change from teaching to learning.doc

7/27/2019 Change from teaching to learning.doc

1/13

ChangeJuly, 2001

Leading-Edge Efforts To Improve Teaching And Learning The

Hesburgh Awards.

Author/s: K. Patricia Cross

Six years ago, an article appeared in this magazine that immediatelystruck a chord. Although the title of the article, "From Teaching to

Learning," has been criticized for making a false separation betweenteaching and learning, it managed to bundle, in a single phrase, an

array of issues that have surfaced in American higher education. Incalling for a paradigm shift from teaching to learning, Barr and Tagg

(1995) were giving identity to a change that was well under way.

There are four major developments driving the call for focusing

attention on student learning:

* Rising demand from stakeholders--students, parents, employers,and policymakers--for accountability and evidence of student

learning.

* Significant advances in research on cognition and learning,suggesting that students, rather than teachers, are the active locus

for learning.

* The arrival in higher education of thousands of students who are

unprepared to do college-level work. Teachers faced day-by-day withstudents who are not "getting it" are increasingly interested in

knowing how to produce learning.

* The growing tendency of students to accumulate their education

from multiple colleges and other sources. Thus, students rather thaninstitutions are the units in which learning resides.

The convergence of these pressures on higher education hasstimulated wide interest and discussion based on the fundamental

premise, crystallized in "From Teaching to Learning," that thepurpose of colleges and universities, as Robert Barr and John Tagg

write, is not simply to "provide instruction" but to "produce learning."

Perhaps unwittingly, the authors of "From Teaching to Learning" also

perpetuated the nomenclature wars that are a sure sign that socialchange is on the way. Hutchings and Shulman (1999) and Richlin

(2001), for example, make a distinction between the "scholarship ofteaching" and "scholarly teaching," and O'Banion (1999) emphasizes

the difference between "learner-centered" and "learning-centered"colleges.

When academics begin to argue for greater precision in language, to


2/13

debate about what is really meant by certain terminology, and to

invent new terms and euphemisms, then the door is open forchange. Without question, the recent literature of higher education is

replete with new terms about teaching and learning, makingproblematic the nomenclature of what used to be called centers for

the improvement of instruction or faculty development centers--andwhich, for the purposes of this article, I shall refer to as programs forthe improvement of teaching and learning, or ITL programs.

Resource centers to help faculty improve teaching and learning, bywhatever name, are not new. Twenty-five years ago, Jerry Gaff

located approximately 200 campus programs by asking staffmembers of state boards of higher education and officers of federal

and foundation agencies that had funded projects to identifyteaching improvement programs. Then through surveys, interviews,

and personal visits, he presented a picture of the state of the art in1975. He titled his seminal work Toward Faculty Renewal because it

addressed a primary issue of the 1970s, "how to keep a now largelymiddle-aged faculty educationally alive and growing during the next

two to three decades" (1975).The purpose of ITL programs is quite different today; the middle-

aged faculty of the 1970s are retiring and a new generation is takingtheir place in the faculty ranks. Moreover, the attitude regarding

teaching improvement has changed. The goal is far more ambitious--and more respectful--than keeping faculty "educationally alive." The

approach today is to solicit the cooperation, collaboration, and

participation of faculty and to offer services and resources incampuswide efforts to improve teaching and learning.

Descriptions of representative efforts to improve teaching and

learning are contained in some 450 initial applications for theHesburgh Awards submitted between 1993 and 2001. In 1993,

TIAA/CREF created the Hesburgh Award "to acknowledge and rewardsuccessful, innovative faculty development programs that enhance

undergraduate teaching, and to help inspire the growth of suchinitiatives at America's undergraduate colleges and universities."

Diane Oakley, vice president of TIAA/CREF, graciously made the fullapplications of all 210 award finalists available to me for analysis.

This nine-year collection of program descriptions provides anexceptionally rich resource for examining leading-edge efforts to

improve teaching and learning in two- and four-year colleges and

universities.

The applications reveal a wide range of activities and innovative

programs, but I found that the goals of Hesburgh finalists could be

categorized under three major headings:

Improving teaching by


3/13

* applying knowledge about cognition and learning,

* targeting particular groups of students,

* targeting particular faculty, and

* developing a "personal vision" of teaching;

Redesigning courses to

* adapt to new technologies and

* implement new curricula or emphases; and

Changing the learning environment of the institution by

* creating "learning-centered colleges,"

* developing a distinctive institutional mission focus,

* focusing on student learning outcomes, and

* instituting incentives and rewards for teaching.

