SoTL Landscape
at the University of Saskatchewan
The Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness
Office of the Vice-President Research
November 2012
Executive Summary
In the summer of 2012, the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness (GMCTE), with support
from the Office of the Vice-President Research, undertook a study to assess the level and extent
to which the scholarship of teaching and learning, or SoTL, was actively being conducted among
University of Saskatchewan faculty and staff. The study yielded a campus-wide SoTL community of 284
individuals, spanning every college and school within the institution, and consisting of 247 faculty and
37 staff members.
An electronic survey was administered to the cohort of identified faculty members with a 70%
response rate (172 respondents). A modified version of the electronic survey was also administered to
the identified staff, which also received a 70% response rate (26 respondents). The survey instrument
was designed to a) categorize the depth and intensity of SOTL activity on campus; b) identify the
barriers and challenges faced by SoTL practitioners; c) examine the reach and complexity of the
existing SoTL community at the University; and d) to draw on the existing literature (mainly Hutchings,
Huber, & Ciccone, 2011) to identify best practices for supporting this type of scholarship at the
institutional level.
Under Trigwell et al.’s (2000) model, Tier 1 SoTL scholars disseminate findings at the local level – their
department, discipline, or institution – and usually via informal means such as discussion or peer
review of teaching practices. Inquiry at this level is similarly informal, typically focusing on the scholar’s
own teaching practice or the quality of learning of his or her students. Tier 2 SoTL scholarship often
involves dissemination through conference presentations and scholarly publications, but tends to be
limited by disciplinary boundaries. Inquiry at this level takes on some of the systematic and rigorous
attributes of traditional research while typically being focused on teaching and learning in the context
of a particular discipline. Tier 3 SoTL scholarship transcends disciplinary boundaries and often involves
dissemination of results at a national or international level. Inquiry at this level follows rigorous
research design practices and is often aimed at uncovering evidence with general applicability across
institutions and disciplines.
From the electronic survey, it was found that most at the University of Saskatchewan’s identified SoTL
scholars (48% of them) are practicing at what appears to be Tier 1, while 24% are conducting Tier 3
SoTL work. This distribution conforms to the hierarchical nature of the model. Additionally, 18% of
respondents indicated that SoTL comprised more than three-quarters of their scholarly research effort
and another 9% indicated that between half and three-quarters of their research work is focused on
SoTL.
When asked to describe any barriers arising uniquely from involvement in this type of research,
38% of respondents indicated that the lack of perceived legitimacy of SoTL scholarship constituted
the primary barrier. SoTL work tends to be viewed as “soft” or “secondary,” and this point of view
pervades everything from departmental cultures to promotion and tenure standards. For these faculty
members, the work is carried out in spite of this friction.
The study revealed a sizable community of scholars internally networked across disciplines,
departments, and colleges. Twenty-seven percent of faculty respondents and eighty-one percent
of staff respondents indicated that their SoTL work is most often collaborative, with half of faculty
respondents and two-fifths of staff respondents indicating that their collaborators were from other
disciplinary backgrounds. The results of this survey indicate that the U of S SoTL community is also
externally networked with the wider international SoTL community. A significant number of faculty
(40%) and staff (26%) reported that they had published on SoTL, while 54% of faculty and 50% of staff
reported having presented on SoTL at a conference.
2
A small subset of faculty respondents also submitted a CV for review, and the results of a CV
analysis revealed that 15 faculty members who voluntarily shared their CV had published 96
scholarly articles, book chapters and books, and 18 faculty members presented 224 presentations
and workshops at disciplinary or general teaching and learning conferences within the last 12
years. Furthermore, from a select number of CVs received for further analysis, we were able to
identify that 23 people have sought and received over $1 million in research funding to do SoTL,
with 64% of these grants being from sources external to the U of S.
Overall, considering the relatively small institutional investment in support for SoTL and the
part-time nature of most people’s involvement in this type of scholarly activity, faculty and
staff involved in research on teaching and learning in higher education at the U of S have had
remarkable success.
3
SoTL Landscape
at the University of Saskatchewan
Introduction
In the summer of 2012, the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness (GMCTE) undertook
a mixed methods study in partnership with the Office of the Vice-President (Research) which
sought to assess the level and extent to which the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL)
was actively being conducted at the University of Saskatchewan. The scholarship of teaching
and learning can be defined as, “[the] systematic study of teaching and/or learning and the
public sharing and review of such work through presentations, performance, or publications”
(McKinney, 2006, p. 39). Further definitions of systematic and public sharing and review
were developed by the research team (see Appendix A). The general aim of the study was
to exhaustively identify all U of S faculty, sessionals, and staff engaged in some form of the
scholarship of teaching and learning. The study used a broad definition of SoTL in order to
capture the full range of activity that the field entails. More specifically, the study also sought
to a) categorize the depth and intensity of said activity, using a model developed by Trigwell
et al. (2000); b) identify the barriers and challenges faced by SoTL practitioners, if any, that arise
uniquely from doing this type of scholarship; and c) to draw on the existing literature (Hutchings,
Huber, & Ciccone, 2011) to identify best practices for supporting this type of scholarship at
the institutional level. This report summarizes important findings from the study and aims to
provide a snapshot of SoTL activity at the U of S – namely, the level, range, and type of activity;
the sources and types of support currently available, and the extent to which SoTL activity can be
said to be University-wide.
