Читать книгу Called to Teach - Группа авторов - Страница 12

A. Alexander Beaujean

Psychologists and educators have studied teaching excellence in higher education for almost a century.9 Like many things in psychology, this research has largely consisted of common-or-garden variety concepts and has generally lacked much that is technical.10 This does not mean that our knowledge of college teaching has been stagnant, only that assuming attributes in this domain are quantitative is not currently warranted by the state of evidence.

The current state of knowledge indicates that the phenomena constitutive of teaching excellence in higher education are qualitative.11 This does not make them any less real than quantitative phenomena or their investigation unscientific.12 It just means that the approach to their investigation should match the known structure of the phenomena. To that end, in this chapter I describe a qualitative investigation into how one particular master teacher approaches the process of teaching.

Teaching Excellence in Higher Education

As with any other profession, there are certain attributes that professors need to have. At a minimum, they need to understand the core concepts in their field. Expertise in a given academic field does not translate automatically into having expertise in the classroom. In fact, the two skill sets are likely independent of each other.13

In addition to having a strong grasp of their discipline, professors who engage in teaching need to have a certain set of minimum competencies.14 For example, they need to be able to communicate concepts in their field in an organized manner and be able to assess others’ understanding of these concepts. Although they are both normative concepts (i.e., relate to some standard), competence is not the same as excellence, however. Competence refers to having a sufficient amount. In principle, any professor can be a competent teacher as long as they meet the minimum criteria. Such is not the case with excellence. Excellence requires being outstanding--of the highest quality. All professors can strive for teaching excellence, but by its nature they cannot all be excellent teachers.

If teaching excellence is not equivalent with teaching competence, then what is it? Excellence in college teaching is not a technical concept. Ask any group of college students or faculty to define or describe excellent teaching and you will get a variety of answers.15 Not only is excellence not a technical concept, but also there is a growing consensus that there is no single set of behaviors constitutive of excellent college teaching.16 Buskist et al. argued that master teachers (i.e., professors who have demonstrated a level of rare excellence in the college classroom) possess certain qualities (i.e., non-quantitative attributes), but demonstrating behaviors constitutive of any specific subset of these qualities is not sufficient to be a master teacher:

Rather, master teachers are likely to come in all shapes and sizes, so to speak, and represent different combinations or blends of these qualities. What makes [Professor X] a master teacher is not exactly the same as what makes [Professor Y] a master teacher, although there may be some overlap in the personal qualities and penchants relevant to teaching that each possesses . . . Master teachers are as unique as teachers as they are as human beings.17

When considered in the broader literature of expertise, the uniqueness of master teachers is not surprising. Experts do not only just have more of something than others in the same field but also represent a different class of individuals.18 There is disagreement about how someone becomes an expert,19 but there is little contention that experts both process information in their area expertise differently as well as attend to different information than other individuals.20 This allows them to plan better and respond to situations more adroitly than non-experts.

Studying Teaching Excellence

Historically, most studies of excellent teaching have focused on perceived qualities of professors who exemplify excellence.21 For example, asking stakeholders (e.g., students, faculty, alumni) what they perceive as teaching excellence22 or investigating criteria for teaching awards.23 Such studies can provide useful information, such as some general qualities that people believe are constitutive of being a master teacher (see Table 3.1). At the same time, these studies are limited because investigators do not examine behaviors directly. Instead, they rely solely on secondary information about excellent teaching.

An alternative to using secondary information is to observe master teachers engaged in the process of teaching.24 Although investigators infrequently collect this type of data, this type of data is critically important for understanding teaching excellence.25 Direct observations allow for collecting data about the specific behaviors in which professors engage that make them experts in teaching.

Direct observation of behavior is crucial to understand any type of expertise.26 Experts often behave and extract information from their environment with automaticity. That is, they are not always conscious of what they are doing, or how what they do is any different from others. Thus, it is not surprising that master teachers approach teaching qualitatively different than their colleagues and that they are not necessarily cognizant of how or why what they do is different.27 Consequently, direct observation of master teachers can provide a wealth of information about what it is they do that makes them experts.

