• Introduction
• Taking Learning Seriously
• The Scholarship of Teaching
• The Context of Public Discourse on Teaching
• The Language of Teaching
• Student Expectations and Faculty Ideals
• The Character of Knowledge
• Expectation and Assessment
• The Development of a Language of the Scholarship of Teaching
• The Value of Moral Language
• A Common Public Language
• Conclusion
• Notes and References
• Printable Text of Article

© Copyright 2000 by Hugh Sockett (hsockett@gmu.edu). The right to make additional exact copies, including this notice, for personal and classroom use, is hereby granted. All other forms of distribution and copying require permission of the author.

The Development of a Language of the Scholarship of Teaching

It is important to note that the language implied for the scholarship of teaching in the two articles with which I began is in direct contrast with traditional forms of educational research rooted in empiricism. This language (Shulman, Hutchings and Shulman) has three ancestries:

a) the influence of medicine (as in pathologies)
b) Schon's work, influenced by Dewey, on an epistemology of practice (as in reflection and inquiry)
c) moral language (as in collaboration, passion, learning communities from Shulman, and honesty and other terms out of Boyer)

Shulman's medical language could be problematic if we take it too seriously, for terms like pathology carry the implication of deficit in teachers and learners being the baseline. That is metaphorically fine if we are trying to assess what is wrong: it is odd, if not misleading and distracting, when we try to determine quality in teaching and the tasks of learning. It suggests an effort to cure, not to teach.

Schon's articulation (1983) of how we might understand professionals-in-action through the idea of reflective practice takes us back to a language of inquiry that is epistemological. Several scholars, such as Tom (1983), Goodlad et al. (1990), Hansen (1998) and myself (1993), have argued that since teachers and learners are in a moral relationship, the language of morality is a necessary part of the language of ends and means in teaching. Teaching, therefore, as the practice to which this scholarship is directed, is centrally seen as a moral, not a technical activity.

Next Section: "The Value of Moral Language"

Previous Section: "Expectation and Assessment"