Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal Pub Date : 2023-01-16 DOI:10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Mick Healey, Ruth Healey
{"title":"Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective","authors":"Mick Healey, Ruth Healey","doi":"10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are few sources that critically evaluate the ways of reviewing the literature on scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). We use an academic literacies perspective as a lens with which to explore the ways that literature reviews may be undertaken. While reviewing the literature is often presented as a scientific, objective process, the reality is much messier, nuanced, and iterative. It is a complex, context-dependent procedure. We provide a practical, critical guide to undertaking SoTL literature reviews. We distinguish between embedded reviews that present a review contextualising the research that follows, as in most SoTL articles; and freestanding reviews that synthesise research on specific topics. We discuss the nature of embedded reviews, and evaluate systematic and narrative review approaches to undertaking freestanding reviews. We contend that the claims of the superiority of systematic reviews are unjustified. It is important that contextually-sensitive judgements and interpretation of texts associated with narrative reviews are seen as central to the reviewing process, and as a strength rather than a weakness. This article complements a separate one, where we apply an academic literacies lens to reviewing the literature on searching the SoTL literature. Together, they present a narrative review of searching and reviewing the SoTL literature undertaken systematically. We call for studies investigating the lived experiences of SoTL scholars. We illustrate this argument with an auto-ethnographic account of the often-serendipitous nature of our hunt for sources in preparing this review and the way our thinking and writing evolved during the writing of the two articles.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":"138 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are few sources that critically evaluate the ways of reviewing the literature on scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). We use an academic literacies perspective as a lens with which to explore the ways that literature reviews may be undertaken. While reviewing the literature is often presented as a scientific, objective process, the reality is much messier, nuanced, and iterative. It is a complex, context-dependent procedure. We provide a practical, critical guide to undertaking SoTL literature reviews. We distinguish between embedded reviews that present a review contextualising the research that follows, as in most SoTL articles; and freestanding reviews that synthesise research on specific topics. We discuss the nature of embedded reviews, and evaluate systematic and narrative review approaches to undertaking freestanding reviews. We contend that the claims of the superiority of systematic reviews are unjustified. It is important that contextually-sensitive judgements and interpretation of texts associated with narrative reviews are seen as central to the reviewing process, and as a strength rather than a weakness. This article complements a separate one, where we apply an academic literacies lens to reviewing the literature on searching the SoTL literature. Together, they present a narrative review of searching and reviewing the SoTL literature undertaken systematically. We call for studies investigating the lived experiences of SoTL scholars. We illustrate this argument with an auto-ethnographic account of the often-serendipitous nature of our hunt for sources in preparing this review and the way our thinking and writing evolved during the writing of the two articles.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
教与学的学术研究综述:学术素养的视角
很少有来源批判性地评价教学与学习(SoTL)学术文献的审查方式。我们使用学术素养的角度作为一个镜头,探索的方式,文献综述可能进行。虽然回顾文献通常被认为是一个科学的、客观的过程,但现实要混乱得多,微妙得多,而且是反复的。这是一个复杂的、依赖于上下文的过程。我们提供了一个实用的,关键的指导进行SoTL文献综述。我们区分了嵌入式评论,即在大多数SoTL文章中,将随后的研究背景化的评论;以及对特定主题的综合研究的独立评论。我们讨论了嵌入式评论的本质,并评估了进行独立评论的系统和叙述评论方法。我们认为系统评价的优越性是不合理的。重要的是,与叙事评论相关的上下文敏感判断和文本解释被视为审查过程的核心,并且是一种优势而不是劣势。这篇文章是对另一篇文章的补充,在这篇文章中,我们运用学术素养的视角来回顾搜索SoTL文献的文献。总之,他们提出了一个叙述性的审查搜索和审查SoTL文献进行系统。我们呼吁对SoTL学者的生活经历进行调查研究。我们用一种自动人种学的方式来说明这一论点,这种方式经常是我们在准备这篇评论时寻找资源的偶然性质,以及我们在撰写这两篇文章时思考和写作的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal
Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
30.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: SoTL as its Own Kind of Inquiry Experiences with Supporting Teachers with Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at a Research-Intensive University: Lessons Learned Defining Active Learning: A Restricted Systemic Review Using Scenarios to Explore the Complexity of Student-Faculty Partnership Challenges of Shaping Student Study Strategies for Success: Replication and Extension
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1