Wiser Together: Sustaining Teaching Excellence With a Self-Study/Critical Friend

Abstract

This article examines the development of a self-study/critical friend (SSCF) model of educational development . The SSCF model provides benefits for the self-study teacher in the form of personalized, sustained support . The critical friend in the pairing described here also serves as an educational development fellow, so this study provided an experiential development opportunity for her to try a potential model of response, documentation, feedback, and support for a single faculty member. This article describes the rationale, process, and outcomes of a SSCF investigation, a promising model for providing support that is significant, sustained, and individualized to higher education teaching faculty.

Keywords: Self-Study, Critical Friend, Reflective Notes, Peer Support, Core Beliefs

Background

Scholars have documented a consistent theme of isolation among academics invested in scholarly teaching (Kreber, 2002, 2003; Shulman, 1993; Vogel, 2011; Weston & McAlpine, 2001). Graziano and Kahn (2013) elaborate on the “deep isolation” experienced by some faculty as a result of “heavy teaching loads and publishing demands,” which can limit the likelihood of participating in educational development. In addition, educational development sessions too often provide short term technical solutions (e.g., clarifying a syllabus, integrating mobile devices in class, fostering student participation) but do not offer sustained opportunities to examine and reflect on instructors’ “individual beliefs, experiences, and research regarding learning” (Layne, Froyd, Morgan, & Kenimer, 2002).

In “Towards a Critical Approach to Faculty Development,” Bali & Bessette, 2015) highlight limitations of educational development related to teaching and learning. They suggest that faculty often experience conflict between the disciplinary ideals and dispositions they hope to cultivate in students and institutional priorities focused almost exclusively on learning that can be clearly articulated and especially measured. In addition, traditional educational development is often delivered using weak pedagogy, with the single, isolated workshop as a primary method of delivery. Finally, many perceive that educational development, by definition, implies a deficit mindset related to faculty—that they need remediation. Obviously, some of these perceptions are oversimplified or overgeneralized. However, their persistence indicates that educational developers have much work to do to create an environment that is inviting, engaging, and meaningful.

For decades, scholars have heralded the importance of sustained educational development (Camblin Jr. & Steger, 2000; Graziano & Kahn, 2013; Hageseth & Atkins, 1988; Hubbard & Atkins, 1995; Hynes, 1984; Layne et al., 2002). The benefits of sustained educational development include increased student learning and satisfaction (Grubb, 1999); improved faculty performance as scholars, advisors, academic leaders, and contributors to institutional decisions (Camblin Jr. & Steger, 2000); and increased faculty well being and institutional quality of life, including opportunities for growth and career rejuvenation (Hageseth & Atkins, 1988; Hubbard & Atkins, 1995). More recently, Whitney and Roderick (2017) applied the now well known concept of high impact practices (HIPs; Kuh, 2008) for undergraduate student learning to types of educational development that are likely to support academic faculty in their efforts to thrive within the academy. Among their list of HIPs for faculty are learning communities/communities of practice; collaborative, interdisciplinary, and problem based teacher support; and SoTL inquiry projects. Key elements of the emerging HIPs for faculty that apply to the project described in this article include (a) significant investment of time and effort by faculty over an extended period of time; (b) interactions with peers and educational developers about substantial matters; (c) frequent, timely, and constructive feedback from peers and educational developers; and (d) periodic, structured opportunities to reflect and integrate learning. To engage in personalized educational development that acknowledges and meets individual faculty members’ needs and to incorporate these HIPs, the authors developed the self study/critical friend (SSCF) model described here.

Context of the Study

This SSCF project was imagined and implemented to provide a sustained and experiential educational development collaboration for two senior faculty members who teach in the same academic department at a regional comprehensive public university in the southeastern United States.

The university has a CTL with only one full time staff member/director. The university has, therefore, been experimenting with a distributed model of educational development with a goal to identify a “faculty development fellow” in each of its eight academic colleges/schools. These fellows work with faculty, department chairs, and deans to identify educational development needs of faculty and to plan and curate appropriate, responsive programming. Not only is the university working, as most are, to do more with less, but it is also attempting to situate educational development within the specific context of faculty members’ work. Tracy (one of the authors) was the first faculty member on campus to begin working as a faculty fellow. As the “pilot” and now veteran fellow, Tracy was given the freedom and support to explore possible and promising models of educational development that might be replicated in other colleges and units. The model described here is one such exploratory effort.

