The Role of SoTL in the Academy: Upon the 25 th Anniversary of Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered

: In this essay, we explore definitions and taxonomies of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and present a model of the Dimensions of Activities Related to Teaching (DART) which provides a context for SoTL along two dimensions: public/private and systematic/informal. The four quadrants: practice of teaching, sharing about teaching, scholarly teaching and, finally, scholarship of teaching and learning, provide academics with a conceptual model to distinguish various approaches to the teaching process from research into that process. We explore the relationship of SoTL to the Boyer model of scholarship, to teaching excellence, and to scholarship, ending with an argument for the importance of SoTL to the Academy.

This year marks the 25 th anniversary of the publication of Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered (1990), in which he called for a broader definition of the work of faculty members to include the scholarships of discovery, integration, application, and teaching.In Scholarship Reconsidered, Boyer (1990) believed that "the time [had] come to move beyond the tired old 'teaching versus research' debate and give the familiar and honorable term 'scholarship' a broader, more capacious meaning, one that brings legitimacy to the full scope of academic work" (p.16).Since Boyer's original call for the recognition of the scholarship of teaching, the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) movement has blossomed with the involvement of the Carnegie Foundation, the founding of several multidisciplinary journals devoted to the scholarship of teaching and learning, and increased interest on the part of many discipline-based professional organizations.In addition, organizations such as the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSoTL) have been founded with missions exclusively devoted to SoTL.
Yet, some confusion persists with regard to SoTL's role in the academy in terms of its placement within the wide array of teaching-related activities as well as its contribution to scholarship, especially in terms of a more traditional discipline-based conceptualization of scholarship.The purpose of this paper is to present a model to assist both faculty and administrators with appropriately positioning SoTL's role within the academic missions of universities.In addition, we present a view of the future role of SoTL and its value within the academy.

What is SoTL?
Conceptualizations of SoTL have varied over the past 25 years; several authors have confirmed that a lack of consensus persists (e.g., Chalmers, 2011;Potter & Kustra, 2011;Boshier, 2009).McKinney (2007) observed, however, that while differences will likely continue, ". . .there is some agreement by those most involved in the SoTL movement…" that "… the differences that do exist are mostly a matter of degree" (p.12).She suggests that part of the diversity in conceptualization lies with the evolution of the field over time and part of it rests with the diversity in the disciplines, as several disciplines embraced inquiry into teaching and learning prior to Boyer's call and developed their own constructs.Finally, part of the diversity may be attributed to differing values across organizations of higher learning.
Regardless of the source of diversity, a brief overview of the field's evolution might be helpful.Nearly ten years after the introduction of the Boyer model, Hutchings and Shulman (1999) observed that Boyer's call had been a catalyst for thought and action.Boyer's appeal had taken what Bender and Gray (1999) described as a "private act" of teaching witnessed only by students, to thinking about teaching as "intellectual inquiry… with questions about what is going on and how to explain, support, and replicate answers that satisfy us" (para.6).
At about that time, a distinction began to emerge between excellent teaching, scholarly teaching, and the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL).Hutchings and Shulman (1999) drew the distinction between excellent (very effective) teaching and SoTL by indicating that SoTL requires that the "faculty member must systematically investigate questions related to student learning…with an eye not only to improving their own classroom but to advancing practice beyond it" (p.13).This view implies at least three important attributes of SoTL versus excellent teaching: that the inquiry must be systematic or methodical to gain credible results, be shared in order to advance the goal of improving practice outside one's own classroom and that the ultimate goal be the students' learning that results from the faculty member's teaching.Thus, making public one's inquiry and focusing on students' learning are extensions of Boyer's original model.
In addition to drawing distinctions between excellent teaching and SoTL, distinctions began to emerge between scholarly teaching and SoTL.Shulman (2000) defined scholarly teaching as "teaching that is well grounded in the sources and resources appropriate to the field" whereas SoTL involves making "our work as teachers…public, peer-reviewed and critiqued, and exchanged with other members of our professional communities so they, in turn, can build on our work" (p.50).In this form, SoTL shares many of the characteristics of discipline-based research.
