Can we administer the scholarship of teaching? Lessonsfrom outstanding professors in higher education

Gad Yair

Received: 21 March 2007 / Accepted: 8 May 2007 / Published online: 25 May 2007� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract Boyer’s call for the study of the ‘‘scholarship of teaching’’ has rekindled

interest in outstanding teaching in higher education. However, most studies of teaching

quality and student experiences in higher education have paid little attention to intense,

meaningful key experiences and were limited in answering the pertinent question: Can

universities administer excellent instruction? The current paper attempts to answer this

question by providing exploratory evidence of key experiences in higher education. It is

based on evidence from a large qualitative study of such episodes, using retrospective

accounts provided by adults who speak about their best educational experiences in higher

education. The results are grouped under three major thematic headings. The first describes

the centrality of personalized student–teacher relations. The second focuses on the ways in

which identification and integrity provided students with models to emulate; and the third

tells of excellence in the skills of teaching. These results point that the administration of the

scholarship of teaching is an intricate endeavor.

Keywords Key experiences � Instruction and teaching � Model professors

Time and again, educators have debated whether teaching is an art or a science (for

somewhat contrasting views see Sarason 1999; Shulman 2004). Some claim that excel-

lence in teachers is simply ‘‘innate’’ while others retort with a counter argument, namely

that excellence is ‘‘constructed.’’ While this question is of utmost importance—though

somewhat misguided—the field of educational research has mainly tilted toward a prag-

matic answer, to whit: good teachers can be identified, trained and improved, and, likewise,

good teaching practices can be shared, taught and learned.

This pragmatic orientation directs attention mostly toward those experiences that are

seemingly amenable for design and administration. Consequently, scholars in this field

G. Yair (&)Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus,Jerusalem 91905, Israele-mail: msyairg@mscc.huji.ac.il

123

High Educ (2008) 55:447–459DOI 10.1007/s10734-007-9066-4

have mostly attempted to understand the characteristics of ‘‘good teachers’’ and to make

that knowledge available to others. The common research paradigm that they therefore

used in order to study the effects of higher education on students’ lives is akin to an

‘‘engineering science,’’ mostly devised in terms of input–output models (for a represen-

tative example see Flowers et al. 2001). This approach can be characterized as additive and

cumulative (Yair 2003). It stresses administrable and teachable features, such as instruc-

tional skills and content mastery as input (e.g. Hativa et al. 2001; Schulman 1987; Shulman

1987), and studies student learning and satisfaction as output. Furthermore, most assess-

ments of teaching quality use standard end-of-course evaluation surveys that build on

average or common learning experiences (Feldman 1976; Marsh and Roche 1997) rather

than on rare yet decisive educational experiences that have lifetime outcomes.

The pragmatic administrative commitments mentioned above unintentionally lead to the

assumption that courses, instructors and experiences slowly accumulate to produce edu-

cational effects (Sorenson and Hallinan 1977); that it is essentially time-to-learn that

determines educational effects (Yair 2000b); and that with additional skills, all faculty in

higher education can become ‘‘good teachers.’’ Another significant aspect in this context is

the assumption that instruction should be standardized, and that variation between pro-

fessors is actually an organizational noise that should be minimized through accountability

mechanisms (Altbach 1999; Lucas 1996). The result of this widespread programming is

apparent in ‘‘teacher-proof’’ instructional methods (e.g. the use of PowerPoint instead of

blackboards), standardized curricula (Psychology 101 is similar across teachers and even

institutions), and standardized assessment procedures.

It is only natural, then, that in this academic atmosphere key educational experience in

higher education had heretofore received little attention. While personal narratives of

teachers who have had a decisive impact on their students’ lives are at times used as

testimonials for studying the potential effects of university education (e.g. Tuesdays withMorrie, Educating Rita, Dead Poets’ Society, or Stand and Deliver), such narratives are

less often exploited as robust qualitative data that is used to analyze the characteristics of

key educational experiences in higher education and their long-term effects on students.

To correct for this omission, the current paper provides exploratory evidence from a

large qualitative study of key educational experiences to develop an understanding of

outstanding learning experiences in higher education. Key experiences – like the turning

points that they sometime facilitate (Abbott 2001) – are retrospective accounts that actors

provide while narrating their biographies. They are those experiences that actors subjec-

tively define to be the most important events in their lives. Actors causally link those

events to different outcomes that have emanated from the episodes, and regard them to be

the most decisive events in their socialization. In contrast to repeated, consistent and

slowly accumulating events, key experiences focus on unexpected, non-recurring yet

subjectively highly-charged events. The proposed approach seeks to highlight the impor-

tance of such challenging events that took place in university instruction and to point to

their importance in the study of personal growth in universities and colleges.

