Is SoTL a Signature Pedagogy of Educational Development?

Abstract

In this article, we focus on questions that come into view when we look at educational development through the lenses of signature pedagogies and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). We offer this as a thought experiment in which we consider if SoTL is a signature pedagogy of educational development, simultaneously enacting and revealing the practices, values, and assumptions that underpin the diverse work of our field. By envisioning SoTL in this way, we may more clearly see the purposes and practices that unite—and that ought to guide—educational developers and educational development.

Keywords: faculty development, SoTL, values, organizational development, signature pedagogy

In “Reflections on the Changing Nature of Educational Development,” Gibbs (2013) urges educational developers “to recognize their own activities in a different light and to prompt reflections on what else they might do and what direction they might move in” (p. 4). Analyzing the arc of the field over the last four decades, Gibbs highlights particularly important shifts in emphasis, conceptual understandings, and practice. Educational development’s focus has changed from classrooms to learning environments and from teaching to learning. At the same time, educational developers have begun to pay closer attention to structures and systems than to individuals, taking a more sociological than psychological approach to the work. Finally, the practice of educational development has become more scholarly, relying more on research and theory rather than anecdote and personal experience.

Even as the field has evolved and matured, the work of educational developers remains highly varied. Leibowitz (2014) asserts that a clear and consistent definition of the field is now, and will remain, elusive because educational developers’ practices depend so much on institutional context, faculty needs, and higher education trends, among other factors (see also, Barrow & Grant, 2012; Little, 2014). Some educational developers operate within well established teaching centers, conducting workshops and consulting with individual faculty. Others are embedded within disciplines, such as engineering or medicine, or working on focused initiatives, including gateway course redesign, online learning, or preparing future faculty. Still others fit none of those models, and the changing needs and priorities of institutions mean that most educational developers function in an environment that shifts year to year, and sometimes day to day.

This variation raises questions about the fundamental nature of our field: What, if anything, unites the diverse work of educational development? Are educational developers a relatively incoherent coalition of academics doing somewhat related activities, or is there a field that shares certain core practices, values, and epistemologies?

Several scholars have explored these same questions recently. For instance, in this journal, Cruz (2016) outlined a taxonomy of the Scholarship of Educational Development that delineates four distinct domains within what she presents as a coherent professional field: practice, integration, higher education, and synthesis. Similarly, scholars have analyzed the evolving nature of educational development in the United States (Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006) and the professional and institutional profiles of educational developers in 38 countries around the world (Green & Little, 2016). This work is enlightening, but we will take a different tack.

In this essay, we focus on questions that arise when we look at educational development through the lenses of signature pedagogies and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). We offer this essay as a thought experiment in which we consider if SoTL is a signature pedagogy of educational development, simultaneously enacting and revealing the practices, values, and assumptions that underpin the diverse work efforts of our field. By envisioning SoTL in this way, we may more clearly see the purposes and practices that might unite—and that could guide—educational developers and educational development.

Signature Pedagogies

Shulman’s concept of “signature pedagogies” (Shulman, 2005) provides a helpful, generative heuristic for the kind of self analysis suggested by Gibbs. A signature pedagogy does more than teach the knowledge and practice of a discipline; it reflects the identity and worldview of that field. This distinguishes the signature pedagogy from the more generic teaching practices that are often used to help students learn in every discipline (Chick, Haynie, & Gurung, 2009). Clinical rounds in medicine, for instance, not only teach students the content of the field but also enact its practices and values by focusing student learning on the ways in which a specific case of an actual patient receives medical care. Medical educators use many other pedagogies to teach students, but only when teaching with clinical rounds do they exhibit the signature features of their discipline. Similarly, creative writing classes are distinct in their frequent use of the writing workshop in which the whole class offers pointed feedback to individual students’ pieces of writing, reflecting the professional writer’s experiences of writing groups and peer review.

