International Journal of Arts and Sciences

3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

Student perspectives on Scholarship: A Contemporary Issue in

Higher Education
Ann Dashwood, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Jill Lawrence, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Lorelle Burton, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Alice Brown, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

Abstract: Internationalisation of higher education embodies a pedagogy that is expected to

have grounding in scholarship, in both domestic and overseas environments. The pedagogy
has to incorporate a scholarship that includes knowledge about teaching and learning
underpinned by the subject discipline and interdisciplinary awareness and relevance to the
subject of study. Definitions of scholarship vary and there is limited consensus among and
within disciplines. In respect to institutional policy, variation also occurs between scholarship
and research, such that there is conflict between the higher education pillars of “best practice
in teaching and learning” and “research”. Individual positions adopted by academics within
disciplines and across institutions affect how scholarship is viewed and practised. Shulman
(2004) maintained that “teaching and consequent student learning are both worthy of scholarly
inquiry and absolutely necessary if teachers are to fulfil their professional responsibility to
their students” (p. 1).

Student perspectives on scholarship in higher education have yet to attract research attention.
This study attempted to redress this imbalance and to identify student understandings of this
key pedagogical principle as defined by transnational pedagogy taskforce at the University of
Southern Queensland (USQ). The scholarship principle was defined as respecting diverse
learning and teaching styles and upholding excellence and integrity of scholarship across
disciplines. In comparison, definitions of scholarship in the international higher education
sector are more expansive and incorporate networking and mentoring as paramount to its
understanding.

Keywords: scholarship, higher education.

1. Introduction
In much the same way that internationalisation of higher education devolved to students the
responsibility to apply learning to their specific contexts, so too scholarship assumes and
requires the student to take responsibility for extrapolating meaning from expert knowledge as
delivered by their lecturers and to find relevance and application to their local contexts. The
USQ has responded to this challenge and aimed “to develop programs that are transnational in
content and pedagogical in approach” (USQ, 2008a, p.1). Context is to provide a “relevant
and adaptive curriculum” one which recognises “the need to offer an international culturally
sensitive curriculum” and to develop “exemplars of internationalised curriculum from all
faculties” (USQ, 2008a, p.1). It therefore appears that in the exercise of scholarship it is
mandatory to reflect expertise not only in the disciplines but also in the pedagogy of those
disciplines. This contemporary view is consistent with Shulman’s position (1997, 2004).
Scholarship implies that teaching and learning should be embedded in course design and
delivery. In an internationalised curriculum, student learning needs will be acknowledged as a
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

significant component of the pedagogy and as one sign of the integrity of a transnational
pedagogy.

2. Literature Review
Scholarship of Teaching: Defining scholarship in higher education
The task of defining scholarship in higher education is problematic, particularly in its
differentiation of research in general, and learning and teaching research, in particular. Boyer
1990) was one of the first to apply scholarship to higher education. For Boyer (1990),
scholarship referred to the analysis and interpretation of existing knowledge aimed at
improving, through teaching or by other means of communication, the depth of human
understanding. Teaching scholarship involves making knowledge intelligible, and delivering
the material in such a way that enables comprehension (Boyer, 1990). In an attempt to let go
of the tired old “research versus teaching” argument and focus on the idea that scholarship
exists in all aspects of academic work, Boyer defined four areas of academic work: (a)
Discovery, building new knowledge through traditional research; (b) integration, interpreting
the use of knowledge across disciplines and seeking to interpret, draw together, and bring new
insight to original research; (c) application, aiding society and professions in addressing
problems; and (d) teaching, involving the transmission, transformation, and extension of
knowledge (Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin, & Prosser, 2000). They argued that these Boyer
descriptions of the scholarship of teaching are limited to notions of a teacher being well
informed.

In their analysis of the literature, Trigwell et al. (2000) revealed that there are enormous
variations in the ways that the scholarship of teaching is represented. Rice (1992, as cited in
Trigwell) considered three distinct elements of scholarship:
1. Synoptic capacity, the ability to draw the strands of a field together in a way that
provides both coherence and meaning, to place what is known in context and open
the way for connection to be made between the knower and the known.
2. Pedagogical content knowledge, the capacity to represent a subject in ways that
transcend the split between intellectual substance and teaching process, usually
having to do with the metaphors, analogies and experiments used.
3. What we know about learning, scholarly inquiry into how students "make meaning"
out of what the teacher says and does (p. 125).
Trigwell et al. (2000) also reinforced the multi-faceted nature of scholarship, referring to
Shulman’s (1993) confirmation of the role of communication and community in scholarship.
According to Shulman (1993), scholars live life as members of active communities,
communities engaged in conversation and evaluation. They then communicate their
understandings through writing about learning and teaching findings and methodologies.
Shulman’s (1993, p. 6) concept of scholarship was “community property .... shared, discussed,
critiqued, exchanged, built on”. The exercise of sharing and building knowledge online is a
form of reflective inquiry; it requires users of the tools to probe more deeply into aspects of
their practice by using templates that provide conceptual frameworks and which prompt
questioning (Shulman, 2004). Other theorists likewise promote the role of communication.
Healy (2000a), for example, contends that staff benefit from informing others about their
teaching and learning practices. They develop a teaching portfolio with accumulating evidence
for promotion, teaching awards and research quality framework publications (Learning and
Teaching Support Unit, 2007). Membership of organisations that promote and support
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