What makes for a great teacher in higher education?

For the past two decades major scholars have called for broadening the concept of

scholarship in higher education (Boyer 1990a; Halpern 1998). Specifically, Ernest Boyer

demanded that institutes of higher education should include ‘‘the scholarship of teaching’’

as a legitimate consideration when assessing faculty members’ portfolios. As he said,

448 High Educ (2008) 55:447–459

123

‘‘What we need today is a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar—a

recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through

practice, and through teaching. We acknowledge that these four categories—the scholar-

ship of discovery, of integration, of application, and of teaching—divide intellectual

functions that are tied inseparably to each other’’ (Boyer 1990b, p. 25).

Lately, teaching in higher education has been widely discussed (e.g., Entwistle 2000;

Kreber 2005; Schulman 2004); studies of the qualities of good teachers are gaining validity

(Marsh and Roche 1997) while becoming more creative, making for more useable results

(e.g., Hativa et al. 2001). However, not much has actually been written about outstanding

learning experiences in higher education, and such experiences were neither used to val-

idate prior research results nor to point at their unique features. Consequently, most studies

in this domain are singly-oriented by a delimited pragmatic interest: To identify the

components of the scholarship of teaching (Schulman 1987); to organize them in a

(techno)-logical skill-oriented course plan; and to inculcate these skills through intense

preparatory courses.

It is no surprise that studies in this approach have been largely oriented to the scientific

side of good instruction, namely to improving instructional skills and content mastery. For

example, Shulman (1987) and Feldman (1976) emphasized different facets of content

mastery, arguing that good teachers know what their students currently know and under-

stand; that they are in full command of their discipline (content knowledge); that they have

the required instructional expertise (pedagogical knowledge); that they have the practical

skills to implement instruction in daily settings; and that they master the curriculum.

Similarly, in a rare case of studying extraordinary teachers in higher education, Hativa

et al. (2001) focused attention on four similar components: Lesson organization, lesson

clarity, interest in learning and positive classroom climate. These researchers found that

exceptional instructors have different profiles—that some of them excel in one dimension

and others are best in other areas. They concluded that there is no single profile that

appears to be the ‘‘ultimate’’ model for the ‘‘good instructor.’’

While the pragmatic emphasis on transferable skills is understandable, other scholars

have pointed out that extraordinary teachers cannot be reduced to a package of skills and

techniques; that excellent instruction is partly an art form. Stephenson (2001), for example,

joins prior studies in claiming that ‘‘extraordinary teachers know what to teach, how to

teach, and how to improve’’ (p. xxiv), and that they ‘‘excel at creating exciting classroom

environments’’ (p. xxviii). However, he adds two other components that seem less related

to administration and distribution. The first is that ‘‘extraordinary teachers connect

exceptionally well with students’’ (p. xxxi); the second is that they ‘‘have great passion for

their work’’ (p. xxii). As he says, ‘‘Extraordinary teachers have passion for four things—

learning, their fields, their students, and teaching. In other words, they believe deeply in

their work, the people they serve, and their mission’’ (p. xxii). In contrast to the practical

aspects of teaching, the latter two components are indeed hard to plan. They seem highly

personal and idiosyncratic.

Stephenson’s (2001) insights are indeed interesting. However, they are based on per-

sonal experience and lack solid research support. The present paper seeks to provide these

missing scaffolds. It therefore provides some required balance for one-sided skill-based

approaches in studying extraordinary teachers. The following empirical investigation is

based on a qualitative analysis of a large sample of ‘‘key educational experiences’’ in

higher education. The unique information gathered through this study helps to highlight the

somewhat neglected aspects of student–professor relations and passionate instruction in

higher education.

High Educ (2008) 55:447–459 449

123

Based on a large sample of key experiences, this paper focuses on a sub-sample of the

episodes that relate to experiences in higher education. The study is based on retrospective

accounts provided by adults, speaking about their best educational experiences. Conceptually,

the methodological approach adopted here is similar to ‘‘narrative identity research’’

(McAdams 1996; McAdams et al. 1996; Singer 2004). It thus joins an expanding multidis-

ciplinary approach that links subjective accounts with objective conditions. However, this is

the first account of extraordinary professors being analyzed through the prism of key edu-

cational experiences in higher education. It therefore provides a new perspective on students’

experiences in higher education, and a new point of view for assessing the characteristics of

extraordinary professors and their impacts on their students’ lives.