In this current study, I conducted a case study of a master teacher for an entire course. Case studies are detailed examinations of a single example and have been a common part of psychological research for a long time.28 They are occasionally used to study teaching expertise in P-12 environments29 but are rarely used to study master teachers within university settings. This is unfortunate because case study methods are particularly useful for studying experts.30 “[S]ometimes we simply have to keep our eyes open and look carefully at individual cases—not in the hope of proving anything, but rather in the hope of learning something!”31

Method

The Case: Roger E. Kirk

Since by its nature excellent teaching is rare, selecting cases randomly from the universe of professors does not guarantee being able to observe a master teacher. Instead, case studies of excellent teachers require purposefully selecting extremes—individuals that are much different from what is typical. Extreme cases are particularly useful for exploratory studies that are “open-ended” in the investigation of a phenomenon.32

The case I selected was Roger E. Kirk. Kirk is an expert in the field of quantitative methods. In terms of scholarship, he has published over one hundred works in psychology and statistics, including five books. One of his books has received the rare honor of being designated a citation classic.33

Kirk’s expertise not only includes the field of quantitative methods but also includes pedagogy. This is more difficult to demonstrate than expertise in a substantive area. Perhaps the best way to make the case of his pedagogical expertise is to note the numerous awards he has received. In 1992 he was named the Outstanding Tenured Teacher in the College of Arts and Sciences at Baylor University. In the following year, Baylor gave him the title Master Teacher—the university’s highest teaching award. In 2005, Division 5 of the American Psychological Association (APA) gave him the Jacob Cohen Award for Distinguished Contributions to Teaching and Mentoring. He won the 2012–2013 Cornelia Marschall Smith Professor of the Year at Baylor for his “superlative teaching and outstanding research contributions.” More recently, in 2015, he won the APA’s Charles L. Brewer Award for Distinguished Teaching of Psychology. This award “celebrates Roger E. Kirk’s dedication to and accomplishments in the teaching of psychology . . . His passion for teaching is legendary, his commitment to his discipline absolute, and his work ethic unmatched.”34

The Design: Case Study

The aim of this particular study was to explore how a master teacher behaves in the college classroom—an aim that lends itself to a case study design.35 Case study research starts from the desire to derive an in-depth understanding of a case set in a real-world context.36 It is particularly apropos when: (a) the research questions are about “how” or “why”; (b) it is not possible to manipulate behaviors of those involved in the study; and (c) the boundaries are not clear between the phenomenon and context (i.e., the behaviors of a master teacher have to be considered within the context of teaching).

This particular case study was holistic, descriptive, and exploratory. It was holistic because I focused on a single case throughout the study (Kirk). It was descriptive because my goal was to describe a situation not normally accessible to investigators in its real-life context: the in-class behaviors of a master teacher. It was exploratory because I had no clear set of behaviors that I was looking to observe when I began the study.

The Context: College Classroom

I observed Kirk teaching an introductory statistics course during the spring 2018 semester. The course is designed for undergraduate students (typically sophomores) and covers topics ranging from descriptive statistics to inferential statistics. It is required for all psychology majors, but students from other majors also take the course. In the semester I observed, eighty-five students were enrolled.

The Data Collection

There are two components to the introductory statistics course: recitation and lab. I only observed the recitation component, which met three days per week for fifty minutes. I observed approximately 95 percent of the classes Kirk taught for the semester (approximately forty classes). The classes I missed were those in which an exam was administered, I had a schedule conflict, or Kirk was absent. Before beginning the data collection, I obtained Kirk’s permission and the approval of my institution’s IRB.

All classroom data were gathered through direct observation by a single observer. I sat in the same seat every class (front row, stage right), which allowed me to focus on Kirk instead of the students. I have taught similar courses in the past, so the content was already familiar to me. This allowed me to focus on Kirk’s teaching behaviors. For each class, I brought a notepad and made notes about teaching behaviors. As this study was exploratory, I did not have a prioiri criteria about what behaviors I would or would not record. Instead, I made field notes about any behaviors I saw related to teaching.37

In addition to classroom observations, I also reviewed documents Kirk has authored about teaching statistics.38

The Data Analysis

For the data analysis, I searched my notes for themes (i.e., patterns of behavior that have meaning).39 Specifically, I went through the data as I gathered them and noted when I saw repetitions of behaviors. I then went through these repetitions to see if they could be further combined to form meaningful themes. Eventually, I settled on five distinct classes of behavior patterns, which I then named and defined.