scholarship, such as the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Great Britain is integral to
scholarly behaviour at universities.
Trigwell et al. (2000) agreed that scholarship is communicative, speaking and writing about
new questions for teaching the discipline accompanied by successful strategies for improving
the teaching of the discipline and ways to illuminate the discipline for students. In so doing,
the teacher contributes to the departmental culture of scholarly teaching through participation
in discussion groups, peer review, mentoring, leading a discussion, or more formally by
presenting a paper. In some instances the teacher contributes at the levels of university, the
discipline and to the wider academic community. Learning from innovation and evaluation
reported to colleagues, the teacher keeps notes for informal presentations and more formal
papers as part of the teaching portfolio for communication. Trigwell et al. argued that
scholarship is injected into teaching through communication. Good practice is shared across
the discipline community and strategically across the university through teaching and learning
forums and discussions. At its simplest, this involves peer observation and departmental
seminars about teaching. More formal dissemination involves participation in pedagogic
workshops and conferences, contributing to national collections of teaching and learning
resources, and publishing research findings in pedagogic and disciplinary journals (Healy,
2000b; Shulman, 2004).
Writing in the discipline by both teacher and student draws on styles for different purposes.
Differences of style flow from differences of purpose (Ballard & Clanchy, 1988, as cited in
Chanock, 2007). Baum-Brunner (1997, p. 93) alerted academics to a “need for faculty to
articulate disciplinary expectations”. There is a wider range of expectations, data sources and
perspectives that faculty members draw on from their personal, disciplinary and rhetorical
domains and beliefs and these require explicit outlining of expectations. With extensive
experience in writing for communication Chanock (2007, p. 269) explained that with greater
awareness of the varieties of disciplinary discourses, academic language learning advisers and
discipline lecturers can devise activities and materials to focus students' attention on particular
features of discourse as a regular part of learning in their subjects. Academic literacies and
discourses from the university’s discourse communities together have a role in higher
education on matters of the scholarship of teaching and learning.
The inquiry aspects of scholarship also loom large in the literature of scholarship. Schön
(1995, p. 31), for instance, building on the Dewey concept of inquiry, argued that the principal
component of scholarship is intertwined with action, also known as reflection-in-action. Schön
(1995, p.31) thus viewed scholarly activity as incorporating action research. Similarly, Healy
(2000a) viewed the scholarship of teaching in a global sense; involving academics engaging
with research into teaching and learning. In recognising the status of research and scholarship,
Healy (2000a), whose field is geography, called for comparability of rigueur, standards and
esteem.
Pedagogy is another element that appears in the literature of scholarship. A scholarly approach
links the study process to the academic disciplines. However, according to Healy (2000a),
differences in methodology and approaches across subject disciplines involve also differences
in the pedagogy of teaching them. Taken as a model for other disciplines, geography led in its
discipline-based approach to educational development and was a means of identifying
scholarship in other areas. Scholarship was understood as being familiarity with the latest
ideas in the subject discipline, awareness of ideas on teaching that subject, and of evaluating
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

and reflecting on students' learning (Healy, 2000a). Case studies used across departments in
universities provided guides on good teaching, learning and assessment practices. Discipline
training to new lecturers was seen as fundamental to being scholarly in the discipline of
geography. Beyond the fundamentals, Healey (2000) maintained that scholarship essentially
contributes to the development of the pedagogy of the subject. It involves researching the
learning and teaching of the discipline and disseminating the outcomes. Good practice, Healy
(2000a) reiterated, had to be shared and be better understood, and as with research, made open
to critical scrutiny.
Reflection is also a key element mentioned by the theorists (Ramsden, 2006; Robson, 2006).
The notion of critical reflection on professional practice at personal and collegial levels
involves communicating in depth within discipline-specific contexts. The absence of reflection
is telling. Teachers not engaged in the scholarship of teaching tend to use informal theories of
teaching and learning (Healy, 2000a). Typically they engage in little reflection; any reflection
they do is based on their own actions, not on their students’ experiences. They keep their
ideas to themselves and see teaching as a personal, private activity. By contrast, teachers
engaged in the scholarship of teaching are more inclined to engage in the following
behaviours. They consult literature on teaching and learning, investigate their own teaching,
and reflect on their teaching from the perspective of their intention in teaching and students’
perceptions of their context and by formally communicating their ideas and practices to peers.
For Trigwell et al. (2000), the scholarly approach is also responsive to a systematic plan for
improvement, acting on the outcome of reflection and inquiry, evaluating outcomes,
incorporating new knowledge in the discipline and its current questions and finding new
avenues for professional development.