Method

Elicitation method

First year BA students in two higher education institutes in Israel served as data gatherers

and data providers. After a 10-minute briefing about the meaning of key educational

experiences, the students were requested to report about their three best educational epi-

sodes. The students were also asked to interview two adults over the age of 30, using the

same research protocol. Their own-collected nine experiences served as the basis of a

report on good educational practice as part of their course requirements.

Preliminary pilot testing suggested that adults can easily report about negative traumatic

educational experiences but have difficulty divulging positive events. Consequently, it

was necessary to frame the meaning of key experiences in advance. A day before the

interview, respondents were notified of the main theme of the interview, namely their key

educational experiences. They were advised that these episodes are not restricted to a

school context. Following the interview respondents were asked to choose the most

meaningful experience, and they filled out a quantitative questionnaire about the same

features of the activity. They were also asked to compare these outstanding activities with

ordinary experiences. The questionnaire consisted of 125 questions (not used in this paper).

The standard interview protocol is reported in Appendix 1. As the interview protocol

suggests, we retained some ambiguity in wording in order not to foreclose the evidence.

While we directed the respondents to speak about positive educational experiences, we

wished to let them specify the contexts of those episodes and their features.

To guarantee that the interviews were not fictitious they were standardized and audio-

taped. Most interviews lasted up to 60 minutes. The respondents were asked to narrate

three key educational experiences, elaborating on three aspects: context of the episode,

their feelings during and immediately after the activity, and the long-term effects of these

experiences on their lives. The students were asked to submit transcripts of the interviews

and the questionnaires were photocopied. Respondents were assured that no personal

information or identifying details would be exposed. 72% of them gave consent for their

report to be used in a larger study of key educational experiences.

Sample

The overall sample consisted of 1,100 respondents who reported 3,045 key experiences. Of

those, 11.6% took place in institutes of higher education, and these constitute the sample

450 High Educ (2008) 55:447–459

123

for this paper. 79% of the sample are Jewish (the others are Moslem and Christian Arabs,

consistent with their proportion in the general Israeli population). Women constitute 64.6%

of the sample (due to over-representation of females in undergraduate education in Israel).

Educational qualifications exceed average national data, with 66% of the sample having

more than 13 years of schooling compared to 20.4% in the overall Israeli population. 80%

are city dwellers and 15% live in small rural settlements (population: 8%; sample figures

are compared with national data for 1999, see www.cbs.gov.il).

Analysis

Data analysis proceeded in two ways. The quantitative data was coded in SPSS and is used

elsewhere. The qualitative information was coded into an Access database that consisted of

126 codes. This scheme was developed with five graduate students who helped ensure the

validity of the coding scheme through group discussions and analyses conducted during the

preliminary steps of the investigation. The coding scheme reflects the three-part nature of

the interview. One group of codes refers to the nature of the activity (e.g. choice, com-

petitiveness, challenge, relevance, surprise, etc.); another refers to the psychological

experience during the episode (e.g. cognitive, emotional and self-discovery components);

and the last section refers to long-term outcomes (e.g. practical consequences, personal,

moral and behavioral changes). Each category has several sub-categories to allow more

finely-tuned analysis. Each interview was coded using this scheme; where the features

appeared, the code was ticked as positive, and otherwise it was left blank. Supplementary

codes referred to background variables and to the nature of the episode (e.g. ‘‘positive,’’

‘‘negative-turned-positive,’’ ‘‘negative’’).

This coding system allowed the researchers to distinguish recurrent motives and to delve

into different meaning facets and conduct cross-tabulations. Based on these analyses, the

present paper focuses on a subset of the main results regarding key experiences in higher

education. It uses the qualitative approach to highlight a group of themes that recurred in

respondents’ descriptions of their experiences. In order to focus on the best narratives in this

exploratory investigation, we narrowed down the number of reports. Each interview was

assessed with regard to its quality, namely the amount of detail provided. Though simpli-

fied, this coding suggests that about 17% of the interviews were defined as ‘‘excellent,’’ and

another 26% were coded as ‘‘extraordinary.’’ These are the narratives that play a prominent

part in the following presentation of key experiences in higher education.

Results

Key educational experiences are varied in many ways. The data suggests that 40% of the

episodes were intense and immediate, reflecting a ‘‘big bang’’ episode in students’ lives.

