Survey of Research Approaches Utilised in The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Publications

Aysha Divan, Lynn Ludwig, Kelly Matthews, Phillip Motley, Ana Tomljenovic-Berube

Abstract


The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) has been described as the fastest growing academic development movement in higher education. As this field of inquiry matures, there is a need to understand how SoTL research is conducted. The purpose of our study was to
inform this debate by investigating research approaches used in SoTL publications. We analysed 223 empirical research studies published from 2012 to 2014 in three explicitly focused SoTL journals. We classified the studies as either qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods using an analytical framework devised from existing literature on research methods. We found that the use of the three research designs was fairly evenly distributed across the papers examined: qualitative (37.2%), quantitative (29.6%), and mixed methods (33.2%). However, there was an over-reliance on data collection from a single source in 83.9% of papers analysed, and this source was primarily students. There was some, but limited, evidence of the use of triangulation through the use of multiple data collection instruments (e.g. survey, assessment tasks, grade databases). Similarly, only one-third of publications classified as mixed methods integrated the analysis and interpretation of the qualitative and quantitative data equally within the study. We conclude that current SoTL research is characterised by methodological pluralism but could be advanced through inclusion of more diverse approaches, such as close reading, and adoption of strategies known to enhance the quality of research, for example, triangulation and visual representation.


Keywords


scholarship of teaching and learning, systematic literature review, qualitative research, quantitative research, mixed methods

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alise, M. A. & Teddlie, C. (2010). A Continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103-126.

Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational

development literature in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 90-126.

Bass, R., & Linkon, S. L. (2008). On the evidence of theory: Close reading as a disciplinary model for writing about teaching and learning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7(3), 245-261.

Bazeley, P. (2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814-828.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342-360.

Chick, N. (2013). Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Guide from the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved 18 December 2015 from https://my.vanderbilt.edu/sotl/

Chick, N. L., Hassel, H., & Haynie, A. (2009a). Pressing an ear against the hive: Reading literature for complexity. Pedagogy, 9(3), 399-422.

Chick, N. L., Karis, T., & Kernahan, C. (2009). Learning from their own learning: How metacognitive and metaaffective reflections enhance learning in race-related courses. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1).

Cochrane, B., & Oliver, J. (2006). Qualitative research. Presentation at CASTL Institute 2006: Media Arts and New

Literacies. Chicago, IL: Columbia College.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative

Research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., Gutmann, M.L., & Hanson, W.E. (2003). Advances in mixing methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dreher, M. (1994). Qualitative research methods from the reviewer’s perspective. In J. Morse (Ed.) Critical Issues in

Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 257-281). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121-125.

Gibbs, G. (2013). Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 4-14.

Greene J. C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley

Hart, L. C., Smith, S. Z., Swars, S. L., & Smith, M. E. (2009). An examination of research methods in mathematics education (1995-2005). Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(1), 26-41.

Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research and Development,19(2), 169-189.

Heyvaert M., Maes B., Onghena P. (2011). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47, 659-676.

Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse methodological approaches and considerations for SoTL in higher education. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1-11.

Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Poole, G. (2010). Ten-year reflections on mentoring SoTL research in a research-intensive university. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 117-129.

Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning. Building the Teaching Commons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

Huber, M. T., & Morreale, Sherwyn P. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Hutchings, P., & Huber, M. T. (2008). Placing theory in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7(3), 229-244.

Ivankova, N., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18, 3-20.

Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Towards a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Kennedy, M. M. (2007). Defining a literature. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 139-147.

Lawrie, G., Marquis, E., Fuller, E., Newman, T., Qiu, M., Nomikoudis, M., Roelofs, F. & van Dam, L. (2017). Moving

towards inclusive learning and teaching: A synthesis of recent literature. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 5(1), 10.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & quantity,

(2), 265-275.

Matthews, K. E., Divan, A., John-Thomas, N., Lopes, V., Ludwig, L. O., Martini, T. S., Motley, P. & Tomljenovic-Berube, A. M. (2013). SoTL and students' experiences of their degree-level programs: An empirical investigation. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 75-89.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.

McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing Learning Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: The Challenges and Joys of Juggling. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyers, R. (Presenter). (2008, May 27-30). Designing systematic inquiry: Research methods and evidence gathering [Workshop].

Richland Center, WI: University of Wisconsin System Faculty College.

Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40,

-123.

O’Cathain A., Murphy E., Nicholl J. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. British

Medical Journal, 341, c4587. DOI:10.1136/bmj.c4587

Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2008). The Mixed Methods Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Poole, G. (2012). Square one: what is research? In K.McKinney (Ed.). The Scholarship of Learning & Teaching across the disciplines. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Press.

Potter, M., & Kustra, E. (2011). The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions, and clarifications. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1-18. DOI:10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050123

Powell, N., Harmon, B., & MacMillan, M. (2015). Student-generated data: Trends in the 2014 conference program. International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning website. Retrieved 18 November from http://www.issotl.com/issotl15/node/105

van der Roest, J-W, Spaaij, R, van Bottenburg, M. (2015). Mixed methods in emerging academic subdisciplines: The case of sport management. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 70-90.

Wilson-Doenges, G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). Benchmarks for scholarly investigations of teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 63-70




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.2.3

PID: http://hdl.handle.net/10515/sy5m902m2



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


CURRENTPREVIOUSSUBMISSIONSALERTSLOGINABOUT

Teaching & Learning Inquiry is the official journal of the
International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL)