Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
1
_______________________________________
Advanced Methods in Using and Doing the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
Regan A. R. Gurung, Ph. D.
Ben J. & Joyce Rosenberg Professor of Human Development & Psychology
University of Wisconsin – Green Bay
Faculty College, Richland Center- May 28th – 31st, 2013
EMAIL: gurungr@uwgb.edu
___________________________________
The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL, Potter and Kustra,
2011, p. 2):
the systematic study of teaching and learning, using established
or validated criteria of scholarship, to understand how teaching
(beliefs, behaviours, attitudes, and values) can maximize
learning, and/or develop a more accurate understanding of
learning, resulting in products that are publicly shared for
critique and use by an appropriate community.
Key Questions
How do I know my students are learning?
What can I do to improve student thinking, writing, and learning of content?
How do I know if a pedagogical innovation is making a difference?
What are the ways to modify teaching and assess it worked? A
Workshop Topics
Issues in SoTL: Definitions, Challenges, Future Directions – The Next Wave
Major research designs: Advantages and disadvantages, benchmarks
Major disciplinary styles of thinking and doing SoTL
Key variables in the study of learning.
Validity and Reliability in SoTL
Evidence-Based Teaching for Higher Education
___________________________________________________________________________
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
2
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung (Please do not share or post online without permission.)
Teaching & Learning Project Goal Setting
List your main peeves about student learning behavior.
List the classes, assignments, or assessments you would like to change.
Class, Assignment,
Assessment
What do you want to change? Why?
Potential SoTL Projects: Sum m er 2013
Areas to learn more about
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Potential Changes
How would you know it worked?
Regan A. R. Gurung
!  657+%7.1%2+)*13+28%
'17.3&3>,%
!  "#$%?73%(#)%*#%41++1.,%
!  657+82%4113%*#31,%
gurungr@uwgb.edu
3
!  657+82%9:;<%=)12+&#3,%
!  657+%$&''%9:;%*#,%
<1@1?+%
A%
<1B&1$%
C#?)2%A%
D573>1%
G57.1%A%
<12H#3*%
E22122%A%
FB7')7+1%
!  0.1213+%
!  0)4'&25%
!  "#$%$&''%(#)%*#%&+,%
!  -&*%&+%$#./,%
!  !"#$%&
!  '("))*++,&-.)/*0"#1+2&
!  '+2#/2#&32"(4)1)&
!  5/0/(+6&"&$+7128&)$%/,/&9$"#/8+*1/):&*;.*1$)<&
!  =21#)&+>&"2"(4)1)&9?+*7):&#;*2)@"#@#"(A<&
!  B"#/*&C*"12128&D&B/(1".1(1#4&
!  3)A&
!  E;*0/4&
!  F+$;)&G*+;6&
!  H*+#+$+(&32"(4)1)&
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
4
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
5
Designing Student Learning Outcomes
Ensure course activities and assessment aligned with LO’s
SLO: By the end of
the course the
student should be
able to:
Assessment Method
Teaching Method
 Backward Design (Fink, 2003; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998)
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
6
YOUR SoTL Research Proposal
Think about and write down one problem you encounter in your
courses:
What solution, might you try to address one of these problems?
What design will you use to implement your solution?
How will you assess the success of your solution? What evidence
will you collect?
What other student characteristics should you measure that
may explain the efficacy of your solution?
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
7
!"#"$%&'(
)"#*+,(
)"#&%*-"(
./$0*1$1*2"(
34%%"0$1"(
./$,1*1$1*2"(
3456$%"(
7%"874#1(
9%4/6#(
:&%4##(
#"5"#1"%#(
;*1'*,(
#"5"#1"%#(
!1%++(
6%27"#(8++/92#'2-(
)&"*$:(
)&"*$(>(
42-'&5'2-/"2(
;"5'1-<(
;"-./29(
!"#$%&'()&"*$+(
='+-(
='+-(
,-./0%1(0"*2-'&3%1%20'(
;"-./29(
;"5'1-<(
!"#$%&'()&"*$+(
='+-(
='+-(
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
;*1'*,(
&0$##"#(
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
8
!)%**(
5%16"#(7**.81#'1,(
9'/,."1(:(
9'/,."1(
>(
31,'&4'1,."1(
;"4'),<(
;",-.18(
!"#$%&'(!)%**'*(
='*,(
='*,(
+,-./%)(/"01,'&2%)%1/'(
;",-.18(
;"4'),<(
!"#$%&'(!)%**'*(
='*,(
='*,(
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
Glassick et al. (1997)’s criteria. In general, SoTL should:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Have clear objectives and purposes.