Methodology
The daunting task of exhaustively identifying all SoTL practitioners on the U of S campus was
carried out using a three-pronged sampling approach. The first, a bottom-up approach, involved
engaging SoTL scholars already known to the GMCTE, whether through prior collaboration or
by their having previously received GMCTE funds or awards. The second, a top-down approach,
involved email outreach first to faculty, then to department heads, seeking self-identification
or referrals respectively. The third, a lateral approach, involved an extensive internet search
examining all U of S faculty members’ web pages, as well as SSHRC grant information, the
2011 Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education conference program (hosted at the
University of Saskatchewan), and recipients of U of S teaching awards, searching for indications
of SoTL activity among University of Saskatchewan faculty and staff. This process yielded an initial
sample consisting of 304 faculty and staff members1.
1 This number includes any individuals identified via snowball sampling (detailed in the subsequent paragraph).
4
Part I of the study consisted of a five-question telephone survey principally designed to assess
potential SoTL scholars at the most basic level - “yes” they are doing SoTL, or “no” they are not - to
ensure the validity of the sample within our study. The 304 faculty were attempted to be contacted
a minimum of three times for the telephone survey. The first two of these attempts featured a sixth
question asking respondents for referrals (snowball sampling). Due to time constraints and the
difficulties of trying to contact faculty members during the summer months, it was not possible to
successfully contact all 304 individuals as intended. Throughout the course of the telephone surveys,
42 individuals were successfully contacted. During the final round of calls, voicemail messages
were left asking each remaining individual to consider participating in the study by completing
a forthcoming online survey. The 42 individuals successfully contacted via telephone were asked
for permission to be contacted again for the electronic survey; only one respondent declined
participation. A total of 57 individuals were eliminated from the sample during this phase, owing
to unavailable contact information, status clarifications (e.g., retired), or lack of evidence that the
individual remained employed at the U of S, while an additional 37 individuals were identified, leaving
284 individuals in the sample for Part II2.
Part II of the study consisted of a 38-question online survey primarily designed to hierarchically
classify SoTL activity based on a model developed by Trigwell et al. (2000) which uses a metric
based on breadth and caliber of dissemination. It has been found in the literature that the extent of
dissemination is strongly correlated with the type of inquiry being done, with broader dissemination
levels being associated with more rigorous research design that tends to focus on teaching and
learning in a trans-disciplinary context. Trigwell’s three levels are summarized below.
Individual level (or Tier 1) dissemination involves discussing, presenting, or otherwise sharing the
results of SoTL inquiry with colleagues from one’s department or institution. This may include peer
review of teaching practices, local conferences and symposia, or critical reflection and feedback by the
researcher and/or colleagues. Local level (Tier 2) dissemination involves sharing one’s work at scales
beyond one’s institution but still within the bounds of one’s discipline. This may include publication in
a disciplinary journal (whether focused on teaching and learning or not) or presenting at a disciplinary
conference. National/International level (Tier 3) dissemination often transcends disciplinary
boundaries, particularly at the international level, in the sharing of research results. This may include
presenting at teaching and learning conferences or publication in journals of teaching and learning in
higher education.
The electronic survey for Part II was administered to 247 faculty members and received a 70% response
rate (172 responses). A modified version of the survey - adapted to more accurately reflect the context
of staff respondents – was administered to 37 staff members and also received a 70% response
rate (26 responses), resulting in a total of 198 respondents overall. In addition to dissemination
activity, the survey instrument developed for Part II examined the role of reflection (Shulman, 1987;
Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Kreber & Cranton, 2000; Andresen, 2000) and use of the literature in
personal teaching practice and scholarly work (Trigwell et al., 2000; Prosser & Trigwell, 2001), as well
as conceptualizations surrounding the teaching role (Prosser & Trigwell, 2001; Samuelowicz & Bain,
2001). Prior studies have found that the depth and intensity of activity in each of these dimensions
is predictive of the depth and intensity of SoTL scholarship being carried out, with activity generally
clustering around identifiable levels or tiers.
2 See Findings – Activity Level for a more detailed explanation of the change in sample size. While 304 minus 57
does not equal 284, the numbers given are correct.
5
In general, these dimensions occur on a developmental-type spectrum, with the levels or tiers
approximating stages of growth. Proto-SoTL activity, such as inquiry into the effectiveness of one’s
own teaching, prefigures an increasingly systematic and rigorous approach to the study of teaching
and learning. The culmination of this process (for some) is a full-blown research agenda characterized
by the rigorous design typically associated with traditional research.
Findings
Activity Level
As previously indicated, the initial sampling search revealed 304 individuals engaged in some form of
SoTL activity. The distribution of this activity across the various campus units is shown in Table 1. Also
shown in Table 1 is a unit-by-unit breakdown of the evidenced number of SoTL scholars going into
the telephone survey. For this final sample, the original sample had been reduced by a net total of 20
individuals.