Results

In what follows, I provide the five themes that emerged from my observations. They are presented in no particular order. In Table 3.2, I integrated these findings with the master teacher qualities from the literature on perceived teaching excellence.

Levity

One of the most frequent behaviors I observed from Kirk was the use of humor. This made the general climate of the course positive and lighthearted. Moreover, it allowed Kirk to regain student focus when he judged that students were not being engaged.

Kirk employed many forms of humor, ranging from anecdotal (e.g., funny stories about statisticians mentioned in the textbook) to self-deprecating (e.g., making light of himself when he made an error) to situational (e.g., making funny statements about difficult content such as “boy this is hard and confusing, isn’t it!”). His humor was never caustic or juvenile, and never at the expense of any particular student.

Perhaps the most unique way Kirk introduced levity was one of the ways he regained students’ attention: short “dance breaks.” Kirk and his wife are award-winning ballroom dancers.40 So, he spontaneously broke into a ballroom dance (e.g., foxtrot, rumba) multiple times throughout the semester. This noticeably piqued students’ attention from which Kirk would segue back into teaching.

Rigor

Kirk approached the course’s content rigorously and never “dumbed down” the material. For example, it was not uncommon for him to work through proofs or derivations when applicable. Moreover, he had very high expectations of his students. He frequently told them that he expected that they be able to demonstrate knowledge about not only how to calculate a given statistic but also when to apply it and how to interpret the results. His tests reflected these expectations.

Care and Respect for Students

Kirk demonstrated respect for his students and care that they did well in his course. This is not surprising given its commonality among master teachers.41 What was surprising was how Kirk went about doing this given the inherent difficulties in this endeavor with larger class enrollments.

Kirk’s demonstration of respect and care was most frequently evident in his purposeful effort to know his students. He had students complete a seating chart after the first few classes. He did not use this chart just to take attendance or call students by name during class. In addition, he came at least 10–minutes early to every class and used the seating chart to have informal conversations with students before class began. Kirk explained the origins of this practice:

One day I got to the lecture hall ten minutes earlier than usual. Instead of standing at the front of the hall, I wandered up and down the isles [sic]. During this time, I had a number of conversations with students who never asked questions during class or called me at home. From that day on, the ten minute walk-around became a regular part of my pre-lecture routine.42

The topics of these student conversations were not random. Before each class, Kirk reviewed a notebook that contained the gist of earlier student contacts that he wanted to follow up (e.g., asking students who were ill how they were currently feeling, asking student athletes about an upcoming sports event). Thus, over the semester he made multiple personal contacts with the eighty-five students taking his course!

Another way he demonstrated respect was the way he made it safe to ask questions. He stated multiple times in class that it was typical for students to be confused or feel anxious when learning statistics. One way he tried to alleviate this confusion and anxiety was setting aside time in every class for students to ask questions about concepts they did not understand well. In other words, he wanted students to ask questions and planned his lessons on the assumption that part of class time would be devoted to answering questions.

Another way Kirk tried to help students not feel anxious or confused about statistics was to make himself available to students. In his syllabus, he provided both his office and home phone numbers so students could contact him outside of class with questions. Moreover, he encouraged them to contact him in class, and his syllabus states, “I enjoy answering questions about statistics . . . Answering your questions is an important and enjoyable part of my job; do not hesitate to contact me.”43

It is one thing to ask for student questions, but it is another thing entirely to answer them in a way that respects the person asking the question. Kirk made a point to use body language and tone of voice and to have a level of positivity in his responses that gave students the impression that their questions were important—even those that had been asked before. It was not uncommon for students to ask the same question in consecutive classes; I counted one particular question asked four separate times. Yet, Kirk never gave the impression of appearing frustrated, nor were his answers ever condescending. Instead, he answered every question as if it were being asked for the first time.

Anecdotes and Examples

Statistics can sometimes be a dry subject. To make the content more accessible and “come alive,” Kirk frequently provided anecdotes and examples throughout his classes. The anecdotes ranged from personal (e.g., an experience using a given statistic, errors he made) to professional (e.g., background of individuals who developed a statistic). Sometimes he combined the two and provided anecdotes of his personal interactions with the statisticians who developed a statistic!

