GENERAL ARTICLES

 

A four frame analysis of factors impacting the uptake of the scholarship of teaching and learning in a college of education

 

 

L Mbati

Institute for Open and Distance Learning, UNISA, Pretoria, South Africa

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) lies at the intersection of various disciplines and involves post-secondary practitioners conducting inquiries into teaching and student learning for the purpose of improving teaching and learning. While the SoTL is present in the South African higher education institution's strategic goals, there exists a challenge in the uptake of the SoTL by academics. Literature reveals several tensions between academic disciplines and the SoTL identities, namely workload and time, disciplinary-based and methodological-based disparities, the relative "value" of SoTL in relation to disciplinary research, lack of knowledge around what the SoTL is, and/or what it entails, which all serve as some of the challenges facing the growth of the SoTL. In an attempt to place the practice of, and challenges to the SoTL in context, this phenomenology sought to explore the impediments to the SoTL at a South African higher education institution through the lens of the Four Frame Analysis (Bolman and Deal 2008). The frame serves as an agent to disrupt conventional wisdom prevalent within institutional cultures, to shift thinking and to enable leaders to uncover the levers and barriers of the SoTL. Findings indicate the importance of aligning and resourcing of the SoTL strategic goals. Recommendations include professional development in the area of the SoTL and the review of funding and rewards strategies that impede the multi- and inter-disciplinary SoTL.

Keywords: scholarship of teaching and learning, four frame analysis, teaching and learning, phenomenology

---

 

 

INTRODUCTION

"Scholarship is not an esoteric appendage; it is at the heart of what the profession is all about ... and to weaken faculty commitment for scholarship ... is to undermine the undergraduate experience regardless of the academic setting." Boyer, 1990.

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is an endeavour lying at the intersection of various disciplines and involves post-secondary practitioners conducting inquiries into teaching and student learning. As an interdisciplinary field, the SoTL is practiced using a diverse range of methodologies, theoretical frameworks, research designs and ideas (Tight 2018), enriching the research and offering opportunities for pragmatic applied practice.

The SoTL is conducted for the purpose of improving teaching and learning. Kreber (2015) in (Wilson et al. 2017), emphasizes that the SoTL "include(s) critical reflection and critical questioning of not only individuals' practice, but also the context within which teaching takes place, that is the social and institutional norms and expectations that inform and constrain teaching and learning" (p. 13). In a changing higher education context with changing dynamics, such as student demographics, national priorities and changing pedagogies, technologies and teaching approaches are juxtaposed upon increasing learning expectations and increasing accountability demands. The quality of teaching and learning is increasingly permeating the accreditation benchmarks, as well as funding imperatives. On key issues in quality assurance in higher education, Ellis and Hogard (Ellis and Hogard 2018), note two paradoxes. The first is the knowledge paradox which notes that in universities dedicated to knowledge, there is little attention given to knowledge about teaching and learning. The second is the qualification paradox, which emphasises that in universities where much of the work is concerned with professional qualifications, only a minority of lecturers have a professional qualification in teaching. The first paradox is relevant to the scope of this research proposal.

 

CONCEPTUALISING THE SOTL

The SoTL has undergone conceptual changes since it was introduced in Boyer's seminal work (Boyer 1990). On scholarship, Boyer (Boyer 1990) conceptualises it as comprising four functions: the scholarship of discovery (research), the scholarship of integration (building bridges between theory and practice), the scholarship of application and the scholarship of teaching (pedagogy and research).

In the SoTL, the scholarship of discovery is research, not for the sake of research, but rooted in the conviction that disciplined, investigative efforts within the academy should be strengthened. It involves carrying out research at disciplinary boundaries allowing for "overlapping" in a multi-disciplinary way leading to inter-disciplinary scholarly trends.

The scholarship of integration is placing research in perspective and making connections across disciplines (eg. integrated literature reviews across disciplines). The scholarship of integration is disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together and bring new insight to bear on the original research. The scholarship of application goes beyond carrying out research and applying it to practice, to include new intellectual understandings that arise from the application of research.

The scholarship of teaching requires pedagogical procedures that are well planned and continuously examined. It requires academics to transform and extend knowledge leading to new creative teaching directions.

