0.3 Evolution of a department as a community of learners  (Page 4/7)

The ELMP concept of the COL at SHU blends and initiates many ideas expressed by others from different places andtimes, using logic, deduction, and expository language to bridge those ideas with the work of professors and practitioners. Theneeds to report to accrediting bodies and to address NCATE Standard 5 give the COL idea“legs”through its instrumental value to fulfill a task many professors find irritating—keeping records for reports.

The Task At Hand

Given this preamble and general ELMP agreement, faculty consideration of its COL embraces all fourcategories of Boyer’s (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered. The ideas of a research culture/COL include (internally) faculty, students,administrators and involve (externally) clients or consumers of the enterprise who also have reciprocal roles. A COL includes the ideaof community as expressed in Psychological Sense of Community (PSOC). Bateman (2002) provided a structure for both the idea ofcommunity and its attendant culture as intended in a“culture of scholarly inquiry”or COL that the ELMP Department seeks. (For Bateman’s extended definition and discussion of PSOC and references for PSOC, see Glossary of Terms. Appendix A).

The work to this point has identified and included some key terms, trends, and ideas around concepts that, for sake of brevity, are combined into a“Community of Learners”or COL. The COL embraces ideas and meanings inherent in various,similar terms [culture of scholarly inquiry, research culture, PLC, high-performance learning community (Louis, 2003), collaboration(Grumet, 1989), etc.]: COL in no way restricts the concepts underconsideration; it simply is a shorthand designation for the ELMP plan at Seton Hall University (SHU).

An Emerging Framework (Lyons, 2003) and Beyond

The strengths of ELMP’s COL rest on Boyer’s (1990) four types of scholarship, each equally valued; uponrelationships as expressed in PSOC; upon the organization and structures in the specific context of ELMP (including ELMP itself);and upon the individual and collective abilities, distinctions, inclinations, talents (etc.) of COL members. Lyons’(2003) Appendix A provides a theoretical framework for elements that rest uponBoyer’s four types of scholarship that are the professional action base, as well as the knowledge base for the COL

In Carnegie Foundation work, Shulman (2003) discussed not only the teaching’s role in developing professionals, but also the ideas of PSOC, and forming a specific identity (a wayof acting, talking, etc.). In Shulman’s (2003, p. 3) words:

One emerging theme in this work is that learning to be a professional isn’t a purely intellectual endeavor. To become a professional, one must learn not only to think incertain ways but also to perform particular skills, and to practice or act in ways consistent with the norms, values, and conventionsof the profession. Thus, to learn to be a lawyer, one needs to think like a lawyer, perform like a lawyer, and act like alawyer.

Acting is more than knowing something or performing well; it seems to involve the development of a set ofvalues, commitments, or internalized dispositions. It reminds me of what theological educators talk about as formation—the development of an identity that integrates one’s capacities and dispositions to create a more generalized orientation to practice. Moreover,professionals cannot, in principle, learn all that they will need while they remain in school. Professional education must have atits core the concept of ongoing individual and collective learning, because the experiences of engaging, understanding, and acting mustbecome the basis for subsequent learning and development (p. 3. Emphasis in original).