FOUNDATION

20

CHAPTER

SoTL Difference:
The Value of Incorporating SoTL into
Librarian Professional Development
Peter Felten, Margy MacMillan, and Joan Ruelle
This essay is the product of a collaboration between three authors who bring diverse
understandings of SoTL, librarianship, and professional development. Writing this has
been a form of professional development, encouraging the authors to think more deeply
about discipline-based practices and how they connect to student learning, increasing
understanding of each other’s disciplines, and transforming that joint reflection into work
that may impact teaching.

Introduction
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is by definition a form of professional
development. In one of the first articles published on SoTL, Shulman1 emphasized a
“pragmatic” rationale for this form of inquiry: “By engaging in purposive reflection,
documentation, assessment and analysis of teaching and learning, and doing so in a more
public and accessible manner, we not only support the improvement of our own teaching”
but we also contribute to a community of scholarly teachers. Put another way, SoTL always
aims both to enhance individual practice and to contribute to the broader “teaching
commons.”2
The purposes of SoTL are clear, even though a canonical definition of SoTL does not
exist.3 That’s not entirely surprising since SoTL is an applied form of scholarship that tends
to take on the distinct “disciplinary styles” of its practitioners and has been adapted to a
diverse set of “domains” around the world.4 A historian doing SoTL at a US community
college likely will—and probably should—ask different questions and use different research
methodologies than a psychologist or a chemist—or a librarian—at a South African

245

246

CHAPTER 20

research university. In an effort to make room in the “big tent” of SoTL for this variation, in
2011, three scholars at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching crafted
an expansive frame for this emerging field:
The scholarship of teaching and learning encompasses a broad set
of practices that engage teachers in looking closely and critically at
student learning for the purpose of improving their own courses
and programs. It is perhaps best understood as an approach that
marries scholarly inquiry to any of the intellectual tasks that
comprise the work of teaching.5
Echoing Shulman, this definition reinforces the connection between SoTL and
professional development. This link now routinely appears in the literature. Educational
developers around the world have critically analyzed the alignment between their field
and SoTL.6 And a recent major study by educational researchers took as a foundational
premise that “faculty development, understood in the scholarship of teaching and learning
(SoTL) sense, offers teaching faculty opportunities to learn new approaches, technologies,
and more.”7 In short, SoTL is not a well-defined “thing” but its fundamental purpose is the
improvement of teaching and learning; SoTL, thus, is at its core an approach to professional
development for all those who teach in higher education, regardless of the setting.
Not all professional development, however, is SoTL; instead, SoTL enacts a distinctly
scholarly approach to professional development. As such, SoTL-informed professional
development reflects the essential criteria for any scholarly activity:8
1. clear goals—the activity has explicit and clear purposes;
2. adequate preparation—the activity draws on relevant scholarship and
expertise;
3. appropriate methods—the activity is conducted in ways that align its goals
and context, and that reflect good practice in the field;
4. significant results—the activity makes (or aims to make) a meaningful
contribution to an area of study or practice;
5. effective presentation—the purposes, methods, and results of the activity are
shared with appropriate audiences; and
6. reflective critique—those involved in the activity assess their experiences
and outcomes to inform future action.
Scholarly professional development should embody these criteria, but they are not
a simple recipe for individual action or strategic programming. Instead, these sketch the
outlines of what scholarly professional development might be, leaving plenty of room for
variation to reflect the local contexts and the particular needs of individuals and groups
involved in this work.
Even within this diversity of practices and contexts, a growing body of evidence suggests
that SoTL contributes to improved teaching and learning—that SoTL is an efficacious
approach to professional development. Uncovering and documenting this connection has

SoTL Difference   247

been vexing because it requires establishing a causal chain between SoTL, teaching practices,
and student learning. Leading scholars have vigorously debated whether and how SoTL can
be proven to yield enhanced student learning, as some see a compelling case9 and others
are more cautious.10 Significantly, a recent longitudinal mixed-methods study at Carleton
College and Washington State University provides rich and compelling evidence that
engaging in SoTL-framed professional development contributes to significantly enhanced
learning for undergraduates.11 In short, research demonstrates that SoTL leads to positive
changes in teaching behaviors and that these changes likely contribute to deepened student
learning. This marks SoTL as an evidence-based approach to professional development for
everyone who teaches in academic settings.

