Editor's Note

Editor's Note

Response to “Sketching the Contours of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion”

Teacher education programs across North America are transforming. What were once piecemeal programs consisting of often unrelated courses are now becoming coherent and intertwined trajectories toward teacher certification. Part of this transformation can be attributed to the weaving of “signature pedagogies” throughout overarching program frameworks. A modern signature pedagogy within science teacher education is the integration of technology with science area content and effective pedagogy. In this article the author reports an action research study aimed toward promoting the “scholarship of teaching” of pre-service teachers through articulating changes in their maturing perceptions of the integrated relationship between technological, pedagogical, and science content knowledge.

In this issue of the journal we inaugurate a new manuscript form we are calling “Design & Analysis.” Like a Forum, it is composed of several short essays providing different perspectives on a single topic. But in this case, the focus is on describing and analyzing a specific learning design. Chad Bauman, Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University and a “graduate” of a Wabash Center pre-tenure workshop, approached me with a short text describing an assignment he had developed for his introduction to religion class. The manuscript described in some detail a semester-long assignment requiring students to “invent” a new religious system and then seek to attract converts by explaining its characteristics. This is a creative assignment, to be sure, engaging his students in a playful game that requires them to think about and apply the various theories of religion they are learning during the semester. But the text was too short for the journal. How could this be developed into a full-fledged article? We discussed the manuscript for a while, pointing out places where he could provide a bit more analysis, give us more details about his teaching context and students, say more about the learning goals he had for the assignment, and so forth. I realized that what we had was a very clear and compelling description of a learning design and an analysis of its strengths and weaknesses, why it works, and how it might be improved. It was rather like an extended Teaching Tactic – referring to our very popular 400-word (one page) manuscripts describing a particular teaching strategy through rigorous adherence to four specific prompts: the context, the purpose, description of the strategy, and why it is effective. (For more on writing and submitting Teaching Tactics, see: http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/journal/article2.aspx?id=14417.) But a Teaching Tactic, however extended, does not constitute a true article. What is the argument or claim being made: “You should try this too,” I suppose. We then decided that the way to turn this into a fully developed essay for the journal was to solicit short responses – make it into a Forum of sorts, in which the authors together would pull out pedagogical insights from this learning design. The teaching context The pedagogical purpose A description of the strategy (or assignment) Assessment of how it worked and Reflection on what he would do differently next time. Five respondents contribute 500 to 1000 words each, analyzing the effectiveness of the assignment, and articulating larger questions about teaching religion and theology that are made visible in the submission. We are very pleased with the results. And just a few weeks after receiving the initial inquiries from Chad Bauman we received a similarly focused short essay on a creative teaching moment that developed rather spontaneously in a seminary classroom discussing the book of Genesis. You can look for it fleshed out into a Design & Analysis forum in the next issue (April, 19:2). This issue also includes two Teaching Tactics: one describes a method for engaging students' religious questions in an Islamic Studies course, and the other uses visual arts in the biblical studies classroom. This issue also includes a Forum that arose from a paper that Russell McCutcheon delivered to the University of Chicago Divinity School's “Craft of Teaching” workshop for doctoral students: “Crafting the Introductory Course in Religious Studies.” The four articles in this issue cover a wide spectrum. Nathan Loewen uses Derrida's arguments about hospitality to analyze learning in a classroom that he has connected with other classrooms around the globe via Skype. Molly Bassett explains how she teaches – and assesses – critical thinking skills through innovative multiple-choice exams in large introductory courses. Natalie Wigg-Stevenson's essay describes Emmanuel College's Contextual Education seminars that help MDiv students develop integrative learning while simultaneously providing doctoral students with a much-needed teaching practicum. And finally, Willa M. Johnson uses the social theory she teaches to her students to help them (and us) understand how they respond to her as an African-American teaching about European anti-Semitism in a large southern university with a horrific racist history of its own. And, since January 2015, our book reviews are now available for free download on the Wabash Center's website: http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/resources/article.aspx?id=29111.