Excellent teaching, scholarly teaching, and SoTL are all activities related to teaching, but issues remain.What forms of work fall under the umbrella of SoTL?How are these forms to be valued?What is SoTL's future role in academia?

Taxonomies of SoTL
As might be expected from such broad definitions in an emerging field, the types of activities that can be considered forms of SoTL work are quite diverse; thus there have been many attempts to classify them.Some of these taxonomies help define what SoTL is.Some give insight into the types of research questions that might be the focus of inquiry and/or the methodologies that might be used to address research questions.A sampling of these taxonomies is summarized in Table 1, in the order discussed.Hutchings (2000) sorts SoTL in terms of the questions asked: What works (the effectiveness of various approaches), what is (the students' experience), visions of the possible (what if I tried this?), and new conceptual frameworks (building theories).Nelson (2003) classifies SoTL into five categories according to methodology used, including experiments and reports on a particular class.Weimer (2006) breaks SoTL tactics into two broad categories, wisdom of practice and research studies.Mettetal (2001), drawing from the K-12 teacher-researcher culture, separates teaching and learning research into traditional educational research, with the goal of generalized knowledge, and classroom action research, with the goal of improving one's own class.
The guidelines of various SoTL publications also provide insight.For instance, according to the website of the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, the journal accepts traditional data-driven research, reflective essays, literature reviews, and case studies.The Journal on Excellence in College Teaching seeks works of research, integration, application, and inspiration (Witman & Richlin, 2007).The focus of the journal, Teaching and Learning Inquiry, includes research articles and essays as does the International Journal of SoTL.Secret, Leisey, Lanning, Polich, and Schaub (2011) provided an implied taxonomy when they surveyed faculty to learn what activities they classified as SoTL.The consensus of faculty was that data-driven studies that were published or presented were clearly SoTL, as were case studies, reflective essays on teaching, literature reviews, and authoring textbooks.Developing course materials and writing blogs on education, however, were much less accepted as SoTL, particularly by senior faculty.
While these taxonomies are all very useful, none of them place SoTL within the array of the myriad of teaching-related activities with which faculty engage.SoTL lies at the intersection of teaching and research.As a result, it can be challenging for faculty and administrators to appropriately define SoTL's role and therefore establish its value within a given university's mission.We have developed the Dimensions of Activities Related to Teaching model to address this need.

Dimensions of Activities Related to Teaching (DART)
Our model, Dimensions of Activities Related to Teaching (DART), organizes teachingrelated activities using two dimensions.We posit that these two dimensions, resulting in four quadrants, capture most of the activities related to teaching.The DART model focuses on the placement of these activities not the quality of these activities.Specific instances of teachingrelated activities might vary in quality.
As can be seen in Figure 1, these two dimensions form four quadrants, capturing many of the activities associated with the practice of teaching, scholarly teaching, SoTL, and a previously unrecognized category revealed by these dimensions, sharing about teaching.One dimension that is crucial to the very definition of SoTL, and also helps define other teaching-related activities, is the public-private dimension.Work that is not shared, such as teaching materials for your own classroom, is clearly not SoTL.Publications and presentations, whether empirical or more reflective, can be SoTL.A second dimension that emerges is that of informal versus systematic investigation.Systematic, in this sense, means a methodical, planned, and deliberate process to acquire knowledge.SoTL work does not "just happen;" it requires conscientious consideration, planning, and follow through, regardless of the methodology employed.In considering this continuum, a description of a teaching method or a teaching tip might be considered informal or Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 15, No. 3, June 2015. Josotl.indiana.eduless systematic, while an experimental study might be most systematic.As can be seen in Figure 1 below, teaching related activities can be divided into four quadrants using these two dimensions as horizontal and vertical axes.Thus, teaching-related activities may range from relatively private (in one's own classroom) to public (e.g., publication, conference presentations).Likewise, inquiry-based activities range from those that are a result of informal or less systematic investigations such as an experience in the classroom with, for example, anecdotal evidence to a more systematic investigation of experiences.Such systematic investigations may cross classrooms and disciplines or may be based in a single classroom with multiple forms of evidence or perspectives.Considering teaching-related activities from this perspective creates four potential areas: practice of teaching, sharing about teaching, scholarly teaching, and, finally, scholarship of teaching and learning.
