Abstract

This article presents a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) scaffold, a conceptual model designed for educational developers (and others) who support the values, practices, and production of the SoTL, both on their campuses and beyond. The SoTL scaffold explicates distinct support levels, ranging from spark to lead, each of which call for differentiated strategies and programs to be used by Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) and similar units.

Keywords: SoTL, organizational development, scholarship of educational development, educational development

The term “scaffold” is used to describe a structure that supports something else, such as a building, a condemned criminal, or even a genomic sequence. Similarly, the verb (or gerund) form of the term, “scaffolding,” is frequently evoked in teaching and learning to describe how instructors can support student learning through a series of intentionally progressive cognitive tasks. The latter is often accomplished by breaking down complex or higher order skills into constituent parts and then having students rebuild those skills step by step. In this article, we intend to follow a scaffolding process in order to build a conceptual model itself a scaffold—which looks at how educational developers can develop an integrated and progressive model for supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) on their campuses (See Figure 1, below).

Figure 1. SoTL Scaffold ModelFigure 1. SoTL Scaffold Model

Background

Ernest Boyer first articulated a scholarship of teaching as part of a larger project to re evaluate and expand how higher education defines scholarship. His well known scheme included conventional forms of scholarship (discovery) but also added new categories, including the scholarship of teaching, by which he intended to recognize the inherently intellectual or scholarly aspects of how faculty design and deliver instruction. Later scholars extended the name of this category of scholarship to recognize the symbiotic relationship between teaching and learning, and the SoTL designation has persisted. As the field has matured, other related forms of research in teaching and learning, including disciplinary based educational research (DBER), action research, and teaching as research approaches have come to share space with SoTL. These approaches may differ in scope or audience, but they have a common goal of transforming teaching and learning through evidence based practice. Because of this shared goal, we use the term SoTL broadly to encompass all of these variations for the purposes of building our scaffold.

Since Boyer’s book first appeared in 1994, the proliferation of SoTL (and related approaches) has been astonishing (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999). In an organizational environment not often characterized by rapid change, SoTL advocates, ranging from the national level such as the Carnegie Institute for the Advancement of Teaching, to level of individual campuses, have endeavored to insert SoTL into conversations among multiple stakeholders. In recognition of this success, Boyer’s successors at the Carnegie Foundation, Pat Hutchings, Mary Huber and Anthony (Tony) Ciccone, published The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered: Institutional Integration and Impact in 2011. This work marks the shift in SoTL conversations from early advocacy to more mature initiatives designed to create a SoTL infrastructure that is both sustained and sustainable across higher education (and without centralized leadership); a process the authors refer to as “institutionalization.”

As the designated institutional sites for pedagogical expertise, centers for teaching and learning (CTLs) have emerged as significant players in second generation SoTL. Support for SoTL work is considered a core service by most CTLs; and the research on best practices in educational development generally includes attention to connecting teaching transformation to systematic ways of assessing its effectiveness and, by extension, to the public dissemination of those results in the form of presentations and publications. The degree to which the transformation, assessment, or publication aspect of this cycle is emphasized depends heavily on the local organizational culture (Crow et al., 2017; Marcketti, VanDerZanden, & Leptien, 2015; Peters, Schodt, & Walczak, 2008). Given this symbiotic relationship between SoTL and educational development, it is perhaps not surprising that many leading SoTL scholars are themselves educational developers; to the point where several of these border crossers have argued that SoTL constitutes the signature pedagogy of the field (Felten & Chick, 2018; Hoessler, Britnell, & Stockley, 2010).

One of the defining characteristics of SoTL movement has been self reflection and work that seeks to develop and shape the contours of the field (or discipline, or genre, depending on who you ask) (McKinney, 2004; Pan, 2009). In the early phases especially, scholars and practitioners both sought to contain its somewhat anarchic emergence; with an eye both to its acceptance and advancement (the scholars) but also to the shared ability to teach it to others (the educational developers). These combined efforts have led to a research literature replete with frameworks, models, schema, and other tools designed to erect practical fences around a wide open field. Various SoTL models have been proclaimed that take into account such factors as stakeholders, teaching processes, faculty motivation/resistance/learning, values and principles, institutional support, benchmarks, intention and purpose, methodologies, research questions, disciplinary backgrounds, and more (Felton, 2013; Gayle, Randall, Langley, & Preiss, 2013; Kern, Mettetal, Dixson, & Morgan, 2015; Miller Young & Yeo, 2015; Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin, & Prosser, 2000; Wilson Doenges & Gurung, 2013).

