Moving from Effective Teaching to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)

1. Moving from Effective Teaching to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University Civil Engineering - University of Minnesota ksmith@umn.edu - http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/ Michigan State University Lilly Seminar Series Workshop September 2009

2. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate Ernest L. Boyer • The Scholarship of Discovery, research that increases the storehouse of new knowledge within the disciplines; • The Scholarship of Integration, including efforts by faculty to explore the connectedness of knowledge within and across disciplines, and thereby bring new insights to original research; • The Scholarship of Application, which leads faculty to explore how knowledge can be applied to consequential problems in service to the community and society; and • The Scholarship of Teaching, which views teaching not as a routine task, but as perhaps the highest form of scholarly enterprise, involving the constant interplay of teaching and learning. Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

3. It could well be that faculty members of the twenty-first century college or university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as teachers and instead become designers of learning experiences, processes, and environments. James Duderstadt, 1999 [Nuclear Engineering Professor; Dean, Provost and President of the University of Michigan]

4. Workshop Layout • Welcome & Overview • Background • Boyer – Scholarship Reconsidered • Hutchings & Shulman – Levels of Inquiry • Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) • Definition • Participant Survey • Rationale • Resources • Practice • Educational Research in the Disciplines – Example from Engineering • Summary and Next Steps

5. Workshop Objectives • Participants will be able to • Describe key features of SoTL and Educational Research • Explain rationale for SoTL • Identify SoTL opportunities courses and programs

6. Hutchings & Shulman – Levels of Inquiry Source: Streveler, R., Borrego, M. and Smith, K.A. 2007. Moving from the “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” to “Educational Research:” An Example from Engineering. Improve the Academy, Vol. 25, 139-149. • Level 0Teacher • Teach as taught • Level 1 Effective Teacher • Teach using accepted teaching theories and practices • Level 2 Scholarly Teacher • Assesses performance and makes improvements • Level 3 Scholarship of Teaching and Learning • Engages in educational experimentation, shares results • Level 4 Engineering Education Researcher • Conducts educational research, publishes archival papers

7. Scholarly Teaching and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning* • Scholarly teaching: The instructor • is aware of modern pedagogical developments and incorporates them in his/her teaching where appropriate • reflects on, assesses, and attempts to improve his/her teaching (classroom research) • Scholarship of teaching and learning: Research, publication, possibly grants on work related to education *Hutchings & Shulman

8. Participant Survey • Individually: Reflect on SoTL Activities • Published articles on teaching & learning? • Subscribe to teaching journals? • Read/skim teaching journals? • Attended teaching conferences/workshops? • Other activity in scholarship of teaching and learning? • Discuss in Groups of 3-4 • Introduce yourselves • Share SoTL experiences/activities • Prepare 2-3 stories to share if randomly selected

9. Why should we care about SoTL? January 13, 2009—New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?em January 2, 2009—Science, Vol. 323 www.sciencemag.org One Reason —Calls for evidence-based teaching practices

10. Why do SoTL? • Fosters significant, long-lasting learning for all students • Enhances practice and profession of teaching • Brings faculty’s work as teachers into the scholarly realm. • ?

11. The Basic Features of Scholarly and Professional Work • The activity requires a high level of discipline- related expertise. • The activity breaks new ground, is innovative. • The activity can be replicated or elaborated. • The work and its results can be documented. • The work and its results can be peer-reviewed. • The activity has significance or impact. Adapted from: Diamond R. & Adam, B. 1993. Recognizing faculty work: Reward systems for the year 2000. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12. Basic Features of Professional and Scholarly Work • It requires a high level of discipline-related expertise • It is conducted in a scholarly manner with clear goals, adequate preparation, and appropriate methodology • The work and its results are appropriately and effectively documented and disseminated. This reporting should include a reflective critique that addresses the significance of the work, the process that was used, and what was learned. • It has significance beyond the individual context. • It breaks new ground or is innovative. • It can be replicated or elaborated on. • The work both process and product or result is reviewed and judged to be meritorious and significant by a panel of ones peers. Diamond, R., “The Mission-Driven Faculty Reward System,” in R.M. Diamond, Ed., Field Guide to Academic Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002

13. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CASTL/highered/index.htm (Accessed 9/1/09)

14. http://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=72191394 (Accessed 8/30/09)

15. Faculty involved in SOTL “frame and systematically investigate questions related to student learning—the conditions under which it occurs, what it looks like, how to deepen it, etc.… and do so with an eye not only to improving their own classrooms but also to advancing practice beyond it.” What differentiates SOTL from the ongoing self-assessment of our own teaching is that it is “public, peer-reviewed and critiqued, and exchanged with other members of our professional communities.” Pat Hutchings and Lee Shulman of the Carnegie Foundation

16. SoTL Practice • Setting – Purdue University • 2nd Year Engineering Course – Statics • Instructor emphasis (student learning outcomes): • Estimation skills • Systematic problem formulation and solving • Watch video with viewing partner (faculty focus & student focus) • Identify potential questions for SoTL study

17. Types of Questions • Instructional Knowledge—components of instructional design • Pedagogical Knowledge—student learning & how to facilitate it • Curricular Knowledge—goals, purposes & rationales for courses or programs

18. 3 types of reflection within each form of knowledge • Content—What should I do… • Process—How did I do… • Premise—Why does it matter…

19. Examples for process reflection: How did I (we) do at: • Course design, methods & assessing effectively? (instructional) • Facilitating student knowledge? Was I successful? (pedagogical) • Arriving at goals & rationale for courses? (curricular)

20. Think-Pair-Share • Are you interested in developing a SoTL project? Why-why not? • If yes, what question(s) would you explore? • What organizational challenges do you face?