Finding a Way into SoTL
If SoTL sounds familiar to librarians, it should. As Cara Bradley noted in 2009, “The SoTL
movement slightly reframes, but in large part reaffirms and validates, the type of research
that many librarians already do.”12 A parallel statement could easily be made about SoTL
reaffirming and validating but also reframing the kinds of professional development
librarians already do. While methods of teaching and research are discussed in library
conference sessions, countless articles, and an increasing number of webinars, MOOCs and
other online learning opportunities that librarians count as professional development, SoTL
adds layers of depth and breadth. SoTL provides opportunities to deepen understanding,
practice, and contributions to higher education through prompting reflection, opening up
new questions, and requiring librarians to explain themselves beyond the narrow confines
of library literature. SoTL encourages librarians to broaden their horizons, their networks,
and their concepts of teaching, learning, and research—and in so doing, to widen their
sphere of influence.
Engaging in SoTL also leads inevitably to professional development for librarians.
Whether reading or hearing about SoTL research, collecting materials to support it, or
conducting it as a solo or collaborative activity, SoTL requires learning—exploring new
methodologies, new literatures, and making new connections within and beyond the library,
the institution, and existing personal networks. And while the most obvious connections
between SoTL and librarianship may arise from information literacy work, the broader
understanding of learners and learning that SoTL encourages can encompass all aspects
of library operations from facilities design to policies, usability to staff training, and work
in partnership with other campus units. Following Hutchings, Huber, and Ciccone,13 SoTL
encompasses the broad set of practices that engage librarians in any of the intellectual tasks
that comprise the work of librarians in supporting learning.
Opportunities for librarians to engage SoTL as professional development can arise
from multiple entry points such as existing interpersonal relationships, liaison roles with
academic departments, formal and informal communities of practice, and reading the
literature. Just as there is no single right way to do SoTL as a librarian, there also is no need
to take extensive training before jumping in, nor is there only one way to begin engaging

248

CHAPTER 20

in SoTL. As a first step, however, it is useful to find out who is doing what with SoTL on
campus. Librarians can look to their institution’s teaching center or at faculty development
opportunities around innovative pedagogy, higher education programs, and schools of
education; in fact, most of the case studies in this section involved the campus center for
teaching and learning as a resource or as a site for participation in SoTL. Librarians can
leave the safe confines of the library, attend presentations about SoTL on campus, even
(and especially) if they are the only librarian to do so. Not only will they learn more about
SoTL but colleagues who did not expect their presence may gain a deeper understanding
of the ways that librarians teach and the stake they have in student learning. Librarians can
determine who is doing SoTL on campus, then engage these colleagues in conversation
about their teaching just as liaisons do about research; at a minimum, they will appreciate
the interest in their work, and these connections may develop into opportunities for future
collaboration.
SoTL can be a solo pursuit, and often starts out that way as with any exploration of new
domains. However, SoTL also benefits from collaboration, whether through communities
of practice within the library where SoTL can provide a lens to study practices and
innovations, such as the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,
or through conversations on Twitter with colleagues in faraway places who have similar
interests. SoTL can provide a common language for these discussions and can also offer
some epistemological distance from previous research or contentious positions, moving
consideration beyond the library and into a broader arena of efforts to improve teaching
and learning. Reading and discussing SoTL literature in order to apply it to library contexts
exposes participants in such groups to different perspectives on issues that impact learning,
potentially leading to less defensive discussions. There are several examples in this section
and in the literature of library-based communities of practice that effectively applied a
SoTL lens to the ACRL Framework, moving past debates within the profession to wider
considerations of learning. For instance, DeFrain, Delserone, Lorang, Riehle, and Anaya
provide a rich example of this in their case study. In their library-based community of
practice, they developed a shared understanding of key learning bottlenecks, which led
to collaborative SoTL research projects, the results of which fed back into the group’s
discussions and enriched understanding across the community. Other case studies in this
section detail additional approaches to and benefits from using the Community of Practice
theory and model. In some, like Fyn and Shinaberger’s, Kirker’s, and Laverty and Saleh’s,
the library participants become the learners studied in a SoTL project, a rewarding area for
further research.
The most obvious benefit of engaging with SoTL as professional development is
participation in wider communities of practice beyond the library. It quickly becomes
apparent that librarians are not the only members of the academy who feel underprepared
by their formal education for the teaching that is a regular part of their work (see the case
studies by Durham, Hess, and Fyn and Shinaberger as examples). Nor are they the only
ones who want to engage more deeply in scholarly teaching, in bringing theory to bear on
practice. Participating in SoTL discussions, workshops, or research as a learner alongside

