Getting foxy: Invoking different magesteria in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.2.109Keywords:
social sciences, humanities, research methods, pedagogy, SoTLAbstract
Higher education has seen an increase in the number of faculty conducting scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Unfortunately, the momentum of this movement is somewhat thwarted by debates over which methodology should take center stage. The discussion often pitches quantitative experimentation against qualitative approaches and mistakenly represents each method as characterizing the domains of social science and the humanities, respectively. Does one methodology reign supreme? In this article I argue that not only are the humanities and the social sciences misrepresented, but both methodologies have a lot to contribute to SoTL. The social sciences and humanities, in fact, share many methodologies although they are each sometimes characterized as separate magisteria. I enumerate specific reasons why stereotypical social science methodology and that of the humanities are both useful for SoTL. I draw special attention to the time and place for statistical analyses and advocate for a ‘fox-like’ strategy to SoTL, one that involves utilizing mixed-methods research designs, and the collection of both quantitative and qualitative evidence.
Metrics
References
Beummwtt, B. (2010). Techniques of close reading. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Chick, N. (2013). Difference, privilege, and power in the scholarship of teaching and learning: The value of humanities SoTL. In K. McKinney (Ed.) The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines (pp. 152-168). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Chick, N., Haynie, A., & Gurung, R. A. R. (Eds.) (2012). Exploring more signature pedagogies. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Piano Clark, V. L. (2012). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1, 121-126.
Gelman, A., & Cortina, J. (Eds.) (2009). A quantitative tour of the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gould, S. J. (2003). The hedgehog, the fox, and the magister’s pox: Mending the gap between the sciences and the humanities. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Grauerholz, L. & Main, E. (2013). Fallacies of SoTL: Rethinking how we conduct our research. In K. McKinney (Ed.) The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines (pp. 152-168). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Gurung, R. A. R., Chick, N., & Haynie, A. (Eds.) (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Schwartz, B. (2009). Optimizing teaching and learning: Pedagogical Research in Practice. Wiley Blackwell Publishing. London.
Jarvis, P., & Creasey, G. (2009, October). Strengthening SoTL Research: The Voices of Editors. Presented at the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Bloomington, IN.
Maurer, T. (2011). On publishing SoTL articles. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5. Retrieved from http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/
Poole, G. (2013). Square one: What is research? In K. McKinney (Ed.) The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines (pp. 152-168). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Potter, M. K., & Kustra, E. (2011). The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions, and clarifications. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5. Retrieved from www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3 ed). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, E., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2012). Evidence-based teaching in higher education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Voelker, D., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): A discussion. Retrieved from http://www.uwsa.edu/opid/
White, C. (2013). The science delusion: Asking the big questions in a culture of easy answers. New York: Melville House.
Wilson-Doenges, G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). Benchmarks for scholarly investigations of teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 63-70. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12011
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The utility of knowledge. New York: Vintage Press.
