The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflective evaluation of the concept of the teaching commons as presented by authors Huber and Hutchings and to summarize expected outcomes from participation therein.
An appraisal of the book The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons is presented to explore the conception of the teaching commons. This review addresses the definition of the teaching commons and explores the establishment of, and participation in, the teaching commons as a means of advancing the scholarship of teaching and learning and for improving student learning.
A fundamental premise is developed suggesting that the development and utilization of a teaching commons will improve teaching and learning through the provision of a defined safeplace for conversations about teaching and learning and specific avenues to share information about teaching innovations for improving student learning. Sustained faculty engagement in a teaching commons must be supported by formalized institutional recognition and appropriate rewards.
A practical resource for faculty members involved in the scholarship of teaching and learning and for administrators developing teaching and learning centers or resources for utilization by faculty members.
This review examines the definition and establishment of a teaching commons for improving the scholarship of teaching and learning at the college and university levels.
Nearly every university or college campus has at least one centralized location, or common area, where students and often faculty members congregate informally. These areas are often arenas where the partitions between student and teacher are lowered to allow more relaxed interactions than those that take place when they are divided by a classroom podium. These common areas are places where conversations about political, social and intellectual issues can occur freely.
In the foreword of this imperative volume on the establishment of a teaching commons to improve teaching and learning at the college and university levels, Lee Shulman reminisces about the importance of such a place at his alma mater, the Commons room, that served as an assembly place for students and faculty members to interact on many levels – from the social to critical. The personal and intellectual exchanges that took place in the Commons added significantly to the rewarding academic experiences of Shulman and undoubtedly his comrades as well. Shulman bemoaned the lack of such a “safeplace”, particularly for interacting with colleagues, during his transition to his first faculty position. He then applauds limited efforts to establish faculty teaching commons and calls on campus administrators to facilitate the continued development of the process.
In the introductory comments of The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons, authors Huber and Hutchings explore the development and progression of a scholarship of teaching and learning commons among faculty (Huber and Hutchings, 2005). In so doing, they address a wide range of issues that arise through the establishing of a teaching commons, which utilize examinations of teaching and learning activities to improve college teaching. Issues addressed by the authors include the benefits of exploring the scholarship of teaching and learning to faculty, students and academic institutions as a whole, as well the challenges that arise in applying knowledge gained from evaluating teaching and learning to transforming education in the classroom.
According to Huber and Hutchings, the teaching commons is a community of educators whose aim is to “meet the challenges of educating students for personal, professional, and civic life in the twenty‐first century” (p. x). To advocate for the usefulness of the teaching commons, the authors set forth to lay a descriptive foundation of the commons by exploring the history and definition of the scholarship of teaching and learning, examining strengthens and weaknesses of its theoretical framework and outcomes, and its larger implications for academics and academia. By the end of the text, I was fully satisfied that they more than met their declared goal.
Within the text the authors explore the work of Ernest Boyer, whose “Scholarship Reconsidered” is a cornerstone of many scholarship of teaching and learning definitions. More globally, they define the teaching commons as “an emergent conceptual space for exchange and community among faculty, students, administrators, and all others committed to learning as an essential activity of life in contemporary democratic society” (p. 1). This definition sets the stage for the development of a supportive safeplace for all participants in a scholarship of teaching and learning community. It is the type of place that Shulman and many others find lacking for those transitioning into independent academic careers as instructors and scholars. These safeplaces, or commons, are more regularly associated with research communities and indeed are critical components of establishing and maintaining successful research careers. As stated by Huber and Hutchings, “higher education has long fostered the robust commons created by scientific and scholarly research – this has not been the case with teaching and learning” (p. 5). However, the usefulness of such commons for teaching careers are both recognized and effectively championed by the authors of this volume.
The commons created by scientific research communities include professional associations, conferences, working groups, etc. – all of which are supported and encouraged by formal funding mechanisms and defined institutional reward systems. These commons bring research into a public forum which serves to both to evaluate and advance research accomplishments as a whole. Although funding for education‐ or pedagogy‐based research still lags behind research funding in most disciplines, many funding agencies have begun to embrace the necessity for funding research on teaching and learning. These efforts will add greatly to building and sustaining a viable teaching commons. The advent and expansion of scholarly associations will also aid in the development of a viable teaching commons.
In addition to supporting the individual work of scholars of teaching and learning, the teaching commons is a place to formalize discussions about and document progress with teaching and learning across disciplines. Like research endeavors, teaching activities benefit greatly from the assessment and development that occur when public discussions occur about innovations in the field. The authors of this text purport that “ongoing improvement will only be possible when the intellectual work of teaching and learning is captured and represented in ways that others can build on” (p. 19). The capturing of these improvements is vitally important in order to preserve enhancements in student learning and advancements that occur from the individual work of dedicated scholars, as well as to spur on additional progress. In this regard, Huber and Hutchings present the following argument:
The teaching commons … makes real breakthroughs in teaching and learning more likely than ever before. In such a space, conversation about teaching and learning – informed by evidence and grounded in practice – can become the norm rather than the exception. Disciplines can engage in active trading of ideas about pedagogy. Ways of sharing and citing one another's work will emerge and become commonplace. And faculty will stand on the shoulders of others who have gone before (p. 32).