Include appropriate engagement with relevant, current literature in the field.
Utilize appropriate methods that relate to the stated goals.
Show a significant or likely impact on learning.
Show effective communication requiring the dissemination of ideas and findings to the wider academic
community, and
Entail reflective critique where “the scholar thinks about his or her work, seeks the opinion of others, and
develops his or her learning over time” (Glassick et al., 1997, p. 5). This would also include evaluation of
one’s students’ learning in order to plan subsequent interventions and modifications to ones’ teaching.
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Figure 1: Felton (2013) Teaching & Learning Inquiry
9
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
10
Benchmarks for Conducting the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning in Psychology
______________________________________________________________________________
SoTL Benchmarks: Level 1
No comparisons.
Non-equivalent comparison groups.
Sample sizes too small to have adequate power.
Self-report of learning is the only dependent variable.
Retrospective reports of attitudes/opinions.
Multiple bivariate hypothesis tests with no adjustment of the level of significance (α).
Qualitative data that are not of adequate depth.
______________________________________________________________________________
SoTL Benchmarks: Level 2
Theory and literature known before data are collected: Using an already established,
reliable and valid scale to measure a dependent variable increases the quality of that
measurement.
Pretest-Posttest experimental design using appropriate analyses (i.e., repeated
measures): Conducting a pretest provides a comparison of your dependent variable at baseline.
Experimental design with equivalent control group (i.e., at least matched): Have a
control group who was not exposed to the SoTL independent variable. In most SoTL research,
accomplishing random assignment is not feasible or ethical, but having a control group that is as
equivalent as possible increases the validity of the measurement of change due to the SoTL
intervention.
Established reliability and validity: Using already reliable and validated measures for
your dependent variables improves the quality of your measurement.
Acceptable sample size for analysis (at least 25 and at least 10 per independent variable –
sometimes more if needed).
Simple multivariate analyses (i.e, control for self-reported GPA, year in school, etc.):
Combine variables into a simple multivariate model to increase the reliability of the results.
Qualitative data that are of adequate depth: Using qualitative methodology with
adequate depth increases the validity of the information gathered.
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
11
____________________________________________________________________________
SoTL Benchmarks: Level 3: The Gold Standard
Theory-based scholarly teaching where the SoTL independent variable and dependent
variables are based on a strong literature review
Longitudinal design tracking students over time with good response rates and analyses
that track change scores: Multiple measures of the dependent variable over time in the semester
can help to uncover changes in learning over the semester due to a SoTL intervention.
True experimental design that includes random assignment: Although difficult to achieve
in the classroom setting. Using random assignment insures equivalence of comparison groups.
Double-blind design: Again, although difficult to achieve, having those who deliver and
receive the SoTL independent variable be blind to which condition the students are receiving is
crucial to removing confounds in the study.
Large sample sizes and established power of the test: Completing a power analysis and
determining, then collecting, a large enough sample to meet or exceed the sample size
recommendation establishes good power of the test.
Samples taken from more than one institution with some diversity: Although we can learn
a lot from single classes and institutions, we can learn more by collecting nationwide samples to
increase the diversity of participants and viewpoints and increase external validity.
Proper data screening and statistical analyses that are advanced and multivariate (i.e.,
regression, structural equation modeling): Data screening can ensure that your variables meet the
important assumptions of the statistical tests that will be used. Data screening also assists in
identifying outliers and highlighting issues with missing data.
High standard of ethics: Insuring that students receive benefits for participation in SoTL
research and are not coerced to participate or harmed is imperative in classroom research just as
in all research. Providing incentives must be equal and just for all participants.
Mixed-method approach – using both qualitative and quantitative data analyzed
appropriately: Using high quality qualitative analysis (e.g., NVivo) to analyze qualitative data
and combine that information with quantitative data in a single analysis
_______________________________________________________
Note: Adapted from Wilson-Doenges and Gurung (2013).