This insight begs the question of whether or not we need yet another SoTL framework, as this article claims to provide. We argue that our framework serves a different purpose specific to the institutional stage. Rather than serving primarily to either legitimize or champion SoTL, the scaffold model is designed for educational developers, and other CTL staff, whose work focuses on integration. In this sense, this model is not itself SoTL, but rather SoED. Research in educational development, sometimes referred to as the scholarship of education development (or SoED), has benefited from observing SoTL’s path to sustainability, and much of SoED crosses over the borders between practice, SoTL, higher education, assessment, and organizational development (Little, 2014). This latter comes into play as educational development increasingly embraces its role in cultivating campus cultures that are conducive to transformative teaching and learning (Roxå, Olsson, & Mårtensson, 2007). SoTL scaffold, as follows, is intended to be a possible tool for enabling CTLs (and similar units or offices) to consider their support for SoTL in this broader, more interdependent context.

The SoTL Scaffold

Step 1: Igniting the Spark

In its early phases, the SoTL movement contained a significant vein of implicit idealism not only about the rewards of teaching and learning, but also about the value of empowering instructors to be expressive in how they practiced their craft. By elevating teaching as a scholarly act, Boyer and his followers aspired to increase recognition for time spent on teaching and provide faculty with a vehicle through which they could actively experiment with new and different approaches to teaching. These values served to attract those faculty (and staff) with strong affinities to teaching creatively; and networks of like minded individuals served as the basis of multiple cross institutional and cross disciplinary communities (Huber & Hutchings, 2005).

The subsequent challenge was extending that impetus beyond intrinsic motivation and finding more extrinsic means for reaching out to others not included in SoTL’s initial cohorts; a challenge shared by CTLs working to promote SoTL on their campuses. According to a report generated by the Higher Education Academy, SoTL work occurs simultaneously on three levels—the micro (the individual classroom or faculty member), the meso (the campus), and the macro (multi institutional groups) (Fanghanel, Pritchard, Potter, & Wisker, 2016). In most disciplines, the meso role is played by a department or college; but because of the transdisciplinary nature of much SoTL work, CTLs have taken on this responsibility, including the distinctive task of sparking interest in a body of work that is largely external to the primary academic disciplinary units. At this level, supporting SoTL has a marketing focus and includes raising awareness of the existence of SoTL, building curiosity about what it can provide, and laying the groundwork for supporting programs and policy development (Melnyk, Fineout Overholt, Stillwell, & Williamson, 2009). Common strategies for igniting the SoTL spark can be the appointment of current SoTL scholars as faculty ambassadors; disseminating marketing materials (e.g., posters, handouts, buttons), or integrating SoTL into orientations to the profession, such as graduate student development programs.

Step 2: Educate

Once faculty and staff have come through the door, the next step on the scaffold is to move beyond the hype and advance their understanding of SoTL to the point where they can make knowledgeable decisions regarding the further involvement of themselves or others. In this stage, the CTL serves an educational function, whether that means informing individual faculty about how they can apply SoTL to teaching or apprising senior administrators on best practices for assessment and evaluation. The challenge for educational developers is to determine how best to teach the principles, practices, and achievements of SoTL movement across a diverse body of “students” with varying degrees of prior knowledge, motivation, and available time.

One of the important boundaries SoTL scholars spent time delineating was the distinction between scholarly teaching, defined as engagement with research and reflective practice, and the scholarship of teaching and learning, characterized by more systemic forms of inquiry, peer review, and dissemination (Allen & Field, 2005; Kreber, 2002; Richlin, 2001; Richlin & Cox, 2004). This distinction has proven to be critical in terms of moving SoTL from theory to practice; as it demarcates the boundaries of SoTL within the traditional three legged stool of faculty work: teaching, research, and service. While Boyer may have aimed to overturn the stool, so to speak, SoTL movement has found much success when it works within existing institutional structures. For this reason, at the level of educate, the SoTL scaffold may include a mixture of resources and programs, ranging from the universal to those tailored for the specific set of constraints and opportunities faced by targeted audiences of faculty and/or staff. At the educate level, CTLs might consider developing support materials to educate tenure committees on SoTL standards; identifying discipline specific resources that translate SoTL into shared norms, establishing writing or reading groups that explore the meaning of SoTL, promoting examples of current SoTL work being done by colleagues across campus; or even designing programs or courses that include educating undergraduate students to be partners in the SoTL process (Werder et al., 2016) (Figure 1).