In Shulman’s framework, signature pedagogies have three layers of alignment with their field:

1. A “surface structure” of the “concrete, operational acts of teaching and learning,”

2. A “deep structure” of “assumptions of how best to impart a certain body of knowledge and know how,” and

3. An “implicit structure” reflecting the “moral dimension that comprises a set of beliefs about professional attitudes, values, and dispositions” (p. 53).

Such alignment, according to Shulman, means that looking closely at signature pedagogies “can teach us a lot about the personalities, dispositions, and cultures of their fields” because they “shap[e] the character of future practice” and “symboliz[e] the values and hopes” for the field (Shulman, 2005, p. 52 53).

A framework like this can be a useful analytical tool because it helps focus our attention on salient issues and provides shared language for scholarly exchange. Shulman (2002) cautions, however, that heuristics are meant to be practical but imperfect: “They are powerful in these ways as long as we don’t take them too seriously” (p. 42). In this spirit, we invite you to play along with us as we explore the relationships between SoTL and educational development on the three levels of structure Shulman has outlined. Even if we do not convince you that SoTL is the signature pedagogy of educational development, we believe that considering SoTL a signature pedagogy of the field provides clarifying insights about educational development, SoTL, and the relationship between these two. In the language of SoTL, this essay is a “vision of the possible” (Hutchings, 2000). What if?

Surface Structures

SoTL emerged and developed in part as a demonstration of Boyer’s definition of teaching as a scholarly activity (1990). As Bernstein (2008) argues, “When we describe teaching as serious intellectual work or scholarship, we need to prove that the products of teaching can also be rigorously evaluated for excellence by a community of peers” (p. 51). In SoTL’s early years, faculty often began this work by recognizing that a “teaching problem” could be understood like a research question, as something deserving of and able to be investigated through disciplined inquiry (Bass, 1999). This grassroots approach to SoTL dominated in the 1990s and early 2000s because graduate students and faculty typically learned about and practiced SoTL on their own, not as part of their doctoral studies or in formal educational development programs. Indeed, the foundational SoTL project, the Carnegie Scholars program, focused on individual faculty pursuing their own individual inquiries rather than working within institutional structures (like educational development units) to cultivate SoTL. Only in the past decade or so has SoTL been an increasingly explicit part of the educational development toolkit (Hutchings, Huber, & Ciccone, 2011).

This convergence is apparent in the increasing overlaps of the literature and practitioners of SoTL and educational development. In 2007, Felten, Kalish, Pingree, and Plank posited a “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Educational Development.” A few years later, an overview of the evolution of SoTL included a chapter focused on its connections with educational development (Hutchings et al., 2011). More recently, scholars have explored these intersections from a variety of national perspectives, including the United States (Little, 2014), Singapore (Geertsema, 2016), and Canada (Kenny et al., 2017). Also, a significant new study of the relationship of educational development and student learning begins with this definition: “faculty development, understood in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) sense, offers teaching faculty opportunities to learn new approaches, technologies, and more” (Condon, Iverson, Manduca, Rutz, & Willett, 2016, p. 2). SoTL and educational development have not merged, but the two now are often aligned in practice (Hutchings et al., 2011).

Like educational development, SoTL has remained a relatively loose set of practices rather than a singular or simple set of methodologies. This has allowed some to celebrate and advocate for the welcoming and flexible “big tent” of SoTL practice (Chick, 2014; Huber & Hutchings, 2005), while others have wondered whether this apparent incoherence meant that SoTL was more “hype” than “hope” (Woodhouse, 2010). Attempting to bridge this gap, Felten (2013) has argued that this diversity could and should be understood as a strength as long as practitioners in this growing field recognize a common set of five principles of good:

1. Inquiry focused on student learning: While the kinds of questions in SoTL span from narrow disciplinary queries to broad “visions of the possible” (Hutchings, 2000), understanding student learning is the core objective of all SoTL practice.

2. Grounded in context: Like any scholarship, SoTL by definition builds on prior research (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997). SoTL is also rooted in the local context of a particular classroom, discipline, or cohort of students. SoTL inquiries “must account for both the scholarly and the local context where that work is being done” (Felten, 2013, p. 122).

