Is there differences between teaching art and teaching science? “Of course there are,” you say, but what if someone asked you what those differences were? What if someone asked you where those differences reside? Worse yet, what if someone asked you how you knew there were differences at all?

Maybe you’ve got this business of teaching and learning all sorted out, but some of us are still trying to figure out what both look like in their many splendid forms. This past Thursday, April 10th, a group of scholars met at McMaster University to discuss the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in the arts and humanities.  As part of “SoTL through the Lenses of the Arts & Humanities“,  presenters from all over North America brought forth insights from all areas of the arts and humanities field — from law to history — in an attempt to add to our understanding of successful learning. The GATA Network was there, as were some friends from the Centre for Teaching and Learning, and from that discussion we bring you the following questions to inspire you on this blustery Monday (the last Monday of exams!):

What does teaching and learning sound/look/smell/taste/feel like?

Maybe don’t answer for all of those questions, but have you thought about what your senses can tell you about successful teaching and learning? Nancy Chick from Vanderbilt University opened the discussion last Thursday with her presentation on a SoTL of the senses, which argued for the the importance reflecting on those extra-textual elements of a classroom that don’t always get recorded in an assignment. It’s a useful point, given that the arts and humanities are so focused on perception, perspective, and interpretation.

  • What does your classroom sound/look/smell/taste/feel like…
    • when learning is successful, vibrant, and easy?
    • when learning is flailing, dull, and struggling?
  • Where can you sense these indicators?
  • What do they indicate about you/your students/the class?

 

What are the ways of knowing (and learning)?

And more specifically, are they the same in all disciplines? Pierre Boulos  challenged our understanding of constructivism as part of “Epistemology and Pedagogy: Constructivist SoTL?“.

  • Is experiential learning more effective than knowledge transfer? How do we know?
  • What does a commitment to experiential learning include/exclude?
  • Are experiential learning and discovery-based learning  suited to all disciplines?

 

What counts as evidence?

There are at least two ways to “read up” on something: either get the story first-hand or consult the data. However, not all disciplines treat stories or anecdotes with the same kind of respect they might statistical data or “hard evidence”. Allyson Skene had a few ideas in “Is Anecdote Evidence? The Art of SoTL“, but we pose these questions to you:

  • What kind of knowledge can an anecdote offer?
  • What kind of knowledge can statistical data offer?
  • Which is a better measure for teaching/learning? Why?