Boyer's work (Boyer 1990), is foundational in understanding the SoTL, and forms the basis of new conceptualisations of the practice. As the field evolved, the addition of making findings public, and involvement of students in the SoTL has brought the lens of inquiry to teaching and learning processes (Simmons and Marquis 2017). As the SoTL has evolved, the foundational "big tent" multi-disciplinary nature has grown with broader conceptions admitting a wider range of questions, epistemologies and methodologies. Felton (2013) in Simmons and Marquis (Simmons and Marquis 2017) emphasizes that the SoTL should be methodologically sound, rigorously deploying tools that are appropriate to the questions at hand, without specifying particular traditions from which those methodologies might be drawn. In describing the SoTL, Chick (2014), explains that the SoTL usually begins with a question "What works?" or "What is?". Chick (2014) goes further by quoting Hutchings (Hutchings 2000), who explains that these questions denote differing methodological approaches and "theory-building" questions that develop a new conceptual framework for shaping thoughts about practice.

Webb and Welsh (2019), further explain the misalignment of methodological approaches of researchers in the field of the SoTL with their individual disciplinary epistemologies and methodologies. Thus the SoTL researchers need to be flexible, adaptable, broad-minded researchers (Webb and Welsh 2019). These methodological and epistemological alignments on the part of researchers may serve as a hinderance to the widespread uptake of the SoTL. Manarin and Abrahamson (Manarin and Abrahamson 2016), in reviewing literature on the conceptualisation of the SoTL identified common underlying principles across the conceptualisations and summarised them as:

• Inquiry into student learning,

• Grounded in context,

• Methodologically sound,

• Conducted in partnership with students, and

• Appropriately public.

In defining the SoTL, Simmons and Marquis (Simmons and Marquis 2017) advocate against tight definitions that do not include local institutional context. They caution that tight definitions may impede the SoTL's impact and growth. They note that the SoTL is,

"best understood as an approach that marries scholarly inquiry to any of the intellectual tasks that comprise the work of teaching - designing a course, facilitating classroom activities, trying out new pedagogical ideas, advising, writing student learning outcomes, evaluating programs (Shulman, 1998). When activities like these are undertaken with serious questions about student learning in mind, one enters the territory of the scholarship of teaching and learning." (Hutchings, Huber, and Ciccone, 2011, p. 7).

 

CHALLENGES TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE SOTL

Studies carried out internationally highlight challenges threatening the continuation of the SoTL. In 2010, Dewar and Cohn (2010) conducted a synthesis of challenges facing the SoTL in Carnegie Affiliate Institutions. Their findings regarding the challenges are reflected in Table

In a 2016 research study, Manarin and Abrahamson (Manarin and Abrahamson 2016) attempted to investigate the problematic nature of SoTL by exploring academic identity and it's various formats. This was carried out through reflective practice and reflection, to understand the interaction of the various constructs. The study applied a survey research design and included 42 higher education practitioners from six countries (Australia, Canada, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The results of the survey indicated most respondents indicated there was no difference in identities or described the identities as merged or linked. Their findings imply that academics perceive difficulties between their academic fields and the SoTL identities. The majority of respondents also said that the SoTL was supported in their institutions, if not financially then at least verbally; nonetheless, most also noted conflict between their fields and the SoTL activities. Other recurring themes were workload and time issues, disciplinary-based and methodological-based tensions, relative "value" of the SoTL in relation to disciplinary research, lack of knowledge around what the SoTL was and/or entailed. In explaining the challenges in the adoption of the SoTL, Tight (2018) argues that its conceptualisation poses a challenge. He states that the SoTL research may easily overlap with pedagogical research and higher education research in general (Tight 2018). Another challenge is limited resources dedicated to the SoTL by higher education institutions (Register and King 2018).

From a demographic perspective, Hamann, Pollock and Wilson (2009) found a decrease in the SoTL amongst senior academics in the field of political science, possibly indicating a lack of interest and/or value. However, in contrast, Paino et al. (2021) found articles published in the sociology journal Teaching Sociology from 2000 to 2009, that indicated first authorship by senior academics, full professors and associate and assistant professors. These formed the greatest number of contributors to the journal (Paino et al. 2012). These contrasting findings may be due to the contexts and focus of the studies.