In addition to anecdotes, Kirk provided examples in nearly every class. Sometimes these examples involved working through data analysis from a real-world situation, in which case Kirk worked out the solution via slides (which he provided to students ahead of time). Other times, the examples were more didactic and involved Kirk working through the calculations, by hand, in class. Either way, students were afforded multiple demonstrations of how to calculate, use, and interpret every statistic that was discussed in the course.

Material Reviews

The first part of every class started the same way: ten minutes devoted to reviewing material previously covered in the course. This review could range from going over terms to working through an example. He was especially apt to repeat a previous example when it was complex and students were likely to be confused or have unasked questions (e.g., power analysis). In conducting these reviews, he often made a point to note how concepts he taught earlier in the semester fit together with more recent topics.

Discussion

In this study, I directly observed the pedagogical behaviors of a master teacher: Roger E. Kirk. Unlike many other pedagogical case studies, I observed Kirk in the same course for an entire semester. Thus, I was able to collect data from approximately forty separate classes. In those classes, I saw repeated behaviors from Kirk that fit into five themes: levity, rigor, care and respect for students, anecdotes and examples, and material reviews. Moreover, these behaviors coincide with the general themes that people perceive as being constitutive of an expert in teaching (see Table 3.2).

The first thing that stands out from this study is that the first two themes, levity and rigor, seem contradictory. How can a course with a lighthearted climate also be one that is rigorous? Honestly, I am not sure how it is done; but I know it can be done because I saw Kirk do it. Somehow, he was able to weave rigor with due levity and do so in a way that seemed seamless.

A former mentor of mine once described his own teaching philosophy as playing an accordion. Sometimes it needs to be stretched (i.e., students need to be challenged) and sometimes it needs to be relaxed (i.e., students need to have a break). Perhaps that is what Kirk is doing by weaving levity and rigor throughout a course. Knowing when to stretch and when to relax, however, is not intuitive, and likely something that differentiates master teachers.

The second thing that stands out from this study is the deliberate actions Kirk took to foster student relationships. Given Kirk’s professional stature, it could be understood if he did not bother with trying to connect personally with students in courses with larger enrollments. It is not easy to connect with so many of them, nor is it easy to create an atmosphere where students feel comfortable asking questions. Yet, Kirk appeared to accept the challenge and, as a consequence, purposefully devote considerable time and effort to make this happen. I can probably count on one hand the number of professors I know who have provided their home phone number on a syllabus and asked students to call when they have questions. I can count with one finger the number of professors I know who keep a notebook about student interactions so they can follow up with students throughout the semester. This is likely another thing that differentiates Kirk as a master teacher.44

The third thing that stood out was that Kirk planned time for content review and students asking questions. These were not impromptu events that serendipitously occurred that then threw off the schedule of events. Instead, Kirk developed his curriculum with the idea that reviewing older content and answering students’ questions are just as worthy of class time as providing new content.

Such behaviors may not be necessary in other courses but are vital in statistics. Students often see statistics as a disorganized collection of formulae and concepts, so they can get overwhelmed by the seemingly-unrelated details.45 Thus, reviewing material can help tie older and newer concepts together as well as aid in student understanding.

Limitations

The major limitations of this study are the same as those of many other extreme case studies: the sample is purposeful and the approach is exploratory. Thus, the results may or may not generalize to other master teachers, and following Kirk’s example will not necessarily make a professor develop into a master teacher. Moreover, since there was only one observer and the same individual also coded the data and developed the resulting themes, there could be—and likely is—some bias in the results. These factors do not necessarily invalidate the results but do indicate that others need to replicate the results before developing any notion of causality or generalizability from the results.

Implications

Personally, I learned a great deal by observing Kirk. I teach courses similar to the one in which I observed and have already started implementing changes. I try to incorporate more humor and anecdotes, plan for content reviews, and make a more purposeful effort to talk with students about non-class related material that is important to them.

For those who do not teach courses in quantitative methods, this study may not seem to have any relevance—and perhaps it does not. What could have relevance for faculty from other disciplines is observing master teachers in their own departments or universities. They may not have the particular title of master teacher, but they exist. I cannot recommend enough learning from them. Ask if you can observe them teach, whether for a few classes or throughout a semester. It does not really matter if you are familiar with the content or not. If you are, all the better; but, even if you are not you can still learn from observing a master teacher.