At the 100th anniversary of Abraham Flexner's landmark report on medical education, critical reassessment of the direction of medical education reform evinced valuable interdisciplinary contributions from biomedicine, sociology, psychology and education theory. However, to date, philosophy has been absent from the discussion despite its long standing contribution to studies on education in other professions. This discussion paper examines how the philosophical tradition can contribute to scholarship in medical education. It begins with an explanation of the scholarly tradition of philosophy of education and its role in thinking in education more generally. It then makes links between this tradition and the context of medical education in the Flexner era of education reform. The paper then argues that this tradition is necessary to the understanding of medical education reform post-Flexner and that doctors must benefit from an education derived from this tradition in order to be able to carry out their work. These foundations are characterised as a hidden, but always present, tradition in medical education. Two ways in which this 'lost tradition' can inform medical education theory and practice are identified: firstly, by the establishment of a public canon of medical education texts that express such a tradition, and, secondly, by the incorporation of a variety of 'signature pedagogies' exemplary of liberal education.

The continual improvement of post-secondary education (PSE) in Canada requires at least three important elements: (1) an understanding of the forms that good teaching takes, with a focus on how these forms differ from one academic discipline to the next; (2) the use of well-collected data to inform decisions regarding constructive change, and (3) ready access to the collective body of knowledge about post-secondary teaching and learning produced across disciplines and institutions. Here, we examine these three elements, first by applying the notion of “signature pedagogies” to help understand the ways teaching differs among disciplines. Then, from institutional and national perspectives, we explore ways in which the benefit of research on the effectiveness of these pedagogies can be maximized.

Excerpt: Since its ‘launch’ a couple of decades ago, “scholarship of teaching” has been increasingly acknowledged on many campuses in and beyond North America. It has been incorporated into mission statements and strengthened the professionalisation of teaching and concomitant interest in faculty development, peer review and the teaching portfolio. Boyer (1997) reported that the need to recognise and find an appropriate balance between different forms of scholarship has led the majority of campuses in the United States to revise their standards for tenure and promotion, while there have also been changes...

Facing Global Environmental Change

1 See, for example, the essays in Regan A. R. Gurung, Nancy L. Chick, and Aeron Haynie, eds., Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind (Sterling, 2009). The 2006 “Textbooks and Teaching” section of the Journal of American History focused specifically on the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). See Gary J. Kornblith and Carol Lasser, “Beyond Best Practices: Taking Seriously the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,” Journal of American History, 92 (March 2006), 1356–402. Before and since then, numerous essays in this section have exemplified the questions and methods of SoTL, notably Arlene Diaz, Joan Middendorf, David Pace, and Leah Shopkow, “The History Learning Project: A Department ‘Decodes’ Its Students,” ibid., 94 (March 2008), 1211–24. On the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in History, see HistorySOTL, http://www.indiana.edu/~histsotl/blog/. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and the History Classroom

In his Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Ernest L. Boyer argued for a conception of ‘scholarship’ that recognizes traditional research – what he termed the ‘scholarship of discovery’ – but which also includes the scholarly domains of ‘integration’, ‘application’, and ‘teaching’. His validation of teaching has spawned a virtual ‘industry’ devoted to what is now known as the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). fIn this paper I seize upon the fact that, in the process of assembling his argument for better recognition of the range of faculty work, Boyer reconsidered the very concept of scholarship, arriving at a broader conception that highlights and celebrates a rich intersection of varied scholarly activities and practices. After introducing Boyer’s four domains of scholarship and summarizing the various scholarly activities – what might be termed the ‘habits of mind’ and ‘models of practice’ – that are associated with those domains, I use the faculty-teaching-scholar template that emerges to generate a map for the development of the student-as-scholar. There is, I believe, a serious need to balance the (quantitatively and qualitatively) great work on the faculty-teaching component of SoTL with an increased focus on the student-learning side. Finally, I demonstrate how the various scholarly habits of mind and models of practice that help define the student-as-scholar are potentially developed in teaching and learning contexts identified as ‘high-impact educational practices’. These scholarly habits of mind, models of practice, and high-impact practices are placed in the broader context of ‘purposeful pathways’, i.e., degree-level curricular and co-curricular plans that could be considered as analogues of faculty-scholars’ research agendas.