SoTL Difference   249

others in the institution allows librarians to see and be seen as equally committed partners
in advancing student learning. In their case study, Weeks and Johnson highlight this
benefit both to the librarians, who learn more about disciplinary approaches to teaching by
participating in these communities, and to the institutional colleagues who gain insights into
library work and the strengths librarians can bring. This, in turn, can foster more integrated
working relationships through which the library may gain a higher profile. Teaching faculty
who learn about library teaching through collaborative partnerships and participation
in communities of practice may be far better positioned to speak to the teaching impact
of libraries than librarians themselves. In an environment where decision-makers may
question the continuing relevance of libraries, developing meaningful connections across
the institution and contributing more visibly to local and international understandings of
student learning isn’t just a benefit, it may be a requirement for survival.
The library also gains from knowledge brought back from these wider discussions or
readings. Roxå, Mårtensson, and Alveteg14 describe this as cluster-to-cluster communication,
critical for enhancing teaching cultures on campus. While they acknowledge the
usefulness of “brokers”—peripheral participants who serve as conduits between clusters of
professionals—they highlight the need for “practitione rs with the interest and the capacity
to do so from the centre of one cluster to the centre of another.” Librarians involved in
SoTL communities serve as bridges to the center of librarian communities in institutions,
associations, or interest groups to strengthen mutual understanding. They contribute not
just to the professional development of individual librarians but to the development of the
profession itself. SoTL offers a rich network of connections across the academy and affirms
teaching as a scholarly endeavor. The case study by Hess demonstrates how transformative
this kind of role can be for both the library and broader campus supports for teaching.
Seeing librarians active within SoTL reframes the profession’s authentic scholarship as a
contribution not just to libraries but to student learning—a fundamental purpose of higher
education—in a way that librarians rarely recognize their own work.
Exploring the literature of SOTL through reading and collection development also
provides opportunities to reframe professional development in promising ways. The case
study by Cobolet, Grolimund, Hardebolle, Isaac, Panes, and Salamin alludes to the value
of engaging with the wide array of literature about teaching that exists beyond library
publications. Becoming familiar with SoTL, like any new liaison area, requires understanding
how and where it is disseminated and accessed. Librarians’ understanding of international
publishing patterns and other aspects of scholarly communication can support SoTL work
on campus by highlighting ways into the work for disciplinary specialists, illuminating gaps
in the literature that suggest opportunities for future research and identifying potential
venues for publication. Weeks and Johnson describe a SoTL project around rebuilding a
course using open access resources in their case study, another area where librarians have
much to contribute. SoTL research is widely dispersed through disciplinary and SoTLbased publications as well as on institutional websites and other online “gray literature”
sites, making it a pleasantly challenging field to collect. Many new SoTL scholars (and,
indeed, many experienced ones) are often less aware of the SoTL literature than that of

