THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING

AND LEARNING IN HIGHER

EDUCATION: AN EVIDENCE-BASED

PERSPECTIVE

Part of this work has been previously published.

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHINGAND LEARNING IN HIGHER

EDUCATION: AN EVIDENCE-BASEDPERSPECTIVE

Edited byRaymond P. Perry

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

John C. SmartUniversity of Memphis, Memphis, USA

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-1-4020-4944-6 (HB)ISBN 978-1-4020-5742-7 (e-book)

Published by Springer,P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

www.springer.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved© 2007 SpringerNo part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with theexception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered andexecuted on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

We are deeply appreciative of the support received from our families and close friends who

remind us that achieving important goals is best done within a framework that balances

personal and professional life. I (Ray) am indebted to my wife, Judy G. Chipperfield, for

fostering a creative environment for consultation and reflection, and to my son, Jason P.

Perry, for reminding me of the important things in life. I (John) would like to thank my

mentor, Charles F. Elton, my wife, Bunty Ethington, and my children, Dawn Farrar and

David Smart.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements IX

Contributors XI

1. Introduction to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher

Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective 1

Raymond P. Perry and John C. Smart

SECTION I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SCHOLARSHIP TEACHING

AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2. From Athens and Berlin to LA: Faculty Scholarship

and the Changing Academy 11

R. Eugene Rice

3. Teaching and Learning in a Research-Intensive University 23

Michele Marincovich

4. Understanding New Faculty: Background, Aspirations, Challenges,

and Growth 39

Ann E. Austin, Mary Deane Sorcinelli and Melissa McDaniels

SECTION II RESEARCH ON TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

5. Identifying Exemplary Teachers and Teaching: Evidence from Student

Ratings 93

Kenneth A. Feldman

Commentary: Commentary and Update on Feldman’s (1997) “Identifying

Exemplary Teachers and Teaching: Evidence from Student Ratings” 130

Michael Theall and Kenneth A. Feldman

6. Low-inference Teaching Behaviors and College Teaching

Effectiveness: Recent Developments and Controversies 145

Harry G. Murray

Commentary: Research on Low-Inference Teaching Behaviors: An Update 184

Harry G. Murray

7. Teachers’ Nonverbal Behavior and its Effects on Students 201

Elisha Babad

VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8. Faculty Cultures and College Teaching 263

Paul D. Umbach

9. Students’ Evaluations of University Teaching: Dimensionality,

Reliability, Validity, Potential Biases and Usefulness 319

Herbert W. Marsh

10. The Dimensionality of Student Ratings of Instruction: What We

Know and What We Do Not 385

Philip C. Abrami, Sylvia d’Apollonia and Steven Rosenfield

Commentary: The Dimensionality of Student Ratings of Instruction:

An Update on What We Know, Do not Know, and Need to Do 446

Philip C. Abrami, Steven Rosenfield and Helena Dedic

11. Good Teaching Makes a Difference—And we Know What It Is 457

W. J. McKeachie

SECTION III RESEARCH ON LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

12. Perceived (Academic) Control and Scholastic Attainment

in Higher Education 477

Raymond P. Perry, Nathan C. Hall and Joelle C. Ruthig

13. Emotions in Students’ Scholastic Development 553

Reinhard Pekrun

14. Contextual Determinants of Motivation and Help Seeking

in the College Classroom 611

Akane Zusho, Stuart A. Karabenick, Christina Rhee Bonney and Brian C. Sims

15. A Motivational Analysis of Academic Life in College 661

Martin V. Covington

Commentary: Update on Educational Policy, Practice, and Research

from a Self-worth Perspective 713

Martin V. Covington

16. Student Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in the College

Classroom 731

Paul R. Pintrich and Akane Zusho

Index 811

VIII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No undertaking such as this progresses without the support of a number of dedicatedindividuals. The authors of the chapters/commentaries were essential to the initiativein their enthusiastic backing in spirit and commitment. Their assiduous attentionto quality work and to deadlines enabled the book to move forward with dispatch.As editor of Springer Publishers’ higher education office, Tamara Welschot initiatedthe project, and Cathelijne van Herwaarden and Maria Jonckheere brought it tofruition. From the very beginning, Astrid Noordermeer provided invaluable assistancein guiding the project to a successful completion.

Harvey Keselman, as Head of the Department of Psychology at the Universityof Manitoba, was instrumental in organizing an international conference based onthe book. Invited addresses by chapter authors brought state-of-the-art research onteaching and learning to the attention of over 200 researchers, classroom practitioners,academic administrators, and other policy-developers, from North America, Australia,New Zealand, Asia, Europe, and Africa, to foster the primary objective of the book,knowledge dissemination, even before the book was published.

Several others played key roles along the way, notably Robert Stupnisky andLia Daniels, research associates at the University of Manitoba. Robert’s meticulousorganizational skills ensured that the editing and publishing phases moved forwardsuccessfully, and Lia’s diligent attention to detail was instrumental to the success of theconference. Tara Haynes, Steve Hladkyj, Joelle Ruthig, Nancy Newall, and Audrey Swiftprovided able assistance along the way.

IX

CONTRIBUTORS

PHILIP C. ABRAMI is professor, director, and research chair at the Centre for the Studyof Learning and Performance, Concordia University. He is also a founding memberof CanKnow: The Canadian Network for Knowledge Utilization and both the Co-Chair of the Education Coordinating Group and Steering Committee member of theInternational Campbell Collaboration. Phil’s expertise is in educational psychology,quantitative methods, and the integration of technology into teaching. He is alsointerested in the use of evidence for policy and practice and the role of systematicreviews in improving education and other facets of the human sciences. He welcomesvisitors to the CSLP website to learn more about his work in the area. See:http://doe.concordia.ca/cslp

ANN E. AUSTIN holds the Dr. Mildred B. Erickson Distinguished Chair in Higher,Adult, and Lifelong Education (HALE) at Michigan State University. Her researchfocuses on faculty careers, doctoral education, teaching and learning, and organi-zational change in higher education. She is a past President of the Association forthe Study of Higher Education (ASHE) and is currently Co-P.I. of the Center forthe Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL), a National ScienceFoundation project to prepare future faculty in science fields.