The formation of a teacher’s identity is considered a dynamic process influenced by internal and external contextual factors. This article explores the impact that external contextual factors have on teacher candidates’ identities by presenting the findings of an empirical qualitative study that investigated the relationship between teacher candidates’ beliefs and their demonstrations and representations of teaching and learning on a nationally standardised portfolio assessment. Metaphor analysis and stimulated recall were used to explore this relationship. The study found that teacher candidates’ teaching demonstrations while student teaching and representations of teaching found in a nationally standardised portfolio assessment were severely constrained by cooperating teachers and scripted curriculums. However, the study also found that candidates could articulate the differences between their beliefs about teaching and learning and their demonstrations and representations of teaching and learning. Candidates routinely made suggestions in the portfolio assessment to align their future teaching more closely to their metaphors for teaching. The study concluded that candidates did not change their beliefs but took up temporary teaching identities based on these findings. They found ways to navigate the assessment and their (teaching) context while remaining committed to their teaching identity and beliefs about good teaching. This article suggests how education system contexts impact the formation of teacher candidates’ identities and what teacher education programmes need to do to strengthen candidates’ identities in the face of negative external influences.

This comprehensive gem of a book is designed as a “textbook… intended for courses for prospective and in-service KFL teachers” (p. x). The book consistently combines theory and research with elements of practical application in each of its eight well-planned, thoughtfully discussed chapters that center on the following “key issues”: SLA (Second Language Acquisition), pedagogy, language in use, culture, heritage language learners, literacy and multiliteracies, assessment, and program building. These eight chapters collectively constitute Part I of the volume. Each chapter provides a basic overview of the topic, cites selected prior literature and research central to that topic, specifies with concrete illustrations how such issues emerge in the Korean as a Second Language classroom, and concludes with between five and 12 discussion questions, designed to encourage readers to: synthesize the contents and importance of each chapter, imagine themselves in the topic-specific contexts of learning and teaching, and expand their critical understanding of the chapter beyond the specific details provided therein. Part II is a robust assemblage and review of 524 research pieces (495 peer-reviewed journal articles and 29 doctoral dissertations), organized according to the focus areas of each of the eight chapters in Part I. The full volume showcases the academic expertise and practical experience of 18 contributors, all of whom are deeply involved in and committed to Korean language pedagogy, theory, and research, from such fields as linguistics, applied linguistics, literature, culture, civilization, and intercultural communication.Chapter 1 (Kim) provides a historical overview of the field of SLA, in general terms, but more specifically in relation to theories, approaches, and factors related to the teaching and learning of Korean as a Second Language (e.g., L1 influences in developmental sequence of grammatical forms and phonological (dis)similarities, implicit vs. explicit instruction, etc.). The chapter sets the groundwork by appealing to the classic SLA literature, including Kellerman (1979) and Krashen (1982), and building toward more current theories (e.g., Ortega, 2007; Spada & Tomita, 2010; White, 2007), and offers a wide range of application to multiple areas of Korean SLA (e.g., Ahn, 2015; Jeon, 2004; Kim H-Y, 2012; Lee, 2012).Chapter 2 (Park, Choi, and Ko) provides a view into the theoretical backgrounds and implementation of various Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methodologies, focusing the discussion on where and how each approach is currently being applied in Korean language education programs. In this review of task-based language teaching, content-based instruction, and technology-enhanced language instruction methodologies, the reader finds an overview of current approaches in the field of Korean language education (e.g., Cheon, 2007; Kim, Choi, Yun, Kim, & Choi, 2020; Kong, 2012; Lim & Lee, 2015; Noji, Yuen, & Yuen, 2012; Roh & Kim, 2019).Chapter 3 (Kim and Yoon) reviews how “linguistic, pragmatic and interactional” features of Korean are used in “managing topic and reference” for coherent communication (e.g., Kim, 1999; Kim H-Y, 2012; Oh, 2007), “organizing discourse” according to interactional goals (e.g., Hwang, 2015), and “performing social actions” in terms of both speech act and stance expression (e.g., Kim, 2020; Lee, 1999; Park, 1999; Yoon, 2019). These patterns of usage are linked to a speaker's interactive competence (Young, 2008; Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011), and activity ideas for Korean language classes are included.Chapter 4 (Brown and Yoon) complexifies issues of culture in relation to language teaching, by first underscoring the assumed primacy of grammar in both SLA and language pedagogy. The authors propose multiple perspectives on “culture” and the multivariate ways in which culture is defined and discussed (Byram, 2008; Herron, Cole, Corrie, & Dubreil, 1999; Walker, 2000). Supplementing the more traditional, pragmatically grounded explanations of Korean society and culture, the authors also address issues of identity (“Korean adoptee returnees,” Higgins & Stoker, 2011) and note the use of media-based materials (advertisements) and pop culture, as