Table 1: Overview of SoTL Activity Level at the University of Saskatchewan, September 2012
Potential
Number in
College or Unit
Number
Final Sample*
Involved
Agriculture & Bioresources
15
14
Arts & Science
74
70
Dentistry
1
0
Education
30
26
Edwards School of Business
18
17
Engineering
11
11
Kinesiology
6
5
Law
13
12
Libraries
2
2
Medicine
35
22
Nursing
23
18
Pharmacy & Nutrition
10
9
SENS
5
3
Staff
19
37
STM
30
26
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
12
11
TOTAL
304
284
Includes both faculty and staff.
*
The expected number of SoTL scholars on the U of S campus both shrank and grew as a result of
the telephone survey – growing due to snowball sampling and shrinking due to the discovery of
information indicating an individual should be omitted.3 The total number of U of S SoTL scholars
yielded by this study is 2844.
The largest cohort of SoTL scholars is found in the College of Arts & Science (70 individuals, or 25%).
The next-largest cohorts are staff members (37) - primarily found in units such as the University
Learning Centre/Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness or the Student Enrolment Services
Division – and faculty/instructors found in Saint Thomas More College (26), Education (26), and
Medicine (23). Nursing (18) and The Edwards School of Business (17) follow closely behind. The
remaining units together comprise 24% of the U of S SoTL community.
3 E.g., no contact information available, individual is retired or no longer employed at the U of S, etc.
4 Includes faculty and staff. Faculty = 247, staff = 37.
6
Table 2: Electronic survey sample distribution by College
Faculty Respondents
Natural and Applied Sciences
Social Sciences
Humanities & Fine Arts
Health Sciences
Business/Education/Law
Staff Repondents
Missing Responses
TOTAL
Frequency
27
23
23
35
43
26
21
198
*Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
Percent
14%
12%
12%
18%
22%
13%
11%
102%*
Cumulative
percent
14%
26%
38%
56%
78%
91%
102%
The survey included an optional question asking faculty to identify their primary disciplinary
affiliation. Of the SoTL scholars who responded to this question, the cohort consisting of faculty
members from the professional social sciences - Edwards School of Business, College of Education
and College of Law has the largest representation (43 individuals, or 22%). Following are the
faculty cohorts from the Health Sciences (18%), the Natural and Applied sciences (14%), staff
respondents (13%), and faculty from the Social Sciences (12%), and the Humanities and Fine Arts
(12%). As Table 2 illustrates, the sample of respondents from the electronic survey provides a
healthy representation across all disciplinary boundaries at the University of Saskatchewan.
Activity Characteristics
SoTL Community
The University of Saskatchewan faculty-level SoTL community, which comprises 87% of our
total respondents, is distributed across all types of academic appointment - full professors
(29%), associate professors (32%), assistant professors (26%), sessionals (6%), lecturers (5%), and
academic programs faculty (1%)5. Eighty-three percent are in tenured or tenure-track positions.
Thirty-three percent of this community self-identifies as belonging to a formalized group with a
mandate focused primarily on teaching and learning; 13% belong to more than one such group6.
Additionally, staff members represent13% of the total respondents.
SoTL Practice
Most faculty respondents (47%) indicated that SoTL comprises less than one quarter of their
scholarly work. A further 26% indicated that SoTL comprises one-quarter to one-half of their total
scholarship, while 9% reported that half to three-quarters of their scholarship is SoTL work. Finally,
18% of respondents said that more than three-quarters of their scholarly work is spent on topics
related to teaching and learning. Half of the respondents indicated that this proportion had not
changed over time. However, 41% indicated that they now spend more time on SoTL than they
had in the past, while 9% indicated that this proportion had decreased and they now spent less
time researching teaching and learning-related topics. For staff respondents, 64% reported that
they conducted inquiry into teaching and/or learning as part of their professional responsibilities,
while an additional 9% did not currently engage in SoTL but plan to in the near future. Overall,
then, the quantity of SoTL scholarship being produced by this community is increasing over time,
independent of increases in community size.
5. n = 156
6. E.g., The Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, etc.
7
As predicted by the models in the literature, nearly all (94%) faculty engaging in SoTL critically
reflect on their teaching or their scholarly work on teaching and learning, while 80% of reported
that their teaching practice or teaching and learning research has been influenced as a result. The
vast majority (70% of faculty and 85% of staff members) regularly read literature on teaching and
learning, with 40%7 of faculty indicating that the literature figures in their teaching on a day-today level. Similarly, a large number of faculty respondents indicated that the disciplinary teaching
and learning literature (44%) and/or the teaching and learning literature in higher education more
broadly (53%) figures prominently in their scholarly work on teaching and/or learning. Table 3
gives a detailed account of the importance of the literature and critical reflection in both teaching
activity and SoTL scholarship for U of S faculty.
Table 3: Prevalence of reflection and use of the literature among U of S faculty
doing SoTL (percent)8
Rate the extent to
which….
…. the literature on
teaching and learning
figures in your teaching on
a day-to-day level.
… the literature on
teaching and learning
within your discipline figures
in your scholarly work on
teaching and/or learning.
… the literature on
teaching and learning in
higher education figures in
your scholarly work on
teaching and/or learning.
… reflection influences
your teaching practices or
your scholarly activity on
teaching and learning.