Other experiences spanned weeks (8%) and months (about 50%). Some result from

challenging circumstances; others are tied to the people involved. Some have multiple

effects on adult life outcomes, others have limited influence. Respondents recounted that in

such moments they experienced tremendous insights into the topics of instruction; that

within a span of a single lecture their prior understandings were transformed and their

thoughts matured; that one distinct activity—in laboratories or field trips—inculcated a

love for learning; that of the many professors who taught them, one was outstanding, and

that that specific professor decisively affected them.

High Educ (2008) 55:447–459 451

123

The results suggest that the respondents have emphasized their professors’ traits and

behaviors in 54% of the cases; their instructional strategies were mentioned in 25% of the

narratives; and the remaining episodes focused on the context of instruction. The following

analysis focuses on the first two categories. The first one is broken into two sections.

Therefore, the results are presented under three major thematic headings: The first focuses

on student–teacher relations, the second on issues of passion, identification and integrity,

while the third speaks of excellence in teaching. Each theme is exemplified by providing

relevant representative quotes from the sample of key experiences in higher education.

Motivating students: symmetric relations and personalization

The normative environment of universities allows and indeed breeds formalistic, imper-

sonal relations between faculty and students. It is common, for example, to call professors

either by their formal titles or surnames, and intermingling after class is usually minimal.

However, the evidence suggests that it is rather personal relationships between professors

and their students that the latter remember as an important ingredient of their key expe-

riences in higher education. Out of those narratives that emphasized professors’ traits and

behaviors—71% referred to their positive relations with all students, and 42% mentioned

individual, personalized relations with their professor.

The narratives indeed suggest that symmetrical relations and close familiarity raised

students’ motivation and encouraged intense engagement with learning. Essentially, per-

sonalized relations between students and faculty decreased uncertainty, suspicion and

disengagement. They encouraged openness and sincerity, because they were constituted on

the basis of friendly, amicable interactions—where all participants related to one another

as goals, rather than as the means for externally imposed aims.

In this rather open atmosphere, participants found an accepting context for sharing

ideas. Most importantly, it provided the courage to raise non-traditional, innovative ideas

that in a less accepting environment would be frowned upon. Furthermore, respondents

reported that the use of personalized relations produced a warm and cozy setting that

allowed them to step out of their shells—to risk their identities in public—trusting that

their professor would do nothing that would hurt, humiliate or embarrass them. In re-

sponse, they evinced very high motivation in learning. The following case illustrates how a

teacher in a rather technical course with a large class nonetheless succeeded in person-

alizing—to the extent that at least one student deemed the class his most meaningful

educational experience.

I had a course on managerial accounting with a group of 60 students...[The lecturer]

maintained close relations with the students, based on familiarity, involving us in

class. For example, he knew our names ‘‘by heart,’’ and he referred to us by our first

names. He used a lot of humor throughout his lectures – he joked with us, delivered

anecdotes that would break the ‘‘distance,’’ and it established a very good atmo-

sphere and an eagerness to study. Because of his approach, it was really easy to ask

him questions about any problem.

This respondent continued by describing how the symmetrical basis of the teacher–student

relationship allowed the latter to bring their own interests and agendas into the lecture hall.

The personal relationship with his students made it easy for this lecturer to get into his

students’ own worlds. Therefore, he could easily use relevant materials and examples that

helped to bridge gaps in age and experience. This flexibility also allowed him to engage

452 High Educ (2008) 55:447–459

123

students by challenging them in the exact topics they evinced interest in. This type of

symmetrical and personal relationship recurred in many similar narratives.

These narratives reverberate with Martin Buber’s famous depiction of educational

relationships as true cases of I-Thou relations (instead of alienated I-It relationships).

According to Buber (1958), in this type of relationship teachers treat students as ideal aims.

They regard them in their total humanity, not as objects that need to be manipulated in

order to attain externally-imposed instructional aims. They empathize with them and

reciprocate with their perspectives.

The evidence from this study indeed suggests that extraordinary professors do reflect

this Buberian perspective. Respondents suggested that the point of departure of their

extraordinary professors was to produce a joint passion for certain subject matter, and they

produced this passion by being passionate toward their students and the topics of

instruction. In this way they were able to transcend the common limitations of formalistic

relations. The following quote illustrates the distance that a lecturer crossed to connect

with his students, and the immense effect he had in enlisting their motivation. It was

reported by a 46-year-old female respondent, an immigrant from the US:

Although it was a formal setting – standard teacher-centered instruction – the pro-

fessor attempted to understand the students and encouraged them; he attempted to

understand us and our difficulties with the language. He provided students with a

sense of security, he encouraged us to ask questions and make comments. He at-

tempted to bridge the gap between a professor and his students and break down status

hierarchies.

