
































Microsoft Word - 69764-Article Text-218383-1-10-20210629 (3).docx


Emerging	Perspectives	
ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca	
	

Corresponding author: stefan.rothschuh@ucalgary.ca 
 

    
 

Graduate Students’ Meaning-making of Teaching and Learning in an 
International Doctoral Forum  

Stefan Rothschuh, Jody Dennis, Jingzhou (Jo) Liu, Jennifer MacDonald, Sylvie Roy, Marlon 
Simmons  

University of Calgary 

The purpose of this paper was to make meaning of doctoral students’ experiences as 
they expanded their understanding of teaching and learning through reflection. Using 
case study as a methodology approach, a group of doctoral candidates examined 
purposeful events that unfolded during their participation in an international doctoral 
forum in China. Guided by transformative learning theory and reflective practice 
inquiry, the research findings indicated that graduate students’ perceptions of 
teaching and learning in an international context were shaped by their various 
identities, past experiences, cultural backgrounds, and social interactions. The 
research also illustrated how participation in the forum supported doctoral 
candidates in advancing their scholarly identities as they reflected upon 
transformative moments throughout the event. The implications for the Scholarship of 
Teaching and Learning (SoTL) were significant as reflective activities surrounding 
the doctoral forum helped to explain how transformative learning experiences could 
contribute to doctoral students’ transition into academia. 
 
Keywords: Reflective Practice, SoTL, Doctoral Student Identity, Transformative 
Learning  

 
Rothschuh, S., Dennis, J., Liu, J., MacDonald, J., Roy, S., Simmons, M.  (2021). Graduate 
students’ meaning-making of teaching and learning in an international doctoral forum. 
Emerging Perspectives, 5(1), 1-15. 

  
 

My heart and mind were wide open that day as we shared our wisdom, 
our understandings, our experiences, and best practices in our schools. 
Deep down inside me, I felt appreciation for the common understanding 
we shared in having a similar purpose to embrace learning at the forefront 
of every conscious decision and action for the sake of our students. 
Although our own lived experiences were vastly different, the entire room 
of educators desired to learn and know of each other’s work performed 
on a daily basis.  
(Excerpt from the second author’s personal recollections  
of the doctoral forum) 

 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

2 

With this paper, we explore our perceptions of teaching and learning that emerged during 
our participation in an international doctoral forum in Beijing, China. Our group of four doctoral 
students and two professors from a research university’s Faculty of Education examine how these 
experiences informed our meaning-making and understanding of the events that unfolded. We 
build our discussion around our participation in the international doctoral forum that we attended 
as a group. This forum led us to reflect on our scholarly progression and our views on teaching 
and learning. The opening vignette, for instance, showcases how one of the participating doctoral 
students recognized a mutual teaching codex when conversing with educational leaders during the 
conference. Drawing on these and other reflective accounts, we illustrate how doctoral students’ 
reflective inquiry can lay the foundation for further advancements in the Scholarship of Teaching 
and Learning (SoTL). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is a practice that is built on 
systematic inquiry of student learning, that draws on the reciprocal relationship between teaching 
and learning in post- secondary settings (Boyer, 1990). Lastly, we point out how transformative 
learning experiences during graduate school can support doctoral candidates in advancing their 
scholarly identities and help them transition into academia.   

Graduate School and Doctoral Identity 

Doctoral students face many challenges when navigating graduate school, some of which 
are more explicitly recognizable than others. For instance, Austin (2002) pointed out how changing 
demands characterize the evolving nature of institutions of higher education. Consequently, 
graduate students must adapt accordingly to pursue their graduate education and transition into 
academic careers. One of the changes involves a shift from a teaching to a learning-focus at many 
institutions, often to accommodate an increasingly diverse student population (Austin, 2002). 
These and other demands fundamentally impact graduate experiences. Factors such as previous 
work experiences, family situations, or the person’s age also shape the transition processes that 
take place during graduate school, and thus also contribute to students’ academic profile formation. 
In fact, doctoral students draw upon a multitude of diverse identities by taking on elements of a 
specific cultural group to determine how they fit with internal values and beliefs (Foot et al., 2014).  
This maturation practice not only shapes doctoral learning processes and scholarly identity 
formation, but also determines how graduate students fit in and perceive teaching and learning. As 
future and current academics in the field of education, we aimed at identifying these undercurrents 
of our doctoral identity formation. We also planned to showcase how our perception of teaching 
and learning was shaped by our layered identities as educators, practitioners, doctoral students, 
and academics.   

Context of Our Study 

Our group of four doctoral students, accompanied by two professors from a research 
university in Western Canada, recently attended an international doctoral forum in Beijing, China. 
The forum was the key moment of an agreement between institutions of higher education in 
Australia, China, and Canada, whereby doctoral students come together annually for a week-long 
symposium. Our diverse group of Canadian delegates included international and Canadian 
doctoral students, as well as two university professors in the field of education. Participating 
doctoral students had prior practical teaching experiences at the K-12 and the undergraduate level, 
including social studies at the middle school level, mathematics and physical education at the high 
school level, or undergraduate courses on health and wellness in education. The forum 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

3 

encompassed preparatory face-to-face meetings before travelling abroad with the intent to build 
relationships among the group. We also scheduled regular reflective activities including individual 
and group sessions before, during, and after the international forum. During these initial meetings, 
we realized that our experiences and perceptions of teaching and learning in an international 
context were scattered, which we attributed to our diverse personal backgrounds, as well as our 
scholarship of varied subs-specialties in education. Moreover, we found it challenging to imagine 
how our diverse identities would impact our understanding of educational activities during the 
forum, and how our doctoral student identities would advance and/or transform We attended the 
forum in Beijing with these uncertainties in mind and continued to engage in our regular reflective 
activities. Upon our return to Canada, we were soon able to formulate the research question that 
guided this study. 

