Sat, Nov 23, 2024
[Archive]
Education Development Center (EDC), Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran.
| Abstract (HTML) (1320 Views)
Conflict of Interest Statement:
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Artificial intelligence utilization for article writing:
The author declares that artificial intelligence was not used in the production of the content of this article.
Full-Text: (778 Views)
Letter to the Editor
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), or educational scholarship, is a complex and interconnected concept that needs more exploration and understanding (1). Imagine educational scholarship as a river that should flow continuously; this river has its origin, route, and destination. The similarity between these two is that if their movement and continuity are interrupted, which can lead to stagnation or turmoil, this is not surprising. To understand the process conditions and success factors, knowing about the beginning and end of the path is necessary. Details of this pathway are provided in Table 1.
SoTL involves meeting attributes to be performed at individual and activity levels (1). Therefore, it requires prerequisites and agreements (2). Evidence indicates this concept needs more explanation and elaboration, especially in Iran (1, 3). Educational scholarship brings individual, institutional, and professional benefits (4). Despite many parallels, a significant obstacle it faces, particularly in the realm of educational research, is the false perception that the two notions are the same. Here, we will explore the fundamental characteristics of SoTL, namely those that set it apart from educational research, to guide those who work in this area.
SoTL involves meeting attributes to be performed at individual and activity levels (1). Therefore, it requires prerequisites and agreements (2). Evidence indicates this concept needs more explanation and elaboration, especially in Iran (1, 3). Educational scholarship brings individual, institutional, and professional benefits (4). Despite many parallels, a significant obstacle it faces, particularly in the realm of educational research, is the false perception that the two notions are the same. Here, we will explore the fundamental characteristics of SoTL, namely those that set it apart from educational research, to guide those who work in this area.
Table 1. Origin, route, and destination in scholarship of teaching and learning
| Origin | Route | Destination |
| Learning problems Learning questions Learning issues |
Scholar learns during the process Scalar changes during the process Scalar develops during the process |
Significant results Problem solved Quality education (5) |
In recent years, educational scholarship and conducting research in this field have increased, including the necessity of dedicating a course unit for it in the Ph.D. curriculum of medical education in Iran. (6). Based on the history of this concept, we find that the SoTL was the voice of faculty members and that their standout and innovative educational actions and activities should be taken into consideration. This story gave rise to disagreements between research and education. However, our goal is to offer a thorough understanding of the components of SoTL, not to highlight the tension between these two ideas. To provide a clear understanding of SoTL and differentiate it from educational research, we have identified 15 components that are linked to educational scholarship (Table 2). It is imperative to note that the subjects mentioned in educational research or other research are not necessarily the same in all studies; however, we provide them for comparison and a better conception of educational scholarship.
Educational scholarship centers around the implementation and installation of novel scholarly activities within the educational context or system. Subsequently, the scholar assumes a pivotal position in the process of scholarship and is an integral component thereof. In contrast, research often requires hypotheses, and researchers sometimes might become blinded based on study design. In educational scholarship, significant outcomes, whether positive or not, are acknowledged, whereas in research or educational research, mainly positive results are considered by researchers.
Although every teacher is a scholar (7), they are not necessarily researchers. SoTL tries to offer solutions to problems, while research often focuses on identifying and resolving questions. Engagement, interaction, and learning with beneficiaries are vital in the SoTL process. In other words, scholars actively collaborate with the beneficiaries.
Reflection is another debatable component. It’s a fundamental part of educational scholarship, and scholars should constantly reflect on their learning and development (5).
In terms of the evidence review, SoTL entails implementing the evidence into practice, whereas in research, evidence is mainly synthesized.
Another major distinction is that documenting and sharing, key parts of educational scholarship, gain less attention in research. In a general sense, we might regard SoTL as an umbrella that embraces and covers all educational activities. Considering sharing attributes, both documenting and sharing are crucial in SoTL. In contrast, in research, publishing a paper is typically sufficient, and its results may not be implemented in many cases. In both fields, there are critiques, but in educational scholarship, criticism is addressed in varied ways, and utilizing the critiques results in improvement, which is vital.
The criteria differ between these two concepts. For scholarship, we follow Glassick and FINER criteria (8), which are distinct from research criteria.
Another distinction is related to context. In SoTL, it's vital to consider the context, including norms, rules, and fields of inventive activity, which should also be considered by scholars. In research, context often doesn't play a big role. Researchers often strive to minimize contextual influences to determine generalizable findings. Additional details are provided in Table 2.
Finally, we discuss the educational scholarship, encompassing its origin, route, and destination. Subsequently, we compared it to a river. To further clarify its meaning, we highlight its differences and, to some extent, its similarities with educational research. It is crucial to remember that educational scholarship is more tied to the learning route. It considers every kind of individual progress valuable, works with the scholars themselves, and looks at the process’s path, although they are not oblivious to the destination. Ultimately, SoTL endeavors to make the teacher a person who is interested in learning and continuously learns.