Some theorists align the elements involved in scholarship in different combinations. Andresen
and Webb (2000), for example, combined the elements of inquiry, pedagogy, and reflection
and perceived the scholarship of teaching as being built around the ethic of inquiry, being
well-informed from the pedagogy of the discipline, and being critically reflective. Trigwell et
al. (2000) argued that scholarly activity is discipline specific, reflective, inquisitorial,
responsive and communicative. Their model of scholarship incorporates four dimensions:
1. The extent to which teachers engage with the scholarly contributions of others,
including the literature of teaching and learning of a general nature, and particularly
that in their discipline.
2. The focus of teachers’ reflections on their own teaching practice and the learning of
students within the context of their own discipline: whether it is un-focused, or
whether it is asking what do I need to know and how do I find out.
3. The quality of the communication and dissemination of aspects of practice and
theoretical ideas about teaching and learning in general and teaching and learning
within their discipline.
4. Their conceptions of teaching and learning: whether the focus of their activities are
on student learning and teaching or mainly on teaching.
Shulman (2004, p.1) maintained that “teaching and consequent student learning are both
worthy of scholarly inquiry and absolutely necessary if teachers are to fulfil their professional
responsibility to their students”. He adopted an approach of analysing a teacher’s pedagogy
through modelling and exchanging ideas with others for critical review and reflection.
Scholarship in teaching implies improving university teaching in a way that takes account of
the interplay between disciplinary research and the education of undergraduates; of research
into teaching and learning in a specific subject; of research into teaching and learning in
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

higher education in general; and of a need to consider university teaching as a process of

critical reflection on practice, open to collegial scrutiny.

Trigwell et al. (2000) acknowledged the problematic nature and role of pedagogy. They
argued that the issue of pedagogical content knowledge, including the Informed dimension,
was poorly understood as was the contribution it makes to scholarly teaching. Their
investigations into the relational issue of what of teaching and how it relates to teaching
outcomes was the focus of their continuing research. Another element not accommodated in
the model was the role of inquiry, of research.

For the purposes of this paper, and taking into account the foregoing review of issues at the
academic level, scholarship has come to be research into teaching and learning, based on
critical reflection in practice, more open to investigation by colleagues, and reflecting the
interplay between investigation, knowledge and communication (Ramsden, 2002; Robson,
2006; Trigwell, 2007; Walkington, Christensen, & Koche, 2001).

Scholarship at USQ
USQ policy reflects the problematic nature of scholarship in the literature, particularly in
relation to the role of inquiry. At USQ, within the guidelines of the university academic
calendar (USQ, 2008a), the practice of scholarship is aligned with teaching and research as
essential functions of academics in the university community. The university’s policy on
research and scholarship is underpinned by the mission statement, the values statement and the
vision statement. “Scholarship refers to the analysis and interpretation of existing knowledge
aimed at improving, through publications, teaching or by other means of communication, the
depth of human understanding” (USQ, 2008b, Section 7.1),. Research is “taken to mean
systematic and rigorous investigation aimed at the discovery of previously unknown
phenomena, the development of explanatory theory and its application to new situations or
problems, and the construction of original works of significant intellectual merit” (USQ,
2008b, Section 7.1). The policy on research and scholarship is based on the belief that
effective, relevant and stimulating teaching derives from the efforts of staff to be up-to-date in
their various disciplines.

Faculties are required to publish their goals for research, scholarship and staff development
and are funded accordingly. The Deputy-Vice-Chancellor (Scholarship) is responsible for co-
ordinating research and scholarship activities in the University and for providing training in
research, as determined by the Academic Board. Scholars are assisted in applying for grants
and in implementing their scholarship as sources of funding from both government and private
agencies. Scholarship activities within the Faculty’s disciplines are is promoted and supported
by Faculty Deans.

3. Methodology
The survey
An online survey was developed to measure undergraduate students’ views on the USQ
flexible teaching and learning practice policy within the transnational pedagogy framework
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

(see Burton, Lawrence, Dashwood, Brown, & White, 2007). The survey consisted of nine
variables exploring participants’ relevant background information (i.e., age, gender, languages
spoken and study information such as location where studying, previous study etc.) and 44
survey questions based on five pedagogical principles: Sustainability, Engagement,
Scholarship, Flexibility and Context. In the survey, scholarship was broadly defined as “USQ
respects diverse learning and teaching styles and upholds excellence and integrity of
scholarship across disciplines”.

The survey yielded responses from 944 first-year students enrolled in each of the five
Faculties: Sciences, Engineering and Surveying, Arts, Business, and Education. The survey
also solicited participants’ written responses to each of the five pedagogical principles
although this paper will only provide data relevant to understanding the scholarship principle.
For example, students provided written responses to the open-ended question “Can you
identify a course that contributes to your understanding of issues related to scholarship?” “If
yes, please explain how this was achieved. If no, please provide a comment”.