Step 3: Practice

In their own SoTL framework, Trigwell and Prosser suggest that SoTL participation can be differentiated by intention and purpose. In particular, they note the distinction between faculty as consumers and producers of SoTL work (2000). In the former, faculty draw upon the SoTL evidence base to inform their own practice, whether directly in the form of changes to their instruction or indirectly by contributing to their stock of pedagogical content knowledge, a process that might be described as “beefing up” their pedagogical literacy. At this level, CTLs serve the function of literacy specialists, engaging in activities that include the curation, synthesis and dissemination of ideas and evidence from the field (Taylor, 2010). In this capacity, it is not uncommon for CTLs to partner with libraries or other literacy experts to create shared or joint programming and resources.

The literacy function that defines the educate stage is based on the assumption that, at least to some extent, SoTL work is transdisciplinary in nature and that pedagogical practice serves as a form of lingua franca across disciplines. Experts continue to debate whether SoTL should be situated over, between, within, or among the disciplines, or perhaps a mixture of all of these (Dewar & Bennett, 2010; Gallos, 2008; Healey, Bradford, Roberts, & Yolande, 2013; Huber, 2006; Huber & Morreale, 2002; Lindblom Ylänne, Trigwell, Nevgi, & Ashwin, 2006; McKinney, 2013; Shulman, 2005). The uneasy relationship is reflected in the growing evocation of the acronym DBER, used in some fields to differentiate discipline based teaching and learning research from SoTL.

While many SoTL scholars advocate for supporting teaching and learning research at multiple levels, including the discipline, the proliferation of multiple bodies of research is a challenge to the ability of educational developers to remain abreast of the relevant literature and to fulfill these literacy capacities. It is difficult, in short, to maintain expertise in teaching and learning across a myriad of disciplines, especially as the number of artifacts produced in these specialized fields grow from a trickle to a flood. To maintain our own collective currency may require strategies for navigating and organizing this flood.

Step 4: Study

The study level focuses on working with faculty as they become SoTL scholars; meaning that they learn how to design, analyze, and disseminate work that assesses their own practice. In many ways, this level is the most familiar to educational developers, as much effort and attention has been placed on finding the most effective ways to convey the benefits of reflective, iterative, and evidence based teaching practice through SoTL. To early advocates, these and other related benefits of SoTL work may appear self evident, so the challenge for CTLs often lies in identifying additional incentives that speak across a highly varied professoriate.

Researchers have noted the significant impact of adjusting institutional recognition and reward systems to integrate SoTL, including such tangible results as the creation of SoTL awards; the integration of SoTL into potential career paths, and adjustments in formal tenure and promotion standards (Cruz, Ellern, Ford, Moss, & White, 2009; Goodburn & Savory, 2009; Huber, 2004; Marcketti & Freeman, 2016; O’Meara & Rice, 2005; Simpson et al., 2007; Simpson, Hafler, Brown, & Wilderson, 2004). While these extrinsic motivators have no doubt proven to be effective, CTLs are now faced with the challenge of motivating those for whom such rewards are unlikely to appeal; such as community college or adjunct instructors who are not on the tenure track; graduate students who have conflicting demands and faculty at high profile research institutions where there is a priority for discovery research (Becker & Andrews, 2004; Border & von Hoene, 2010; Foote, 2010; Hubball, Clarke, & Poole, 2010; Tinberg, Duffy, & Mino, 2007)

Second generation SoTL carries some additional challenges even to those who do not fit into these categories. As the field has become increasingly defined and professionalized, this has led to an increase in barriers for entry level scholars, who now must contend with a sizeable volume of literature as well as navigate through on going advanced conversations and issues. One possible strategy for meeting this challenge is to engage with discipline specific SoTL, especially in those disciplines where such scholarship is at the emergent stage; but the role of the universal, often centralized CTL is unclear in these cases. Another possibility is to consider ways to incentivize faculty to think creatively about ways to marry their disciplinary perspectives to new ways to conceptualize, analyze, design, and deliver research about teaching and learning.