ELISHA BABAD is Anna Lazarus Professor of Educational and Social Psychology andformer Dear of the School of Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Heinvestigated self-fulfilling Pygmalion and Golem effects in the classroom, teachers’susceptibility to bias and their differential classroom behavior, and the teachers’ petphenomenon. Recent research examines thin slices of teachers’ nonverbal behavior inhigher education, students’ perceptions and judgments of teachers, students’ decisionmaking processes in selecting and dropping courses, and the psychological price ofmedia bias.

CHRISTINA RHEE BONNEY recently completed her doctorate at the University ofMichigan, in the Combined Program in Education and Psychology, specializing inmotivation research. Specifically, her graduate work was primarily focused on theinfluence of achievement goals on students’ and athletes’ subsequent motivation andperformance. Christina is currently a research associate in the Evaluation and PolicyResearch group at Learning Point Associates in Naperville, IL where she is involvedin the development, implementation, and assessment of evaluation programs aimed atschool and curricular reform, and increasing student achievement-related outcomes.

MARTIN V. COVINGTON is professor of psychology at the University of Californiaat Berkeley. He holds the Berkeley Presidential Chair in Undergraduate Education andis a recipient of the Berkeley Distinguished Teaching Award as well as recipient ofthe Phi Beta Kappa Award (California district): Outstanding College Instructor of the

XI

CONTRIBUTORS

Year. He is a past-president of the International Society for Test Anxiety Research. Hisresearch interests include human motivation, creativity, problem solving, the fear offailure, and self-worth dynamics.

SYLVIA D’APOLLONIA is an adjunct professor at the Centre for the Study ofClassroom Processes and instructor at Dawson College in Montreal, Quebec. Herresearch interests include postsecondary instruction (especially science education) andmeta-analysis.

HELENA DEDIC is a professor in the Department of Physics at Vanier College,St. Laurent, Quebec, adjunct professor in the Department of Education and Educa-tional Technology at Concordia University and an associate member of Centre forthe Study of Learning and Performance at Concordia University. For the last fourteenyears Helena’s research focus has been on mathematics/science education, in particularthe integration of technology into post-secondary mathematics/science classes. She isalso interested in factors affecting student achievement and perseverance in mathe-matics/science classes, in particular the effect of student perceptions of the learningenvironment on motivation.

KENNETH A. FELDMAN is professor of sociology at Stony Brook University. Alongwith authoring a wide array of articles, he has written or edited several books, thebest known of which are The Impact of College on Students (with Theodore Newcomb),Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom (with Michael Paulsen), and AcademicDisciplines (with John Smart and Corinna Ethington). He was a consulting editorfor Journal of Higher Education from 1974 to 1994, and has long been a consultingeditor for Research in Higher Education (since 1982). Among his awards are twofrom the American Educational Research Association (Wilbert J. McKeachie CareerAchievement Award of the Special Interest Group for Faculty Teaching, Evaluationand Development; Distinguished Research Award of the Postsecondary EducationDivision) and one from the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ResearchAchievement Award).

NATHAN C. HALL is a post-doctoral scholar in the Department of Psychologyand Social Behavior at the University of California at Irvine. He received his B.A.degree in psychology (1999), M.A. degree in social psychology (2002), and Ph.D. insocial psychology (2006) from the University of Manitoba. His research concerns thetheoretical implications and real-world applications of socio-cognitive paradigms, witha specific focus on the influence of control perceptions and strategies, attributions,and metacognition in the achievement and health domains, and the development andadministration of psychotherapeutic interventions for at-risk individuals.

STUART A. KARABENICK is a senior research scientist in the Combined Program inEducation and Psychology at the University of Michigan and a professor of psychologyat Eastern Michigan University. His research interests focus on the social and culturalaspects of motivation and self-regulation. These include achievement goal theory, helpseeking, delay of gratification, and personal epistemology. Karabenick is currentlyAssociate Editor of Learning and Instruction, co-editor of the Advances in Motivation and

XII

CONTRIBUTORS

Achievement series (Elsevier), and coordinator of the Motivation and Emotion specialinterest group of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction.

MICHELE MARINCOVICH, Ph.D., is Associate Vice Provost for UndergraduateEducation and Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Stanford. At theCenter since 1977, her work with faculty and TAs brought her the University’s presti-gious Dinkelspiel Award for Outstanding Service to Undergraduate Education in 1988.A past president of the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Networkin Higher Education, she is a frequent speaker at campuses and conferences in the U.S.and abroad. Her major publications include (with Nira Hativa) Disciplinary Differencesin Teaching and Learning: Implications for Practice (Jossey-Bass, 1995) and The Profes-sional Development of Graduate Teaching Assistants (with Jack Prostko and Fred Stout)(Anker, 1998).

HERBERT W. MARSH (PhD, DSc, Aust Acad of Soc Sci): Herb Marsh accepted aprofessorship at Oxford University in 2006 after serving as Research Professor, Deanof Graduate Research Studies, and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Research at the Universityof Western Sydney. He has published more than 300 articles in 70 different journals,served on the editorial boards of 14 international journals, is one of the most productiveeducational psychologists, and on ISI’s list of the “world’s most cited and influentialscientific authors over a sustained period according to a common standard that covers allcountries and all scientific disciplines” Other international awards include the AERAMcKeachie Career Achievement Award for his research in students’ evaluation ofuniversity teaching.

MELISSA MCDANIELS is a doctoral candidate in higher, adult, and lifelong education(HALE) at Michigan State University. She is also a research associate in the Center forthe Scholarship of Teaching in the Michigan State College of Education. Her researchfocuses on the professional development of faculty and scholars, assessment of teachingand learning, and the uses of multimedia to improve teaching and learning in highereducation.

