disciplinarycommunity of 8-12 faculty (and sometimes professional staff) engagedin an active, collaborative, yearlong program with a curriculum focusedon enhancing and assessing student learning and with frequent activi-ties that promote learning, development, transdisciplinarity, communitybuilding, and the SoTL. A faculty participant in an FLC may select afocus course or project in which to try out innovations, assess resultingstudent learning, and prepare a course mini-portfolio to report the re-sults. Each participant may develop an FLC project (usually a teachingproject), engage in retreats and biweekly seminars, work with studentassociates, and present project results to the campus and at national con-ferences. Evidence shows that FLCs are effective “deep learning”structures to encourage and support faculty to investigate, attempt, as-sess, and adopt new (to them) methods, such as using appropriatetechnology, active learning, and learner-centered teaching (Cox, 2002).FLCs also provide scholarly venues for developing new curricula, forexample, integrating the arts into the curriculum (Reed et al., 2003) anddeveloping new courses on U. S. cultures (Heuberger et al., 2003).

There are two categories of FLCs: cohort-based and topic-based. Cohort-based FLCs address the teaching, learning, and developmental needs ofan important cohort of faculty. The curriculum is shaped by the partici-pants to include a broad range of teaching and learning areas and topicsof interest to them. These FLCs can make a positive impact on the cul-ture of the institution over the years if given multi-year support (Cox,2001). The four types of cohort-based FLCs at Miami University havebeen those for junior faculty (for faculty in their 2nd through 5th year)(Cox, 1995, 1997), mid-career and senior faculty (Blaisdell & Cox, 2004),department chairs (Shulman & Cox, 2003), and graduate teaching assis-tants (Richlin & Essington, 2004).

Each topic-based FLC has a curriculum designed to address a specialcampus teaching and learning need, issue, or opportunity. These FLCsoffer membership to and provide opportunities for learning across allfaculty and staff ranks and cohorts, but with a focus on a particular theme.Brief descriptions of the 19 topics addressed by 41 topic-based FLCs overthe years at Miami University are in Cox, 2004b. Detailed information isat the national FLC Web site at <http://www.muohio.edu/flc>.


Faculty members apply for membership in an FLC, and the selectioncriteria include commitment to quality teaching, level of interest in theprogram, need, openness to new ideas, potential for engagement in andcontributions to the community, and plans for use of the FLC year. Par-ticipants in each FLC are chosen to create a diverse communityrepresenting a variety of disciplines, experiences, and needs. FLCs arenot seminar groups or committees, which usually lack the communitybuilding activities. FLCs involve teaching projects and scholarly presen-tations, and, hence, are more structured and intensive than facultydiscussion groups (Fink, 1984), such as book groups or teaching circles(Quinlan, 1996).

FLCs are different from, but in many ways like, action learning sets inthat they both involve “a continuous process of learning and reflection,supported by colleagues, with an intention of getting things done”(McGill & Beaty, 2001, p. 11). Both FLCs and action learning sets meet fora period of at least six months; have voluntary membership; meet at adesignated time and in an environment conducive to learning; treat in-dividual projects in the same way; employ the Kolb (1984) experientiallearning cycle; develop empathy among members; operate by consen-sus, not majority; develop their own culture, openness, and trust; engagecomplex problems; energize and empower participants; have the poten-tial of transforming institutions into learning organizations; and areholistic in approach (Cox, 2001).

Faculty learning communities differ from action learning sets in thatFLCs are less formal. For example, FLCs do not focus on negotiated tim-ing or other formal structures at meetings. FLCs concentrate less on theefficiency of getting things done and include more focus on the socialaspects of building community (Cox, 2002). Off-campus retreats andconferences include times for fun, and a gathering or two during theyear may include spouses or partners. FLCs include more emphasis onthe team aspect—while still developing each individual’s project—thanaction learning sets and on the ultimate beneficiaries of the program: thestudents in the participants’ courses. An FLC is a special kind of “com-munity of practice” as described by Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder(2002).

Beginning in 2001-02, a three-year grant from the U.S. Department ofEducation Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education(FIPSE) supports Miami’s mentoring of the dissemination of its FLC Pro-gram to five adapting institutions: Claremont Graduate University (CGU)and Consortium, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IU-PUI), Kent State University, The Ohio State University, and the University


of Notre Dame. The FIPSE project investigates a fast-track three-yeardevelopment of 12 FLCs of at least 6 types involving about 100 faculty ateach of the five adapting institutions. Each institution was to developand engage two FLCs the first year (2001-02), four the second year (2002-03), and six the third year (2003-04). At the end of the third year, the fiveinstitutions have initiated a total of 60 FLCs involving 30 different types(see Cox, 2004b). Of these, only one (at CGU) had general SoTL as itsmain focus, and four had SoTL as a primary part of their names andobjectives, indicating SoTL as a major focus of the FLC, but not the entirefocus, for example, SoTL on Instructional Technology Impact (at IUPUI).It is interesting that only 8% of the 60 FLCs named the SoTL as a focus orpartial focus.

The SoTL—FLC Connection

Boyer (1990) and Rice (1990) identified and named the scholarship ofteaching. Miami’s FLC Program interprets scholarly teaching and thescholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) as separate, as articulatedby Richlin (2001a):

[S]cholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching are close-ly interrelated. However, they differ in both their intent andproduct . . . . [T]he purpose of scholarly teaching is to impactthe activity of teaching and the resulting learning, whereas thescholarship of teaching results in a formal, peer-reviewed com-munication in the appropriate media or venue, which thenbecomes part of the knowledge base of teaching and learningin higher education. (p. 58)

These two concepts, scholarly teaching and the SoTL, have been keyparts of Miami’s FLC Program since the first FLC for junior faculty wasinitiated in 1979. The Program started as a result of a three-year grantfrom the Lilly Endowment, which funded similar programs at other in-stitutions under its Lilly Post-Doctoral Teaching Awards Program.Austin’s (1990) review of the 30 Lilly-sponsored programs between 1974and 1988 identified five components that the institutions engaged in var-ious degrees: (1) regular group meetings, (2) release time, (3) senior facultymentors, (4) individual projects, and (5) retreats and conferences. Austindid not note anything equivalent to scholarly teaching or the SoTL. Thismay be because the SoTL concept had not yet been articulated. It alsomay be because not all five above components—a key to SoTL success—were part of most of these Lilly Programs. Austin (1990) reported in detailon 15 of the 30 programs: Only three programs engaged all five compo-


nents, and of these only two—Miami University (Austin, 1992; Cox, 1995)and the University of Georgia (Kavoda, Broder, & Jackson, 2003)—stillhave active programs.

In the early FLCs at Miami, each of these five components played animportant role in the development of the SoTL. Viewed in the currentconstruct of the FLC—SoTL connection, the five components provided(1) community, and thus the support for and peer review of projects (thegroup meetings); (2) scholarly teaching—time to reflect on teaching andinvestigate and implement a project (as a result of release time); (3) expe-rience and advice for scholarly investigations and peer review (seniorfaculty mentors); (4) potential SoTL (the teaching projects); and (5) a venuefor making public the SoTL (campus presentations and Lilly EndowmentConferences for the participating institutions).

The importance and impact of the SoTL in the early Miami FLC Pro-gram is highlighted, for example, by a Miami junior faculty FLCparticipant in economics, who wrote in his 1980-81 final report (Cox,1981, pp. 6-7),

I am continuing work on my project examining the determi-nants of college student effort and achievement. I have readmuch of the relevant literature from economics and behavior-al psychology. I have conducted a survey of 990 Miami studentsand am now performing the empirical analysis. I plan to finisha manuscript by August detailing my results.

It turned out that more time was needed to bring this project andmanuscript to fruition. It eventually was published in Research in HigherEducation (Erekson, 1992). Thus, it is important for pre-tenure colleaguesto realize the length of time it may take to see a SoTL project through topublication. For example, as a member of the 1981-82 Miami TeachingScholars Community indicated,

The [1980-81] year was spent doing the literature review, mod-el specification. Then, [1981-82] involved pretesting the surveyinstrument. The next year or so was spent collecting the data .. . which you know was individual survey-based. I then gaveversions of the paper in 1987 and in 1988 and [sic] professionalmeetings. Though I don’t have the correspondence, my guessis that it was submitted, revised, and accepted in 1989-1991,with publication in the 1992 journal (Erekson, 2004, personalcommunication).

While the early FLCs involved only five or so program components,today FLCs may have as many as 30 (see Cox, 2004c). In the Miami FLC


Program, 7 (23%) of these components—numbers 18-24—are connecteddirectly to developing the SoTL. Only one FLC of the 23 types of FLCs atMiami (see Cox, 2004b) has included the SoTL in its name as a partialfocus, and this is because SoTL is an integral part of every Miami FLC.This also may explain the similar absence of the SoTL in the names of 25of the 30 types of FLCs developed in the FIPSE project (see Cox, 2004c).

To foster the SoTL in an FLC, a sequence of 10 developmental stepshas been developed at Miami (see Cox, 2003, 2004c). These steps illus-trate the FLC approach to the ongoing cycle of scholarly teaching andthe SoTL (Richlin, 2001a). A detailed elaboration of the steps in the pro-cess, documents that guide faculty through these steps, and examplesare in Cox (2003). The focus book and key articles that the FLC partici-pants read as a community play an important role in this SoTLdevelopment sequence. Cox (2004b) lists the focus books that have beenused in Miami FLCs to initiate, inspire, and further a study of the SoTLliterature that is timely and appropriate for that FLC.

Also important in the SoTL developmental sequence is the knowl-edge of what SoTL topics are of recent and current national interest. Thiscan influence an FLC member’s selection of a teaching project or an areain which to engage SoTL research. Appendix A lists SoTL topics thatemerged as themes from the sessions that were given by presenters atthe Lilly Conferences on College Teaching over the years 1999-2003. Tobe designated as a theme, a topic has to be a major part of at least fivesessions. The opportunity to review past and attend current sessionsapplicable to one’s SoTL aspirations proves helpful at any stage of SoTLdevelopment. The SoTL itself has been a theme track the last four years.

SoTL Development Stages for Individuals

An individual’s growth as a knower and practitioner of the SoTL canbe viewed from several perspectives, and this section indicates some waysin which FLCs play an important role in that growth.

The Weston & McAlpine Model

The FLC—SoTL connection illuminates the Weston and McAlpine(2001) developmental three-phase continuum of growth that describes aprofessor’s journey toward the SoTL (see Appendix B). In each of Westonand McAlpine’s three phases, processes are listed vertically in the orderof less complex to more complex. Vertical (within a phase) and lateral(across phases) movement is possible, although “Prior to engaging in


activities in a subsequent phase, it is necessary to engage in a broad rangeof activities in the current phase, but not necessarily in all the processes”(p. 91). In phase 1, “growth in one’s own teaching,” a professor developsa personal knowledge of his or her teaching and students’ learning, “re-ducing the conceptual isolation [of the SoTL] from the primary scholarlywork [the scholarship of discovery] of the disciplines and departments”(p. 90). In phase 2, “dialogue with colleagues about teaching and learn-ing,” faculty start with conversations in their discipline and movevertically downward to multidisciplinary engagement, for “It is neces-sary to get a sense of community before moving into scholarship” (p.91). The third phase, “growth in SoTL,” covers the same growth as de-scribed in the Miami sequence of 10 SoTL developmental steps in FLCs(see Cox, 2003, 2004c).

Development toward the SoTL by faculty in FLCs requires modifica-tion of the Weston and McAlpine model, which does not seem to takeinto account development due primarily to a learning community ap-proach to faculty development. For example, with respect to Weston andMcAlpine’s phase 1, growth in one’s teaching, reading the applicationsfor membership in an FLC at Miami reveals the amount of growth in theapplicant’s teaching. Most Miami FLCs, even the one for senior and mid-career faculty, include members with a range of phase 1 growth frominexperienced to highly experienced. The presence in the FLC of bothnovices and those with a range of experience does not hinder SoTL de-velopment, as the experienced generously help those not as experienced,one of the advantages of community support. However, the significanceand impact of the SoTL produced by an FLC member may depend on hisor her phase 1 growth. For example, in 2001-02, one experienced mem-ber of the junior faculty FLC who had taught elsewhere before comingto Miami proposed and presented a refereed paper at the 2002 nationalLilly Conference, while the less experienced members did not (althoughlater that year they did present their projects on campus and at a region-al teaching conference).

Individual SoTL development of faculty in FLCs rearranges the orderof development in the Weston and McAlpine model. In fact, the first partof phase 2, dialogue about teaching and learning in the department, of-ten is missing in colleges and universities (Massey, Wilger, & Colbeck,1994; Shulman, 1993). Whether they have moved through phase 1 or not,faculty often join an FLC because there has been no opportunity for dia-logue in their departments. These FLC applicants are hungry for acommunity in which to engage in this dialogue. Usually, the departmen-tal and disciplinary dialogue in the first part of phase 2 occurs during


the years following, not prior to, FLC participation; that is, phase 2 oc-curs after they complete a first pass through phase 3, growth in the SoTL.A faculty member’s departmental and disciplinary work after partici-pating in an FLC often includes a missionary role for the SoTL, one ofthe objectives of FLCs. Achieving this objective has had varied success atMiami. Some faculty are uncomfortable being missionaries, especiallyin a department where dialogue about teaching is not part of the culture.One department chair commented on his review of the FLC Programthat “they come back [to the department] with a real attitude.” Juniorfaculty must be especially careful in this situation so as not to jeopardizetheir quest for tenure.

The following example shows that faculty need not have completed amajor part of one of Weston and McAlpine’s phases before moving tothe next. The FLC for junior faculty at Miami is successful in simulta-neously engaging faculty in phases 1 and 3, developing both anunderstanding of their own teaching and of the SoTL, while bypassingthe first part of phase 2, dialogue with colleagues in their disciplines.Although most junior faculty are unformed and inexperienced in theirteaching, they often plunge into the multidisciplinary dialogue in phase2 and move into phase 3 after reaching step 5 in the sequence of FLCSoTL 10 developmental steps (see Cox, 2003, 2004c). They may even endtheir FLC year in a mentoring role for the new, incoming communitymembers, that is, near the most complex position in phase 3.

FLC development of the SoTL requires a modification of Weston andMcAlpine’s phase 3, which describes results that have “significance andimpact for the institution and the field” (p. 91). In FLCs, the results for aparticipant’s first pass though the phases described in Cox (2003, 2004c)may result in scholarly activity that is of interest to others in the depart-ment or institution, but not yet of national impact. This work may gainlocal refereed recognition through presentations or publications. It maygain national recognition only after follow-up work and submission to anational venue for review. Thus, Weston and McAlpine’s phase 3 shouldbe expanded into two phases, 3A and 3B (see Appendix B). Phase 3Bwould remain as growth in the SoTL that has significance and nationalimpact on the field. The new phase 3A, developing preliminary SoTL ofimport for one’s own teaching and one’s department, would feature de-velopment around an FLC project, a kind of “localized SoTL,” resultingin a peer-reviewed campus presentation and, perhaps, a presentation atthe state or regional level.

At the end of their chapter, Weston and McAlpine mention an exam-ple of a new Teaching Scholars program in a faculty of medicine. It


resembles an FLC in which participants are required to engage in devel-opment in all three phases at the same time. The authors note, “Thus,although we think that potential for maturing into a scholar of teachingcan be accelerated by this kind of program, because it is new, we do notyet know about the long-term outcomes” (p. 96). The FLC Program atMiami provides the evidence of this long-term success for which Westonand McAlpine say they looking.

A Model for Growth in SoTL Expertise

To describe growth in SoTL expertise, Smith (2001) adapts the Drey-fus and Dreyfus (1986) model of growth in stages of expertise from noviceto expert. The first three columns of Appendix C are Smith’s adaptation.I have introduced a column 4 illustrating the developmental stages ofSoTL expertise within FLCs. Advancement to competent level of the SoTLcan occur during one’s first participation in an FLC, but progress be-yond that point usually requires participation in another FLC or anindividual research program in the SoTL. (I will present evidence forthis claim later.) Production of the SoTL is sometimes postponed untilafter receiving tenure, especially in departments where only disciplin-ary scholarship is valued and the SoTL is not rewarded. Thus, FLCsinvolving early-career faculty undergoing their first exposure to and pro-duction of the SoTL are extremely valuable, because these FLCs usuallyprovide the only opportunity for junior faculty to connect to this schol-arship at an impressionable time in their careers.

The following quotation from the final report of a member of Miami’sProblem-Based Learning (PBL) FLC illustrates the value of participationin more than one FLC:

My PBL project is going so much more smoothly than my Alum-ni Scholar [the first FLC] project went. I am wondering if it isbecause this is my second community, and so I am more com-fortable being around other non-education faculty and havebeen much more willing to just dive in and get going on thingsrather than worry about what the other community membersare thinking (I know this happened last year). I also know at-tending the summer institute really jump-started me into PBLand gave me a wonderful foundation from which to build myproject. But I must also credit my students. They’ve been in-credible assets to this entire process. They’ve embraced PBL inways I never imagined and have made me want to create morePBLs. So . . . PBL gets a five-star rating!


An excellent example of individual development of SoTL expertise ismodeled by Philip Cottell, a Miami faculty member in the department ofaccountancy. In 1985-86 he participated in the Miami junior faculty FLC.His teaching project involved the investigation and implementation ofcooperative learning in his classes. As he progressed through that FLC’ssequence of 10 SoTL developmental steps, he attended the Lilly Confer-ence on College Teaching and met Barbara Millis, a leading practitionerand scholar of cooperative learning. Inspired by her work, Cottell con-tinued to experiment with and assess cooperative learning in his classes.In 1995-96 he participated in his second FLC, the Senior FLC for Teach-ing Excellence. He became an expert in the SoTL, collaborating with Millisin the coauthorship of a cooperative learning workbook in accountancy,followed by the transdisciplinary book Cooperative Learning for HigherEducation Faculty (Millis & Cottell, 1998). Subsequently, Cottell has sharedhis expertise with Miami faculty as facilitator of a cooperative learningFLC, two FLCs on PBL, and one on learning in small groups. He andMillis lead an annual all-day workshop on cooperative learning at theLilly Conference on College Teaching.

In conclusion, for faculty interested in participating in a communityapproach to faculty development, it appears that FLCs can provide aneffective path for the development of expertise in the SoTL.