The overarching question this study attempted to address was, how do graduate students’ 
experiences and perceptions inform their meaning-making practices of teaching and learning 
during an international doctoral forum? We responded to the question by drawing on our 
experiences during the international seminar, and by expanding on our reflective practice inquiry 
before, during, and after attending the forum. The ongoing reflections helped us in coming to know 
our multifaceted experiences in China and understand our perceptions of teaching and learning we 
encountered abroad. Emerging research on doctoral students’ reflections on teaching and learning 
has demonstrated how transformative learning experiences can be at the heart of advancements in 
SoTL (Kreber, 2006).  

Upon returning to Canada, the group of doctoral candidates extracted important lessons 
learned from the experience of the forum. They explored how transformation in teaching and 
learning in an international context was perceived from six different perspectives including the 
views of their professors. After engaging in written reflective practice for this article, the group 
drew on two exemplary vignettes that illustrate the diverse nature of experiences and ways of 
coming to know, such as knowledge construction for SoTL (Kreber, 2006). The vignettes were 
written by two graduate students in education who participated in the forum. One individual 
worked as a teaching principal at the time and the other student worked as a high school 
mathematics teacher before starting his PhD studies. Both vignettes provide comprehensive 
reflections by comparing, complementing, and combining key insights from the international trip 
with the ongoing scholarly discourse in SoTL.  

Ultimately, the outcome of our study, this article, was also intended to spark discussions 
on transformative teaching and learning and their influence on doctoral identity formation. We 
attempted to relate our reflective accounts on perceptions of teaching and learning to transition 
processes in graduate school. By expanding the discourse to doctoral identity formation, we were 
coming to know our developing scholarly identity as educational researchers. In addition, we 
situated this study in a larger field of inquiry on socialization processes and graduate school and 
doctoral identity formation. 

Organization of this Paper 

In this article we present how our understanding of teaching and learning as graduate 
students and professors has evolved as a result of our inquiry. The doctoral forum in China served 
as a lever in which we used self-reflection as a tool to examine how our experiences and 
perceptions informed our meaning-making of teaching and learning in an international context. 
With this inquiry, we attempt to contribute to the ongoing discourse on reflective practice and 
transformative learning and how it informs SoTL, and ultimately doctoral identities. In the 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

4 

following section, we describe three major theoretical frameworks that guided our inquiry. Our 
research was framed as a case study, whereby we articulate our rationale and our approach in 
determining the cases’ boundaries in the methodology section. We then include two vignettes in 
the article, which illustrate individual accounts of participants’ experiences during the international 
forum in China. Simultaneously, the vignettes showcase how the issues raised by our research 
question could be addressed by reflective accounts to come to know our collective understanding 
of teaching and learning in graduate school. We conclude this article by pointing out how our 
identities as educators and emerging educational researchers have been shaped by our experiences 
in Beijing, and how our perceptions of teaching and learning have progressed by attending the 
international doctoral forum.  

 
Theoretical Perspective  

 
First, we discuss how Mezirow’s (1991) Transformative Learning theory can be applied to 

SoTL. Following that, we also briefly examine a larger body of literature on SoTL for further 
critical analysis of our findings (Boyer, 1990; Felton, 2013; Kreber 2006; Kuh 2001, 2009; 
Trigwell & Prosser, 1991). Next, we describe Schön’s (1983) Reflective Practice framework and 
its implications for the advancement of SoTL. Finally, we outline how doctoral identity formation 
processes have been characterized and we discuss how socialization processes in graduate school 
shape future academics (Austin, 2002; Foot et al., 2014).  

SoTL as Transformative Learning  

The history of SoTL goes back thirty years, whereby Boyer (1990) laid the seminal work 
in the field. Boyer founded the four aspects that are often considered to be foundational to SoTL, 
which are the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of 
application, and the scholarship of teaching (Boyer, 1990). Shulman (2000) built upon Boyer’s 
(1990) groundwork by exploring how deep learning could be systematically improved. One of 
Shulman’s (2000) strategies focused on enhancing the teaching quality among higher education 
academics, so that the result of the practice of teaching becomes true learning. For the purpose of 
this essay, SoTL was defined as the systematic reflection of teaching and learning (McKinney & 
Jarvis, 2009). This definition stated the features necessary for teaching to be classified as a 
scholarship activity. 

Mezirow’s (1991) transformative learning theory explained how adult learning was 
structured, for instance, by determining the processes that transformed our frame of reference, we 
utilized that to interpret and make meaning of our experiences. Transformative learning is a 
constructivist theory of adult learning, which contends that different factors help us to construct 
meaning from our experiences (Mezirow, 1991). The experiences are then reflected upon and 
interpreted, and the process results in the formulation of meaning (Mezirow, 1991). Furthermore, 
Mezirow (1991) summarized his theory by arguing that learning was a paradigm with five 
interrelated contexts: “a meaning perspective; the communication process; a line of action; a self-
concept; and the external situation” (pp. 34-35). In other words, diverse adult learners interpret the 
same experience in their own personal contexts because of various factors originating in childhood 
memories, culture, belief systems, values, and education. 

Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, therefore, is interwoven with SoTL. Kreber 
(2006) explained that reflections for transformative learning can be linked to SoTL by integrating 
two vital elements: (i) the construction of knowledge, which can be internalized through reflection, 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

5 

and (ii) the critical analysis of goals and intentions of post-secondary education. By recalling 
previous experiences, learners are able to examine their own assumptions, make personal 
connections, and engage in critical thinking about their own personal development in teaching and 
learning (Auten & Twigg, 2015; Felten, 2013; Kreber, 2006; Kuh, 2001, 2009). We drew on these 
SoTL frameworks to explore our own transformations that were grounded at the international 
forum, and to address the challenge of becoming integrated teaching and learning professionals in 
graduate school (Colbeck, 2008).   

Schön’s (1983) Reflective Practice 

 Our reflective inquiry was guided by Schön’s conceptualization of reflective practice as 
described in his 1983 seminal book The Reflective Practitioner. Schön (1983) laid out how 
reflective practice inquiry determines professional development and continuous learning. 
Reflection was described “as the deliberate, purposeful, metacognitive thinking and/or action in 
which educators engage in order to improve their professional practice” (Schön, 1983, p. 2). 
Therefore, reflective practice is the ability to reflect on one's actions for the purpose of engaging 
in professional learning.  

Schön (1983) defined the concept of knowing-in-action, which was described as acting 
based on an intuitive understanding of the situation. In other words, practitioners often apply their 
professional knowledge to instrumental decision-making processes without consulting additional 
sources in certain situations (intuitive knowledge and decision making). Knowing-in-action is thus 
particularly prominent in the teaching profession, as teachers are required to constantly analyze 
situations and base their following decisions on their understanding of these actions and scenarios. 
While it may seem self-explanatory at first, Schön (1983) highlighted how this ongoing seamless 
(inter)action of educational professionals and their students is indeed professional practice and 
requires further study to fully comprehend the complex underlying processes. In fact, students also 
engage in a form of knowing-in-action, as they constantly adapt to situations of learning by 
applying their knowledge and expertise. Conclusively, situations of learning are not 
predetermined, but rather emerge from the ongoing knowing-in-action of all participating 
individuals. 

Reflection-in-action has been described as the generation of meaning from other 
individuals’ knowing-in-action (Schön, 1983). In a teaching context, observers can assign meaning 
to children’s knowing-in-action when analyzing their (inter)actions in situations of learning. 
Similarly, one can also observe a teacher’s actions and thus determine which underlying processes 
have guided this individual’s professional practice. Coming to know a professional practice by 
constantly engaging in reflection on the ongoing interaction is essentially reflection-in-action. For 
the purposes of this article, we engaged with the framework by coming to know our own 
understanding of situations of learning by generating interpretations of the knowing-in-action that 
took place. This process was further determined by our emerging scholarly identities grounded in 
professional educational backgrounds from various cultures, as well as our insights in educational 
research and scholarly practice during our doctoral studies. We elaborate further how these aspects 
impacted our analysis in a later section of this paper. 
  



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

6 

Identity Formation in Graduate School 

Graduate school as socialization process  
The graduate experience has been described as a socialization process of future faculty 

members, or a preparation phase for academic careers (Austin, 2002). The socialization during 
graduate school sets the precedent for careers in the academy and depends on a multitude of 
factors, some of which are changing personal values, individuals’ attitudes and expectations, but 
also aspects such as age, family situation, or previous employment. New faculty members continue 
to be subject to high expectations, some of which include the anticipation that graduate school 
forms integrated professionals who are able to apply research skills to improve teaching and 
students’ learning (Colbeck, 2008).  

Austin (2002) highlighted the importance of observation in graduate school, also known as 
“apprentice of observation” (p. 104), which included observations of faculty, peers, and university 
administrators. These impressions ultimately determine graduate students’ transition into faculty 
positions in academia. Austin (2002) reported that many graduate students’ expectations remain 
unfulfilled, because their initial passion tends to be overshadowed by a lack of guidance, a focus 
on research over teaching, and unclear understanding of faculty roles and responsibilities. We 
addressed some of these difficulties by exploring our own socialization processes with regards to 
our experiences during an international doctoral forum. Drawing on Austin’s (2002) notion of the 
apprenticeship of observation, our doctoral learning was impacted sustainably by observing the 
conference interactions in Beijing. Some of the observations we made during the forum 
encompassed cross-national faculty interaction and exchange of official, departmental gifts. Others 
required our doctoral students to observe, process, and actively apply insights, such as briefly 
summarizing own research interests, or engaging in small talk with faculty members from various 
disciplines and institutional backgrounds.  

