If you reply to this long (17 kB) post please don't hit the reply button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
**************************************** ABSTRACT: Sandra Laursen in a post "Re: Rume versus scholarship of teaching and learning (math)" [Rume = Research in Undergraduate Math Education] has called attention to a valuable article "The birth of a notion: The windfalls and pitfalls of tailoring an SOTL-like concept to scientists, mathematicians, and engineers” by Connolly, Bouwma-Gearhart, and Clifford, researchers at the “Wisconsin Center for Education Research” (WCER). Their abstract reads, in part, “. . . . we interviewed 43 participants from courses that sought to explain and demonstrate TAR (Teaching As Research) . . . [WCER's suggested substitute for SOTL (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning]. . . . Our study found that participants defined TAR with varying complexity and that disciplinary concepts generally provided “conceptual handles” for making sense of TAR. However, tailoring a term to particular disciplines entails several challenging tradeoffs.” **************************************** Sandra Laursen (2007), in her RUME (Research in Undergraduate Education) post "Re: Rume versus scholarship of teaching and learning (math)" wrote [my inserts at ". . . . [insert]. . . ."; bracketed by lines "LLLLL. . . ."; yes, I realize that bracket lines are unorthodox, but they serve to: (a) avoid (in most cases) awkward quotes within quotes “. . . .'........'. . . .”, and (b) “clearly indicate who said what, unlike the ambiguous marginal angle brackets “>”, “>>”, “>>>”. . . . . that befoul many posts]: LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL It seems to me that the activities undertaken by a "teacher as researcher" and a faculty person engaged in "scholarship of teaching and learning". . . .[SOTL - see e.g. Carnegie Academy (2007), IJ-SOTL (2007), Boyer (1990, 1997), Boyer Commisssion (1998)]. . . . . might look pretty similar - but the phrases differ importantly with respect to the system each person starts in and the difference in job definitions of a teacher and faculty member. I view the movements as coming from opposite directions to similar end points - the K-12 movement is trying to increase awareness of OTHERS' relevant work to add to teachers' awareness of their own classroom practice. . . .[not necessarily - see, e.g., Feldman & Minstrell (2000)]. . . ., while the higher ed effort seeks to get faculty to apply the scholarly approach they use in the wider world to their OWN classroom. Mark Connolly and colleagues. . . . [Connolly et al. (in press) at CIRTL (Center for the Integration of Research Teaching, and Learning <http://www.cirtl.net/publications.html>, evidently associated with the “Wisconsin Center for Education Research” (WCER) <http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/>]. . . . have an interesting article. . . .["The birth of a notion: The windfalls and pitfalls of tailoring an (sic) SOTL-like concept to scientists, mathematicians, and engineers"]. . . . . on this very issue. They examine some of these language variations in their lit review and discuss how such language "goes down" with STEM . . . .[Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics]. . . .faculty in a research university. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL According to their page 1 footnote, Mark Connolly, Jana Bouwma-Gearhart, and Matthew Clifford are researchers and evaluators with the “Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison” <http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/>. Their abstract reads: “Despite calls for greater agreement in defining the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), terms that resemble SoTL are proliferating. An NSF-sponsored center for teaching and learning coined its own term, “teaching-as-research” (TAR), believing it would resonate better with research-active scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. To understand whether this was a wise strategy, we interviewed 43 participants from courses that sought to explain and demonstrate TAR. Our study found that participants defined TAR with varying complexity and that disciplinary concepts generally provided “conceptual handles” for making sense of TAR. However, tailoring a term to particular disciplines entails several challenging tradeoffs.” Connolly et al. (in press) write [bracketed by lines “CCCCCC. . . .”. SEE THAT ARTICLE FOR REFERENCES OTHER THAN Bouwma-Gearhart (2005)]: CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC As revealed by a recent unpublished review (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2005), a significant shortcoming of the SoTL literature is a tendency to overlook its many connections to a long tradition of educational practitioner inquiry. It is commonly accepted that this tradition of studying one's own practice began with Lewin's (1946) idea of *action research*, which was introduced to the U.S. education community by Corey (1953). Other terms for efforts to better link inquiry and teacher practice in K-12 settings include *classroom research*(Stenhouse, 1975; Stenhouse, Hopkins, & Rudduck, 1985), *practitioner research* (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001), and *teacher research* (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, 1999, 1993). The potential of educational practitioner inquiry at the postsecondary level was broached by K. Patricia Cross (1986; , 1987; , 1988; , 1990a; , 1990b) in the late 1980s. Efforts to promote *classroom assessment* (Angelo, 1998; Angelo & Cross, 1993; Cross & Angelo, 1988) and *classroom research* (Cross, 1990b; Cross & Steadman, 1996) provided an important toe-hold to those who later promoted SoTL, such as Shulman, Hutchings, and others at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Huber, 1999; Hutchings, 1993, 1996, 2000; Hutchings, Bjork, & Babb, 2002; Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Shulman, 1987, 1989, 1993, 1998, 1999). Despite the increasing variation of terms for practitioner inquiry at the postsecondary level (e.g., action learning, scientific teaching), only with Bouwma-Gearhart's (2005) review has there been a concerted effort to