Content analysis of the 20 most influential articles in PIQ

The purpose of this study is to examine key research themes in human performance technology (HPT) through content analysis of the 20 most influential articles identified in Cho, Jo, Park, Kang, and Chen (2011). Three questions guiding this inquiry are: (1) What are the key themes of the 20 most influential articles in PIQ, (2) What information do the 20 most influential articles add to an understanding of HPT, and (3) What are the implications of the content analysis for HPT research practices? Five key themes emerged from the content analysis, including instructional design, HPT scholarship, performance technology, performance support, and transfer of training. HPT scholarship was the most distinctive key research theme in this study. The qualitative details about the 20 most influential articles were provided, related issues were discussed, and implications for research practice were articulated.     

POSSIBLE NEW FUTURES FOR OUR JOURNAL ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB

The author argues that this journal, Religious Education, as a premier outlet for religious education scholarship, must take more creative steps in making its scholarship accessible via electronic media. In particular, she suggests three possible new arenas: leveraging existing content by creating “electronic content collections,” moving the journal into an online format that would allow for multimedia articles, and developing a site that would promote “open source” scholarship in religious education.     

h-Index and m-Quotient Benchmarks of Scholarly Impact in Criminology and Criminal Justice: A Preliminary Note

Because Scopus and metrics like the h-index and m-quotient have become increasingly popular for assessing the impact of social science scholarship, criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) departments may be tempted to use those metrics when making important decisions like tenure and promotion. However, since no discipline-wide standards based on those metrics yet exist, CCJ departments have no comparative basis for interpreting the results of citation analyses of a particular faculty member’s scholarship. To identify what a set of disciplinary standards might look like, we used Scopus and calculated mean and median h-index and m-quotient values for faculty members (n?=?504) in CCJ Ph.D. granting departments (n?=?35) by rank and for editorial board members (n?=?91) of Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Our results illustrate how comparative disciplinary standards could be developed and used by those in CCJ departments to assess the impact of faculty members’ scholarship.     

Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Revising Promotion and Tenure Standards According to Boyer

If one acknowledges that scholarship comes in many shapes and forms, and if one agrees with Boyer's argument that it is time to reconsider scholarship in light of the role of faculty members within departments, colleges, and universities, the next logical step then is to see if Boyer's principles can be effectively applied in a university setting. At the 1995 NAPEHE conference, Boyer acknowledged that the next step, as indicated by the title of the Carnegie Foundation's forthcoming sequel Scholarship Assessed, is to identify ways to fairly and equitably evaluate faculty scholarship within the context of the professoriate in general, and in higher education institutions in particular. The authors argue the case for differential application of standards within and among universities, based upon the diversity of missions and goals. Following that, examples are given for how Boyer's classifications have been applied to promotion and tenure standards at one comprehensive land grant university in the midwest. Administrator and faculty (new and old) commentary provide sup port for the new standards.     

Portraits of Our Mentoring Experiences in Learning to Craft Journal Articles

Tenure demands for scholarship and publication are increasing, with relatively little research on mentoring junior faculty and less on mentoring to craft journal articles. This qualitative self-study of mentoring experiences of three junior faculty members and their experienced mentor used portraiture methodology to address the research question, How did the mentoring experience, from both mentor’s and mentees’ perspective, reshape our thinking and understanding of the journal article writing process? Portraiture was employed somewhat differently, with mentor and mentee “painting” each other. Five emergent themes were found in the dyadic portraits written by protégés and mentor: beginnings, relationships, fears and worries, support and scaffolding, and outcomes. The mentoring relationships evolved from traditional to more collaborative, simultaneously becoming less hierarchical and involving cognitive and affective aspects. Crafting journal articles involved finding focus, backwards design, iteration, problem-finding, affirmation, and support. Eleven implications offer guidance for mentoring in university contexts and for future research.     

Mendeley: Creating Communities of Scholarly Inquiry Through Research Collaboration

Mendeley is a free, web-based tool for organizing research citations and annotating their accompanying PDF articles. Adapting Web 2.0 principles for academic scholarship, Mendeley integrates the management of the research articles with features for collaborating with researchers locally and worldwide. In this article the features of Mendeley are discussed and critiqued in comparison to other, similar tools. These features include citation management, online synchronization and collaboration, PDF management and annotation, and integration with word processing software. The article concludes with a discussion of how a social networking tool such as Mendeley might impact the academic scholarship process.     

Reviving the ancient virtues in the scholarship of teaching,with a slight critical twist

This conceptual study argues that the scholarship of teaching is not just an evidence-based but also a virtues-based practice. To this end, it pursues two interrelated objectives. First, it seeks to show that the scholarship of teaching is supported by the intellectual virtues of ‘episteme’ (theoretical knowledge), ‘techne’ (productive knowledge) and ‘phronesis’ (practical knowledge). These three intellectual virtues stand in a particular relationship to one another and phronesis assumes a vital mediating function infusing the scholarship of teaching with the practical wisdom required in concrete situations. Phronesis, particularly a critically inspired phronesis, also enables the proper development and enactment of moral virtues, especially truthfulness, justice and courage, without which the standards associated with scholarship could not be upheld. It is further argued that the scholarship of teaching is usefully enriched by recognising two different versions of evidence-based practice: one is concerned with the evidence of instrumental effectiveness between strategies and outcomes; the other with evidence of the internal consistency between strategies and desired outcomes. It is proposed that analysing the scholarship of teaching through the lens of virtue helps appreciate what kind of a practice the scholarship of teaching is and the challenges involved in engaging with it well.     

