The Scholarship of Teaching
Beyond Evidence-Based Pedagogy
Expanding the Scholarship of Teaching
The term "Scholarship of Teaching" has, over time, become narrowly associated with evidence-based pedagogy—a framework that prioritizes research-backed teaching methods. While valuable, this approach often limits teaching scholarship to the realm of instructional effectiveness rather than acknowledging its broader intellectual and disciplinary impact. True scholarly teaching is not just about what works in the classroom—it is about conceptual synthesis, intellectual integration, and structuring knowledge in a way that reshapes both student and professional understanding.
This essay explores two fundamental ways in which the Scholarship of Teaching should be reconsidered:
As a process of identifying, integrating, and structuring knowledge to transform how a discipline thinks.
As a mechanism of knowledge creation, where the act of teaching refines and advances intellectual frameworks, much like Immanuel Kant’s philosophical evolution while teaching students how to respond to David Hume.
Teaching as Conceptual Synthesis
True scholarly teaching is about more than delivering content effectively; it is about determining what must be understood, synthesizing it across domains, and structuring it for intellectual clarity. Consider how a teacher must:
Identify Core Concepts – Distill what is truly foundational in a subject, ensuring students focus on the mechanistic underpinnings rather than isolated facts.
Synthesize Knowledge Across Disciplines – Recognize connections across related fields, refining how professionals think about their work.
Advance Professional Understanding – Teaching is not just for students; it shapes how practitioners, researchers, and scholars engage with evolving knowledge.
For example, in movement science and clinical education, evidence-based teaching often centers around technique and protocol, but this approach misses a deeper truth: professional competence is not just about following research-backed interventions, but about understanding mechanisms and constraints within the movement system. The Scholarship of Teaching, properly understood, must emphasize epistemological shifts, not just procedural proficiency.
Teaching as Knowledge Creation: A Kantian Reflection
Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential philosophers in history, developed his core philosophical positions while teaching. His famous "Critique of Pure Reason" emerged not as an abstract exercise in theory, but as an attempt to equip students with a conceptual framework to respond to Hume’s skepticism.
Kant recognized that knowledge is not passively received but actively structured—a realization that mirrors the act of teaching itself. The teacher, as a philosopher, is forced to clarify, organize, and synthesize knowledge to make it accessible and functional. In doing so, they do not merely communicate existing ideas—they create new intellectual structures that shape how knowledge is used.
Gödel took this even further, famously avoiding excessive publication because he believed that the demands of publishing could take time away from deep thinking. He understood that serious intellectual work requires time for structuring and refining ideas, rather than just producing output for external validation. This insight is crucial to understanding teaching as a scholarly activity—not merely as content delivery but as the construction of intellectual frameworks that endure beyond immediate publication cycles.
This model of teaching-as-synthesis has profound implications for modern professional education:
It suggests that teaching is a scholarly activity in its own right, not just an auxiliary function of academia.
It challenges the over reliance on outcome-based educational metrics, arguing instead for a mechanism-based approach to understanding disciplines.
It underscores that disciplines evolve not just through research, but through structured education that reconfigures intellectual landscapes.
Why This Matters for Modern Professional Education
The Scholarship of Teaching should not be reduced to a question of “what methods work best?”—it should engage with deeper questions: What are the most essential ideas? How do we structure knowledge for clarity? How do we refine the way our discipline thinks?
This matters because:
It shifts focus from memorization to epistemology – Instead of simply disseminating knowledge, teachers must help students understand how knowledge is structured and why it matters.
It improves professional adaptability – Professions evolve, and rigid pedagogy based on past best practices often lags behind. A deeper, structural approach to teaching ensures that professionals can adapt as knowledge grows.
It legitimizes teaching as a form of scholarly work – If we acknowledge that teaching is a way of refining knowledge itself, then we must recognize it as an active part of scholarship, not just a byproduct of research.
It benefits students when their faculty have tenure – When faculty have the academic freedom to challenge assumptions, refine curricula, and pursue conceptual synthesis, students benefit from a more dynamic and intellectually rigorous learning environment. Tenured faculty can take risks in teaching, explore emerging ideas, and mentor students beyond institutional pressures to conform to rigid educational models.
This shift is critical, especially in applied fields like clinical movement science, biomechanics, and professional education, where success depends not on memorizing studies but on developing a framework for understanding complexity. Teaching is not merely the transmission of knowledge—it is the method by which knowledge itself is refined and extended.
Conclusion: A Call to Rethink Teaching as Scholarship
The narrow view of the Scholarship of Teaching as evidence-based pedagogy does not fully capture its intellectual scope. Teaching is not merely about what works in the classroom—it is about how knowledge is structured, synthesized, and expanded for the benefit of both students and professionals.
Kant did not set out to change philosophy through research alone—he did so by teaching, structuring ideas, and providing a conceptual map for those struggling with fundamental questions. Similarly, Kurt Gödel resisted the pressures of constant publication, recognizing that the pursuit of deep understanding required time and space to refine ideas rather than being driven by external demands. If we take the Scholarship of Teaching seriously, we must acknowledge that it is not just about pedagogy—it is about shaping the intellectual future of disciplines, allowing for the kind of profound inquiry that both Kant and Gödel exemplified. And if nothing else, this perspective at least helps me feel better about having fewer publications than I sometimes think I should!
By embracing this broader perspective, we move toward a more meaningful, mechanism-driven approach to professional education—one that not only improves student understanding but reconfigures how knowledge is structured and applied in the real world.