As I watched the video from leading researchers about the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), I became very confused as to what the difference was from Scholarly Teaching. It was until I read The Scholarship of Teaching, that I truly understood the difference.
Everyday, teachers implement ideas, types of learning, curriculum, etc. that they either thought up on their own, researched or talked about with colleagues (Elon TLT, 2012). This is Scholarly Teaching. There is a reason for their implementations, but it does not go farther than that. When teachers take their ideas, collect data, and publish or talk about their findings, they are participating in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (Bender 1999). This is taking teaching one-step further and diminishing the idea that teachers are alone in their classrooms (Bender 1999).
With this idea in mind, I decided to research ideas that I have been interested in as I begin my second year of teaching. This year, my goal is to implement more collaborative learning (the right way!) and start a standards-based grading system. To begin my research, I instant messaged a librarian at MSU. She was able to help me find the perfect database (Google Scholar and ERIC) and teach me how to find articles related to my topics. Also, she made sure that I could access the articles that I had found by showing me how to find them in the MSU database.
On my own, I was able to find five great articles that related to my topics. In fact, I was shocked that there was research for the effectiveness of collaborative learning in 1991 and 1999! These articles will help me implement my new ideas with a research background and help me become a teacher of scholarship!
References
Bender, E and Gray, D. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching. Research & Creative Activity, XXII(1). http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v22n1/p03.html
Elon TLT. (2012, November 29). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning versus Scholarly Teaching. [Video File]. Retrieved on August 12, 2013 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tOnpOCB974.
Annotated Bibliography
Barth, P., Haycock, K., Jackson, H., Mora, K., Ruiz, P., Robinson, S., & Wilkins, A., (1999). Dispelling the Myth: High Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations. [Online Article]. Retrieved on August 12, 2013 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED445140.pdf
- Researchers focused on schools with over 50% poverty, but were in the top performing schools. These schools were very diverse including students who did not speak English. Research found that the use of state standards for curriculum creation and assessment helped improve student performance. There were also other factors such as leaving more time for reading and mathematics, gain parent involvement, and provide more professional development for teachers to learn more innovative ways of teaching.
Guskey, T., Jung, L., Swan, G. (2011). Grades that Mean Something: Kentucky Develops Standards- Based Report Cards. [Online Article]. Retrieved on August 12, 2013 from http://intl.kappanmagazine.org/content/93/2/52.short
- Groups of teachers in Kentucky created a state-wide standards-based grading system. The goal of this was to improve communication of student achievement and performance. Teachers have found that this method has been easily implemented with little extra work.
Rosen, L. (1991). Valuing the Collaborative, Language-Centered Classroom: What Theorists and Teachers Tell Us. [Online Article]. Retrieved on August 12, 2013 from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/eric/docview/62930472/13FD8B18B594761737/2?accountid=12598
- Both teachers and learning theorists agree that students working together to problem solve improve student achievement. Students get to know oneself and students improve both their language use and their thinking cognitively.
Scriffiny, P. (2008). Seven Reasons for Standards – Based Grading. [Online Article]. Retrieved on August 12, 2013 from http://www.asd4.org/schools/indiantrail/documents/SLP/2012-13/seven_reasons.pdf
- Patricia is a math teacher in Colorado. She uses her three years experience with standards-based grading to defend seven reasons why they should replace traditional grading. Her reasonings challenge the traditional idea of giving homework grades as these often result in lower grades because of missing assignments. Instead, standards-based grading focus on whether or not students perform proficiently in a course and even improves teacher workloads.
Swan, M. (n.d.). Collaborative Learning in Mathematics. [Online Article]. Retrieved on August 12, 2013 from https://intranet.ebc.edu.mx/contenido/faculty/archivos/aprendizaje_colaborativo_130212.pdf
- Malcolm Swan has researched the effects of Collaborative Learning versus Traditional Learning in a Mathematics classroom. He has found that creating rich, thought-provoking activities help students learn math easier and more effectively. His article is a great introduction on how to implement this idea in the classroom easily.
love2educate 