Searching the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective

Abstract

There are few references that critically evaluate the different ways of searching the literature on scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), or how these are related to researchers’ goals. We use an academic literacies perspective as a lens with which to explore the different ways that literature searches may be undertaken. While searching the literature is often presented as a scientific objective process, the reality is much messier, nuanced, and iterative. It is a complex, context-dependent process. We provide a practical, critical guide to undertaking SoTL literature searches and argue that these need to be seen as socially constructed processes. There is no one right way of searching the SoTL literature. The academic literacies perspective leads us to emphasise the variety of different purposes for carrying out a literature search. We distinguish between using comprehensive tools and selective sources. We end by arguing that there is a need for SoTL researchers to be less insular and take purposeful steps to search for, cite, and amplify diverse voices. This article complements a separate one where we review and synthesise the SoTL literature.

Extraversion in COVID-19 Coping

“…Google Scholar was chosen as the search engine for this investigation as a 2019 study of twelve academic search engines recognized it as the most comprehensive academic search engine [ 28 ]. That Google Scholar is the most comprehensive search engine for academics was additionally reconfirmed with 2023 research [29]. The examples of research to be highlighted were selected as the ones that received the highest relevant ranking in relation to each individual search performed.…”

“…The examples of research to be highlighted were selected as the ones that received the highest relevant ranking in relation to each individual search performed. It may be argued that selecting studies in this manner is questionable as there are inaccuracies, duplications, omissions and misattributions of publications in Google Scholar [29]. Still, Google Scholar compares well with Scopus as a search engine, which has an estimated 12.6% duplicates to Google Scholar's 10% [28].…”

Reflections on disciplinary perspectives on students as partners

“…International Journal for Students as Partners, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v7i1.5444 6 both new and experienced scholars on how to search and review both the discipline-based and generic education literature (Healey & Healey, 2023a, 2023b and undertake educational inquiries (Cleaver et al, 2018). One recent discipline-based review of SaP only included one reference to SaP outside their discipline (Liatis et al, 2020).…”

A new sustainable change theoretical framework for the professional disciplines

“…Student involvement in a university change process can be at several levels. Researchers have developed a four‐quadrant model around the focus of the partnership, that is, the university or the student and the student voice or student engagement (Dunne et al, 2011; Healey, 2012). Students may play various roles in university change processes, on the one hand, as ‘clients’ and evaluators of their learning environments or on the other hand, as participants in the decision‐making process.…”

“…Students may play various roles in university change processes, on the one hand, as ‘clients’ and evaluators of their learning environments or on the other hand, as participants in the decision‐making process. At the discipline level, students can be collaborative partners in curriculum provision or in a role as ‘change agents’ in which students become ‘co‐producers’ and ‘active collaborators’ in knowledge acquisition with the emphasis on the student as driver (Dunne et al, 2011; Healey, 2012).…”