Work that Matters Should be Work that Counts. Carnegie Perspectives
Saved in:
| Title: | Work that Matters Should be Work that Counts. Carnegie Perspectives |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Huber, Mary Taylor, Cox, Rebecca, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, CA. |
| Source: | Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2004. |
| Availability: | Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 51 Vista Lane, Stanford, CA 94305. Tel: 650-566-5102; Fax: 650-326-0278; e-mail: publications@carnegiefoundation.org; Web site: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Physical Description: | |
| Page Count: | 3 |
| Publication Date: | 2004 |
| Document Type: | Opinion Papers |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Faculty Evaluation, Incentives, College Faculty, Scholarship, Higher Education, College Instruction, Instructional Improvement, Administrator Role, Educational Change, Educational Policy, Advocacy, Faculty Promotion, Professional Recognition, College Environment, Evaluation Criteria |
| Abstract: | The authors comment on incentive systems that impede serious scholarly work on teaching and learning. The hallmark of academic freedom is the opportunity it affords faculty members to pursue innovative or unconventional scholarship. Over the past decade or so, teaching initiatives in higher education are gaining visibility, innovation is on the upswing, and mainstream faculty are consulting the pedagogical literature, looking critically at education in their subjects, researching the ins and outs of student learning in their classrooms, and using what they are discovering to improve their teaching. Yet because using the scholarship of teaching and learning for purposes of academic advancement is so new, instructors are finding that standard evaluative practices of academe can make unfamiliar kinds of scholarship look substandard. The authors advocate for senior faculty and academic administrators who believe in the work's value to support it as mentors, interlocutors, external reviewers, and recommenders. They also point out need for lobbying, policy reform, and debate about standards that might strengthen the communities in disciplines and on campus that understand, value, and reward the scholarship of teaching and learning. With good policy, good work, and good will, the authors conclude that faculty evaluation systems can be devised with sufficient flexibility to fairly judge unconventional kinds of scholarly work. |
| Abstractor: | ERIC |
| Entry Date: | 2007 |
| Accession Number: | ED499008 |
| Database: | ERIC |
Be the first to leave a comment!