Leslie (the self study professor) and Tracy have been identified by their students and peers as accomplished teachers; still, both also value the sentiment and process of continuous improvement in teaching. Leslie is a science teacher educator who wanted to apply self study methodology (LaBoskey, 2004; Loughran, 2007) in an examination of her science methods course for prospective elementary school teachers. Tracy is a professor of curriculum studies, instruction, and assessment. Tracy has directed the university’s course redesign institute as well as other educational development projects and consultations. She had been working in situated higher education educational development (within the College of Education) for about three years at the start of this project, and she was interested in sharpening her skills in supporting higher education teaching excellence, particularly for mid career faculty.

Leslie had participated in the course redesign summer institute with Tracy, and they had taught different courses in the same department for a decade. In addition, they had collaborated once on a large scale teaching research project and had frequently engaged in hallway conversations about teaching. Over the years, they found themselves problem solving teaching dilemmas and sharing students’ success stories. It should be noted that Leslie and Tracy work in an environment where teaching is highly valued and, at times, overly critiqued. Conversations about teaching are not uncommon in their work environment.

SSCF Model

Self study is a research methodology in which the researcher is also the primary participant (LaBoskey, 2004). The teacher–researcher gathers and analyzes data from a specific teaching context with the explicit purpose of improving the teaching practice (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001). While self study methodology has its roots in teacher education (Berry & Loughran, 2012; Gallagher, Griffin, Parker, Kitchen, & Figg, 2011; LaBoskey, 2004), we argue that it is applicable to all higher education teachers who seek continuous improvement in their teaching and want to know whether or not their teaching practices are consistent with their ideals and theoretical perspectives about teaching (LaBoskey, 2004).

To avoid potential “naval gazing” and “bias confirmation,” self study scholars emphasize the importance of systematic processes and procedures to ensure rigor in self study (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001; Zeichner, 2007). A related recommendation is that self study researchers engage a critical friend (CF) at all stages in the research process (LaBoskey, 2004). The CF can provide assurance that the researcher’s “personal theories are challenged in ways that help the researcher (and the audience) see beyond the personal alone” (Loughran, 2007). The CF role is complex as the CF is responsible for listening intently, providing support, asking thought provoking questions, and offering suggestions related to teaching (Schuck & Russell, 2005).

When Leslie conceptualized plans for her semester long self study, Tracy seemed a natural and authentic CF. In their initial meeting about the project, Tracy became excited about the prospect of expanding her situated consultation skills by serving in the role of Leslie’s CF. She was also eager to try out practices of formation mentoring and transformative conversations about which she had been reading in a book group she organized for her College. In formation mentoring, we as colleagues reflect “on our work and life, remembering our callings, exploring meaning and purpose, clarifying personal values, and realigning our lives with them. The goal of a [formation mentoring community] would be to use meaningful conversations to reinvigorate ourselves, our work, and, by extension, the academy” (Felten, Bauman, Kheriaty, & Taylor, 2013, p. x). In their writing about the power of formation mentoring communities, Angeles Arrien and Rachel Naomi Remen (in the Foreword of Felten et al., 2013) provide a compelling and poignant rationale for the kind of reflection and discovery that might be realized with SSCF collaborations: “We need others to befriend the hidden wholeness within us, to see it even before we can, to believe in it and reflect it back to us so that we can recognize it as our own” (p. xv). The SSCF model seemed to hold promise for a meaningful, sustained learning opportunity for Leslie and Tracy—and by extension, for their students and colleagues.

The researchers in this project aspire to be scholarly teachers who consult the literature to inform their practice and select and apply information to guide their teaching (Richlin & Cox, 2004). Scholarly teachers conduct systematic observations, analyze outcomes, and invite peer review of their teaching. Allen and Field (2005) state that scholarly teaching is grounded in practice wisdom and developed through reflection on experience and on published research. Martin (2007) indicates that evidence of scholarly teaching includes course development, course (re)design, observations of teaching, special teaching projects, teaching portfolios, samples of student work, and student and peer evaluations. This SSCF approach fits into the framework of scholarly teaching because it provides a systematic approach for exploring teaching practice.