Data analysis techniques in transnational research

In order to assign meaning to the qualitative open-ended section of the transnational survey
the following steps occurred. During the initial phase of analysis, categories were generated
from common themes in student responses. At face-to-face meetings, the researchers
established a degree of congruence of interpreting the students’ responses by category.
“Modified” random sampling was employed to select 91 sets of responses (10% of the data
set) across the five principles that were presented as typed responses on excel sheets. From
the instances reported, they identified themes, proposed category names and reached
consensus on titles for the codes. This method aimed at establishing reliability of the process
and was helpful in identifying consistent coding and eliminating duplication. A reliability
index of 81% congruence was established on coding the instances of scholarship. Having
established codes for the many themes of responses the three researchers each coded 300 sets
of student responses on the five principles to complete the full data set. In cases of multiple
messages from individual students, multiple codes were applied to the student’s response. N-
Vivo software was employed as a tool for collating those responses into the categories as
binary qualitative data sets.

The survey and scholarship

In identifying characteristics of the university’s mission in pedagogy, Scholarship was
considered to be one of five foundation keys of the academic life of teachers and students at
USQ. The scholarship principle in transnational pedagogy was recognised as “respecting
diverse learning and teaching styles and upholding excellence and integrity of scholarship
across USQ disciplines” (Dashwood, Lawrence, Brown, & Burton, 2008, p. 106). They
acknowledged the limitations of this definition of scholarship in this paper.

4. Findings
In response to the open question “Can you identify a course that contributes to your
understanding of issues related to scholarship?” students provided a range of insights into the
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

nature of scholarship (see Table 1). Students identified at least one course (Yes) in which their
understanding of scholarship was evident in the following frequency of instances:
a. organisation of course delivery by means of for example residential schools, recorded
lectures, oral assignments, case studies, hands-on activities and the study schedule; b. quality
of course material, how the resources and content were managed making them accessible for
learning and for assessment; c. selection of real world exemplars in the courses; d. use of ICTs
in particular interactive software, online discussions; e. academic skills; f. belief that their
learning styles were considered; g. teaching style that enhanced learning.

Responses from students who could not identify at least one course (No) in which scholarship
was evident were far fewer than those students who did identify scholarship in their courses.
Their comments clearly provided the perspective of teaching style and learner style more
frequently than other indicators of scholarship. Other prominent features included workload,
relevance, consistency and transferability to other courses. Their restricted views on
scholarship reflect the focus given to teaching styles and learning styles in the survey
definition.

Table 1: Instances of Students Reporting the Principle of Scholarship by Category

Scholarship
Category by number of Yes % Category by number of No %
instances instances
Organisation 205 31 Teaching Style 46 41
Materials / resources 107 16 Learning Style 17 15
Assessment 103 16 Not evident 18 16
Real world exemplars 63 10 Not sure & too early in 13 11
the course
Academic skills 49 7 Other 9 8
Learning style 57 9 Workload 6 5
ICT 51 8 Relevance, consistency, 4 4
transferability
Teaching quality 31 5

Instances 666 100 113 100

Instances identified by the students themselves were grouped into categories and reported here
in order of frequency of instances.

Categories identified by students’ responses as ‘Yes’

1. Organisation: eg. Residential schools, recorded lectures, oral assignments, hands on, case
studies, study schedule;
2. Materials: eg. Resources;
3. Assessment: eg. Assignments: diverse, oral, on-line tasks, CMAs help focus, sufficiently
challenging assignment activities which I found particularly rewarding in my learning
goals;
4. Real world examples: eg. Real life situation; make use of in my area of work;
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

5. Academic skills: eg. requirement to read extra reference material; skills development;
discussion questions, focus activities, research skills, in-depth study, computer
techniques taught to us by our lectures and tutors, study options, task-based ethics;
6. Learning style: eg. I’m a read/write learning~ so having the written material incorporated
many different learning styles and tools to accommodate the diverse range of people
in the course;
7. ICTs eg. Computer programs: MYOB, WebCT; web design, interactive CDs;
8. Teaching quality: eg. clear instructions, clearly organised, teacher creating learning space;
9. Other: eg. Personal self, current work, compassion, empathy, very good advice and
encouragement.

