Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Talking about Teaching

I want to begin this lecture by referring to something that Dr Betty Siegel said yesterday, namely that in our role as lecturers, who we are is as important as what we know. I agree, but ‘who we are’ is closely related to what we know, because our identity as lecturers and as people is multilayered, relating to:

1. our subject, profession or discipline;
2. our roles as teachers, researchers, and the other functions we fulfil; and
3. our personhood, as men or women, as black or white or colored, as politically committed or politically indifferent, as a Christian or non-Christian and so on.

Lee Schulman argued that these layers of identity create what he calls four kinds of fidelity:

• to the integrity of the discipline
• to the learning of students
• to society, polity, and institution
• to the teacher’s own identity (Hutchings, 2000).

Boyer (1990) famously described these as four kinds of scholarship:

• the scholarship of discovery
• the scholarship of integration
• the scholarship of service
• the scholarship of teaching.

Everyone in this audience will know that in higher education we are all expected to be able to multi-task – we have to do many things, often at the same time!

Top of the list, we have to do research and we are expected to have (and are judged by) publications. Secondly, we have to teach. Thirdly, we have to write learning materials, text books, web pages. Fourthly, many of us are involved in consultancy, advising businesses, government agencies, and charities and so on. All of these activities require knowledge and expertise.

But there are two significant problems about these scholarships that Boyer argued should be given equal respect:

1. The four kinds of scholarship do not have equal status.
2. These scholarships are set up in competition with each other.

Clearly, research and knowledge creation is indeed one of the principal functions of universities. I am taking that for granted and so do not wish to challenge that assumption. But I do want to ask, ‘Why it is that teaching is less well-regarded than research?’ This question is not posed specifically to Stellenbosch University because this ordering of values is a global phenomenon.

1. No doubt the status of teaching is closely tied into the history and culture of institutions. Long-standing traditions, assumptions and values show themselves in the ways institutions operate, for example in the behavior of promotion panels, in the regard given to individuals, and in the distribution of funds. These long-standing forms of institutional behavior are very difficult to shift.
   
2. It is sometimes argued that, whereas there are accepted forms of evidence for research quality, there are no equivalent forms of evidence for judging teaching quality. Possible candidates, such as student evaluations, examination results, and reputation among peers, for example, are all notoriously open to debate and interpretation. Part of the problem here is that teaching is often regarded as a private activity and therefore the evidence is simply not available – I shall return to this point shortly.
   
3. There is also an assumption that ‘anyone can teach’. Staff are appointed on the basis of their subject or professional knowledge and yet are also expected to teach, often without any kind of professional training. Whilst it may take a minimum of seven years to achieve the necessary academic standing in your subject (three years undergraduate, one year master’s, three years on a PhD programme), training to be a teacher in a university may be no more than a three-day induction programme. However, this is changing. In the UK now, since the Dearing Report made its recommendations in 1997 (Dearing, 1997), virtually all higher education institutions have established compulsory programmes at masters level for all new staff who have teaching responsibilities (Bamber, 2002). Whilst there continues to be some debate about the quality of particular programmes, the principle that teaching is a professional activity requiring professional preparation is now accepted.

Difficulties in talking about teaching – the isolation of the teacher

However, it seems to me that that there are some deep-seated, ingrained difficulties in talking about teaching among academic staff, and it is this point that I wish to explore further. If I am right that many staff find it hard to talk about teaching, why should this be so?

Gerald Graf (2002) of the University of Illinois at Chicago writes,

We cannot help noticing that many students are skeptical about the value of intellectualizing. In fact when students do poorly at academic tasks, the reasons often have less to do with the lack of ability than with their reluctance to become the introspective type of person who relishes and excels at such tasks. Aversion to the apparent pretentiousness of intellectual ways of communicating is often central to this reluctance.

He goes on to argue that the problem is not students’ insensitivity to the vocabulary of argument but their disinclination to acquire it. In some high schools students risk ostracism if they use expressions like “hypothesize” or “I contend”. As the saying goes, nobody likes a smartass.