resources for language-culture content, while also pointing out drawbacks of how culture is introduced and taught in Korean textbooks (Choo, 1999; Ree, 2000).Chapter 5 (Kim) reviews the characteristics of Korean heritage learners in terms of error types and cognition of language processing as compared to those found in L2 learners and bilingual Korean-English speakers (e.g., Kim, 2008; Kim H, 2012). Through this discussion, heritage learners' unique learner profiles are explained by their tendencies of attending to (Zyzik, 2016) and noticing (Schmidt, 1990) language patterns, which are informed by their background knowledge (Gass, 1988, p. 201) and history of Korean language input. Implications of these findings on Korean Heritage Language education are suggested in terms of concrete teaching approaches, feedback methods, and subject matter.Chapter 6 (Suh and Jung) centers on literacy and multiliteracies as conceptualized in the Korean L2 classroom. The authors underscore the fact that literacy extends far beyond reading, writing, and orthography in all L2 education. Rather, literacy and multiliteracies are grounded in the various layers of meaning within texts (explicit, implicit, and cultural). Literacy practices are also related to critical thinking, in the sense that texts are imbued with multiple voices and perspectives that are then decoded and subsequently appropriated by language learners. Crucially, the chapter underscores the robust ways in which literacy is social action (Kim, 2018), as enacted in TV dramas (Lee-Smith & Roh, 2016), Public Service Announcements (PSAs) (Lee-Smith, 2016), peer review in composition assignments (Byon, 2005), and overall writing skill development.Chapter 7 (Shin and Lee) considers timely issues in both standardized and classroom-based assessments of Korean language. An overview of standardized assessments particularly focuses on the contexts and limitations of prominent Korean language exams. The discussion of classroom assessments points out essential considerations such as the distinct needs of heritage versus nonheritage learners (Brinton, Kagan, & Bauckus, 2008; Cho & Chun, 2015; Kondo-Brown, 2005; Lee & Kim, 2008; Sohn & Shin, 2007; 손성옥, 2005) and the alignment of assessments with classroom instruction content (Norris, 2016). The creation of criterion-referenced tests for achievement assessments is suggested, and a framework for such assessments is described in detail (Davidson & Lynch, 2002). Finally, helpful guidelines are put forth for the creation of achievement assessments that mirror actual language usage as closely as possible, and alternative forms of assessment are also described.Chapter 8 (Yu Cho, Lee, and Wang) lays out the history and development of Korean language programs in higher education and at K-12 levels, underscoring such factors as the National Standards for Korean Language Education and the invaluable support by the Korea Foundation. The authors provide an overview of the various Korean language programs in North America, while illustrating the current Korean as a foreign language (KFL) faculty profiles and discussing the various types of professional development opportunities for preservice and in-service KFL teachers and their importance to continued growth and success (Im, Suh, Jung, Shin, & Choi, 2013; Kim, 2017). At the heart of successful Korean language programs are the KFL instructors.Part II of this volume is an extensive and detailed annotated bibliography consisting of 524 research pieces, of which 495 are peer-reviewed journal articles and 29 are doctoral dissertations. The journal articles were culled from 35 major journals that specialize in foreign language pedagogy, each of which has published at least one article on Korean foreign language education in English. Of these, 21 were published in North America and 14 in South Korea. Part II opens with a quantitative summary of relevant KFL-related research topics from the past 2.5 decades, a qualitative compilation of topic-based research trends, a brief discussion on the evolution of scholarship in Korean as a Heritage Language, and a summary of more recent research trends in KFL scholarship more generally. Following this introduction, the actual annotations to relevant research articles and dissertation appear in the same order and under the same headings as the chapter headings for the eight chapters in Part I. The annotated bibliography is designed as a “useful and ready-to-use resource” (p. 206).One drawback to the annotated bibliography is that the authors have designedly excluded such academic publications as “book chapters” (and thus also full book-length publications) because they are “not easily downloadable from online databases.” This focus may skew both the overall findings as well as the summaries of research trends, since much seminal research on Korean, Korean applied linguistics, Korean pragmatics, Korean language pedagogy, socialization, and so forth (written in English) also appears as chapters in important edited volumes, including the full series of Japanese-Korean Linguistics and the full series of conference proceedings from International Circle of Korean Linguistics (ICKL).Overall, this book is a welcome addition to the growing body of publications on Korean language pedagogy and professional development that serves multiple purposes: It is an invaluable resource for classic and more recent theoretical trends in linguistics, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, literacy, multiliteracies, and language socialization.It provides insights into critical topics related to KFL issues and how such issues have been investigated and analyzed.It provides practical, concrete examples for potential application in the KFL classroom.It is user-friendly and includes discussion questions for readers to develop their own understandings of the eight key issues beyond the content and limitations of each individual chapter.