Doctoral identity formation 
The transition processes during graduate school were also described as fundamental for 

identity formation processes of future academics. Foot et al. (2014), summarized the transition 
from past and professional lives to scholarly identities as a transformative process that occur within 
various academic and non-academic contexts. For instance, a doctoral student is exposed to 
institutional contexts of the specific college or university, the departmental and supervisory 
perspectives, as well as the overarching research context of the discipline. Previous belief systems 
and perceptions also influence the developing academic. According to recent research, doctoral 
students navigate among these contexts when building their developing doctoral profile, usually 
by going through multiple temporary identities whose values and beliefs overlap and may even 
contradict each other (Foot et al., 2014; Kovalcikiene & Buksnyte-Marmiene, 2015). 
Simultaneously, previous identities are constantly reshaped and reconsidered (Colbeck, 2008). It 
is therefore crucial that doctoral students are provided with the time, resources, and the appropriate 
guidance to navigate these transformation processes in order to fully advance a scholarly stance 
and an academic profile. 

Foot et al. (2014) identified four disruptions in doctoral identity formation that tended to 
occur: Comparison to others, fear of the future, not knowing where one “fits”, and fear of failure.  
To help formation processes take place, Foot et al. suggested self-study so that emergent doctoral 
identities could be advanced more easily without ongoing disruptions as described above. Personal 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

7 

reflections can support identity development and should therefore be regularly pursued by future 
academics, so that a clear image of the future professional academic profile can be advanced 
(Kovalcikiene & Buksnyte-Marmiene, 2015). In terms of our visit to China, we brought a 
multitude of previous identities to the international forum, since all members of our delegation had 
been shaped by their different personal and professional backgrounds as well as their disciplinary 
specializations. Our reflections illustrated these underlying professional identities as educators and 
future educational researchers, for example, in terms of our past experiences and associated 
generation of meaning, but also by our disciplinary focus and diverse interests. The visit to China 
helped us to shine light onto our emerging academic identity formation, especially since we were 
able to perceive and review our Western Canadian institutional practice and our disciplinary lenses 
more clearly in the international context. In the following section, we explain the methodological 
considerations for our inquiry. 

 
Methodology 

 
Case study, a way of investigating complex problems, continues to be a significant and 

widely accepted research methodology in education (Merriam, 1998, 2009). We aligned more 
closely with Merriam’s interpretive perspective on case study even though we were aware of other 
diverse interpretations of this methodology. We followed Merriam’s (1998, 2009) holistic, flexible 
approach to case study, which was a constructivist, interpretive method to the inquiry. This echoed 
our personal beliefs that varying individual experiences were shaped by our backgrounds, culture, 
childhood memories, and individual contexts. Merriam (1998) defined a case study as “an 
intensive, holistic description and analysis of a bounded phenomenon” (p. xiii) and emphasized 
how it can explore and describe multifaceted problems. The salient feature of Merriam’s (1998) 
case study methodology is that a case is viewed as a bounded entity. Our group of doctoral students 
fenced in the case by place, time, and participants in order to determine what we were going to 
study (Merriam, 1998). The case, therefore, was the doctoral forum in Beijing, China. The context 
of the case was bound by the time frame of our week-long participation in the forum; the place, a 
university in Beijing; the six participants from the Western Canadian university, as well as 
participants from the local post-secondary institution and their counterparts from Australia. 
Additionally, the case was also bound by our focus on participants’ perceptions of teaching and 
learning during the international doctoral forum in China, whereby we explicitly acknowledged 
how these had been shaped by our prior experiences. 

Our Experiences: Two Exemplary Vignettes 

The vignettes were guided by Schön’s (1983) principles of reflective practice, which 
manifested as our knowing-in-action when observing teaching and learning during the doctoral 
forum in China. The participants’ experiences as educators in Western school systems, and their 
perceptions as emerging educational researchers impacted observations and reflections. Vignette 
one, for instance, was written by a practicing teaching middle school principal pursuing a doctoral 
degree simultaneously. Therefore, descriptions often entailed an analytic part in which the events 
and impressions are compared to previous experiences as a teacher and a principal. Indicative 
words such as “remind of” or “seem” show the persons’ attempts to assign meaning to observations 
that appeared unusual or incomprehensible (owing to a language barrier), thus differing from the 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

8 

individuals’ own professional practice. Both accounts were written in first-person narration, which 
highlights the personal importance of the two events for the delegation members. 
Vignette One: Reflections on Attending a Meeting of Secondary School Principals 

On the second day of the forum, our delegation was invited to attend a university-based 
professional development meeting for principals. I entered the front steps of the local, inner-city 
university on this cold fall morning as a doctoral student, but I could not help but think of my 
elementary students I left behind in Western Canada. I already missed them. Coming from Canada, 
as a teaching principal, I was surrounded by a new culture, student scholars and professors from 
international countries, and a deep longing to belong. Navigating my way between being a leader 
in my school and doctoral student was both a privilege as well as a struggle for me: As a curious 
learner, who neither knew the local protocol, nor the doctoral procedures and etiquette, I soon 
became grateful for others around me. My inner desire to learn and grow gave me the confidence 
to trust in other participants’ leadership. On that day I became a follower. Also, I became an 
observer, a listener, and an open-minded, reflective practitioner as each moment unfolded. 