3. Methodologically sound: SoTL has many “disciplinary styles” (Huber & Morreale, 2002), but any good practice requires the scholar to systematically apply appropriate research tools linked to a question about student learning.

4. Conducted in partnership with students: To be both ethical and effective, SoTL inquiries should be done with rather than to students as much as possible (Cook Sather, Bovill, & Felten, 2014; Werder & Otis, 2010).

5. Appropriately public: SoTL is one means of making teaching “community property” (Shulman, 2004), so all SoTLs must be open to review by peers at some level, whether that be local conversations on a campus or publication in an international journal (Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin, & Prosser, 2000).

These five principles not only outline good practices in SoTL, but they also echo the surface structures—the activities, practices, or habits of hand—of educational development. In other words, despite the wide variation in what educational developers actually do on a day to day basis, most educational development practices share at least these five characteristics:

1. Focused on learning: All educational development aims to support faculty (including graduate and professional student) and organizational learning and, by doing that, to promote student learning.

2. Grounded in context: Educational developers carefully attend to the scholarly, disciplinary, and local contexts of their work. They build on research about learning and teaching while simultaneously being attentive to the contours of specific disciplinary contexts (Gurung et al., 2009; Taylor, 2010). They also bring “cosmopolitan” perspectives and experiences to their institutions (Bernstein, 2013), translating what’s shared within the larger scholarly community to local circumstances. And they tailor their efforts to fit (or sometimes to challenge) priorities and goals of faculty, departments, and institutions.

3. Methodologically sound: Effective educational development methods are not “one size fits all” but are rather carefully tailored to the needs and goals of particular individuals, departments, or institutions. This work is also rooted in the scholarship about educational development and in locally generated evidence about the outcomes of specific practices and programs.

4. Conducted in partnership: Educational development, like SoTL, is most effective when it is done with rather than to individuals. Indeed, the POD Network, the leading U.S. based professional organization for people who work in educational development, has articulated ethical guidelines that include the principle that educational development work must be a partnership so that faculty colleagues have the “right to set objectives and make decisions.”

5. Appropriately public: Just as SoTL frames teaching as “community property,” effective educational development always aims toward sharing processes and products in ways that allow for peer review and adaptation in other contexts.

This may not completely describe all of the work of educational developers, but it covers much of what we do. At the level of surface structures then, SoTL would seem to be a signature pedagogy of educational development. As such, it provides a framework for understanding the surface structures of effective educational development, outlining a set of good practices that can be a heuristic for planning and evaluating all work in our field.

Deep Structures

Signature pedagogies also enact a field’s “deep structure,” its epistemological frameworks for how learning happens and how knowledge is constructed. The deep structures of SoTL and educational development have grown from similar roots. Both emerge from understandings of learning as a constructive act, drawing inspiration from Dewey, Freire, and others. The synthesis How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) introduced a wide audience to learning sciences research, sparking a boom in both SoTL and educational development. These researchers and theorists made the convincing case that learning is possible only when the learner thinks, tries, applies, connects, experiments, or in some way engages; while this may seem commonplace to many now, framing learning as an active process is in stark contrast with the “banking” model that had, implicitly or explicitly, shaped a significant portion of the teaching in higher education at the dawn of educational development.

SoTL’s ultimate aim is enhanced student learning, with a proximate focus on faculty as inquirers and learners. For instance, Bass describes the methods of the Visible Knowledge Project, a five year, multicampus SoTL program that sought ways of making student and faculty knowledge more visible to each other:

This notion of visible knowledge, or making thinking visible, is a pervasive component of the SoTL process, pointing to the underlying assumptions that learning is an untidy process of unfolding, negotiating, constructing, and revising and that the final and tidier performances of learning (exams, grades, other forms of summative assessment for students—and annual evaluation reports, teaching observations, course evaluations, and such for faculty) do not quite capture the authenticity of what and how people actually learn.