None
2
3
4
To a
great
extent
Mean
Count
0
22
37
27
13
3.32
113
3
25
29
24
20
3.33
112
3
25
30
31
12
3.24
113
0
1
19
39
41
4.20
150
The results shown in Table 3 conform to the expectations of the models from the literature. Entrylevel SoTL activity, such as reflecting on one’s own teaching practice, is much more prevalent
than a more advanced-level activity such as the use of teaching and learning literature to inform
and shape research activity. This indicates that the University of Saskatchewan SoTL community
has developed enough to display the hierarchical characteristics predicted by the models in
the literature, where entry-level behaviours are reported by a higher number of individuals, and
behaviours associated with more advanced forms of SoTL are relatively fewer. Survey respondents
were asked to indicate how they disseminated their findings arising from SoTL inquiry and these
responses were analyzed following Trigwell et al.’s (2000) model in categorizing the breadth and
depth of SoTL activity. We found that, of the 170 faculty and staff respondents to this item, 48%
are classified in Tier 1 (where their dissemination activities are primarily aimed at conversations
with their colleagues inside their department/institution or non-peer-reviewed publications).
7. This and subsequent percentages in this paragraph are the sum of the corresponding values from column “4” and
“To a great extent” from Table 3.
8. This set of items was not asked in the staff survey.
8
Following, we found that 28% of respondents are in Tier 2 (where their dissemination activities
are in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations within their discipline) and 24%
are in Tier 3 (where their dissemination activities are in peer-reviewed, general higher education
teaching and learning publications and conference presentations beyond individual disciplines).9
This conforms to the hierarchical nature of the model.
Dissemination
Entry-level SoTL activity in this dimension consists of discussion, presentation, and other forms of
sharing with colleagues in one’s own department or institution. In general, “discussion” is taken as
a proxy for entry-level dissemination behaviour and the study results conform to this pattern: 95%
of respondents indicated that they had shared what they learned about teaching and learning by
discussing it with colleagues in their department, discipline, or institution. At the other end of the
scale, dissemination of SoTL work targets national or international audiences and is generally peer
reviewed. An analysis of voluntarily submitted CVs was used to identify the breadth and quality of
dissemination of SoTL research conducted by University of Saskatchewan faculty.
Of 172 faculty respondents, 36 opted to voluntarily submit CVs. Of these, 23 contained clear
reference to SoTL activity and were subsequently used for various analyses. For the dissemination
analysis, 15 CVs were found to contain entries for dissemination via a written medium - journal
articles, books, book chapters, reports, or published conference proceedings. Items prior to 2000
were omitted. In total, 15 faculty members had 96 pieces of literature published; 64% of these
were in the last five years, 69% were peer-reviewed, 12% were not peer reviewed, and 19% were
not clearly identified as being peer reviewed or not peer reviewed. The composition of this body
of work consists mainly of journal articles (59%) and published conference proceedings (18%, for a
combined total of 78%).
There were 18 CVs containing reference to some form of oral dissemination of SoTL work.
These works included special lectures, presentations, posters, and workshops. As with works
disseminated in written form, oral works before 2000 were not counted. The peer reviewed status
of activity in this category was not identified consistently enough to group items along these lines.
In total, 18 University of Saskatchewan faculty gained exposure for their SoTL work at 164 unique
dissemination venues since 2000 and were responsible for 224 works of oral dissemination. Of
these, 83% (187) were special lectures or presentations (including conference presentations), 8%
(19) were poster presentations, and 7% (15) were workshops. The majority of the dissemination
venues were in Canada (138, or 84%); 33% (54) were in the United States and 16% (26) were
outside of Canada and the US.
In the electronic survey, 40% (69) of the faculty respondents indicated that they had published
on SoTL findings, of which 87% (or 60 respondents) have published in refereed journals or books.
Given that the CV analysis revealed that 15 faculty were responsible for 96 pieces of literature
over 12 years, and that nearly half of the SoTL community indicated that SoTL work comprises an
increasingly larger proportion of their research, it is reasonable to expect that the 69 published
SoTL scholars from the U of S have contributed a significant and growing body of literature among
them, one with considerable reach in the academic community. Additionally, 26% (6) of staff
respondents have published their SoTL findings and these six respondents have all published in
refereed journals or books.
Similarly, 53% (91) of faculty respondents indicated that they had presented on SoTL work at a
conference. Of those respondents, 73% (66) have presented at a disciplinary conference, 54%
(49) have presented at a disciplinary conference focused on teaching and learning, and 58% (53)
have presented at a teaching and learning conference. Given that the CV analysis revealed 18
__________________
9. Recall that n = 42 for the telephone survey
9
individuals to be responsible for 224 works of oral dissemination in 12 years and that the actual
number of U of S SoTL scholars conducting this form of dissemination is 91 individual faculty
members, there is a reasonable expectation that, as with written forms of dissemination, the
scholarship of the U of S SoTL community has gained considerable exposure in the academic
community at large. Additionally, 50% (13) of staff respondents have presented their SoTL findings
at a conference, of which 46% (6) have presented at a disciplinary conference, 46% (6) at a
disciplinary conference focused on teaching and learning, and 92% (12) at a teaching and learning
conference.
Context
The context of SoTL research at the U of S consists of the cultural and institutional factors affecting
SoTL research and its practitioners, as well as the characteristics of the U of S’s SoTL community.