And there are leading SoTL scholars who resoundingly support increasing methodological diversity for SoTL (sometimes referred to as “the big tent”) (Chick, 2014; Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Hutchings, 2007; Kreber, 2007). At the same time, many institutions are giving priority to studies that are bigger, longer, and/or more rigorous along accepted social science models; especially those projects that directly support their strategic goals, competitive advantage, or rising accreditation standards (Hubball, Pearson, & Clarke, 2013). The line between these studies and the emerging practice of improvement science (which blends SoTL perspectives with institutional research) grows blurrier. Regardless of label, many of these studies require an investment of time and resources beyond the capacity of most individual faculty or even some institutions. In these settings, CTLs can remain vital players but in somewhat different roles, such as project managers, support systems, or institutional conduits.

Step 5: Collaborate

From its inception, the SoTL movement has emphasized the value of collaboration. In traditional models, teaching is often an isolated enterprise, a condition that inhibits shared knowledge. Early practitioners saw the value in pooling experience, expertise, and inspiration through the development of communities of practice (Brew, 2003; Stark & Smith, 2016), whether at the level of micro, meso/institution or macro/international, the latter culminating in the creation of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL), the leading professional organization for the field. These communities had to find ways to work together; leading to ways to consider the shared epistemological foundations of SoTL, and how that mindset could be cultivated and used to rethink teaching and learning together (Brew, 2003; Major & Palmer, 2006; Schön, 1995).

When brought into the practice of educational development, this emphasis on collaboration often took the form of cross disciplinary learning communities, reading groups, and writing/research groups, but SoTL advocates have aimed to expand the scope beyond a few small groups of faculty and to become instrumental in affecting change at the meso/institutional level (Cambridge, 2004; Ginsberg & Bernstein, 2011; Rehrey, Siering, & Hostetter, 2014; Schroeder, 2007; Theall, 2006). To measure their success in meeting this goal, Carnegie scholars and authors of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered measured the degree to which such efforts had penetrated institutional culture–whether in depth or breadth—and considered what second generation strategies would be needed to enhance that process (Hutchings et al, 2011).

Other scholars have followed suit with studies of the culture of SoTL at individual campuses or systems (Haigh, Gossman, & Jiao, 2011). At the same time, educational development scholars have been identifying strategies for CTLs to consider new strategies, beyond the level of workshops or programming that would enable them to play a more intentional role in the cultivation, whether top down or bottom up, of an organizational culture that supports many of the same SoTL values (Cruz, 2014; Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011Thomas & Ribera, 2011). At this level of the SoTL scaffold, CTLs are not primarily providers of programs, but rather act as agents of change who build bridges across different functional, political, and anthropological divisions on their campuses (Hutchings et al., 2013). These bridges can be formal, such as the establishment of policy and procedures (e.g., faculty evaluation; general education; learning assessment) (Theall, 2006), but also informal, grassroots, or behind the scenes connections.

In their well known characterization of the historical periods demarcating the development of educational development as a field, Sorcinelli, Austin and Eddy described the 2000s as the “age of the network,” with these networks serving as a necessary prelude to the current age, described variously as assessment, accountability, or organizational change (2006). For most CTLs, touching every individual faculty member is simply not a feasible or realistic option, but it may be possible to cultivate self sustaining, even self propagating networks that can indirectly extend their influence on the culture.

In this sense, not everyone will become a SoTL scholar, but there are strategies for fostering social networks that support an environment conducive to evidence based practice; thoughtful development of teaching expertise; and provision of a safe space for innovation and experimentation (Danielson, 2012; Roxå & Martensson, 2009). This function is most commonly ascribed to faculty learning communities, whether campus based or wider (Healey, Marquis, & Vajoczki, 2013; Kalish & Stockley, 2009), but there is more that CTLs can do. Because of their distinct vantage point across the campus, CTLs may serve as social network administrators, developers, providers, or hubs (Williams et al., 2013). This role is reinforced by confidentiality policies, which establish CTLs as safe spaces conducive to building effective webs of interdependent people, ideas, and information.

Step 6: Lead

Serving as change agents at the campus level can be a form of leadership, especially with the increasing proliferation of distributed leadership models in higher education; but this form of collaboration or coalition building is focused on the institution (or, in some cases, system of institutions). When institutional leaders choose to build upon the previous levels of the scaffold and become SoTL leaders beyond their own gates, then they have climbed to the final stage of the SoTL scaffold. This could be as simple as reaching out to other institutions and pooling resources, sharing evidence, synthesizing practice and/or extending networks (Simmons, 2016); a model initiated by Carnegie through its thematically focused, multi institutional CASTL (Carnegie A Scholarship of Teaching and Learning) clusters. That being said, leadership also carries it with it the implied impetus to extend a broader vision of the possible.