Table 3.1: Common Qualities Stakeholders Perceive in Master Teachers

Quality

Passionate about content area

Proactively improves teaching

Deep understanding of content area

Develops rapport/is approachable

Cares that students learn

Organized

Rigorous/intellectually stimulating

Note: Information taken from Buskist (in press), Buskist and Keeley (2014), and Keeley, Ismail, and Buskist (2016).

Table 3.2: How Roger E. Kirk Demonstrated the Common Qualities of Master Teachers

Quality	Example Behaviors from Kirk
Passionate about content area	Animation when discussing class topics; provided many anecdotes related to the content
Proactively improves teaching	Deliberate and purposive approach to designing his course
Deep understanding of content area	Recognized by his peers as an expert in the field of quantitative methods
Develops rapport/is approachable	Uses humor; spontaneous dance breaks; planned conversations with students before class; receptive body language
Cares that students learn	Made it safe to ask questions; made himself available to students to answer questions; patience; frequently reviewed material
Organized	Detailed syllabus and logical organized of material (for example syllabus, see Kirk, 2008)
Rigorous/intellectually stimulating	Rigorous approach to material; overtly high student expectations; provided multiple examples and content-related anecdotes
Note: Qualities taken from Table 3.1.

References

Ackerman, Phillip L. “Nonsense, Common Sense, and Science of Expert Performance: Talent and Individual Differences.” Intelligence 45 (2014) 6–17. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.009.

Baxter, Pamela, and Susan Jack. “Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers.” The Qualitative Report 13.4 (2008) 544–59.

Beaujean, Alexander A., and Charles Weaver. “Roger E. Kirk: A Biography.” The Score 41.1 (2019). https://www.apadivisions.org/division-5/publications/score/2019/01/

kirk-biography.

Berliner, David C. “In Pursuit of the Expert Pedagogue.” Educational Researcher 15 (1986) 5–13. doi:10.2307/1175505.

“Bibliography of Roger E. Kirk.” The Score 41.1 (2019). https://www.apadivisions.org/division-5/publications/score/2019/01/kirk-bibliography.

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. “Thematic Analysis.” In APA Handbook of Research Methods In Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological, edited by Harris Cooper, Paul M. Camic, Debra L. Long, A. T. Panter, David Rindskopf, and Kenneth J. Sher, 57–71. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2012.

Bromley, D. B. The Case-Study Method in Psychology and Related Disciplines. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1986.

Buskist, William. “Excellent Advice from Excellent Teachers.” In The Seven Keys to Excellence in Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.

Buskist, William, and J. Keeley. “Becoming an Excellent Teacher.” In The Oxford Handbook of Undergraduate Psychology Education, edited by Dana Dunn, 99–112. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Buskist, William, Jason Sikorski, Tanya Buckley, and Bryan K. Saville. “Elements of Master Teaching.” In The Teaching of Psychology: Essays in Honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer, edited by Stephen F. Davis and William Buskist, 27–39. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.

Catano, Victor M., and Steve Harvey. “Student Perception of Teaching Effectiveness: Development and Validation of the Evaluation of Teaching Competencies Scale (ETCS).” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36.6 (2011) 701–17. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.484879.

“Charles L. Brewer Award for Distinguished Teaching of Psychology.” American Psychologist 70.5 (2015) 384–85. doi:10.1037/a0039387.

Dunkin, Michael J. “Concepts of Teaching and Teaching Excellence in Higher Education.” Higher Education Research & Development 14.1 (1995) 21–33. doi:10.1080/0729436950140103.

Elton, Lewis. “Dimensions of Excellence in University Teaching.” International Journal for Academic Development 3.1 (1998) 3–11. doi:10.1080/1360144980030102.

Ericsson, K. Anders. “Why Expert Performance is Special and Cannot Be Extrapolated from Studies of Performance in the General Population: A Response to Criticisms.” Intelligence 45 (2014) 81–103. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.12.001.

Eysenck, H. J. “Introduction.” In Case Studies in Behaviour Therapy, edited by H. J. Eysenck, 1–15. London: Routledge, 1976.