Twenty-seven percent of faculty respondents indicated that their SoTL projects are undertaken
collaboratively more than half the time (14%) or almost always (13%), while 81% of staff
respondents reported that their SoTL projects are collaborative more than half the time. For
faculty respondents, the majority of collaborative projects involved colleagues from the U of S, but
17% indicated that none of their collaborators were their institutional peers. For staff respondents,
the overwhelming majority (88%) of their collaborators are colleagues from the U of S. In addition,
49% of faculty and 41% of staff respondents indicated that their projects were multidisciplinary
in that their collaborators were individuals from outside their own discipline. These numbers
suggest a healthy and robust networked SoTL community on campus, and a growing externallynetworked SoTL community.
The telephone survey asked respondents to describe, in their own words, how they conceptualize
their work on teaching and learning.10 It is often the case that individuals doing SoTL, especially
proto-SoTL of the early stages or SoTL inquiry, are not aware that they are engaging in the
scholarship of teaching and learning. This owes partly to the differences in intent across the
different levels of activity. In the early stages, the intention might be, for example, to assess the
effectiveness of one’s own teaching or the depth and quality of student learning, with a focus
being on one’s own teaching practice or the set of students in one’s own classroom. This activity
will be therefore understood and conceptualized in those terms. At the other end of the spectrum,
SoTL inquiry may be aimed at such intentions as identifying evidence about teaching and learning
with general applicability across institutions and disciplines, and conceptualizations following
from this are more consistent with more established research methodologies. It is likely that
individuals conducting this latter type of activity are engaged in the national and international
SoTL community and are therefore familiar with the term. Similarly, individuals in the former
category will likely be unfamiliar with the term, or even with the existence of the scholarship
of teaching and learning as a field of inquiry. The responses to this question reflect the full
spectrum of intentions and conceptualizations (see Appendix C for representative examples) and
reveal the U of S SoTL community to be rather diverse in this regard. This characteristic of the
SoTL community has significant implications for how SoTL activity might best be supported.11
An individual seeking to improve their own teaching might feel they would be best served
with additional support such as faculty development workshops, while an individual doing
something closer to traditional research may feel better-served with appropriate supports such as
institutional research funding.
The visibility of SoTL work within faculty respondents’ academic departments and staff
respondents’ home department has implications for the degree to which individuals conducting
SoTL feel recognized and supported by their respective departments. The online questionnaire
gauged this question and our results found that 28% of all respondents felt their involvement in
__________________
10
10. Recall that n = 42 for the telephone survey
11.This topic will be covered more fully in a subsequent section.
SoTL is visible to their departmental colleagues. In contrast, 40% of respondents felt that their
work in SoTL has little to no visibility to their colleagues. The GMCTE, in partnership with the
Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE), conducted a second study
during the summer of 2012 aimed at checking the current state of SoTL at the national level. This
question on visibility was also asked in the national survey. In contrast to the U of S context, 64%
of individuals conducting SoTL across Canada responded that their involvement in SoTL is visible
to their colleagues, while only 12% felt their work in SoTL has little to no visibility. This indicates a
substantial gap in the perceived visibility of SoTL work for University of Saskatchewan scholars visà-vis their national counterparts.
This lack of perceived visibility of SoTL in academic departments at the U of S was found to be
related to two other factors affecting SoTL practice: barriers and legitimacy. In the electronic
survey, faculty were asked to respond to two open-ended questions. The first asked them to
identify any barriers, challenges, or concerns that have stemmed from their involvement in SoTL;
the second gauged their opinion on whether their research, scholarly, or artistic work on teaching
and learning is perceived to have legitimacy as a “real” form of scholarship according to policies
and standards of their respective departments. The 122 responses received were coded and
analyzed using NVivo 9 software.
It was found that the responses for both questions are intimately linked. The lack of perceived
legitimacy for their SoTL work was, for many, the primary barrier facing SoTL practitioners.
Specifically, one of the primary challenges cited by 38% of respondents is that their work on SoTL
is not recognized as a “real” form of scholarship by their departments, and when it is recognized,
it is often relegated to the status of a “soft” or “fluffy” publication, or “secondary” or “sideline”
research, and is valued much less than traditional disciplinary research. A further barrier identified
by respondents is that their contributions in SoTL are neither recognized nor considered in
their case for promotion or tenure, echoing the “visibility” and “legitimacy” findings described
above. Consequently, this works to discourage respondents’ desire to further pursue this type of
scholarship. A third commonly indicated barrier was lack of time and difficulty balancing one’s
work in SoTL with all of the other teaching, disciplinary research, and administrative obligations
and responsibilities that come with the role. While failure to recognize SoTL as “real” scholarship
was deemed as a barrier for nearly two-fifths of faculty members in our study, the remaining
respondents felt in varying degrees that their department recognizes and values SoTL as a
legitimate form of scholarship. Of these respondents, some noted further that the legitimization
of SoTL has been recent development in their department, while some stated that this degree of
legitimacy remains contingent upon whether their work is published in peer-reviewed venues or
not.
In summary, while reported challenges are pervasive and substantial, there is tentative evidence
to suggest that the institutional and cultural factors affecting SoTL work are beginning to shift.