Such personal orientations led to interpersonal obligations and moral commitments. The

evidence suggests that key experiences in higher education had affective bases. Recurring

words like gratitude, commitment, sense of obligation, and indebtedness express an

emotional orientation toward reciprocity and mutuality. Such reports attest to a quid proquo relationship where professors and students developed moral commitments to each

other in a joint endeavor that was focused on learning. The emotional ingredients in these

relationships supported cognitive learning of new knowledge. But they also suffused cold

cognitive elements with a hot affective add-on (Pintrich et al. 1993), which made

instruction and learning outstanding and meaningful. The end result was a key experience

that transcended the bounded limits of the lecture hall.

Passion, identification and integrity: on embodying excellence

Of the narratives which referred to professors’ traits and behaviors, 50% have related to

charismatic features or enthusiasm, topics grouped under the ‘‘heart’’ section. Many

respondents regarded certain professors as models of inspiration. They talked about them

as setters of ideals. They reported that within the duration of a single meeting these key

figures made them understand the meaning of excellence. They recurrently used this

‘‘paragon’’ motive to describe their outstanding professors (e.g. ‘‘he was simply the type to

idolize’’). They pointed to their personalities (e.g. ‘‘he is really a unique personality’’;

‘‘wherever you touched that person—you saw that he was full’’), and to their unique

character (e.g. ‘‘he turned out to be an exceptionally colorful person who possessed

amazing knowledge’’).

Deep scrutiny of these narratives suggests that these model professors are deeply pas-

sionate about their topic. They did not ‘‘go through the motions’’ because they were

High Educ (2008) 55:447–459 453

123

assigned to teach this or that class. Rather, they exhibited seriousness and commitment, a

sense of urgency and total identification with the subject matter. In other words, they did

not play a prescribed role: they created that role and imbued it with engaged seriousness. A

34-year-old respondent exemplified this position when talking about her Zoology teacher:

‘‘He was simply hooked on animals, he loved it, and that was obvious to everybody. It

greatly affected our own love for animals, and the subject matter.’’

Interestingly, respondents pointed to those professors—mostly from the Department of

Philosophy—who embodied the giant scholars they taught about in their lectures. These

outstanding lecturers were not presenting petty local thoughts about the world; rather, they

stood ex-cathedra and talked and moralized while being fully absorbed in what they were

teaching. They fully identified with the figures they were speaking about and thoughtfully

explored the boundaries of their worlds. Respondents regarded this identification in terms

of ‘‘intellectual integrity.’’ For them, this intellectual integrity was a sign of academic

seriousness and excellence; and it was also the prime motive for commending these pro-

fessors with the rare adage of intellectual idols. The following example illustrates the sense

of intellectual integrity that was imbued through the identification of a professor with the

topics of instruction. It was narrated by a 49-year-old woman, who described her philos-

ophy teacher from some 25 years beforehand:

It was in my second year, studying a required course in the history of philosophy.

The professor’s instructional method was such that he talked about a philosopher,

defended him, and then criticized him...He reviewed all the criticisms put against this

philosopher or that idea, and asked us to think of aspects and questions that were not

previously mentioned. It was original, creative and very informal...Most meaningful

was the integrity that the professor conveyed, which even surpassed his enthusiasm

in teaching and his extraordinary verbal skills, which stunned me...

Identification of their professors with prior scholars afforded students an unprecedented

opportunity—through identification and committed engagement—to explore important

academic topics with great seriousness on their part too. Because of their enticing iden-

tification, students could bracket external disengaging factors (Yair 2000a, c) and thus

immerse themselves with ideas and explore their logic; they were also able to fully engage

with biographies and intellectual agendas of outstanding intellectuals. The respondents

suggested that their professor’s passion was transformed into their own. Furthermore, by

‘‘talking the talk and walking the walk’’—namely by committing themselves to definite

perspectives and showing that they live what they preach about—outstanding professors

achieved two goals: They enabled an in-depth understanding of the subject matter, and

they imbued pure theoretical knowledge with significance. The following quote is another

good exemplar for this theme:

It was in a master’s-level course titled ‘‘Between Marx and Nietzsche.’’ The pro-

fessor taught the material in an exceptional way. He was very provocative. I didn’t

really identify with him. But on the other hand, I identified with his integrity and

admired it. He was very sincere, very real; he was willing to reveal himself. This was

his instructional strategy – sincerity with no limits...