BILL McKEACHIE graduated from Michigan State Normal College in 1942 and servedthe next 3 years as a destroyer radar officer in the Pacific. He wrote his wife that if hesurvived (every ship in his squadron was hit by a suicide plane and his was the onlyone that was not sunk), he would like to go into psychology. Bill became a TeachingFellow at the University of Michigan in 1946 and continued to teach until 2004, retiringonly after a it and showed a replacement, the result of pitching fast-pitch softball for50 years. Bill chaired the Department of Psychology at the University of Michiganin the 1960s, and later served as Director of the Center for Research on Teachingand Learning. He has written many books and articles, the best-known of which isTeaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers,now in its 12th edition. He is Past-President of the American Association for HigherEducation, the American Psychological Association, and the American PsychologicalFoundation. Bill received the American Psychological Foundation Gold Metal forLifetime Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest and the DistinguishedLifetime Contributions to Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Award from theProfessional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.

XIII

CONTRIBUTORS

HARRY G. MURRAY, Ph.D. 1968, University of Illinois, is Professor Emeritus in theDepartment of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. He hasconducted research over the past 30 years on teacher characteristics that contribute toeffectiveness in university teaching, including personality traits and classroom teachingbehaviours; and on methods of evaluating and improving university teaching, includingsummative and formative student instructional ratings. Professor Murray has authoredapproximately 100 published papers on university teaching, and has won nationalawards for excellence in both teaching and research, including the 3M Canada TeachingFellowship, the W. J. McKeachie career achievement award from the American Educa-tional Research Association.

Dr. REINHARD PEKRUN is a professor of educational psychology at the Departmentof Psychology, University of Munich, Germany. His research interests pertain toachievement emotion and motivation, educational assessment, and the evaluation ofeducational systems. He has written books and edited volumes on students’ person-ality development, and contributed actively to journals like the Journal of EducationalPsychology, Learning and Instruction, and Cognition and Emotion. He is past-presidentof the Stress and Anxiety Research Society and has been co-editor of the GermanJournal of Developmental and Educational Psychology. Currently, he serves as co-editor of Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal. Being involved in theOECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment, he is active in policy devel-opment and implementation, and serves on a number of committees on educationalreform.

RAYMOND P. PERRY received his Ph.D. in social psychology from the University ofCalgary (1971) and is professor of social psychology at the University of Manitoba.He has spent research leaves at UCLA, Stanford University, the University of BritishColumbia, the University of Munich, the Max Planck Institute, and the UNESCOInstitute of Education (Hamburg), among others. His primary research interests includeteaching and learning in higher education, academic success in college students,and faculty development. Since 1989, Perry has been an associate editor of HigherEducation: Handbook of Theory and Research, and has served on the editorial boardsof Research in Higher Education and the Journal of Educational Psychology for morethan 15 years. He has received career research awards from the American EducationalResearch Association, the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Psycho-logical Association, and the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education.

PAUL R. PINTRICH (1953–2003) was professor of education and psychology andChair of the Combined Program in Education and Psychology at the University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor. His research focused on the development of motivation and self-regulated learning in adolescence and how the classroom context shapes the trajectoryof motivation and self-regulation development. He published over 100 articles andbook chapters and was co-author or co-editor of eight books including a graduate leveltext on motivation, entitled Motivation in Education: Theory, Research and Applications.

R. EUGENE RICE is Senior Scholar at the Association of American Colleges andUniversities and professor at Antioch University. He received his Ph.D. from HarvardUniversity and, for much of his career, was professor of sociology and religion at the

XIV

CONTRIBUTORS

University of the Pacific and served as Chairperson of the Department of Sociology. Healso had administrative roles with the American Association for Higher Education andthe Carnegie Foundation. With Ernest Boyer, Rice carried out the national study ofthe American professoriate, Scholarship Reconsidered, and is current consulting editorfor the New Directions in Teaching and Learning Series published by Jossey-Bass. InChange magazine’s survey of leadership in American higher education, he is recognizedas one of a small group of “idea leaders” whose work has made a difference. Rice hasalso been awarded the Danforth Fellowship, the National Endowment of the Human-ities Research Fellowship, the Mina Schaughnessy Scholar’s Award, the AcademicLeadership Award (“for exemplary contribution to American higher education”) fromthe Council of Independent Colleges, and an honorary doctorate in humane lettersfrom Marietta College.

STEVEN ROSENFIELD is a professor in the Department of Mathematics at VanierCollege, St. Laurent, Quebec, adjunct professor in the Department of Education andEducational Technology at Concordia University and an associate member of Centre forthe Study of Learning and Performance at Concordia University. For the last eighteenyears Steven’s research focus has been on mathematics/science education, in particularthe integration of technology into post-secondary mathematics/science classes. Latterlyhe has also been interested in factors affecting student achievement and perseverancein mathematics/science classes, in particular the effect of student perceptions of thelearning environment on motivation.

JOELLE C. RUTHIG is assistant professor of psychology at the University of NorthDakota. She received her B.A. degree in psychology (1997) and M.A. (2001) andPh.D. degrees (2004) in social psychology from the University of Manitoba. Herresearch mainly focuses on social cognition within the academic and health domainswith a particular focus on the roles of psychosocial factors such as perceivedcontrol and optimism in achievement motivation, physical health, and psychologicalwell-being.

BRIAN C. SIMS is an assistant professor in the psychology department at NorthCarolina A&T University. A graduate of Florida A&M University, He earned aMaster’s degree in social psychology and a doctorate in education & psychologyfrom the University of Michigan. His research examines college student learningand motivation, as well as links between racial identity and strategy use amongAfrican American students. Sims is co-founder of THREADS, a national mentoringprogram for middle-school boys, and executive director of the Hip Hop JournalismAssociation.

JOHN C. SMART received his Ph.D. in higher education from the University ofKentucky in 1971. He is currently professor of higher education and educationalresearch at the University of Memphis, having previously served on the facultiesof Virginia Tech, University of Kentucky, and the University of Illinois at Chicago.His primary research interests are academic discipline differences in the professionalattitudes and behaviors of faculty members and differential patterns of learning bycollege students. Smart has been Editor of the annual volumes of Higher Education:Handbook of Theory and Research since 1985 and Research in Higher Education since

XV

CONTRIBUTORS

1990. He is the recipient of distinguished career research awards from the AmericanEducational Research Association (Division J, 1997), Association for InstitutionalResearch (1998), and Association for the Study of Higher Education (2001).