Literature suggests that the SoTL is affected by institutional type, branding and competing interests. Research intensive institutions produce little research on the scholarship of teaching and learning. This may be as a result of the prestige where institutional funding is derived from patents and the commodification of research. Additionally, the lack of recognition of the SoTL is a recurring theme in investigating poor SoTL uptake (Henderson and Buchanan 2007; Walker, Baepler, and Cohen 2010).

The South African Context

The SoTL is relatively well established in Western universities, however, its relevance and applicability in different contexts needs investigation. In order to allow the translation of the concept SoTL into other languages academic cultures and settings there needs to be an engagement regarding SoTL outside of a western epistemological context (Leibowitz and Bozalek 2016).

Leibowitz and Bozalek, (2016) reporting on their findings on the state of the application of the SoTL in various universities in South Africa, attempt to dispense with what they refer to as the teaching versus research polarity. They recognise the importance of the scholarship being relevant and responsive to new realities within and beyond the academy. The findings further revealed the need for "creativity within scholarship; for interdisciplinary insight; and that the professors work collaboratively, as a community of scholars, possibly within a national network. One of the most significant aspects of the report, in relation to slow scholarship, is that it decries the imposed pressure for academics to publish, leading to burnout and competing obligations" (Leibowitz and Bozalek, 2016, 983).

Slow scholarship involves fostering enjoyment, being alert, deliberate, thoughtful, open-ended inquiry, carefulness, inventiveness, intensity, discernment, and cultivating interactions between the natural and social sciences. It places more emphasis on what is important and meaningful than what is economically practical, highlighting the significance of socio-political issues in the SoTL (Leibowitz and Bozalek , 2016, 983). With the higher education system in flux as it currently is in South Africa with transformative agendas, the SoTL initiatives should take these agendas into account in addition to diversity in its many forms.

The SoTL in South Africa is supported by funding from the Dept of Higher Education (DHET) which has cautioned that if the impact of the SoTL is focused on primarily serving the personal interest, reward and advancement of individual academic, the transforming of teaching and Learning will remain limited. The South African Council for higher Education (CHE) argues in favour of a SoTL that prioritizes student learning requirements from the outset, developing knowledge that is focused on solving specific problems by academics from a collective of disciplines and favouring dissemination through practice as well as by publication (Vithal 2018). Universities in South Africa are undertaking SoTL initiatives such as Teaching and Learning seminars, symposiums, conferences, colloquia and support and incentives for quality teaching and learning.

The Institutional Context

Within public South African universities (Leibowitz et al. 2015), there is a level of struggle for academics to come to grips with the SoTL. With the importance that the SoTL plays in improving the quality of teaching and learning, the SoTL at the institution is evident at the institutional strategic level. The SoTL is present in the institutional Teaching and Learning Charter in precise, as well as nuanced terms in the Strategic Plan: 2016-2030. In addition to the specific objective of the Enhanced Teaching Processes, the strategic plan emphasises the scholarly research mandate within the institution.

Initiatives within the institution to support the SoTL include:

• The recognition and rewarding of Innovation and excellence in teaching and learning through the annual Excellence in Teaching and Learning Awards.

• The SoTL as a research niche area

• Dedicated funding for conducting SoTL research

• Related Teaching Development Grants from DHET

• Requirement in tenureship and promotion

• Presence in academic staff Key Performance Agreements

Within the institution therefore, the SoTL is perceived both as pedagogical work conducted with students with a research component, and as a staff development and promotional tool (Shawa 2020).

The College of Education comprises two schools, which house several departments, two centres and one institute. The SoTL is currently practiced in a number of institutional spaces and by a number of individual academics in various departments, however, a widespread uptake is lacking. It is important to note at this stage, that recruitment of academic staff places emphasis on disciplinary knowledge in many of the colleges in the institution. Teaching experience from any educational context is a prerequisite to employment in some colleges at the institution. Teaching contexts are not standard, and while one may have experience in one context, they may need professional development to teach in a different context. These contexts may include fully online contexts as opposed to face-to-face contexts. Other educational contexts may fall into one or more of four categories: behaviourism; constructivism; social constructivism and liberationism. Institutional practices are to a large extent determined by the institutional imperatives. These imperatives may be highly structured or highly open. Open imperatives foster innovation in pedagogical approaches, are experimental and reflect on teaching and learning, while structured imperatives constrict change and innovation by placing emphasis on quantifiable deliverables.