gather and categorize these variations of EPI across the K-16 landscape. CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), all the above references, including Bouwma-Gearhart (2005), essentially ignore the exemplary classroom research of both Physics Education Research (PER) see, e.g., Heron & Meltzer (2005) & Wieman and Perkins (2005)], and Design-Based Research (DBR) [see e.g. Kelly (2003b) & Kelly et al. (in press). In their “Resource letter on physics education research,” McDermott & Redish (1999) list about 160 empirical studies, extending over almost three decades, that (a) focus on the learning of physics by students,(b) represent systematic research, and (c) give procedures in sufficient detail that they can be reproduced. Some of these studies satisfy the criteria for “design based research” (DBR) as set down by Kelly (2003a) in the “Educational Researcher” theme issue on DBR [Kelly (2003b). Kelly (2003a) wrote [my CAPS]: KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK An emerging research dialect. . . .[design based research]. . . ., which is described in this special issue, attempts to support arguments constructed around the results of active innovation and intervention in classrooms. The operative grammar, which draws upon models from design and engineering, is generative and transformative. It is directed primarily at understanding learning and teaching processes WHEN THE RESEARCHER IS ACTIVE AS AN EDUCATOR. Stokes (1997) describes a typology of motivations for research. Design research in education would fall under his use-inspired basic research category. In Toulmin's sense, this research is *clinical* (Toulmin, 2001). Further, its proponents are willing to attempt to address, simultaneously and iteratively, the scientific processes of discovery, exploration, confirmation, and dissemination. In its goals and in its context of use, this emerging design research methodology attempts to be both scientific and educational. KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK For a review of DBR in physics education research see “Design-Based Research in Physics Education Research: A Review” [Hake (in press)]. Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University 24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi> REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.] Bouwma-Gearhart, J.L. 2007). "Is a rose really a rose? A taxonomy of practitioner research: Implications for inter-practitioner research framework collaborations." Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, London, England, 2005; online at <http://www.cirtl.net/publications/Bouwma-Gearhart_2007.pdf> (124 kB). Boyer, E. L. 1990. “Scholarship reconsidered: priorities for the professoriate.” Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, California, USA. Boyer, E. L. 1997. “Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.” Jossey-Bass, Amazon. Com information at <http://tinyurl.com/2u8yab>. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. 1998. “Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America's research universities,” Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, California, USA. Available online at <http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/>. Carnegie Academy. 2007. “Scholarship of teaching and learning,” online at <http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/programs/index.asp?key=21>. Connolly, M.R., J.L. Bouwma-Gearhart, & M.A. Clifford. In press. "The birth of a notion: The windfalls and pitfalls of tailoring an (sic) SOTL-like concept to scientists, mathematicians, and engineers." Innovative Higher Education; online at <http://www.cirtl.net/publications/Connolly_etal_2007.pdf> (144 kB). Feldman, A. & J. Minstrell. 2000. "Action research as a research methodology for the study of the teaching and learning of science," in E. Kelly & R. Leash, eds., "Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education." Lawrence Erlbaum; online as a 72 kB pdf at <http://tinyurl.com/3blblr> (72kB). Hake, R.R. 2007. “Design-Based Research in Physics Education Research: A Review” in A.E. Kelly, R.A. Lesh, & J.Y. Baek (in press), “Handbook of Design Research Methods in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education.” Lawrence Erlbaum; online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DBR-Physics3.pdf> (1.1 MB). Heron, P.R.L. & D.E. Meltzer. 2005. “The future of physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns,” Am. J. Phys. 73(5): 459-462; online at <http://www.physicseducation.net/docs/Heron-Meltzer.pdf> (56 kB). IJ-SOTL. 2007. “International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning” - see <http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/>. Kelly, A.E. 2003a. Research as design. Educational Researcher 32(1): 3-4; online at <http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=393>. Kelly, A.E. ed. 2003b. Theme Issue: “The role of design in educational research,” Educational Researcher, 32(1); online at <http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=393>. Kelly, A.E. , R.A. Lesh, & J.Y. Baek. In press. "Handbook of Design Research Methods in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education." Lawrence Erlbaum. Laursen, S. 2007. "Re: Rume versus scholarship of teaching and learning (math)," RUME post of Sep 23 18:03:19 EDT 2007; online at <http://tinyurl.com/yotj3z>. McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. 1999. RL-PER1: Resource letter on physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67, 755-767, online at <http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>. Stokes, D. E. 1997. "Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and Technological Innovation." Brookings Institution Press. Amazon.com information at <http://tinyurl.com/lto97>. Toulmin, S. E. 2001. “Return to reason.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, especially the chapter “Practical Reason and the Clinical Arts.” For information see at <http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/TOURET.html>. Wieman, C. & K. Perkins. 2005. “Transforming Physics Education,” Phys. Today 58(11): 36-41; online as a 292 kB pdf at <http://tinyurl.com/2mulul>. Carl Wieman was awarded the 2001 Nobel prize in physics. ---