250

CHAPTER 20

their home disciplines, so librarians have a lot to offer in developing and promoting strong
collections that support work on understanding learning within and across the disciplines.
Through becoming members of SoTL communities, librarians can inform and strengthen
SoTL work by deepening the relationship between research and the literature, developing
greater familiarity with how other faculty conduct research inside and outside their home
disciplines. In Durham’s case study, she notes the range of ways into SoTL afforded by the
literature, webinars, and a variety of formal and informal learning opportunities. Similarly,
Cobolet et al. recount how a role supporting a journal group became a venue for much
deeper library participation in campus SoTL initiatives.
The reliance on cross-disciplinary conversations is one of the critical differences
between SoTL as professional development and most library scholarship. While some
SoTL work, like information literacy (IL) research, is conceived of and disseminated for
disciplinary insiders, much of it is developed to be communicated in the what Huber and
Morreale15 described as a “trading zone,” with a focus on what will be useful for educators
in multiple contexts. SoTL becomes a sort of common second language for many of its
practitioners, a tool for exploring and understanding underlying similarities in teaching
and learning concepts separate from the confusion of different disciplinary terms. This
communication also demands a greater explanation, both what Huber and Hutchings16
would call “thick description of context” and greater attention to explaining the rationale
behind different ways of teaching and understandings of learning. All of this can make
SoTL literature more accessible to readers new to the field. In writing up the results of
SoTL, the requirement for thick descriptions has the added value of requiring librarians
to articulate their own underlying assumptions and test them with a non-expert audience.
Thinking through and decoding teaching motivations and processes, the rationale for the
decisions made in teaching and how those decisions affect learning, is useful professional
development in its own right.
Of course, reading the SoTL literature may also lead to further professional
development as librarians integrate findings from research in non-library teaching into
their own library practice. Doing so requires at the very least a deeper consideration of other
teaching environments and may entail learning new teaching skills, developing alternative
assessment methods, and integrating new technologies. The results of such changes may
also spark SoTL investigations, but engaging in SoTL does not necessarily mean carrying
out original research. Professional development rewards accrue from the time librarians
start noticing the generative conversations SoTL provokes.
If a librarian does decide to take on a SoTL inquiry, professional development
opportunities arise from asking new kinds of questions, exploring new ways of finding
and analyzing evidence, and disseminating work to audiences beyond librarians. SoTL
welcomes research that uses a wide variety of methodologies from close reading to
statistical analysis and examines teaching and learning in a wide range of settings, including
libraries. Librarians who present at SoTL conferences report feeling very much at home,
and their sessions and posters attract attention from those who teach across the academy.17
Librarians in many contexts are conducting SoTL investigations either on their own or in

SoTL Difference   251

partnership with faculty outside of the library, and several of the case studies in this section
provide evidence of the benefits of this work, both in terms of contributing to knowledge
and improving learning and also in terms of developing collaborative relationships across
institutions.

Reframing SoTL as Library Professional
Development
Peter Felten, one of the authors of this essay, has developed “5 Principles of Good Practice
in SoTL” that may help distinguish SoTL from other approaches to teaching, learning, and
professional development. SoTL,18 he suggests, has five essential characteristics:
• Inquiry focused on student learning
• Grounded in context
• Methodologically sound
• Conducted in partnership with students
• Appropriately public
Each of these characteristics carries with it opportunities for librarian professional
development. Considering a focus on student learning brings requirements for understanding
forms of evidence and deeper insights into what learning is, how it looks, and how all the
attendant factors beyond what the teacher is doing may affect it. To be grounded in context
requires the researcher to understand more deeply the environment in which they teach
and the learners with whom they work, uncovering the factors that make learning in this
situation unique and those transferable to or from the settings of other studies. To do work
that is methodologically sound may require deeper engagement with familiar methods, or
an exploration of new methods, and a clear understanding of how they align with research
questions.19 To truly work in partnership with students may provide some of the greatest
opportunities for professional development and engage some aspects of critical practice as
researchers negotiate power dynamics and ethics in developing questions, methods, and
dissemination that considers the students as those to practice research with rather than on.20
Finally, making work appropriately public, as Durham notes in her case study, may stretch
skills in new directions and engage librarians with unfamiliar discourses in disciplinary
conferences, student-facing blogs and reports to audiences beyond librarianship. In any
mode, librarians must consider what they need to decode for non-librarian audiences, a
highly productive form of reflection. Below are three examples of what library SoTL projects
could look like and the kinds of professional development they might lead to.
• A liaison librarian who has a longstanding partnership with a faculty
member senses that their comfortable groove has become a rut. After
discussing their ideas at a SoTL community of practice meeting and
gaining several ideas from peers, they investigate the transfer of learning
from the workshop to the assignment by asking students to complete a
research log, reflecting on specific prompts as they complete their major
research assignment. The first prompt asks students to describe their

