【大学院ゼミ】ポスト・ボイヤーの大学教授職論研究8 間篠担当文献

Rice, R. Eugene. 2005. “Scholarship reconsidered”: History and context. In Faculty priorities reconsidered : Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship., eds. KerryAnn O’Meara, R. Eugene Rice, 17-31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

【内容】

この章では、第二次世界大戦後のアメリカ高等教育の文脈を踏まえて、Scholarship Reconsideredが広い影響力を得たことを論じている。

1960、70年代の高等教育拡大のなか、「発見の学識」が重視されてきたが、「発見の学識」傾倒には疑義も提出されていた。ファカルティの学者としての仕事を再考するということについて、1980~1990年代には、機は熟していた。高等教育を変革しようとする運動は他にもあったが、scholarshipの意味を再定義し、学者個人としての使命と大学の使命との関係についての問いを投げかけたことがScholarship Reconsideredに特徴的である。また、Boyerの提唱した考えが消えないように、AAHEがイニシアチブをとって活動したことも、Scholarship Reconsideredの議論が盛んになった原因の一つであった。

Boyerの提出した4つの学識は、現在では、Scholarship of teaching and learning, engagement, integration and discoveryという4つの学識として議論されている。特に発展したのは以下の二つである。

Scholarship of teachingは、学者の仕事の双方向性・相互関係性を視野に入れるため、scholarship of teaching and learningとして議論されるようになった。その議論の発展には、Boyerの後をついでカーネギー教育振興財団の会長となったLee Shulmanの影響が大きい。彼が中心となってカーネギー財団とAAHEとが協力してCASTLを設立した。

Scholarship of applicationという考え方が提出された際には、知識は大学やカレッジで産出され、外界で応用されると考えられていた。しかし、広い社会(コミュニティ)との協働を重視することから、現在ではscholarship of engagementとして議論されている。

これら4つの学識それぞれについては、次章にて詳しく検討される。

 

【文献】

・この本のPart1全体

今回読んだのは第一章のみなのですが、4つのscholarshipそれぞれについての議論や、scholarshipに関する変化を阻害する要素などが、Part1の残りの章に含まれています。4つのscholarshipどれか一つだけに絞って議論するのではなく、Boyer後の議論をまとめるという意味で、重要な文献だろうと思います。大学には所蔵がありませんが、間篠が個人的に所有しています。

 

・Rice, R. Eugene. 1986. The academic profession in transition: Toward a new social fiction. Teaching Sociology 14 (1): 12-23.

今回検討した本のForwardで、Russel Edgertonが、scholarshipという言葉はもともとEugine Riceが発展させたものだと言及していました。そのことについて参考文献は上がっていなかったのですが、おそらくこれがそうだろうと思います。JSTORにPDFがあるようなのですが、なぜか見ることができません。9月末までにもう一度確認しておきます。国内の大学にいくつか所蔵はあるので、web上で見ることができなかった場合でも取寄せてみることが可能です。

 

http://teachingphilosophyworkgroup.bgsu.wikispaces.net/file/view/BoyerScholarshipReconsidered.pdf

Scholarship Reconsideredのpdfファイルを見つけましたので、urlを貼っておきます。

 

 

以上

【大学院ゼミ】ポスト・ボイヤーの大学教授職論研究7 間篠担当文献

Hutchings, Pat, Mary Taylor Huber, and Anthony Ciccone. 2011. The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered : Institutional integration and impact. The jossey-bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Chapter 1.  Why the Scholar ship of Teachng and Learning Matters Today

 

 

【要約】

この章では、SoTLの試みをlearningへの転換という文脈に置き、なぜSoTLが問題になるのか、そしてSoTLに関してどのような議論や実践が行われてきたのかを論じている。

learningへの転換とは、Barr and TaggのFrom Teaching to Learning(1995)をきっかけとして生じたものである。BarrとTaggは、教えるという手段を目的のようにとらえるのをやめ、学生の学びを目的としなければならないという議論を行い、多くの人々がこれに賛同した。Boyerの提起した4つの学識のうち、ティーチングの学識は、この文脈のなかで、“scholarship of teaching and learning”(SoTL)へと変化した。筆者はこのSoTLを、学生の学びと成功を達成するのに不可欠な原理として考えている。