It seems to me that there is something parallel to this student aversion to intellectual argument in academics’ aversion to analyzing teaching. Isn’t it also the case that some staff risk ostracism if they talk too much about teaching, or if they attempt to use pedagogical theory – of any kind – to understand what is happening in the classroom, laboratory or studio? Hannan and Silver (2000) described the isolation of staff who tried to innovate in teaching. Mary Huber (2004) has described the ways in which Carnegie scholars have to ‘break the mould’ of what is regarded as ‘normal’ academic behaviour in their subject in order to pursue their interests in the scholarship of teaching. Commonly the self-concept of these innovators is at odds with the dominant values of the departments within which they are working. I have heard of one national teaching fellow in the UK who was accosted by her head of department who said, “This teaching award … I hope it’s not going to interfere with your proper job!” This isolation experienced by teaching innovators is symptomatic of a larger problem about the possibility of conducting interesting discourse about teaching.

Lee Schulman has argued that to overcome these barriers we must make teaching ‘community property’. In his 1993 paper, he relates his disappointment about the reality of joining a teaching department in his first appointment. His vision was of the solitary PhD scholar entering a social order, becoming a member of the community, interacting with others, in the classroom and elsewhere as a teacher. What he found was not a community of teachers, but isolation:

We close the classroom door and experience pedagogical solitude. Whereas in our life as scholars, we are members of active communities: communities of conversation, communities of evaluation, communities in which we gather with others in our invisible colleges to exchange our findings, and methods and our excuses.
(Schulman, 1993:25)

He goes on to argue that in order to make teaching community – and therefore valued – property there must be something “shared, discussed, critiqued, exchanged, built upon. So, if pedagogy is to become an important part of scholarship, we have to provide it with the same kind of documentation and transformation” (Schulman, ibid). In a later paper he reiterated the point: “[F]or a scholarship of teaching, we need scholarship that makes our work public and susceptible to critique. It then becomes community property, available for others to build upon” (Schulman, 1999:16).

An impoverished language of teaching?

But these are not the only difficulties. In an analysis of the written commentaries provided by staff observing peers’ teaching (Gosling, 2005a), it became very clear that the discourse employed was influenced very little by the discipline of the reviewer or the observed. The following three examples illustrate this point:

Lecturer 1:

The timing was about right and the place seemed fine. The only part I questioned was his use of questioning during the session when he did not give adequate opportunity for people to answer at all. This did not happen all the time that it was fairly regular and we discussed this together he did not been aware of this at all.

Lecturer 2:

The objectives of the session were clearly stated both verbally and written. Lesson seemed well planned – could have included OHPs for diagrams as well as textbooks. Structure of lessons well stated and repeated during lesson. Small group activities – tasks enabled “discovery learning”.

Lecturer 3:

Small group was planned well, all groups were given specific task to complete in the designated time. Sufficient time allowed for student feedback. Clarification of students’ learning and understanding sought at critical periods throughout the session. Material delivered at the appropriate level. I enjoyed observing the session. One minor area I’d like to point out concerns turning off the overhead projector machine when interacting with students.

Discipline interest only became apparent when reference was made to the content of the lesson. But these examples illustrate another point that has been made forcibly by some recent commentators, namely what Melanie Walker (2002) has called “a limited ‘surface’ language of ‘teaching and learning’ in higher education”. The problem is that the technocratic approach to teaching as a set of skills fails to recognize the emotional commitments (the “passion for teaching” that Dr Betty Siegel so graphically described yesterday) that are part of the act of teaching. Nor does it recognize the contested field of values and political commitments which under-pin different pedagogical approaches.

We rarely talk with each other about teaching at any depth – and why should we when we have nothing more than ‘tips, tricks and techniques’ to discuss? That kind of talk fails to touch the heart of the teacher’s experience. (Palmer 1998:11)

Stephen Rowland (2000:74–75) speaks for many of these commentators when he complains that:

[i]t is difficult to think of a more fundamental educational aim for anyone who teaches in a university than to imbue in one’s students a love of the subject. It seems to express what is at the heart of the vocation of teaching. Yet the statement sounds oddly romantic and naïve, or even empty, in the present context of concern for the quality of teaching. How can one speak of ‘love’ or ‘inspiration’ in evaluations and investigations when teachers are merely ‘human resources’ to be managed, teaching is framed around such notions as ‘competence’, and skill is the determining criteria for evaluating both the outcomes and the processes of learning?’

It appears that much of the discussion of teaching, the way we talk about pedagogy, is impoverished in this way. Teachers commenting on each others’ teaching do so with good intentions – i.e. with a desire to improve teaching and they make their comments with humility and care, and yet there is something about the context that appears to produce a uniformly bland, unimaginative and disengaged form of language about teaching.