Within the emerging Taxonomy of the Scholarship of Educational Development (Cruz, 2016), this project fits into at least two domains: the scholarship of practice and the scholarship of integration. Scholarship in the practice category focuses on what we do as educational developers, and in this project, we report our process for SSCF. Scholarship in the integration category provides insight about how educational developers incorporate multiple perspectives into their work. In our case, the role of the CF often included introducing theories, concepts, frameworks, or methods to the self study teacher, whose perspectives were influenced by her involvement in science education and her commitment to inquiry based teaching and social constructivism.

Although the SSCF model involves the intentional pairing of only two faculty members, it is similar to a Faculty Learning Community (FLC) because it is “an intentionally developed community that exists to promote and maximize the individual and shared learning of its members” with “ongoing interaction, interplay, and collaboration among the community’s members” (Lenning, Hill, Saunders, Solan, & Stokes, 2013, p. 7). In addition, like faculty learning communities, the SSCF model involves a shared process, a safe space to support risk taking, and the development of mentoring relationships (Richlin & Cox, 2004). Successful FLCs result in enhanced, deepened learning; pedagogical innovations; and supportive, ongoing relationships (Gannon Leary & Fontainha, 2007). Similarly, the SSCF model invites pedagogical reflection and innovation in the context of a supportive, ongoing relationship. Unlike typical FLCs, the SSCF model is a partnership in which both participants are more narrowly focused on the improvement of the self study teacher’s teaching and her particular goals for improving her teaching.

The SSCF Process

Prior to the start of data collection within the course, and in anticipation of this study, Leslie took time, on a four hour return flight from a professional conference, to create a list of her core beliefs about teaching and about being a teacher. That list is included as Table 1 as it served as the compass of this investigation for Leslie—and, consequently, for Tracy. It is important to share here because it may be important as a first step in a SSCF collaboration for the self study faculty member to create a list of core beliefs, questions, or curiosities to guide the investigation.

At the outset of the semester, Leslie and Tracy decided on data collection procedures and meeting times. As they conceived the project, Leslie committed herself to writing reflective notes following each class meeting. Her class met twice per week for 2.5 hours. In addition, she set up a Google Drive for her self study, where she organized and stored all data for her self study: students’ beginning of semester and end of semester drawings of themselves as science teachers; researcher reflective journal; CF reflection responses; video data from the end of semester reflection activity; copies of students’ quizzes, tests, and works in progress; all handouts and materials provided to students; and students’ final project and reflection. Leslie and Tracy also used Google Drive as their shared space to store data and collaborate on coauthored documents. They met in person monthly to discuss their procedures as well as patterns they were observing in Leslie’s teaching. Their primary and ongoing data source was a reflective notes chart. Each day, after Leslie taught the specified course, she took time to record the plan for her lesson and her notes in response to the lesson in the reflective notes chart. This took more time than expected (usually more than an hour) for Leslie to record what happened and her response. Approximately every two weeks, Tracy wrote a response to Leslie’s entries. Either of them could also record thoughts in columns labeled “to do/change” and “research notes.” An excerpt from the Reflective Notes Template is included as the Appendix to this article. Additional data sources included transcriptions of their monthly meetings, photographs and student work samples from the specified course, and individual reflections that Leslie and Tracy wrote before and throughout the semester.

Prior to each monthly meeting, Leslie and Tracy read the data that had been recorded since the last meeting and made notes about what they might want to discuss during the meeting. For example, prior to one meeting, based on what she had read in Leslie’s reflections, Tracy made notes and wrote a list of titles and authors from her professional reading sources to share with Leslie in a meeting. In preparation for the same meeting, Leslie made notes about questions she might want to ask students to discover what is most valuable in terms of their learning in her course. From the transcript of the meeting that followed, it is clear that Tracy and Leslie spent a good deal of time discussing the ideas from Tracy’s reading list, including, for example, the idea of “interleaving,” (Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014), which Tracy thought might be useful to Leslie’s planning related to science content teaching. In the same meeting, Leslie discussed how her course evaluations often did not give her much information about student learning. Students’ comments on course evaluations were either about their own reaction to the class: “I loved it.” “It’s my favorite course.” “Oh, it’s great!” or about their perceptions of Leslie’s personal characteristics: “She’s really nice.” “She tries to help us out.” In a course that she knew was a bit “overstuffed” (Cousin, 2006), Leslie needed to know more about what was most important to student learning. In their mid semester meeting, Tracy and Leslie discussed a potential question: “What aspects of the course do you feel makes crucial contributions to your learning and preparation?” They discussed how and when Leslie might be able to pose that question so that she could use students’ responses to refine the course.