This may resemble a blending of the meso and macro levels of institution and broader community, in which an institution may choose to specialize or take a leadership role within a particular vein of SoTL; thereby deepening our collective understanding. In other words, just as disciplines may articulate their signature pedagogy; so might institutions cultivate a signature pedagogy that becomes part of their organizational reputation, thereby recruiting and retaining faculty to whom this approach appeals. Abilene Christian, for example, was a relatively unknown, small, faith based college in Texas until they chose to embrace certain forms of educational technology (smartphones and tablets) well before most other institutions, and they made a name for themselves by publicizing and publishing about its effects on student learning (Gikas & Grant, 2013; Perkins & Saltsman, 2010). Such cases are not common. To reach consensus on institutional signatures is a challenging process and that challenge is compounded by the relative size and complexity of its campus constituents. It is not impossible though for CTLs to play a role in advocating for the resources, buy in, infrastructure, and assessment processes necessary to pursue this kind of comparative advantage. Part of the process of “coming in from the margins” entails a shift of our primary role, from responsive service to proactive leadership (Gibbs, Knapper, & Piccinin, 2008; Schroeder, 2012).

As a field of scholarship, SoTL maintains its vitality through thought leadership. Thought leadership can be an individual contribution; scholars such as Pat Hutchings, Mary Huber, Peter Felten, Gary Poole, Nancy Chick, Kathleen McKinney, and so many more have served to advance this field and, by extension, to have a positive impact on teaching and learning in higher education. There can also be means by which innovation and vision can be supported organizationally, such as the scholarly and programmatic work of societies such as ISSOTL (the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, institutionally, such as the creation of the Cross Endowed Chair for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at Illinois State (a position long held by Kathleen McKinney) or funding for the maintenance of SoTL journals (such as the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JSOTL) at the University of Indiana or the International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (IJSOTL) at Georgia Southern University). Advanced SoTL research, including a growing emphasis on larger numbers and more rigorous analysis, has attracted the interest of benefactors but also external granting agencies, who often seek to fund those who aspire to be the first to change the world of teaching and learning. It is unlikely that all institutions will achieve this level of the scaffold; however, there is value in thinking of best practices for where we are right now as well as new ideas about where we want SoTL to go in its next generations (Gilpin & Liston, 2009).

Discussion and Implications

In this paper, we have presented a conceptual model for supporting SoTL in the form of a scaffold with six distinct levels, each delineating a distinctive aspect, function and role for educational developers to consider playing. This scaffold represents a synthesis of existing literature and practice regarding how CTLs (and similar units or offices) support SoTL across a wide range of institutional contexts. The primary intended purpose of the model is to assist CTLs, their staff, and other stakeholders in building and refining long term comprehensive plans for building up SoTL capacity of their respective institutions. Our model is not intended to be predictive, but rather opens up questions of where SoTL might be headed. If CTLs do begin to play even stronger leadership roles on their campuses, as intimated in the final step of the scaffold, then it is possible we might be moving towards the next stage of SoTL development beyond institutionalization and might be able to play a strong role in defining and shaping that evolution (Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016; Gurung & Schwartz, 2010).

The scaffold is also intended to be a universal model that is broadly applicable across a multitude of not just institutional contexts, but also disciplinary ones. It reflects the transdisciplinary orientation that has characterized much of SoTL movement to date; but that orientation has not translated into equal participation across disciplines (Hutchings, 2007; McKinney, 2013). There is some evidence that humanities scholars have found the perceived emphasis on social science research methods (“little tent” or “family table” SoTL) to be off putting; hard scientists have been under represented in SoTL movement, and as a result have developed their own acronym (DBER) to describe their educational research; and so forth. This increasing division of labor is also evident in the publishing realm, as the number of general SoTL journals continues to decline; and disciplinary specific educational journals rises. Add to that split the current trend towards sub specialties within educational development, such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education, and it becomes unclear how well or how long our current center, meant both figuratively and literally, may hold under the influence of these kinds of centrifugal forces. We may need to develop more scaffolds.