Categories identified by students’ responses as ‘No’

1. Teaching style: eg. too many slides; too much reliance on books; Comparing my 2
surveying degrees against my civil engineering degree~ the learning facility of
engineering is hopeless~ out of date~ and lecturers usually won’t help external
students or take part on the USQ online discussion groups; I have never had a more
disinterested~ unengaged~ boring lecturer who used terms way over our heads;
because of these issues I have missed out on a extremely important skill here and I am
having trouble catching up;

2. Not evident: eg. Don’t recall any course.

3. Learning style: eg. Doesn’t cater for learning style (Sitting and being spoken at for three
hours is difficult for any person~ let alone someone like me who is active; I learn best
through direct teaching of content but all of our courses revolve around collaborative
based learning); I am a person who needs to read the text and make my own notes; I
need fact learning;

4. Too early enrolment: eg. Still early stage of program~ courses are not involved with the
point; Not sure: eg. Can’t think of any specific examples;

5. Other: eg. Unfair;

6. Workload: eg. Workload/content too much, engineering doesn’t give any chance to
understand in depth because of too much amount to study; All subjects have too much
work load to enable a pleasant learning experience;

7. Relevance: eg. Not relevant; Consistency: eg. I find a great deal of inconsistency, eg
plagiarism, APA referencing, marking; Transferability: eg. They are very non-real
world; I would prefer more on the job kinda work; course waste of time;

Instances of students’ positive views on scholarship

Students expressed positive views on scholarship represented by 8 categories of perspectives
based on a course that came to mind.
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

1. Organisation

Students reported the following organisational aspects of the learning environment as

examples of scholarship in practice demonstrating variety of organisational management of
student learning: working in a team, problem-solving, laboratory practical sessions, interactive
labs, lectures, tutorials, workshops, residential schools, courses with practical experience,
breeze presentations, discussion groups, recorded lecture notes, written screen casts of
modules, rotating tutors, interactive lectures and use of diagrams for instance.

Organisation of communication was important to many: being invited to ask questions and
interact with others, weekly group phone conversations with the lecturer where “we could
actually ask them questions”, USQ Assist, interaction with the class and lecturer, tutorial
activities based on course content, meeting face-to-face.

Scholarship was understood for example as “how our lecturers were always concerned with
our learning and understanding of the content”. Participating in a team was justified because it
“gave (me) a better working knowledge of the situation then (sic) reading about it.”
Organisation of learning materials, traditional textbooks, a clearly structured course, recorded
lectures and internet access were examples of the teachers’ scholarship providing “diverse
content and opportunity to stretch intellectually” as one student explained.

2. Real world examples

Application and relevance of learning to the students was considered a component of

scholarship. Students emphasised the relationship between principles and practice, such that
they enjoyed seeing “how the theory learnt was employed in practical situations.” Hands-on
organisation of the learning indicated at both organisational and real world levels the aspects
of learning that reflected individual learning preferences. “Providing scenarios and practical
understandings of issues” were valued organisational activities employed by teachers that
students found to be scholarly. Examples occurred across academic disciplines. For instance
in the Faculty of Education: “We were required to develop and facilitate a program that was to
be used and implemented in a real school setting.”

3. Academic Skills

Fundamental skills were nominated in the participants’ open expression of scholarship. The
skills included aspects of academic communication: consideration of ethics, academic writing
style, discussion parameters and developing technical research skills using software packages
SPSS & Excel, accessing the online library, citing and sourcing reference materials, applying
APA style. Skills associated with effective academic reading were identified, while
researching readings for improved understanding of the discipline to synthesise and be
creative were nominated with employing useful heuristics and multiple learning strategies. On
training skills, students included group presentations, interview skills, professional
expectations and critical analysis approaches to training others. Scholarship also included
developing skills in the craft and skills for adapting to tertiary education.
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

4. Resource materials

Students recognised that organisation and content of the text of the materials contributed to
scholarship. Students wrote: “I am not aware if the text has won any writers’ awards but it
needs to~ very well put together” and “the study guide complemented the learning”.
Participants noted that readings selected were current, easy-to-access and the course material,
supplied as ‘distance education’ material was interesting and informative. Additional resource
material such as a “well paced CD”, audio clips and animated graphs, interactive games,
recorded PowerPoint presentations of the lectures contributed to scholarship from the
students’ perspective.

5. Assessment

Forms of assessment were identified as evidence of scholarship. Students nominated a variety

of assignment assessment items such as essays, on-line tests, critiques, topic choices,
independent research, relevant topics for assessment, extensive research papers and tutorial
presentations in addition to feedback on professional projects, as samples of the means by
which learning capabilities were challenged and enhanced. Further they made reference to
other forms of assessment that assisted their learning, enhancing understanding of the course,
for example computer-managed tests, oral assessment, reviewing past exams, assessment of
sections of the study material, series of on-line exams which highlighted objectives in the
modules, individual research to interpret material and apply it in context.
It became evident that for some students regular graduated assessment from simple straight
forward tasks progressing to more complex assignments also supported their learning,
particularly when the assignments were representative of real working life situations.

6. Learning Style

Student evidence of the role of learning style in scholarship included comments such as: “I
just felt the whole course fell together well~ I like the way the teacher did small groups.
Students nominated teachers who appeared to be “Catering to a number of different learning
styles (especially kinaesthetic- which is one of my strengths; Readings could be “read at my
own pace”, “a lot of self reflection on how we plan execute and review our own work and I
love that”. Opportunity for “constant interaction between students and the lecturer” was often
provided as an example of teachers considering students’ learning styles. They noted that
teachers who were aware of learning style considered “Achievable workload” and the need for
“constant interaction between students and the teacher on line”.