K-12 online learning journal articles: trends from two decades of scholarship

In this study, we examined the research literature in the field of K-12 online learning to identify the leading scholars, journals, top cited articles, research methods, and topics in this field of inquiry. Our research process involved collecting a corpus of journal articles focused on K-12 online and distance learning; categorizing these articles according to their research methodologies; analyzing trends not only in methodologies employed but also in authorship, citations, journals, and topics addressed. We found the field of K-12 online learning to be growing rapidly in recent years with acceleration not only of new articles but especially of new authors. We also found the field began primarily with emphasizing theoretical articles but is now maturing and emphasizing increasingly more data-based articles. We found K-12 online learning scholarship is scattered among many journals, providing rich opportunities for scholars while also making it more difficult to discern trends across the discipline.     

The Paradox of Peer Review: Admitting too Much or Allowing too Little?

Peer review – the means by which one's equals assess the quality of one's scholarly work – has been used to determine academic merit for more than three centuries. Although the results of academic peer reviews are frequently challenged, peer review continues to be a commonplace of academic life. In the present scholarship climate, challenges to peer review come primarily from two sides. On one side there are those who believe that high academic standards are not being upheld by peer review panels, thus admitting weak proposals, people, programs, and articles. On the other side there are those who believe that review panels uphold conventional standards, thus disqualifying innovative projects and worthy people with diverse perspectives. In this article, I take up these two challenges. Together, they reveal a paradox of the current system of peer review: Both sides are right. And, the paradox has led to increased fragmentation within the field of educational research. Yet, despite the limitations of peer review, no viable alternatives exist. Thus, I will argue that the best we can do is to re-consider what we mean by merit in educational research, and to train new educational researchers in ways that expand their ability to judge merit broadly.     

Faculty at work: Focus on research,scholarship, and service

Within the framework of cognitive motivation theory, selected personal and environmental motivational variables for faculty in eight liberal arts and science departments from community colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive colleges and universities, and research universities were regressed against faculty allocation of work effort given to research, scholarship, and service. The data came from a 1988 national survey of faculty.Gender, (sociodemographic), quality of graduate school attended, career age, andrank (career); self-competence andself-efficacy regarding research, scholarship, and service andpercent time prefer to give to research, scholarship, and service (self-valuations); andinstitutional preference, consensus andsupport, andcolleague commitment to research, scholarship, and service (perception of the environment) were entered into regressions.R ²s were generally strong (.64 for liberal arts-I institutions) and significant. For all institutional types,self-valuation (self-competence and-efficacy) motivators significantly accounted for the explained variance.Sociodemographic andcareer variables did not explain appreciable amounts of variance.     

Publications of economists in relation to journals,schools, and dissertations

Many regional and state universities now regard research and scholarship as well as teaching as a focal activity of their faculty. However, as yet, their doctoral degree recipients have not displayed the research prowess of graduates of the major national universities. This longitudinal study of a random sample of 512 Ph.D. economists found that 34% have published at least one article in the 260 journals referenced in theJournal of Economic Literature. Those economists writing their dissertations in the field of general economics had a higher tendency to publish than those in other fields. Graduates of the 10 highest-ranked schools published 38.8% of all journal articles between 1969 and 1986, while graduates of the top 20 schools published 65.2% of the articles. Graduates of the top 20 schools published at least 20% more than other graduates. In addition, graduates of the top 20 schools published an average of 2.28 articles, which is at least 38% more than the average for graduates of lower-ranked schools. It is probable that the much better publication record of top-school graduates in academic careers is explained by a host of factors, including level of training, old school ties and contacts, as well as employment in top-ranked research-supporting schools.     

Research,Teaching and Scholarship in an Expanding Higher Education System 1

It is argued that, basically, academics engage in three activities: teaching, research and scholarship, and that the activity of scholarship must be recognised and separately funded. The concept of scholarship is derived from its historical roots, according to which it supports both teaching and research, but is extended to support all activities in which academics engage. This makes it possible to develop an expanding system of higher education in which all academic activities are appropriately recognised and rewarded and which can operate with significantly lower unit costs than has been the case in the past. However, the need to provide funding for scholarship puts a lower bound to acceptable unit costs.     