252

CHAPTER 20

•

•

approach to finding information for their everyday activities, to assist the
researchers in understanding more about this particular group of students.
The final reflection prompt asks students to describe a research project
they would commission from the librarian or faculty member about
how students use information. The reflections aim to illuminate several
bottlenecks in learning that will inform teaching in subsequent iterations
of the course and could be the subject of future studies. The researchers
schedule follow-up focus groups led by a senior student, asking what
students recalled and used from the workshop, and what, if anything,
they transferred to work in other classes. The researchers also analyze
the students’ coursework using grounded theory and close reading to see
what markers they could establish that linked the processes outlined in
the research logs in the final products. The librarian, the faculty member,
and the student research partner present their findings informally to the
student participants over a voluntary coffee and doughnuts meeting, at a
workshop during the library faculty professional development day, and at
a SoTL conference. For this presentation, they meticulously write up the
assignments and activities in the class as well and develop a demographic
profile of the students to ground the study in context; in doing so, using
data from the study, they discovered opportunities to improve the flow of
the course through better scaffolding of the activities.
The librarian develops greater familiarity with IRB protocols, qualitative
methods, designing effective prompts for reflection, research partnerships,
writing for publication in SoTL journals, and using social media for wider
dissemination, including hosting a Twitter chat.
A library dean is seeking greater collaboration with other campus
academic units to support student success, particularly the writing center,
a math tutoring lab, and career services, all of which are now located in a
new building with the library. Her key questions focus on what differences
students perceive between these supports, what they expect from them in
terms of impact on learning, and what they see as the costs and benefits to
learning associated with asking for help from these personnel; for instance,
is there any stigma attached to asking for help with writing or math? She
develops a collaborative study involving personnel from the library and
the other areas. Groups of students in each year of study are surveyed
electronically about their awareness and use of each campus service to get
a large-scale view of issues and sentiment. The survey includes two free
response questions for each support area: Who do you think benefits from
the service? How does the service impact learning? Data from the survey
is supplemented by having trained students interview a representative
sample of students to identify patterns in perceptions, barriers, and
motivations. Results are disseminated through infographics at each service

SoTL Difference   253

•

point, in meetings with every level of university administration, during
workshops with faculty and staff, in new student orientation materials, and
in presentations at national conferences. Results also are used to inform
marketing efforts aimed to influence student perceptions of both academic
help-seeking behaviors and the services of each academic support unit.
All of the research partners enhance their skills in survey development,
statistical analysis, ethical research, interviewing, and dissemination—and
a stronger community is created among the various units and people who
work in the new building.
A librarian wonders why students have trouble with generating synonyms
to use in a search. He reads SoTL work on vocabulary building, tries
something new in class, documents how students employ the new
approaches he has taught, and tells his colleagues about the results. In
this simple case, the librarian gains familiarity with SoTL literature,
experiments with a new teaching method, and better understands student
search behaviors. He also serves as something of a role model for his peers
who may now develop their own SoTL inquiries, and his new knowledge
contributes to improved teaching across the library.

Conclusion
In the early publication on SoTL introduced at the beginning of this chapter, Shulman21
asked a fundamental question: Why are we doing SoTL at all? He reminded his readers that
they already were plenty busy and already should be engaged in professional development.
Academic librarians are familiar with calls to do more with less, to better demonstrate
the value librarians contribute to institutions, to respond to existential threats raised by
claims that libraries are no longer necessary, to constantly stay current through engaging in
multiple forms of library-focused professional development, and to continue to be engaged
scholars and contributors to the profession. So why should librarians make the extra effort
to be active in SoTL?
Shulman argued—and the authors of this chapter agree—that SoTL deepens individual
efforts and connects professional development to a broader teaching commons. SoTL
improves teaching on a day-to-day basis, whether it be for-credit classes, one-shot
instruction sessions, ongoing collaborations with teaching faculty or the one-to-one
teaching in research consultations. SoTL also deepens what professional development
means for librarians. In librarianship, professional development is often understood as
development of the individual professional (through participation in webinars, trainings,
and professional societies). Through collaborations, communities of practice, and the
literature, the common language of SoTL integrates library-based teaching more firmly into
the wider discussions in higher education, building stronger communities among librarians
while simultaneously raising librarians’ profile as teachers and scholars even as it deepens
their practice.