IMPROVING TEACHING

Among Hesburgh applicants, a gentle approach to developing

teaching skills predominates. Collaborative approaches are not only

"taught" as skills in workshops and seminars, but they are used inthe format of workshops that emphasize active and collaborativelearning on the part of the faculty participants. Almost all of the

Hesburgh applicants use faculty discussion groups, monthlyseminars, mentoring, faculty-helping-faculty programs, and other

approaches that capitalize on the experience and talent that exist inthe faculty. I found few pedagogical "systems" constituting the core

of any program, although methods based on a consistent theory of

learning such as collaborative learning or problem-based learning(PBL), which have their roots in constructivist learning theories, have

clearly replaced programs such as mastery learning or PSI

(personalized system of instruction), which arise out of thebehaviorist theories of the 1970s (Cross, 1976).

The ITL centers' emphasis on collaboration and teamwork amongfaculty participants comes in part from the dominance of

constructivist learning theories, but the centers are also eager toescape any taint of offering "remedial" work for teachers deemed

inadequate in teaching skills. So they are far more likely today tosearch Out the strongest teachers on the faculty as leaders and

associates in the work of developing teaching skills. Since facultyparticipation is voluntary, the strength of the program is dependent


4/13

on its appeal, usefulness, and association with high-status faculty.

Consistent with the cautious avoidance of the implication thatteaching needs "improvement" or that faculty need "development,"

efforts today are often directed to groups of faculty that might bejudged receptive and even eager for information about the basic

skills of teaching--for example, adjuncts, teaching assistants, or newfaculty. These efforts feature traditional as well as nontraditionalpedagogical approaches. Class management, test construction,

lecturing, leading discussion, managing large classes, and otherbasic teaching skills such as those found in books on "teaching tools"

or "teaching tips" are offered (see Davis, 1993; McKeachie, 1994).But ITL directors also have considerable knowledge and

sophistication about modern learning theory and research on studentlearning. Most workshops today include information about the

importance of teaching critical thinking, problem solving, and thehigher-level thinking skills.

Targeting the learning needs of special student groups, such asethnic and racial minorities, women, or freshmen is also a popular

way to disseminate knowledge about teaching skills. This is anotherinstance of the nonthreatening, learner-centered approach that so

dominates the Hesburgh applications. Workshops emphasizinglearner needs rather than teaching skills are nonpejorative ways to

go about developing faculty interest and skill in teaching. Three ofthe five winners in 2001, for example, described programs targeted

at special faculty or student groups--adjunct faculty, women in

science, and under-represented minorities (Metropolitan StateCollege of Denver, University of Wisconsin System, and the

University of Nebraska at Omaha, respectively).

Over the past quarter of a century, faculty development programshave made major changes in this category of developing teaching

skills. The primary change seems to be a direct result of far moresophisticated research on cognition and learning and a desire not to

alienate faculty; also apparent is a reaction against some elementsof the faculty development programs of the 1970s.

Twenty-five years ago, the "personal development" of faculty wasconsidered as important as the development of their pedagogical

skills. Gaff, for example, devotes a considerable section of hischapter on "Faculty Development" to a review of research on "How

Adults Develop." In it, he observes that "teaching makes demands

on the whole personality of the teacher" and that "for lasting changein a teacher to occur, his emotions and affect must be engaged asmuch as his ideas and cognition."

Reform movements in higher education are a product of their times,

and early efforts to improve instruction are no exception. The humandevelopment movement, promoted by the National Training

Laboratory in Bethel, Maine, was popular throughout the nation in

the 1960s and 1970s. Many organizations were experimenting withdeveloping "human potential" to its fullest. In this context, self-


5/13

understanding was seen as an important, but largely ignored, aspectof teaching. Consistent with such perceptions, some leading-edge

programs of the 1970s brought in "trainers" to assist participants in"fully clarifying their own attitudes and values, with specific

reference to instruction" (Gaff, 1975). Understandably, such effortswere met with mixed reactions from faculty.

While the term "faculty development" may have collected someunfortunate historical baggage, the consideration of faculty members

as developing human beings, facing different challenges at eachcareer stage, appears to be resurfacing with a more sensitive edge.