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
12
Examining Threats to Validity
How well have you measured your outcomes and predictors?
[CONSTRUCT VALIDITY]
Learning
Study behaviors
Personality characteristics
Is your measure reliable?
Test-retest reliability
Interrater reliability
Internal reliability
Main forms: Face, content, concurrent, predictive, divergent, convergent.
How strong is the association? Are groups significantly different? [STATISTICAL VALIDITY]
Can the changes have occurred by chance?
Is it a statistically significant relationship?
Is there a strong effect size?
Have you controlled for alternate explanations?
Maturity
History
Design issues
Observer bias
Demand Characteristics
Testing effect
[INTERNAL VALIDITY]
How well will your findings generalize to other students and classes? [EXTERNAL VALIDITY]
WHY NOT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE?
- no comparison group. “Compared to what?” [E.g., blood letting]
- Experience is confounded by different factors.
- Confirmation biases
- ‘Good’ stories, albeit inaccurate ones, are appealing.
- Cherry-picking the evidence.
- Availability heuristic
Three main claims
1. Frequency
2. Association
3. Causal
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
MAJOR THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY
(Morling, 2012)
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
13
Regan A. R. Gurung
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
14
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
MAJOR RESEARCH DESIGNS
Note:
Independent variable below is your assignment, lecture, instruction, or pedagogical process.
Dependent Variable below is how you assess learning- test, paper, essay, etc.
In most classroom research we cannot randomly assign students to groups.
Independent Group Designs
Posttest only
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
15
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
Survey Construction Best Practices
[See Berk, 2006; Morling, 2012]
Main forms:
1. Open-ended
2. Forced-choice
3. Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neither agree no disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
Avoid:
Leading questions
Double-barreled questions
Double negatives
Watch
Question order
Yea/nay saying
Fence sitting
Faking good or bad
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
16
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
Picking the Right Statistical Analysis (also see Field, 2014)
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
17
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
18
Bibliography of Helpful Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Assessment
Learning
Multidisciplinary Resources
Research Methods and Statistics
SoTL - Guides
SoTL – General
“How to” Publish
On Writing
Assessment
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Berk, A. A. (2006). Thirteen strategies to measure college teaching: A consumer’s guide to
rating scale construction, assessment, and decision making for faculty, administrators,
and clinincians. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Landrum, R. E. (2012) Using SoTL to improve learning outcomes. In J.
Groccia, M. Alsudairy, & W. Buskist (Eds.) Handbook of College and University
Teaching: Global Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Landrum, R. E. (2012). Assessment and the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning. In D. Dunn, S. C. Baker, C. M. Mehrotra, R. E. Landrum, & M. McCarthy
(Eds.) Assessing Teaching and Learning in Psychology: Current and Future
Perspectives.
Maki, P. L. (2011). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the
institution. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. (2011). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading
time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Walvoord, B. E. (2004). Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions,
departments, and general education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2e). Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
19
Learning
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Bain, K. (2012). What the best college students do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. (2011). Making things harder on yourself, but in a good way: Creating
desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A., Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M.
Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustration
fundamental contributions to society (pp.56-64). New York: Worth.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013).
Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions
from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science In The Public Interest,
14(1), 4-58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., and Associates. (2005). Student success in
college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school.
Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Pelligrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser,
R. (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of
educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Pelligrino, J.,
Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Robbins, S., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychological and study skill factors predict college outcome? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.
Shell, D. F., Brooks, D. W., Trainin, G., Wilson, K. M., Kauffman, D. F., & Herr, L. M. (2010).
The unified learning model: How motivational, cognitive, and neurobiological sciences
inform best teaching practices. New York : Springer.
van Rossum, E. J., & Hamer, R. (2010). The meaning of learning and knowing. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Willis, J. (2006). Research-based strategies to ignite student learning: Insights from a
neurologist and classroom teacher. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2010). The psychology of academic achievement. Annual Review
Of Psychology, 61653-678. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100348
Multidisciplinary Guides
Chick, N. L. (2013). Difference, privilege, and power in the scholarship of teaching and learning:
The value of the humanities SoTL. In K. McKinney (Ed.) The scholarship of teaching
and learning in and across the disciplines (pp. 15-33). Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Chick, N., Haynie, A., & Gurung, R. A. R. (Eds.) (2012). Exploring more signature pedagogies.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
20
Gurung, R. A. R. (2009). Applying method to (seeming) madness: Doing SoTL in your class. In
S. A. Meyers & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Essays from e-xcellence in teaching (Vol. 8, pp. 1618). http://teachpsych.org/resources/e-books/eit2008/eit2008.php
Gurung, R. A. R. (2012). Using evidence-based pedagogy ethically. In R. E. Landrum & M. A.