The SoTL is critical in higher education environments where there is increasing accountability for public funds in public universities, particularly in areas of student employability, retention and graduation, as well as the overall student experience. However, it should be noted that, in addition to changing higher education dynamics, such as changing student demographics, national priorities and changing pedagogical approaches, institutional missions, culture and climate may encourage or discourage involvement in the SoTL (Vogelgesand et al, 2010) in (Wilson et al. 2017).

The state of the SoTL in terms of research outputs as a measure of activity needs to be addressed in the context of the institution. This is particularly crucial given the institution's heavy reliance on technological mediation as a teaching and learning agent. In addition, student numbers are large, and the student population is diverse in the areas of race, socio-economic status, language and age. This places a university in the unique position where its distinctive characteristics need to respond to global and national imperatives. An environment such as this may serve as a space for innovative teaching and learning and may greatly contribute to discourse around the SoTL.

The numbers of the SoTL research outputs at the institution need improvement given the size of the institution and the unique national strategic position the institution occupies. The 2018 research outputs are reflected in Table 2. The institution has several research niche areas, one of which is the SoTL. Table 2 reflects the niche areas and the research outputs produced in 2018 by academics in the College of Education.

 

CONCEPTUAL FRAMING FOR THE STUDY

When seeking to make evidence-based decisions, the use of frames may serve as an effective tool. The ability to break frames (disrupt conventional wisdom prevalent within institutional cultures) and to shift thinking enables leaders to uncover barriers and levers. Frames may provide a holistic picture of complex systems, which is the case in the SoTL in the context of the institution.

The Four Frame Model of organisational structure (Bolman and Deal 2008), is situated within an understanding of the structural, human resource, political and symbolic frames of an institution. This is in congruence with the understanding that the SoTL is influenced, either positively or negatively, by institutional culture (Wilson et al. 2017).

The Four Frame Model

The framework comprises four frames which singularly and/or interactively serve as a tool for reading, navigating and the interpretation of contextual factors that serve as levers and barriers to the SoTL. The frames function as a diagnostic framework to identify the contextual elements that are important and useful for putting SoTL into practice.

The Structural Frame

The institution's social infrastructure and structural components are highlighted by the structural frame. The framework places a focus on official functions and obligations. It is predicated on the following premise:

• Organizations exist to achieve predetermined goals and objectives;

• Specialization and appropriate division of labour increase efficiency and enhance performance;

• Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of individuals and units mesh;

• Organizations function best when reason triumphs over individual agendas and outside pressures;

• Structures must be created to fit an organisation's current circumstances.

• Problems arise, and performance suffers from structural deficiencies, which can be remedied through analysis and restructuring.

The Human Resource Frame

The human resource frame seeks the alignment of the needs of individual staff members with the needs of the institution. The following assumptions are associated with this frame:

• Organizations are there to service human needs, not the other way around.

• Organizations and people are interdependent. People need jobs, pay, and possibilities; organizations require ideas, energy, and talent.

• One or both suffer when there is a poor fit between the individual and the system. Either individuals or organizations are exploited, or both parties become victims.

• A good fit is advantageous to both. People find fulfilling jobs, and organizations gain the skill and vitality they require to succeed.

The Political Frame

The political frame focuses on the allocation of and access to resources and the distribution of power within an institution.

• Organizations are conglomerates of different people and interest groups.

• There are persistent variations among coalition members' values, beliefs, knowledge, interests, and perspectives on reality.

• The most crucial choices have to do with how to distribute limited resources-who gets what.

• Power becomes the most valuable asset due to the lack of resources and enduring disparities that place conflict at the center of daily dynamics.

• Objectives and decisions are reached by haggling and negotiating amongst rival stakeholders vying for control of their own interests.

The Symbolic Frame

The symbolic frame seeks to interpret and reveal the shared values, assumptions and ideologies within an institutional culture. The frame comprises:

• What matters most [within the institutional culture] is what it signifies, not what happens.

• Activity and meaning are weakly related; acts and occurrences can be interpreted in various ways because people have diverse perspectives on the world.

• When faced with ambiguity and uncertainty, humans develop symbols to clarify their thoughts, find their way, and establish their hope and faith.

• Things expressed rather than things created are frequently more essential than events and processes. To assist individuals in discovering meaning and passion, their emblematic forms construct a tapestry of secular myths, heroes, and heroines, rituals, rites, and stories.