Cognitive-Structural Development Theories

Fulton and Licklider (1998) report that “New visions of professionaldevelopment suggest that the practices needed to support faculty learn-ing are analogous to those needed to support student learning” (p. 55).In FLCs, faculty become students learning about new (to them) areas ofteaching and learning, and engaging in the SoTL. Thus, theories wellknown for modeling the cognitive-structural development of studentsmay be adapted to describe the SoTL development of faculty in the FLCarena.

Three theories provide helpful perspectives: Perry’s theory of intel-lectual and ethical development (1970); Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger,and Tarule’s theory in their Women’s Ways of Knowing (1986); and BaxterMagolda’s model of epistemological reflection (1992). Perry’s pioneer-ing work drew almost exclusively on studies of men and describedstudents in a scheme using nine positions of intellectual development.Belenky et al. built on Perry’s and on Gilligan’s (1982) work to developfive epistemological perspectives that provide a source of informationabout women and meaning making, as well as provide alternate routes


of development not described by Perry. Baxter Magolda engaged a lon-gitudinal study of cognitive development in traditional undergraduatesthat addressed gender issues of both men and women using four stages,with gender-related patterns noted in the first three. A helpful overviewproviding succinct descriptions, comparisons, contrasts, and applicationsof these theories is in Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998).

These three theories of development provide perspectives on how fac-ulty in FLCs make meaning of the SoTL. Most faculty are unfamiliarwith these theories when they enter their first FLC. The theories are cy-clical, and one can be in a certain position or stage in an area of one’sprofessional or personal life, and in a different position in another area.Thus, faculty who are at an advanced position in their discipline may beat the very first position when it comes to the SoTL.

Next I provide a brief comparison and contrast of the three theories.

Silence

Silence, the initial perspective in the Belenky et al. model (Perry doesnot have this position) characterizes the individual as being voiceless,obedient, and powerless. Faculty often come to their first FLC in silence,having been “locked out” of the SoTL by their departments because ofthe intense focus on and rewards for discovery scholarship in the disci-pline. These faculty are not familiar with the SoTL literature orterminology and, thus, have no language for engaging it. For example,most faculty members designing a first teaching project are qualified re-searchers in their disciplines, but they are initially at a loss aboutstructuring a project that could lead to the SoTL. This situation motivat-ed the document “Guidelines for the Design and Description of TeachingProjects” (Richlin, 2001a), discussed at step 3 of the SoTL developmentalsequence (see Cox, 2004c).

Junior faculty in silence view their department’s student evaluationof teaching forms (which they often see as weapons to be used againstthem) as the only evaluation method available and as set in stone. Asone woman wrote in her FLC application, “This [participating in an FLC]would be extremely helpful for breaking down my personal fears at-tached to classroom observations and evaluations.” Participants inMiami’s 2002-03 junior faculty FLC selected this as the topic for theirfirst seminar.

The FLC approach immediately provides an energetic community ofcollaborative voices, safe because colleagues are from different depart-ments and removed from judgmental positions. Most FLC participants


who enter the opening FLC retreat in silence leave it in step 3 of the SoTL10-step developmental sequence in FLCs (see Cox, 2003, 2004c).

Received Knowing

In Belenky et al.’s second perspective, received knowing, knowledgecomes only from external sources, specifically, from experts. In Perry’smodel, this is the initial cluster of positions, called dualism: Truth is di-chotomous; there is only right and wrong. Baxter Magolda calls her firststage absolute knowing, in which instructors are seen as authorities withall of the answers.

As their FLC gets underway, junior faculty move quickly from silenceto the position of received knowing. To lead their FLC seminars, theyinvite campus or outside experts and authority figures. They do not buildtime into the discussion for their perspectives, other than questions forthe presenter to answer. There is one right way to teach, and this can befound on the department or divisional student evaluation of teachingforms that authorities have prepared.

Faculty experienced in teaching (phase 1 of the Weston-McAlpinemodel) who join topic-based FLCs often enter the SoTL developmentcycle in the position of received knowing, eager to learn about the peda-gogical topic from the experts. They may enter an FLC to throw off thedepartmental cloak of isolation and silence that they realize has beenstifling them.

Baxter Magolda describes two patterns emerging at this stage: receiv-ing knowledge and mastering knowledge. Receiving knowledge is a privateapproach, used more by women, involving a preference for a comfort-able learning environment that includes collaborative relationships withpeers, enabling the sharing of views. Mastering knowledge, used moreby men, involves a public approach, engaging in verbal criticism andcompetition. FLCs tend to proceed in the pattern of receiving knowl-edge. Because membership selection for an FLC seeks to create a genderbalance and involves only 8-12 participants, the dynamics of the com-munity are respectful, fostering a balance between both patterns oflearning.

In some instances an FLC member’s students may become the au-thorities, however. Reacting to the small-group instructional diagnosis(SGID) (Black, 1998) report, which is prepared by an instructional devel-oper as the authority, one junior faculty FLC participant’s midyear reportreveals the mastering knowledge pattern:

The SGID . . . was very helpful to guide me in how actions I


perceive as little things are interpreted by the students. I madechanges to meet the needs shared by students. My evaluationsshowed improvement in the areas I targeted. . . .

Subjective Knowing

Belenky et al. describe their third perspective, subjective knowing, asone in which the knower considers his or her own knowledge superiorto external knowledge. This is parallel to Perry’s positions of multiplici-ty, where all views are honored when the “right answers” are unknown.

At some point in the first semester, perhaps as they plan for secondsemester, junior faculty FLC participants enter this stage. After engagingin the literature of the SoTL, they begin to understand that there are manydifferent ways to teach and that these all can have positive learning out-comes. Realizing the existence of different teaching and learning stylesopens a broad spectrum of possibilities. Participants are now able to dis-cuss the student evaluation of teaching form constructively, includingthe possible addition or modification of items.

Experienced faculty in a topic-based FLC who have become subjec-tive knowers begin to engage the new FLC topic (such as PBL or a newtechnology), or they make plans for developing courses in a new area(such as U.S. Cultures). They welcome and honor their FLC colleagues’opinions enthusiastically. At this point, the participants want to run theirseminars without experts, sharing their experiences and student involve-ment. As one FLC member put it in a midyear progress report,

I’d . . . like to say that the opportunity to exchange ideas withthe other scholars has been a highlight—usually, for any givenquestion someone in the program will come up with an idea Ihad not considered before.

Another example of subjective knowing is that during the first semes-ter of a Miami Department Chairs FLC, the members did not want toengage the literature, but rather wanted to discuss each other’s experi-ences.

Instead of subjective knowing, Baxter Magolda named her second stagetransitional knowing, which involves the knower’s acceptance that not allknowledge is certain and that authorities may not have all of the an-swers. Students expect the instructor to facilitate the understanding andapplication of knowledge—usefulness is preferred over acquisition. With-in this stage she identifies two patterns. The first, interpersonal knowing,preferred more by women, is characterized by sharing ideas with others


and by evaluation that respects individual differences. The quotationabove expressing the value of exchanging ideas illustrates this pattern.The second pattern, impersonal knowing, used more by men, shows a pref-erence for debate, fair and practical evaluation, and an approach usinglogic and research. Again, both of these patterns can be accommodatedrespectfully in an FLC.

Procedural Knowing

Belenky et al.’s fourth perspective is procedural knowing, which involveslearning and applying objective procedures for receiving and conveyingknowledge. Perry’s parallel stage here is relativism, whereby knowledgeis contextually defined based on evidence and supporting arguments.Baxter Magolda calls her third stage independent knowing, whereby know-ers prefer instructors who promote independent thinking and exchangeof opinions.

When FLC participants articulate learning objectives for their students,connect these objectives to their FLC SoTL project, and assess resultingstudent learning, they are in this stage. At this point open discussionand support of the community is an important factor. Procedural know-ing takes place in separate mode or connected mode, depending on thepreference of the participant and his or her discipline.

Baxter Magolda identifies two patterns in this stage. Interindividualknowing, used more by women, combines a dual focus of one’s own ideasand the ideas of others. Belenky et al. refer to this as connected knowing.In her final report, a junior faculty member at this stage illustrates herknowing in this pattern:

Through the development of my focus course, which is aboutlanguage teaching, I have had the opportunity to reflect on myown work. . . . [T]he most important aspect for me has beenthe time and the room given to reflect on how I teach, my strat-egies, my mistakes and successes, and how others struggle withthe same issues as I do. It has given me self-confidence in thisrespect, since I can see that other teachers in other disciplinescare about the same issues I do, and at the same time, it hasgiven me a clearer awareness of practical changes I need toimplement in order to modify certain areas I need to work on.

The other pattern of knowing in this stage is separate knowing (Belenkyet al.), or individual knowing (Baxter Magolda). This pattern is used moreby men, values the attention given to one’s own thinking, and is ground-ed in critical thinking, doubting, and keeping the self separate from the


process.As an illustration of the state of SoTL development in this stage, in the

final months of their FLC year the Miami 2000-01 Senior FLC for Teach-ing Excellence undertook a joint project in which they researched andpresented the question “What Do Students Really Want in a Professor?”(Blaisdell et al., 2001). The community worked as a team of nine to de-sign a survey that they and colleagues distributed to their classes to reachover 500 Miami students. The FLC approach afforded broad student dis-tribution and representation over many disciplines on all three Miamicampuses. The results were analyzed according to both the specificity ofmembers’ disciplines and the holistic outlook of the community. The maleFLC members from economics, zoology, and engineering used the sta-tistical packages preferred in their disciplines; the male from philosophymade meaning grounded in critical thinking and doubting; and the fe-male members from art, music, English, nutrition, and interdisciplinarystudies connected the perspectives of the survey outcomes with those oftheir disciplines. The entire community respectfully acknowledged, re-spected, and honored the connections and the work of both individualsand the team.