The two examples clearly relate to the passionate nature of outstanding teachers. The

image that emerges is of a knowledgeable, well-versed and well-read professor. But the

most striking feature relates to issues of identity and engagement. These key experiences in

higher education depict engaging figures that provoke learning by identifying with intel-

lectual giants. Respondents portray them as worthy of emulation because these outstanding

454 High Educ (2008) 55:447–459

123

professors embody the standards of academic excellence and the concept of intellectual

integrity with live examples and authentic meaning. These professors seem to match

Fried’s (1995) description of passionate teachers in the Prologue to his book:

To be a passionate teacher is to be someone in love with a field of knowledge, deeply

stirred by issues and ideas that challenge our world, down to the dilemmas and

potentials of the young people who come into class each day – or captivated by all of

these.

The virtuosi—excellence in the science of teaching

About 25% of the narratives focused on instructional strategies. However, it was difficult to

separate instruction from the persona of professors and their relations with their students,

because respondents have welded the ‘‘science’’ part of teaching to the previously men-

tioned topics. Respondents reported that during their key experiences they witnessed their

professors combining their persona with a mythical image of the ultimate teacher. Out-

standing instructors bridged the chasm between their own personality and their role as

teachers. They were united with their role. They were viewed as teachers par excellence.

The interviewees remembered their outstanding teachers as those who embodied the

knowledge and skills that allowed them to intellectually engage a class and lead it into

fresh intellectual vistas. The respondents suggested that this skillful combination of

knowledge and instructional strategies was apparent in the way their professors walked and

talked, thought and spoke. They were remembered as having knowledge at their finger-

tips—always updated and always challenging. They concretely represented an ideal type of

the knowledgeable expert, namely the person who lived the topics s/he talked about, who

got excited again with every meeting, who transcended disciplinary boundaries and con-

nected different spheres of knowledge.

The respondents described their professors with amazement and awe, even years after

studying in their classes. Some described their extensive knowledge in scientific litera-

tures; others mentioned their astounding memories. Some interviewees referred to their

professors’ unique and enigmatic thinking styles. Something in these abilities—being

authentically engaged, natural and yet highly-skilled as teachers—was perceived as

enthusing and even fantastic. Some reports suggested that outstanding professors reflected

intellectual rarity: Depth, seriousness, expertise, and creativity. They were perceived as

living representatives of an unbroken chain of academic excellence. In that capacity, they

succeeded in creating unprecedented levels of intrinsic motivation. The following extract

illustrates how such a professor energized her class, establishing a lifetime event:

It was during a year-long course on management that was taught by a professor, a

very special woman. The way she taught was instructive. She stood in front of an

uneasy class, succeeding in encouraging listening at amazing levels. I was especially

impressed with her memory. She managed to run a lecture, covering a lot of material,

without ever touching books. She stood in front of the class, at times making contact

with students, and began a question-answer series so as to make sure that all students

made the most of their abilities. The students were really enthusiastic, and the

meeting reached high levels of excitement.

This and similar narratives clearly point to exceptional teaching abilities. Outstanding

professors had the expertise to motivate students; they knew how to breathe life into

High Educ (2008) 55:447–459 455

123

seemingly boring ideas (at least from their students’ perspective). They knew how to split

classes for group work—when it was necessary or commendable—but they also knew how

to lead a large and heterogeneous class when required. They were adept at using new

technologies (using movies, pictures and sound in computerized presentations); but when

these gadgets were unavailable, they leaned on active Socratic dialogic methods. They

were capable of taking trivial daily issues and analyzing them in a fresh and surprising

manner. And they were capable of accomplishing all this with seeming effortlessness. The

following citation provides another example of this theme of excellence in teaching. A 60-

year-old respondent described a one-time encounter with a well-known professor of reli-

gious studies:

He analyzed ‘Akedat Itzhak’ (literally ‘‘Isaac’s Binding’’)... in a very, very special

way, the way only he knows. He analyzed the chapter the way he usually does, a

deep literary analysis that is based on the text; and although it was based on the text,

it was a very moving class, very interesting, very instructive... He was a religious

humanist, with broad horizons, and knowledgeable. He had unusual expressive

abilities and extraordinary skills in engaging students.

The two citations presented in this section indeed point to the skillful performance of

outstanding teachers. Surprisingly, it seems that both cases reflect more than merely

making good impressions with skillful control of the tricks of teaching. Rather, respondents

expressed awe and adoration reminiscent of encounters with the sacred—of touching

excellence at its very core. Indeed, there is an air of transcendence in these recollections.

