Division 2 of the American Psychological Association was practicing the scholarship of teaching long before Boyer (1990) coined the term, but Boyer brought the idea to academe's consciousness. Over time, however, the scholarship of teaching and “scholarly teaching” have become confused. Based on Richlin's (2001) work, I attempt to resolve this confusion by equating the scholarship of teaching with scholarly work by faculty. In addition, I point out the parallels between assessment and the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and provide tips for faculty who want to engage in SoTL research but see roadblocks in their way.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association Task Force on Undergraduate Psychology Major Competencies. (2002). Undergraduate psychology major learning goals and outcomes: A report. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/ed/pcue/taskforcereport2.pdf.
2.
American Psychological Association Task Force on Undergraduate Psychology Major Competencies. (2003). The assessment cyberguide for learning goals and outcomes. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/ed/guidehomepage.html
3.
BenjaminL. T.Jr. (1997). The origin of psychological species: History of the beginnings of American Psychological Association divisions. American Psychologist, 52, 725–732.
4.
BoyerE. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
5.
Connor-GreeneP. A. (2002). Problem-based service learning: The evolution of a team project. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 193–197.
6.
DanielR. S. (1974). Teaching of psychology has already had a long past. Teaching of Psychology, 1, 32–34.
7.
DanielR. S. (1992). Teaching of Psychology, the journal. In PuenteA. E.MatthewsJ. R.BrewerC.L. (Eds.), Teaching psychology in America: A history (pp. 433–452). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
GlassickC. E.HuberM. T.MaeroffG. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
GurungR. A. R.AnsburgP. I.AlexanderP. A.LawrenceN. K.JohnsonD. E. (2008). The state of the scholarship of teaching and learning in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 249–261.
10.
HalpernD. F.SmothergillD. W.AllenM.BakerS.BaumC.BestD.FerrariJ.GeisingerK. F.GildenE. R.HesterM.Keith-SpiegelP.KiernieskyN. C.McGovernT. V.McKeachieW. J.ProkasyW. F.SzuchmanL. T.VastaR.WeaverK. A. (1998). Scholarship in psychology: A paradigm for the twenty-first century. American Psychologist, 53, 1292–1297.
11.
IronsJ. G.BuskistW. (2008). The scholarships of teaching and pedagogy: Time to abandon the distinction. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 353–356.
RichlinL. (2001). Scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching. In KremerC. (Ed.), Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 57–68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