Constructed Knowing

In this final position, personal experience and beliefs are woven to-gether with knowledge acquired subjectively to obtain a unified whole,“letting the inside out and the outside in” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 135).Baxter Magolda (1992) calls this knowing contextual, and Perry (1970)names this position commitment, a choice in relativism and affirmation ofpersonal values, identity, and responsibility. A faculty participant in thefinal report of a Miami topic-based (PBL) FLC illustrated commitment inthe following passage:

Teaching is the heart of what I do as a professional, and it hasbeen refreshing to be immersed in new literature, new meth-ods, and to try an alternative approach to learning. Likewise,PBLs are aligned with everything in the National Science Edu-cation Standards my students are to be exposed to for theirown future teaching, so this has been an absolute [sic] splen-did experience and one I am especially grateful for. I willcontinue my involvement with the PBL community long afterthis year, both within Miami and also nationally with [the Uni-versity of] Delaware and the PBL community at large.

At the end of an FLC member’s year, contextual knowing and com-


mitment to the SoTL is evident in the writing and sharing of his or herphilosophy of teaching, which includes a strong commitment to scholar-ly teaching and to making one’s innovations and evidence public.

Evidence of SoTL—FLC Effectiveness

In this section I present several examples providing evidence that FLCparticipation contributes toward developing the SoTL.

First, there is a strong connection between FLC participation and SoTLproduction, as shown in Table 1. Out of the current 746 Miami full-timeand tenure-track faculty (the categories of faculty eligible for FLC partic-ipation), 295 (40%) have participated in FLCs. Of the 295 who haveparticipated in FLCs, over half (55%) have produced “national” SoTL,defined here as a refereed presentation at a national conference or a na-tional publication. This information is based on a list of refereedpublications involving the SoTL submitted during a survey of all MiamiFLC participants plus records of their presentations at Lilly Conferenceson College Teaching over the years. Disciplinary and other teaching con-ferences were not included, but contributions to the SoTL at these venuesare known to be small. The corresponding percentages of SoTL produc-tion among Miami faculty who were never in FLCs were not obtainedbecause this number is known to be small, and because a survey of allfaculty 12 years earlier revealed that only FLC participants had anyknowledge of the SoTL.

Second, and not surprisingly, Table 1 indicates that the percentage ofFLC members who produce the SoTL increases with their participationin additional FLCs.

A third way to measure the effectiveness of SoTL production in FLCsis to look at Miami faculty who present sessions at the Lilly Conferenceon College Teaching at Miami. All Miami faculty are invited to submitSoTL proposals, which are then refereed; the university pays for the reg-istration of all Miami faculty; and the location of the conference right oncampus provides easy access. Table 2 reveals that each year over threefourths of the Miami presenters at Lilly are FLC members. Over the five-year period included in the table, of the 20 faculty who were not in FLCs,two are counted twice because each presented in two different years. Ofthe 18 distinct individuals who were not FLC members at the time oftheir presentations, 4 joined an FLC in a following year; 2 were not ten-ure track, hence, not eligible for FLC membership; 5 were associate deans,chairs, or directors on presentation panels; 2 were faculty soon retiring;and 5 were faculty who never joined FLCs.


Examples of the SoTL produced as a result of FLC participation areprovided in Appendix D, which presents the results of a survey showinga list of refereed publications involving the SoTL that responding FLCmembers indicated were connected in varying degrees to their FLC ex-perience.

Other assessment results involving the SoTL—FLC connection are inCox (2003). Participants rate the SoTL component of Miami’s FLCs high-ly. In an analysis of participants’ reports of FLC membership’s impactson their development, they ranked “your view of teaching as an intellec-tual pursuit,” “your understanding of and interest in the scholarship ofteaching,” and “your perspective of teaching, learning, and other aspectsof higher education beyond the perspective of your discipline” as sec-ond, third, and fifth in impact, respectively (Cox, 2003). In a survey ofMiami FLC participants to determine the degree of change in studentlearning due to a change in their (faculty) attitude as a result of FLCparticipation, scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching rankedsecond, with 92% of respondents reporting that students learned morebecause of the SoTL (Cox, 2003).

Table 1Repeat FLC Participation and SoTL at Miami University

Current MiamiFacultyMembership in

Number ofFacultyParticipants inFLCs

Number WhoProduced SoTL

Percentage WhoProducedSoTL

Exactly 6 FLCs 1 1 100%





Exactly 1 FLC 195 90 46%

Totals 295 161 55%


Tab

le 2

M

iam

i F

acu

lty

Pre

sen

tati

on

s a

t th

e L

illy

Co

nfe

ren

ce o

n C

oll

eg

e T

ea

chin

g

Lil

ly

Con

fer e

nce

Y

ear

Tot

al

Nu

mbe

r of

Lil

ly

Con

fer e

nce

P

rese

nte

rs

Tot

al

Nu

mbe

r of

M

iam

i U

niv

ersi

ty

Fac

ult

y

Pre

sen

ters

Nu

mbe

r of

M

iam

i U

niv

ersi

ty

Fac

ult

y

Pre

sen

ters

In

FL

Cs

Per

cen

tag

e of

M

iam

i F

acu

lty

P

rese

nte

rs W

ho

Are

FL

C

Mem

bers

Nu

mbe

r of

M

iam

i F

LC

s R

un

nin

g

Th

is Y

ear

1999

18

3 25

* 19

76

%

4

2000

19

2 29

**

25

86%

6

2001

21

9 33

**

27

82%

6

2002

23

0 24

20

83

%

11

2003

23

7 34

34

10

0%

9 *

Incl

ud

es o

ne

wh

o jo

ined

an

FL

C i

n a

fo

llo

win

g y

ear

** I

ncl

ud

es t

wo

wh

o jo

ined

FL

Cs

in a

fo

llo

win

g y

ear

Not

e. T

he

Lil

ly C

on

fere

nce

on

Co

lleg

e T

each

ing

is

hel

d a

nn

ual

ly a

t M

iam

i U

niv

ersi

ty. F

acu

lty

p

rese

nte

rs l

iste

d h

ere

do

no

t in

clu

de

gra

du

ate

stu

de n

ts o

r n

on

- fac

ult

y s

taff

.


Fantasia—Rumination

The SoTL shares to some extent the description and properties of itsbotanical counterpart, sotol, a cactus-like plant of the southwestern U.S.that bears whitish flowers. Indeed, the flowering of the SoTL is attrac-tive, inspiring some to attain better learning and teaching throughscholarly means. But it also can be a prickly undertaking when the har-vesting is unappreciated by those colleagues focused only on disciplinarydiscovery. Nevertheless, advocates in the southwest and, now, interna-tionally continue to propagate the SoTL. Perhaps a product of the sotolplant, an alcoholic drink, is a more encouraging metaphor. In the longrun, acceptance of the SoTL may come as a result of the fervor of a com-munity of teachers, learners, and scholars who are enlightened andempowered by the harvest.

References

Angelo, T. A. (Ed.). (1998). Classroom assessment and research: An update onuses, approaches and research findings. New Directions for Teaching andLearning, No. 75. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Angelo, T. A. (2000, November). Twenty years of teaching and learning: Trac-ing trends, teasing out lessons, and looking ahead. Paper presented as PartII of the closing plenary at the 20th annual Lilly Conference on Col-lege Teaching, Oxford, OH.

Angelo, T. A. (2002, January). Improving the odds: Building success into schol-arship of teaching and learning campaigns. Phoenix, AZ: AAHEConference on Faculty Roles & Rewards.

Austin, A. E. (1990). To leave an indelible mark: Encouraging good teaching inresearch universities through faculty development: A study of the Lilly En-dowment’s teaching fellows program, 1974-1988. Nashville, TN: VanderbiltUniversity, Peabody College.

Austin, A. E. (1992). Supporting junior faculty through a teaching fel-lows program. In M. D. Sorcinelli & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Developingnew and junior faculty (pp. 73-86). New Directions for Teaching andLearning, No. 50. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-relat-ed patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Beaudry, M. L., & Bruce, A. S. (2003). A campus wide mission: The scholar-ship of teaching. Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts Lowell.

Belenky, M. B., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986).


Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. NewYork: Basic Books.

Black, B. (1998). Using the SGID method for a variety of purposes. ToImprove the Academy, 17, 245-262.

Blaisdell, M., Cady, A., Faimon, P., Iness, S., Kelly, J., Mitchell, B., Naray-anan, M., Seiver, D., & Spillman, D. (2001, November). What do studentsreally want in a professor? Paper presented at the 21st annual Lilly Con-ference on College Teaching, Oxford, OH.

Blaisdell, M., & Cox, M. D. (2004). Senior faculty learning communities:Learning throughout faculty careers. In M. D. Cox & L. Richlin (Eds.),Building faculty learning communities (pp. 137-148). New Directions forTeaching and Learning, No. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach-ing.

Cambridge, B. L. (2001). Fostering the scholarship of teaching and learn-ing: Communities of practice. To Improve the Academy, 19, 3-16.