In that same meeting, the pair discussed their perceptions of the SSCF at the mid semester point. Leslie reflected to Tracy, “I’m really enjoying this; you said that you’re really enjoying this,” but what seemed most important to the success of the process was the time both had dedicated to it between the meetings. “You’ve got those things read and commented on before we come,” Leslie continued. “I’ve read your comments and made a list of things that we might talk about, not out of thin air. But the idea that you are trying to understand my thinking with your prompted questioning…I mean, that is what critical friending is. Offering insight, or have you thought about maybe it’s this, not this other thing you’re thinking?” Leslie and Tracy agreed that time spent both in preparation and together, face to face, in a monthly meeting contributed to the richness of the experience.

Leslie and Tracy were influenced in their procedures by the work of Strauss and Corbin (1988)) related to qualitative research and grounded theory. They did not work toward developing a theory. Rather, they were drawn to the methods of Strauss and Corbin for “the purpose of doing very useful description” as well as “conceptual ordering (classifying and elaborating)” (p. 9). For example, they started and worked through articulating a research question: To what degree is Leslie’s teaching aligned to her orientation and her science teaching? Over time, that particular question—or finding the answer to it—became less important than the descriptions of each lesson and their reaction as they reflected on the impact and meaning of each class.

Impact of the SSCF Collaboration

After the semester was over, Leslie and Tracy continued analyzing the data to identify (and often confirm) the priorities and dilemmas in Leslie’s teaching. In terms of educational development, however, the power was in the shared and intensive attention to Leslie’s teaching while the semester was in progress. It was the formative feedback, including challenges to and affirmations of Leslie’s practice, that energized and sustained this collaboration. Leslie knew, for example, that relationships with students were a priority in her teaching. Tracy affirmed this priority by specifying from evidence in the data collected that Leslie built those relationships using interaction, stories, spontaneity, and humor. Furthermore, Leslie seeks to prepare prospective teachers for their own classrooms by modeling research based teaching practices. Tracy observed that Leslie’s prioritization of cultivating relationships and modeling best teaching practices resulted in a persistent tension across the semester related to how time was allocated in the class. Leslie had, for example, identified goals of incorporating more formative assessments into the course. However, in her lessons, she often did not get to those formative assessments because she spent a great deal of time checking in with students, building rapport with them, and modeling experiential learning. As a result of these realizations, Leslie became even more aware of issues related to time management. She became more deliberate in her choices about how to use class time and more aware of the pacing of lessons. Often, she still decided to spend more time cultivating the relationships with students, but it was a deliberate decision more than a “running out of time.” She decided to devote more time to deeper study of fewer topics rather than trying to teach all of the science content she had originally intended to teach. She moved announcements that tended to take up a lot of class time—with subsequent student questions—to a forum in the course’s online learning management system. In the end, Leslie was okay with spending more time on the relationships because she and Tracy together acknowledged that these relationships reflected a core conviction in her teaching. Leslie was enthusiastic to carry the ideas that she and Tracy articulated into her teaching in future semesters. The SSCF model provided what Berg and Seeber (2016)) in The Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy call a “holding environment” of mutual trust where it is important to take risks and to risk being less than perfect “and not always on top of things, and risk caring about each other’s well being and health. It may not always go well: your candour will not be reciprocated every time, but when it is, the rewards are immense” (p. 84).

As Leslie and Tracy worked together to articulate the “findings” from this SSCF experience, they found value in coconstructing those findings from their shared investigation. In sum, their discoveries are characterized by Leslie’s commitment to identity—her own identity as a science teacher educator and her students’ identities as prospective elementary science teachers. Leslie and Tracy discussed and pointed to evidence in their data that inhabiting identity was a priority for Leslie. In other words, it was important to Leslie that she was being true to her own core beliefs as a teacher. At the outset, Leslie was interested in knowing whether her teaching “system” or set of practices matched her core beliefs. Just as important and apparent as inhabiting identity was Leslie’s commitment to cultivating identity in her students. Leslie’s students become elementary teachers, but she also wants them to see themselves as science teachers.