McCarthy (Eds.), Teaching ethically: Challenges and opportunities. Washington, DC:
APA.
Gurung, R. A. R., Haynie, A., & Chick, N. (Eds.) (2009). Signature pedagogies across the
disciplines. Arlington, VA: Stylus.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Voelker, D. J. (Eds.). (in press). Big picture pedagogy: Finding
interdisciplinary solutions to common learning problems. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Wilson, J. H. (Eds.). (in press). Advanced methods in the scholarship of
teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (Eds.) (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching
and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association for
Higher Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Menges, R. J., Weimer, M., Allison, K. W., Banta, T. W., Bensimon, E. M., Dinham, S. M., et
al., (1996). Teaching on solid ground: Using scholarship to improve practice. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McKinney, K. (Ed.) (2013). The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the
disciplines. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Research Methods and Statistics
Bartsch, R. A. (in press). Designing studies to measure student success. In R. A. R. Gurung, & J.
H. Wilson (Eds.). Advanced methods in the scholarship of teaching and learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bartsch, R. A., Engelhardt Bittner, W. M., & Moreno, J. E. (2008). A design to improve internal
validity of assessments of teaching demonstrations. Teaching of Psychology, 35(4), 357359. doi: 10.1080/00986280802373809
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design.: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Piano Clark, V. L. (2012). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Field, A. (2014). Discovering statistics with SPSS. Thousand Oaks, VA: Sage.
Morling, B. (2012). Research methods in psychology: Evaluating a world of information. New
York: Norton.
SoTL Guides and Tools
Bishop-Clark, C., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2012). Engaging in the scholarship of teaching and
learning: A guide to the process, and how to develop a project from start to finish.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
21
Cerbin, B. (2011). Lesson study: Using classroom inquiry to improve teaching and learning in
higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Cross, K. P., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of
teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Schwartz, B. (2009). Optimizing teaching and learning: Pedagogical
Research in Practice. Wiley Blackwell Publishing. London.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hutchins, P. (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing learning through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Bolton, MA: Anker.
Richlin, L. (2006). Blueprint for learning: Constructing college courses to facilitate, assess, and
document learning. Sterling, VA; Stylus.
Savory, P., Burnett, A. N., & Goodburn, A. (2007). Inquiry into the college classroom: A
journey towards scholarly teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Schwartz, E., & Gurung, R. A. R., (2012). Evidence-based teaching in higher education.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
General SoTL
Bernstein, D., Addison, W., Altman, C., Hollister, D., Meera K., Prieto, L. R., Rocheleau, C. A.,
& Shore, C. (2010). Toward a scientist-educator model of teaching psychology. In D.
Halpern (Ed.), The NCUEP: A Blueprint for the Future (pp.29-46). APA: Washington
D.C.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Buskist, W., Carlson, J. F., Christopher, A. N., Prieto, L., & Smith, R. A. (2008). Models and
exemplars of scholarship in the teaching of psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 35,
267-277. doi: 10.1080/00986280802373908
Chew, S. L., Bartlett, R. M., Dobbins, J. E., Hammer, E. Y., Kite, M. E., Loop, T. F., McInyre, J.
G., & Rose, K. C. (2010). A contextual approach to teaching: Bridging methods, goals
and outcomes. In D. Halpern (Ed.), The NCUEP: A Blueprint for the Future (pp. 95-112).
APA: Washington D.C.
Gurung, R. A. R. (in press). Conducting and applying the scholarship of teaching and learning.
In D. S. Dunn (Ed.), Oxford handbook of teaching of psychology.
Gurung, R. A. R. (in press). The relevance of SoTL to the academic job. In B.S. Schwartz and R.
Smith (Eds.), SoTL in psychology.
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
22
Gurung, R. A. R. (2012). Using evidence-based pedagogy ethically. In R. E. Landrum & M. A.