Cox, M. D. (Ed.). (1981). Lilly post-doctoral teaching awards program end-of-the-year report, January 1-May 8, 1981. Oxford, OH: Miami University.

Cox, M. D. (1995). The development of new and junior faculty. In W. A.Wright and Associates (Eds.), Teaching improvement practices: Success-ful strategies for higher education (pp. 283-310). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Cox, M. D. (1997). Long-term patterns in a mentoring program for juniorfaculty: Recommendations for practice. To Improve the Academy, 16, 225-268.

Cox, M. D. (2001). Faculty learning communities: Change agents for trans-forming institutions into learning organizations. To Improve the Academy,19, 69-93.

Cox, M. D. (2002). The role of community in learning: Making connec-tions for your classroom and campus, your students and colleagues.In G. S. Wheeler (Ed.), Teaching & learning in college: A resource for edu-cators (pp. 1-38). Elyria, OH: Info-Tec.

Cox, M. D. (2003). Proven faculty development tools that foster the schol-arship of teaching in faculty learning communities. To Improve theAcademy, 21, 109-142.

Cox. M. D. (2004a, March). Faculty development & accreditation: The impactof faculty learning communities. Paper presented at the 129th annualmeeting of the Higher Learning Commission, Chicago, IL.

Cox, M. D. (2004b). Faculty learning community program director’s hand-book and facilitator’s handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford, OH: Miami University.

Cox, M. D. (2004c). Introduction to faculty learning communities. In M.


D. Cox & L. Richlin (Eds.), Building faculty learning communities (pp. 5-23). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 97. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Cross, K. P. (1998). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship ofteaching. In T. Angelo (Ed.), Classroom assessment and research: An up-date on uses, approaches and research findings (pp. 5-12). New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning, No. 75. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, K. P., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementingthe scholarship of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power ofhuman intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: FreePress.

Erekson, O. E. (1992). Joint determination of college student achievementand effort: Implications for college teaching. Research in Higher Educa-tion, 33 (4), 433-446.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student develop-ment in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, L. D. (1984). Year-long faculty discussion groups: A solution to sev-eral instructional development problems. To Improve the Academy, 3,111-117.

Fulton, C., & Licklider, B. L. (1998). Supporting faculty development inan era of change. To Improve the Academy, 19, 51-66.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’sdevelopment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed:Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher edu-cation: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research &Development, 19 (2), 169-189.

Heuberger, B., Briscoe, M., Fitch, F., Greeson, L., Hieber, M., Hulgin, K.,& Paternite, C. (2003, November). It takes a faculty learning community:Creating and implementing innovative diversity courses through interdisci-plinary dialogue. Paper presented at the 23rd annual Lilly Conferenceon College Teaching, Oxford, OH.

Huber, M. T. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching:Reflections on the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teachingand Learning. In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale (Eds.), Disciplinary stylesin the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground (pp.25-43). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Educationand The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Huber, M. T. (2004). Balancing acts: The scholarship of teaching and learning


in academic careers. Washington, DC: American Association for HigherEducation and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement ofTeaching.

Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (Eds.). (2002). Disciplinary styles in thescholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washing-ton, DC: American Association for Higher Education and The CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (1998). The course portfolio: How faculty can examinetheir teaching to advance practice and improve student learning. Washing-ton, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship ofteaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation forthe Advancement of Teaching.

Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (2002). Ethics of inquiry: Ethical issues in the scholarshipof teaching and learning. Washington, DC: American Association forHigher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancementof Teaching.

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999, September/October). The scholar-ship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 11-15.

Kalivoda, P., Broder, J., & Jackson, W. K. (2003). Establishing a teachingacademy: Cultivation of teaching at a research university campus. ToImprove the Academy, 21, 79-92.

Kennedy, M. (1987). Inexact sciences: Professional education and thedevelopment of expertise. Review of Research in Education, 14, 133-167.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kreber, C. (Ed.). (2001a). Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholar-

ship of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 86.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kreber, C. (2001b). Designing teaching portfolios based on a formal modelof the scholarship of teaching. To Improve the Academy, 19, 285-305.

Kreber, C. (2001c). The scholarship of teaching and its implementationin faculty development and graduate education. In C. Kreber (Ed.),Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching (pp. 79-88). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 86. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. (2000, July/August). Exploring the scholar-ship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71 (4), 476-495.

Massey, W. F., Wilger, A. K., & Colbeck, C. (1994, July/August). Over-coming “hollowed” collegiality: Departmental cultures and teachingquality. Change, 26 (4), 11-20.


McGill, I., & Beaty, L. (2001). Action learning (2nd ed. revised). Sterling,VA: Stylus.

Millis, B. J. & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher educationfaculty. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Menges, R. J., Weimer, M., & Associates. (Eds.). (1996). Teaching on solidground: Using scholarship to improve practice (pp. xi-xxii). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the col-lege years. New York: Holt Reinhart.

Quinlan, K. M. (1996). Involving peers in the evaluation and improve-ment of teaching: A menu of strategies. Innovative Higher Education, 20(4), 299-307.

Reed, R. A., Armstrong, E., Biran, M., Cowan, D., Fellows, D., Hill, K.,Miller, E., & Pan, Y. (2003, November). Integrating the arts into the cur-riculum: The approach of a faculty learning community. Paper presentedat the 23rd annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching, Oxford, OH.

Rice, E. (1990, Winter-Spring). Rethinking what it means to be a scholar.In L. Ekroth (Ed.), Teaching excellence: Toward the best in the academy.Stillwater, OK: POD Network.

Richlin, L. (1993, November). The ongoing cycle of scholarly teaching andthe scholarship of teaching. Paper presented at the 13th annual LillyConference on College and University Teaching, Oxford, OH.

Richlin, L. (2000, November). Twenty years of teaching and learning: Trac-ing trends, teasing out lessons, and looking ahead. Paper presented as PartI of the closing plenary at the 20th annual Lilly Conference on CollegeTeaching, Oxford, OH.

Richlin, L. (2001a). Scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching. InC. Kreber (Ed.), Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship ofteaching (pp. 57-68), New Directions for Teaching and Learning Series,No. 86. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Richlin, L. (2001b, November). Making public the scholarship of teaching.Part 1: Designing publishable projects. Part 2: Presenting and publishingthe scholarship of teaching. Paper presented at the 21st annual Lilly Con-ference on College Teaching, Oxford, OH.

Richlin, L., & Cox, M. D. (1991). The scholarship of pedagogy: A messagefrom the editors. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 2, 1-8.

Richlin, L. & Cox, M. D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and thescholarship of teaching and learning through faculty learning com-munities. In M. D. Cox & L. Richlin (Eds.), Building faculty learningcommunities (pp. 127-135). New Directions for Teaching and Learning:No. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Richlin, L., & Essington, A. (2004). Faculty learning communities for pre-paring future faculty. In M. D. Cox & L. Richlin (Eds.), Building facultylearning communities (pp. 149-157). New Directions for Teaching andLearning, No. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ronkowski, S. A. (1993). Scholarly teaching: Developmental stages ofpedagogical scholarship. In L. Richlin (Ed.), Preparing faculty for newconceptions of scholarship (pp. 79-90). New Directions for Teaching andLearning, No. 54. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, G. M., & Cox, M. D. (2003). Chairperson learning community:A visionary approach to professional development. In Academic chair-persons: Visions of departmental leadership (pp. 229-236). Manhattan, KS:National Issues in Higher Education.

Shulman, L. S. (1993, November/December). Teaching as communityproperty: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, 26 (6), 6-7.

Smith, R. (2001). Expertise and the scholarship of teaching. In C. Kreber(Ed.), Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching (pp.69-78). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 86. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Theall, M., & Centra, J. A. (2001). Assessing the scholarship of teaching:Valid decisions from valid evidence. In C. Kreber (Ed.), Scholarshiprevisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching (pp. 31-43). New Di-rections for Teaching and Learning, No. 86. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thompson, S., & Nelson, C. (2000, November). Scholarship of teaching andlearning (SOTL): Programs, progress, problems, and prospects. Paper pre-sented at the 20th annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching, Oxford,OH.

Weimer, M. (1993, November-December). The disciplinary journals ofpedagogy. Change, 25 (6), 45-51.

Weimer, M. (2001). Learning more from the wisdom of practice. In C.Kreber (Ed.), Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teach-ing (pp. 45-56). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 86.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). A guide to managingknowledge: Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Weston, C. B., & McAlpine, L. (2001). Making explicit the developmenttoward the scholarship of teaching. In C. Kreber (Ed.), Scholarship re-visited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching (pp. 89-97). NewDirections for Teaching and Learning, No. 86. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Milton D. Cox is director of the Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teachingat Miami University, where he founded and directs the Lilly Conference on CollegeTeaching, is founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal on Excellence in College Teach-ing, and facilitates the Hesburgh Award-winning Teaching Scholars Faculty LearningCommunity. Milt also is project director of a FIPSE grant establishing faculty learningcommunity programs on other campuses and is co-editor of the new Jossey-Bass book,Building Faculty Learning Communities. He incorporates the use of student learn-ing portfolios and Howard Gardner's concept of multiple intelligences into hismathematics classes. He is recipient of the C.C. MacDuffee Award for distinguishedservice to Pi Mu Epsilon, the national mathematics honorary, and a certificate of specialachievement from the Professional and Organizational Development Network in High-er Education in recognition and appreciation of notable contributions to the professionof faculty, instructional, and organizational development.