254

CHAPTER 20

It can be difficult sometimes for librarians to justify the time, or, in some cases,
funding, for professional development that does not carry an explicit library connection. If
it is necessary to make the case to oneself or to administrators, SoTL provides a pathway to
explicitly connect library teaching to student learning in a way that may be both understood
and valued by faculty colleagues and administration across the institution. That pathway
serves the development of both the individual professional and the profession as a whole. It
embeds librarians’ work within scholarly networks and communities that connect individual
efforts to the long-term aspirations of libraries and higher education to transform students
through better understanding of how they learn.

ENDNOTES
Lee Shulman, “From Minsk To Pinsk: Why A Scholarship of Teaching and Learning?,” Journal
of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 1, no. 1 (2000).
2. Mary Taylor Huber and Pat Hutchings, The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching
Commons, A Carnegie Foundation Report on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education; Carnegie Foundation Special Report (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005).
3. Mary Taylor Huber and Sherwyn P. Morreale, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching, and American Association for Higher Education, Disciplinary Styles in the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground (Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education, 2002).
4. S. Booth and L. C. Woollacott, “On the Constitution of SoTL: Its Domains and Contexts,”
Higher Education, June 6, 2017, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0156-7.
5. Pat Hutchings, Mary Huber, and Anthony Ciccone, “Getting There: An Integrative Vision of
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning 5, no. 1 (January 1, 2011), https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050131.
6. Johan Geertsema, “Academic Development, SoTL and Educational Research,” International
Journal for Academic Development 21, no. 2 (April 2, 2016): 122–34, https://doi.org/10.1080/
1360144X.2016.1175144; Natasha Kenny, Celia Popovic, Jill McSweeney, Kris Knorr, Carolyn
Hoessler, Shirley Hall, Nobuko Fujita, and Eliana El Khoury, “Drawing on the Principles of
SoTL to Illuminate a Path Forward for the Scholarship of Educational Development,” The
Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8, no. 2 (June 16, 2017), https://
doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.10; Peter Felten and Nancy Chick, “Is SoTL a Signature
Pedagogy of Educational Development?,” To Improve the Academy 37, no. 1 (2018), 4-16,
https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20077.
7. William Condon, Ellen R. Iverson, Cathryn A. Manduca, Carol Rutz, Gudrun Willett, Mary
Taylor Huber, and Richard H. Haswell, Faculty Development and Student Learning: Assessing
the Connections, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning; Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2016).
8. Charles E. Glassick, Mary Taylor Huber, Gene I. Maeroff, Ernest L. Boyer, and Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the
Professoriate, 1st ed., A Special Report; Special Report (Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching) (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997).
9. Hutchings, Huber, and Ciccone, “Getting There”; Daniel Bernstein, “How SoTL-Active Faculty
Members Can Be Cosmopolitan Assets to an Institution,” Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The
ISSOTL Journal 1, no. 1 (2013): 35–40, https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.35.
10. Keith Trigwell, “Evidence of the Impact of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Purposes,”
1.

SoTL Difference   255

11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.
17.

18.
19.

20.
21.