Respondents saw these notable professors as having risen above the divide between their

lives as individuals and their ‘‘performance’’ in class. This indeed reflects the passionate

nature of these key experiences: The common divisions between cognitive and emotional

experiences, between didactic and experiential methods have disappeared. These were,

indeed, optimal experiences (Csikszentmihalyi 1990, 1997).

Discussion

The evidence presented above points to the centrality of the personalized environments that

passionate professors constitute as precursors of key educational experiences in higher

education. It suggests that these memorable figures were passionate about their subject

matter, toward their duties as teachers, and most significantly toward their students. They

were neither restrained by rules, nor were they hesitant in expressing their thoughts.

Rather, they were creative, expressive and authentic. They formed personal, caring and

trustful relations with their students. As a result, they provided a productive academic

environment that had long-term effects on respondents’ lives.

Academic and administrative rules and requirements commonly constitute important

parts of the teachers’ role. They make for a pre-determined persona, pre-figured and even

fabricated. However, exceptional professors were able to transcend these interpersonal

confines and presented their true individuality. By being personal and passionate,

extraordinary professors were able to transcend common normative and phenomenological

boundaries. They were able to transcend, for example, the common boundary between the

role and the person. Students sensed that their teachers’ hearts and mouths were one; that

they practiced what they preached and presented authentic personas. Their passionate

bearing gave students a glimpse of academic virtuosity, constituting a model that students

attempt to emulate even long after having finished their studies.

456 High Educ (2008) 55:447–459

123

Furthermore, university administrations sometime require faculty to coordinate their

instruction and even teach a pre-ordained standard course. Such external regulations set a

split between the syllabus and the person of the professor. But the evidence suggests that

great teachers succeeded in surpassing this split. They made it clear that what they taught is

what they were really thinking as scholars. And when they taught the theories of other

scholars, they did so vehemently, as if they were the original thinkers. Interestingly, they

were not perceived as presenting a false show. They were seen to be keen about these

ideas; they were reported to have been engaged with the intellectual discussion as if their

own intellectual standing was at stake. Their passionate demeanor provided a paradigmatic

exemplar for homo academicus—the true scholar (Damrosch 1995).

This authentic demeanor helped dissolve some other demarcations. For example, using

personalized relations made age and status differences irrelevant. Formal procedures and

hierarchical relations were also diffused. In that democratic, yet highly challenging

environment, students felt like they formed an integral part of the chain of academic life—

that they were on an equal standing with true scholars, and that their thoughts were as

worthy of attending to as those propounded by others. Under these circumstances students

became highly engaged with instruction, putting much effort into meeting their professors’

high standards and expectations. This is another reason for their positive appraisal of these

rare moments in higher education.

The analysis suggests that such episodes can only be partly planned for and organized;

while there are transferable technical elements in such experiences, which can be incor-

porated in every course and lecture, it is rather difficult to engineer personalized and

passionate instruction. Put simply, personalized and passionate instruction cannot be

simply administered, and authentic demeanors cannot be taught as a fabricated skill. This

in no way downplays the importance of teaching faculty the technicalities of good

instruction; and it doesn’t mean that academic administrators should not encourage

teachers in higher education to implement diverse instructional methods in their lectures. It

does suggest, however, that these technical skills may not be enough to create key edu-

cational experiences, because the latter emanate from the personal virtue of the lecturers

and their relations with their students. Hence, if administrators seek to enrich students’

learning experiences in higher education, they should exert efforts to construct an aca-

demic environment that facilitates personal relations and passionate instruction (Schulman

2004; Shulman 2004).

In a certain sense, this proposal flies in the face of current efforts to standardize

instruction. Many universities indeed undergo a process of standardization, which results

from tighter coupling of higher education to economic realities (Lucas 1996; Noll 1998;

Slaughter and Leslie 1997). Growing economic dependence of non-elite and public

institutions increases the regulation of academic work, including the domain of instruction

and learning (Altbach 1999). The current study suggests, however, that one unintended

outcome of this trend may result in weakening the potential effects of higher education.

Growing standardization may hamper individuality, and ready-made curricula may inhibit

initiative and creativity. Under these conditions faculty may find it difficult to maintain the

passions of ‘‘homo academicus.’’ Consequently, students may be merely exposed to the

shades of academic virtuosity.

To conclude: The scholarship of teaching is not simply amenable for transfer or dis-

tribution, but there are steps to encourage its proliferation. Passionate professors who

constitute personal relations with their students cannot be routinely administered, but they

can be provided with academic freedom that allows them to sincerely put actions to their

words. Similarly, key experiences cannot simply be engineered, but it is possible to create

High Educ (2008) 55:447–459 457

123

an academic environment that provides more opportunities for such episodes to materi-

alize. Given such an academic environment, students may find more rewarding experiences

in higher education, with more of them embodying the imprints of academic virtuosity in

their own lives.