Similar dispersive forces may be at work with the field of educational development. SoTL scaffold is applicable primarily at the meso, or institutional level; and is intended to be adapted to suit the distinctive organizational culture, mission, and strategic goals of the respective campuses. As we progress along these pathways, we face the danger of losing the coherence of a single institutionalization process. In its first iterations, the SoTL movement emphasized the building of a teaching commons, in which pedagogical knowledge could be gathered collectively and then freely dispersed (Huber & Hutchings, 2005); but the marriage of SoTL with organizational development presents another possible trajectory or dynamic (Kelley, Cruz, & Fire, 2017). Rather than viewing this divergence of practice as a danger or betrayal of the collective ethos, perhaps it could be seen as an opportunity to develop new veins of both scholarly inquiry and practice that are not differentiated by discipline (as suggested above) but rather by institutional environment. Instead of developing more scaffolds, perhaps our attention might turn towards developing a pool of shared definitions, constructs, and adaptation strategies.

To some extent, the levels of our SoTL scaffold are intended to be hierarchical, as they increase based on degrees of institutional penetration; but the model does not claim to be a scale. It is not a benchmarking tool. Each level presents a distinct challenge and role for the CTL in meeting these challenges; and to some extent these can be viewed as apples and oranges. In both our experience and in the evidence, many of the levels of the scaffold occur simultaneously, overlap, fall away or otherwise do not follow a smooth and upward sequence. The purpose of the scaffold model is to foster the strategic thinking that takes into account multiple facets of SoTL work and works towards integrating these into a common goal or goals.

We know from best practice that those goals need to be measurable. We live in the age of assessment for educational development (Beach et al., 2016); and that assessment serves to both justify our resources as well as provide constructive feedback to improve our efforts (Wright, Goldwasser, Jacobson, & Dakes, 2017). We have already seen a significant shift in our assessment from programmatic to outcomes based models; with another shift towards institutional impact looming on the horizon. In the case of supporting SoTL, we face a similar challenge of integrating the whole with the sum of its constituent parts. We can assess our progress at each stage of the scaffold, and/or start to consider what more global measures might look like. How do we define success for ourselves in supporting SoTL? If we combine our efforts with the broader SoTL movement (Condon, Iverson, Manduca, & Rutz, 2016; Martensson, Roxå, & Olsson, 2011); perhaps we can put our heads together to think about how we might assess desired, but often elusive, outcomes such as shifting mindsets; social capital/trust; strength of community; and a spirit of innovation and experimentation.

In the building trades, scaffolds appear to be rigid; but it should not be forgotten that they are also temporary. Neither educational developers nor SoTL advocates wish to see support for teaching and learning get stuck in a narrowly defined orthodoxy. The heart and soul of SoTL is its emphasis on experimentation, creativity, and the constant ebb and flow of iterative practice. Researchers in the world of business have noted that innovation and creative problem solving become increasingly resisted as organizations mature (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2011; Tan, 1998); so perhaps SoTL scaffold also carries it with an implicit message of advocacy for the value of constantly returning to the spark.

