Structures and Considerations for SoTL Educational Development

Abstract

Colleges and universities around the world share a broad focus on education. However, unique characteristics and priorities across institutions may lead to vastly different educational development opportunities for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and levels of impact for the SoTL efforts (e.g., micro, meso, macro, mega). This chapter is organized in two distinct parts. Part 1 examines five different structures typical for SoTL educational development with a focus on their organizational structure within the institution and the SoTL expertise of individuals who that lead these efforts. Strengths and limitations of each structure are presented. Part 2 provides a discussion of critical considerations that impact all SoTL educational development efforts regardless of the type of structure that exists within an institution.

MegaSoTL: Supporting pedagogical research across multiple institutions

“…1 • Fall 2022 complex and multifaceted practices of teaching and learning (Chick & Poole, 2013). Efforts continue to extend the tent poles and to bring scholarly practice in closer alignment to the inclusive values of both fields-SoTL and educational development (Friberg & Scharff, 2020). MegaSoTL projects, however, can allow low-stakes faculty participation without necessitating a mastery of social science research methods or the availability of experienced data analysts.…”

Reimagining the 4M Framework in Educational Development for SoTL

“…Educational development for SoTL is situated in varied spaces across institutions of postsecondary education. Friberg and Scharff (2020) suggested potential SoTL educational development structures, some of which are directly affiliated with centres for teaching and learning (CTLs). The connection of SoTL and CTLs is logical, as CTLs typically provide a smorgasbord of evidence-informed, pedagogically related support services for faculty, staff, graduate students, and others within and across the institution.…”

“…This can allow for the creation of support for the purposeful and strategic engagement with SoTL through open dialogue (e.g., questions, active learning strategies, sharing/developing resources) and for formalized programming. Friberg and Scharff (2020) acknowledge that "the biggest benefit to SoTL educational development structures housed in a CTL is their affiliation with a formally recognized and institutionally supported entity" (48).…”

“…While the 4Ms are the same, the ways in which SoTL-focused educational development flows across micro-, meso-, macro-, and megalevels can be very different. Friberg and Scharff (2020) have suggested that "the size and impact of SoTL educational development at any institution is tied directly to its priorities, values, and needs" (46). With this in mind, those engaged in SoTL-focused educational development might experience different combinations of challenges, frictions, or support based on their unique campus cultures.…”

“…Initially, these different levels of thinking about SoTL allowed scholars to understand the audience and the impact of their work. While micro-, meso-, and macrolevels of SoTL are now commonly researched and addressed in the SoTL literature, these levels are typically explained as being fixed, static points (Friberg 2016;Friberg and Chick 2022;Kenny andEaton 2022, Simmons 2020;Wuetherick and Yu 2016). Thus, these levels may not, necessarily, allow for the fluidity that exists in some spaces in the field of SoTL (e.g., those engaged in educational development work).…”