Educational scholarship centers around the implementation and installation of novel scholarly activities within the educational context or system. Subsequently, the scholar assumes a pivotal position in the process of scholarship and is an integral component thereof. In contrast, research often requires hypotheses, and researchers sometimes might become blinded based on study design. In educational scholarship, significant outcomes, whether positive or not, are acknowledged, whereas in research or educational research, mainly positive results are considered by researchers.
Although every teacher is a scholar (7), they are not necessarily researchers. SoTL tries to offer solutions to problems, while research often focuses on identifying and resolving questions. Engagement, interaction, and learning with beneficiaries are vital in the SoTL process. In other words, scholars actively collaborate with the beneficiaries.
Reflection is another debatable component. It’s a fundamental part of educational scholarship, and scholars should constantly reflect on their learning and development (5).
In terms of the evidence review, SoTL entails implementing the evidence into practice, whereas in research, evidence is mainly synthesized.
Another major distinction is that documenting and sharing, key parts of educational scholarship, gain less attention in research. In a general sense, we might regard SoTL as an umbrella that embraces and covers all educational activities. Considering sharing attributes, both documenting and sharing are crucial in SoTL. In contrast, in research, publishing a paper is typically sufficient, and its results may not be implemented in many cases. In both fields, there are critiques, but in educational scholarship, criticism is addressed in varied ways, and utilizing the critiques results in improvement, which is vital.
The criteria differ between these two concepts. For scholarship, we follow Glassick and FINER criteria (8), which are distinct from research criteria.
Another distinction is related to context. In SoTL, it's vital to consider the context, including norms, rules, and fields of inventive activity, which should also be considered by scholars. In research, context often doesn't play a big role. Researchers often strive to minimize contextual influences to determine generalizable findings. Additional details are provided in Table 2.
Finally, we discuss the educational scholarship, encompassing its origin, route, and destination. Subsequently, we compared it to a river. To further clarify its meaning, we highlight its differences and, to some extent, its similarities with educational research. It is crucial to remember that educational scholarship is more tied to the learning route. It considers every kind of individual progress valuable, works with the scholars themselves, and looks at the process’s path, although they are not oblivious to the destination. Ultimately, SoTL endeavors to make the teacher a person who is interested in learning and continuously learns.
Table 2. Distinguish between educational scholarship and research/educational research
| No. | Subject | Research/Educational Research | Educational Scholarship |
| 1 | Functor | Researcher | Scholar |
| 2 | Role of functor | Recommended blind | The main part of the process |
| 3 | Teacher Role | Not always | Should be scholar |
| 4 | Hypothesis | Mainly has | No hypothesis |
| 5 | Goal | Problem identifies | Problem-solving |
| 6 | Beneficial | Work on them | Work with them |
| 7 | Learning effect | Not necessarily happen | Very necessary |
| 8 | Context | Mostly ineffective | Context-based (1) |
| 9 | Reflection | Mostly irrelevant | Necessary (1) |
| 10 | Evidence | Synthesized | Implemented |
| 11 | Documentation | Less required | Crucial |
| 12 | Sharing | Less required | Imperative |
| 13 | Critique | Required | Required |
| 14 | Results | Mainly positive | Significant |
| 15 | Criteria | Depending on the study design | Glassick, FINER (8) |
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Artificial intelligence utilization for article writing:
The author declares that artificial intelligence was not used in the production of the content of this article.
References
1. Mirhosseini F, Mehrdad N, Bigdeli S, Peyravi H, Khoddam H. Exploring the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): Concept analysis. Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2018;32:96. [DOI]
2. Moradi E, Bigdeli S, Soltani Arabshahi SK, Mirhosseni F. Agreement between colleagues: A fundamental and forgotten principle in writing the educational scholarship. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2020;20:481-3. URL: https: //ijme.mui.ac.ir/article-1-5233-fa.html
3. Araghian Mojarad F, Sanagoo A, Jouybari L. Teaching scholarship: An opportunity for faculty development or a threat. Iranian Journal of Medical Education 2015; 15:626-627. URL: https://ijme.mui.ac.ir/article-1-4040-fa.html
4. Fitzgerald AS, Bosch G, Ungaretti T. Introduction to educational scholarship. education scholarship in healthcare: The health scholar’s toolbox 2023 (pp. 3-11). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
5. Siegel ST. Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): What else? Why (not)? How to? Inverted classroom and beyond 2023: Agile Didaktik für nachhaltige Bildung. 2023:35. ISBN: 9783752645262.
6. Moradi E. Educational scholarship and Ph. D. curriculum of medical education in Iran: A serious critique and a proposal. Journal of Medical Education Development. 2023;16(51):82-3. [DOI]
7. Dent J, Harden RM, Hunt D. A practical guide for medical teachers, e-book: Elsevier health sciences; 2021. ISBN: 978-0-7020-8170-5.
8. Crites GE, Gaines JK, Cottrell S, et al. Medical education scholarship: an introductory guide: AMEE Guide No. 89. Medical Teacher. 2014;36(8):657-74. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