MARY DEANE SORCINELLI is Associate Provost for Faculty Development andassociate professor in the Department of Educational Policy, Research, and Admin-istration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her research focuses onfaculty career development, teaching and learning, and faculty development in highereducation. She is a past President of the Professional and Organizational DevelopmentNetwork (POD) in Higher Education and is currently Co-PI of a Mutual MentoringInitiative funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

MICHAEL THEALL received his Ph.D. from Syracuse University (1980) in instruc-tional design, development, and evaluation, and is currently Director, Center forthe Advancement of Teaching and Learning, and associate professor of education atYoungstown State University, USA. Theall has served as the director of teaching andlearning centers at several universities in the U.S. His research interests include collegeteaching and learning, faculty evaluation and development, student ratings of teaching,the professoriate, and higher education organizational development. He has editedand/or published over 70 books, monographs, papers, and reviews and made over100 presentations and/or conducted workshops on college teaching, faculty evaluation,teaching improvement and educational technology. In recognition of his work, Theallreceived the W. J. McKeachie Career Achievement Award and the Relating Researchto Practice: Integrative Scholarship Award from the American Educational ResearchAssociation.

PAUL D. UMBACH is an assistant professor of higher education in the Departmentof Educational Policy and Leadership Studies at the University of Iowa. His researchexplores the effects that the organizational contexts of colleges and universities have oncollege students and faculty. He also studies survey research methods, particularly asthey apply to college settings. His work has appeared in Research in Higher Education,The Journal of Higher Education, The Review of Higher Education, and the Journal ofCollege Student Development.

AKANE ZUSHO is currently an assistant professor of educational psychology inthe Graduate School of Education at Fordham University. She received her B.A.and M.A in psychology as well as her Ph.D. in education and psychology all fromthe University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her research focuses on examining theintersection of culture, achievement motivation, and self-regulation. The overar-ching goal of her research is to develop informed, less prescriptive, culturallysensitive theories of motivation and self-regulated learning that take into consider-ation the academic and motivational processes of urban youth from culturally-diversebackgrounds.

XVI

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHINGAND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION:

AN EVIDENCE-BASED PERSPECTIVE

Raymond P. Perry∗ and John C. Smart†

∗The University of Manitobarperry@cc.umanitoba.ca

†The University of Memphisjsmart@memphis.edu

Abstract

This Introduction provides an overview of the book in terms of an historical frameworkunderpinning the content of the book, the relevance of the content to stakeholders,and the structure of the chapters

Key Words: Post-secondary and Higher Education, Teaching and Learning in CollegeClassrooms, Scholarship of teaching and learning, evaluation of college teaching,Carnegie Foundation, faculty development, faculty careers

Transformation is the lexicon of the 21st Century – from politics andeconomics, to travel and technology, accepted ways of doing thingsare undergoing momentous change. The dominant fascist régimes ofthe 20th Century in Germany, Italy, Japan, and more recently Russia,have acceded to democratic rule, and new totalitarian states haveemerged – portending ominous and unanticipated global tensions.The economies of single countries are being superseded by inter-national trading partnerships encompassing hundreds of millions ofpeople and multinational businesses now have budgets larger thanmany developing nations. And the average traveler no longer plans asingle annual vacation in the local vicinity, but looks forward to manyholiday trips each year in search of exotic settings.

Nowhere is transformation more evident than the informationrevolution spawned by the computer and the Internet. Together,they give substance to Marshall McLuhan’s “global village” in whichpolitics, economics, travel, and other forms of international discourse

R.P. Perry and J.C. Smart (eds.), The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation: An Evidence-Based Perspective, 1–8.© 2007 Springer.

1

Perry and Smart: Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

unfold in the communal ambience of a village neighborhood. Socialexchange no longer requires face-to-face contact; instead a cup of coffeeand a computer are the requisite tools for conversing with someonethousands of miles away in a distant country. Not even McLuhananticipated such profound changes to human discourse whenbeginning his career at the University of Manitoba many decades ago.

Transformation is inherent to postsecondary institutions whosebasic mission is to inculcate critical thinking and advanced knowledge,implicitly linking education and change. But these institutions inthemselves are undergoing radical shifts in structure and substancein organizational diversity and in the nature of academic work. Atthe beginning of the 20th Century, post-secondary institutions wereprimarily teaching and service oriented, with little in the way of aresearch focus. The increasing emphasis on research as a primarymission of universities, to complement teaching, was just emerging inresponse to the leadership of Humboldt University in Berlin. Todayin the USA, over 3000 postsecondary institutions, having a multitudeof organizational structures, reflect a profound transformation of bothstructure and substance.

In trying to account for this institutional diversity, the CarnegieFoundation developed a classification system which sorts postsec-ondary institutions in the USA according to mission, research funds,degree granting status, student attributes, and so on (Boyer, 1990;Rice, 1986). In Canada, Maclean’s Magazine has provoked vociferousdebate in response to its classification system and Statistics Canada iscreating its own framework to guide government funding policies. InGermany, Der Spiegel has generated widespread public interest in itsclassification of specific disciplines within the institutions, rather thanon the institutions in general.

Coincidental with these institutional transformations, the natureof academic work has undergone pronounced changes. Early in the20th Century, academic work was primarily centered on teaching, withsome emphasis on student advising and community involvement. Bycomparison, academic work in the 21st Century has greater complexityin job demands and responsibilities, mirroring parallel developmentsin the organizational structure of postsecondary institutions. TheCarnegie Foundation describes this evolution of academic work asa transformation from the traditional model distinguishing betweenteaching and research that dominated much of the 20th Century to amultifaceted model of scholarship having four distinctions: the schol-arship of discovery, integration, application, and teaching and learning

2

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

(Rice, 1996). This model of academic work highlights the creation,synthesis, application, and dissemination of knowledge.