Although programs directed to the personal development of teachersas mentors and role models for students were rarely mentioned by

Hesburgh applicants, I cannot help observing the growing interest offaculty today in the messages of holistic thinkers and inspirational

speakers such as Parker Palmer and Steven Brookfield. While noteschewing teaching techniques and skills, they promote self-

understanding, exploration of the "inner life," and the developmentof a "personal vision" of teaching.

There appears to be a growing conviction today that not only ispersonal development appropriate to the health and satisfaction of

faculty members, it is relevant to their role as teachers. Common toboth Palmer's and Brookfield's work is the theme that teaching takes

something more than pedagogical skills and subject-matterknowledge. Palmer entitles his popular book The Courage to Teach,

and Brookfield asserts that "teaching is a deeply emotional process."

REDESIGNING COURSES

Although establishing ITL centers is probably the most commonapproach nationwide to improving undergraduate teaching and

learning, redesigning courses and programs is the Hesburghapplicants' most frequently chosen method for directing faculty

attention to the improvement of teaching and learning. Redesign ofcourses calls for a change in emphasis, goals, and/or content, but

usually requires a change in teaching methods as well. It is oftenadvocated in order to use the new technologies, to implement a new

curricular or pedagogical emphasis (such as a general-education coreor collaborative learning groups), or to target a special group of

students (like freshmen, students of color, women). AmongHesburgh applicants in the most recent years of 2000 and 2001, the

leading program emphases were 1) the redesign of courses to

employ technology and 2) course development to implement aspecific curricular focus.

Technology. The most rapidly growing trend, revealed in the nine

years of Hesburgh applications is, not surprisingly, adapting coursesto use the new technologies, such as interactive computer programs

and the Web, for deployment either on campus or in distancelearning. Although not often a central focus of ITL programs,

technological training is a service offered on many campuses,


6/13

sometimes, but not always, connected with the ITL Center. Use of

the new interactive and Web-based technologies calls for greatlyimproved knowledge about how students learn, and virtually every

program using technology as the vehicle for teaching improvementemphasized the development of pedagogical understanding.

The use of technology as a stimulus to course redesign amongHesburgh applicants appears surprisingly low-key. Most technology-based reforms are not high-tech operations with high-powered

experts, wired campuses, and cutting-edge technology. Rather, theyare often located on commuter campuses, launched largely as a

convenience to students and to prepare faculty for the expectationsof future students who are more experienced with computers than

their teachers. The typical technology-based program applying forHesburgh recognition is proudly "experiential," encouraging faculty

to take risks and help one another. Programs often offer a "livinglaboratory" or a "faculty playroom" where faculty can come at their

convenience to experiment with the equipment, learn from facultycolleagues, and get technical assistance when wanted.

Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), winner of the 1995 award, isone of the most sophisticated among Hesburgh winners in using

technology as a vehicle for improving student learning. RPI wasinterested in "incorporating the tools of modem computing into the

educational system, redesigning the course structure to reflectresearch findings on how students learn, revising the curriculum to

emphasize the skills needed in this changed environment, developing

student communication skills, and accommodating the growingdiversity of the student body." While the Renssalaer program was

comprehensive in its aims, it was highly focused in its efforts. The

target for reform was large introductory classes, which were

transformed into "studio" formats that integrated lecture, laboratory,and recitation sections and encompassed physics, chemistry,calculus, and computer science.

Renssalaer found that the redesigning of courses "fundamentallyreorganized the classroom, altering the way faculty and students

work together. The student assumes more of a hands-on, interactiverole in the classroom, putting the focus on student problem solving

and projects rather than on faculty presentation of materials. Theinstructor acts as a mentor/guide/advisor in a classroom designed

for hands-on cooperative learning." A careful evaluation of studentlearning showed that not only did performance equal that of students

in more traditional formats, but student satisfaction increased, andcosts decreased.

Curricular emphasis. The second popular way of increasing faculty

leadership and participation in ITL is through new core requirementsor redesigning courses for a new curricular emphasis. Almost a third

of the finalists for the Hesburgh Award in 2000 and 2001 chose an

institutionwide curricular theme as a vehicle for ITL. Multiculturalism,internationalism, ethics, and writing across the curriculum have all


7/13

been represented in ITL programs recently, and all are curricular

emphases that lend themselves to faculty discussion, collaboration,and course redesign. If faculty are to be actively engaged in thinking

about new ways of teaching and learning, the curricular theme hasto be relevant across the disciplines; it must involve student learning

outcomes that the institution is interested in fostering; and, in manycases, it will establish a mark of distinction or a special niche for theinstitution.

