Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching-for-Learning (TFL): A Model for Faculty to Advance Student Learning

  • Published:
Innovative Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In light of the widespread recognition of the enduring challenge of enhancing the learning of all students—including a growing number of students representing diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds—there has been an explosion of literature on teaching, learning, and assessment in higher education. Notwithstanding scores of promising new ideas, individual faculty in higher education need a dynamic and inclusive model to help them engage in a systematic and continuous process of exploring and testing various teaching and assessment practices to ensure the learning of their students. This paper introduces a model—Teaching-for-Learning (TFL)—developed to meet this need.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, M. B. (1999). In progress: Reports of new approaches in medical education. Academic Medicine, 74, 561–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barell, J. (1995). Teaching for thoughtfulness: Classroom strategies to enhance intellectual development (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastick, T. (2001, August). Relationships between in-course alignment indicators and post-course criteria of quality teaching and learning in higher education. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Fribourg, Switzerland.

  • Beaman, R. (1998). The unquiet...even loud, andragogy! Alternative assessment for adult learners. Innovative Higher Education, 23, 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 22, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabedo-Timmons, G. (2002). Teaching Spanish subject matters to college students in the USA. Macomb, IL: Western Illinois University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED468881)

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Terenzini, P. T. (2000). Learning professional confidence: Linking teaching practices, students’ self-perceptions, and gender. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Spiegel, S. A. (1995). So you want to do action research? Retrieved October 29, 2004, from Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) website: http://www.enc.org/professional/learn/research/journal/science/document.shtm?input=ENC-002432-2432.

  • Cornesky, R. (1993). The quality professor: Implementing TQM in the classroom. Madison, WI: Magna Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, K. P. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 60, 402–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, K. P. (1999). What do we know about students’ learning, and how do we know it? Innovative Higher Education, 23, 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, K. P., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, R. M. (1998). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2001). The systematic design of instruction. New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassick, C., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: A special report on faculty evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, E. J. (1998). Creating teachable moments...and making them last. Innovative Higher Education, 23, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harter, S. (2006). The challenge of framing a problem: What is your burning question? In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook on research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 331–348). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  • Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, M. T. (2005). Balancing acts: The scholarship of teaching and learning in academic careers. Washington, DC: The American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, M., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: The American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, P. (Ed.) (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

  • Hutchings, P. (2002). Ethics of inquiry: Issues in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. E. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R., & Brew, A. (2002). Re-shaping higher education: Linking teaching and research. London, England: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. C., & Malinowski, J. C. (2001). Navigating the active learning swamp: Creating an inviting environment for learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 172–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. A. (2002). Myths about assessing the impact of problem-based learning on students. Journal of General Education, 51, 326–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justice, C., Rice, J., Warry, W., Inglis, S., Miller, S., & Sammon, S. (2007). Inquiry in higher education: Reflections and directions on course design and teaching methods. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R. E. (2002, August). Teaching introductory statistics: Some things I have learned. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions. Review of Higher Education, 28, 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, B. J., & Dunham, H. P. (1999, February). Enriching teaching scholarship through learning styles. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.

  • Marion, R., & Zeichner, K. (2001). Practitioner resource guide for action research. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED472207)

  • McCann, L. I., Perlman, B., & De Both, T. L. (2001). Instructor evaluations of introductory psychology teaching techniques. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 274–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, E. A., & Colarulli, G. C. (1997). Collaborative teaching in the face of productivity concerns: The dispersed team model. Innovative Higher Education, 22, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, C. B., & Myers, S. M. (2007). Assessing assessment: The effects of two exam formats on course achievement and evaluation. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilson, L. B. (2003). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. Boston, MA: Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palaskas, T. A. (2002). Model for selecting technology mediated teaching strategies. Educational Technology, 42(6), 49–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, P. J. (1990). Good teaching: A matter of living the mystery. Change, 22(1), 11–16. January.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quarstein, V. A., & Peterson, P. A. (2001). Assessment of cooperative learning: A goal-criterion approach. Innovative Higher Education, 26, 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, G., Finley, D., & Kline, T. (2001). Understanding individual differences in university undergraduates: A learner needs segmentation approach. Innovative Higher Education, 25, 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories. London, England: Society for Research into Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scovic, S. P. (1983, April). What are “alternative learning approaches” and do they work? Paper presented at the National School Boards Association Convention, San Francisco, CA.

  • Shulman, L. S. (1998). Course anatomy: The dissection and analysis of knowledge through teaching. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How instructors can examine their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning (pp. 5–12). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

  • Smith, R. A. (2001). Formative evaluation and the scholarship of teaching and learning. In C. Knapper & P. Cranton (Eds.), Fresh approaches to the evaluation of teaching (pp. 51–62). New directions for teaching and learning, vol. 88. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M. (2005). Always at odds? Congruence in faculty beliefs about teaching at a research university. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 331–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Divya Malik Gupta

    Present address: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1261-E Education Sciences 1025 W. Johnson St., Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Clifton F. Conrad

  2. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Jason Johnson

  3. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Jason Johnson

  4. Maharaja Sayajirao University in Gujarat, Baroda, India

    Divya Malik Gupta

Authors
  1. Clifton F. Conrad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Divya Malik Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clifton F. Conrad.

Additional information

Clifton F. Conrad

received his bachelor’s degree in History and his master’s degree in Political Science from the University of Kansas and his Ph.D. in Higher Education from the University of Michigan. He is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and his research focus is on college and university curricula with particular emphases on program quality, liberal education, and teaching and learning.

Jason Johnson

received his bachelor’s degree in Comparative History of Ideas and his master’s degree in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Washington. He is nearing completion of his Ph.D. and working as a Teaching Assistant in Higher Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and his research focuses on rhetoric in higher education.

Divya Malik Gupta

received her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Human Development and Family Studies from Maharaja Sayajirao University in Gujarat, India. She is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Conrad, C.F., Johnson, J. & Gupta, D.M. Teaching-for-Learning (TFL): A Model for Faculty to Advance Student Learning. Innov High Educ 32, 153–165 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9045-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9045-9

Key words

Search

Navigation