SoTLの試みは、learningを批判的に検討しようとするプログラムを形成してきた。特に進展があったのは、①Teachers and learning、②Faculty Developnemt、③Assessment、④Valuing and Evaluating Teaching、という4つの領域である(これらの領域については、2~5章で詳しく検討する)。SoTLの影響力を明確に理解し評価することは困難だが、実践家自身による文献が増加していることにSoTLの影響力を見ることができる。

 

 

【文献リスト】

・Kuh, George D., and Carol Geary Schneider. 2008. High-impact educational practices : What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

高等教育におけるleaningが注目された1990年以降の20年間に成し遂げられたこと(成し遂げられなかったこと)の最良の概観として、Hatchingsらが紹介しています。Boyer後の議論、特にteachingとlearningについて見ていくのであれば、基本文献になるだろうと思います。ただ、塾内、早稲田に所蔵はありません。近場で国立教育政策研究所に所蔵があります。

 

・Ewell, Peter T. Assessment, accountability, and improvement: Revisiting the tension. NILOA occasional paper no. 1. in National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Urbana, Ill., 2009. Available from http://www.teaglefoundation.org/learning/resources.aspx.

———. 2005. Can assessment serve accountability: It depends on the question. In Achieving accountability in higher education : Balancing public, academic, and market demands., ed. Joseph C. Burke. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

春学期に読んだBrintの中にもEwellが引用されていましたが、HutchingsらもEwellの著作を引用しています。近年のアメリカ高等教育におけるのAssessmentの問題を見る上では、重要な文献のようです。ここでは二つ挙げておきます。なお、2005の方は塾内、早稲田に所蔵がありません。近場だと学芸大にあるようです。

 

・Cox, Rebecca, Mary T. Huber, and Pat Hutchings. 2005. Appendix: Survey of CASTL scholars. In The advancement of learning : Building the teaching commons., eds. Mary Taylor Huber, Pat Hutchings, 133-149. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

CASTL(Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning)の調査報告です。個々のファカルティメンバーがティーチングをどのように改善したか、彼らがSoTLにとりくむにあたって何が影響していたか、彼らがどのような取り組みに参加しているか、そのなかでの支援や制限にどのようなものがあったか、その取り組みが将来成功するかどうかの感覚、等について調査しているようです。SoTLに関する具体的な活動について見ていくのであれば、必要な文献になろうと思います。ただ、これも塾内、早稲田に所蔵はありません。東大教育学部にあるようです。

 

Barr, Robert B., and John Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27 (6): 12-25.

“from teaching to learning”の流れを作った論文であり、Change誌のなかでも引用回数の多い論文のようです。学生のlearningに注目しなければならないというBarrとTaggの主張は教室の実践の変革を要求するとともに、アウトカムを重視しなければならないという議論にもつながっていきます。SoTL、特にassessmentとの関連での議論を見るとなれば、基本文献になるだろうと思います。

 

・その他、SoTLの具体的な試みを見るうえで必要であろう文献をいくつかあげます。いずれもCASTLとの関連で行われた取り組み(の調査や報告)のようです。

Bernstein, Daniel, Amy Nelson Burnett, and Amy:Savory Goodburn Paul. 2006. Making teaching and learning visible : Course portfolios and the peer review of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Anker.

Bass, Randy, and Bret Eynon (eds ). 2009. The difference that inquiry makes: A collaborative case study of technology and learning, from the visible knowledge project. Academic Commons(Jan), http://academiccommons.org/issue/january-2009.

Díaz, Arlene, Joan Middendorf, David Pace, and Leah Shopkow. 2008. The history learning project: A department “Decodes” its students. The Journal of American History 94 (4): 1211-24.