Feldman, Kenneth A. “The Superior College Teacher from The Students’ View.” Research in Higher Education 5.3 (1976) 243–288. doi:10.1007/BF00991967.

Fusch, Patricia L., Gene E. Fusch, and Lawrence R. Ness. “How to Conduct a Mini-Ethnographic Case Study: A Guide for Novice Researchers.” The Qualitative Report 22.3 (2017) 923–41.

Hambrick, David Z., Frederick L. Oswald, Erik M. Altmann, Elizabeth J. Meinz, Fernand Gobet, and Guillermo Campitelli. “Deliberate Practice: Is That All It Takes to Become an Expert?” Intelligence 45 (2014) 34–45. doi:10.1016/j.intell. 2013.04.001.

Harlow, Lisa L. “Teaching Quantitative Psychology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology. Vol. 1: Foundations, edited by Todd D. Little, 105–17. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Hativa, Nira., Rachel Barak, and Etty Simhi. “Exemplary University Teachers: Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Effective Teaching Dimensions and Strategies.” The Journal of Higher Education 72.6 (2001) 699–729. doi:10.1080/00221546.2001.11777122.

Hattie, John, and H.W. Marsh. “The Relationship between Research and Teaching: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research 66.4 (1996) 507–42. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004507.

Horn, John L., and A. Nayena Blankson. “Foundations for Better Understanding of Cognitive Abilities.” In Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues, 3rd ed., edited by Dawn P. Flanagan Patti L. Harrison, 73–98. New York: Guilford, 2012.

Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. JCGM 200:2012. International Vocabulary of Metrology—Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM). Sèvres, France: Autor, 2012. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2012.pdf.

Keeley, Jared W., Emad Ismail, and William Buskist. “Excellent Teachers’ Perspectives on Excellent Teaching.” Teaching of Psychology 43.3 (2016) 175–79. doi: 10.1177/0098628316649307.

Kirk, Roger E. “Charles L. Brewer Invited Address: Teaching Statistics: What I Have Learned So Far.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, August 2015.

———. Instructors Manual with Test Bank for Statistics: An Introduction. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008.

———. “Teaching Introductory Statistics: Some Things I Have Learned. In Engaging Others in Quantitative Psychology, chaired by Lisa L. Harlow. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, August, 2002.

Levinson-Rose, Judith, and Robert J. Menges. “Improving College Teaching: A Critical Review of Research.” Review of Educational Research 51.3 (1981) 403–34. doi:10.3102/00346543051003403.

Livingston, Carol, and Hilda Borko. “Expert-Novice Differences in Teaching: A Cognitive Analysis and Implications for Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 40.4 (1989) 36–42. doi:10.1177/002248718904000407.

Macnamara, Brooke N., David Z. Hambrick, and Frederick L. Oswald. “Deliberate Practice and Performance in Music, Games, Sports, Education, and Professions: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Science 25.8 (2014) 1608–18. doi: 10.1177/0956797614535810.

Maraun, Michael D. “Measurement as a Normative Practice: Implications of Wittgenstein’s Philosophy for Measurement in Psychology.” Theory & Psychology 8.4 (1998) 435–61. doi:10.1177/0959354398084001.

Marsh, Herbert W., and John Hattie. “The Relation between Research Productivity and Teaching Effectiveness: Complementary, Antagonistic, or Independent Constructs?” The Journal of Higher Education 73.5 (2002) 603–41. doi:10.1080/00221546.2002.11777170.

“Master Teachers at Baylor University (BU-PP 703).” 2013. https://www.baylor.edu/bupp/doc.php/211002.pdf.

McKeachie, Wilbert J. “Critical Elements in Training University Teachers.” International Journal for Academic Development 2.1 (1997) 67–74. doi:10.1080/ 1360144970020108.

———. “Research on College Teaching: The Historical Background.” Journal of Educational Psychology 82.2 (1990) 189–200. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.82.2.189.

Michell, Joel. “The Place of Qualitative Research in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 1.4 (2004) 307–19. doi:10.1191/1478088704qp020oa.

Seawright, Jason, and John Gerring. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly 61.2 (2008) 294–308. doi:10.1177/1065912907313077.

