Scholarship of teaching and learning: How does it perceieve by engineering lecturers?

Hadijah Jaffri1, Narina A. Samah2 and Lokman Mohd Tahir3 Faculty of Education

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Johor, Malaysia

hadijahjaffri@utm.my1, narina@utm.my2, p-lokman@utm.my3

Abstract— Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) refers to an active, conscious and continuous act of research in teaching by lecturers with specific aims to share it with other fellow lecturers later on through scholarly writing or publication [24]. It is proposed that scholarship of teaching and learning is fundamental to improve the teaching practice of lecturers which will influence students’ learning [1]. The scholarship of teaching and learning is highly contextualised because it involves the culture of disciplines in which it is applied [25]. Therefore, it is important to investigate the conceptions of scholarship of teaching and learning that lecturers held in which it might influence their effort in engaging in any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning such as research in teaching which can be done through action research. Findings from a study showed that unfamiliarity with the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning by lecturers might lead to their indifference attitude toward the practice of scholarship of teaching and learning [26]. Therefore, this study aims to examine the conceptions and practice in scholarship of teaching and learning in various institutions of higher education in Malaysia especially in the scientific and technological based faculties. This article describes a preliminary study using a case study approach in which two lecturers from an engineering faculty will be selected as the respondents. Purposive sampling will be used as sampling design to investigate the conceptions and practice of teaching and learning that Malaysian lecturers held in which it might influence their effort and engagement in any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning such as by two lecturers of a scientific and technological based faculty i.e. engineering faculty. They will be selected based on the different experiences that they have in teaching and also working in the industry. For data analysis, the researchers will use thematic analysis to analyse qualitative data. The findings of this study might uncover the perceived importance of the practice of teaching and learning that Malaysian lecturers held in which it might influence their efforts and engagements in any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning such as by two engineering lecturers. In addition, the findings of this study will be used to prompt future research in which the emerging themes could be used as constructs in constructing questionnaire items that explore the practice of teaching and learning that Malaysian lecturers held in which it might influence their efforts and engagements in any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning such as using quantitative method.

Keywords- scholarship of teaching and learning; practitioner research; research into teaching; engineering lecturers; case study

I. INTRODUCTION Teaching is one of the core businesses of all educators in

educational institutions. With regards to teaching in higher education institutions, one of the fundamental elements of teaching and professional development is a requirement for lecturers to understand the process of learning and knowing about their own teaching practice. This element is a part of the practice of scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL). One of the emphases in the scholarship of teaching and learning is the process of learning and knowing about teaching which demands lecturers to understand, plan, evaluate and make adjustment to improve their teaching practice in systematic and consistent manner. In this vein, it demands lecturers to be reflective and critical in challenging their existing teaching practice.

However, teaching in higher education institutions necessitates lecturers to conduct research in their respective fields other than to explore their teaching practice through action research [1]. Such balancing act might leave lecturers to choose either to devote their attention on conducting research in their areas of expertise simultaneously with conducting action research to explore their teaching practice which might be time consuming or just to focus on their attention solely on conducting research related to the field of expertise.

A study found that the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning is defined and perceived variedly by lecturers [26]. It is proposed that the scholarship of teaching and learning is challenging to grasp by lecturers because its term is used interchangeably for different activities and purposes [27]. In this regards, the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning is perceived as difficult to be conceptualized and operationalized by lecturers who want to involve in the practice of the scholarship of teaching and learning.

The concept of scholarship of teaching and learning among Malaysian lecturers is still in its new phase of familiarization. Realizing the importance of scholarship of teaching and learning practice among Malaysian lecturers, the Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT) was established in 2008. Its establishment is in line with the aims of National Education Strategic Plan to transform higher

2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering

978-1-4799-3592-5/14 $31.00 © 2014 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.43

186

education in Malaysia as well as to enhance the professional development of its lecturers who are teaching in higher education institutions. To explore the initial perception and readiness of scholarship of teaching and learning among Malaysian lecturers, a study was conducted by a group of researchers in 2011 [2]. The study found that lecturers from non-education faculties believe that research into teaching should be conducted by lecturers from the education faculties. This assumption shows that the importance of conducting research into teaching is being undermined to certain extent.