Sources of Support
Funding
Amounts and sources of funding were gleaned from 23 of the 36 submitted CVs and compiled
for analysis. There were 43 separate grants listed between this set of 23 faculty members after
2000. The average grant value is $22K and the total value of SoTL research funding secured by this
group of faculty is just over $1 million.12 Sixty-four percent of SoTL grants secured by U of S faculty
were from external sources. The majority of SoTL projects (71%) were short-term, that is, being
conducted within one year. For these projects, the average value is $14K. While the University of
___________
12. Both total and average are excluding outlier of one $4.5 million grant (which was to co-lead the Aboriginal Learning
Knowledge Centre). With this outlier, avertage = 177,333 and total = 5.5 million
11
Saskatchewan and SSHRC provide the main sources of funding, U of S faculty have also conducted
projects funded by various agencies, institutes, foundations, associations, councils, and programs
from both the provincial and national levels. Appendix D details each unique source of funding
found in the 23 faculty CVs.
Best Practices for Supporting SoTL at the Institutional Level
The work of Hutchings, Huber, & Ciccone (Hutchings, Huber, & Ciccone, 2011) has identified 8 key
practices for supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning at the institutional level. These
key practices are designed to align the educational goals of the institution with the principles of
the scholarship of teaching and learning. Rather than being strictly prescriptive, the practices offer
a guide that can be tailored and adapted in ways befitting each individual institution’s priorities
and culture.
Table 4 details these practices and indicates critical factors affecting the success of each. As
previously mentioned, the heterogeneous nature of SoTL activity at the U of S has implications
for these practices, particularly the first, to understand, communicate, and promote an integrated
vision of the scholarship of teaching and learning. The critical factor in the success of this practice
is congruence between how administrators understand the nature and aims of SoTL work being
done and how the practitioners themselves understand it. A complete grasp of the range of SoTL
activity on campus is essential if it is to be advanced as a practice and a form of scholarship.
Several of these institutional strategies identified by Hutchings et al. (2011) are already in
place (with varied levels of success and at various stages of development) at the University of
Saskatchewan. The Centre for Discovery in Learning and the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching
Effectiveness serve as focal points for many of these initiatives, where dissemination venues
such as Bridges, which has been published by the GMCTE for a decade, or the U of S SoTL
Symposium, with plans for the Third Annual Symposium underway, have helped provide a venue
for communicating with the campus community about SoTL. Other departmental and collegelevel initiatives are in place to support research on teaching and learning as well, including the
College of Nursing’s Centre for the Advancement of the Study of Nursing and Interprofessional
Education (CASNIE), the (formerly titled) Educational Support and Development unit in the
College of Medicine, the Centre for the Advancement of Accounting Education in the Edward’s
School of Business, and the newly approved School for Professional Development in the College of
Engineering. Much of what has been achieved on campus, however, has been realized with very
little sustained (base budgeted) support from the institution.
12
13
Description
Process is also recursive and may develop
unevenly.
May be loose, informal, and small-scale, or
formal, large-scale, and tightly connected. May
be focused on a theme (e.g., undergraduate
research) or not (e.g., fellowship programs).
Most powerfully communicated by funding.
Mutually beneficial relationship where
each domain is strengthened in its aim for
evidence-based improvements to student
learning. Consists of conversation, data
sharing, formulation of shared goals or learning
outcomes.
Policies and language in guidelines for
evaluation, documentation, and peer review at
the departmental, institutional, and program
levels.
Participation in the International Society
for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning; connections with SoTL programs
and opportunities at other institutions;
opportunities from disciplinary and professional
societies.
Developed collaboratively with all stakeholders
to articulate the role and place of SoTL work in
the institution’s future.
Promote the core values and practices of SoTL
(e.g., teaching as intellectual work, classrooms
as sites of inquiry, applying products of inquiry
to improve student learning) and encourage
their widest possible application within the
institution.
Programs, events, communications, funding,
and initiatives that either create or promote
opportunities for inquiry practices.
Adapted from (Hutchings, Huber, & Ciccone, 2011)
7. Develop a plan and time line for
integrating the scholarship of
teaching and learning into campus
culture, and monitor progress.
8. Recognize that institutionalization
is a long-term process.
5. Work purposefully to bring faculty
roles and rewards into alignment
with a view of teaching as scholarly
work.
6. Take advantage of and engage with
larger, increasingly international
teaching commons.
4. Foster exchange between the
campus scholarship of teaching
and learning community and those
with responsibility for institutional
research and assessment.
2. Support a wide range of
opportunities to cultivate the skills
and habits of inquiry into teaching
and learning.
3. Connect the scholarship of
teaching and learning to larger,
shared agendas for student
learning and success.
1. Understand, communicate, and
promote an integrated vision of
the scholarship of teaching and
learning.
Practice
Table 4: Best Practices for Institution-Level Support of SoTL
Cannot solely be mandated from upper
administration; requires healthy and integrated
community of practice to succeed.
Success hinges on the quality of how progress
is monitored and adjusted. Beneficial to seek
support and knowledge from other institutions.
Learning from other campuses that are more
advanced in this regard and therefore in a
position to model international connectivity.
Rewarding good SoTL work. Attention to the
pivotal role of departments.