This book focuses on teaching and learning with such propi-tious transformations in organizational structure and in academic workas a backdrop. By providing a comprehensive analysis of the under-pinning theoretical and empirical literatures (synthesis), it seeks tofoster the utilization of this knowledge by educational researchers,classroom instructors, academic administrators, faculty developers, andpolicymakers (application). Whereas the 20th Century was an eradevoted to knowledge creation through research, the 21st Century isfast becoming an era dedicated to knowledge dissemination (teachingand learning). Dissemination, in turn, should greatly enhance newknowledge creation (discovery; integration) in a symbiotic process. Thechallenge for postsecondary institutions is to ensure that the computerand the Internet do not make them obsolete in their historical role aspurveyors of knowledge.

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

Due to greater scrutiny from stakeholders, concerns about financialsolvency, and the evolution of academic work, pedagogy will be centralto transforming postsecondary institutions in the 21st Century. Withthese momentous transformations unfolding, it becomes paramountto foster the linkage between the traditional research literature onteaching and learning processes and the Carnegie model of academicwork underscoring the scholarship of teaching and learning. Thisbook advances this linkage of these two solitudes by systematicallyexamining the scientific evidence underpinning the scholarship ofteaching and learning in terms of: the nature of effective teaching incollege classrooms; the psychometric integrity of measures designedto assess teaching effectiveness (e.g., student ratings); the use of suchmeasures for tenure, promotion, and salary decisions; and, the impactof instruction on the academic development of college students.

The necessity of making advanced research available to end-usersand policymakers is paramount in view of the dramatic expansion ofthe postsecondary education system in the last 50 years. In Canada, forexample, the number of undergraduate students has increased almost8-fold from 1960 to 2000, from approximately 115,000 to almost850,000 students, while Canada’s population grew by less than 2-fold(Canadian Association of University Teachers, 2003; Clifton, 2000;Sokoloff, 2004). Participation rates in the U.S. postsecondary education

3

Perry and Smart: Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

system are comparable (National Center for Educational Statistics,2004). Similar trends are manifest in European and other developedcountries. In short, there is an increasing urgency for evidence-baseddecision-making on practical issues related to teaching and learning toreplace the experiential, anecdotal, “common sense” evidence used fordecision-making in the past.

A case in point is the rising number of undergraduates leavingcollege prematurely and of new graduates deficient in basic numeracyand literacy skills. Participation rates in U.S. postsecondary institutionsshow that approximately 50% of graduating high school students enrollin college, but of these, 27% leave at the end of their first year, and fewerthan 55% of those remaining graduate after five years (Desruisseaux,1998; Geraghty, 1996). Of every 100 high school students in Grade11, no more than 14 will graduate from college after five years. Figuresfor Canadian postsecondary institutions are equally disconcerting, inwhich typically only 55% of first-year students graduate within sixyears after entering their undergraduate programs.

Exacerbating these problems is that postsecondary institutionsin Canada, the US, and elsewhere will replace the majority of theirfaculty members in the next decade due to the retirements. Thedeparture of large numbers of faculty members will place severestrains on postsecondary institutions in recruiting and retaining newfaculty members whose survival depends on mastering the complexitiessurrounding teaching and learning in their classrooms. Accordingly,the dissemination of research on teaching and learning to end-users andstakeholders will help new faculty members succeed in this adjustmentprocess (Perry, 2003; Smart & Ethington, 1995).

STRUCTURE OF BOOK

The book comprises chapters by pre-eminent scholars from Australia,Canada, Europe, the Middle East, and the USA who critically assessteaching and learning issues that cut across most disciplines. In sodoing, the book addresses the nexus between knowledge production byresearchers and knowledge utility for end-users made up of classroominstructors, department heads, deans, directors, and policymakers.The book combines eight new chapters and seven chapters originallypublished in Higher Education: A Handbook of Theory and Researchedited by John Smart (1985-present). Each chapter originally publishedin the Higher Education Handbook series is followed by a Commentarythat provides an update of the original chapter, unless the original

4

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

chapter is recent (Perry et al.; Pintrich & Zusho). The 15 chaptersare divided into three sections, the Overview focusing on teachingand learning in the broader context of postsecondary institutions, theTeaching and the Learning sections dealing with more specific issuesin turn.

In the Overview Section, the first three chapters of the bookprovide a contextual framework within which to consider teachingand learning in the evolution of academic work. In his chapter, Ricedescribes the evolution of academic work through the 20th Century,in which the early focus was primarily on teaching, to 21st CenturyCarnegie Foundation multifaceted model of academic work involvingthe scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and teachingand learning. Academic work is seen as transforming from a unitarymodel with its singular focus on pedagogy, to a dual model in whichpedagogy serves a secondary role, to a multifaceted model in whichpedagogy is an equal partner in scholarship. Marincovich recounts howthis evolution of academic work has affected the relationship betweenteaching and learning in the context of a research-intensive universityand the role of faculty developers and educational researchers in sucha setting. Understanding these developments within the context of aresearch-intensive university provides unique insights into the broadernature of academic work in the future. Austin et al. present a longitu-dinal perspective on the scholarship teaching and learning by exploringacademic work in the context of career development in junior facultymembers.

In the next section on Teaching, seven chapters are devotedto the characteristics of effective college teaching, the assessmentof teaching effectiveness, and disciplinary differences in instruction.Chapters/Commentaries by Feldman, Feldman and Theall, McKeachie,and Umbach focus on the nature of effective college instructionin terms of ubiquitous teaching methods, such as lecturing anddiscussion, and the implications of disciplinary differences in speci-fying effective instruction. Chapters/Commentaries by Abrami et al.,Marsh, and Murray provide extensive empirical support for under-standing what constitutes effective college teaching. Their state-of-the-art analyses systematically document the extensive psychometricevidence underpinning measures for assessing teaching effectivenessin college classrooms and how this evidence can be used in makingadministrative decisions concerning promotion and tenure. Finally,Babad argues that the analysis of effective college teaching is incom-plete without considering the role of discrete, nonverbal teaching

5

Perry and Smart: Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

behaviors. He demonstrates how these subtle teaching behaviorscontribute directly to effective instruction and significantly impactstudents’ academic performance.