In retrospect, the power of this intensive investigation for Tracy, including her role as CF, was that she refined her own views about the importance of faculty inhabiting their identities as teachers—as well as some methods for how she might support faculty in that process. In her consultations with faculty who are tasked with changing their teaching (e.g., moving courses online, increasing class size, introducing more active learning), she frequently begins with one of these questions: What is sacred to you about your teaching? What is most important to you as a teacher? What is it that you simply cannot give up? In these questions, she hopes not only to honor an instructor’s tacit core beliefs but also to encourage the individual to be more explicit about their teaching ideals. Tracy encourages faculty members to identify those core beliefs and practices so that, as they consider and develop new teaching methodologies, lessons, or course designs, they can keep those most important elements central. The study with Leslie helped Tracy analyze the relationship between one faculty member’s deepest convictions about teaching—and how those convictions are enacted in practice. This study also provided evidence to Tracy that a “teaching compass” is critical as it helps instructors examine, validate, or adjust their practices with conviction and agency. Tracy can now guide faculty to create and/or look for evidence of their core values in their teaching. In addition, she can conduct teaching reviews that help faculty pay attention to those values—and provide evidence of their application. In subsequent SSCF investigations, Tracy is likely to begin the collaboration by recommending that the self study participant articulate her core values of teaching.

Discussion

The SSCF initiative represents a promising model for educational development in higher education, particularly for mid career faculty who have some years of teaching experience and who are in a professional position to slow down and deliberate about their teaching and its impact on students without the sometimes onerous or tedious preparation process of the tenure dossier. We want to acknowledge, as Gibbs and Coffey (2004) found, that it may be just as profound for new teaching faculty to engage in significant conversations about teaching. Gibbs and Coffey warn that new faculty can be vulnerable if they are in environments that value conformity to established practices over pedagogical experimentation. New faculty may face the challenge of needing the support of significant conversations and networks (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009), all the while feeling pressure to produce tangible evidence of their work. Going forward, Tracy will work with the faculty fellows representing other colleges on her campus, sharing the model and tools that she and Leslie used and discussing how the model could be modified to meet the needs of faculty at all career points in other colleges and disciplines.

The benefits of the SSCF model are that it is flexible, individualized, formative, sustained, and scalable. The model is flexible in that the tools and focus of each pairing can be adapted to meet the needs of the faculty involved. The SSCF model might also be a useful model within other educational development initiatives. For example, members of faculty learning communities who have similar interests might pair up for a SSCF cycle. Even groups of three or four might work when the group is focused on a particular teaching investigation. Perhaps a small group wants to examine the use of formative assessment with undergraduate students. They might focus an SSCF investigation on collecting class data, reflections, strategies, and articles on formative assessment. Each faculty member would be focused on her own teaching practice but would also benefit from a CF or two analyzing the data and reflections as well. The pairings are also flexible. Leslie wanted a CF, for now, who was not a science teacher educator. She believed that, had she chosen a science teacher educator, the focus of the study would have veered toward science content rather than pedagogical practice. Had she wanted to determine the efficacy of the science concepts she was teaching, she likely would have selected a different CF, another science educator. The SSCF model would allow for a different selection based on the self study teacher’s focus.

The process of the interactive journal was also a benefit related to flexibility. Leslie and Tracy could work on their own time as their schedules permitted. Leslie worked each afternoon or evening after class, and Tracy responded when she had a length of uninterrupted time, usually away from her faculty office, to quietly read, respond, and reflect. In this way, Tracy and Leslie could challenge “the dominate model of research” by “slowing down” and “asserting the importance of contemplation, connectedness, fruition, and complexity” (Berg and Seeber (2016), p. 57).

The SSCF model is individualized in that the self study participant can choose the focus of the investigation, reasonable and appropriate data collection methods, and a fitting CF. Leslie collected much more data than she and Tracy analyzed together—for the focus of the SSCF collaboration. Now, Leslie can analyze, on her own or with another CF, the samples of assignments, student work, and photographs of class sessions. For the present SSCF study, Leslie and Tracy focused on what they learned through the reflective dialogue journal and their face to face meetings. SSCF pairs can individualize their processes as long as both are committed to the design and ongoing collaboration.