Leadership is required to forge connections
& structures, guide the process, and integrate
results on an institutional level.
That the integrity of SoTL be maintained so as
to prevent it from being seen as a tool or simply
a means to an end.
A holistic approach that recognizes the inquiryevidence-improvement cycle.
Critical Aspect
Congruence between administrators’ and
practitioners’ characterizations of such work.
Conclusion
There exists a sizable and diverse SoTL community that spans all colleges and units at the U of S.
The individuals involved in SoTL on campus are primarily categorized (48%) as Tier 1 scholars of
teaching and learning (using the framework of Trigwell et al., 2000), though a significant number
have actively been involved in researching and disseminating the scholarship of teaching and
learning within and beyond institutional and disciplinary boundaries (28% at Tier 2 and 24% at
Tier 3). Though advancement through Trigwell et al.’s tiers is not inevitable (2000), particularly
given the particular contexts within which respondents to our study find themselves, there are a
number of ways the U of S might facilitate and promote movement through tiers with appropriate
supports at the institutional, college, or departmental levels. On the whole, the results of
our study indicate that the lack of legitimacy of SoTL as research in some parts of campus is
a significant barrier and that, overall, SoTL has not been well-supported to this point; most
departmental/college/institutional policy-level recognition appears to be relatively recent. There
is, however, much to be positive about with respect to the state of SoTL on campus.
A growing number of faculty members at the U of S (27% of respondents) have indicated that
SoTL comprises more than 50% of the research they do. For all faculty respondents, 50% have
indicated that the proportion of their time dedicated to SoTL has not changed over the past
number of years, while fully 41% of respondents indicated that the proportion of their time
dedicated to SoTL is increasing. Additionally, 40% of all respondents indicated that they have
published some scholarly work on teaching and learning (with a majority of those indicating
it is in a peer-reviewed source) and 53% indicated that they had presented at least once at a
disciplinary conference (including those dedicated exclusively to teaching and learning) and/or at
general teaching and learning conferences more broadly.
While a detailed CV analysis was conducted for only a small subset of respondents, this subset of
the SoTL community at the U of S has resulted in over 100 publications (determined from only
15 CVs available), almost 300 presentations or posters (determined from only 18 CVs), and over
$1 million in research support (determined from 23 CVs) since the year 2000. Considering the
proportion of 198 respondents indicating they had either presented orally or published work
on teaching and learning, the actual impact of U of S SoTL scholars is much greater. Overall,
considering the relatively small institutional investment in support for SoTL scholars involved,
research on teaching and learning in higher education at the U of S has had quite remarkable
success.
14
Appendices
Appendix A
Further definitions developed to clarify terminology used to frame the study and develop the surveys.
Systematic study of teaching and learning occurs on a spectrum of intensity and refers to, on one end, the planned
and purposeful critical reflection or evaluation of one’s own teaching to, on the other end, something
that entails a perceptually objective approach to the study of teaching and/or learning, constructed of
methodologically sound and appropriate procedures, replicable by others and equal to the rigors of peer
review.
Public sharing and review also exists on a spectrum and involves, on one end, discussion and dissemination
amongst one’s local academic community, which may or may not include some aspect of peer feedback,
to the dissemination of systematically obtained research results via either disciplinary or SoTL conference
presentations, publication in a refereed disciplinary or SoTL journal, publication in a peer-reviewed book or
edited volume, or the equivalent of those.
Appendix B
The following survey question was used to classify respondents into Trigwell et al.’s (2000)
three-tier model of SoTL activity. Specifically, if a respondent indicated that they have engaged
in publishing and/or presenting their findings on SoTL within a disciplinary context, they
were classified into Tier 2. Here, the indicators included: I published my findings in a refereed
disciplinary publication and/or a peer-reviewed book/edited volume and/or I have presented
my research, artistic, or scholarly work at a disciplinary conference and/or disciplinary
conference focused on teaching and learning. Meanwhile, Tier 3 scholars were distinguished by
scholarship that may encompass, but ultimately transcends disciplinary boundaries to engage
in SoTL at a national and/or international level. Here, the indicators included: I published my
findings in a refereed teaching and learning publication and/or a peer-reviewed book/edited
volume, and/or I have presented my research, artistic, or scholarly work at a teaching and
learning conference.
For the following question, please refer to the sum total of your research experience in teaching and learning.
How have you shared what you have learned about teaching and learning? Please read all of
the items and indicate all that apply.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I discussed it with colleagues in my department, discipline, or institution.
I posted content to my blog, website, or social media account(s) [e.g., Twitter].
I published my findings in a non-refereed teaching and learning publication.
I published my findings in a non-refereed disciplinary publication.
I published my findings in a refereed teaching and learning publication.
I published my findings in a refereed disciplinary publication.
I published my findings by writing a peer-reviewed book or publishing in a peer-reviewed
edited volume.
I presented my research, artistic, or scholarly work at a disciplinary conference.
I presented my research, artistic, or scholarly work at a disciplinary conference focused on
teaching and learning.
I presented my research, artistic, or scholarly work at a teaching and learning conference.
15
Appendix C
Select answers to the telephone survey question “How would you describe or explain your work
on teaching and learning? That is, how would you label this as a type of inquiry?” showing the
various ways that SoTL activity is understood by its practitioners.
