The Fearless Teaching Framework: A Model to Synthesize Foundational Education Research for University Instructors

Abstract

There is often a disconnect between the unit of analysis inrigorous education research, and the types of recommendations that instructors find the most useful to improve their teaching. Research often focuses onnarrow slices of the student experience, and university instructors often require broad recommendations. We present the Fearless Teaching Framework to address this gap between research and practice. In this framework, we define four pieces ofeffective teaching: classroom climate, course content, teaching practices, andassessment strategies. We argue that these are appropriate areas of focus forinstructor growth, based on their relations to student engagement.

Confirming the Factor Structure of a Research-Based Mid-Semester Evaluation of College Teaching

“…We designed our measure of effective teaching to align with the Fearless Teaching Framework (FTF), which is a theoretical frame that defines effective teaching as that which promotes students' motivation and engagement, leading to academic achievement (Donlan et al, 2019). The FTF distills decades of education research and theory into broad categories of effective teaching.…”

Perceptions of Outreach, Theory, and Practice at Centers for Teaching and Learning

“…In the last sixty years, CTLs have grown in size, structure, and purpose (Beach et al, 2016). Scholars have found that there are a number of programs (Hines, 2007), leadership qualities (Richards, 2015), developmental structures (Beach et al, 2016), and theoretical ways of growing and understanding growth (Cohn et al, 2016;Cruz, 2018;Donlan et al, 2019;Morales, 2016;. Scholars have debated educational development's qualification as a discipline (Lewis, 2010;McDonald, 2010), but argue that as a field, educational development has the potential to become a significant factor in instructor growth (Yürekli Kaynardaǧ, 2019), and organizational change (Gravett & Bernhagen, 2015).…”

“…Due to varying institutional structures, disciplinary backgrounds, and decision-making processes, many educational developers remain cautious about making generalizable claims regarding theory and recommended structure, programming, and overall design-from funding to location on campus-of CTLs (Beach et al, 2016;Cook & Kaplan, 2011;Kelley, 2018;Little, 2014). However, new opportunities for scholarship regarding educational development are available as the field grows in numbers and purpose (Donlan et al, 2019;Ortquist-Ahrens, 2016;Schumann et al, 2013) Finally, understanding the differences between theoretically grounded educational developers and instructors of educational development is key for understanding how the field will progress (Robert, 2010). Therefore, the following research questions were used to explore how CTLs at varying institutions reach out to instructors, support the practical aspects of teaching and learning and embed theoretical support in their educational development programming:…”

“…Additionally, the maturing of professional development creates new opportunities to see how the field is forming norms of theory, practice, and outreach (Donlan et al, 2019;Ortquist-Ahrens, 2016;Schumann et al, 2013). Institutions across the U.S. face similar problems and may find similar solutions, based on a specific set of institutional and CTL characteristics.…”

“…(Wright, Lohe, & Little, 2018). Further, scholars have begun to develop additional theoretical and conceptual frameworks for CTL practice (Donlan, Loughlin & Bryne, 2019;. It seems that scholars within the field have recognized that to maintain a place within the educational landscape, they cannot simply assess the trends, satisfaction, and learning of their constituents, they need to move their scholarship into its own disciplinary field, using the same rigor as the disciplines which many educational developers moved away from.…”