It may be that for many academics being open about the emotional challenges of teaching is viewed as being too personal, and not ‘professional’. And value commitments are avoided for fear of creating divisions within a department. Maybe they don’t have the vocabulary to be able to talk about teaching in other than ‘surface’ ways. I suggest that part of the purpose of the ‘scholarship of teaching’ is to create both the spaces within which these conversations can occur and the vocabulary to make them meaningful.

Structural difficulties

There are also structural reasons which contribute to the difficulty we have in talking about teaching. Academics report that they feel more isolated as higher education organizations become larger and more fragmented. Structures (like schools and faculties) become more artificial – reflecting management decisions to group subjects together for pragmatic reasons of organizational convenience rather than because they reflect organic relationships between the subjects within them. Trends towards modularity, large faculties, increasing specialization within subject groupings, can all contribute to this increased sense of isolation.

In a well-known article published in Change in August 1994, ironically titled “Overcoming hollowed collegiality”, the authors talk of “fragmented communications patterns [that] isolate individual faculty members and prevent them from interacting around issues of undergraduate education” (Massy et al., 1994). Hannan and Silver (2000:112) have reported the isolation often felt by innovators:

We are also saying that the increasing lack of collegiality, not just the attitudes of specific colleagues, was identified as an obstacle to innovation. Such a lack intensified the feeling of staff committed to the improvement of teaching and learning that they ran the risk of becoming even more of the loner in a restructured academic universe.

Of course all individuals have to attempt to make sense of their own set of values, commitments and practices within the social frameworks that they find themselves in. The social is constituted through activities (or practices) and discourses (processes of meaning making) that constitute communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). But these ‘communities’ are not stable and unchanging, nor are they fixed entities with clear boundaries – rather they are shifting and dynamic, open to change and learning.

One of the most important ‘communities of practice’ within which academics operate is, as I have said at the beginning of this lecture, discipline-based identities (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Henkel, 2000; Jenkins, 1996). Because of this, Mary Huber (2006) has argued that, with respect to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), “faculty members choose methods that reflect or resonate with the traditions of investigation in their own fields”.

In fact, disciplinary styles empower inquiry into student learning not only by focusing attention on certain kinds of problems, but also by giving faculty ready-made ways to imagine project and present their work – for example, metaphors such as the classrooms laboratory as text fields sites or theatre might point to different methods of inquiry and styles of analysis.
(Huber, 2003: 92)

But no academic is defined completely by his or her discipline, and for some, pedagogical identities are conceived in quite different ways – as women, as black academics, as teacher trainers or adult educators (Malcolm & Zukas, 2001).

Part of what is being attempted through engagement in SoTL is creating social spaces within which conversations can occur to enable new forms of social grouping, or communities, and new kinds of individual identities to develop. Change is facilitated by creating new social spaces in which new conversations can occur – conversations between people who do not as a matter of course speak to each other, or between people who do speak to each other but now talk about new things.

By creating opportunities for debate, for example in this conference today, that cut across existing organizational structures and discipline boundaries, we open the possibility for new collectivities within which conversations can be held that would be impossible in the familiar relationships of the home department. The problem is to find a common language that enables staff to develop a discourse which is meaningful across disciplines as well as within them. This requires a climate in which staff are willing to take risks and to trust in a process which is likely to be discomforting and challenging.

Unfortunately the ethos of the modern university does not easily tolerate such risk taking. In Ramsden and Martin’s (1996) study, they found that the wider management climate was responsible for creating mistrust of strategies for improving teaching. Those with management responsibilities in universities, particularly deans and heads of departments, have to carry much of the responsibility for creating (or destroying) an environment in which talking about teaching in scholarly ways becomes possible.

Addressing teaching problems

It is not that teaching staff do not have knowledge about teaching. The issue we face is how to bring the knowledge that staff have about their teaching into the public domain. This requires the encouragement of a culture of dialogue about teaching in which teaching problems are not seen as a fault, but as something of interest to be explored and investigated. Bass (1999) compares our different attitudes to research problems and teaching problems. Whereas research problems are a ‘good thing’ that academics are only too happy to discuss and debate with colleagues, often ‘teaching problems’ have been seen as implying a fault or deficiency in the teacher.

Teaching problems emerge from curiosity about teaching and students’ learning. Asking questions such as ‘Why does this work?’, ‘Why did that tactic fail?’, ‘How can student participation in discussion be improved?’, ‘How can I teach this difficult concept more effectively?’, ‘Why are questions on the exam about this topic always answered badly?’, ‘How can I teach this mixed ability group effectively?’ and so on.