I entered a room where a large group of principals dressed in all black waited for us. We 
sat informally around a large table, and I remember the moment distinctly as I thought to myself: 
“You are a follower. You are a learner. Just listen and watch.” As my eyes gazed around the room 
with the distinct smell of cigarette smoke, all eyes were on our delegation and their faces showed 
expectation and interest. I wondered if they were practitioners or scholars. I also wondered if they 
were visible instructional leaders in their schools. I was curious if their students hugged them. I 
wanted to know if their teachers trusted them. As these thoughts went through my mind, I realized 
that I was one of them because of our similar positions in schools, and yet I yearned to gain their 
wisdom about their own school leadership practices. I also yearned to know if they felt a 
responsibility to their students to help them learn and grow. Deep down I had hoped the principals 
wanted to help each other and reciprocate by creating new knowledge together. Calmly glancing 
over to my university professors to observe their behaviour, I tried to mirror their actions and 
follow presumable university etiquette because I wanted to fit in.  

Engaging in dialogue, I listened attentively, as the group shared insights on the standards 
and requirements for becoming a principal, as well as the ways in which educational reform was 
taking place in the local country. I felt a deep connection with these school leaders as they 
explained electives and options to customize and personalize learning for their students. I realized 
there was an unspoken relationship with school principalship and how we were situated in school 
governance. As I entered into this new relationship with practices different from the ones in my 
own country, I came to know that the principals were compelled to make a difference in the lives 
of their students by helping them personally to grow into their authenticity. The principals’ 
wisdom, what worked in practice, spoke to me because I had been promoting differentiated 
instruction at my school for a while and could easily relate to the challenges they highlighted. I 
sensed a strong desire for transformation in their schools. It was the same deep desire for change 
that my colleagues and I share. In our diverse countries, we all wanted our students to flourish.  

As we engaged in more generative dialogue, the principals in the room wanted to know 
how we connect to students’ parents in Western Canada. Without hesitation, I immediately stood 
up and shared my own personal experience of inviting parents into our school to observe how 
students learn in our differentiated and flexible classrooms. I said that we have an open-door policy 
to parents, and encourage parents to come into our school classrooms to view and participate in 
our learning environments, where we have flexible seating, as well as use technology to assist in 
reading and writing. I was surprised by the silence in the room that followed my comment. Did I 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

9 

say something they did not understand? Was the language barrier too much? My impression was 
that the principals could not relate their school practice to these experiences. I quietly and humbly 
sat down and pondered the moments we spent together as principals in one room. I should have 
listened and observed, but my own intuitive understanding of the situation, the leader within me, 
compelled me to speak up and share my experience. I was engaged in my own professional 
learning, and I instinctively knew that to generate knowledge, I needed to engage in dialogue for 
learning to take place. My heart and mind were wide open that day as we shared our wisdom, our 
understandings, our experiences, and best practices in our schools. Deep down inside me, I felt 
appreciation for the common understanding we shared in having a similar purpose to embrace 
learning at the forefront of every conscious decision and action for the sake of our students. 
Although our own lived experiences were vastly different, the entire room of educators desired to 
learn and know of each other’s work performed on a daily basis.        

At the end of the international forum, as I left the front steps of the university in Beijing 
after seven unforgettable days, my life was placed in a reflective pause as I pondered on teaching 
and learning. I will forever recall the time filled with rich dialogue, research presentations, 
observations of teachers and practices from an international perspective, and the many cultural 
experiences encountered. Most importantly, I had time to reflect upon how I learned this past week, 
and the ways in which I came to know myself as a leader and learner through impressions and 
memories. The experiences during the doctoral forum, my interpersonal dialogue, my emotions, 
the act of listening, my attempts at being a follower, and the non-verbal interactions with others 
resulted in a deep, transformative moment of learning; one that more clearly than ever before 
indicated to me how I had started my journey towards becoming a scholar. I believe my 
transformational development towards doctoral identity has just begun–it is not out of reach, as I 
move closer toward the process of becoming. As I bridge the gap and challenge myself to work 
towards trusting the continuous process in pursuit of my doctoral identity, I will continue to make 
meaning as I systematically reflect on my personal connections, my assumptions, and my doctoral 
education. 

Vignette Two: Reflections on a Lesson Observation during a School Visit 

During one forum day, our delegation was invited to visit a local elementary school. The 
school’s gated campus is located in China, and the part of the city was described as well-respected 
by our local guide, mostly because of the highly educated middle class which resides here. Upon 
our arrival, a uniformed guard removed metal barriers so we could enter the school grounds. We 
were greeted by the school principal. The school grounds seemed deserted at first, but I was able 
to see students inside some of the windows on the ground floor level. Students wore bright pink 
and light blue outfits, which I later identified as girl and boy school uniforms. The campus housed 
several multi-story buildings that made it almost impossible to estimate its size. I found out later 
that the school accommodates approximately 3,000 students. 

During my work as a teacher and educational researcher I had seen many school grounds 
before, but this campus was different: The cleanliness of the yard, and the meticulously well-
trimmed bushes and hedges stood out to me. Moreover, there was little green space or playground 
equipment visible. I was expecting more spacious areas to play, more sports fields, playground 
areas, and a parking lot. This campus, however, reminded me of a private college or a tech 
company estate, and little evidence indicated the presence of a public elementary school. 