Ap

pen

dix

A

So

TL

To

pic

s: T

he

me

Tra

cks

for

Lil

ly N

ati

on

al

Co

nfe

ren

ce o

n C

oll

eg

e T

ea

chin

g, 1

99

9-2

00

3

19

99

2

00

0

20

01

2

00

2

20

03

Ass

essm

ent/

T

esti

ng

/

Gra

din

g

Cas

e S

tud

ies

Co

gn

itiv

e &

In

tell

ectu

al

Gro

wth

Dif

fere

nce

/

Div

ersi

ty/

M

ult

icu

l tu

ral

Issu

es

Ev

alu

atio

n o

f T

each

ing

Lea

rnin

g i

n G

rou

ps

Pro

ble

m- B

ased

L

earn

ing

Sci

ence

& M

ath

T

each

ing

Tec

hn

olo

gy

Ass

essm

ent

Div

ersi

ty

Fac

ult

y

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Gro

up

Lea

rnin

g

Mu

sic

Pro

ble

m-B

ased

L

earn

ing

Th

e S

cho

lars

hip

of

Tea

chin

g

Sci

ence

& M

ath

T

each

ing

Ser

vic

e L

earn

ing

&

Civ

ic

Res

po

nsi

bil

ity

Tec

hn

olo

gy

Ass

essm

ent

Co

gn

itiv

e D

evel

op

men

t

Co

mm

un

ity

in

T

each

ing

&

Lea

rnin

g

Cre

ativ

ity

Cri

tica

l T

hin

kin

g

Div

ersi

ty/

M

ult

icu

ltu

rali

sm

Ear

ly- C

are

er

Fac

ult

y

Eth

ical

/M

ora

l Is

sues

Gro

up

Lea

rnin

g

Lea

rnin

g S

tyle

s

Mo

tiv

ati

on

Po

rtfo

lio

s

Act

ive

Lea

rni n

g

Ass

essm

ent

Beh

avio

r

Cas

e M

eth

od

/

Stu

die

s

(Ho

w t

o/

Use

of)

Cla

ssr o

om

A

sses

smen

t T

ech

niq

ues

(C

AT

s)

Co

gn

itio

n/

C

og

nit

ive

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Co

mm

un

ity

Co

op

era

tiv

e L

earn

ing

Cri

tica

l T

hin

kin

g

Dis

cus s

ion

Act

ive

Lea

rnin

g

Ass

essm

ent

(Co

urs

e o

r P

rog

ram

)

Ass

essm

ent

(Stu

den

t L

earn

ing

)

Bla

ckb

oar

d

Cla

ssr o

om

A

sses

smen

t T

ech

niq

ues

(C

AT

s)

Co

mm

un

ity

(C

lass

roo

m &

O

nli

ne)

Co

nce

pt

Map

pin

g

Co

op

era

tiv

e L

earn

ing

Cre

ativ

ity


Ap

pen

dix

A

SoT

L T

opic

s: T

hem

e T

rack

s fo

r L

illy

Nat

ion

al C

onfe

ren

ce o

n C

olle

ge T

each

ing,

199

9 -20

03 ( continued

)

19

99

2

00

0

20

01

2

00

2

20

03

Pro

ble

m- B

ased

L

earn

ing

Rea

din

g

Res

earc

h &

T

each

ing

Th

e S

cho

lars

hip

o

f T

each

ing

&

Lea

rnin

g

Sci

ence

/S

c ien

ce

Tea

chin

g

Ser

vic

e L

earn

ing

Stu

den

t -C

ente

red

L

earn

ing

Tea

ms/

Tea

mw

ork

Tec

hn

olo

gy

(E

lect

ron

ic)

Web

- Bas

ed

Op

po

rtu

nit

ies

Wri

tin

g

Div

ersi

ty/

M

ult

icu

ltu

rali

sm

Eth

ics

Ev

alu

atio

n o

f T

each

ing

Fac

ult

y D

evel

op

men

t

Gra

din

g

Inte

rdis

cip

lin

ary

/

Mu

ltid

isc i

pli

nar

y

Inte

rnat

ion

al I

ssu

es

Lea

rnin

g

Co

mm

un

itie

s

Mo

tiv

ati

on

Po

rtfo

lio

s

Pro

ble

m- B

ased

L

earn

ing

Cri

tica

l T

hin

kin

g

Dis

cuss

ion

Dis

tan

ce L

earn

ing

/

On

lin

e L

earn

ing

Div

ersi

ty/

M

ult

icu

ltu

rali

sm

Ele

ctro

nic

T

ech

no

log

y

(Gen

eral

)

Fac

ult

y

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Fac

ult

y L

earn

ing

C

om

mu

nit

ies

Fac

ult

y L

earn

ing

C

om

mu

nit

y

Ou

tco

mes

Gra

din

g

Gra

du

ate

Ed

uca

tio

n/

P

rep

arin

g

Fu

ture

Fac

ult

y


R

esea

rch

: Iss

ues

&

To

pic

s

Th

e S

cho

lars

hip

of

Tea

chin

g &

L

earn

ing

Sci

ence

&

Mat

hem

atic

s T

each

ing

Ser

vic

e L

earn

ing

Stu

den

t D

evel

op

men

t

Tea

ms/

Tea

mw

ork

Tec

hn

olo

gy

(E

lect

ron

ic)

Wri

tin

g

Gro

up

Lea

rnin

g

Dif

fere

nt

Fro

m

Co

op

era

tiv

e L

earn

ing

Hig

her

Ord

er

Lea

rnin

g/

T

hin

kin

g

Inq

uir

y-B

ased

L

earn

ing

Inte

rdis

cip

lin

ary

/

Mu

ltid

isc i

pli

nar

y

Mo

tiv

ati

on

Po

rtfo

lio

s

Th

e S

cho

lars

hip

of

Tea

chin

g &

L

earn

ing

Sci

ence

&

Mat

hem

atic

s T

each

ing

Ser

vic

e L

earn

ing

Tea

cher

Ed

uca

tio

n

Web

Wri

tin

g


Ap

pen

dix

BC

on

tin

uu

m o

f G

row

th T

ow

ard

th

e S

cho

lars

hip

of

Teach

ing

(ad

ap

ted

Fro

m W

est

on

& M

cAlp

ine, 2001, p

. 91)

Pha

se 1

:G

row

th i

n O

ne’

sO

wn

Tea

chin

g

Pha

se 2

: Dia

logu

eW

ith

Col

leag

ues

Abo

ut

Tea

chin

g an

dL

earn

ing

Pha

se 3

:G

row

th i

nS

chol

arsh

ipof

Tea

chin

g

Pha

se 3

A:

Gro

wth

in

Loc

alS

oTL

Pha

se 3

B:

Gro

wth

in

Glo

bal

SoT

L

Dev

elo

p p

erso

nal

kn

ow

led

ge

abo

ut

thei

r o

wn

tea

chin

gan

d t

hei

r st

ud

ents

’le

arn

ing

.

Dev

elo

p a

nd

exch

ang

ek

no

wle

dg

e ab

ou

tte

ach

ing

an

dle

arn

ing

in

th

eir

dis

cip

lin

e.

Dev

elo

p s

cho

larl

yk

no

wle

dg

e ab

ou

tte

ach

ing

an

dle

arn

ing

th

at h

assi

gn

ific

ance

an

dim

pac

t fo

r th

ein

stit

uti

on

an

d t

he

fiel

d.

Aft

er p

arti

cip

atin

gin

th

e fi

rst

FL

C:

Dev

elo

p s

cho

larl

yk

no

wle

dg

e ab

ou

tte

ach

ing

an

dle

arn

ing

th

at h

assi

gn

ific

ance

an

dim

pac

t fo

r th

ed

epar

tmen

t an

din

stit

uti

on

.

Aft

er p

arti

cip

atin

gin

th

e se

con

d F

LC

:D

evel

op

sch

ola

rly

kn

ow

led

ge

abo

ut

teac

hin

g a

nd

lear

nin

g t

hat

has

sig

nif

ican

ce a

nd

imp

act

for

the

inst

itu

tio

n, t

he

fiel

d, a

nd

at

an

atio

nal

lev

el.


• R

efle

ct o

nte

ach

ing

.•

En

gag

e in

inst

itu

tio

nal

teac

hin

gd

evel

op

men

tac

tiv

itie

s.•

En

gag

e in

inn

ov

atio

n i

nte

ach

ing

.•

Inte

nti

on

ally

eval

uat

e o

wn

teac

hin

g t

om

ake

imp

rov

emen

ts.

• R

ead

ab

ou

tte

ach

ing

an

dle

arn

ing

.

• E

ng

age

coll

eag

ues

in

the

dis

cip

lin

e in

con

ver

sati

on

sth

at m

ake

exp

lici

t th

eir

ped

ago

gic

alco

nte

nt

kn

ow

led

ge.

• M

ento

r o

ther

teac

her

s in

th

ed

isci

pli

ne.

• P

rov

ide

lead

ersh

ip i

nte

ach

ing

at

dis

cip

lin

ary

lev

el (

for

exam

ple

,o

rgan

ize

even

tsfo

r d

epar

tmen

t,fa

cult

y).

