Modalities of Faculty Engagement with the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a mixed-methods study examining the ways in which faculty and staff engage with the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) at a medium-sized research-intensive university in southern Ontario, Canada. Survey data was collected from fifty-six faculty and staff respondents, along with eight faculty completing follow-up semi-structured interviews. We found respondents used multiple engagement modalities to stay informed on SoTL literature, carry out SoTL research, and disseminate their findings. Barriers to SoTL participation include lack of dedicated time, limited formal SoTL training, and inexperience with different disciplinary norms found in SoTL articles. Participants emphasized the importance of collaborative SoTL inquiry, highlighting in particular the benefits of partnering with students on scholarly projects. Additionally, participants underscored the importance of implementing evidence-based teaching strategies. Our findings mirror trends in the literature regarding SoTL engagement activities, barriers to participation, and faculty perceptions of SoTL. This study contributes novel insight into the ways faculty choose to engage with SoTL and common obstacles, as well as suggestions for how teaching and learning centers can use engagement data to better support faculty and staff SoTL scholars.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".