In educational development, we recognize that students are not the only learners: in the educational developer’s practice, the faculty are their “students,” a dynamic that explicitly puts faculty in the position of learner—again, necessarily thinking, doing, trying, applying, connecting, playing, experimenting, and engaging. Brookfield asserts in Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher (1995) that all instructors should take on that student role through educational development because the most important “pedagogical content knowledge”—to borrow Shulman’s term—is to understand how students experience their learning. As Shulman concludes, “the ultimate test of understanding rests on the ability to transform one’s knowledge into teaching” (1986, p. 14).

In this way, SoTL and educational development share the foundational understanding that both student and instructor are learners (an identity) and are learning (an ongoing experience). This may sound simplistic without unpacking the myriad complexities of what is required for this learning to happen. However, what’s important for our discussion here is that varying degrees of this growth mindset optimism exist and are voiced in both SoTL and educational development. While many in higher education express concerns over the traditional lack of training in pedagogy in PhD programs outside of the field of education, this worry is often balanced by the confidence that there are ways of making up for that gap—namely, by participating in educational development and conducting SoTL inquiry.

This sense of hope is built into the “deep structure” of educational development and SoTL. O’Meara, Terosky, and Neumann (2008) documented this optimism in their book length study focusing on the ways in which the titular Faculty Careers & Work Lives are discussed. While they describe a dominant “narrative of constraint” in which faculty are consistently frustrated by external barriers and use language like “‘just making it,’ ‘treading water,’ ‘dodging bullets,’ or barely ‘staying alive’” (p. 2), they also found an alternative mindset, a “narrative of growth” (p. 3) marked by professional fulfillment, learning, agency, relationships, and commitment (p. 25 26).

Part of the “narrative of growth” of SoTL is grounded in its “methodological pluralism” (Huber & Morreale, 2002). This hallmark of the field is not just about the many disciplines represented among its practitioners; it also refers to the flexibility of its practitioners in their willingness to learn new ways of conducting research and making meaning. In other words, while faculty love and embody their own disciplines, they are not fixed or stuck in their disciplinary ways of knowing, doing, and thinking. A misunderstanding of signature pedagogies is that faculty are limited to thinking and doing according to their disciplines. On the contrary, disciplinary expertise is the starting point, the strength from which they draw, but it does not represent the extent of their abilities nor their goals. In SoTL, disciplinary experts become more aware of the range of methodologies, often for the first time. Simmons et al. (2013) describe this “meta analysis of our research activity as scholars” as a demonstratable stage in SoTL identity development, as illustrated in one practitioner’s new “ability to move across the disciplines…or apply approaches different to those traditionally used in your discipline” (p. 12).

Similarly, Taylor (2010) asserts that “In [educational developers’] work with colleagues, it is not sufficient to ‘know about’ a discipline. Rather, our practice requires that we ‘know in’ that discipline by participating in shared problem solving, discussions, debates, and commitment to teaching and learning” (p. 60). While educational developers are experts in their own fields, she argues that we must practice a kind of epistemological agility, the ability “to appreciate (and work with) the goals, methods, communication styles, and cultures of different disciplines.”

This orientation toward growth, learning, and even hope in the face of significant ongoing challenges and constraints is also seen in how both educational developers and SoTL practitioners believe in the forward motion of learning and the confidence that their work will make a difference. Huber and Robinson (2016) describe the recent attention to the “larger SoTL landscape, or SoTLscape, of advocacy and outreach activities in the field” (p. 1). Educational developers have long held commitments to promoting and supporting change and “development”—the term itself denotes advancement or evolution (Little, 2014). In his study of developers, Land (2004) argues that despite variations in orientation toward their work, “one defining attribute of educational development practice is the practitioners’ stance in regard to change” (p. 129), namely a commitment to innovation and improvement. And a recent study of faculty teaching gateway courses identifies a sense of hope as foundational to sustained efforts at pedagogical change and essential for the success of educational development initiatives (McGowan, Felten, Caulkins, & Artze Vega, 2017).

