Boyer의 스칼라십에 대한 확장된 정의, 스칼라십 평가의 표준기준, Scholarship of Teaching의 모호함(Acad Med, 2000)

Boyer의 스칼라십에 대한 확장된 정의, 스칼라십 평가의 표준기준, Scholarship of Teaching의 모호함(Acad Med, 2000)

Boyer’s Expanded Definitions of Scholarship, the Standards for Assessing Scholarship, and the Elusiveness of the Scholarship of Teaching

Charles E. Glassick, PhD

1990년에 발표된 직후 Scholarship Reconsidered는 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 의 베스트셀러가 되었다. Ernest Boyer는 Eugene Rice의 긴밀한 협력 끝에 고등교육의 아픈 곳을 건드렸다. 그들은 고등교육이 낡고 오래된 "교육 vs 연구"의 논란을 넘어서 scholarship의 정의가 연구(discovery) 뿐 아니라 integration, application, teaching까지 확장되어야 한다고 했다.

Almost immediately after its publication in 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered1 became a Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching ‘‘best seller.’’ Ernest Boyer, working closely with Eugene Rice, clearly had struck a nerve in higher education. They, of course, had proposed that higher education move beyond the tired old ‘‘teaching versus research’’ debate and that the definition of scholarship be expanded to include not only research (the scholarship of discovery) but also the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching. The meanings of these four forms of scholarship are separate yet overlapping. 

시의적절한 제안

A TIMELY PROPOSAL

Boyer and Rice 는 1989년의 교수들 뿐만 아니라 그 전부터 시간에 따라 어떻게 변화해왔는지를 관찰할 수 있었다.

Not only did Boyer and Rice have data regarding faculty values in 1989 but, because of the earlier studies, they also could observe changes over time. In his forward to the 1989 report, Boyer concluded:

What we need, then, in higher education is a reward system that reflects the diversity of our institutions and the breadth of scholarship, as well. The challenge is to strike a balance among teaching, research, and service, a position supported by two-thirds of today’s faculty who conclude that, ‘‘at my institution, we need better ways, besides publication, to eval- uate scholarly performance of faculty.’’2,p.xxi

70%이상의 교수가 교육에 관심이 있다고 했고, 또한 많은 교수들이 "교육 효과성이 승진의 주된 준거가 되어야 한다"라고 했다. 분명히, 대부분의 교수들은 교육이 핵심 미션이고 학생과 보내는 시간을 즐거워했다.

The data had pointed the way. Over 70% of the faculty said that their interests lay in teaching, and a significant percentage also concluded that ‘‘teaching effectiveness should be the primary criterion for promotion.’’ Clearly, the majority of faculty considered teaching to be a central mission and enjoyed the time they spent with students.

그러나 4년제 대학의 많은 교수들은 보상 시스템이 효과적인 교육이 아니라 연구와 출판에 따라 이뤄진다고 보고했다. 그리고 1/3이상이 논문출판이 "그 질은 따지지 않고 숫자만 센다"라는 의견을 지지했다. 심지어 대학조차 42%가 여기에 동의했다.

But most faculty at the four-year institutions also reported that the reward system was heavily weighted toward pub- lished research, not effective teaching, and more than one third of faculty supported the proposition that at their in- stitutions, publications were ‘‘just counted, not qualitatively measured.’’ Even at research universities, a surprising 42% agreed with this conclusion.2,p.xx

고등교육의 다른 위대한 리더들도 Boyer의 입장을 지지했다. Derek Bok은..

Boyer’s position was reinforced by another great leader in higher education. Derek Bok, in his Universities and the Future of America,4 had warned against the dangers of detachment. President Bok wrote that

armed with the security of tenure and time to study the world with care, professors would appear to have a unique oppor- tunity to act as society’s scouts to signal impending problems long before they are visible to others. Yet rarely have members of the academy succeeded in discovering emerging issues and bringing them vividly to the attention of the public. What Rachel Carson did for risks to the environment, Ralph Nader for consumer protection, Michael Harrington for problems of poverty, Betty Friedan for women’s rights, they did as inde- pendent critics, not as members of the faculty.

퀄리티 측정

MEASURING QUALITY

 

Scholarship Assessed에서 "standards"라고 부른 것들

These themes, called ‘‘standards’’ in Scholarship Assessed, stated that for a work of scholarship to be praised, it must be characterized by

• clear goals,

• adequate preparation,

• appropriate methods,

• outstanding results,

• effective communication, and a

• reflec- tive critique.6,p.25

SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING의 모호함

THE ELUSIVE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING

처음부터 scholarship of teaching을 묘사하기 위한 구체적인 워딩은 모호했고, 교수들은 'good teaching'과 'scholarship of teaching'을 구분하고자 노력했다. Shulman은 'scholarship of teaching'을 'scholarly teaching'과 구분하기 위해서는 다음의 기준을 만족해야 한다고 했다.

From the beginning, precise wording to describe the schol- arship of teaching was elusive as faculty members tried to differentiate good teaching from the scholarship of teaching. To separate the scholarship of teaching from scholarly teaching, Shulman states that to be scholarship, the work must meet these criteria:

• 결과물이 공공에게 공개되어야 한다. The work must be made public. 

• 결과물이 피어리뷰 가능해야 하며, 인정된 기준에 따른 비판의 대상이 되어야 한다. The work must be available for peer review and critique according to accepted standards. 

• 결과물이 재생산되고 이를 기반으로 다른 학자가 연구할 수 있어야 한다. The work must be able to be reproduced and built on by other scholars.8

A HARD BUT WORTHWHILE TASK

9. Cambridge B. The scholarship of teaching and learning. AAHE Bulletin. 1999;52(4):7.

Scholarship-of-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf

 

---

Acad Med. 2000 Sep;75(9):877-80.

Boyer's expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching.

Glassick CE1.

Author information

• 1Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, California, USA. ceglassick@aol.com

Abstract

Debate about faculty roles and rewards in higher education during the past decade has been fueled by the work of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, principally Scholarship Reconsidered and Scholarship Assessed. The author summarizes those publications and reviews the more recent work of Lee Shulman on the scholarship of teaching. In 1990, Ernest Boyer proposed that higher education move beyond the tired old "teaching versus research" debate and that the familiar and honorable term "scholarship" be given a broader meaning. Specifically, scholarship should have four separate yet overlapping meanings: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching. This expanded definition was well received, but from the beginning, assessment of quality was a stumbling block. Clearly, Boyer's concepts would be useful only if scholars could be assured that excellence in scholarly work would be maintained. Scholars at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching addressed this issue by surveying journal editors, scholarly press directors, and granting agencies to learn their definitions of excellence in scholarship. From the findings of these surveys, six standards of excellence in scholarship were derived: Scholars whose work is published or rewarded must have clear goals, be adequately prepared, use appropriate methods, achieve outstanding results, communicate effectively, and then reflectively critique their work. The scholarship of teaching remains elusive, however. The work of Lee Shulman and others has helped clarify the issues. The definition of this form of scholarship continues to be debated at colleges and universities across the nation.

PMID:

 

10995607

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]