Practice of Teaching.This quadrant includes activities associated with teaching practice, including documentation of this practice.This documentation is often used for annual evaluation, tenure, promotion, and teaching awards.It is shared only within the confines of an institutional setting or an evaluation decision and is not made public.These activities could include: course and/or curriculum development, teaching innovation, favorite ways of teaching a topic, and documentation of these activities via, for example, teaching portfolios.
Excellent teachers are quite likely to engage in reflection about any problems they notice within their classroom and to implement change based on that reflection.However, within this quadrant, these changes are based on their own intuition or discussions with colleagues.Those same observations and consideration of student evaluations, suggestions, etc. will likely be the only form of assessment of any change that occurs.Teaching, within this quadrant, is a private activity that might be discussed with a teaching consultant, peer reviewer, or colleague, but not presented, published, or systematically assessed.
Sharing about teaching.Activities in the sharing about teaching quadrant are very similar to those in the Teaching Practice quadrant except that faculty share their challenges, innovations, and successes with others.Their efforts are still relatively informal (i.e., "I had this problem in my classroom and here's what I did to fix it").There are many excellent teaching articles, web blogs, and workshops that would fall into this category-they provide rich descriptions of particular teaching strategies that have presumably worked for the author.The outcomes may be assessed informally through observations of student behaviors or student work, but the focus is on the teaching activity itself with anecdotal evidence of student learning.The sharing about teaching practices provide ideas for teaching, helps build community, and helps others reflect on their teaching and their experience.This is valuable work and should be recognized by administrators and colleagues.Such conversation considers local constraints and challenges and allows for a discourse that can lead to SoTL work but it is not SoTL because it does not incorporate the literature on teaching and learning and rarely emerges as a result of systematic investigation.
Scholarly Teaching.Scholarly teaching occurs when faculty ground their teaching practice in the scholarly literature (Richlin, 2001;Richlin & Cox, 2004;Zakrajsek, 2013).Explorations of teaching and learning in this quadrant may begin with a particular issue or problem but then move to exploring the current relevant research.Vajorczki et al. (2011) found that scholarly teachers reflect on their experiences and then use "evidence-informed approaches" by reading the literature, attending teaching workshops and conferences, or talking to scholars.Activities in this area might include finding a "solution" within the research and moving forward based on that.For instance, a faculty member who wants to increase student engagement with the topic might explore the relevant literature on team-based learning.This faculty member might also systematically assess instructional innovations via classroom assessment techniques, before and after learning assessments, or surveys of student engagement (McKinney, 2004).This type of teaching is reflective, as is the practice of teaching, but it is also steeped in the literature and more systematic in assessing results of change (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999).Scholarly teaching utilizes SoTL to inform and guide pedagogy; scholarly teaching is not SoTL.As Richlin and Cox (2004) argue, "The purpose of scholarly teaching is to affect the activity of teaching and the resulting learning, while the scholarship of teaching results in a formal, peer-reviewed communication in appropriate media or venues, which then becomes part of the knowledge base of teaching and learning in higher education" (p.128).