 

 

【次に読む文献】

当初の予定ではこの本の2章を読む予定でしたが、各論に入っていきそうなので、本を変更します。間篠は次に下記文献を読みます。scholarshipを再定義しようとする運動の歴史と、Scholarship Reconsideredの発展の文脈を論じた文献です。よろしくお願いします。

Rice, R. Eugene. 2005. “Scholarship reconsidered”: History and context. In Faculty priorities reconsidered : Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship., eds. KerryAnn O’Meara, R. Eugene Rice, 17-31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

以上

【大学院ゼミ】ポスト・ボイヤーの大学教授職論研究6 議事録

2012年8月4日 18:00~ @談話室  参加者:Zhai、塔、原、間篠

<行ったこと>
・おおまかな方向性を決める。以下の二つの流れに注目。
1.Scholarship of Teaching and Learning(SoTL)の流れ
2.SoTL以外の流れ(社会への貢献等)
・挙げられた文献を検討し、担当を割り振る。

<次回までに行うこと>
①下記の担当文献を読み、簡単な要約と、その文献から得られる文献リストを作成する。
②①で作成した文献リストのうち最も重要なものについて読み、簡単な要約と、その文献から得られる文献リストを作成する。(文献リストには、単なる書誌情報だけではなく、その文献がどのような文脈で使用されていたものかという情報も加えること)
③①・②を行う中で、全員で読むべき文献を選定する。
※作成した要約・文献リストは8月29日までに松浦ゼミサイトにアップすること。

Zhai:Bowden, Randall G. 2007. “Scholarship Reconsidered: Reconsidered.” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 7(2): 1-21.
塔:Sandmann, Lorilee R. 2008.”Conceptualization of the Scholarship of Engagement in Higher Education: A Strategic Review, 1996–2006.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 12(1): 91-104.
原: Boshier, Roger. 2009. “Why is the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning such a hard sell?” Higher Education Research & Development 28(1). 1-15.
間篠:Hutchings, Pat, Mary T. Huber, and Anthony Ciccone. 2011. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered: Institutional Integration and Impact. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.の、1章(場合によってはその先も。三田に所蔵あり)Pat Hutchings, Mary Taylor Huber, Anthony Ciccone(2011) why the scholarship of teaching and learning matters today

<次回の日程>
日時:9月1日(土) 10:00~
場所:大学院棟6階談話室

以上

【大学院ゼミ】ポスト・ボイヤーの大学教授職論研究5 文献追加

Zhaiさんのような分類がしっかりできていないのですが、その後見つけた資料のうち、Zhaiさんのリストに入っていないものをアップします。コメントだとhtmlが使えなさそうなので、新規作成で。

Glassick, Charles E. “Boyer’s Expanded Definitions of Scholarship, the Standards for Assessing Scholarship, and the Elusiveness of the Scholarship of Teaching”, Academic Medicine, 75(9), 2000. http://www.academicpeds.org/events/assets/Glassick%20article.pdf

2000年の時点での議論の外観といった感じでしょうか。

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.

 

Bender, Eileen T. “Castls in the SOTL “Movement” in Mid-Flight”, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 2005. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/CHNG.37.5.40-49

SOTLに関する議論の概要についてもう少し読んだ方がよいのではないかと思い、Changeから文章を一つ持ってきました。

 

Boshier, Roger. “Why is the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning such a hard sell?”, Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 2009.(Boshier, Roger(2009)

SoTLに対する批判的な文章も読みたいなと思って探しました。アメリカ合衆国ではないのですが。

Advocates have difficulty convincing colleagues Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is a worthwhile use of time and resources. This article highlights problems impeding SoTL. First, scholarship of teaching gets used as a synonym for other activities. Second, Boyer’s definition was conceptually confused. Third, SoTL is difficult to operationalize. Fourth, much discourse concerning SoTL is anti-intellectual and located in a narrow neoliberalism. Fifth, there is uncritical over-reliance on peer review as the mechanism for measuring scholarship. Each impediment makes SoTL a hard sell – particularly in research-intensive universities. Taken together, they constitute a formidable problem for SoTL advocates and contain incendiary implications for promotion candidates and committees.

