Abstract
Criteria for determining what counts as legitimate scholarship in SoTL are the subject of ongoing discussion. This panel, comprising faculty who have participated in an SoTL Faculty Learning Community, asks the audience to (re)consider the “rigor vs. relevance” debate with regard to study-design by evaluating the methods and outcomes of four classroom-inquiry projects (each presented in a 3-minute overview). Objectives: Addressing the tension between the norms of scientific inquiry and the “ill-structured” elements of both teaching and learning, audience members will define criteria and discuss a rubric suggested by the panel to consider together the qualities that best inform expert judgment of SoTL. Learning Outcomes: The diversity of project examples-- from Communication Law, Marketing, Psychology, and Music Education—will enable inferences about the role of disciplinary epistemologies in the design and assessment of research. Audience members will emerge with a draft rubric (revised in the course of the session), informed by 1) a deepened sense of the potential and limitations of conducting and communicating “action science,” and 2) an understanding of the interplay among theories, models and metaphors in project design and assessment.
Location
Room 1005
Recommended Citation
Wilner, Arlene F.; Brown, Pamela A.; Cape, Janet E.; Musumeci-Szabo, Tamara J.; and Newman, Cynthia M., "Three R’s for SoTL: Rigor, Relevance, and Rubrics" (2014). SoTL Commons Conference. 65.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/sotlcommons/SoTL/2014/65
Three R’s for SoTL: Rigor, Relevance, and Rubrics
Room 1005
Criteria for determining what counts as legitimate scholarship in SoTL are the subject of ongoing discussion. This panel, comprising faculty who have participated in an SoTL Faculty Learning Community, asks the audience to (re)consider the “rigor vs. relevance” debate with regard to study-design by evaluating the methods and outcomes of four classroom-inquiry projects (each presented in a 3-minute overview). Objectives: Addressing the tension between the norms of scientific inquiry and the “ill-structured” elements of both teaching and learning, audience members will define criteria and discuss a rubric suggested by the panel to consider together the qualities that best inform expert judgment of SoTL. Learning Outcomes: The diversity of project examples-- from Communication Law, Marketing, Psychology, and Music Education—will enable inferences about the role of disciplinary epistemologies in the design and assessment of research. Audience members will emerge with a draft rubric (revised in the course of the session), informed by 1) a deepened sense of the potential and limitations of conducting and communicating “action science,” and 2) an understanding of the interplay among theories, models and metaphors in project design and assessment.