The design of courses to fit a curricular theme is usuallyimplemented in one or both of the following ways: 1) through

preparing some faculty to teach required core courses, or 2) throughincorporating appropriate aspects of the theme into all courses. An

institutional theme of ethics, for example, may require the teachingof a required core course in "Ethics and Values" and/or require

faculty in such diverse disciplines as business and history to showhow ethics is applied in their fields.

Utah Valley State College, winner of the 2001 Hesburgh Award, usesthe theme of "Ethics Across the Curriculum" to redesign courses and

engage faculty, students, and local K-12 teachers in discussionsabout ethics within and across disciplines. The program aims to

expand the moral sensitivities of students, help them realize thatmoral values are not merely subjective opinions, and understand

inconsistencies in their values. It also teaches them to examine factsand develop decision-making strategies for resolving ethical issues,

and it increases their understanding of current ethical problems.

The program provides networking opportunities for faculty, who offer

each other support, and it helps them to become skilled in leadingdiscussion and to integrate the discussion of ethical issues into their

coursework. Faculty engage in discussion with their peers, nationalleaders, and students in analyzing case studies involving ethical

issues such as the Firestone tire recall, Concord Jet crash, nuclearwaste disposal, and the like.

Such a curricular emphasis incorporates many attributes that ITLprograms strive to implement, such as faculty interdisciplinary

conversations about teaching, the application of active learningpedagogical strategies, and the creation of a community of teachers

and students with common interests. Utah Valley also conductedassessments of student learning to measure the impact of the

program on critical thinking, recognition of moral dilemmas, and the

ability to identify examples of ethical and unethical behaviors incurrent television and movies.

CHANGING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

The environment is basic; more than anything else it determines thebehavior of individuals. Individual behavior may be changed most

effectively by modifying the environment. (Gaff, 1975)


8/13

Putting learning at the heart of the academic enterprise will mean

overhauling the conceptual, procedural, curricular, and otherarchitecture of postsecondary education on most campuses.

(Wingspread Group on Higher Education, 1993)

While there seems to be broad agreement that institution-wideorganizational change is a desirable way to create a robust learning

environment, there are few institutions that have managed suchchange successfully. Among Hesburgh winners, three that have done

so have achieved high visibility as organizations committed to theimprovement of teaching and learning. They represent very different

types of institutions--a community college, an independent liberalarts college, and a research university.

Miami-Dade Community College (winner in 1993), Alverno College(1994), and Syracuse University (1996) have all gained national

reputations for making major organizational change to enhanceteaching and learning. A fourth more recent effort that has not yet

received major national visibility is Missouri Southern State College(Certificate of Excellence in 2001), which adopted an international

mission of "Bringing the World to the Midwest." Coincidentally,Missouri Southern rounds out the major types of institutions that

have managed major organizational change, adding a rural statecollege to the mix.

While many have admired Alverno's 25-year effort to focus on

student learning, they have claimed that such institutional change is

possible only in a small independent college. Miami-Dade, a hugemulticampus public community college with some 50,000 students,

most of whom are students of color; Syracuse University, a largetraditional research university; and now Missouri Southern, a public

state college in an economically disadvantaged region of theMidwest, are proving otherwise.

The four institutions used very different approaches to institutionalchange. Miami-Dade focused on involving faculty directly and

actively in a multiyear effort to define institutional values. Facultycommittees went back to the entire faculty time and again to inform

colleagues, solicit their opinions and advice, and incorporate theirsuggestions. The college was then consistent and persistent in

aligning decision-making--from budget allocations to studentrequirements to faculty evaluations--with the college's agreed-upon

values. Alverno also required total faculty involvement and

commitment to student learning. There, the curriculum is developed,courses taught, and outcomes assessed with the goal of developingstudent proficiencies in carefully defined learning outcomes.

Syracuse set out to change the balance between research andteaching after faculty and administrator surveys indicated a

perceived overemphasis on research at the expense of teaching. Twoactions were indicated: a change in faculty evaluation, promotion,

and tenure procedures (the major lever for change) and a


9/13

questioning of the narrow definition of research. Syracuse now prides

itself on being a "student-centered research university." (SeeBarbara Wright's article in this issue for more on the Syracuse

program.)