 

Henderson, Bruce B., “Beyond Boyer: SoTL in the Context of Interesting Scholarly Things”, InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, (4), 2009. http://insightjournal.net/Volume4/InSightVol4-2009.pdf#page=12

The positive effects of Ernest Boyer’s broader definition of scholarship have been attenuated by stress on published outcomes as indicators of all his scholarships, including the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). At universities outside the research university sector, we need to find ways to recognize and reward a wide variety of interesting scholarly things related to teaching that are not likely to meet the formal assessment criteria that have come to define the SoTL category of scholarship. The faculty’s scholarliness in teaching should be recognized and evaluated directly.

 

Shulman, Lee S. “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Personal Account and Reflection”, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 2011.http://dspaceprod.georgiasouthern.edu:8080/jspui/handle/10518/3148

Shulmanの書いた最近の文章です。

【大学院ゼミ】ポスト・ボイヤーの大学教授職論研究4 Boyer のScholarship Reconsideredの関連文献

1990年代から2010年代まで、ボイヤーのScholarship Reconsideredに関する議論を整理しました。以下は年代順のリストである。ブルーの部分は添付ファイルのPDFですので、ご参考してくれたらありがたいです。

Hunt, Gary T., “Scholarship Reconsidered and Its Impact on the Faculty Member.”scholarship reconsidered and its impact on the faculty member

Outside demands on universities to improve the manner in which they operate have placed increased pressure on faculty members to examine how they spend their time. Because administrators often resist any pressure to change the way they do business, faculty often find themselves in a situation of adjusting to a changing set of values and reward systems which may not be reflected in the culture of their immediate unit, division, department, or college. This paper discusses the changing priorities of faculty members and the potential impact of these changes on the professorate. It also examines each of the types of scholarship identified in Ernest L. Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered, Priorities of the Professoriate”. This book’s influence on the established climate and culture of American higher education, particularly its influence on the role of the faculty member, is explored.

Boileau, Don M., “’Scholarship Reconsidered’: A Challenge To Use Teaching Portfolios To Document the Scholarship of Teaching,” Journal of the Association for Communication Administration (JACA), n3-4, 1993, pp.19-24.scholarship reconsidered a challenge to use teaching portfolios to document the scholarship of teaching

Shows how communication instructors and departments might benefit by using teaching portfolios as a means of promoting the scholarship of teaching. Draws on Ernest L. Boyer’s research in defining teaching as scholarship. Outlines how such portfolios would be constructed and used by faculty.

 

Locke, Lawrence F., “The Fourteenth Dudley Allen Sargent Commemorative Lecture, 1995. An Analysis of Prospects for Changing Faculty Roles and Rewards: Can Scholarship Be Reconsidered? “Quest, 1995, 47(4), pp.506-24.

Examines Boyer’s book, “Scholarship Reconsidered,” using Sarason’s construct of regularities and Lewin’s force-field analysis model for understanding behavior, noting that implementation of Boyer’s proposals for renewing American universities through restructuring faculty roles and rewards requires devising strategies responsive to forces shaping the present regularities of academic life.

 

Chepyator-Thomson, Jepkorir Rose; King, Susan Elizabeth , “Scholarship Reconsidered: Considerations for a More Inclusive Scholarship in the Academy.” Quest, 48(2), 1996, pp.165-74.

The current scholarship model in higher education was conceived, produced, and reproduced in the image of the dominant culture. Within this model, minority group members receive less recognition, sponsorship, favorable evaluation, and positive commentary on scholarship. The paper discusses considerations for a more inclusive scholarship in higher education.

Boyer, Ernest L., “From Scholarship Reconsidered to Scholarship Assessed,” Quest, 48(2), 1996, pp.129-39.from scholarship reconsidered to scholarship assessed

This presentation revisited the Carnegie Foundation report, “Scholarship Reconsidered,” which discussed faculty roles and rewards, and outlined the framework for the follow-up report “Scholarship Assessed.”