• D

raw

on

lite

ratu

re a

nd

rese

arch

on

teac

hin

g t

oin

form

inst

itu

tio

n a

nd

fiel

d.

• P

ub

lish

an

dm

ake

pre

sen

tati

on

sab

ou

t te

ach

ing

(may

or

may

no

t b

e b

ased

on

rese

arch

).•

Ob

tain

fu

nd

ing

for

rese

arch

on

teac

hin

g.

• D

raw

on

lite

ratu

re a

nd

rese

arch

on

teac

hin

g t

oin

form

dep

artm

ent

and

fie

ld.

• M

ake

pre

sen

tati

on

sab

ou

t te

ach

ing

(may

or

may

no

t b

e b

ased

on

rese

arch

).•

Car

ry o

ut

rese

arch

on

teac

hin

g u

sin

gan

ap

pro

ach

to

inq

uir

yco

nsi

sten

t w

ith

un

der

stan

din

gte

ach

ing

an

dle

arn

ing

.

• D

raw

on

lite

ratu

re a

nd

rese

arch

on

teac

hin

g t

oin

form

inst

itu

tio

n a

nd

fiel

d.

• O

bta

in f

un

din

gfo

r re

sear

ch o

nte

ach

ing

.•

Car

ry o

ut

rese

arch

on

teac

hin

g u

sin

gan

ap

pro

ach

to

inq

uir

yco

nsi

sten

t w

ith

un

der

stan

din

gte

ach

ing

an

dle

arn

ing

.


•

Rea

d a

bo

ut

teac

hin

g a

nd

le

arn

ing

. •

Can

un

der

stan

d

and

des

crib

e p

rin

cip

les

un

der

lyin

g

teac

hin

g a

nd

le

arn

ing

d

ecis

ion

s.

•

Can

d

emo

nst

rate

th

e v

alid

ity

of

kn

ow

led

ge

of

teac

hin

g t

hey

h

old

, th

rou

gh

as

sess

men

t b

y

oth

ers,

in

clu

din

g

stu

den

ts, p

eers

, an

d

adm

inis

tra

tors

.

•

Pro

vid

e le

ader

ship

in

tea

chin

g a

t u

niv

ersi

ty l

evel

(f

or

exam

ple

, wo

rk

as m

emb

er o

f te

ach

ing

an

d

lear

nin

g

com

mit

tee,

fac

ult

y

dev

elo

per

).

•

En

gag

e in

d

isci

pli

na

ry a

nd

m

ult

idis

c ip

lin

ary

te

ach

ing

as

soci

atio

ns.

•

Gro

w i

n

un

der

sta

nd

ing

of

the

com

ple

xity

of

tea c

hin

g a

nd

le

arn

ing

.

•

Car

ry o

ut

rese

arch

on

te

ach

ing

usi

ng

an

ap

pro

ach

to

in

qu

iry

co

nsi

sten

t w

ith

u

nd

erst

an

din

g

teac

hin

g a

nd

le

arn

ing

. •

Pu

bli

sh a

nd

m

ake

pre

sen

tati

on

s ab

ou

t re

sear

ch

on

tea

chin

g.

•

Men

tor

oth

ers

in d

oin

g

rese

arch

on

te

ach

ing

. •

Hav

e a

co

mp

reh

ensi

ve

kn

ow

led

ge

of

the

rese

arc

h

and

lit

era

ture

o

n t

each

ing

an

d

lear

nin

g.

•

Men

tor

oth

ers

in d

oin

g l

oca

l S

oT

L.

•

Hav

e an

in

itia

l k

no

wle

dg

e o

f th

e re

sea

rch

an

d l

iter

atu

re

on

tea

chin

g a

nd

le

arn

ing

.

•

Pu

bli

sh a

nd

m

ake

pre

sen

tati

on

s ab

ou

t re

sear

ch

on

tea

chin

g.

•

Men

tor

oth

ers

in d

oin

g

rese

arch

on

te

ach

ing

. •

Hav

e a

co

mp

reh

ensi

ve

kn

ow

led

ge

of

the

rese

arc

h

and

lit

era

ture

o

n t

each

ing

an

d

lear

nin

g.


Ap

pen

dix

C

Sta

ge

s o

f G

row

th i

n S

oT

L E

xp

ert

ise

(f

irst

3 c

olu

mn

s fr

om

Sm

ith

, 20

01

, p

. 7

4)

Sta

ge

Tea

chin

g

Sch

olar

ship

of

Tea

chin

g

SoT

L D

evel

opm

ent

in

FL

Cs

Nov

ice:

Lea

rns

con

text

-fr

ee f

acts

an

d r

ule

s fo

r m

akin

g d

ecis

ion

s b

ased

o

n t

hem

.

Use

s ru

les

and

ch

eck

list

s fo

r d

esig

nin

g a

sy

llab

us,

d

eliv

erin

g a

lec

ture

, le

adin

g d

iscu

ssi o

ns,

g

ivin

g f

eed

bac

k.

Use

s ru

les

and

ch

eck

list

s fo

r se

lect

ing

to

pic

s to

st

ud

y, r

esea

rch

des

ign

s,

dat

a co

llec

tio

n m

eth

od

s,

and

an

aly

sis.

Lea

rns

abo

ut

and

use

s T

GI,

CA

Ts,

ch

eck

l ist

s,

Lik

ert

scal

e an

d

qu

alit

ati

ve

surv

eys

to

det

erm

ine

effe

ctiv

enes

s o

f F

LC

pro

ject

(u

sual

ly a

te

ach

ing

pro

ject

).

Ad

van

ced

Beg

inn

er:

lear

ns

to i

den

tify

sit

ua

tio

nal

el

emen

ts b

ased

on

si

mil

arit

y t

o p

rev

iou

s ex

amp

les.

Rec

og

niz

es p

oo

r cl

ima

te,

un

insp

irin

g l

e ctu

re, o

r co

nfu

sed

stu

den

ts, t

hen

u

ses

rule

s fo

r th

at

situ

ati

on

.

Rec

og

niz

es a

reas

fo

r st

ud

y,

met

ho

ds

to u

se,

then

fo

llo

ws

rule

s o

r ch

eck

list

s to

im

ple

men

t.

Lea

rns

to a

rtic

ula

te

stu

den

t le

arn

ing

o

bje

ctiv

es, r

eco

gn

izes

st

ud

ent

beh

av

iors

or

curr

icu

lar

sho

rtco

min

gs

that

nee

d t

o c

han

ge

to

mee

t n

ewly

art

icu

late

d

ob

ject

ives

, th

en e

mp

loy

s m

eth

od

s, p

rep

ares

co

urs

e p

ort

foli

o.


Ap

pen

dix

C

Sta

ge

s o

f G

row

th i

n S

oT

L E

xp

ert

ise

(co

ntin

ued

) (f

irst

3 c

olu

mn

s fr

om

Sm

ith

, 20

01

, p

. 7

4)

Sta

ge

Tea

chin

g

Sch

olar

ship

of

Tea

chin

g

SoT

L D

evel

opm

ent

in

FL

Cs

Com

pet

ent:

Lea

rns

to

sele

ct w

hat i

s im

por

tant

by

choo

sing

a g

oal a

nd

d

evel

opin

g a

pla

n,

then

fol

low

s th

e ru

les.

Can

ch

oose

par

ticu

lar

goal

to

focu

s on

(for

ex

amp

le, c

limat

e,

pac

ing,

org

aniz

atio

n),

then

fol

low

s ru

les

to

dea

l wit

h it

.

Ch

oose

s ar

eas

to

inve

stig

ate

(ass

essm

ent,

enga

gem

ent)

to f

ocu

s or

man

age

the

com

ple

xity

, the

n

foll

ows

rule

s.

Ch

oose

s ar

eas

to

inve

stig

ate,

sel

ects

or

dev

ises

way

s to

as

sess

cha

nges

in

stu

den

t beh

avio

r or

le

arni

ng o

bjec

tive

s in

p

rop

osed

or

revi

sed

co

urs

es, b

ecom

es

fam

iliar

wit

h th

e lit

erat

ure

ap

pro

pri

ate

to th

e p

robl

em o

r op

por

tuni

ty f

or

rese

arch

, the

n fo

llow

s p

roce

du

res,

p

rep

ares

teac

hing

p

ortf

olio

.


Pro

fici

ent:

In

tuit

ivel

yo

rgan

izes

an

du

nd

erst

and

s ta

sk, t

hen

thin

ks

anal

yti

call

y a

bo

ut

wh

at t

o d

o.

Intu

itiv

ely

rec

og

niz

esw

ho

le s

itu

atio

n a

sp

rob

lem

atic

(fo

rex

amp

le, l

ow

en

erg

yle

vel

, ch

ang

e o

f p

ace

nee

ded

), t

hen

an

aly

zes

alte

rnat

ives

.

Intu

itiv

ely

rec

og

niz

esar

ea f

or

stu

dy

,ap

pro

pri

ate

des

ign

s,th

en a

nal

yze

sal

tern

ativ

es.

Intu

itiv

e re

cog

nit

ion

of

pro

ble

ms

or

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

acro

ssd

isci

pli

nar

y c

ou

rses

an

dcu

rric

ula

; un

less

alr

ead

yan

exp

erie

nce

d e

xper

t in

teac

hin

g i

n t

he

dis

cip

lin

e,th

is o

ccu

rs w

hil

e m

emb

ero

f re

pea

t F

LC

or

wit

hin

div

idu

al r

esea

rch

pro

gra

ms

in S

oT

L.