References

  • Allen, M. N., & Field, P. A. (2005). Scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching: Noting the difference. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarshipa, 2(1), 1–14.
  • Amabile T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183.
  • Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  • Becker, W. E., & Andrews, M. L. (Eds.) (2004). The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: Contributions of research universities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  • Border, L. B., & von Hoene, L. M. (2010). Graduate and professional student development programs. In K. Gillespie, & D. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (pp. 327–346). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 3–18.
  • Cambridge, B. L. (Ed.) (2004). Campus progress: Supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
  • Chick, N. L. (2014). ‘Methodologically sound’ under the ‘Big Tent’: An ongoing conversation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1.
  • Condon, W., Iverson, E. R., Manduca, C. A., & Rutz, C. (2016). Faculty development and student learning: Assessing the connections. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  • Crow, R., Cruz, L., Ellern, J., Ford, G., Moss, H., & White, B. J. (2017). Boyer in the middle: Second generation challenges to emerging scholarship. Innovative Higher Education, 2014, 1–17.
  • Cruz, L., Ellern, J., Ford, G., Moss, H., & White, B. J. (2009). Recognition and reward: SOTL and the tenure process at a regional comprehensive university. Mountain Rise, 5(3), n.p.
  • Cruz, L. (2014). Opposing forces: Institutional theory and second generation SoTL. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080101
  • Danielson, M. A. (2012). SoTL as generative heuristic methodology for building learning communities. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 4.
  • Dewar, J., & Bennett, C. (2010). Situating SoTL within the disciplines: Mathematics in the United States as a case study. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 14.
  • Fanghanel, J., Pritchard, J., Potter, J., & Wisker, G. (2016). Defining and supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): A sector wide study. Literature review. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
  • Felten, P., & Chick, N. (2018). Is SoTL a signature pedagogy of educational development? To Improve the Academy, 37(1), 4–16.
  • Felton, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121–125.
  • Foote, K. E. (2010). Creating a community of support for graduate students and early career academics. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(1), 7–19.
  • Gallos, J. V. (2008). Charting a new course for the scholarship of management teaching and learning: Future directions, powerful opportunities, a hopeful future. Journal of Management Education, 32(5), 535–540.
  • Gayle, B. M., Randall, N., Langley, L., & Preiss, R. (2013). Faculty learning processes: A model for moving from scholarly teaching to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 81–93.
  • Gibbs, G., Knapper, C., & Piccinin, S. (2008). Disciplinary and contextually appropriate approaches to leadership of teaching in research intensive academic departments in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62, 416–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468 2273.2008.00402.x
  • Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26.
  • Gilpin, L. S., & Liston, D. (2009). Transformative education in the scholarship of teaching and learning: An analysis of SoTL literature. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1.
  • Ginsberg, S. M., & Bernstein, J. L. (2011). Growing the scholarship of teaching and learning through institutional culture change. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 1–12. Retrieved from. http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/view/1806/1803
  • Goodburn, A., & Savory, P. (2009). Integrating SOTL into instructional and institutional processes. Mountain Rise, 5(3), n.p.
  • Gurung, R. A., & Schwartz, B. M. (2010). Riding the third wave of SoTL. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 5.
  • Haigh, N., Gossman, P., & Jiao, X. (2011). Undertaking an institutional ‘stock take’ of SoTL: New Zealand university case studies. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(1), 9–23.
  • Healey, M., Bradford, M., Roberts, C., & Yolande, K. (2013). Collaborative discipline based curriculum change: Applying change academy processes at department level. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 31–44.
  • Healey, M., Marquis, B., & Vajoczki, S. (2013). Exploring SoTL through international collaborative writing groups. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 3–8.
  • Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.
  • Hoessler, C., Britnell, J., & Stockley, D. (2010). Assessing the impact of educational development through the lens of the scholarship of teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2010(122), 81–89.
  • Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Poole, G. (2010). Ten year reflections on mentoring SoTL research in a research intensive university. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 117–129.
  • Hubball, H., Pearson, M. L., & Clarke, A. (2013). SoTL inquiry in broader curricular and institutional contexts: Theoretical underpinnings and emerging trends. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 41–57.
  • Huber, M. T. (2004). Balancing acts: The scholarship of teaching and learning in academic careers. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and Carnegie Foundation.
  • Huber, M. T. (2006). Disciplines, pedagogy, and inquiry based learning about teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 107, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.246
  • Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Merrifield, OH: AAHE Publications.
  • Hutchings, P. (2007). Theory: The elephant in the scholarship of teaching and learning room. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 2.
  • Hutchings, P., Borin, P., Keesing Styles, L., Martin, L., Michael, R., Scharff, L., … Ismail, A. (2013). The scholarship of teaching and learning in an age of accountability: Building bridges. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 35–47.
  • Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact (Vol. 21). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10–15.
  • Kalish, A., & Stockley, D. (2009). Building scholarly communities: Supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning with learning communities. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 3(1), F1A–F13A.
  • Kelley, B., Cruz, L., & Fire, N. (2017). Moving toward the center: The integration of educational development in an era of historic change in higher education. To Improve the Academy, 36(1), 1–8.