• Culture acts as the organization's superglue, bringing individuals together and assisting businesses in achieving their goals.

 

 

RESEARCH PURPOSE

This research study sought to explore institutional culture regarding the uptake of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) at an institution.

Research Questions

The main question driving this study is: what are the main contextual impediments to the SoTL at an institution?

• What are the structural impediments to the practice of the SoTL at an institution?

• What are the human resource impediments to the practice of the SoTL at an institution?

• What are the political impediments to the practice of the SoTL at an institution?

• What are the symbolic impediments to the practice of the SoTL at an institution?

 

METHODOLOGY

Phenomenology is a research approach used to explore the lived experiences of individuals regarding phenomena. In this regard the objective of this study was to explore the experiences of academics regarding the SoTL at an institution. The data collection method was one-on-one virtual interviews.

Research Population

The population of this proposed research study is the academics permanently employed at the College of Education within the institution. The population comprises all junior lecturers, lecturers, associate professors and full professors for whom research forms a part of their Key Performance Areas as per the institution 2018 performance areas (Table 3).

Based on data available at the beginning of 2019 (March 2019), the current numbers of academics across the designations mentioned in Table 3 are depicted in Table 4. This forms the population of the proposed study.

Research Sampling

A sample of 6-10 academics were purposively selected from a school within the college. The first selection criterion was academics with no SoTL research outputs within the last 3 years. The second selection criterion was the longest serving academics in the college. Through using the selection criteria, a sample of 10 academics was reached. The invitation to take part in the study was sent to the identified sample. One academic declined to participate in the study leaving 9 participants. The sample composition is outlined in Table 5.

Data Collection

The phenomenological approaches were used to ensure trustworthiness during data collection as they appear in Table 6.

 

FINDINGS

The findings are presented in relation to the four frames and are summarised from the data collected in Table 7.

 

DISCUSSION

The findings from this study indicate areas of similarity and divergence across the reviewed literature in this article.

The role that well-structured strategic goals play in enhancing the SoTL is highlighted in the findings. The need to have follow-through, monitoring and evaluation that trickles down and is supported by related stakeholders was evident. The importance of structural support that allows the achievement of SoTL strategic goals was clear in the data. This finding supports that of Register and King (2018) who note the challenge of funding in the current economic climate (Register and King 2018).

The conflict between the SoTL and disciplinary identity is evident in the data. One participant used the term "contaminate" to describe their unwillingness to include the SoTL in their disciplinary research profile. Manarin and Abrahamson (Manarin and Abrahamson 2016), mention the dual identities amongst SoTL scholars. However, in their study they found that some academics successfully adopted the dual identity, while most expressed disciplinary-based and methodological-based tensions. Manarin and Abrahamson (2016) also found academics views of the lesser "value" of the SoTL in relation to disciplinary research. The value and benefits of the SoTL were also reported as a challenge in Dewar and Cohn's study (Dewar and Cohn 2010). This too echoed in the data at the South African institution where a lack of knowledge around what the SoTL was and/or entailed compromised the symbolic frame. They shared the need for training around the SoTL as part of Continuous Professional Development.

Workload and time were identified as a major hindrance to the SoTL particularly as it relates to the structural and human resource frames. This theme appeared in the human resource frame. This finding aligns with other authors (Dewar and Cohn 2010; Hoekstra and Dushenko 2010; McClurg, MacMillan, and Chick 2019; Manarin and Abrahamson 2016).

Under the political frame, the theme of competition was found in the data. This theme is not prominent in the sourced literature. The theme may be contextual to the finding and research reward system within the South African higher education system. The challenge of systems that do not reward the SoTL is not unique to the research context, as it is echoed in literature (Henderson and Buchanan 2007; Walker, Baepler, and Cohen 2010). Additionally, under the structural frame, the operationalisation of strategic goals seemed unique to the research context.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

As is consistent with existing literature, the conceptualisation of the SoTL needs to be understood by higher education institutions. In addition to being understood, its value should be harnessed. This should allow academics to understand how to adopt it. Furthermore, once it is included in strategic goals, resource and dedicated support structures should be made available to the academics. This includes funding and changes in workload allowing academics time to implement the SoTL. This may occur at departmental levels and be structured around the allocation of tasks on a rotational basis. Funding imperatives should be viewed from the point of view of the graduate student as opposed to individual rewards to academics for their research.