 

Davis, Walter E.; Chandler, Timothy J. L., “Beyond Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered.” Journal of Higher Education, 69(1), 1998, pp.23-64.Beyond Boyer’s scholarship reconsidered

Argues that despite good intentions, Ernest Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered” fails as an analysis of and recipe for change in the university because it ignores the broader socioeconomic context within which it functions. Another conceptual model for promoting real change in the university, using a systems approach, is offered, and implications of its use are discussed.

 

Rice, R. Eugene, “Beyond “Scholarship Reconsidered”: Toward an Enlarged Vision of the Scholarly Work of Faculty Members.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 90, 2002, pp.7-17. beyond scholarship reconsidered

Examines Ernest Boyer’s 1990 Carnegie report, “Scholarship Reconsidered,” as a “tipping point”–a critical turning point in what is fundamentally valued and rewarded in the scholarly work of faculty members. Gives special attention to the scholarship of teaching and the scholarship of engagement

 

Wise, Greg; Retzleff, Denise; Reilly, Kevin, “Adapting “Scholarship Reconsidered” and “Scholarship Assessed” To Evaluate University of Wisconsin-Extension Outreach Faculty for Tenure and Promotion,” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7(3), 2002, pp.5-18.adapting scholarship reconsidered and scholarship assessed to evaluate university of wisconsin extension

Asserting the importance of universities reengaging with their communities, details how the University of Wisconsin-Extension built on the core principles presented in Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered” (1990) and Glassick, H”uber, and Maeroff’s “Scholarship Assessed” (1997) to develop a robust definition of the scholarship of engagement and a rigorous model to assess it.

 

Wickens, Renate, SoTEL: Toward a Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32(2), 2006, pp.21-41.

The publication of Ernest Boyer’s innovative study, “Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate” (1990), sparked sixteen years of academic studies, high level conferences, and campus teaching reforms in a movement that has come to be known as the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). During this same period, a rapidly developing study and practice of digital pedagogy, to be discussed here under the heading of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), generated its own extensive theoretical and practice-oriented literature. This paper is part of an ongoing work that explores points of intersection between SoTL and TEL in order to lay the groundwork for the latter as scholarship in Boyer’s sense of the term, that is, SoTEL. (Contains 7 endnotes.)

 

Bowden, Randall G. “’Scholarship Reconsidered’: Reconsidered,” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, (7)2, 2007, pp.1-21.scholarship reconsidered reconsidered

“Scholarship Reconsidered” by Ernest Boyer generates a flurry of theoretical and applied activity. Much of the research centers on the concept of the scholarship of teaching as researchers explore what constitutes scholarship, which is often misdirected. Through lexical statistics and rhetorical analysis, the text is examined according to its overall intent with attention given to the scholarship of teaching. Results reveal the scholarship of teaching is a minor but important role and the text is intended for the renewal of the academy and society. Conclusions balance research based concepts advanced by scholars with the text’s intent.

 

Wasley, Paula, “Carnegie Foundation Creates New “Owner’s Manual” for Doctoral Programs,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(16), 2007, p.A9.

In his 1990 book “Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate”, Ernest L. Boyer, who was then president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, analyzed the balance between teaching and research in the scholarly endeavors of that era. His conclusion that the university rewarded research at the expense of teaching set in motion a series of reforms that sought to re-emphasize teaching as an integral component of scholarship. Seventeen years later, the Carnegie Foundation has again found academe lacking. This time, however, higher education’s most prominent advocates for teaching and teaching reform say that the research has been overlooked. Carnegie Foundation researchers, under the auspices of the foundation’s departing president, Lee S. Shulman, have undertaken a project as ambitious as Mr. Boyer’s: to take stock of the state of doctoral education and how it has responded to, or ignored, the challenges of the 21st century. Over a five-year period ending in 2005, the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate monitored 84 Ph.D.-granting departments in six fields–chemistry, education, English, history, mathematics, and neuroscience. The project’s researchers tracked the selected programs as they analyzed departmental goals and performance, and made changes to improve their own effectiveness in meeting their goals. The group’s findings have been summarized in a 200-page book called “The Formation of Scholars: Rethinking Doctoral Education for the Twenty-First Century” (Jossey-Bass). The book aspires to be a doctoral education “owner’s manual,” offering practical suggestions for promoting principles of progressive development, integration, and scholarly collaboration within Ph.D. programs.