Appendix 1

Interview protocol

Each of us has memories of good educational experiences; some from a young age while

others even took place recently. This study focuses on memories of positive educational

experiences. It aims to learn about the ‘‘instructional strategies’’ and activities that were

evident in these episodes.

We request that you tell us about your best three educational experiences (those that

inspired you and left a mark on your life). These experiences might have taken place in any

context (at home, in a youth group, in school, at the university, etc.). After telling about the

experiences please fill out this questionnaire on the best of the three experiences. When the

word ‘‘teacher’’ appears in the items it refers to the educating person in that context.

The interviews were conducted around the following guiding questions:

1. How was the activity organized? What did the ‘‘instructor’’ do during the activity?

What was the learning like?

2. What did you feel during the activity? What was the strongest sensation or feeling that

you had?

3. What were the long-term effects of this experience on your life? What decisions did

you make after this incident?

References

Abbott, A. (2001). Time matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Altbach, P. G. (1999). Harsh realities: The professoriate faces a new century. In P. G. Altbach, R. O.

Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 271–297).Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Boyer, E. L. (1990a). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Boyer, E. L. (1990b). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. New York: Scribner.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York:

HarperCollins.Damrosch, D. (1995). We scholars: Changing the culture of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Entwistle, N. (2000). Approaches to studying and levels of understanding: The influence of teaching and

assessment. In J. C. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory andresearch (pp. 156–218). New York: Agathon.

Feldman, K. A. (1976). The superior college teacher from the students’ view. Research in Higher Education,5, 243–288.

Flowers, L., Osterlind, S. J., Pascarella, E. T., & Pierson, C. T. (2001). How much do students learnin college? Cross-sectional estimates using the college BASE. The Journal of Higher Education, 72,565–583.

458 High Educ (2008) 55:447–459

123

Fried, R. (1995). The passionate teacher: A practical guide. Boston: Beacon Press.Halpern, D. F. (1998). Scholarship in psychology: A paradigm for the twenty-first century. American

Psychologist, 53, 1292–1297.Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding

effective teaching-dimensions and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 699–729.Kreber, C. (2005). Charting a critical course on the scholarship of university teaching movement. Studies in

Higher Education, 30, 389–405.Lucas, C. J. (1996). Crisis in the academy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Griffin.Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: The critical

issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52, 1187–1197.McAdams, D. P. (1996). Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework for

studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 295–321.McAdams, D. P., Hoffman, B. J., Mansfield, E. D., & Day, R. (1996). Themes of agency and communion in

significant autobiographical scenes. Journal of Personality, 64, 339–377.Noll, R. G. (1998). Challenges to research universities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Pintrich, P., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change – the role of motivational

beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of EducationalResearch, 63, 167–199.

Sarason, S. B. (1999). Teaching as a performing art. New York: Teachers College.Schulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational

Review, 57, 1–22.Schulman, L. (2004). Visions of the possible: Models for campus support for the scholarship of teaching. In

M. L. Andrews (Ed.), Scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: Contributions ofresearch universities (pp. 9–24). Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard EducationalReview, 57, 1–22.

Shulman, L. S. (2004). Visions of the possible: Models for campus support for the scholarship of teaching.In W. E. Becker & M. L. Andrews (Eds.), Scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education:Contributions of research universities (pp. 9–24). Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Singer, J. A. (2004). Narrative identity and meaning making across the adult lifespan: An introduction.Journal of Personality, 72, 437–460.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurialuniversity. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sorenson, A. B., & Hallinan, M. T. (1977). A reconceptualization of school effects. Sociology of Education,50, 273–289.

Stephenson, F. (2001). Extraordinary Teachers: The Essence of Excellent Teaching. Kanas City; AndrewsMcMeel Publishing.

Yair, G. (2000a). Educational battlefields in America: The tug-of-war over students’ engagement withinstruction. Sociology of Education, 73, 247–269.

Yair, G. (2000b). Not just about time: Instructional practices and productive time in school. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 36, 485–512.

Yair, G. (2000c). Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects students’ learning expe-riences. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 191–210.

Yair, G. (2003). Decisive moments and key experiences: Expanding paradigmatic boundaries in the study ofschool effects. In C. A. Torres & A. Antikainen (Eds.), The international handbook on the sociology ofeducation: An international assessment of new research and theory (pp. 124–142). Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

High Educ (2008) 55:447–459 459

123