However, the nature of teaching relevant courses to specific field of expertise is different from one field of expertise as the practice of scholarship of teaching and learning is not separated from the subject matter of a discipline [25]. Therefore, it is important to explore the conceptions of scholarship of teaching and learning that Malaysian lecturers held in which it might influence their efforts and engagements in any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning such as conducting research in teaching which can be done through action research.

Unfamiliarity with the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning by lecturers might lead to their indifference attitude toward any activity related to the scholarship of teaching and learning [26]. A study conducted in Malaysia by a group of researchers found that majority of Malaysian academic staff did not understand or value the scholarship of teaching and learning and thus, this lead to only small number of academic staff who are actively involved in the scholarship of teaching and learning [28]. In this regards, such academic staff are regarded as a minority of self-sustaining group of researchers in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

However, the scholarship of teaching and learning as a means to improve teaching practice is not a recent phenomenon [3]. As a means to evaluate teaching practice, lecturers might use action research, which also known as practitioner research [29]. One of the main premises of practitioner research by lecturers is commitment to investigate teaching practice by lecturers with an aim to improve their teaching and professional practice for the benefits of others such as their students [4]. In this vein, lecturers who are committed to improve their teaching practice not only act as academic staff per se but also researchers who conduct research in teaching with dual aims. A study has shown that lecturers who research into their own teaching are able to enhance their professional practice and development [30]. This finding is in line with a proposition that the problems in teaching cannot be solved by tackling problems in learning [31]. In this vein, lecturers need to explore the issues that they face in their own teaching practice which is unique to them. A In a study, it was found that lecturers are able to assist students to enhance their understanding of relevant courses as a result of research into their teaching practice [5].

Research into teaching involves cyclical processes [6]. Firstly, lecturers as researchers have to identify and select the area of interest to explore [6]. The identifying and selecting

process might begin with making an explicit question which is deem worth to explore. It is proposed that the area of interest must be something meaningful to researchers [7]. Secondly, researchers have to decide on the tools and methods to gather data which can be in a form of quantitative and/or qualitative data [7]. However, researchers should not limit themselves to one or two data but rather, use various sources to get relevant data that would necessitate the researchers to answers research questions posed [8]. In short, researchers can use various sources to get data such as from students’ worksheets, answers from tests, interviews and survey questionnaires. It is proposed that researchers to use ‘triangulation matrix’ that assist them to organize various data meaningfully in a simple grid [8].

In addition, analyzing data from various sources demands lecturers as researchers to be reflective towards their teaching practice and students’ learning [32]. It is proposed researchers to avoid making premature action in which might be due to several aspects such as impulsive decisions to take action based on insufficient data because conducting action research might be time consuming and due to its nature, action research has cyclical process which might lead enormous amount of data [7]. Reflectivity is crucial because it will influence lecturers’ understanding on the effectiveness of their research in teaching as well as its effect on their students’ learning. Nevertheless, scholarship of teaching and learning involves improvising and improvement of teaching practice by lecturers in which the results of such endeavor will be shared with fellow lecturers. Dissemination of research in teaching is another dimension in the practice of scholarship of teaching and learning [9].

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study describes in this article is a preliminary study

to explore the conceptions of scholarship of teaching and learning by academic staff who are teaching in science and technical based faculties. This preliminary study will employ qualitative research methodology as it is explorative in nature and thus, the data collection procedures and analysis reflect the nature of qualitative research in general.

A. Research design This preliminary study will use case study design to

explore the conceptions of scholarship of teaching and learning. Case study design is chosen because it allows the researchers to explore participants’ characteristics of life events [10]. In this study, in order to get in depth data from the narrative accounts of academic staff teaching in a science and technical based faculty, a single case study design [10] was employed to explore the in-class and out-class sessions in details through observation and interviews.

In this study, purposive sampling is used in which two participants from a faculty of engineering in a local university are selected as participants. They are selected based on their teaching experience and working in industry. Their background is taken into consideration for investigation to uncover their conceptions in conducting research into their teaching. In this vein, their effort and engagement in any activity related to scholarship of teaching

187

and learning is also investigated to find the evidences of their practice of scholarship of teaching and learning. It is assumed that even though they might not familiar with the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning, yet from looking at their teaching practice and research into teaching, the researchers aim to uncover recognizable aspects of scholarship of teaching and learning that they might have already put into practice.