Missouri Southern has changed the learning environment byinstituting a global mission. It sends faculty and students abroad;

sponsors international travel seminars for students, faculty, andtownspeople; and invites visiting scholars and exchange students to

campus. It has enriched the study of foreign languages, encouragedmulticultural awareness, offered imaginative cocurricular and cultural

events, and instituted "themed semesters," all of which requirefaculty collaboration and cross-disciplinary conversations. These and

a host of other events and activities draw faculty and studentstogether in continuous learning communities.

Although these dramatic re-definitions of mission do not focusdirectly on "faculty development," they have created new and vibrant

learning environments. Broad institutional change calls for rethinkingundergraduate education, how teachers teach, and how students

learn. The task is difficult but not impossible, and the energy createdby successful change is stimulating and energizing for those

involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The Hesburgh applicants are a very special group of programs,representing the strongest and most innovative efforts in the nation

to improve teaching and learning. This review of these applicationsverifies that there are literally hundreds of programs in existence

today, demonstrating a great capacity for renewal and change. Toimpatient critics who have complained about how sluggishly higher

education moves (myself included), the speed of this particularchange is encouraging indeed.

Yet, despite the power of these programs to show what can be done,the Hesburgh applications are better at revealing the past than at

foretelling the future. Most of the programs reviewed here were fiveto 10 years old at the time of their application--young enough to be

fresh and innovative in meeting the challenges of the era, but oldenough to have achieved some success and maturity.

Given the history of innovation in higher education--with its bumps,

turns, and unexpected twists--I would not expect the future to be astraight-line projection of the past. The challenge of "producinglearning" has moved to the forefront of American higher education

with exceptional speed, and there are now strong forces that willpush this swift river of change into new channels.

First, extensive pressures to assess student learning, described inthe March/April 2001 issue of Change, are digging channels that are

both broader and deeper than the ones cut to date. Although one


10/13

criterion for the Hesburgh from the beginning was "documented

improvement, with objective data, in undergraduate learningoutcomes and student advancement and retention," the focus on

assessment was not sharp when the first Hesburgh Awards weremade, nor indeed throughout the first decade of their existence.

Over the years, a few exceptional applicants have produced evidence

that they were making progress in "producing learning," and there isalso evidence of a good-faith effort to document changes that are

easy to measure, such as increased retention or graduation rates orincreased diversity. But for the most part, evidence of gains in

critical thinking, problem solving, and the higher-level thinking skillsis lacking.

Future leading-edge programs will almost certainly have todemonstrate, in credible form, just what students are learning.

Moreover, we should expect that the feedback loop from the

assessments of student learning will help us continually monitor andmodify programs and tell us where to spend our efforts mosteffectively.

Second, today there are numerous well-funded and energeticnational efforts to provide leadership and interinstitutional

collaboration to improve student learning. For the first decade of theHesburghs, most applicants were out in front by themselves; they

were innovators precisely because they perceived a challenge andmoved to address it before the issue became a much-discussed

nationwide concern. Although some of the Hesburgh applicants werefunded as consortia, and one of the award criteria was to show the

impact of programs "on the academic community and emulation oradaptation by others," most applicants presented more evidence of

dissemination of final results than of collaboration in designingprograms. That is changing.

Today, the numerous small tributaries feeding the river of innovationwith fresh ideas, are uniting into stronger streams with a clearer

direction and greater force. For example:

* The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the

American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), with funds fromthe Pew Charitable Trusts, have joined in efforts to broaden the

definition of scholarship to promote the "scholarship of teaching and

learning." Nearly 200 institutions are participants in the Teaching

Academy Campus Program of CASTL (the Carnegie Academy for theScholarship of Teaching and Learning).

* The Greater Expectations programs, launched by the Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) with multi-year funding

from Pew and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, is acollaborative effort to raise and meet greater expectations for

learning in the liberal arts and undergraduate education.


11/13

* The League for Innovation in the Community College has just

selected 12 Vanguard Colleges and 61 Champion Colleges to take thelead in developing "learning colleges."

* The Washington Center's Pew-funded work to support the

development of learning communities nationwide is putting newemphasis on collective and active teaching and learning on campuses

that have become part of this swiftly growing movement.

* Nationwide, the Policy Center on the First Year of College is

providing assistance to hundreds of colleges that are trying to meetthe special needs of freshmen and other students in transition.