As part of our visit, we were able to observe a grade one mathematics lesson. Our 
delegation was led to a large room, where we were expected by a class of students, their teacher, 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

10 

and several other audience members who had already arrived and been seated. In total, there were 
approximately 25 adults observing the class. The room itself had a similar layout to a movie 
theatre, with several rows of comfortable armchair-style seats which allowed good visibility of the 
students on the stage in front. I am sure that the class is normally taught in a different location. 
Similarly, to the school grounds, this space was nothing like I had seen in schools before, and I 
was eager to see the lesson unfold. Some students waved “hello” when we entered the room, but 
they remained seated and looked at us curiously. The groups of four consisted of two girls and two 
boys at each table. Some students talked to their neighbors quietly so that a murmur was 
recognizable, but the overall noise level was very low and would not, at least in my experience, 
allow to conclude the presence of more than 40 students in the room. Many students crossed their 
arms on the table and sat upright, which probably added to my overall impression of a well-
behaved class. During my prior visits to elementary classes in Europe and North America, 
classrooms were usually buzzing with excitement and students would rarely await the beginning 
of a class quietly.              

At the beginning of the lesson, all students got up and bowed towards the teacher. The 
mathematics lesson was taught entirely in the local language. To my surprise, however, I was able 
to follow most parts of the lesson without translation, since many teacher and student activities 
entailed manipulatives and visuals. I think that my personal history as a mathematics teacher and 
teacher educator also allowed me to identify elements and phases of the learning, but it still felt 
strange to see the engaged learners without recognizing any of the ongoing spoken interaction. 

The first part of the lesson was mostly teacher-directed unless individual students were 
questioned, and they responded with short answers. The lesson’s theme was introduced through a 
story, and several accompanying drawings were shown on a digital screen while the teacher read 
the story to students. Students seemed to be able to follow along well and the observable level of 
engagement was high.  

Next, students reached into bowls on their desks and took out a handful of dried beans. 
They placed them on paper plates and most students started counting them. On the teacher’s signal, 
students were expected to stop working on the manipulatives and refocus their attention to the 
front. This refocusing was done by most of the class immediately, and only very few students kept 
working or playing with the beans after the teacher’s spoken signal. I found that this switch of 
attention took place extremely fast, which indicated the high level of discipline of the class. This 
was again different from what I had seen in other elementary classrooms. Besides, students also 
rose from their seats when responding to the teacher’s questions, which added to the impression 
of strictness and discipline. Following another teacher prompt, students filled the beans in clear 
plastic cups, and then compared the height with their group members’ cups. They worked 
individually and in pairs for some time. One could observe how they would place their cups next 
to each other and lower their heads to look at it sideways to compare heights. This independent, 
mostly student-paced inquiry was remarkable, as the attention level still seemed high during this 
part of the lesson. I remember telling my neighbour that every early elementary classroom I had 
seen so far would have been distracted at this point, and I would have expected the beans to be 
spilled everywhere. 

Two students were asked to come to the front and show their measurement technique to 
the class. The teacher pinned corresponding images of cups and beans to the board. Sharing results 
and introducing visual summaries are important steps in inquiry-based learning, and I have seen 
similar approaches in many mathematics classes before. The facilitated exploration of 
measurement strategies seemed to be ongoing as several other techniques followed. For instance, 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

11 

a pencil was introduced to help with the cup-measure strategy, since it could be used as a line of 
reference when placed sideways across both cups. Later, students were asked to empty the beans 
from their cups onto rectangular paper trays. They compared the area covered by the beans to other 
students’ paper trays and were thus also able to conclude which tray had more beans on it.  

During the entire class time, I was impressed by the level of maturity with which the 
teacher-student discussions seemed to take place. Students waited until they were called out and 
the microphone was handed to them, and the vast majority of students followed along attentively. 
I would have associated this advanced level of discourse with older students. Overall, I am very 
grateful for this amazing opportunity and really appreciate the insights we were able to gain.  

 
Discussion 

 
We conducted an in-depth analysis of the lived experiences in the vignettes and our 

reflections associated with these descriptions. Guided by the theoretical frameworks of reflective 
practice inquiry and transformative learning, our group strived to unpack the events during the 
forum more holistically. For example, we discussed how our research foci and our teaching 
experience may have shaped our perceptions. We assumed that the vignettes were a first layer of 
exploration and we sought to examine underlying connections to previous and ongoing 
professional practices and highlighted relations to educational theory (Kreber, 2006). Additionally, 
we discussed how transformative learning and associated meaning-making through reflection 
could be at the heart of advancing SoTL for graduate students by exploring how one participant’s 
teaching epistemology had developed in the process. Last, we examined how the vignettes were 
indicative of our layered identities as educators and scholars, and how these different personas 
affected our reflective practice (Foot et al., 2014). We wanted to unpack this interconnectedness 
to articulate how the events abroad and our ongoing reflexivity shaped our doctoral identity.  