A foundational commitment to learning as a constructed, universal, and ongoing experience further suggests that SoTL could be a signature pedagogy of educational development. Ultimately, both are rooted in what Cornel West (2005) described as a form of profound “hope [that] enacts the stance of the participant who actively struggles” to make positive, lasting change despite the difficulty of doing so. Yet the linkage here might also reveal an important disjuncture between the current state of SoTL and educational development; while the field of educational development has increasingly focused on organizational change over the past decade or more (Gibbs, 2013; Beach et al., 2016), SoTL continues to be primarily an individual activity, despite persistent calls for more collaborative approaches to inquiry into learning and teaching (Gale, 2008; McKinney, 2012) and for inquiries that extend beyond single classrooms (Hubball, Pearson, & Clarke, 2013; Matthews et al., 2013).

Implicit Structures

Finally, a signature pedagogy enacts the implicit structures of a field, what Shulman (2005) calls the “moral dimension that comprises a set of beliefs about professional attitudes, values, and dispositions” (p. 53). Once again, we find strong resonance between SoTL and educational development.

In his classic essay “From Minsk to Pinsk,” Shulman uses a folktale about a journey to argue that for reasons of “Professionalism, Pragmatism, and Policy,” individuals and institutions must make a “serious investment” in SoTL (Shulman, 2000, p. 49, emphasis in original). Shulman contends that professionalism is the most important rationale for engaging in SoTL. As members of a discipline/profession and as educators, faculty have scholarly obligations “to discover, to connect, to apply and to teach” in order to advance knowledge in our disciplines and to contribute to our students’ educations (p. 49). This professional imperative is both individual and communal; it is what we do, what we must do, in our own work and in the shared work of our fields. For Shulman, that obligation leads directly to the pragmatic rationale for SoTL: “By engaging in purposive reflection, documentation, assessment, and analysis of teaching and learning, and doing so in a more public and accessible manner, we not only support the improvement of our own teaching” (p. 50), but we also contribute to our community of teacher scholars, enabling all of us to teach more effectively and more of our students to learn more deeply. Finally, Shulman concludes, decisions about institutional, state, and national education policy must be informed by the evidence and conclusions about student learning that SoTL generates. Without SoTL, policymakers will act without a firm grounding in the classroom based practicalities and insights of faculty and students.

Recently, Booth and Woollacott (2017) extended Shulman’s analysis of the implicit structures of SoTL. They note that Shulman attends closely to the disciplinary and institutional contexts of SoTL but that such inquiry also occurs within cultural, societal, and political “horizons” that deserve critical attention. For instance, SoTL research may respond to political and cultural agendas related to enhancing retention and belonging among students who have historically been marginalized in higher education, or it may take on an intentionally civic purpose by aiming to develop citizenship capacities in all those involved in an inquiry (Miller Young, Felten, & Clayton, 2017). In other words, SoTL necessarily occurs within what Shulman calls “moral dimensions” of higher education.

Educational development shares these obligations and opportunities. The field is widely understood to be a “profession dedicated to helping colleges and universities function effectively as teaching and learning communities” (Felten, Kalish, Pingree, & Plank, 2007, p. 93). In this conception, educational developers work with individuals and groups to enhance teaching and, by doing so, to deepen student learning, a fundamental purpose of higher education. Grant (2006) provides a more detailed and nuanced outline of these common dimensions by focusing on what educational development “at its best” looks like:

Educational development practice, in other words, is connected to both the intellectual and institutional contexts of college and university teachers. By nurturing conversations and community, it contributes to meaningful and sustained changes in teaching practices, teachers’ identities, and student learning—and also in the development of institutions as learning organizations. Yet educational developers should be wary of the power they have to mold teaching practices and learning cultures; when political and economic forces create institutional policies that may not be in the best interest of students or instructors, educational developers would be prudent to regularly ask themselves the question posed recently by Roxa and Martensson (2017): “are we liberating academic teachers or are we part of the machinery suppressing them?”

These “moral dimensions” of educational development, like those of SoTL, ought to guide all work in the field. By providing insight into teaching and learning practices, SoTL may act as a lens that focuses attention on the implicit structures and the practical implications of educational development activities. In this way, SoTL could be seen as both enacting and illuminating the foundational assumptions and structures of our work, suggesting that SoTL might be a signature pedagogy of educational development.