As a general rule, prior to the interview and classroom observation, both participants will be briefed about their rights and research procedures. The inform consent form that participants have to sign prior interview serves to protect the rights of both the participants and the researcher [11] if there are any conflict arises related to research. In addition, the participants will be given a consent form that dictate their rights and also consent to participate in the preliminary study.

For the interview, a recording tool which is a digital voice-recorder will be used in the interview and classroom observation to capture and record informative and relevant information occurred during the data collection process. For the interview, to ensure the accuracy of interview data, each interview were digitally recorded using digital voice recorder. The use of verbal recording has been practiced in social research since the [12]. Recording was normally used in natural science fields or clinical settings, yet it also has been used by social scientist such as sociologists and counselors [12]. The practice has not changed much in recent years as various researchers agree that audio recording is commonly used in qualitative research in various field of studies [11] [13] [14].

The researchers use field-note book to write down behavioral information that could not be recorded by the voice-recorder. The researchers do not use video-recording method to record for the classroom observation because they want to minimize disruption to the lecturers as well as students during class sessions.

B. Data analysis procedure Prior to analysis, the interview sessions will be

transcribed into written form. Verbatim transcription is a process taken by researchers to reproduce the spoken words into a written text [13] [15]. Transcribing is a process in which a transcriber’s view will influence the interpretation of the construction of the texts and the texts itself even though one has to be transparent in the transcribing process [16]. In another words, transcribing is not just an act of expressing verbal words into written forms but also interpretation of the transcription [17]. Therefore, transcribing is not a direct act. It is also proposed that when researchers transcribe, they are engaging in a process called as ‘an interpretive process’ [18]. In this process, according to them, researchers would need to decide which parts of the verbal records are important and what kind of conversational aspects need to be emphasized such as pauses, silence, or voice intonation.

Researchers also need to rely on their prior knowledge on language used in the recordings as well as cultural aspects that go with it, for instance, dialect or accent. Therefore, to write down what is being heard demands researchers to

engage in interpretive acts. In this regards, researchers will involve with interpretive act when dealing with ambiguous utterance from interviews [19]. Researchers tend to interpolate what seems to make sense the most when expressing ambiguous utterance while transcribing an interview. However, even though researchers should concern about the technique of transcribing, yet the purpose of transcribing should be given equal concern too. In this preliminary study, after the transcribing, the researchers will send a copy of the verbal record and its transcript to the interviewee for verification and validation prior to analysis

C. Proposed analysis For the preliminary study, the proposed analysis will be

used to analyze the data is thematic analysis. Thematic analysis will be used because it suits with the nature of the data which aim to explore the initial patterns of the conceptions of scholarship of teaching and learning. In addition, thematic analysis involves the organization of raw data into manageable and interpretable descriptions according to themes and relevant illustrative examples [20] and thus, it will be used as a means to analyze the qualitative data gathered from interview and observation. The process of thematic analysis involved in this study could be summarized into three steps: identifying response codes, creating constituent themes and refining constituent themes into major themes.

In addition, thematic analysis also involves the refinement of various relevant themes that would make up of ‘thematic network’ [21]. ‘Thematic network’ refers to patterns of themes resulted from gathering sub-themes together based on common ground. It is proposed that a thematic network could comprise of basic, organizing and global themes. Each would reflect the data in hierarchical or web-like representation. After developing codes and arranging it into categories of themes, the next step is to elaborate the patterns emerged from it in a broader scope in which it follows by elaboration of codes which needs to be backed up by related literature [22].

III. EXPECTED RESULTS/BENEFITS The expected results of this preliminary study is an initial

conceptions of scholarship of teaching and learning which might explain the practice of Malaysian lecturers on researching into their own teaching practice especially those who are teaching in science and technical faculties. It will serve as reference for the researchers to refine their methodology and research instruments (for example, interview protocol) which they will use to explore the scholarship of teaching and learning among lecturers in the science and technical faculties to further their study by using exploratory sequential mixed methods design [23] which begin with an investigation using qualitative method and follows with quantitative method.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We acknowledged the participation and cooperation of

two participants from the Faculty of Electrical Engineering,

188

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia for their involvement in the preliminary study as described in this article.