[A four volume collection of canonical and cutting-edge writing in the field of critical race theory.] Critical Race Theory (CRT) offers an account of society based on systemic, deep-rooted racist oppression that saturates our commonsensical judgements to such an extent that all but the most extreme racism appears normal and unexceptional, simply ‘business as usual’. CRT is one of the fastest growing and most controversial fields of contemporary social theory, and education is the discipline where its most dynamic and challenging work is taking place. Now, answering the need for an authoritative reference work to make sense of this sometimes shocking and often contentious body of thought, Routledge announces a new title in its Major Themes in Education series. In four volumes, Critical Race Theory in Education provides a unique ‘mini library’ that encompasses the very best CRT scholarship in education. As with other titles in the series, the collection’s hallmark is its combination of the canonical and the cutting edge: every selection is either an established ‘classic’ or significantly challenges and advances thinking on current issues. The first volume (‘Tenets of Critical Race Theory in Education’) sets out the core themes that distinguish the CRT approach. Volume II (‘Whiteness and White Supremacy’), meanwhile, explores the construction and maintenance of assumptions and practices that take for granted the elevated status of white people’s interests and perspectives. The third volume (‘Global and Specific: CRT Off-shoot Movements’) focuses on the development of CRT as an approach with an international reach, while simultaneously retaining space for distinctive developments that prioritize individual social groups within their particular historic, cultural, and economic contexts. The collection’s final volume (‘Doing CRT in Education’) is dedicated to questions of method, ethics, and praxis in the everyday struggle to advance research and effect genuine anti-racist change amid systems that normalize racism and deny the legitimacy of race-conscious scholarship. David Gillborn, the editor of the collection, is recognized internationally as a leading scholar of race inequity in education. He was one of the first writers to apply CRT outside North America.

Abstract. This essay discusses the process and findings of an experiment on the scholarship of teaching and learning conducted in a religious ethics classroom that utilized an experiential approach to teaching and learning about social justice. The first part lays out the focus of the investigation and the pedagogical principles drawn from experiential learning theory that provided the foundation for the experiment. The second part describes all of the components of the pedagogical strategy used in the experiment, the social justice action project. The third part discusses the qualitative methodology used to gather evidence and the findings drawn from that evidence. What the evidence shows is that an experiential approach to teaching and learning about social justice can be quite effective. The essay concludes with discussions of areas for further study and the implications for the practice of others. (The survey described in this article can be found on the Wabash Center Web site〈http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/journal/glennon.html〉).

Scholarship of Drug Information and Library Sciences Instruction in North American Pharmacy Education: A Systematic Review of English-Language Research