Ernest Boyer developed a Scholarship model in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (1990). An integrated approach to education and learning, encompassing four main themes; Teaching and learning, integration, application, and discovery (Boyer, 1990). Boyer used this model to challenge and reflect on the pre-existing “functions academics are expected to perform” (Boyer, 1990, p. 2) and to reinvigorate the American higher education system at the time. Endorsed and Critiqued by academics, teachers, and educators, this model has been increasingly used to shape how we teach, learn, and engage with individual scholars, students, and institutions. This essay will engage with Boyer’s (1990) Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) model and critically analyse this framework’s relevance to the higher education system today.

 

Firstly, discovery looks at the research domain, how we develop and test knowledge (Boyer, 1990). The idea of research has been at the pinnacle of scholars in higher education, “when we speak of being “scholarly,” it usually means having academic rank in a college or university and being engaged in research and publication” (Boyer, 1990, p.15). However, universities today have competing challenges to balance teaching, research, and service, and “the three rarely are assigned equal merit” (Boyer, 1990, p.15). Asmar (2004) similarly supported this, emphasising the importance of research-led learning at an Australian University, getting students involved in research assessment as early as the first semester. Rather than teachers lecturing content, students were encouraged to engage in their Scholarship. This is relevant today using group work, experimenting, and formulating individual research questions. This form of discovery is vital for the development of learners and teachers today. However, with the increasing demands on scholars, particularly as technology advances, it has been argued that research is subsequently neglected (Woodhouse, 2010). It is argued that medicine or science, unlike vocational education training (VET), is more pertinent, therefore, may not apply to some faculties. Woodhouse (2010) describes the limitations of discovery, claiming classrooms are not for research. Like the entire framework, the Scholarship of discovery is a suggestive outline and may not be appropriate to all teaching and learning forms as expressed above.

 

Integration, unlike discovery, is more adaptable to many forms of education and is essential for a department’s effectiveness for both teachers and students. It makes connections through interdisciplinary work and engages with others to collaborate on a common goal (Boyd, 2013). Integration can be seen through creating curriculums; various disciplines work collaboratively to create a sound understanding of a concept. Many academics focus on the advantages of curriculum development with other facilities and the improvement it has directly had on teaching (Starr-Glass, 2011). The interpersonal and inter-disciplinary connections help form a solidified understanding of a concept, extending teachers’ experience and comprehension to enhance students’ understanding and contribute to a well-rounded individual. Kreber (2005) looked to remodel Boyers’s framework, focussing on the department’s experience, allowing faculty’s personal experience to “bring about conceptual changes in students” (p.353). However, unlike Boyer’s (1990) framework, it does not make explicit links between student learning. Contrastingly, Trigwell et al. (2000) demonstrated that teaching was a research-based framework, believing that if teachers enhanced their knowledge and communicated this to colleagues, this directly correlated with student learning. Although Boyer strongly believes “to build bridges across disciplines, and connect the campus to the larger world’ (Boyer 1990, p.7), It is essential, student learning and teaching should coexist and are not separate.

 

The Scholarship of application looks beyond universities, expanded out into the community and workplace, signifying the importance of extending one’s knowledge past the classroom (Boyd, 2013; Boyer, 1990). Discussed is how application can contribute to professional practice, social problems, and communities through reflexive practice. Gordon (2010) expands on this, discussing that when there is a relationship between reflecting and teaching practice, the experience is enhanced. VET teacher is an excellent example of how the application is applied today. Chan (2010) discusses how learning a trade gives you visibly necessary skills that add a sense of belonging and can give back and contribute to their community. Martinmianakis et al. (2009) argue that the 1990 Boyer model has been integral in their Research Innovation and Scholarship in Education (RISE) program. Allowing members to contribute their knowledge on boards within the community, as a result allowing the exchange of knowledge (Martinmianakis et al., 2009)

 

Lastly, as Boyer (1990) articulated Scholarship of teaching challenges the traditional teacher-research role, expanding it to encompass more holistic pedagogical strengths. For teachers to continue to learn, they are “not only transmitting knowledge but transforming and extending it as well…professors themselves will be pushed in creative new directions” (Boyer, 1990, p.24). Similarly, Salvatori (2002) argues that teaching and learning is the “most salient characteristic of the scholarship of teaching… unprecedented attentiveness to student’s work, their cultural capital, and their learning as a litmus test for the theories that inform a teacher’s approach” (p.,298). Boyers’s (1990) model is applicable to VET teaching, specifically trade workers becoming teachers, taking their industry knowledge and imparting itTobin et al. (2000) reiterate this, discussing that “a positive outcome of the Boyer model is that it promotes teaching and scholar activity into scholarly productivity” (p.7). New VET teachers are challenged at balancing their vocational identity and their teacher identity as they feel restricted by their new role as an educator (Takerei & Jesson, 2010).

 

To conclude, this essay has summarised Boyer’s SoTL and critiqued the model concerning higher education today, arguing the relevance and effectiveness. This essay has demonstrated that Boyer’s model is a structure for the practice of teaching, not the appraisal. There are elements such as integration, teaching, and learning that are more applicable to today’s education system. However, discovery and application are arguably more outdated and complex to apply. It is essential to use this model as a guide rather than a solution and consider that each teaching and learning experience is unique to each institution and individual.

References

 

Asmar, C. (2004). Innovations in Scholarship at a Student-Centered Research University: An Australian Example. Innovative Higher Education, 29(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ihie.0000035366.71782.d8

Boyd, W. E. (2013). Does Boyer’s Integrated Scholarships Model Work on the Ground? An Adaption of Boyer’s Model for Scholarly Professional Development. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070225

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate . The Carnegie Foundation.

Gordon, G. (2010). SoTL and the Quality Agenda. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2010.040203

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching:New Elaborations, New Developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389909604218

Kreber, C. (2005). Reflection on teaching and the scholarship of teaching: Focus on science instructors. Higher Education, 50(2), 323–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6360-2

Martimianakis, M., McNaughton, N., Tait, G. R., Waddell, A. E., Lieff, S., Silver, I., & Hodges, B. (2009). The Research Innovation and Scholarship in Education Program: An Innovative Way to Nurture Education. Academic Psychiatry, 33(5), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.33.5.364

Salvatori, M. R. (2002). The Scholarship of Teaching: Beyond the Anecdotal. Pedagogy, 2(3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2-3-297

Starr-Glass, D. (2011). Reconsidering Boyer’s Reconsideration: Paradigms, Sharing, and Engagement. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050221

Tobin, D., Bordonaro, J., Schmidt, M., & Hulse, D. (2010). Evidence of the Boyer Model of Scholarship in Counselor Education. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7729/21.0111

Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of Teaching: A model. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/072943600445628

Woodhouse, R. A. (2010). Hype or Hope: Can the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Fulfill Its Promise? International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2010.040113