The SSCF is formative. The collaboration influences practice during the study, not just after all data are collected and “final” conclusions are drawn, and therefore provides the kind of sustained educational development that can enhance faculty performance (Camblin Jr. & Steger, 2000), well being (Hubbard & Atkins, 1995), and fulfillment (Felten et al., 2013). In one of their monthly meetings, Tracy and Leslie discussed the benefits of this approach to CF collaboration as opposed to a CF who gives a review on a final product or project:

In their mid semester meeting here, Leslie affirmed how valuable it was to have the feedback during, rather than after, the semester.

Unlike traditional models of single class peer observation and review, the SSCF model, by design, must happen over time, at least for a semester. Because it is flexible, the SSCF is a model that can be scaled up to accommodate many faculty in a given semester or academic year. However, it does seem appropriate and reasonable to begin small, perhaps piloting a process and creating a few varied exemplars to share before launching a campus wide initiative.

Although our sample is admittedly limited, we want to provide our perspective not only on the benefits of the SSCF model but also our ideas about the challenges and additional considerations for implementing it. First, it is time intensive and requires participants to find dedicated time for the process. Using the written reflections as the foundation of the process meant that it was essential for Leslie to think about what had happened in class and then write about it. Tracy also needed to make time regularly to reflect and respond to the notes. Leslie and Tracy also met monthly to discuss their observations and reflections. The time invested by both partners made the experience more meaningful for both. Looking back, Leslie and Tracy see that it was not just time “spent” and definitely not “wasted”; rather, it was time invested in teaching. It is important that both the self study participant and CF make (or invest) the time to which they agree in their design.

The SSCF is dependent on teacher curiosity and vulnerability, and sometimes, academics may not feel safe expressing curiosity and vulnerability if institutional cultures only value quantitative data and firm conclusions. However, more educational development scholars are beginning to affirm the value of significant conversations about teaching (see, e.g., Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009 and Gibbs, 2013). This study began because Leslie was interested in, and committed to, improving her own teaching. She approached the project with a real openness to hearing an outside perspective. For the project to have the intended outcomes, Leslie had to be willing to share her own struggles and tensions about what had occurred during class sessions. Those considering the SSCF model on their campuses might need to consider how such a collaboration would be viewed and/or valued. Might it substitute for a peer review cycle? Would the conclusions, if written for publication, be valued as research?

The SSCF model may require the development of expertise among those who might serve as CFs. Tracy’s experiences as a faculty development fellow and educational developer informed the type and quality of the feedback that she was able to provide. She used references to readings and her expertise to inform the feedback that she provided. Her knowledge of what occurred in Leslie’s classes combined with her outsider perspective enabled her to share new insights and questions that informed and challenged Leslie’s thinking. The monthly meetings provided an important time for the pair to clarify comments or discuss issues that were important to both. Those who serve as CFs will need to possess (or have a willingness to expand) skills and/or knowledge to inform the collaboration. CTL directors and personnel may prove a good resource, perhaps even meeting with groups of SSCF pairs or groups of CFs. In this way, CTL personnel can provide support and gain knowledge about the teaching needs and interests of campus faculty. It may be a good idea for CTL personnel to serve as a CF for one or two investigations and then use that experience to support others. In subsequent consultations, CTL personnel can help interested faculty identify suitable “critical friends” who might engage in this kind of study with them.

The SSCF is not a deficit model. It is an agency model that can be used for instructors at a variety of career levels. Over time, with multiple SSCF projects, a campus can invite or enhance a culture where scholarly teaching is shared, valued, and celebrated. The SSCF projects can be highlighted on CTL websites and publications and shared in CTL or academic unit presentations.

While many writers have described university teaching as a solitary enterprise, others provide evidence that significant conversations about teaching are happening in small networks all over the world (both perspectives included in Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009). Educational development on college campuses can benefit from the SSCF model because their respective Centers can nurture a network of teachers who are invested in teaching excellence. CTL personnel can draw from the wisdom of collective practice in their consultations with faculty members. For example, if educational developers have conducted SSCF studies with individuals who teach in particularly challenging classrooms (e.g., large lecture halls), they can share successful practices they have observed. Over time, the SSCF model also allows educational development offices to become more intimately familiar with the teaching methods used on their campuses in a variety of disciplines and contexts.

