Search

Engaging students as partners in the scholarship of learning and teaching (SoTL) is a principle guiding good practice. Enthusiasm for student-faculty partnerships in learning and teaching continues to grow. In this essay, I want to invite readers to reflect with me about concerns of resistance to partnership practices. I interweave stories from my experiences with selected literature that is shifting the conversation about the 'challenge of resistance' in partnership work in learning and teaching. Positioning students as partners work as a values-based practice and in the context of 'scaling-up' partnership programs, I argue that our pre-occupation with resistance is problematic. Instead, we should accept resistance as part of a natural sense-making process that allows us to think together about the complexity of genuine pedagogical partnership.

There are many general books and articles on publishing in peer-reviewed journals, but few specifically address issues around writing for journals focused on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). One of the challenges of beginning to write about teaching and learning is that most scholars have become interested in exploring these issues in higher education alongside their disciplinary interests and have to grapple with a new literature and sometimes unfamiliar methods and genres, as well. Hence, for many, as they write about their projects, they are simultaneously forging their identities as scholars of teaching and learning. We discuss the process of producing four types of SoTL-focused writing for peer-reviewed journals: empirical research articles, conceptual articles, reflective essays, and opinion pieces. Our goal is to support both new and experienced scholars of teaching and teaching-faculty/academics, professional staff, and students-as they nurture and further develop their voices and their identities as scholars of teaching and learning and strive to contribute to the enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education. We pose three related sets of overarching questions for consideration when writing about teaching and learning for peer-reviewed journals and offer heuristic frameworks for publishing in the four specific writing genres listed above. We also discuss how to get started with writing, preparing to submit, and responding to reviewers, focusing on the importance of contributing to and creating scholarly conversations about teaching and learning. Finally, using the metaphor of being in conversation, we argue that writing is a values-based process that contributes to the identity formation of scholars of teaching and learning and their sense of belonging within the So TL discourse community.

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) has been described as the fastest growing academic development movement in higher education. As this field of inquiry matures, there is a need to understand how SoTL research is conducted. The purpose of our study was to inform this debate by investigating research approaches used in SoTL publications. We analysed 223 empirical research studies published from 2012 to 2014 in three explicitly-focused SoTL journals. We classified the studies as either qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods using an analytical framework devised from existing literature on research methods. We found that the use of the three research designs was fairly evenly distributed across the papers examined: qualitative (37.2%), quantitative (29.6%), and mixed methods (33.2%). However, there was an over-reliance on data collection from a single source in 83.9% of papers analysed, and this source was primarily students. There was some, but limited, evidence of the use of triangulation through the use of multiple data collection instruments (e.g. survey, assessment tasks, grade databases). Similarly, only one-third of publications classified as mixed methods integrated the analysis and interpretation of the qualitative and quantitative data equally within the study. We conclude that current SoTL research is characterised by methodological pluralism but could be advanced through inclusion of more diverse approaches, such as close reading, and adoption of strategies known to enhance the quality of research, for example, triangulation and visual representation.

Collaborative learning activities offer the potential to support mutual knowledge construction and shared understanding amongst students. Introducing collaborative tasks into large first-year undergraduate science classes to create learning environments that foster student engagement and enhance communication skills is appealing. However, implementing group work in classes of over 1000 students presents challenges for instructors in terms of task design, group management and assessment. Interdisciplinary scenario-inquiry tasks have been designed for small group work in a large science cohort, informed by literature and current pedagogical practices relating to the integration of collaborative and active learning strategies. Facilitation and assessment of these tasks was perceived as too complex and time consuming for a single instructor to complete manually, so a web-based task management technology was developed. Evaluation of the technology supported collaborative group activities, including peer assessment, was conducted through questionnaires, student interviews and analysis of the artefacts of the learning process. The capabilities and limitations of the technology, and the insights into group learning gained through its use are presented. In general, students felt supported through the task. Evidence of resource interdependence was found between students in functional groups.

While there is a wealth of research evidencing the benefits of active-learning approaches, the extent to which these teaching practices are adopted in the sciences is not well known. The aim of this study is to establish an evidential baseline of teaching practices across a bachelor of science degree program at a large research-intensive Australian university. Our purpose is to contribute to knowledge on the adoption levels of evidence-based teaching practices by faculty within a science degree program and inform our science curriculum review in practical terms. We used the Teaching Practices Inventory (TPI) to measure the use of evidence-based teaching approaches in 129 courses (units of study) across 13 departments. We compared the results with those from a Canadian institution to identify areas in need of improvement at our institution. We applied a regression analysis to the data and found that the adoption of evidence-based teaching practices differs by discipline and is higher in first-year classes at our institution. The study demonstrates that the TPI can be used in different institutional contexts and provides data that can inform practice and policy.

Modern biological sciences require practitioners to have increasing levels of knowledge, competence, and skills in mathematics and programming. A recent review of the science curriculum at the University of Queensland, a large, research-intensive institution in Australia, resulted in the development of a more quantitatively rigorous undergraduate program. Inspired by the National Research Council's "BIO2010" report, a new interdisciplinary first-year course (SCIE1000) was created, incorporating mathematics and computer programming in the context of modern science. In this study, the perceptions of biological science students enrolled in SCIE1000 in 2008 and 2009 are measured. Analysis indicates that, as a result of taking SCIE1000, biological science students gained a positive appreciation of the importance of mathematics in their discipline. However, the data revealed that SCIE1000 did not contribute positively to gains in appreciation for computing and only slightly influenced students' motivation to enroll in upper-level quantitative-based courses. Further comparisons between 2008 and 2009 demonstrated the positive effect of using genuine, real-world contexts to enhance student perceptions toward the relevance of mathematics. The results support the recommendation from "BIO2010" that mathematics should be introduced to biology students in first-year courses using real-world examples, while challenging the benefits of introducing programming in first-year courses. (Contains 2 tables, 3 figures, and 3 footnotes.)