購入場所:http://www.amazon.co.jp/The-Formation-Scholars-Twenty-First-Jossey-Bass/dp/0470197439/ref=sr_1_1?s=english-books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343114213&sr=1-1

Gordon, Mordechai, “What Makes Interdisciplinary Research Original? Integrative Scholarship Reconsidered,” Oxford Review of Education, 33(2), 2007, pp.195-209.what makes interdisciplinary research original

This paper focuses on the scholarship of integration in the field of education and argues that although it has gradually been moving into the mainstream of educational research, it is all too often judged on the basis of criteria more applicable to assess the scholarship of discovery. First, I examine the questions: what constitutes original research in education and what makes the scholarship of integration “original”. I assert that the reluctance on the part of many educators to consider integrative scholarship as original research is in part a result of the prevailing conception of originality that is too limiting and often not relevant to evaluate this form of scholarship. Such a conception is incompatible with the valuable lessons that constructivism has taught us about knowledge and learning. Finally, I propose a number of criteria to evaluate integrative research studies, ones which are different from those that apply to other forms of scholarship.

 

Pescosolido, Bernice A., “The Converging Landscape of Higher Education: Perspectives, Challenges, and a Call to the Discipline of Sociology,” Teaching Sociology, 36(2), 2008, pp. 95-107.the converging landscape of higher education

Across the field of higher education and within the discipline of sociology, several important reconceptualizations of academic work have emerged. While not absolutely in sync, there is a striking overlap across three of the most visible of these: Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered, Carnegie’s Stewardship of the Discipline, and Burawoy’s Public Sociology. Putting the development of these conceptualizations into the larger context of shifts in higher education, I briefly review each, putting special emphasis on the synergy among them. However, despite these overarching guides and a number of other noted innovations (particularly in the scholarship of teaching and learning), new challenges have arisen. I end by discussing these new developments, drawing from basic sociological research to provide insights for maintaining gains and pushing these efforts forward. In particular, SoTL and the aging of the cohort of leaders who pioneered these redefinition efforts emphasize the importance of Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) programs, and the placement of new PhDs with this broad vision in PhD-granting departments, as well as in liberal arts colleges and universities.

 

 

 

 

【大学院ゼミ】ポスト・ボイヤーの大学教授職論研究3 Carnegie財団関連リスト

ましのさんのカネギー財団のものを見て、以下のようなものを調べてきました。まだ不十分な段階ですが、ボイヤーのScholarship概念以後、Carnegieのは二つの方向へ展開した。

1.Stepwards of the Discipline , Public Sociology (Burawoy)

2.Scholarship of Teaching and Learning、Innovations

以下はカネギー財団のサイトからピックアップしたものですので、ご参考してください。

http://carnegiefoundation.org/scholarship-teaching-learning/res。

SoTL関連文献

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/sotl-publications

international SoTL機構

http://www.issotl.org/SOTL.html

Selections from Carnegie Foundation Publications

An Annotated Bibliography of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Fall 2002) compiled by Pat Hutchings, Chris Bjork, and Marcia Babb

Approaching the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,” by Pat Hutchings. Introduction to Opening Lines: Approaches to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Ethics and Aspiration in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning  by Pat A. Hutchings. Introduction to Ethics of Inquiry: Issues in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Foreword to Ethics of Inquiry: Issues in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning by Lee S. Shulman

Inventing the Future,” by Lee S. Shulman. Conclusion to Opening Lines: Approaches to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Situating the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Cross-Disciplinary Conversation,” by Mary Taylor Huber and Sherwyn P. Morreale. Introduction to Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground

Surveying the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (PDF) by Mary Taylor Huber and Pat Hutchings from The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons.

Articles from Periodicals

Balancing Acts: Designing Careers Around the Scholarship of Teaching,” by Mary Taylor Huber, in Change, July/August 2001. Volume 33, Number 4, Pages 21-29.Balancing Acts Designing Careers Around the Scholarship of Teaching

Making Differences: A Table of Learning,” by Lee S. Shulman, in Change, November/December 2002. Volume 34, Number 6. Pages 36-44.

The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developments,” by Pat Hutchings and Lee S. Shulman. Originally published in the September/October 1999 issue of Change.the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education

Taking Learning Seriously,” by Lee S. Shulman, in Change, July/August 1999. Volume 31, Number 4. Pages 10-17.taking learning seriously

Public Presentations

Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
by Mary Taylor Huber. Presented at the 7th International Improving Student Learning Symposium, September 1999.

From Minsk to Pinsk: Why A Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,” by Lee S. Shulman (PDF). Published in the first issue of The Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL), and based on a presentation to the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) at its 2000 annual meeting in Anaheim, CAFrom minsk to pinsk why a scholarship of teaching and learning

Sensible Change in a Confusing Policy Environmentby Katharine C. Lyall. The keynote address at the 2006 CASTL Colloquium on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Madison, Wisconsin on April 1, 2006.

Visions of the Possible: Models for Campus support of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,” by Lee S. Shulman. Based on comments made at meetings during November and December, 1999, bringing together research university faculty and administrators interested in the advancement of teaching and the scholarship of teaching.

External Links

“Developing Discourse Communities Around the Scholarship of Teaching” by Mary Taylor Huber in National Teaching and Learning Forum, October 1999, Volume 8, Number 6.

The Scholarship of Teaching (external link) by Eileen Bender and Donald Gray. The introduction published in a special issue of the Indiana University journal, Research and Creative Activity.the scholarship of teaching new elaborations new developments

The Scholarship of Teaching: What’s the Problem? (external link)
by Randy Bass. Published in the online journal Inventio at George Mason University.

Other Links

The International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

【大学院ゼミ】ポスト・ボイヤーの大学教授職論研究2 BoyerのScholarshipに関する著作、論文

EricからボイヤーのScholarshipに関する論文のリストを探しました。

1.Boyer, Ernese L., Ernest L. Boyer: Selected Speeches, 1979-1995, CA: San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc., 1997.

Shortly before his death in December 1995, Dr. Ernest Boyer (former President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teachers); working in consultation with his wife, Kay, developed a list of speeches from his Carnegie years that touched on several of the abiding principles underpinning his work. Many of the speeches chosen for this collection were delivered during the first half of the 1990s, an especially prolific period for Dr. Boyer and the Foundation. After the Foreword (Lauren Maidment Green), the collection is divided into three major themes. The first section, “Schools,” The next section, “Colleges and Universities,”  The final section, “Challenges and Connections.”

2.Boyer, Ernese L., “From Scholarship Reconsidered to Scholarship Assessed,” Quest, 48(2), 1996, pp. 29-39.

This presentation revisited the Carnegie Foundation report, “Scholarship Reconsidered,” which discussed faculty roles and rewards, and outlined the framework for the follow-up report “Scholarship Assessed.”

3.Boyer, Ernest L., “The Scholarship of Engagement,” Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 1996, pp.11-20.

Scholarship of engagement has meaning at two levels: (1) connecting the university’s rich resources to the most pressing social, civic, and ethical problems, making it the staging ground for action; and (2) creating a climate in which academic and civic cultures communicate more continuously and creatively, enlarging the universe of human discourse and enriching the quality of life for all. (MSE)

4.Boyer, Ernest L., “The Scholarship of Teaching: From ‘Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.’ College Teaching, 39(1), 1991, pp.11-13.

The excerpt from the Carnegie Report stresses the need for a more inclusive definition of a scholar; recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, synthesis, practice, and teaching; use of “creativity contracts” that broaden, individualize, and give continuity to faculty careers; and aggressive support of teaching in research universities and graduate schools.