  • Kern, B., Mettetal, G., Dixson, M., & Morgan, R. K. (2015). The role of SoTL in the academy: Upon the 25th anniversary of Boyer’s scholarship reconsidered. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(3), 1–14.
  • Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 5–23.
  • Kreber, C. (2007). What‘s it really all about? The scholarship of teaching and learning as an authentic practice. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 3.
  • Lindblom Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(03), 285–298.
  • Little, D. (2014). Reflections on the state of the scholarship of educational development. To Improve the Academy, 33(1), 1–13.
  • Major, C. H., & Palmer, B. (2006). Reshaping teaching and learning: The transformation of faculty pedagogical content knowledge. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 51, 619–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734 004 1391 2
  • Marcketti, S., VanDerZanden, A. M., & Leptien, J. R. (2015). SoTL champions: Leveraging their lessons learned. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 4.
  • Marcketti, S. B., & Freeman, S. A. (2016). SoTL evidence on promotion and tenure vitas at a research university. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(5), 19–31.
  • Martensson, K., Roxå, T., & Olsson, T. (2011). Developing a quality culture through the scholarship of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research & Development: Journal of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, 30(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.536972
  • McKinney, K. (2004). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Past lessons, current challenges, and future visions. To Improve the Academy, 22(1), 3–19.
  • McKinney, K. (Ed.) (2013). The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  • Melnyk, B. M., Fineout Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. The American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52.
  • Miller Young, J., & Yeo, M. (2015). Conceptualizing and communicating SoTL: A framework for the field. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 3(2), 37–53.
  • Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2011). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science: Research, Theory, & Application in Psychology and Related Sciences, 23(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611421018
  • O’Meara, K. A., & Rice, R. E. (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered. Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Pan, D. (2009). What scholarship of teaching? Why bother? International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 2.
  • Perkins, S., & Saltsman, G. (2010). Mobile learning at Abilene Christian University: Successes, challenges, and results from year one. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 47–54.
  • Peters, D., Schodt, D., & Walczak, M. (2008). Supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning at liberal arts colleges. To Improve the Academy, 26, 39–52.
  • Rehrey, G., Siering, G., & Hostetter, C. (2014). SoTL principles and program collaboration in the age of integration. International Journal for the Scholarship of teaching and Learning, 8(1), 2.
  • Richlin, L. (2001). Scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 86, 57–68.
  • Roxå, T., & Martensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks—Exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34, 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597200
  • Roxå, T., Olsson, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2007). Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a strategy for institutional change. The HERDSA (Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia) 2007 International Conference. The Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA).
  • Schön, D. A. (1995). Knowing in action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 27–34.
  • Schroeder, C. (2007). Countering SoTL marginalization: A model for integrating SoTL with institutional initiatives. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 15.
  • Schroeder, C. (2012). Coming in from the margins: Faculty development’s emerging organizational development role in institutional change. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
  • Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
  • Simmons, N. (2016). Synthesizing SoTL institutional initiatives toward national impact. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2016(146), 95–102.
  • Simpson, D., Fincher, R., Hafler, J., Irby, D., Richards, B. F., Rosenfeld, G. C., & Viggiana, T. R. (2007). Advancing educators and education by defining the components and evidence associated with educational scholarship. Medical Education, 41, 1002–1009.
  • Simpson, D., Hafler, J., Brown, D., & Wilderson, L. (2004). Documentation systems for educators seeking academic promotion in U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine, 798, 783–790.
  • Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Eddy, P. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present (Vol. 59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Stark, A. M., & Smith, G. A. (2016). Communities of practice as agents of future faculty development. The Journal of Faculty Development, 30(2), 59–67.
  • Tan, G. (1998). Managing creativity in organizations: A total system approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(1), 23–31.
  • Taylor, K. L. (2010). Understanding the disciplines within the context of educational development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2010, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.398
  • Theall, M. (2006). A new “reconsideration”. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 925–929.
  • Thomas, F. N. L., & Ribera, T. (2011). Institutional encouragement of and faculty engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning. To Improve the Academy, 30(1), 112–125.
  • Tinberg, H., Duffy, D. K., & Mino, J. (2007). The scholarship of teaching and learning at the two year college: Promise and peril. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(4), 26–33.
  • Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 155–168.
  • Werder, C., Thibou, S., Simkins, S., Hornsby, K., Legg, K., & Franklin, T. (2016). Co inquiry with students: When shared questions lead the way. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 4(2), 1–15.
  • Williams, A. L., Verwoord, R., Beery, T. A., Dalton, H., McKinnon, J., Strickland, K., … Poole, G. (2013). The power of social networks: A model for weaving the scholarship of teaching and learning into institutional culture. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.2.49
  • Wilson Doenges, G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). Benchmarks for scholarly investigations of teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 63–70.
  • Wright, M. C., Goldwasser, M., Jacobson, W., & Dakes, C. (2017). Assessment from an educational development perspective. To Improve the Academy, 36(1), 39–49.