But does this mean that staff engage in SoTL simply out of intellectual curiosity? No. When staff are encouraged to engage in pedagogic enquiry, it is normally because it is assumed that teaching, and student learning, will be improved as a consequence. Let us examine this assumption and ask what is implied by it and whether it can be justified. What is the relationship between investigation and improved practice? Is there any evidence that practice has been improved by faculty undertaking pedagogic enquiry?

The case for saying that teacher-led pedagogic enquiry is fundamentally about improving practice has been made by Hutchings and Schulman. They argue that when ‘faculty frame, and systematically investigate questions relating to student learning – the conditions under which it occurs, what it looks like, how it deepens, and so forth – they do so with an eye not only on improving their classroom but to advancing practice beyond it’ (Hutchings & Schulman, 1999:48). In this view faculties are motivated to undertake investigation by the desire to bring about improvements not only within the restricted environment of their own teaching but also to contribute to a wider debate about improving teaching.

One way in which this happens is through action-research which follows this kind of sequence:

Of course this model does not suggest that the ‘solution’ will necessarily be found the first time. It may take several iterations of the action research circle – observe, plan, act, test – before the improvement occurs (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992).

Processes of enquiry which seek to question (and find solutions to) practice also require teachers to become better informed about the context in which the practice occurs. In order for there to be improvement it is essential that teachers understand more about the context within which they are working. An example with which I was personally associated related to the University of East London, a large multi-cultural university where a number of claims were being made about the attitude of students towards the curriculum. It was said that ‘minority students’ believed the curriculum to be ‘Eurocentric’ for example. An enquiry (Jiwani & Gosling, 1997) showed that the picture was much more complex and that attitudes varied between different minority groups, between younger and more mature students and between males and females. The removal of false certainties was an essential first step towards negotiating changes to the curriculum.

In the case of South Africa, there is much that we need to investigate to better understand the barriers to success for many students who arrive in our higher education institutions under-prepared by their schooling. The role of pedagogic enquiry, whether conducted by researchers or practitioners, is to provide better data about the challenges we face in order to inform the changes in practice that are needed.

Investigation, by providing additional data, and by raising new questions, helps to transform intuitive reflection, or what Schon calls “knowledge-in-action”, which is characterized as being “spontaneously delivered without conscious deliberation” (Schon, 1987) into what Eraut describes as “deliberative analysis” (Eraut, 1994). The latter is less common than the routinised “knowledge-in-action” but becomes essential once the professional is outside the “boundaries of what we have learned to treat as normal” (Schon, 1987:28). Indeed, it is necessary to challenge and be critical of what is ‘normal’ if we are to make improvements.

How reliable is practitioner-led enquiry?

However, there are some interesting issues about the status of the knowledge acquired through practitioner-led enquiry. There are a number of reasons for having limited confidence in conclusions drawn from studies within the context of particular classrooms. It is in the nature of this kind of enquiry that it is rarely possible to control variables, use control groups, get clear measures or have a large enough samples to draw general conclusions. This means that even if there is a measurable ‘improvement’ it is not always possible to be completely confident that it is the result of the change made. Furthermore, the researcher has a strong interest in the success of the enquiry and is therefore not an impartial investigator, and the conclusions are highly context-bound. It is for these kinds of reasons that Gibbs (1992:23) suggested that the case studies in his book, “are offered not as contributions to the research literature on student learning but as resources for lecturers wishing to understand how to improve student learning on their courses”.

The assumption here is that, while the conditions under which the investigations were undertaken are not sufficiently rigorous to warrant publication as ‘research’, they can contribute something to our understanding. This assumption underpins the practice of ‘action-research’. But, if the conclusions are not robust enough to be reported through normal academic channels, why should any reader place any confidence in them and how can they contribute to our understanding?

Murphy (2003) makes similar points about nationally funded (in the UK) ‘development projects.’ Although such projects typically incorporate evaluation activity as part of the testing of the ideas being investigated,

HE development projects are by their very nature not designed along the lines of rigorous research studies, intended to uncover new knowledge and bring forward convincing evidence to support new claims.
(Murphy 2003: 63)

The added difficulty here is the assumption that such projects will uncover and develop ‘best practice’ which once identified can be ‘disseminated’ to others. But the idea that it is possible to ‘transfer’ conclusions drawn from experience in one context to the whole HE sector, is, as Murphy shows, at best naïve and at worst, misleading.