In the last section on Learning, five chapters document therole of motivation in the academic development of college students.Both Covington and Perry et al. provide an attributional analysis ofmotivation in which self-worth and perceived control are seen assignificant motivational determinants. They argue that students’ expla-nations for their successes and failures are primarily responsible fortheir self-worth and perceived control which, in turn, shape subse-quent academic motivation and achievement striving. Pintrich andZusho and Zusho et al. portray motivation in terms of goal theorywherein students’ goal orientations determine achievement motivation,and subsequently, both academic help seeking and performance. Inarguing that learning related emotions are fundamental to achievementsettings, Pekrun provides a theoretical account of how such emotionsdrive motivational states, and as a consequence, are instrumental toacademic performance.

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Because the research literature on postsecondary teaching and learningis voluminous and appears in a multitude of sources, it is virtuallyimpossible for stakeholders to keep up with recent developments. Theresearch on the evaluation of college teaching, for example, spans80+ years and comprises thousands of studies. One key group ofstakeholders, educational researchers, graduate-level instructors, andgraduate students, will be interested in the comprehensive, state-of-the-art literature reviews of pivotal research topics on teaching andlearning in college classrooms.

The book will also interest faculty members developing evidence-based pedagogical practices and wish to apply the material in thisbook to job-related teaching responsibilities. Pedagogical activitiesconstitute the primary job responsibility for faculty members in two-year, four-year, and technological colleges, resulting in much of theiracademic careers being devoted to teaching and learning issues. Evenin Research-intensive and Comprehensive universities, teaching is amajor job responsibility for faculty members in their academic work.In short, most faculty members spend the bulk of their careersengaged in pedagogical activities that are common to most disciplinesinvolving student learning, memory, motivation, performance, and

6

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

so on. The chapters on the nature of effective teaching and the evalu-ation of instruction, for example, will help classroom instructors inall disciplines to use student ratings of instruction to improve theirteaching effectiveness.

Another group of our users can benefit from the material inthis book are academic administrators, including vice presidents,deans, directors, department heads and other policymakers respon-sible for instituting teaching and learning protocols. Invariably, amajor part of their job duties involves policy development and imple-mentation related to pedagogical issues, such as the evaluation ofteaching, the assignment of teaching responsibilities, promotion andtenure decisions, etc. Knowledge about recent developments in effectiveinstruction, for example, will help department heads fine-tune yearlyteaching assignments by underscoring the importance of matchingcertain types of instructors with certain types of students and classroomsettings.

Finally, faculty development officers are another constituency ofpractical users who can benefit from the material in this book. Therejob responsibility is to advise and to assist faculty members in theiracademic work, a major aspect being focused on teaching and learningissues. The book provides critical knowledge on teaching and learningto faculty developers that will be instrumental to advising and assistingfaculty members in their job responsibilities.

7

Perry and Smart: Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

References

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton,NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Canadian Association of University Teachers. (2003). CAUT Almanac of post-secondaryeducation in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Clifton, R.A. (2000, May). Post-secondary education in Canada: 1960 to 2000: The bestyears we have ever had. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the CanadianSociety for the Study of Higher Education, Edmonton, AB.

Desruisseaux, P. (1998). US trails 22 nations in high school completion. The Chronicleof Higher Education, December 4, A45.

Geraghty, M. (1996, July 19). More students quitting college before sophomore year,data show. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A35–A36.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2004, August 22). Enrollment inDegree-granting Institutions [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/proj2012/ch_2.asp

Perry, R.P. (2003). Perceived (academic) control and causal thinking in achievementsettings. Canadian Psychologist 44(4): 312–331.

Rice, R.E. (1986). The academic profession in transition: Toward an new social fiction.Teaching Sociology 14 (1)m: 12–23.

Rice, R.E. (1996). Making A Place for the New American Scholar. Washington, DC:American Association for Higher Education.

Rice, R.E., Sorcinelli, M.D., and Austin, A.E. (2000). Heeding new voices: Academiccareers for a new generation. New Pathways Inquiry No. 7. Washington, DC:American Association for Higher Education.

Smart, J.C., and Ethington, C.A. (1995), Disciplinary and institutional differences ininstitutional goals. In N. Hativa and M. Marincovich (eds.), Disciplinary Differencesin Teaching and Learning: Implications for Practice (New Directions for Teaching andLearning, Number 64, pp. 49–57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sokoloff, H. (2004, March 6). Why aren’t men going to university? National Post,p. RB1, RB2.

8

SECTION I: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SCHOLARSHIPTEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2. FROM ATHENS AND BERLIN TO LA: FACULTYSCHOLARSHIP AND THE CHANGING ACADEMY

R. Eugene RiceSenior Scholar Association of American Colleges & Universities

grice@phd.antioch.edu

Abstract

This chapter traces the history of the scholarly work of faculty with special attentiongiven to my work on the Carnegie Report Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of theProfessoriate and the advances that have been made (and not) since its publication in1990. Topics considered include the scholarship of engagement, tensions between thecollegial culture and the managerial culture, and the need to develop a change strategythat is transformative and not just a continuation of the incremental approach. Howwe build on the scholarly strengths of our pasts, symbolically represented by Athensand Berlin, while organizing in new ways for a diverse, growing, transnational worldrepresented in the challenges of LA is at the heart of this analysis

Key Words: Scholarly Work; Carnegie Foundation Report; Scholarship of Teachingand Learning; Scholarship of Engagement

In searching for an image that would best catch the future role offaculty in a changing, vibrant democracy, I—following the lead ofRalph Waldo Emerson—have often referred to “the new Americanscholar.” (1996) That vision now has lost its resonance; the image hasbeen seriously tarnished in the new global environment and becomerestricting. In probing for an alterative I have turned to Los Angeles,not because LA is an American city, but because it is an international—a transnational—city. LA is, as the University of Southern Californiaboasts on its Web page, a “global city, the city of the future of theplanet.” One visit and you are struck by the rich, pulsating diversity—a stimulating cultural mosaic. But LA is also the template forunplanned, sprawling, privatized growth; it is denigrated as the citywith the largest number of backyard swimming pools and the smallest

R.P. Perry and J.C. Smart (eds.), The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation: An Evidence-Based Perspective, 11–21.© 2007 Springer.

