The generative assumption in this case is that there are well-established (and largely unexamined and taken for granted) conventions of both teaching and scholarship that shape the teaching of certain material in ways that may well be counter-productive. Those conventions prevent the student, professors, and material from being aligned in ways that promote learning.

Conceptualizations of research fields and standards for disciplinary scholarship develop and change. Posing problems that a particular field presents to teaching is useful. Sometimes the problems in teaching a field can, in and of themselves, shed light on or provide support for reframing or revising a field.

• In weaker examples of this category the discussion of the field remains on the field – its content, methodology and procedures – and does not turn in any sustained way to actually teaching the field. The discussion grapples with guild issues, the author’s disciplinary scholarly agenda, or institutional constraints to the full flourishing of the field at a particular institution, but it leaves the relation of all of those issues to teaching wholly or largely implicit.
• Weaker essays tend to have overgeneralized claims about teaching that are not supported by the analysis and interpretation of specific evidence. In addition, they may make sweeping claims of significance for their argument that are out of proportion to the evidence provided.
• Stronger examples of this type of scholarship tie the nature of the field to the teaching of the field through sustained analysis and interpretation, and clarify multiple dimensions of the issue being explored and its implications for teaching.
• Stronger essays probe the connection between the nature of the field and the teaching of the field to a level of depth that discloses real or potential implications for the teaching of other fields in theology and religion, and even beyond.
• Stronger essays exhibit both a thoughtful querying of the field and a thoughtful reflection on actual classrooms and curricula, both in the author’s own context and more broadly throughout the field.

 Adapted from: Patricia O’Connell Killen and Eugene V. Gallagher, “Sketching the Contours of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion” Teaching Theology and Religion 16:2 (2013): 107-124