What if? Implications of SOTL as a Signature Pedagogy

If we conceive of SoTL as a signature pedagogy, we may gain insights into the practices and epistemologies of educational development. Because doing SoTL is one way of operationalizing the surface, deep, and implicit structures of our field, some educational developers might approach SoTL as a primary means of reaching their intended ends. This could mean that their educational development efforts aim both to inspire faculty to value the hard work of scholarly teaching and to equip faculty with the skills necessary to do SoTL.

Such an orientation may not be—indeed, perhaps should not be—universally adopted by educational developers; however, this stance may shed new light on central challenges in our work. For instance, many teaching and learning centers struggle with the question of scale: How do we reach all instructors in ways that lead to deep, sustained pedagogical enhancements? If we conceive of educational development as aiming to catalyze autonomous SoTL inquiry by individuals and groups of faculty, we may have a wider and longer lasting impact on teaching practices and organizational change than if we operate as if all educational development is sponsored by and tethered to a teaching and learning center. As the Tracer study at Washington State University and Carleton College revealed, when “Faculty see teaching as engaging in a process of continual learning and improvement” (Condon et al., 2016, p. 64), then “A generative culture multiplies the impact of formal faculty development, enhances self motivated, individual faculty learning, and supports faculty experimentation in their courses” (Condon et al., 2016, p. 121). SoTL, as a signature pedagogy, is one way to cultivate and sustain such a generative culture within departments and institutions.

Understanding SoTL as a signature pedagogy does not mean that it is the only arrow in the quiver of educational developers. Our work always must be rooted in our local contexts, the needs of our colleagues and students, and the individual capacities we bring to educational development. Our programs and practices will and should vary, and the pedagogies we use should be tailored to the goals and the people who we partner with in educational development. However, an orientation toward SoTL could guide us so that we are intentionally enacting the surface, implicit, and deep structures of our field.

Even as we embrace the convergence of educational development and SoTL that Hutchings and colleagues (2011) have noted and that our analysis here implies, we must be wary not to domesticate and institutionalize SoTL (Roxa & Martensson, 2017). Instead, the goals of educational development are manifest when faculty are doing SoTL in all its glorious messiness. We should do everything we can to encourage good SoTL practice both within and beyond our programs, encouraging faculty to act as individuals and in groups to authentically inquire into learning for the vital purpose of enhancing student learning. By imagining SoTL as a signature pedagogy of our field, we can see with new clarity that the fundamental purpose of educational development is to cultivate a generative culture of learning and teaching at our institutions and throughout higher education.