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.Engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning is the most representative of both the systematic and the public dimensions.Thus, faculty focusing on the scholarship of teaching and learning are engaging in inquiry in a manner similar to that of disciplinary researchers: "problem posing about an issue of teaching or learning, study of the problem through methods appropriate to the disciplinary epistemologies, applications of results to practice, communication of results, self-reflection, and peer review" (Cambridge, 2010, p. 8).SoTL also serves to build the knowledge and theory base of teaching and learning.The exemplar of this quadrant is research that is based in the literature, systematic in methodology, and then peer-reviewed and published/presented (Atkinson, 2001;Glassick, 2000;McKinney, 2004;Shulman, 2000;Vajorczki et al., 2011).This research might be an essay, literature review, or metaanalysis; it might be an empirical study that is descriptive or experimental, using qualitative or quantitative data.In any case, this work would clearly be systematic and public.

The Role of SoTL in the Academy
SoTL lies at the intersection of teaching and research in a traditional definition of faculty work as teaching, research, and service.However, Boyer wanted to give scholarship a broader meaning than the traditional basic research in the discipline.As the Boyer Model has evolved over the past 25 years, what part does SoTL play in Boyer's original model of scholarship reconsidered?

SoTL's Role in the Boyer Model
As can be seen in Figure 2, the Boyer model describes the work of a faculty member as encompassing four overlapping functions: the scholarships of discovery, integration, application, and teaching.In the Boyer model, the scholarship of discovery embraces what many label as "research" as well as the creative activity that one would conduct in, for example, the arts.The scholarship of integration aspires to identify and describe conceptual and methodological links between diverse academic disciplines.The scholarship of application attempts to answer how individuals and institutions can use new knowledge and solve problems.And, finally, the scholarship of teaching, as discussed in the Boyer (1990)  To Boyer, an inclusive view of scholarship is "that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching" (p.24).SoTL was not part of the original Boyer model.But, as Figure 2 illustrates, SoTL embraces all four forms of scholarship in the Boyer model and some forms of SoTL reflect the intersection of all of Boyer's forms of scholarship.It is clear that much of SoTL lies in the intersection of the scholarships of discovery and teaching; the research questions are focused on building knowledge about teaching and learning.In addition, much of SoTL arises from a faculty member's desire to improve learning in the classroom and to apply what he or she learns from the inquiry to the classroom.The intention of SoTL is to share what has been a private act with the greater academic community so that this wisdom can be shared and does not disappear upon a faculty member's retirement.Thus, a contribution to the scholarship of application lies at the heart of much SoTL work.In addition, as SoTL has grown, the connections across the disciplines have blossomed, thus enriching the scholarship of integration.While some ways of knowing are unique to particular disciplines, there is much that is and will be shared across the disciplines.Team based learning, for instance, is now used in the sciences, health education, business, law (Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2004), and communication.Probing these commonalities across the disciplines forms another group of SoTL studies.In a sense, SoTL may be the broadest application of the Boyer model in academia in that it often involves all four of Boyer's scholarships.

SoTL's Role on the Campus
Besides exemplifying all four areas of Boyer's model, SoTL often lies at the intersection of the traditional categorization of faculty work: teaching, research, and service.A faculty member engaged in SoTL research is likely to apply findings to his/her own teaching, publish research so others can gain from that exploration, perform service reviewing for teaching journals, be active with teaching organizations, serve on campus committees, and/or serve with centers related to teaching.While SoTL's place at the heart of academia can make it an exciting pursuit, recognizing and rewarding such efforts can become a complex issue at some institutions where reward structures are based on mutually exclusive categories of teaching, research, and service.
Are the activities pursued by faculty practicing SoTL valued by the larger university culture?As Forrest (2013) so eloquently argues, "…for scholarly work in teaching and learning to increase, then it has to matter to someone other than him-or her-self.The work has to matter in the researcher's department, and it has to matter at tenure and promotion time" (p.77).The reward structure for faculty is often established at the institutional level and can be modified by units within the institution.As Witman and Richlin (2007) point out, scholarly recognition emanates from a faculty member's discipline.Thus, the value of SoTL at an institution may vary from department to department.