The scholarship of teaching: A comparison of conceptions held by experts and regular academic staff

Over the past decade the scholarship ofteaching has received considerable attention inthe higher education literature as a reactionto the widely cited Carnegie Foundation'sreport ``Scholarship Reconsidered'; however, theconcept has remained devoid of a unifieddefinition. A recent Delphi study conductedwith a selective group of scholars whoseexpertise lies in the area of universityteaching and learning indicated the extent towhich these ``experts' agreed with each other onimportant features and unresolved issues theyassociate with the scholarship of teaching. Building on the results of the Delphi study,the present article discusses the results of asecond survey comparing these ``experts' 'conceptions with those of a larger group ofscholars whose expertise lies in a differentacademic field (``regular academic staff'), inorder to identify the similarities anddifferences in the conceptions of thescholarship of teaching held by each of the twogroups. While regular academic staff werefound to associate the scholarship of teachingmore with good or effectiveteaching ``experts' pointed to notions such aspeer review and scholarly standards. Thediscussion of the results focuses on the notionof consensus reached within and betweenthe two groups. It is argued that in order topromote changes in policy with respect to whatis to count as scholarship, identifying andreporting ``experts' ' conceptions, thoughclearly necessary for promoting moreenlightened discussions on the issue, willremain insufficient. Policy change in academeis more likely to ensue as a result of thewider academic community reaching consensus onthe meaning, and nature, of the scholarship ofteaching. The wider academic community includes``experts', as well as colleagues in departmentsand disciplinary associations. The articleconcludes by exploring the notion of consensusthrough the lens of critical social theory.     

Persona Non Grata: The Marginalization of Legal Scholarship in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Recently, concern has been voiced within the academy regarding the marginalization of legal scholarship within the criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) discipline. Although conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence indicate that it is difficult to get legal scholarship published in CCJ journals, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the representation of legal scholarship in CCJ journals. The present study assesses the representation of legal scholarship in 20 CCJ journals from 2005 to 2015, examining both trends over time and variation across journals. Findings indicate legal scholarship comprises a very small portion of articles published, there has been a steep decline in the number of legal articles published in recent years, and the average number of legal articles per year is very low for nearly all of the journals in the sample. The implications of the marginalization of legal scholarship within the CCJ discipline are discussed.     

Author-field interaction following publication in “higher education” journals

This paper examines the interactions that authors of articles appearing in the core higher education journals have with members of the field subsequent to the publication of their work. Interactions were examined by the epistemological structure of the articles and data suggest that papers with different structures exact different types of reader-initiated reactions, though there are similarities regardless of type. It appears that published scholarship leads to further activities in research, scholarly, and professional sectors as a consequence of readers' initiatives and the resulting responses by authors. It is argued that examinations of knowledge use should go beyond traditional conceptions and examine the development of new communities of interest as professional actors attempt to fulfill varied agendas on the basis of published scholarship.     

Social scholarship revisited: Changing scholarly practices in the age of social media

This conceptual exploration revisits a key question from earlier work (Greenhow & Gleason, 2014): What is scholarship reconsidered in the age of social media? Social scholarship is a framework that expanded Boyers’ (1990) conceptualization of scholarship to consider how social media affect discovery and research, teaching and learning, integration, and application. This paper critically reflects on how social scholarship continues to evolve in light of changing understandings in the field of educational technology and the role social media play in the academy. We provide recent examples of social scholarship such as altmetrics, interdisciplinary projects, crowdsourced educational technology syllabi and reconsideration of the needs of research participants. Moreover, we share concrete examples of how scholars might enact social scholarship, with what benefits and challenges, and surface new concerns regarding openness, equity, access, literacy, privacy and ethical considerations. Our paper concludes with recommendations for preparing scholars to enact social scholarship while mitigating the challenges it poses.     

The scholarship of teaching and learning: A Special Niche for Faculty at Comprehensive Universities?

We investigated the involvement of faculty members at comprehensive universities in scholarship of teaching and learning publishing activities in four disciplines. Compared to to their publishing rates in research-oriented journals, comprehensive university faculty members were more involved in publishing articles and serving on editorial boards for pedagogical journals. Over the past three decades, the relative involvement in the scholarship of teaching and learning journals by faculty members at comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges has increased whereas participation by faculty members at research universities has declined.     

An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning

Blended learning is a diverse and expanding area of design and inquiry that combines face-to-face and online modalities. As blended learning research matures, numerous voices enter the conversation. This study begins the search for the center of this emerging area of study by finding the most cited scholarship on blended learning. Using Harzing’s Publish or Perish software (http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm), we determined the most frequently cited books, book chapters, and articles on the subject of blended learning, as well as the journals in which these highly cited articles appeared. Through these findings we offer some conclusions about where the conversations about blended learning are happening, which scholars are at the forefront of these conversations, and other emerging trends in blended learning scholarship.     

Enhancing use of learning sciences research in planning for and supporting educational change: Leveraging and building social networks

This paper explores practical ways to engage two areas of educational scholarship—research on science learning and research on social networks—to inform efforts to plan and support implementation of new standards. The standards, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States in Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013), have been adopted by U.S. states serving more than one-quarter of all students, and they are grounded in decades of research on how students learn science. In this paper we discuss efforts to leverage recent research on social networks to inform standards implementation across a set of professional associations and school districts. These efforts are being undertaken by the Research + Practice Collaboratory which is testing a set of conjectures related to how the knowledge base from both research and practice can mutually inform STEM education improvement.