In response to these arguments – that the knowledge acquired through development projects or action research is unreliable – it has been said that the purpose of such ‘practitioner-led’ enquiries is not the production of new knowledge (which is the role of “the scholarship of discovery” in Boyer’s terms). Rather they are designed to improve practice (Robson, 1993). Their justification is, in this context, specific, enhanced interactions between teachers and learners. But we cannot make an absolute distinction between acquiring new knowledge and improving practice. An improved practice must be based on some knowledge claims, however tentative they may be, or else the whole process becomes entirely mystical or puzzling.

As Schulman has argued, it is important that this kind of enquiry becomes to some extent public property so that there is something “shared, discussed, critiqued, exchanged, built upon” (Schulman, 1993:6). In this way improvements occur because ideas and practices developed by individuals can be tested and critiqued in the open forum of public debate. Furthermore, there can be some accumulation of knowledge and conceptualizations because “[i]t then becomes community property, available for others to build upon” (Schulman, 1999).

My position is that practitioner-led enquiry must be open to public critique but that we should not expect it to conform to the requirements of rigour and generalisability that we demand of peer-reviewed research. It serves a different function to pedagogical research and is produced for a different and more restricted, local audience. The dimensions of teacher-led enquiry are set out below:

Table 1: Dimensions of teacher-led inquiry

Source: D’Andrea & Gosling, 2005:157.

If we now return to our question whether SoTL necessarily produces better teachers and better student learning, we must answer, it seems to me, ‘It depends!’ A teacher, who works with “reflection-in-action”, as Schon describes it, can be responsive to many professional situations and perform as an outstanding teacher. Teachers who investigate pedagogic practice develop skills in ‘deliberative action’ which enables better understanding and better consideration of policy decisions. But that is not to say they can do without the intuitive skills that the teacher needs to respond to the constantly changing nuances of behaviour within the classroom. A teacher who has poorly developed skills in the routinised ‘workaday life of the professional’ will not be transformed by pedagogic investigation alone. For this reason someone can be a good pedagogic researcher but a limited teacher.

Enquiry encourages teachers to be curious about teaching and learning. It encourages an ‘engaged pedagogy’, in which the taken-for-granted is questioned. It enables teachers to be better informed about the context within which they are working and the impact of the changes they make to their practice. Perhaps most important of all, it generates debate and discussion about what constitutes improvement in learning and help staff break out from the isolation of the classroom. Enquiry requires a level of abstraction and reflection which are necessary prerequisites for changing practice.

Promoting Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

I have argued that it is essential for universities to encourage conversations and enquiry into teaching and student learning. Briefly then, how can this be done? Firstly, by providing funding for small scale research projects like the FINLO projects here at Stellenbosch University. Secondly, by offering a variety of forms of recognition and reward for staff who engage successfully in SoTL, for example, awards and prizes, titles such as ‘teaching fellow’, and, most importantly, embedding criteria for teaching in appointments and promotions up to professorial level. Conferences (such as this one), seminars, workshops, agenda items in department meetings, away days focused on teaching are all essential to provide a space for conversations about teaching to occur. There need to be all kinds of publications, not just journal articles and newsletters but also more ephemeral and provisional writing for example in web pages, wikis and blogs. We need to create learning communities through projects, working groups, task forces – which, by the way, should include students (see further ideas in Chapter 2 of D’Andrea & Gosling, 2005).

It is also essential to address issues of the departmental and institutional culture so that conversations and curiosity about teaching are encouraged. For example, forms of peer observation of teaching (Gosling, 2005b) and peer review of teaching (Gosling & O’Connor, 2006) are vehicles for promoting a culture favorable to scholarship of teaching. The reviewer’s role is to work with a colleague to identify a useful focus for the conversation by asking appropriate questions, such as:

We may also need to help teaching staff to identify appropriate methodologies through joint projects, writing workshops and opportunities to train in the use of research methodologies with which they may not be familiar. There are a many ways that scholarship can be promoted, but unless the institutional culture is favorable it will only thrive in isolated pockets among a few enthusiasts (D’Andrea & Gosling, 2000).

Conclusion

As Betty argued yesterday, we wish to encourage faculties to be passionate about teaching. I agree. But I want to add, that we also want to encourage our staff to be critical of the status quo and assumptions we make about how things ‘must be’, to be reflective about their practice, and also to be communicative about their enquiries into teaching – talking to their colleagues and having those conversations which will raise the status of teaching and promote better teaching. So I hope you will all leave this conference with the firm intention to raise questions about teaching, promote enquiry into teaching and learning and encourage all of our staff to be curious about teaching!

