Search results

The teaching of teaching is sophisticated work although it is often viewed simplistically. To challenge simplistic approaches to teacher education, teacher educators need to actively articulate the specialist knowledge, skills, and abilities that underpin expertise in teaching and to do so through their practice with their students of teaching. In schools, teachers do not commonly experience a workplace culture whereby the explicit discussion and critique of pedagogical purpose and reasoning occurs. Therefore, it is all the more important that teacher educators bring such thinking to the surface in their teaching about teaching. Teaching is not just about the “doing” of teaching; it is also about the “why” – which leads to the development of informed and meaningful practice to enhance student learning. This chapter considers some of the principles that underpin thinking about teaching as more than transmission and therefore shapes what teacher educators need to know and are able to do.

This chapter narratively examines the value of scholarship grants to seven underrepresented science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students who attended the same research comprehensive university. The scholarships that the students in our convenience sample received were awarded by six National Science Foundation grant programs in the United States. A literature review tracing the effects of scholarships, instrumentalism, and the core purpose of education sets the context for this narrative investigation. The four pillars comprising the theoretical framework are value, experience, story, and identity. The seven stories of impact that emerged from the narrative inquiry reveal multiperspectival insights into the value of scholarships to students' lives, careers, and selves. Moreover, we also explore how scholarship recipients established their sense of value in autonomous and committed ways while promoting their personal welfare and seeking the common good of others. All of these important considerations contribute to the national and international literature relating to diversity, higher education, STEM careers, and the power of scholarship grants to transcend instrumentalism privileging workforce demands.

The purpose of this study is to describe the multiplicity of the role of the Accounting academic as a knowledge agent: in terms of the discovery of new knowledge and its recontextualisation into pedagogy, as well as effective teaching and learning in the field of Accounting.

Through a literature review and the collection of qualitative data (using purposive sampling), this study describes the Accounting academic’s role as a knowledge agent, as viewed by Accounting academics and professional accountants, with the aim of providing insight into the tensions that exist in the education of professionals.

The data collected in this study indicate that Accounting academics find themselves torn between their different roles: those of researcher and teacher. Accounting academics do not feel valued in their role as teachers, as at the university, more emphasis is placed and promotion is based on research, yet the Accounting profession places more value on their teaching and scholarship role.

There is an urgent need in professional Accounting education (trapped within a multiple principal paradigm) for some fundamental re-thinking of the focal point of research, and the knowledge agency of academe, particularly within a developing economy, such as South Africa.

The value of this paper is in its identification and description of the tensions experienced in the education of professional accountants. The university and profession are urged to value, acknowledge and reward the multiple roles of Accounting academics.

This chapter examines a recently launched initiative for developing institutional leadership for scholarly approaches to and the Scholarship of Graduate Student Supervision (SoGSS) at the University of British Columbia (UBC). This initiative is led by the Dean, Associate Dean, and former Associate Dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies and is supported by a team of National Teaching Fellows and a graduate student. It involves a customized graduate student supervision (GSS) leaders’ cohort within the International Faculty SoTL Leadership Program at UBC. The initiative arose from institutional concerns about quality assurance and strategic supports for the enhancement of GSS in UBC’s multidisciplinary research-intensive context. The following were noted: (1) widespread discrepancies in the ways that GSS (sometimes referred to as mentoring) is being taken up and exercised across campus; (2) lack of strategic leadership for GSS within units and related professional development initiatives; and (3) inadequate faculty assessment and evaluation protocols (e.g., formative for professional development purposes or summative for tenure, promotion and reappointment purposes) for discipline-specific GSS practices.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight issues concerning the linking of research to teaching.

The paper engages with two assumptions which appear to be taken for granted: there should be an overt and strong link between one's own research and one's teaching; and one's active involvement in the research process should, at the very least, underpin, the quality of one's teaching, and at best, improve it.

There is a link between research and teaching (though the strength of the link is problematic). The link is not only a matter of intellectual or disciplinary import, but is complicated by political and vested interests. The two extremes of research and teaching can be bridged by scholarship or learning, or both together. It is unnecessary and counter‐productive to demand of academics that they should be simultaneously good researchers and good teachers, although this requirement is unlikely to be realised in practice. There is no obligation whatever for academics to overtly link their own personal research to their teaching in order to be considered good teachers.

The paper queries both these assumptions which appear to be influencing how policy concerning research and teaching is dealt with in higher education institutions, and investigates the implications of feeling obliged to teach students using personal research.

A critical attribute of open educational practices (OEP) is the pursuit of open scholarship which comprises the release of educational resources under an open licence scheme that permits no-cost access, use, reuse, adaptation, retention and redistribution to others. The degree of openness in relation to this attribute will depend on the context and culture of the place and the people in it. When left to chance, the adoption and practice of open scholarship by educators is at best sketchy. For optimum impact, a design-based approach is essential. A central focus of such an approach will need to target educators’ belief systems and practices about their scholarship. Any such work will involve researchers collaborating with practitioners in real-life settings to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development and implementation. The purpose of this paper is to report on how the development and use of such a design-based approach, implemented by the Open University of Sri Lanka, impacted the adoption and uptake of open scholarship among teachers in the Sri Lankan school system in terms of changes in their use of instructional resources, pedagogical thinking and pedagogical practices.