11

Rice: Faculty Scholarship and the Changing Academy

number of public parks. A city on the verge of gridlock, the City ofAngels is the place to encounter examples of the world’s best music,art, and architecture. LA represents the kind of dramatic change andpromise the academy of the future will be called upon to addressand serve.

In examining the role of faculty in the new academy, I wantto underscore the significance of the changes taking place. Faculty,particularly, are prone to dismiss the changes they see coming ascyclical—“we’ve seen that before”—and minimize their impact. I thenwant to address our approach to change. The additive or incrementalapproach to reform will no longer suffice; a more transformative wayof thinking about faculty work is required. It is important to buildon the strengths of our past—symbolized here by references to thecontributions of Athens and Berlin—while simultaneously exploringnew ways to organize faculty work for the future—symbolized by LA.

APPROACHES TO CHANGE

Following World War II, and particularly during the expansionist yearsof the 1960s, the major changes made in higher education in the UnitedStates were genuinely transformative. The California Master Plan underthe leadership of Clark Kerr is one example of such comprehensive,holistic change. The explosive growth in community colleges acrossthe country is another.

In my own experience, I went directly from graduate work atHarvard in 1964 to participate in the founding of Raymond College,an experimental college at the University of the Pacific. Those wereexciting, heady times. Cluster colleges, as they were called, were erectedfrom the ground up. They were living–learning communities in thefullest sense. Raymond College was intentionally patterned after Oxfordand Cambridge: students graduated in three years; a complete liberalarts curriculum was required (one-third humanities, one-third socialsciences, one-third math and natural sciences); there were no majors;and narrative evaluations were used instead of letter grades.

While approaching change in a transformative way, the experi-mental colleges of the 1960s were, by and large, counterrevolutionary.They came into being in opposition to the dominance of the largeresearch-oriented universities. What they were opposed to was therise of an academic hegemony dominated by an increasingly profes-sionalized, research-oriented, discipline-driven, specialized faculty. Thecounter-vision was a more intimate, democratic, student-oriented

12

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

learning community. These institutions—365 by one count—weredecidedly utopian and often naive in their assumptions. They tookon an academic juggernaut of enormous proportions and, in doingso, often met with defeat. Nonetheless, these experimental institutionslaunched the movement from teaching to learning that continues tohave an impact on the academic environment and, particularly, therole of faculty.

The faculty who participated in the launching of the experimentalcolleges in the 1960s were part of a much larger cohort—a group ofearly-career faculty who shared a vision for higher education. They sawthemselves not as independent scholars bent on hustling a burgeoningacademic market—and there were jobs and opportunities aplenty—butas contributors to the building of institutions that would shape thefuture of higher education in the society. For their associational life,these faculty were attracted not as much to their disciplinary associa-tions as to what was then the Association of American Colleges andthe American Association for Higher Education. Many of these samepeople provided the leadership, ideas, and energy that drove the under-graduate education reform movements of subsequent decades.

In the 1970s, the approach to change shifted from buildingwhole new institutions to reforming what was already in place. Themovements to reform undergraduate education that were launched inthe last three decades of the twentieth century were creative, energetic,and initiated in response to serious needs. They were, however,added on at the margins and, in most places, conceptualized andorganized to be institutionally peripheral. Every one of these initiativeswas important and contributed something significant, beginning withfaculty development and followed by the assessment movement, servicelearning, learning communities, technologically enhanced instruction,problem-based learning, diversity programs, and community-basedresearch. In each case, the reform effort was usually sustained at themargins of the institution and, therefore, created serious problems forfaculty—especially the junior faculty most excited about participatingin the change initiative.

In only a few places have these important reforms been integratedinto the central mission of the institution, structured into the rewardsystem, and built into the life of the departments regarded by mostfaculty as their institutional home. The additive approach has beenutilized so often that, for some faculty, the term “reform” has beensullied; it is viewed as another task being imposed by the provost ordean. For that cohort of faculty involved in the experimental colleges

13

Rice: Faculty Scholarship and the Changing Academy

of the 1960s, being involved in more holistic changes provided theexcitement and the challenge of being in higher education. The morerecent approach to change has made innovative reform initiativesdistractions from what is perceived as central and genuinely valued ina professional career.

ATHENS

Mihaly Csiksentmihalyi recently asked students from six leading liberalarts colleges to rank, first, their own educational goals and, second,their perceptions of the goals of their institutions. The studentsreported that their primary goal in attending college was “learning tofind happiness.” Of seventeen items, the goal ranked at the bottomwas “a broad liberal arts education.” At the same time, when askedabout their perceptions of the goals of their institutions, the studentsput “a broad liberal arts education” at or near the top. What is strikingis that these students saw no connection between “learning to findhappiness” and a “broad liberal arts education.”

For the ancient Athenian philosophers to whom we look for muchof our understanding of what we regard as quality education, theconnection between liberal education and “learning to find happiness”was central. This was particularly true for Aristotle. For Aristotle—andlater for Thomas Jefferson who used Aristotle’s phrase “the pursuitof happiness” in this nation’s Declaration of independence—happinesshad a much broader meaning than it has now. In fairness to the studentsinterviewed as part of Csiksentmihalyi’s study, we need to acknowledgethat the meaning of the term happiness has been allowed to degenerateinto a subjective feeling of momentary pleasure. Happiness was, forthe ancient Athenian philosophers, the highest good (eudaimonia); itwas the deep sense of satisfaction that comes with the developmentof our uniquely human capacities. Happiness, for Aristotle, meant“a complete life led in accordance with virtue”; “the highest of all goodsachievable by action”; “the supreme end to which we aspire.” All ofthese meanings are congruent with the most fundamental purposes of aliberal education, yet as Csikszentmihalyi’s student interviews indicate,we obviously have failed to make the connection.