Teaching & Learning Inquiry 1, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 95–105, https://doi.org/10.20343/
teachlearninqu.1.1.95.
Condon et al., Faculty Development and Student Learning.
Cara Bradley, “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Opportunities for Librarians,”
College & Research Libraries News 70, no. 5 (2009): 276–278.
Hutchings, Huber, and Ciccone, “Getting There.”
Torgny Roxå , Katarina Mårtensson, and Mattias Alveteg, “Understanding and Influencing
Teaching and Learning Cultures at University: A Network Approach,” Higher Education: The
International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 62, no. 1 (July 2011):
99–111, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9368-9.
Huber et al., Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Huber and Hutchings, The Advancement of Learning.
Charissa Jefferson, Margy Elizabeth MacMillan, Ann Manginelli, Caitlin McClurg, and Brian
Winterman, “ISSOTL 2016: Exploring Opportunities for Librarians,” Journal of Information
Literacy 11, no. 1 (June 5, 2017): 227, https://doi.org/10.11645/11.1.2174.
Peter Felten, “Principles of Good Practice in SoTL,” Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL
Journal 1, no. 1 (2013): 121–25, https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.121.
Janice Miller-Young and Michelle Yeo, “Conceptualizing and Communicating SoTL: A
Framework for the Field,” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 3, no. 2 (September 1, 2015): 37–53,
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.3.2.37.
Alison Cook-Sather, Catherine Bovill, and Peter Felten, Engaging Students as Partners in
Learning and Teaching (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2014).
Shulman, “From Minsk To Pinsk.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bernstein, Daniel. “How SoTL-Active Faculty Members Can Be Cosmopolitan Assets to an
Institution.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal 1, no. 1 (2013): 35–40.
https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.35.
Booth, S., and L. C. Woollacott. “On the Constitution of SoTL: Its Domains and Contexts.” Higher
Education, June 6, 2017, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0156-7.
Bradley, Cara. “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Opportunities for Librarians.” College &
Research Libraries News 70, no. 5 (2009): 276–278.
Condon, William, Ellen R. Iverson, Cathryn A. Manduca, Carol Rutz, Gudrun Willett, Mary Taylor
Huber, and Richard H. Haswell. Faculty Development and Student Learning: Assessing
the Connections. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning; Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2016.
Cook-Sather, Alison, Catherine Bovill, and Peter Felten. Engaging Students as Partners in Learning
and Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2014.
Felten, Peter. “Principles of Good Practice in SoTL.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL
Journal 1, no. 1 (2013): 121–25. https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.121.
Felten, Peter, and Nancy Chick. “Is SoTL a Signature Pedagogy of Educational Development?” To
Improve the Academy 37, no. 1 (2018), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20077.
Geertsema, Johan. “Academic Development, SoTL and Educational Research.” International Journal
for Academic Development 21, no. 2 (April 2, 2016): 122–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601
44X.2016.1175144.
Glassick, Charles E., Mary Taylor Huber, Gene I. Maeroff, Ernest L. Boyer, and Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate.

256

CHAPTER 20

1st ed. A Special Report; Special Report (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Huber, Mary Taylor, and Pat Hutchings. The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching
Commons. A Carnegie Foundation Report on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education; Carnegie Foundation Special Report. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
Huber, Mary Taylor, Sherwyn P. Morreale, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
and American Association for Higher Education. Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground. Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education, 2002.
Hutchings, Pat, Mary Huber, and Anthony Ciccone. “Getting There: An Integrative Vision of
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” International Journal for the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning 5, no. 1 (January 1, 2011). https://doi.org/10.20429/
ijsotl.2011.050131.
Jefferson, Charissa, Margy Elizabeth MacMillan, Ann Manginelli, Caitlin McClurg, and Brian
Winterman. “ISSOTL 2016: Exploring Opportunities for Librarians.” Journal of
Information Literacy 11, no. 1 (June 5, 2017): 227. https://doi.org/10.11645/11.1.2174.
Kenny, Natasha, Celia Popovic, Jill McSweeney, Kris Knorr, Carolyn Hoessler, Shirley Hall, Nobuko
Fujita, and Eliana El Khoury. “Drawing on the Principles of SoTL to Illuminate a Path
Forward for the Scholarship of Educational Development.” The Canadian Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8, no. 2 (June 16, 2017). https://doi.org/10.5206/
cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.10.
Miller-Young, Janice, and Michelle Yeo. “Conceptualizing and Communicating SoTL: A Framework
for the Field.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 3, no. 2 (September 1, 2015): 37–53. https://
doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.3.2.37.
Roxå, Torgny, Katarina Mårtensson, and Mattias Alveteg. “Understanding and Influencing Teaching
and Learning Cultures at University: A Network Approach.” Higher Education: The
International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 62, no. 1 (July 2011):
99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9368-9.
Shulman, Lee. “From Minsk To Pinsk: Why A Scholarship of Teaching and Learning?” Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 1, no. 1 (2000): 48–53.
Trigwell, Keith. “Evidence of the Impact of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Purposes.”
Teaching & Learning Inquiry 1, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 95–105. https://doi.org/10.20343/
teachlearninqu.1.1.95.