Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Leadership 103: Leadership in Teaching and Pedagogy

Abstract

Many funded programs such as that of the Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education (SUCCEED)2 have addressed teaching and pedagogy as have seminars established by professional societies – ASCE (Excellence in Engineering Education - ExcEEd)4 and ASME (Essential Teaching Seminars - ETS). These programs address the fundamentals of teaching in a student centered environment where intellectual excitement and rapport with students provide the basis of student centered learning. While these seminars meet the needs of some of our faculty (those who attend), how do we reach the rest of the faculty and who has the responsibility for teaching and pedagogy on a grand scale? Some respond that the responsibility for teacher training and pedagogical development rests with the Faculty Teaching and Learning Centers, where they exist, while others just throw up their hands because they have no idea. Clearly, the responsibility lies with the leaders of academic departments, schools or colleges and with the faculty who present the instruction. Abdication of this responsibility creates an environment where instruction is of concern when there is a complaint. This paper addresses the responsibility of leaders and followers in the development of the teaching practices and pedagogy that are the basis of a learning environment that is rich in context, welcoming to students and success oriented. The information presented is based on previous and on-going studies concerning faculty roles and student reactions to their classroom experiences. Discussion will include the role of the leadership, faculty and students and how they should team to produce an effective and success oriented learning environment.

Background

There have been many efforts to describe the need for teaching as it stacks up against other functions that a faculty member is required to perform. Research and service are often quoted as just as important, or more important, than teaching. The then president of Stanford University, Donald Kennedy stated: “It is time for us to reaffirm that education – that is, teaching in all its forms – is the primary task.”1 The counter argument is that the “..faculty reward system does not match the full range of academic function and that professors are often caught between competing obligations.” Those obligations are often weighed heavily in favor of research even at undergraduate teaching institutions. Boyer introduces a model that may be acceptable at all levels of academe; one that includes the fours types of scholarship. Scholarship is divided in the following areas: discovery, integration, application and teaching. He concludes with the following: “What we urgently need today is a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar – a recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching.” There is no intent to eliminate scholarship; just a redefinition. There is no attempt to make teaching paramount; just an emphasis that is necessary. Finally, there is an attempt to satisfy the needs of academe at all levels by proscribing a methodology whereby teaching and pedagogy take their rightful place.

The SUCCEED coalition, established in 1992, conducted a survey to ascertain the importance of teaching at several levels. The following extract of their results identifies why academic leaders

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Samples, J. (2008, June), Leadership 103: Leadership In Teaching And Pedagogy Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 10.18260/1-2--3857