7. Teaching Quality

Students named teachers who were “great at this principle and “performance-I have a great
teacher. Its that simple” “Thoughts from academic staff at USQ have always been presented in
a constructive-encouraging way that I really appreciate” philosophical and metaphorical
debate has enlightened me and accentuated my thirst for knowledge... the quality of the
education I acquired through USQ has had deep and profound philosophical impact on me
which will continue well after my current studies end”;
It was apparent that students had expectations of the level of commitment to the teaching
dynamic that their lecturers tended to exceed. They were admired for their discipline
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

expertise, their focus on developing “a learning environment that catered for all types” with “
high levels of guidance and feedback.. as a mentor and adviser.” Making the “subject
accessible” was considered to the scholarly and “presenting the material in innovative ways”
with “plenty of staff support in case the learning style required personal help” were comments
indicative of the student view of scholarship. The depth of knowledge and commitment to a
pedagogy was demonstrated in these comments: “Detailed answers to discuss board
questions from all students” “Very enthusiastic and passionate and encouraged individual to
be able to learn and understand the course content” and “took time to make sure everyone
understood”.
Scholarly teachers provided quality in pedagogy, giving clear instructions that were easy to
comprehend and as necessary changing the way they taught by adapting for each of the needs
that presented in the tutorial. For sessions to provide “ a comfortable and engaging experience
from start to finish” indicates the extent to which students identified scholarship with quality
teaching that was student and learner-focussed.

Instances of no evidence of Scholarship

From the ‘No’ data, the following insights on scholarship emerged. Learning style figured
prominently in concepts of scholarship “I learn best through direct teaching of content but all
of our courses revolve around collaborative based learning; i am a person who needs to read
the text and make my own notes; I need fact learning”. This insight of the nature of
scholarship is that of student –based learning, for scholarship to adapt to the diversity of
learners in a course. With respect to teaching style, reported instances of teachers was they
were “disinterested~ unengaged~ boring”... and “used terms way over our heads; because of
these issues I have missed out on a extremely important skill here and I am having trouble
catching up”. Students held expectations that scholarship includes the teacher being interested
and engaged and in addressing the discourse discipline at a comprehensible level and pace that
students can manage. In some courses the workload was felt to be too high; the notion of
scholarship expressed is that of enabling “a pleasant learning experience” and “to understand
in depth”. Other aspects of scholarship expressed related to consistent academic practice with
respect to plagiarism, referencing and assessment.

6. Discussion
Students’ positive evidence confirms Shulman’s (2004) argument that students respond
positively to their teachers’ ability to make public their knowledge of notions of scholarship,
by sharing and building knowledge. They reported understanding the notion of scholarship in
a number of ways that are either not prominent in the literature, or that refer explicitly to
personal learning. Where academics have raised the significance of research into teaching and
learning within the disciplines as scholarship, participants in this survey focused initially on
their teachers’ consideration of the learning environment being established ‘through’ the
discipline rather than learning ‘of’ the discipline. Enhancement of learning opportunities for
students appears to be very important for students.
Management of the learning environment and the teachers’ ability to structure course content,
discussion and insights into the academic disciplines were most often stated as indicators of
scholarship. Opportunities to engage with their peers and their teachers who established
communication through technology and face-to-face encounters were prominent in the
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

students’ reported notions of scholarship. Learning academic skills of communication was

rated highly by students. They found it important also for teachers to relate theory to practice
both physically within the learning environments and to the real world of experience at work
and other facets of life outside the university.

Scholarship, as defined from the academic teacher perspective is (a) reflective, (b)
inquisitorial, (c) responsive and (d) communicative (Trigwell et al., 2000). Students in the
current study support this notion and perceive scholarship from a broader range of
considerations that relate to how effectively they are assisted in their learning. Student
responses indicate a preference for teachers demonstrating an understanding of how students
learn; they appreciate it if teachers understand learning preferences and put strategies in place
to accommodate individual differences in learning approaches, for example kinaesthetic,
visual, and/or auditory learning preferences. There is sufficient evidence that students share
the academics’ views on scholarship with a varying priority given to their needs as learners..

Each of these four dimensions of scholarship are summarised in turn.