SoTL faces two challenges to being valued by academic institutions, particularly those constituencies that have ultimate authority for decisions regarding faculty raises, tenure, and promotion.The first is whether or not the various activities here described as falling under the umbrella of SoTL are valued either by the larger institution or the academic department.It is clear that academic institutions have struggled in determining how best to fit faculty who embrace professional development in teaching and SoTL into the institution's reward structure.Cuban (1999) observes that faculty who are interested in the scholarship of teaching and learning quickly discover that there is scant university support for their efforts.McKinney (2004) echoes this observation stating "…SoTL work receives little support, reward, or recognition" (p. 7).
A second, but related issue, is the extent to which these activities are conceptualized as fulfilling a faculty member's teaching versus research responsibilities.While some institutions evaluate faculty members holistically, others require faculty to categorize their efforts into one of three categories: teaching, research/scholarship, or service.McKinney (2004) observes that sometimes SoTL "is categorized within reward systems as teaching rather than scholarship" (p. 7).By its nature, SoTL lies in the intersection between teaching and research and contributes to both, thus we believe that faculty should be able to place SoTL in either category.
SoTL as evidence of teaching excellence.A faculty member might choose to include SoTL research as evidence of strength in teaching.Although SoTL activities are research, given that those engaged in SoTL are by definition more informed about teaching practice, SoTL could reasonably be used in support of a teaching case.We are disturbed by a growing trend in researchintensive universities, however, to require SoTL publications as an indication of excellence in teaching.There is an appealing simplicity to this approach, particularly to those whose career focus is scholarship.However, requiring SoTL may lead to undervaluing a segment of the faculty engaged in excellent teaching via the other three quadrants of activities, directly contrary to what Boyer was trying to achieve.Although SoTL might be included in the teaching portfolio, it should not be necessary or considered sufficient to demonstrate excellence in teaching.
For instance, Vajorczki et al. (2011) found that faculty whom they identified as scholarly or engaged in SoTL had much higher rates of reading the literature, implementing new ideas, and assessing the impact on learning; thus engaging in SoTL would seem to encourage, but not guarantee, excellent teaching.However, we would argue that there are other paths to excellent teaching.While excellent teachers should reflect on their teaching and make improvements over time, they should not be required to engage in systematic inquiry regarding their teaching nor make it public.
For those who seek promotion or tenure on the basis of excellence in teaching, criteria should emphasize effective student learning and value the multiple paths toward accomplishing it via teaching practice, sharing about teaching, scholarly teaching, or SoTL.The faculty member might choose to include SoTL research as evidence of strength in teaching.In universities where faculty members are evaluated more holistically, SoTL might allow faculty to integrate their research, teaching, and service.
SoTL as evidence of research excellence.Faculty who wish to categorize their SoTL as research may face resistance from evaluators, and be required to justify how their efforts constitute a recognizable research enterprise.If a faculty member is faced with this predicament, what may be used as a basis for placing SoTL within the "research" category?Definitions of SoTL are closely aligned with definitions of "research."Felten (2013) defines five principles of good practice in SoTL: inquiry focused on student learning, grounded in context, methodologically sound, conducted in partnership with students, and appropriately public.With the exception of "inquiry focused on student learning" and "conducted in partnership with students" which are principles connected to SoTL as a discipline, the other principles are those shared with disciplinebased inquiry and general definitions of research.Felton's observations regarding good practice in SoTL echo those of the Tri-Council Agencies of Canada (the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 2010), "Research is an undertaking intended to extend knowledge through disciplined inquiry or systematic investigation" (pg.7).U.S. federal regulations define research as "a systematic investigation including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge" (45 CFR 46.102, Protection of Human Subjects 2009).The National Science Foundation defines applied research "as systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met" (Definitions, para.2).SoTL clearly falls under the umbrella of commonly accepted constructs of research.Nonetheless, scholarship, in many places, is still being defined as only discipline-based; rejecting the commonly held construct of systematic inquiry made public for determining what is scholarship.