In Orators and Philosophers: A History of the Idea of LiberalEducation (1986), Bruce Kimball argues that out of ancient Athenscame two traditions that shape the work of faculty in liberal education.The first is the tradition of the philosophers, which holds that thepursuit of knowledge is the highest good (Socrates and Plato). The

14

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

second focuses on the development of character and the building ofcommunity through the cultivation of leadership (Cicero). These twotraditions persist today and, presently, divide faculty committed totaking the liberal arts seriously.

I recently participated in a Wingspread conference on “Religionand Public Life: Engaging Higher Education.” We began with researchfrom the Higher Education Research Institute at the University ofCalifornia–Los Angeles, which shows that a large percentage ofstudents want to address questions of meaning and purpose, but alsothat students perceive that faculty are hesitant to engage larger religiousand spiritual questions. In the subsequent discussion, the classicaldivision between the philosophers and orators surfaced.

Thoughtful religious studies faculty argued that the key functionof the professor is the pursuit of knowledge, and the cultivation of theskills that requires, unencumbered with responsibilities for characterdevelopment and civic engagement. They argued persuasively that thenew breed of “change agents” ought to leave them free to pursue theirsubject matter, that the open discussion of carefully chosen texts willraise the larger questions of meaning. As examples, they cited SaulBellow’s Seize the Day, Augustine’s Confessions, and Toni Morrison’sBeloved. As one professor put it, “we don’t want to be therapists orcommunity organizers.”

On the other side, equally persuasive faculty contended that theprofessoriate needs to be attentive to what we are learning aboutlearning, student development, and the power of actively engagedlearning. They invoked the responsibilities of higher education ina diverse democracy. The two major thrusts of faculty work inliberal education—and their conflicts—were fully evident in this recentdiscussion. Much of our understanding of liberal education and therole of faculty continues to be solidly rooted in the scholarly traditionsof ancient Athens.

BERLIN

The second city that fundamentally shaped our understanding of facultywork is Berlin. Toward the latter part of the nineteenth century,a radically new approach to scholarship was imported from Germanyand profoundly influenced the conception of the faculty role in the newAmerican university. The understanding of what was to be regardedas scholarly work narrowed and began to be defined as specialized,

15

Rice: Faculty Scholarship and the Changing Academy

discipline-based research. With the conceptual shift came a new organi-zational structure of graduate education with its research laboratoriesand specialized seminars. Newly organized disciplines and departmentsbegan to assume a dominant place in the new research universities.A powerful vision of the priorities of the professoriate began to takehold, one that has gathered strength and demonstrated enormousresilience over the years.

This vision was articulated best by Max Weber in a lecture entitled“Science as a Vocation,” which he delivered in 1918 at the University ofMunich. Weber spoke of the “inner desire” that drives the scholar to thecutting edge of a field, and talked eloquently about the “ecstasy” thatcomes only to the specialist on the frontiers of knowledge engaging inadvanced research. The assumption was that if the passion for researchwere pursued wholeheartedly, the quality of teaching and what we nowcall service would fall into place. The moral obligation of the teacherwas, for Weber, “to ask inconvenient questions.”

After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957 and the ColdWar began to heat up, the infusion of federal funding for scientificresearch further constricted the dominant understanding of scholarlywork. With the rapid expansion and affluence of colleges and univer-sities during what is often referred to as the heyday of Americanhigher education, a consensus emerged to form what I have describedelsewhere as “the assumptive world of the academic professional”(1986). The central tenets of that dominant professional image were thefocus on research; the preservation of quality through peer review andthe maintenance of professional autonomy; the pursuit of knowledgethrough the discipline; establishing reputations through internationalprofessional associations; and the accentuation of one’s specialization.

The consensus that formed around this set of values and commit-ments is still solidly engrained in graduate education and continuesto shape the socialization of the new generations of faculty. At tenureand promotion time in much of higher education—and particularlyin the most prestigious institutions—this assumptive world continuesto be normative. It becomes particularly dominant when professionalmobility emerges as a possibility, as is happening now in many fields.During the last three decades of the twentieth century, tremendousenergy and extensive resources were poured into cultivating new prior-ities for faculty, and imaginative reform initiatives were launchedacross higher education. But the new efforts to reform undergraduateeducation were introduced on the margins of institutions—to be addedonto what faculty were already doing.

16

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

A major study of faculty just launching their careers foundthat many are overwhelmed (2000). These early-career faculty arecaught between the times; they have to meet the demands of theresearch-oriented “assumptive world,” while also responding to theattractions and demands of the new reform agenda. Junior facultyconsistently reported having to cope with what they regarded as“over-flowing plates.” As higher education begins to take seriouslythe demands for change in undergraduate education, early-careerfaculty are feeling extraordinary pressure and are beginning to questionwhether the career that has evolved is even viable. Questions are beingraised about whether the best of a new generation can be attracted intothe profession. We can no longer pursue an add-on approach to thechanging faculty role; something more comprehensive is required.

LOS ANGELES

While these changes in the academic profession and on campuses aretaking place, the larger context within which faculty conduct theirwork is undergoing a major transformation. This brings us to the thirdcity, Los Angeles. Kingsley Davis (1973) made a career of remindingus that “demography is destiny.” LA represents in a dramatic way thesize and the complexity of the changes with which we have to grapple.

The sheer demographic pressures on higher education arestartling—new students, new immigrant communities, new demands.The rich diversity found in places like the LA basin is emerging not onlyas a difficult challenge, but also as an opportunity. It is an educationalvalue and a catalyst. Moreover, the majority of the nation’s studentsare first-generation learners. How do we prepare faculty to build onthe vision of academic excellence? How do faculty prepare students forlife in an inclusive democracy?

At the same time, we have moved into a global century. Weare interdependent, whether we like it or not. To succeed in thetwenty-first-century environment, graduates will need to be intellec-tually resilient, cross-culturally literate, technologically adept, and fullyprepared for a future of continuous and cross-disciplinary learning.And yet, as Cliff Adelman has demonstrated (1999), less than 10percent of today’s four-year graduates leave college globally prepared.What does all of this mean for faculty preparation?

The new context requires a rethinking of faculty work. The growthof non-tenured, full-time positions, the uses of adjunct faculty, and thedemographic shifts in non-tenured faculty—more female, diverse, and

17