References

• Barrow, M., & Grant, B. (2012). The ‘truth’ of academic development: How did we get to be about ‘teaching and learning’? Higher Education Research and Development, 31, 465–477.
• Bass, R. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: What’s the problem? Inventio, 1(1), 1–10. Retrieved from https://my.vanderbilt.edu/sotl/files/2013/08/Bass Problem1.pdf
• Beach, A., Sorcinelli, M., Austin, A., & Rivard, K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices, future Imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Bernstein, D. (2008). Resource review: Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change, 40(2), 48–51.
• Bernstein, D., & Bass, R. (2005). The scholarship of teaching and learning. Academe, 91(4), 37–43.
• Bernstein, D. (2013). How SoTL-active faculty members can be cosmopolitan assets to an institution Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 35–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.35
• Booth, S., & Woollacott, L. (2017). On the constitution of SoTL: Its domains and contexts. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734 017 0156 7
• Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Chick, N. L. (2014). ‘Methodologically sound’ under the ‘big tent’: An ongoing conversation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), article 1.
• Chick, N. L., Haynie, A., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2009). From generic to signature pedagogies: Teaching disciplinary understandings. In C. Gurung, & A. Haynie (Eds.), Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind (pp. 1–16). Stylus: Sterling, VA.
• Condon, W., Iverson, E., Manduca, C., Rutz, C., & Willett, G. (2016). Faculty development and student learning: Assessing the connections. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Cook Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Cruz, L. (2016). The scholarship of educational development: A taxonomy. To Improve the Academy, 35(2), 222–228.
• Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practices in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 121–125.
• Felten, P., Kalish, A., Pingree, A., & Plank, K. (2007). Toward a scholarship of teaching and learning in academic development. In D. Robertson, & L. Nilson (Eds.), To improve the academy (Vol. 25, pp. 93–108). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Gale, R. (2008). Points without limits: Individual inquiry, collaborative investigation, and collective scholarship. In D. Robertson, & L. Nilson (Eds.), To improve the academy (Vol. 26, pp. 39–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Geertsema, J. (2016). Academic development, SoTL and educational research. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2016.1175144
• Gibbs, G. (2013). Reflecting on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.751691
• Glassick, C., Huber, M., & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey Bass.
• Grant, B. (2006). Writing in the company of other women. Exceeding the boundaries. Studies in Higher Edcuation, 31(4), 483–495.
• Green, D., & Little, D. (2016). Family portrait: A profile of educational developers around the world. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1046875
• Gurung, R., Chick, N., & Haynie, A. (2009). Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Hubball, H., Pearson, M., & Clarke, A. (2013). SoTL inquiry in broader curricular and institutional contexts: Theoretical underpinnings and emerging trends. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.41
• Huber, M., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The avancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Huber, M., & Morreale, S. (Eds.) (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
• Huber, M. T., & Robinson, J. M. (2016). Mapping advocacy and outreach for the scholarship of teaching and learing. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 4(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.1.3
• Hutchings, P. (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Palo Alto, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
• Hutchings, P., Huber, M., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Kenny, N., Popovic, C., McSweeney, J., Knorr, K., Hoessler, C., Hall, S., … El Khoury, E. (2017). Drawing on the principles of SoTL to illuminate a path forward for the scholarship of educational development. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–19 Article 10. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol8/iss2/10
• Land, R. (2004). Educational development: Discourse, identity and practice. Maidenhead, England: McGraw Hill Education.
• Leibowitz, B. (2014). Reflections on academic development: What is in a name? International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 1–4.
• Little, D. (2014). Reflections on the state of the scholarship of educational development. To Improve the Academy, 33(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20005
• Matthews, K., Divan, A., John Thomas, N., Lopes, V., Ludwig, L., Martini, T., … Tomljenovic Berube, A. (2013). SoTL and students’ experiences of their degree level programs: An empirical investigation. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.2.75
• McKinney, K. (2012). The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• McGowan, S., Felten, P., Caulkins, J., & Artze-Vega, I. (2017). Fostering evidence-informed teaching in crucial classes. In A., Koch (ed.) Improving Teaching, Learning, Equity, and Success in Gateway Courses: New Directions for Higher Education, No. 180, 53–62 San Francisco: Wiley.
• Miller Young, J., Felten, P., & Clayton, P. (2017). Learning and learning – Together. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(2), 154–158.
• O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Roxa, T., & Martensson, K. (2017). Agency and structure in academic development: Are we liberating academic teachers or are we part of a machinery suppressing them? International Journal for Academic Development, 22(2), 95–105.
• Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
• Shulman, L. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 48–53.
• Shulman, L. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6), 36–44.
• Shulman, L. (2004). Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134, 52–59.
• Simmons, N., Abrahamson, E., Deshler, J., Kensington Miller, B., Manarin, K., Morón García, S., … Renc Roe, J. (2013). Conflicts and configurations in a liminal space: SoTL scholars’ identity development. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.2.9
• Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.
• Taylor, K. L. (2010). Understanding the disciplines within the context of educational development. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 122, 59–67.
• Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 155–168.
• Werder, C., & Otis, M. (Eds.) (2010). Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• West, C. (2005). Prisoners of hope. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/story/20982/prisoners_of_hope
• Woodhouse, R. (2010). Hype or hope: Can the scholarship of teaching and learning fulfill its promise? International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 1–8.