The study adopted a design-based research (DBR) approach (Reeves, 2006), which involved researchers collaboratively working with practitioners in real-life settings to improve their educational practices along three aspects – instructional resource use, pedagogical perspectives and pedagogical practices. Based on the four stages of the DBR approach – analysis, solution, testing and refinement, and reflection, a professional development intervention programme was designed and implemented to support teachers on the integration of open educational resources (OER) and adoption of OEP in their teaching-learning process. Data collected throughout the process using multiple strategies such as questionnaire surveys, concept mapping, lesson plans, focus group interviews, self-reflections and “stories”, were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods.

By the end of the intervention, significant changes were observed in teachers’ use of instructional resources, their pedagogical thinking and pedagogical practices. While resource usage has shifted from no or low usage of OER to reuse, revise, remix and creation of OER, the pedagogical thinking and practices of teachers moved from a content-centric and individualized patterns to more constructivist, context centric and collaborative ways. The diffusion of OEP was prominent along two dimensions – enhancements in the individual practices in innovative OER use as well as collaborative practices of sharing of resources, knowledge and good practices.

The systematic and flexible methodology adopted based on the DBR approach via a framework designed as a contextualized, process oriented and a self-reflective enquiry has been very useful to support changes in OEP among practitioners over time.

This iterative process allowed the researchers to function as “designers”, while investigating real-life issues in collaboration with the practitioners through reflective enquiry to further refine innovative practices towards OEP. This provides valuable insights for improved design solutions for future interventions in similar contexts.

This chapter shares work carried out to use the discipline of Informing Science as a lens to carry out an analysis of the discipline of entrepreneurship. Focusing first at the level of the entrepreneurship discipline itself, recently advanced frameworks for practice-as-entrepreneurial-learning and for the scholarship of teaching and learning for entrepreneurship (SoTLE) are built upon using Gill’s work on academic informing systems to develop a framework that encourages viewing the entrepreneurship discipline as a system that informs entrepreneurial practice. While this may sound self-evident, we will explore how it implies something quite different from the teaching–research–scholarship paradigm to which most of us are accustomed.

In this chapter, we report on a meta-analysis of 30 refereed journal articles published between 1996 and 2015 by academic developers from Australasia, Britain and South Africa. We used a disciplinary lens to examine academic development research during this period. Specifically, we analysed the academic development literature to identify ‘ways of knowing’, the extent of explicit use of theories and research methods. Findings indicate that academic development research continues to be largely experiential, under-theorised and fragmentary. Articles analysed tended to fall within three research clusters, including education and educational psychology; professional learning and scholarship of learning and teaching; and sociology and philosophy. Qualitative research methods and psychological and sociological disciplinary lenses were dominantly referenced and adopted.

This chapter outlines the importance of enhancement courses, particularly in mathematics, to the preservice landscape in England. These programs occur after an individual has completed a degree but before admittance to preservice teacher education. The pedagogies used in these programs are characterized as both pedagogies of teacher preparation and of selection for preservice. The learning that takes place in these programs is an under-researched area. The chapter addresses that issue by specifying, analyzing, and justifying the pedagogies of teacher preparation deployed in the context of one mathematics enhancement course (MEC). We draw on international research to argue that there is a specific body of knowledge for teaching their subject area, which all teachers need to generate. In terms of empirical work and personal scholarship, the chapter is based primarily on the scholarship and practice of the first author, Clarke, between 2008 and 2014. We present an exemplar of teaching, following the principles of the pedagogies of preparation in place for the MEC. These pedagogies aim to develop for student teachers a profound or “relational understanding” of fundamental mathematics, aiming for the re-experiencing and re-construction of an aspect of mathematics, which they first learned as young grade school students. We argue that a distinctive form of mathematical knowledge is thus produced in and through the teaching processes. In the final part of the chapter, we outline the conditions in which these pedagogies might be adopted in other contexts, arguing that they represent good practice in teaching subject knowledge in all teacher education programs.

Argues for an eclectic and pragmatic model of academic development. Such a model encourages inquiry into, and conversations about, academic problems and practices. The intention is to produce more or less useful, though tentative, suggestions for action and intervention. These would reflect Rorty’s pragmatic rationale for “nonideological, compromising, reformist muddling through”, or what Dewey called “experimentalism”. Examines each main term: “towards”, “pragmatic”, “scholarship”, and “academic development”. For example, “pragmatic” is characterised as wanting to promote a liberal, democratic, consensual, just, and even a Utopian society. “Scholarship” is examined as a broad conception following Boyer. “Academic development” is viewed as promoting useful (rather than, say, true or correct or best) approaches to teaching and learning, as encouraging experiments and inquiries, as being more anti‐managerial than managerial, as arguing for a conversational and contestational approach, and as claiming only “tentative responses, possible readings and suggested ideas for action and intervention”.