I reflect on what I want the students to learn. Because there’s lots of material to present I have to decide what’s
critical and the best way to present it. I have to – no I choose to – produce handout material as well as projected
text and images. Before I begin with the student I tell them my methods of teaching, that is, what they can expect
and what I think is important for them to know.
Yearly evaluation of my teaching.
…most of the research that I do that fits with the SoTL definition is typically experimental in nature… – and by
experimental I mean in the methodological sense, so a design where there is a random assignment of participants
to different experiential conditions and then a measurement of the impact of the variable that was varied
between the conditions - …but I also do some research that is qualitative in nature that would fit the description
of grounded theory research. I do not do much in the way of survey research and no archival or no large dataset
analyses. So [it is] very much at the level of the individual and much of it is focused on the individual learner as
opposed to the individual teacher.
…what I’m doing with my course that I instruct is trying to identify ways in which I can focus on specific learning
outcomes and find ways to measure them and make sure that the students are learning what I want them to. That
same statement would apply to my position [in upper administration] in that I am trying to move the [academic
unit] to where we are defining more outcomes we want to achieve and putting in place methods of measuring
them.
Authentic design of learning.
I am constantly striving to be a better teacher. I evaluate my courses through SEEQ but I also have my own
evaluation which I give the students and I take those very seriously. I do make changes to my teaching based
on what the students say. I read [and] update [myself ] on teaching methodologies on ways of learning [and] f
instruction that help students learn and I try and incorporate that into my teaching so that I can help students
learn and [to] help me explain better. That’s kind of what I do.
I am a relatively new faculty member and teacher and so I am learning…I attend different sessions at the Gwenna
Moss Centre and anything offered at our own college to enhance the teaching and learning experience. And I just
go back to what I believe about teaching, especially in [my discipline], that is, learning occurs in a safe environment.
So I feel that I am a caring, respectful, and passionate teacher and I hope I convey that in [my teaching contexts].
I think I engage in program evaluation. Some of it is process driven so I ask the students informally and in course
evaluations what worked and what didn’t and what they want to see continued or stopped. But I also look at some
of the outcomes of some of the different activities in which I engage. I have studied those and publish [on] some of
them so I do a little of that. I don’t know that I subject every part of my teaching to that rigorous systematic inquiry
that might be publishable but some of it I approach that way, and I certainly think about the other aspects.
Designing methods for improving the clarity of exposition in pedagogy.
First of all I retain a log of my own teaching methodologies for future consultation and I go back to these before
planning my next course especially where it concerns repeated courses. I occasionally pick up an article in my
discipline on how to improve teaching… I think for my own teaching purposes I actually do it systematically but
I do not take time to verbalize for external use what I’m doing. That’s my understanding of how I look back at my
own scholarship of teaching.
I would just label it as being open to new technologies in teaching and learning. I’ve read quite a bit of the literature
on teaching especially teaching science like [my specific discipline]… I am using technologies and different
teaching techniques. I do attend different presentations on those kinds of things, and [I attend] teaching and
learning conferences.
It’s peer reviewed publications that focus on student learning in a particular discipline.
16
Appendix D
Table A4: Complete list of funding sources reported in 23 faculty CVs
BLG Fellowship
Canadian Association of University Schools of Nursing, Research Award Western Region
Canadian Council on Learning
Canadian Foundation for Innovation
Canadian Heritage
CGA/CAAA, Research Grant Program
CMA/CAAA, Research Grant Program
Interprofessional Health Collaborative of Saskatchewan
National Science Foundation, Native American Academy
Patient-Centered Interprofessional Team Experiences (P-CITE) grant
Saskatchewan Health Grant
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)
SSHRC, Proposal Development (President’s) Fund
The Campus Saskatchewan Partnership & the Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL)
Committee
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Research Program
University of Saskatchewan
University of Saskatchewan Summer Student Employment Program
University of Saskatchewan, Aboriginal Learning Knowledge Centre and Aboriginal
Education Research Center
University of Saskatchewan, Dean's Research Fund, University of Saskatchewan Library
University of Saskatchewan, College of Commerce Research Fund
University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine
University of Saskatchewan, Curriculum Oversight Committee
University of Saskatchewan, Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness (GMCTE),
Teaching Scholar Grant
University of Saskatchewan, GMCTE, Provost’s Grant for Innovation in Collaborative
Teaching /Provost’s Prize for Innovation in Collaborative Teaching
University of Saskatchewan, Office of Vice-Provost Teaching & Learning
University of Saskatchewan, Technology Enhanced Learning
Western Region Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing (WRCASN), Research Grant
Award
17
References
Andresen, L. W. (2000). A useable, trans-disciplinary conception of scholarship. Higher Education Research & Development, 19 (2), 137-153.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered: Institutional Integration and Impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71 (4), 476-495.
McKinney, K. (2006). Attitudinal and structural factors contributing to challenges in the work of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. New Directions for Institutional Research, 129 (Summer), pp. 37-50.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2001). Understanding teaching and learning: The experience in higher education. Philadelphia, PA: The Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revising academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41 (3), 299-325.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57 (1), 1-22.
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of Teaching: A model. Higher Education Research & Development, 19 (2), 155-168.
18