McCarthy (Eds.), Teaching ethically: Challenges and opportunities. Washington, DC:
APA.
Gurung, R. A. R. (2005). How do students really study (and does it matter)? Teaching of
Psychology, 32, 367-372.
Gurung, R. A. R. (2004). Pedagogical aids: Learning enhancers or dangerous detours? Teaching
of Psychology, 31, 164-166.
Gurung, R. A. R., & McCann, L. (2012). Study techniques and teaching. In B. Schwartz & R. A.
R. Gurung (Eds), Evidence-based teaching in higher education (pp. 99-116).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Schwartz, B. M. (2013). Contributions from psychology: Heuristics for
interdisciplinary advancement of SoTL. In K. McKinney (Ed.). Bloomington Indiana:
Indiana University Press.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Vespia, K. M. (2007). Looking good, teaching well? Linking liking, looks,
and learning. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 5-10.
Gurung, R. A. R., Weidert, J., & Jeske, A. S. (2010). A closer look at how students study (and if
it matters). Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10, 28-33.
Gurung, R. A. R., Wilhelm, T., & Filtz, T. (2012). Optimizing honor codes for online test
administration. Ethics & Behavior, 22, 158-162.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Huber, M. T., and Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching
commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hutchings, P. (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Hutchings, P. (2007). Theory: The elephant in the scholarship of teaching and learning room.
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1. Retrieved from
http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v1n1/essays/hutchings/IJ_Hutchings.pdf
Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning
reconsidered: Institutional impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, C. (2003). Doing it: Examples of several of the different genres of the scholarship of
teaching and learning. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 14, 85-94.
Potter, M. K., & Kustra, E. (2011). The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL:
Models, distinctions, and clarifications. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 5. Retrieved from www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Rinaldi, C., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2005). Does matching teaching and learning styles optimize
learning? Teaching Forum, 1. [www.uwlax.edu/teachingforum/index.html]
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
23
Soysa, C. K., Dunn, D. S., Dottolo, A. L., Burns-Glover, A. L., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2013).
Orchestrating authorship: Teaching writing across the psychology curriculum. Teaching
of Psychology, 40(2), 88-97. doi:10.1177/0098628312475027
Weimer, M. (2006). Enhancing scholarly work on teaching and learning: Professional literature
that makes a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wilson-Doenges, G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). Benchmarks for scholarly investigations of
teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 63-70.
doi:10.1111/ajpy.12011
“How to” Publish
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). Submitting your manuscript. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
29(3), 263-264.
Bartels, J. M, Glass, L. A., Kreiner, D. S., & Ryan, J. J. (2009). The pursuit of publication:
Authors' perceptions of and responses to peer-review. North American Journal of
Psychology, 11(1), 1-16.
Drotar, D. (2010). Editorial: Guidance for submission and review of multiple publications
derived from the same study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35(3), 225-230.
Hewlett , K. (2002). How to publish your journal paper: Understanding the nuances of the
process smooths the publishing ride. Monitor, 33, (8), 50.
Kalpakjian, C. Z., & Meade, M. (2008). Writing manuscripts for peer review: Your guide to not
annoying reviewers and increasing your chances of success. Sexuality and Disability,
26(4), 229-240.
Lounds, J., Oakar, M., Knecht, K., Moran, M., Gibney, M., & Pressley, M. (2002). Journal
editors’ views on the criteria a paper must meet to be publishable. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 27, 338-347.
McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of
interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research &
Development, 25(1), 19-35.
Nihalani, P. K. & Mayrath, M. C. (2008). Publishing in educational psychology journals:
Comments from editors. Educational Psychology Review, 20(1), 29-39.
Porter, S. R. (2007). Writing and publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Journal
of Applied Research in the Community College, 14(2), 115-123.
Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative
research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 858-862.
Sternberg, R. J. (1992). How to win acceptances by psychology journals: 21 tips for better
writing. APS Observer, 5, 12-14.
On Writing
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung
Regan A. R. Gurung
gurungr@uwgb.edu
24
Miller, J. E. (2004). The Chicago guide to writing about numbers: The effective presentation of
quantitative information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Olson, R. (2009). Don’t be such a scientist: Talking substance in an age of style. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
© 2013 Regan A. R. Gurung