Reflection

Indeed, the current data indicate that students associate “scholarship” with reflective activities.
When thinking of a course which led to understanding issues that contributed to understanding
scholarship, students recalled courses that prompted the scholarly behaviour of “reflection”.
Some attributed the nature of learning to reflection: “Reflecting on how we learn” Students
associated the means by which reflection was enabled: for example through a reflective essay,
journal writing, about experiences or tasks requiring critical and reflective thinking such as
unit and lesson plans for a portfolio weekly group interaction and reflective exercises

Students further indicated that they enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on their learning:
Scholarship was understood to be defined within ‘self-reflection’, personal reflection, by auto-
ethnographies, by group reflection and brainstorming that “cemented many of the concepts.
Deep reflection was associated with the longer process of learning such that “for the first 5
weeks~ I wasn’t sure that I was really getting it. Then with the first major assignment
everything clicked into place & I was able to make so much more out of key teaching
experiences than I had been able to in the past. The way the examiner created that opportunity
to give us that learning experience was amazing _ nearly a year later it still makes me feel
excited when I remember how I felt.”

Questioning

The inquisitive nature of scholarship as identified by Trigwell et al. (2000) was also
emphasised by students. Thus, the opportunity to “question” was deemed important. Those
who did not relate any courses to scholarship found the readings to be distant from the topic,
demanding more from the questions asked than the text prescribed. They found assignment
tasks to be inappropriate and the assessment guide incomprehensible, lacking exemplars of
from experience.
Whereas being invited to ask questions was valued by many students. The scholarship of
teachers who provided detailed answers to discussion board questions, answered questions
directly and used the online facility was valued. ‘Study questions’ that guided understanding
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

of content and provided focussed revision were found helpful. Assignment questions featured
prominently in students’ comments on questioning with an emphasis on weekly submissions
of answers to stimulus questions. Being given choices of research questions was both
motivating for students and provided a guiding focus on their development of skills. Self
assessment questions following a reading were found to assist learning.
Both types of respondents, those who could identify scholarship in their courses contrasted
with those who did not find evidence of scholarship viewed enquiry as a necessary component
of assignment work. Individuals who replied negatively to evidence of scholarship identified
the need for notes and worked examples prior to undertaking the take-home test. They
expected answers in the study book rather than on-line.

Responsiveness

Students viewed a quick response to a request as important. It allowed students valuable time
to ask questions and to pace themselves through the course thereby managing their own tight
time schedules. The discussion board is an interactive website on each student’s Study Desk
set up electronically by the examiner of each course. Many distance education students, who
comprise 80% of the USQ student population, find the facility significant for communication.
Active participants within the learning community find the discussion board accessible and it
often facilitates a prompt response from lecturers.
Those who did not find evidence of scholarship in their courses spent 60% of their assessment
time working, by responding to online entries each week and considered that they were having
to be more responsive than they would have liked.

Communication

Communication was also identified as a key component of scholarship. Courses and

workshops that dealt well with writing and academic communication were regarded as
providing useful models which were respected as reference points for later in life. Having the
opportunity to make choices on assessment through open communication channels was a
respected feature of scholarship as was becoming involved with a new community through the
scholarship of communication.

7. Conclusion

In summary, interpreting scholarship as a common entity for a higher education institution is

far from complete. The language of scholarship and the orientations of scholars vary greatly.
Yet there is advantage in seeking a common understanding of the significant facet of
university life that quality teaching and meaningful learning share. Scholarship relies on
understanding the “interaction between teaching and learning” (Cross, 1990, p. 6). While an
understanding of what constitutes effective teaching and student learning is important, there
are challenges in applying that knowledge in the many different learning contexts and
disciplines of higher education for the benefit of the diverse student population. Understanding
the conditions for learning has also to be factored with the relationship between learning and
teaching in understanding the “disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and professional fields in which
teaching and learning” take place.
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

Challenges faced by Australian higher education in enhancing learning and teaching are not
unique. There is much to gain by establishing stronger international links through formal
arrangements which would allow “experience, resources, and good practice to be shared
within a clear structure. Such arrangements would: permit benchmarking at a national level;
allow sharing of policy experience in enhancing teaching and learning; and be a formalised
recognition of the growing internationalisation of higher education” (Schofield and Olsen,
2000, as cited in National Institute for Learning and Teaching, 2003, p. 7).

This study has highlighted a practical and tangible student perspective on the nature of
scholarship. The lens through which students viewed their experiences may have been filtered
by their engagement in the discipline. They made limited reference to finer grained aspects of
their subject disciplines and their teachers’ engagement with principles of pedagogical content
knowledge (see Schulman, 1993, 2004). Despite a concern by the researchers that the
definition put to students on the survey question was narrow, a broad understanding was
expressed. The definition “Respecting diverse learning and teaching styles and upholding
excellence and integrity of scholarship across USQ disciplines” elicited an understanding and
expectation of quality teaching and learning that aligned well with the academicians’
expression of scholarship in a higher education institution. Central to the students’ views of
scholarship was how learning became manifest through the scholarly behaviour of their
mentoring teachers. The notions of Reflection, Questioning, Responsiveness and
Communication highlighted by Trigwell et al (2000) were evident in the students’
understanding of scholarship. Students respected opportunities to reflect on their learning
both within assessment items and beyond to longer term and wider application of
understanding issues in their subject disciplines. Challenging matters raised within the
academic disciplines through enquiry also reflect scholarly behavior. An understanding is
implicit that to challenge is a means of enhancing learning at the teaching-learning interface
and it has an impact on the integrity of communication for knowing. In seeking the students’
voice, this study has revealed that students respect a pedagogy that embraces scholarship
through a transnational orientation to higher education.
A further study appears an important step forward to investigate the academics’ views of
scholarship in the current higher education climate. It should offer a counter-balance of
understanding at the teaching-learning interface as the nature of scholarship in the profession
is discussed towards the end of the first decade of the 21st century.