This description aptly describes what is needed for a firm foundation for future success in the teaching commons, as it also pertinently summarizes what already has made the research commons flourish.
The four defining features of advancing teaching and learning through the development of a teaching commons include the following:
- 1.
asking questions;
- 2.
gathering and analyzing data;
- 3.
developing and testing new insights; and
- 4.
making what is learned publicly available for further iterations of inquiry.
Notably, these are the same steps used in the research‐based commons that have thrived. Definitive examples of the use of these features in the development of specific teaching and learning projects are presented from a range of subjects including chemistry, biology, mathematics, history, and English. Many of the incorporated scholars of teaching and learning began their work on these topics because they noticed a failure of students to “get” the material. Thus, they began to systematically assess ways to increase student learning. This is noted as a familiar way that many scholars from various disciplines become active contributors to larger teaching commons.
Huber and Hutchings offer a number of “signposts” for navigating the teaching commons. These universal themes are intended to maximize the effectiveness of the teaching commons for the diverse participants. These signposts include disciplinary context, discipline‐transcendent universal themes, methodologies, data collection and assessment tools. Although many aspects of the teaching commons are often discipline centered, the teaching commons contains many interdisciplinary components. This is particularly important as “no single field has all the questions, theories, or methods need to illuminate student learning” (p. 72). Thus, as research‐based communities are enriched by interdisciplinary interactions, so too do interdisciplinary teaching and learning measures enrich the work conducted by the teaching commons. Notably, the teaching commons is described as a more open, collaborative place than the generally competitive research commons. This is likely due to the overarching goal of the scholarship of teaching and learning being related to the enrichment of student learning as a whole, rather than the focus on the advancement of individual research careers that is more widespread in the research commons.
Many universities' campuses have supported the development of campus‐based teaching resources. These often have evolved as teaching and learning centers that support seminar and workshop series, faculty learning groups and other formalized opportunities for public discussions on teaching and learning. Equally as important as developing these learning opportunities, however, are the development of reward systems for scholarly work on teaching and learning. Unfortunately, and to the detriment of the building of a teaching commons, reward systems have lagged behind other campus‐based developments in the scholarship of teaching and learning. This is particularly disappointing as “faculty who have taken up the scholarship of teaching and learning offer ample, enthusiastic testimony of its power to change their classrooms, to revitalize their teaching, and to improve their students' learning” (p. 93). The continued development of ways to acknowledge and reward the vital work that occurs in teaching commons will prove essential for the full benefits of the commons to be recognized.
Although a large portion of the text focuses on the benefits of the teaching commons for enriching the educational activities of faculty members and administrators, some discussion of the direct benefit to students of building and sustaining a teaching commons is presented. In this regard, Huber and Hutchings note the following:
… classrooms … where teachers are actively investigating what transpires in their interactions with students, and sharing what they learn with others who can build on it are likely to be classroom where students, too, get smarter about learning. Moving in ever‐wider circles, the scholarship of teaching and learning invites not only teachers but also students into a larger commons that can support powerful learning through a lifetime (p. 113).
The involvement of students can also serve as a potent tool for sustaining an active and effective teaching commons as teachers actively model the importance of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning for future generations of teachers and learners.
Huber and Hutchings conclude the text by presenting a number of recommendations for building an effective teaching commons. These recommendations include establishing more opportunities to talk openly about learning and including students in these discussions. Furthermore, they put forward that continued development of the commons will require that teaching be recognized as an important intellectual endeavor by those teaching, as well as though who dole out financial and institutional rewards for scholarly work. Additionally, novel venues and sources of support must be developed to encourage the documentation and widespread availability of work on teaching and learning.
Results from a recent survey of teaching and learning scholars are also in appendix form. The information provides a multidimensional assessment of the experience of five cohorts of scholars in the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL). Topic addressed range from reasons for and consequences of being involved in the scholarship of teaching and learning to institutional support and sources of support for the work being conducted.
Summarily, this text serves as a wonderful review of the current state of the scholarship of teaching and learning and the evolving development of the concept of the teaching commons. This volume will serve as a valuable resource both for those championing the continued development of campus‐based teaching commons and those considering the impact of becoming actively involved in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Though not enough explicit details are provided about integrated case studies to make this a practical resource for individuals looking for specific guidelines and models for developing a personal scholarship of teaching and learning, this text certainly is a superb tool for understanding how the scholarship of teaching learning and an emergent teaching commons is impacting academia and student learning as a whole.