The vignettes provided first-hand impressions of two Canadian delegates’ perceptions of 
teaching and learning, as well as their interpretations of the meaning of these observations and 
experiences. Kreber (2006) noted that practitioners gather information on certain teaching methods 
and associated student learning constantly, mostly by echoing own practices. The individuals’ 
professional backgrounds as teaching principal (vignette one) and former mathematics teacher 
(vignette two) were infused throughout their reflective accounts. In terms of the scenario described 
in vignette two, the doctoral student could identify indicative practices of rich mathematical 
meaning-making and powerful moments of mathematics learning during the observed lesson. We 
wanted to caution how the doctoral student’s interpretations of learning and teaching practices 
were primarily based on reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983). Even though the student spoke another 
local language and an interpreter was absent, he felt that he could intuitively grasp most of the 
intended classroom practices. Based on years of professional teaching, one can assume that the 
doctoral student constantly compared the observed classroom practices to his previous experience 
as an educator in Western classroom, and thus identified similarities and differences. Schön (1983) 
explained how this reflective practice inquiry could be at the heart of continuous learning and 
professional development for practitioners, whereby our paper connected this notion to SoTL and 
graduate student learning. Kreber (2006) described these professional processes of relating 
observations to personal experiences as knowledge construction in SoTL. The doctoral candidate 
perceived students as very well-behaved, which could be interpreted as an embodied realization of 
underlying cultural norms in the Chinese classroom but could also indicate local notions of 
learning and how it takes place. Our own teaching experience was therefore fundamental for 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

12 

gaining insight into the teaching and learning principles of a classroom in China. More generally 
speaking, we suggest that practical teaching experience is a valuable asset for decoding complex 
situations of teaching and learning, especially with regards to using principles of reflective practice 
inquiry (Schön, 1983). Besides, reflective practice inquiry could enable graduate students to 
understand their own perceptions of teaching and learning more clearly and therefore advance 
SoTL to ultimately develop their own academic teaching identity.  

A second focus of our discussion explores how forum activities such as lesson observations 
or leadership debates with local principals promoted transformative experiences. For the scenario 
described in vignette one, the teaching principal troubled her own perception of teaching and 
learning by navigating her role as principal, teacher, observer, learner, doctoral student, and 
follower. This moment in time demonstrated how she became aware, through the process of 
reflection (Schön, 1983), of how much she had in common with the Chinese teachers and 
administrators, and how her impressions resonated with her doctoral research on leadership 
practices of principals.  

Two insights particularly spoke to her perception of leadership and her understanding of 
teaching and learning. First, she found that principals from both countries were motivated by a 
deep commitment to serve the interests and passions of their students. Moreover, she was reassured 
in her belief that student learning involved promoting and serving students’ interests, so that they 
are empowered to make connections between their learning tasks, past personal experiences, and 
the wider social community (Kreber, 2013). This brief moment in China, engaging in a generative 
dialogue with other like-minded principals, gave the doctoral student an understanding of how 
educational practices may vary. She came to know that student learning was at the heart of every 
leader in the room, even though the context, culture, and ideologies, were different. Entering this 
relationship with leaders in another location, enabled the participants to reach consensus on best 
practices (Kreber, 2006), coming to an agreement on the preferred leadership practices at their 
schools. 

Second, the teaching principal had previously perceived learning as “messy” but was able 
to expand her understanding of the process during the follow-up activities of the forum. The 
principal recognized that knowledge construction and learning can be validated through our own 
reflections (Kreber, 2006). As an example, she realized that learning, or coming to know, takes 
place in regard to who we are, our backgrounds, our culture, our past experiences, our memory, 
and our personal motivation to learn. This realization had been transformative because it 
influenced her teaching practice in several ways. She became more conscious of her students’ 
ability to connect their learning to past personal experiences. She understood more holistically 
who they were as learners and how they perceived themselves. Also, she was more aware of how 
students come to know and learn, and how their backgrounds show in this process. The principal’s 
teaching practices were transformed by reflecting on her own learning and relating these insights 
to her students (Schön, 1983).  

The work of vignette one was steeped in Kreber’s (2006, 2013) research on transformative 
learning and its significance for SoTL. The doctoral student reached the insights described above 
by critical analyses of the processes and conditions of the leadership discussion with her Chinese 
counterparts, and her ongoing reflections on the events during the forum. In other words, she 
engaged in moments of emancipatory learning (Kreber, 2006), and thus identified the professional 
practices for leaders in educational environments, regardless of place. As Kreber (2006) pointed 
out, rich reflective accounts could be a starting point of connecting practical knowledge with 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

13 

educational theory, and therefore resulted in an enhanced understanding of SoTL. Thus, 
educational theory can be a second source for knowledge construction in SoTL (Kreber, 2006).  

Kreber’s (2006) notion of research-based knowledge can also be associated with the events 
described in vignette two. The doctoral student was able to generate research-based knowledge 
when he re-engaged with his initial reflective writing of the classroom observations. Rather 
unexpectedly for the doctoral student, he realized that theoretical underpinnings of mathematics 
education research in his area of expertise were unfolding when he re-read through his reflections, 
and he was able to relate his observations to specific educational theory. For instance, students 
explored different strategies for measuring quantity, which led him to conclude that they engaged 
in an in-depth exploration of the number concept. Learners often associated a number of objects 
(beans, fingers, etc.) with cardinality, a one-dimensional idea of number and how it can be 
represented. By comparing filling heights and area sizes, alternative representations of numbers 
were introduced and the doctoral student recognized concepts he had previously read about in 
academic publications (see Lakoff & Núñez, 2000). By adding this second layer of reflection-in-
action (Schön, 1983), the doctoral candidate learned about the transformative potential of the 
events he observed and wrote about (see Mezirow, 1991). He came to know the lesson through a 
research-informed lens. He also learned that his identity as an educator and practitioner had 
become intertwined with his scholarly mind. In other words, he had started to transition into 
academia (Foot et al., 2014), whereby writing the vignette became a practical illustration for his 
layered identity. This identity drew heavily on the practitioner-informed persona for the first 
reflective account, but also bridged insight to the emerging doctoral scholar’s mindset (Austin, 
2002).   