Exp

ert:

To

tall

y e

ng

aged

in s

kil

lfu

l p

erfo

rman

ce;

do

es n

ot

no

rmal

ly t

hin

kab

ou

t si

tuat

ion

s o

r w

hat

to d

o, j

ust

do

es i

t.

Intu

itiv

ely

rec

og

niz

essi

tuat

ion

s an

d r

esp

on

ds

auto

mat

ical

ly b

ased

on

pre

vio

us

situ

atio

ns,

wit

ho

ut

app

aren

tth

ou

gh

t.

Intu

itiv

ely

rec

og

niz

esim

po

rtan

t ar

ea o

rp

rob

lem

to

in

ves

tig

ate

and

th

e ap

pro

pri

ate

way

to

stu

dy

or

exp

erim

ent.

Rec

og

niz

es a

nd

rese

arch

es m

eta-

lev

eld

isci

pli

nar

y a

nd

tran

sdis

cip

lin

ary

So

TL

mo

del

s, p

rob

lem

s, a

nd

op

po

rtu

nit

ies.

Sou

rce:

Fir

st 3

co

lum

ns

adap

ted

by

Sm

ith

(20

01, p

. 74)

fro

m D

rey

fus

and

Dre

yfu

s (1

986)

.


Ap

pen

dix

DS

ele

cted

Exam

ple

s o

f S

oT

L P

ub

lica

tio

ns

Infl

uen

ced

by

Mia

mi

FL

C P

art

icip

ati

on

Gra

du

ates

of

any

Mia

mi

FL

C w

ere

inv

ited

to

lis

t th

eir

refe

reed

pu

bli

cati

on

s o

f th

e So

TL

. Fo

r e

ach

cita

tio

n t

hey

rep

ort

ed a

nu

mb

er, f

rom

0-4

, in

dic

atin

g t

he

deg

ree

to w

hic

h i

t is

rel

ated

to

th

eir

exp

erie

nce

in

an

FL

C. T

he

nu

mb

er 4

in

dic

ates

a s

tro

ng

co

nn

ecti

on

, fo

r ex

amp

le, a

pu

bli

cati

on

th

at i

sa

dir

ect

resu

lt o

f th

e an

FL

C p

roje

ct, i

nn

ov

atio

n, o

r fo

cus

cou

rse

or

the

resu

lt o

f an

in

spir

atio

n,

awar

enes

s, o

r in

tro

du

ctio

n t

o t

he

SoT

L t

hat

th

e au

tho

r(s)

rec

eiv

ed a

s a

mem

ber

of

an F

LC

. Th

en

um

ber

s 3,

2, a

nd

1 i

nd

icat

e d

ecre

asin

g c

on

nec

tio

ns,

an

d 0

in

dic

ates

no

co

nn

ecti

on

.

Pu

blic

atio

ns

Giv

en a

4

Bu

tler

, S.,

Sto

new

ater

, J.,

& K

inn

ey, J

. (fo

rth

com

ing

). T

he

app

lica

tio

n o

f an

ass

essm

ent

mo

del

to

aco

stu

me

his

tory

co

urs

e: A

cas

e st

ud

y. C

loth

ing

and

Tex

tile

s R

esea

rch

Jou

rnal

.

Car

son

, A.,

& E

llsw

ort

h, J

. (19

99).

Lea

rnin

g l

ink

s: P

edia

tric

stu

den

ts a

nd

th

e A

mer

ican

Red

Cro

ss.

Nu

rse

Edu

cato

r, 2

4(6)

, 27,

37.

Co

ttel

l, P

. G. (

1998

, Fal

l). D

o c

lass

roo

m a

sses

smen

t te

chn

iqu

es (

CA

Ts)

im

pro

ve

stu

den

t le

arn

ing

?(w

ith

E. M

. Har

wo

od

). I

n T

. A. A

ng

elo

(E

d.)

, Cla

ssro

om a

sses

smen

t an

d re

sear

ch: A

n u

pdat

e on

use

s, a

ppro

ache

s, a

nd

rese

arch

fin

din

gs (

pp

. 37-

46).

New

Dir

ecti

on

s in

Tea

chin

g a

nd

Lea

rnin

g, N

o.

75. S

an F

ran

cisc

o: J

oss

ey-B

ass.


Pu

blic

atio

ns

Giv

en a

4 (

con

tin

ued

)

Jeep

, J. M

. (20

00).

Pilo

t-pr

ojek

t: C

ompu

ter

als

lern

hilf

e im

Deu

tsch

unte

rric

ht. I

n G

. Mor

nhin

weg

& A

. M. P

and

olfi

Con

cepc

ión

(Ed

s.),

Act

as d

el I

X c

ongr

esso

lat

inoa

mer

ican

o de

est

udi

osge

rman

ísti

cos.

Ix

Lat

ein

amer

ikan

isch

er G

erm

anis

ten

kon

gres

s A

LE

G (p

p. 2

65-2

70).

Con

cepc

ión,

Chi

le -

Ene

ro 1

998:

Ed

itor

ial U

nive

rsid

ad d

e C

once

pció

n. [P

ilot P

roje

ct: C

ompu

ters

as

Lea

rnin

g A

ids

in G

erm

an C

ours

es, P

roce

edin

gs o

f the

Nin

th C

ongr

ess

of th

e L

atin

Am

eric

anSo

ciet

y of

Ger

man

Stu

die

s].

Schm

ahl,

K. E

. (19

98).

Exp

and

ing

the

obje

ctiv

es o

f the

eng

inee

ring

labo

rato

ry. I

nte

rnat

ion

al J

ourn

alof

En

gin

eeri

ng

Edu

cati

on, 1

4 (6

), 41

9-42

5.

Wal

sh, D

., &

Maf

fei,

M. J

. (19

94).

Nev

er in

a c

lass

by

them

selv

es: A

n ex

amin

atio

n of

beh

avio

rsaf

fect

ing

the

stud

ent-

prof

esso

r re

lati

onsh

ip. J

ourn

al o

n E

xcel

len

ce i

n C

olle

ge T

each

ing,

5 (2

), 23

-49

.

Wol

fe, C

. R.,

& M

yers

, C. A

. (19

96).

The

dra

gonf

ly's

web

: Cou

rsew

are

for

child

ren

crea

ted

by

colle

ge s

tud

ents

on

the

Wor

ld W

ide

Web

. Beh

avio

ral

Res

earc

h M

easu

rem

ent,

In

stru

men

ts, a

nd

Com

pute

rs, 2

8, 1

61-1

64.


Ap

pen

dix

DS

ele

cte

d E

xa

mp

les

of

So

TL

Pu

bli

cati

on

sIn

flu

en

ced

by

Mia

mi

FL

C P

art

icip

ati

on

(continued

)

Pu

blic

atio

ns

Giv

en a

3

Do

llár

, A.,

& S

teif

, P. S

. (20

03, J

un

e). L

earn

ing

mo

du

les

for

the

stat

ics

clas

sro

om

. Pro

ceed

ings

of

the

2003

Am

eric

an S

ocie

ty f

or E

ngi

nee

rin

g E

duca

tion

An

nu

al C

onfe

ren

ce &

Exp

osit

ion

, Nas

hv

ille

, TN

.(M

ech

anic

s D

ivis

ion

Bes

t Se

ssio

n P

rese

nta

tio

n a

war

d).

Kel

ly, J

. (20

02).

Col

labo

rati

ve l

earn

ing:

Hig

her

edu

cati

on, i

nte

rdep

ende

nce

an

d th

e au

thor

ity

ofkn

owle

dge,

by

Ken

net

h B

ruff

ee: A

Cri

tica

l St

ud

y. J

ourn

al o

f th

e N

atio

nal

Col

legi

ate

Hon

ors

Cou

nci

l, 3

(1)

.

Sarq

uis

, J. L

., D

ixo

n, L

. J.,

Go

sser

, D. K

., K

amp

mei

er, J

. A.,

Ro

th, V

., St

roza

k,V

. S.,

& V

arm

a-N

elso

n, P

. (20

01).

Th

e w

ork

sho

p p

roje

ct:

Pee

r-le

d t

eam

lea

rnin

g i

n c

hem

istr

y. I

n J

. E. M

ille

r,J.

E. G

rocc

ia, &

M. S

. Mil

ler

(Ed

s.),

Stu

den

t-as

sist

ed t

each

ing:

A g

uid

e to

fac

ult

y-st

ude

nt

team

wor

k.B

olt

on

, MA

: An

ker

.

Pu

blic

atio

ns

Giv

en a

2

Hav

elk

a, D

. (20

03).

Bel

iefs

an

d a

ttit

ud

es o

f M

IS s

tud

ents

to

war

d i

nfo

rmat

ion

tec

hn

olo

gy

.In

form

atio

n S

yste

ms

Edu

cati

on J

ourn

al, 1

, 40.

Som

mer

s, J

. (in

pre

ss).

Tw

o-y

ear

coll

ege

En

gli

sh f

acu

lty

an

d t

he

sch

ola

rsh

ip o

f te

ach

ing

an

dle

arn

ing

: Th

e jo

urn

ey a

wai

ts. T

each

ing

En

glis

h in

the

Tw

o-Y

ear

Col

lege

.

Documents

Fostering a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning