To the Editor:
You assert that knowledge generated from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is ignored (“Why the Science of Teaching is Often Ignored,” The Chronicle, January 3). As SoTL scholars and campus leaders, we disagree.
You note that research on teaching and learning occurs in a wide range of disciplinary contexts and that this research can be messy — with little experimental control over factors that influence learning outcomes. Both observations are true. All disciplines have a vital stake in teaching and learning, and so the work of SoTL must include practitioners from all disciplines. To accomplish this is to navigate disciplinary silos and inter-disciplinary misunderstandings. It is not for the faint of heart.
There is no denying the “messiness” in this work. However, this is not because of ineptitude nor lack of rigor. Rather, the phenomena under study are inherently complex, and this complexity can be messy. While some factors related to learning, such as hours of study and exam scores, are easily operationalized, many factors require rich description rather than quantification. These phenomena have resulted in an impressive range of methods embraced by SoTL, broader than the incomplete view you present.
“Messiness” is not, however, a reason to ignore SoTL work. It is a reason to do the work in the first place. Some enter SoTL with understandable trepidation, partly because it is under-rewarded and partly because it is challenging. Even so, as you highlight, the number of people engaging in this research is rapidly growing. The “messiness” of SoTL is in fact an enticement for keen minds, not a deal-breaker.
Research that builds bridges between disciplines is needed now more than ever. Concomitantly, the pandemic brought greater urgency for a multi-disciplinary and multi-method approach to understanding teaching and learning. To work in this field requires patience and respect for broader methods of inquiry — qualities we need in academia and the world today.
In medical research, there is considerable focus on how translating medical research into practice impacts health outcomes. This makes good sense, and the impact of SoTL should be similarly evaluated. However, there is another layer to the story. Because SoTL research is often conducted by those participating in the phenomena under study, another measure of impact is the number of people doing the research and how doing the research affects teaching practice and learning outcomes. High participation in SoTL research is important when determining if people are paying attention to research on teaching and learning or ignoring it.
You accurately state that most faculty members do not have extensive backgrounds in conducting, let alone reading, research on teaching and learning. At some universities, however, this issue has been addressed not by ignoring SoTL, but by forming multi-disciplinary teams to do the work, often involving partnerships with colleagues with these extensive backgrounds.
You also raise important and potentially thorny questions about generalizability since much SoTL work operates in highly specific contexts. Can results from an investigation conducted with history students at a liberal arts college tell us anything about teaching physics at a large research-oriented university? This is an open and often-asked question in SoTL. However, context-specific SoTL is not ignored SoTL. We shouldn’t dismiss the local impact of this work, and some highly contextualized research has affected teaching and learning across the full spectrum of higher education. Because of its interdisciplinary nature, and because it is often engaged at local levels, the amount of SoTL research being conducted at our institutions, and the size of its impact, may be dramatically underreported.
Is teaching practice being sufficiently impacted by research? Absolutely not. Every profession laments the gap between what is known and what is practiced, and higher education teaching is no exception. And yet, it is facile and inaccurate to conclude that a field is being ignored when — despite (or even because of) the myriad challenges involved in the study of teaching and learning — a growing number of people are engaging in that work and practice is changing as a result. Hardly the stuff of a field being ignored.
Sarah L. Bunnell
President
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
S. Raj Chaudhury
President Elect
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Chng Huang Hoon
Past Co-President
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Nancy Chick
Past Co-President
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Nancy Chick
Founding Co-Editor
Teaching & Learning Inquiry
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Gary Poole
Founding Co-Editor
Teaching & Learning Inquiry
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Katarina Mårtensson
Current Co-Editor
Teaching & Learning Inquiry
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Kelly Schrum
Current Co-Editor
Teaching & Learning Inquiry
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Michelle J. Eady
Asia Pacific Vice President & Advocacy Committee Co-Chair
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