21. Engineering Education Research Colleges and universities should endorse research in engineering education as a valued and rewarded activity for engineering faculty and should develop new standards for faculty qualifications.

22. …objectives for engineering practice, research, and education: To adopt a systemic, research-based approach to innovation and continuous improvement of engineering education, recognizing the importance of diverse approaches–albeit characterized by quality and rigor–to serve the highly diverse technology needs of our society http://milproj.ummu.umich.edu/publications/EngFlex%20report/download/EngFlex%20Report.pdf

23. Hutchings & Shulman – Levels of Inquiry • Level 0Teacher • Teach as taught • Level 1 Effective Teacher • Teach using accepted teaching theories and practices • Level 2 Scholarly Teacher • Assesses performance and makes improvements • Level 3 Scholarship of Teaching and Learning • Engages in educational experimentation, shares results • Level 4 Engineering Education Researcher • Conducts educational research, publishes archival papers Source: Streveler, R., Borrego, M. and Smith, K.A. 2007. Moving from the “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” to “Educational Research:” An Example from Engineering. Improve the Academy, Vol. 25, 139-149.

24. Engineering Education Research – RREE 1 (Streveler & Smith) • Rigorous Research in Engineering Education (RREE1) • One-week summer workshop, year-long research project • Funded by National Science Foundation (NSF), 2004-2006 • About 150 engineering faculty participated • Goals • Identify engineering faculty interested in conducting engineering education research • Develop faculty knowledge and skills for conducting engineering education research (especially in theory and research methodology) • Cultivate the development of a Community of Practice of faculty conducting engineering education research

25. Conducting Rigorous Research in Engineering Education: Creating a Community of Practice (RREE) • Presenters and evaluators representing • - American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) • - American Educational Research Association (AERA) • - Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD) NSF-CCLI-ND American Society for Engineering Education Karl Smith & Ruth Streveler University of Minnesota/Purdue University & Colorado School of Mines/Purdue University • Faculty also funded by: • Strengthening HBCU Engineering Education Research Capacity (NSF HRDF-041194) • - Council of HBCU Engineering Deans • - Center for the Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering Education (CASEE) • - National Academy of Engineering (NAE)

26. RREE Approach Theory Research that makes a difference . . . in theory and practice Research Practice (study grounded in theory/conceptual framework) (appropriate design and methodology) (implications for teaching) http://inside.mines.edu/research/cee/ND.htm

27. Research can be inspired by … Use (Applied) Understanding (Basic) Source:Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

28. RREE2 • Follow-up proposal has been awarded (RREE2) • Funded by NSF, 2008-2011, Expanding and Sustaining Research Capacity in Engineering and Technology Education • Includes a series of 5 short courses 1) Fundamentals of Educational Research 2) Identifying Theoretical Frameworks 3) Designing Your Research Study 4) Collaborating with Learning and Social Scientists 5) Understanding Qualitative Research • Materials available on the WWW as they become available • Collaboratory for Engineering Education Research (cleerHUB)

29. Guiding principles for scientific research in education 1. Pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically 2. Link research to relevant theory 3. Use methods that permit direct investigation of the question 4. Provide coherent, explicit chain of reasoning 5. Replicate and generalize across studies 6. Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique Source:Scientific Research in Education, National Research Council, 2002

30. The research process and reasoning Practical Problem and helps motivates Research Answer Research Question leads to informs Warrant Research Problem Claim Reason Evidence Research Process Acknowledgment and Response Research Reasoning

31. An emerging global community • Groups, centers, departments • Engineering education societies • Forums for dissemination What follows is a sample— it is NOT an exhaustive list!