Over time, a critical mass of SSCF partners could influence programs and departments across campus. Other universities such as the University of Cincinnati have documented outstanding results from their long term investment in educational development. When combined or integrated with the overall university’s strategic vision, the “multiplier effect is astounding” (Camblin Jr. & Steger, 2000, p. 16). Leslie’s and Tracy’s university’s strategic vision incorporates sustainability and the mission of enhancing faculty teaching and well being. Through efforts such as SSCF collaborations and distributed faculty fellows, they hope their campus can build a critical mass of knowledgeable, committed, scholarly teachers who may feel more inspired and accomplished as teachers. Perhaps their collective energy and knowledge will propagate even more pockets of interest and inspiration in departments and classrooms around their campus and beyond.

References

• Allen, M., & Field, P. (2005). Scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching: Noting the difference. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 2(1), 0–14.
• Bali, M., & Bessette, L.S. (2015). Toward a critical approach to faculty development [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/columns/featured/towards a critical approach to faculty development/
• Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
• Berry, A., & Loughran, J. (2012). Developing science teacher educators’ pedagogy of teacher education. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 401–415). New York, NY: Springer.
• Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. I., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21.
• Camblin, L. D., Jr., & Steger, J. A. (2000). Rethinking faculty development. Higher Education, 39(1), 1–18.
• Cousin, G. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, 17(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.11120/plan.2006.00170004
• Cruz, L. (2016). The scholarship of educational development: A taxonomy. To Improve the Academy, 35(2), 222–228.
• Felten, P., Bauman, H. D. L., Kheriaty, A., & Taylor, E. (2013). Transformative conversations: A guide to mentoring communities among colleagues in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Gallagher, T., Griffin, S., Parker, D. C., Kitchen, J., & Figg, C. (2011). Establishing and sustaining teacher education professional development in a self study community of practice. Pre tenure teacher educators developing professionally. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 880–890.
• Gannon Leary, P., & Fontainha, E. (2007). Communities of practice and virtual learning communities: Benefits, barriers, and success factors (eLearning Papers, no. 5). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1018066http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media13563.pdf
• Gibbs, G. (2013). Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.751691
• Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787404040463
• Graziano, J., & Kahn, G. (2013). Sustained faculty development in learning communities. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 1(2), 1–13.
• Grubb, W. N. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hageseth, J. A., & Atkins, S. S. (1988). Assessing faculty quality of life. In J. Kurfiss, L. Hilsen, S. Khan, M. D. Sorcinelli & R. Tiberius (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for student, faculty, and institutional development (Vol. 7, pp. 109–120). Stillwater, OK: POD/New Forums Press.
• Hubbard, G. T., & Atkins, S. S. (1995). The professor as a person: The role of faculty well being in faculty development. Innovative Higher Education, 20(2), 117–128.
• Hynes, W. (1984). Strategies for faculty development. In D. Brown (Ed.), Leadership roles of chief academic officers: New directions for higher education (pp. 31–38). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Kreber, C. (2002). Controversy and consensus on the scholarship of teaching: A Delphi study. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 151–167.
• Kreber, C. (2003). The scholarship of teaching: A comparison of conceptions held by experts and regular academic staff. Higher Education, 46(1), 93–121.
• Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
• LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
• Layne, J., Froyd, J., Morgan, J., & Kenimer, A. (2002). Faculty Learning Communities. Paper presented at the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Session F1A, Boston, MA.
• Lenning, O. T., Hill, D. M., Saunders, K. P., Solan, A. S., & Stokes, A. (2013, 2013). Powerful learning communities: A guide to developing student, faculty, and professional learning communities to improve student success and organizational effectiveness. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 12–20.
• Martin, L. (2007). Defining the scholarship of teaching versus scholarly teaching. Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 46, 1–3.
• Richlin, L., & Cox, M. D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning through faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 97, 127–135.
• Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks. Society for Research into Higher Education, 34(5), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597200
• Schuck, S., & Russell, T. (2005). Self study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 107–121.
• Shulman, L. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, 26(6), 8–13.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1988). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Vogel, M. (2011). The loneliness of the higher education teacher: A critical discourse analysis (0078). Paper presented at the Conference for the Society for Research into Higher Education, Newport Wales.
• Weston, C. B., & McAlpine, L. (2001). Making explicit the development toward the scholarship of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 86, 89–97.
• Whitney, S., & Roderick, L. (2017). High impact faculty development practices: A framework for demonstrating impact. Presentation at Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 2017.
• Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36 46.

Appendix: Reflective Notes Template