 
Conclusion 

 
Attending the doctoral forum helped our group of graduate students and professors 

understand how previous work experience and graduate research skills could be integrated in 
pursuing a collaborative research endeavour of teaching and learning. Participants became more 
able to articulate who they were as doctoral students striving to become scholars (Foot et al., 2014). 
These realizations during the doctoral forum underlined the importance of first-hand experience 
and personal reflections in the process of becoming doctoral scholars (Foot el al., 2014). Engaging 
in rich learning experiences in a variety of contexts during years of doctoral education was 
therefore essential to advance a balanced, well-suited understanding of the field of interest, and 
not at least an entry-point into forming a sustainable doctoral identity for future research 
explorations. Our group engaged in regular individual and group reflections before, during, and 
after the international forum. These written recollections allowed us to revisit situations of 
meaning-making and identify transformative experiences in individual building processes of 
emergent doctoral identities. Participation in the doctoral forum was thus in itself transformative 
for our delegation because delegates became mindful of how reflection was a valuable tool in 
examining and preparing graduate students as future scholars and faculty (Foot et al., 2014). 

Foot el al. (2014) pointed out how self-study can support formation processes in scholarly 
identity formation. Identity transformation occurs within multiple contexts that include various 
institutions, specific experiences, departments, and supervisors’ perspectives (Foot el al., 2014). 
We constantly navigated among these contexts and advanced multiple temporary identities whose 
values and beliefs overlap and may even contradict. Our group experienced the prominence of 
these different identities during our engagements abroad, since the international context and the 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

14 

forum’s overarching theme invited us repeatedly to reflect and analyze our experiences as learners, 
educators, and doctoral students.  Our delegation of doctoral students and professors was thus able 
to recognize our multiple layered personas more clearly, including our identities as educators, 
practitioners, and learners. These realization processes may require several reflective iterations, as 
the doctoral student in vignette two learned when attempting to make meaning of the teaching and 
learning practices described earlier. 

Upon attending the doctoral forum, our group learned three important lessons. First, we 
realized the importance of having open minds for rich learning to unfold. Open and honest 
discussion with other delegates and professors benefited not only doctoral students but also our 
professors by creating new knowledge together. Our Canadian delegation created opportunities to 
transform our thinking on teaching and learning by being intentional and systematic about 
reflecting on our experiences. Second, participants understood their work as educators differently 
after attending the forum. For example, the doctoral student who reflected on the events in vignette 
one refined her understanding of learning. She realized that it came from intrinsic motivation, past 
experiences, discussions, language, culture, and from recognizing that students can engage in rich 
learning experiences without teachers. The delegate underwent a deep transformation in her 
understanding of what learning means and entails. Third, our ongoing reflection-in-action helped 
us to come to know the socialization processes of graduate school (Austin, 2002) and our transition 
towards scholarly identities (Foot et al., 2014). Connecting with other leaders through generative 
dialogue, spending time with doctoral students and professors from other countries and engaging 
in written reflective accounts on what constitutes SoTL was particularly transformative for the 
participating graduate students. We became more aware of our academic standing within the 
scholarly field and became more conscious of how our graduate student identities are shifting 
towards academic scholarly profiles. 

 
References 

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization 
to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0001  

Auten, J. G. & Twigg, M. M. (2015). Teaching and learning SoTL: Preparing future faculty in a 
pedagogy course. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 3(1), 3–13. 
https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.3.1.3 

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie 
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 

Colbeck, C. L. (2008). Professional identity development theory and doctoral education. In C. L. 
Colbeck, K. O’Meara, & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Educating integrated professionals: Theory 
and practice on preparation for the professoriate (New Directions for Teaching and 
Learning No. 113, pp. 9–16). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.304  

Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 
121–125. https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.121 

Foot, R., Crowe, A. R., Tollafield, K. A., & Allan, C. E. (2014). Exploring doctoral student 
identity development using a self-study approach. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 2(1), 
103–118. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.1.103 



Rothschuh, Dennis, Liu, MacDonald, Roy, & Simmons - Emerging Perspectives (2021) 
  
 

15 

Kovalcikiene, K., & Buksnyte-Marmiene, L. (2015). Towards an understanding of doctoral 
students’ professional identity complexity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 
191, 2693–2698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.603 

Kreber, C. (2006). Developing the scholarship of teaching through transformative learning. 
Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 88–109. 

Kreber, C. (2013). The transformative potential of the scholarship of teaching. Teaching and 
Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1353/iss.2013.0015  

Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the national survey 
of student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10–17. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380109601795     

Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical 
foundations. New Direction for Institutional Research, 141, 5–20. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283 

Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind 
brings mathematics into being. Basic Books. 

McKinney, K., & Jarvis, P. (2009). Beyond the lines on the CV: Faculty applications of their 
scholarship of teaching and learning research. International Journal for the Scholarship 
of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030107 

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-
Bass. 

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and 
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. 

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimension of adult learning (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. 
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge. 
Shulman, L. S. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning? 

Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 48–53.  

Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Sage. 
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student: The influence of learning 

context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 
22(3), 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132290 

 