* Preparing Future Faculty (PFF), sponsored by the Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate

Schools with funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts, bringsinstitutions hiring new PhDs together with graduate schools to

"change the culture and preparation of future faculty members."

Third, in addition to national coalitions of institutions working

together to share expertise and experience, there are numeroussupport groups offering resources, knowledge, and encouragement

to focus efforts on improving student learning. For example:

* Foundations, especially the Pew Charitable Trusts, have provided

focus and funds.

* Accrediting agencies and state policymakers are requiring

"evidence" of student learning.

* Scholars and researchers are making significant progress instrengthening the cognitive sciences and the measurement of

student learning.

* Academic disciplinary associations are entering into conversationsabout the necessity for future professors to incorporate principles of

learning into the teaching of their disciplines. One arm of the CASTLproject works with the disciplinary societies to introduce the

scholarship of teaching and learning to their members, and AAHE'sForum on Faculty Roles and Rewards has also worked closely with

the education officers of the societies to disseminate a broader ideaof scholarly activity.

The dissemination of information about teaching and learning isenhanced by the existence of a large number of disciplinary teaching

journals (Weimer, 1993), and by the instant collegial exchange ofinformation via the Internet. The Professional & Organization

Development Network in Higher Education ([email protected]),for instance, sponsors an active and collegial network for directors of

ILT centers.


12/13

In more than 40 years of studying change in higher education, Icannot recall a time when attention and action have been more

focused and potentially productive. This review of the Hesburghfinalists over the past decade demonstrates the remarkable vitality

of leading-edge colleges and universities for self-renewal andchange. The next 10 years will no doubt reveal leading-edge

institutions still cutting new channels, but the river itself has grownswifter, broader, and deeper than anyone had imagined.

K. Patricia Cross is professor of higher education, emerita, Universityof California-Berkeley. This article supported by a grant from

TIAAICREF.

HESBURGH CRITERIA

Significance of an institution's faculty development programdemonstrated by the extent to which it:

* Addresses an important undergraduate teaching challenge on thecampus and in support of a multicultural academic environment.

* Represents a fresh direction beyond conventional response.

* Displays a concept of design with a potential for far-reaching

impact.

Rationale appropriate to achieving the program's objectives:

* The program should be consistent with the college's mission,building on the strengths and capabilities of faculty and students. It

should clearly communicate its objectives and expected teaching andlearning outcomes.

* The design and rationale should incorporate a strong analysis ofthe situation and an effective implementation strategy.

* The program should demonstrate wise use of resources, stronginstitutional support, inclusive planning, high faculty participation

and committed financial and human resources.

A program's proven success and impact as demonstrated by:

* Evidence of systematic change in teaching effectiveness andsustained faculty commitment to professional development, including

formalization of the program and integration into its educational

philosophy.

* Documented improvement, with objective data, in undergraduatelearning outcomes and student advancement and retention.

* Results of self-evaluation of the program's impact on the academic


13/13

community and emulation or adaptation by others.

RESOURCES

* Barr, R., and J. Tagg. "From Teaching to Learning: A NewParadigm for Undergraduate Education," Change, 1995, Vol. 27, No.

6, pp. 13-25.

* Brookfield, S. D. The Skillful Teacher, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1990

* Cross, K. P. Accent on Learning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.

* Davis, B. G. Tools for Teaching, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.

* Gaff, J. G. Toward Faculty Renewal, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1975.

* Hutchings, P., and L.S. Shulman. "The Scholarship of Teaching,"

Change, 1999, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 10-15.

* McKeachie, W. J. Teaching Tips, Ninth Edition, Lexington, Mass.:

D.C. Heath, 1994.

* O'Banion, T. "The Learning College: Both Learner and LearningCentered," Learning Abstracts, 1999, Vol. 2.

* Palmer, P. J. The Courage to Teach, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1998.

* Richlin, L. "Scholarly Teaching and the Scholarship of Teaching," In

C. Kreber (Eds.), The Scholarship of Teaching New Directions inTeaching and Learning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

* Weimer, M. The Disciplinary Journals on Pedagogy, Change, 1993,Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 44-51.

* Wingspread Group on Higher Education. "An American Imperative:Higher Expectations for Higher Education," Racine, WI: The Johnson

Foundation, Inc., 1993.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT 2001 Heldref Publications

in association with The Gale Group and LookSmart. COPYRIGHT 2001

Gale Group

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

change from teaching to learning.doc

Documents