References

1. Bamber, V. (2002). To what extent has the Dearing policy recommendation on training new lecturers met acceptance? Where Dearing went that Robbins didn’t dare. Teacher Development, 6(3), 433–459.
   
2. Bass, R. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: What’s the Problem? Inventio, 1(1), 1–9.
   
3. Becher, T. & Trowler, P.R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. 2nd ed. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
   
4. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New Jersey: Princeton.
   
5. D’Andrea, V. & Gosling, D. (2005). Improving Teaching and Learning in Higher Education; a whole institution approach. London: McGraw Hill.
   
6. D’Andrea, V. & Gosling, D. (2000). Promoting Research in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: two case studies of multi-disciplinary pedagogic research, ESRC-TLRP Conference. Leicester, UK.
   
7. Dearing, R. (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society: The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. London: HMSO
   
8. Eraut, M. (1994). Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: Falmer Press.
   
9. Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the Quality of Student Learning. Bristol: Technical & Educational Services.
   
10. Gosling, D. (2005a). Talking about Teaching: Some Difficulties in Peer Review, in J. Fanghanel & D. Warren (eds.), International Conference on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: proceedings 2003 and 2004. London: City University. pp. 144–158.
    
11. Gosling, D. (2005b). Peer Observation of Teaching: SEDA Paper 118. Birmingham: SEDA.
    
12. Gosling, D. & O’Connor, K.M. (2006). From Peer Observation of Teaching to Review of Professional Practice (RPP): a model for Continuing Professional Development, Educational Developments, 7(3), 1–6.
    
13. Graf, G. (2002). The Problem Problem and Other Academic Oddities, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 1(1), 27–42.
    
14. Hannan, A. & Silver, H. (2000). Innovating in Higher Education: Teaching, Learning and Institutional Cultures. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
    
15. Henkel, M. (2000). Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
    
16. Huber, M.T. (2003). Disciplines and the Development of a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the United States of America, in D. Gosling & V. D’Andrea (eds.), International Conference on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Proceedings 2001 and 2002. London: City University. pp. 88–97.
    
17. Huber, M.T. (2004). Balancing Acts: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Academic Careers. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
    
18. Huber, M.T. (2006). Disciplines, Pedagogy, and Inquiry-based Learning about Teaching, in C. Kreber (ed.), Exploring Research-based Teaching: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Number 107. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    
19. Hutchings, P. & Shulman, L. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: new elaborations, new developments, in D. DeZure (ed.), Learning from Change: Landmarks in Teaching and Learning in higher Education from Change Magazine 1969–1999. London: Kogan Page. pp. 47–50.
    
20. Hutchings, P. (ed.) (2000). Opening Lines: approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Palo Alto, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
    
21. Jenkins, A. (1996). Discipline-based educational development, The International Journal for Academic Development, 1(1), 50–62.
    
22. Jiwani, A. & Gosling, D. (1997). Course design for multi-ethnic student groups, in C. Rust & G. Gibbs (eds.), Curriculum Design for Improving Student Learning. Oxford: Brookes University. pp. 314–330.
    
23. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    
24. Malcolm, J. & Zukas, M. (2001). Bridging Pedagogic Gaps: conceptual discontinuities in higher education, Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 33–42.
    
25. Massy, F.W., Wilger, K.A., & Colbeck, C. (1994). Departmental Cultures and Teaching quality, Overcoming “Hollowed” Collegiality, Change, 26(4), 11–20.
    
26. Murphy, R. (2003). The Use of Research and Development Projects in Higher Education, in H. Eggins and R. Macdonald (eds.), The Scholarship of Academic Development. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press. pp. 58–69.
    
27. Palmer, P.J. (1998). The Courage to Teach. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
    
28. Ramsden, P. & Martin, E. (1996). Recognition of Good University Teaching: polices from and Australian study, Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 299–315.
    
29. Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research. London: Blackwell.
    
30. Rowland, S. (2000). The Enquiring University Teacher. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
    
31. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    
32. Schulman, L. (1993). Teaching as Community Property, Change, 25(6), 6–7.
    
33. Schulman, L. (1999). Taking Learning Seriously, Change, 31(4), 11–17.
    
34. Walker, M. (2002). Pedagogy and Politics and Purposes of Higher Education, Arts and Humanties in Higher Education, 1(1), 43–58.
    
35. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action Research in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.