REFERENCES [1] T. Harland, University teaching: An introductory guide. London:

Rutledge, 2012 [2] Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT). The learning and

teaching practices in Malaysian higher education institutions: a research summary, Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education. 2012.

[3] A. Campbell and K. Jacques, “Best practice researched”, Teacher Development, vol. 1, pp. 75–90, 2003.

[4] M. Dadds and S. Hart, Doing practitioner research differently. London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2001.

[5] L. Shulman, “From Minsk to Pinsk: why a scholarship of teaching and learning?”, The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL), vol. 1, pp. 49-53, 2000.

[6] E. Calhoun, How to use action research in self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 1994.

[7] G. E. Mills. Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. 2003.

[8] R. Sagor, Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 2000.

[9] C. Kreber, “The scholarship of teaching: A comparison of conceptions held by experts and regular academic staff”, Higher Education, 46, pp. 93-121, 2003.

[10] R. K., Yin, Case study. 4th ed. California: Thausand Oaks. 2009. [11] S. Kvale and S. Brinkmann. Interviews: Learning the craft of

qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage. 2009. [12] R. C. Bucher, E. Fritz and E. L. Quarantelli. “Tape recorded

interviews in social research”, American Sociological Review, vol. 21, pp. 359-364. 1956.

[13] E. J. Halcomb and P. M. Davidson, “Is verbatim transcription of interview data always necessary?”, Applied Nursing Research, vol. 19, pp. 38-42. 2006.

[14] I. Seidman, Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social services. New York: Teachers College Press. 2006.

[15] J. C. Lapadat and A. C. Lindsay, “Transcription in research and practice: From standardization of technique to interpretive positionings”. Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 5, pp. 64-86. 1999.

[16] S. A. Tilley, "Challenging" research practices: Turning a critical lens at the work of transcription”. Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 9, pp. 750-773. 2003.

[17] N. K. Denzin, “On hearing the voices of educational research”. Curriculum Inquiry, vol. 25, pp. 313-329. 1995.

[18] J. Green, M. Franquiz and C. Dixon, “The myth of the objective transcript: Transcribing as a situated act”. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 31, pp. 172-176. 1997.

[19] B. D. Poland, B. D., Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research In Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. G., (Eds.), Qualitative Research. pp. 13-32. California: Sage. 1999.

[20] R. E. Boyatzis, Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. 1998.

[21] J. Attride-Stirling, “Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research”. Qualitative Research, vol. 1, pp. 385-405. 2001.

[22] J. Aronson, “A pragmatic view of thematic analysis”. The Qualitative Report, vol. 2, pp. N/A. 1994.

[23] J. W. Cresswell. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson Education. 2008

Article in an journal: [24] H. Hubball and A. Clarke, “Diverse methodological approaches and

considerations for SoTL in higher education", The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 1, pp. N/A, 2010. doi: 10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.2

[25] M. Healey. “Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-based approach”, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 19, pp. 169-189, 2000. doi: 10.1080/072943600445637.

[26] G. Nicholls, “Scholarship in teaching as a core professional value: what does this mean to the academic?”, Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 9, pp. 29-42. 2004. doi: 10.1080/1356251032000155812.

[27] R. Boshier, “Why is the scholarship of teaching and learning such a hard shell?”, Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 28, pp. 1-15, 2009. doi: 10.1080/07294360802444321

[28] T. Harland, Raja Maznah R. H., and Aishah A. B., “The scholarship of teaching and learning: challenges for Malaysian academics”, Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 19 pp. 1-11, 2014. doi :10.1080/13562517.2013.827654

[29] S. Bartlett and D. Burton, “Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? A discussion of lecturers investigating their classrooms”, Educational Action Research, vol. 14, pp. 395-405. 2006. doi: 10.1080/09650790600847735

[30] G. Jove, “How do I improve what I am doing as a teacher, teacher educator and action-researcher through reflection? A learning walk from Lleida to Winchester and back again”, Educational Action Research, vol. 19, pp. 261-278, 2011. doi: 10.1080/09650792.2011.600526

[31] L. Shulman, “Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical knowledge”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 21, pp. 129-135, 2000. doi: 10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00057-X

[32] S. Trigwell and S. Shale, “Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching”, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 29, pp. 524-536. 2004. doi: 10.1080/0307507042000236407

189