5.Boyer, Ernest L., Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, NJ: Lawrenceville, Princeton University Press,1990.Scholarship Reconsidered

 

学部ゼミ夏課題(2012年度)/松浦良充研究会

提 出

2012年9月19日(水)
本サイトの「メディア」にアップロードする(ファイル形式は、原則としてMS -Word文書ファイルとする)。

課 題

≪3年生対象≫

0.以下にあげる<論文の書き方>に関する参考書を複数通読すること。
1.研究課題を決める(卒論のテーマを意識しつつ)。
2.その課題に関連する参考文献(少なくとも50点)を検索し、リストを作成する。
(単行本、論文、資料など)
3.参考文献のうち、少なくとも10点について精読し、ノート(カード)をとる。
(ノートをもとに、それらの要約をまとめる。)
4.精読した文献から、設定した課題に関する現在の研究水準として、
a) なにがどこまで明らかにされているのか、
b) 対立する考え方(論争点)としてどのようなものがあるのか、
c) 今後の研究課題としてなにが残されているのか、について確認する。
5.上記4に基づいて、自分の研究は、「なにについて」「どこまで」「どのように」して明らかにしようとするのか、
について考えをまとめる。
6.以上をふまえて、8,000〜12,000字程度の【論文】をまとめる。
論文には少なくとも、以下の諸点が含まれていなければならない。
a) テーマ(タイトル)
b) テーマの概要(上記5)
c) なぜそのテーマを課題とするのか
d) 先行研究の検討(上記4)
e) テーマの具体的内容・展開
?今後の研究の見通し・計画・予定
f) 参考文献リスト

≪4年生対象≫

0.The Craft of Researchの内容についてよく復習すること。
1.卒業論文の下書きにあたるものを、40,000字程度にまとめる(表題・アブストラクト・目次・注・参考文献一覧をつけたもの)。
2.章の構成の仕方、註のつけ方、参考文献の表記の方法などについては、各自、以下に示すような<論文の書き方>に関する書物を複数参考にして正確な様式を用いること。

<論文の書き方>に関する参考文献

※レポート(論文)の執筆にあたっては、必ず論文の書き方についての参考書を参照し、形式・内容の両面において学術論文の水準を満たすこと。
1.斉藤孝・西岡達裕『学術論文の技法』【新訂版】、日本エディタースクール出版部、2005。
2.櫻井雅夫『レポート・論文の書き方 上級』慶應義塾出版会、1998。
3.白井利明・高橋一郎『よくわかる卒論の書き方』ミネルヴァ書房、2008。
4.高崎みどり編著『大学生のための「論文」執筆の手引―卒論・レポート・演習発表の乗り切り方―』秀和システム、2010。
5.花井等・若松篤『論文の書き方マニュアル―ステップ式リサーチ戦略のすすめ―』有斐閣アルマ、1997。
6.戸田山和久『論文の教室―レポートから卒論まで―』NHKブックス、2002。

なお、上記参考文献は、あくまで論文執筆のための「参考」書である。必ずしたがうべきマニュアルのように扱うことのないように、注意すること。

註や文献の表記の仕方

※引用・参考文献の出典の表記の仕方には、大きく2種類ある。これらの方式を混合させないこと。
1.脚注/巻・章・節末注(Notes and bibliography)方式:本文中の該当箇所に右肩に小さく番号をつけ(括弧をつけることもある)、それに対応して注をつける。
2.著者名・発行年(The author-date system)方式:本文中の該当箇所に(著者名 発行年、頁数)を入れ込み、巻末に参考文献一覧をつけ、照合可能とする。文献出典以外の注は、1と同様の方式でつける。
なお表記方法の細かい点については、<論文の書き方>の本でも必ずしも一致していないところもある。一つの論文のなかで、整合性(統一)がとれていればよい。

※英文文献の表記に関しては、The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essenntial Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers. 15th edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. の主として16-17章(pp.593-754)を参照すること(最新版は、16th edition)。上記の1と2の区別についても詳細な約束事についての記述がある。それらは、日本語の註 や文献表記にもある程度応用できる。(大学院進学予定者は、一度は目を通しておくこと。)現在は、The Chicago Manual of Style Online (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html)としても、手軽に利用できる。

以上