It is important not to lose sight of the importance of the teaching and learning aspect in graduate courses and thus create conducive environments that allow it to grow. Reward systems and institutional support for the SoTL plays a critical part in fostering its uptake.

 

DECLARATION OF INTEREST STATEMENT

I have no interests to declare.

 

REFERENCES

Bolman, L, and T Deal. 2008. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.         [ Links ]

Chick, N. 2014. Introduction to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2014, October 21. [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://www.centerforengagedleaming.org/introduction-to-the-scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning/        [ Links ]

Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered Priorities of the Professoriate.         [ Links ]

Dewar, Jacqueline, and Marilyn Cohn. 2010. "A Synthesis of the Challenges Facing SoTL at Carnegie Affiliate Institutions." Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal 4 (1): 1-14.         [ Links ]

Ellis, Roger, and Elaine Hogard. 2018. Handbook of Quality Assurance for University Teaching. Handbook of Quality Assurance for University Teaching. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187518.         [ Links ]

Henderson, Bruce, and Heidi E. Buchanan. 2007. "The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Special Niche for Faculty at Comprehensive Universities?" Research in Higher Education 48 (5): 52343.         [ Links ]

Hoekstra, Annemarieke, and William T Dushenko. 2010. "Fostering a Culture of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning ( SoTL ) at a Polytechnic Institution." Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal 4 (1): 1-11.         [ Links ]

Hutchings, P. 2000. Introduction, Opening Lines: Approaches to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.         [ Links ]

Leibowitz, Brenda, and Vivienne Bozalek. 2016. "The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning from a Social Justice Perspective." Teaching in Higher Education 21 (2): 109-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1115971.         [ Links ]

Leibowitz, Brenda, Vivienne Bozalek, Susan van Schalkwyk, and Christine Winberg. 2015. "Institutional Context Matters: The Professional Development of Academics as Teachers in South African Higher Education." Higher Education 69 (2): 315-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9777-2.         [ Links ]

Lincoln, S, and E Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. California: SAGE Publications.         [ Links ]

Manarin, Karen, and Earle Abrahamson. 2016. "Troublesome Knowledge of SoTL." International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 10 (2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2016.100202.         [ Links ]

McClurg, Caitlin, Margy MacMillan, and Nancy Chick. 2019. "Visions of the Possible: Engaging with Librarians in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning." Teaching and Learning Inquiry 7 (2): 3-13. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachleaminqu.7.2.1.         [ Links ]

Paino, Maria, Chastity Blankenship, Liz Grauerholz, and Jeffrey Chin. 2012. "The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Teaching Sociology: 1973-2009." Teaching Sociology 40 (2): 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12437971.         [ Links ]

Register, Shilpa J., and Katherine M. King. 2018. "Promotion and Tenure: Application of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, and Scholarship of Engagement Criteria to Health Professions Education." Health Professions Education 4 (1): 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2017.02.002.         [ Links ]

Shawa, Lester Brian. 2020. "Advancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Using Learning Theories and Reflectivity" 10: 191-209. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.298.         [ Links ]

Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. The elementary school journal, 98(5), 511-526.         [ Links ]

Simmons, Nicola, and Elizabeth Marquis. 2017. "Defining the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning." Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8 (2): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.2.         [ Links ]

Tight, Malcolm. 2018. "Tracking the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning." Policy Reviews in Higher Education 2 (1): 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2017.1390690.         [ Links ]

Vithal, Renuka. 2018. "Growing a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Institutionally." Studies in Higher Education 43 (3): 468-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1180350.         [ Links ]

Walker, J. D., Paul Baepler, and Brad Cohen. 2010. "The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Paradox: Results Without Rewards." College Teaching, no. 3: 183-90. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.3.183-190.         [ Links ]

Webb, Andrea S., and Ashley J. Welsh. 2019. "Phenomenology as a Methodology for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Research." Teaching and Learning Inquiry 7 (1): 168-81. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachleaminqu.7.1.11.         [ Links ]

Wilson, Mary M., Eileen De Courcy, Theresa Southam, Jessica Paterson, and Tim Loblaw. 2017. "Framework for Strengthening the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the Canadian College Sector." Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8 (2): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.5.         [ Links ]