32. Groups, centers, departments… EERG CEER UCPBLEE ELC ESC Purdue CRLT North CELT CASEE Utah St VT Clemson FIC UDALP UTM NITTT&R CREE UICEE Engineering Teaching and Learning Centers ― Australia: UICEE, UNESCO International Centre for Engineering Education; Denmark: UCPBLEE, UNESCO Chair in Problem Based Learning in Engineering Education; South Africa: CREE, Centre for Research in Engineering Education, U of Cape Town; Sweden: Engineering Education Research Group, Linköping U; UK: ESC, Engineering Subject Centre, Higher Education Academy; USA: CELT, Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching, U of Washington; CRLT North, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, U of Michigan; Faculty Innovation Center, U of Texas-Austin; Engineering Learning Center, U of Wisconsin-Madison; CASEE, Center for the Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering; CEER, Center for Engineering Education Research, Michigan State U. Engineering Education Degree-granting Departments ― USA: School of Engineering Education, Purdue U; Department of Engineering Education, Virginia Tech; Department of Engineering and Science Education, Clemson U; Department of Engineering and Technology Education, Utah State U; Malaysia: Engineering Education PhD program, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; India: National Institute for Technical Teacher Training and Research. Mexico: Universidad de las Americas, Puebla

33. Engineering education societies… Societies with Engineering Education Research Groups ― ASEE, American Society for Engineering Education, Educational Research Methods Division; SEFI, Société Européenne pour la Formation des Ingénieurs (European Society for Engineering Education), Engineering Education Research Working Group; Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Engineering Education Research Working Group; Community of Engineering Education Research Scholars, Latin America and Caribbean Consortium for Engineering Institutions Societies with Engineering Education Research Interests ― Indian Society for Technical Education, Latin American and Caribbean Consortium of Engineering Institutions, Asociación Nacional de Facultades y Escuelas de Ingeniería (National Association of Engineering Colleges and Schools in Mexico), Internationale Gesellschaft für Ingenieurpädagogik (International Society for Engineering Education), International Federation of Engineering Education Societies

34. Forums for dissemination… SEFI 2009 GCEE 2009 FIE 2009 ASEE 2009 GCEE 2010 AAEE 2009 REES 2009 New! (Started 2007) • Conferences with engineering education research presentations: • ASEE — Annual Conference, American Society for Engineering Education, see www.asee.org • AAEE — Annual Conference, Australasian Association for Engineering Education, see www.aaee.com.au • FIE — Frontiers in Education, sponsored by ERM/ASEE, IEEE Education Society and Computer Society, /fie-conference.org/erm • GCEE — Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, sponsored by ASEE and local partners where the meeting is held, see www.asee.org • SEFI — Annual Conference, Société Européenne pour la Formation des Ingénieurs , see www.sefi.be • REES — Research on Engineering Education Symposium, rees2009.pbwiki.com/

35. Resources • Adams, R., L. Fleming, and K. Smith. 2007. Becoming an engineering education researcher: Three researchers stories and their intersections, extensions, and lessons. Proceedings, International Conference on Research in Engineering Education;http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/docs/Adams-Fleming-Smith-Becoming_an_engineering_education_researcher-ICREE2007.pdf • Annals of Research on Engineering Education; http://www.areeonline.org • Borrego, M., R.A. Streveler, R.L. Miller, and K.A. Smith. 2008. A new paradigm for a new field: Communicating representations of engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education 97 (2): 147-162; http://www.asee.org/conferences/international/2008/upload/A-New-Paradigm-for-a-New-Field.pdf • Booth, W.C., G.G. Colomb, and J.M. Williams. 2008. The craft of research. 3rd ed. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press. • Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. • Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education; http://www.nae.edu/nae/caseecomnew.nsf • Diamond, R., “The Mission-Driven Faculty Reward System,” in R.M. Diamond, Ed., Field Guide to Academic Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002 • Diamond R. & Adam, B. 1993. Recognizing faculty work: Reward systems for the year 2000. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. • Journal of Engineering Education; http://www.asee.org/publications/jee/index.cfm • Hutchings, P., and Shulman, L.S. 1999. The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31 (5), 10-15 • National Research Council. 2002. Scientific research in education. R.J. Shavelson and L. Towne, eds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10236&page=R1 • Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change, 31 (4), 11-17. • Smith, K.A. 2006. Continuing to build engineering education research capabilities. IEEE Transactions on Education 49 (1): 1-3; http://www.asee.org/conferences/international/2008/upload/Continuing-to-Build-Eng-Education-Research-Capabilities.pdf • Streveler, R.A., and K.A. Smith. 2006. Conducting rigorous research in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education 95 (2): 103-105; http://www.asee.org/conferences/international/2008/upload/Conducting-Rigorous-Research-in-Eng-Education.pdf • Wankat, P.C., Felder, R.M., Smith, K.A. and Oreovicz, F. 2001. The scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering. In Huber, M.T & Morreale, S. (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: A conversation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

36. Contact Information: • Karl A. Smith, Ph.D. Cooperative Learning Professor of Engineering EducationDepartment of Engineering EducationPurdue University (Part Time)Neil Armstrong Hall, Rm 1313 701 West Stadium Avenue Purdue University West Lafayette, IN  47907-2045https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/Morse-Alumni Distinguished Teaching ProfessorProfessor of Civil EngineeringCivil Engineering (Phased Retirement)University of Minnesota236 Civil Engineering500 Pillsbury Drive SEMinneapolis, MN  55455http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/smith/E-mail: ksmith@umn.eduSkype: kasmithtc Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Research on Engineering Education (AREE)http://www.areeonline.org