Such a stance is unfortunate, given that teaching is the one activity that unites all university instructors, even across disparate academic specialties.This is particularly true given the increase in interdisciplinary programs in areas such as race and ethnic studies, global studies, women's studies (Knight, Lattuca, Kimball, & Reason, 2012), environmental education (Vincent & Focht, 2011), business (Bajada & Trayler, 2013), and health science (Bachrach & Robert, 2015).Moreover, the characteristics that define effective instruction have been the focus of systematic research for more than half a century (e.g., Hattie & Anderman, 2013), and SoTL represents the major contemporary vehicle for further refining instructional "best practices." Perhaps the reluctance by some to consider SoTL as research goes back to what Boyer (1990) recognized when he introduced his model, "what's really being called into question is the reward system and the key issue is this: what activities of the professoriate are most highly prized?After all, it's futile to talk about improving the quality of teaching if, in the end, faculty are not given the recognition for the time they spend with students" (p.xi).Boyer's work was published at a time when universities -even those universities who described teaching as their primary mission -were focusing more and more on research productivity.Boyer's call for valuing teaching as scholarship did not originally involve an inquiry-based approach.It is ironic that inquiry into teaching has evolved beyond Boyer's original vision, but resistance to value this inquiry persists because the focus of the inquiry is teaching.

The Future Role of SoTL in Academia
So, where does this leave us?What might we envision for the next 25 years?Ten years after the Boyer Model's introduction, Lazerson, Wagener, and Shumanis (2000, p. 19) observed "perhaps one day institutional prestige in higher education will be based on teaching and learning not just on resources and research."While institutional prestige based on teaching may be further in the future, the days of having resources tied to the quality of teaching and learning are here.Both accreditation and state funding formulas are increasingly linked to evidence of student learning.If institutions want their faculty to spend more time investing in high quality teaching and understanding effective pedagogy via SoTL, then rewarding faculty through raises, tenure, and promotion is a path for doing so.Up to this point, faculty engaged in SoTL have often settled for less prestige, smaller raises, and reduced likelihood of tenure and promotion unless they also maintain a robust disciplinary research program.In essence, these faculty are engaging in two Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 15, No. 3, June 2015. Josotl.indiana.eduresearch programs -disciplinary and SoTL -with one valued by the institution and the other not.If institutions find SoTL valuable because of the insight it gives to enhancing the quality of student learning, then appropriately valuing it could extend its application from the passionate to the willing.The DART model offers a structure upon which to base arguments by faculty or administrators for the inclusion of SoTL as research as well as to better acknowledge the other important activities related to teaching.
In addition, SoTL's role in identifying effective instructional practices can be viewed as an essential part of forming evidence-based decisions for the university.Most professions that deliver a service to others are characterized by a research history, the purpose of which is to identify bestpractices for delivery of the service.Medicine, as an example, can no longer justify practices based solely on clinical intuition or individual practitioner bias (e.g., Gillam & Siriwardena, 2014).The contemporary movement toward evidence-based medicine clearly represents a mandate for datadriven clinical practice.This "raising of the bar" has been increasingly embraced by other professions, including educators and psychologists, as a necessary step in ensuring accountability to one's stakeholders.Institutions of higher education are currently beset with a multitude of challenges to their hegemony, including enhanced online instructional opportunities and increasing student tuition rates.Within this context, it is imperative that universities base their decisions on high quality evidence.College faculty are especially well positioned to be primary contributors to this evidence, and universities that encourage systematic initiatives to support SoTL work may be more capable of navigating both known and unforeseen currents in the future of higher education.
SoTL has a vital and important role for students in the form of enhanced learning outcomes and for academia as a learning-centered enterprise.At this point it is a vastly under-utilized resource at many universities.By appropriately defining the role of SoTL within their missions and valuing SoTL within their faculty's work, universities have the opportunity to enhance learning across academia.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Dimensions of Activities Related to Teaching (DART)

Table 1
Sampling of Taxonomies within SoTL model "begins with what the teacher knows" (p.23) or what has now become known as "scholarly teaching."