Skelton, Alan. “Understanding ‘Teaching Excellence’ in Higher Education: A Critical Evaluation of the National Teaching Fellowships Scheme.” Studies in Higher Education 29.4 (2004) 451–68. doi:10.1080/0307507042000236362.

Smith, Tracy W., and David Strahan. “Toward a Prototype of Expertise in Teaching: A Descriptive Case Study.” Journal of Teacher Education 55.4 (2004) 357–71. doi:10.1177/0022487104267587.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Desearch: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2009.

———. “Case Study Methods.” In APA Handbook of Research Methods In Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, And Biological, edited by Harris Cooper, Paul M. Camic, Debra L. Long, A. T. Panter, David Rindskopf, and Kenneth J. Sher, 141–155. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2012.

9. Buskist and Keeley, “Becoming an Excellent Teacher,” 99–112; McKeachie, “Research on College Teaching.”

10. Maraun, “Measurement as a Normative Practice,” 435–61.

11. Levinson-Rose and Menges, “Improving College Teaching,” 403–34. I use the term qualitative to refer to attributes that are not known to have additivity but may possess order. We can measure ordered attributes only in the sense that we can determine if one person has more of it than another person. See Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 200:2012.

12. Michell, “Place of Qualitative Research,” 307–19.

13. Hattie and Marsh, “Relationship Between Research and Teaching,” 507–42; Marsh and Hattie, “Research Productivity and Teaching Effectiveness,” 603–41.

14. Elton, “Dimensions of Excellence,” 3–11.

15. Feldman, “Superior College Teacher,” 243–88; Keeley, Ismail, and Buskist, “Excellent Teachers’ Perspectives,” 175–79.

16. Buskist, “Excellent Advice.”

17. Buskist et al., “Elements of Master Teaching,” 31–32.

18. Ackerman, “Nonsense, Common Sense, and Science,” 6–17; Ericsson, “Why Expert Performance is Special,” 81–103.

19. Hambrick et al., “Deliberate Practice,” 34–45.

20. Dunkin, “Concepts of Teaching,” 21–33; Horn and Blankson, “Foundations for Better Understanding,” 73–98.

21. Buskist and Keeley, “Becoming an Excellent Teacher,” 99–112.

22. Catano and Harvey, “Student Perception of Teaching Effectiveness,” 701–17; Keeley, Ismail, & Buskist, “Excellent Teachers’ Perspectives,” 175–79.

23. Skelton, “Understanding ‘Teaching Excellence,’” 451–68.

24. Hativa, Barak, and Simhi, “Exemplary University Teachers,” 699–729.

25. Berliner, “In Pursuit of the Expert Pedagogue,” 5–13.

26. Macnamara, Hambrick, and Oswald, “Deliberate Practice and Performance,” 1608–18.

27. Livingston and Borko, “Expert-Novice Differences in Teaching,” 36–42.

28. Bromley, Case-Study Method.

29. For example, Smith and Strahan, “Toward a Prototype of Expertise,” 357–71.

30. Ericsson, “Why Expert Performance is Special,” 81–103.

31. Eysenck, “Introduction,” 9

32. Seawright and Gerring, “Case Selection Techniques,” 294–308.

33. Beaujean and Weaver, “Roger E. Kirk”; “Bibliography of Roger E. Kirk.”

34. “Charles L. Brewer Award,” 384.

35. Baxter and Jack, “Qualitative Case Study Methodology,” 544–59.

36. Yin, Case Study Research; Yin, “Case Study Methods,” 141–55.

37. Fusch, Fusch, and Ness, “How to Conduct a Mini-Ethnographic Case Study,” 923–41.

38. Kirk, “Teaching Introductory Statistics”; Kirk, “Charles L. Brewer Invited Address.”

39. Braun and Clarke, “Thematic Analysis,” 57–71.

40. A video of Kirk and his wife dancing went “viral” in 2019: https://twitter.com/TamaraJosol/status/1099041978308796418.

41. Keeley, Ismail, and Buskist, “Excellent Teachers’ Perspectives,” 175–79.

42. Kirk, “Teaching Introductory Statistics,” 5.

43. Kirk, Instructors Manual, 12.

44. Keeley, Ismail, and Buskist, “Excellent Teachers’ Perspectives,” 175–79.

45. Harlow, “Teaching Quantitative Psychology,” 105–17.