References
Andresen, L., & Trigwell, K. (1999). The Australian scholarship in teaching project
Retrieved December 8, 2008, from
http://www.clt.uts.edu.au/Scholarship/Home_Page.html
Andresen, L. W., & Webb, C. A. (2000). Discovering the scholarship of teaching. Richmond,
Australia: University of Western Sydney.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1988). Literacy in the university: An 'anthropological' approach.
In G. Taylor, B. Ballard, V. Beasley, H. Bock, J. Clanchy, & P. Nightingale, P. (Eds.).
Literacy by degrees (pp. 7-23). Milton Keynes: SHRE and Open University Press.
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

Baum-Brunner, S. (1997) Be not deceived: Looking at historians' and compositionists' views

of multiculturalism in freshman composition courses. Language and Learning Across
the Disciplines, 2(1), 85-95.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, New
Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Burton, L., Lawrence, J., Dashwood, A., Brown, A. & White, R. (2007). Survey. (in press).

Cross, P. K. (1990). Teachers as scholars. Bulletin, 42(4), 3-5. Retrieved January 12, 2009,
from DEST and Australian Universities Teaching Committee (September 2003).
National Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education discussion paper,
p.6
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/learning_teaching/documents/discussion_pap
er.pdf
Dashwood, A., Lawrence, J., Brown, A., & Burton, L. (2008). Transnational pedagogy from
policy to practice: Beginnings of the journey. International Journal of Pedagogies and
Learning, 4(3), 97-110.
Glassick, C., Huber, M., & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the
professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Healy, M. (2000a). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-
based approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2),169-189.
Healy, M. (2000b). How to put scholarship into teaching. Times Higher Education
Supplement, 4 February. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from
http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/confpubl/thes.htm
Learning and Teaching Support Unit. (2007). Information Flyer for Staff. Scholarship and
research in learning and teaching in higher education. What is scholarship and
research in learning and teaching? Retrieved December 9, 2008, from
http://www.usq.edu.au/resources/informationflyertlscholarshipfinal2.pdf

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Martin, E., Benjamin, J., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999) Scholarship of teaching: A study
of the approaches of academic staff. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning:
Improving student learning outcomes. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning
Development, Oxford Brookes University, 326-331.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in
higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E., & Clarke, S. (1995). Recognising and rewarding
good teaching in Australian higher education, a project commissioned by the
 International Journal of Arts and Sciences
3(5): 64 – 79 (2009)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934
© InternationalJournal.org

Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching, Canberra, A.C.T: Australian

Government Publishing Service.
Ramsden, P. (2002). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Retrieved on January 14, 2009, from
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Lqu1xm44Fi8C&dq=critical+ P243508822
Rice, R. E. (1992). Towards a broader conception of scholarship: The American context. In T.
Whiston and R. Geiger (Eds.), Research and Higher Education: The United Kingdom
and the United States (pp. 117-129). Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Robson, J. (2006) Teacher professionalism in further and higher education: Challenges to
culture and practice. London: Routledge.

National Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education discussion paper, A Report
or DETYA on: An Evaluation of the CUTSD initiative in DEST and Australian
Universities Teaching Committee (September 2003). p.7 retrieved 12 Jan 2009
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/learning_teaching/documents/discussion_pap
er.pdf
Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change (Nov/Dec),
27-34.
Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property. Change (Nov/Dec), 6-7.
Shulman, L. S. (2004). New beginnings, old connections: Report of the president. The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved January 13, 2009,
from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about/index.asp?key=2227

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London, SAGE

Publications.

Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching. Higher
Education Research & Development, 19(2). Retrieved January 14, 2009, from
http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/scholarshipproject/about.htm

University of Southern Queensland. (2008a). Program revitalisation, C6 Internationalisation:

USQ Internationalisation Plan 2007-2011,
Retrieved January 12, 2009, from
http://www.usq.edu.au/extrafiles/ltsu/PRP/vip/internat/internat.htm

University of Southern Queensland. (2008b). Academic calendar. Part 7: Teaching, research

and scholarship, Section 7.1.
http://www.usq.edu.au/resources/71.pdf
Walkington, J,. Christensen, H. P., & Kocke, H. (2001). Developing critical reflection as a
part of teaching training and teaching practice: Staff development in higher
engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 343-350.