The Need for SoTL Planning Tools

As practitioners, educational developers have limited resources and need to make strategic choices in selecting SoTL program models to adapt for their institutional needs. Rather than reinvent processes, practitioners can benefit from the “maps” other institutions have created for understanding their instructors’ SoTL work and considering alternative models based on what other institutions are doing or have tried. Educational developers therefore need to understand both the SoTL process for supporting faculty and methods of SoTL support at varying scales for their own efforts. Developers also need practical tools for planning and implementing SoTL programming. Our review of SoTL literature for educational developers helped us identify many examples for faculty support and several for institutional change but few practical tools for educational developers. Nonetheless, these larger theories and frameworks helped us conceptualize the purpose and value of SoTL for individuals and for institutions writ large, and we summarize these findings below.

Educational developers and scholars have explored various approaches to conceptualizing how faculty conduct SoTL (e.g., Boyer, 1990; Potter & Kustra, 2011). Taxonomies defining different types of SoTL and SoTL questions abound (e.g., Hutchings, 2000; Nelson, 2003). These taxonomies most frequently explain SoTL practice to instructors and thus serve as resources for developers as they work with faculty on SoTL projects. Educational developers and scholars have also developed numerous theoretical frameworks for helping developers situate SoTL in the academy. For example, Bernstein and Ginsberg’s (2009) integrated model of SoTL and faculty development helps developers connect SoTL to a larger context of scholarly teaching practices and recognize their role in supporting these practices (see also Kern et al., 2015). Scholars have offered theories of cultural change, such as Chen’s 2021 model, which adapted a multi-level model to build urgency and promote SoTL enculturation. Similarly, several examples use the 4-M framework to understand the levels at which SoTL should be supported (Friberg & Scharff, 2020; see also Kenny et al., 2016). Finally, some literature moves beyond considerations of a single model and emphasizes the importance of campus cultures valuing SoTL scholarship writ large (e.g., Schroeder, 2007; Schwartz & Haynie, 2013). All of these examples describe change efforts or SoTL programming, but they lack practical tools for educational developers to strategically plan and implement SoTL programs.

Myatt et al.’s (2018) work provides one exception. The authors described a three-cycle process through which an international group of developers reflected on their current SoTL programming practices and identified gaps in their institutional SoTL supports. Their cycle is an excellent tool for assessing SoTL support programming at an institutional level. However, once gaps are identified, the authors leave the actual process of planning and implementing new structures and programs to fill those gaps up to educational developers and CTLs. Here we present two tools that support educational developers’ SoTL program decision-making and implementation planning.

Development of SoTL Planning Tools

In Fall 2020, the authors formed the SoTL Collaboratory (SoTL-C; https://sotl.gmu.edu/sotl-collaboratory/), a regional, cross-institutional community of practice (CoP) focused on exchanging knowledge about supporting institution-wide SoTL programming. The goal of the SoTL-C was to use this knowledge sharing to strategically plan future SoTL programming at each respective institution while synthesizing and generalizing that information in ways that could be helpful for other educational developers (see Lukes et al., 2023, for details of the SoTL-C model).

To develop the SoTL planning tools, we engaged in a generative, reflective, and ongoing iterative design process (Figure 1). The development began with information gathering by the SoTL-C. We shared the SoTL programs implemented on our campuses and explored CTL websites to identify types of SoTL programming offered at other institutions. Conversations between SoTL-C members as well as memos by the first author helped develop an initial version of the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet and a prototype of the SoTL Program Taxonomy.

Figure 1. Iterative Design Process for the SoTL Strategic Planning Tools

We initially tested the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet (Iteration 1; see Figure 1) internally with the SoTL-C by developing our own strategic plans for SoTL. Based on our experience in practice with the tool (Iteration 3), we formally developed the SoTL Program Taxonomy (Iteration 1) as a companion tool for the worksheet. After this internal vetting process, we tested each tool with practitioners outside of the SoTL-C during multiple pre-conference workshops that we facilitated through the POD Network in January and October 2021. At this point, while writing and revising based on this external testing, we conducted a literature review and made additional revisions to the SoTL Program Taxonomy inspired by Gravett and Broscheid’s (2018) work to outline the models and genres of educational development programming overall. With participant feedback from the previous two workshops and in anticipation of a third pre-conference workshop at the 2022 ICED conference, we developed the final version of the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet (Iteration 4; see Appendix A). Feedback from the ICED pre-conference workshop and further internal SoTL-C discussion yielded the final version of the SoTL Program Taxonomy (Iteration 5; see Appendix B). Below we describe each of these tools and their purpose, structure, and limitations, and in subsequent sections we present evidence of efficacy from the POD conference workshops.¹

SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet

The SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet provides a guided reflective process for educational developers to identify and prioritize the SoTL programming they want to implement at their institution in the coming year(s). It is also designed as a tool that can be shared with colleagues for gathering peer feedback on these ideas, aspirations, and plans. Gravett and Broscheid (2018) argued that a program will best support a center’s goals if it is designed with intended outcomes in mind. Thus, strategic planning can help developers better align center goals with institutional goals and desired program outcomes.

There are five main sections in the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet (Table 1). The overall structure walks educational developers from reflecting on mission and values to dreaming of ideal SoTL programming possibilities and all the way through making next-step decisions and setting the timeline for program development. The tool is intended to balance naming idealistic goals for growing institutional cultures of SoTL and recognizing the practical limits that might constrain an educational developer’s efforts. Through this balance, this tool can be useful to developers at any stage of planning for SoTL programming—from those hoping to start the very first SoTL program at their institution (i.e., nascent programming), to those whose CTL offers robust SoTL programming that they would like to revise or supplement (i.e., established programming).

There are three unique elements to the tool that aim to practically support program implementation: recognition of institutional context, acknowledgment of the need for assessment, and attention to resource needs and limitations. First, we recognize that programming is most likely to be successful when it can align with larger university priorities (Plank & Kalish, 2010). Thus, the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet prompts developers to reflect on institutional-level as well as center-level missions and goals throughout the planning process. For example, Part 1 (Context) asks developers to document their center’s or institution’s mission, and Part 2 (Current SoTL Programming and Initiatives) and Part 3 (Aspirational SoTL Programming or Initiatives) prompt developers to consider the alignment of the program goals with center and/or institutional missions. When prioritizing SoTL programming in Part 4, developers are also encouraged to consider alignment in deciding what aspirational programs to move forward.

Second, in alignment with best practices in program assessment (Plank & Kalish, 2010), we believe that setting intended outcomes for SoTL programming should occur in conjunction with planning for assessing those outcomes. Thus, the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet acknowledges the role that assessment plays in planning, implementing, and improving SoTL programming. For example, the tool includes a section in Part 5 (Next Steps in Launching New SoTL Programming) where developers can articulate what evidence they intend to collect for their planned SoTL program(s), who they will collect the evidence from, and when data collection will occur.

Finally, one of the most practical elements of the tool is its attention to resource needs and limitations. The goal of helping developers identify the resources and supports necessary to operationalize their SoTL plans is to enable implementation of a new or revised SoTL program in the next 1 to 2 years. For example, in Part 3 (Aspirational SoTL Programming or Initiatives), developers are asked to reflect on the resources needed for each of the aspirational SoTL programs, including monetary resources, collaborators, and stakeholders that would be important in successfully implementing such a program. Part 4 (Prioritizing SoTL Programming) prompts developers to consider not only the resources for each aspirational program but also whether these resources are available within the next 1 to 2 years and how well balanced the resources and program impact are with each other.

SoTL Program Taxonomy

The SoTL Program Taxonomy provides a suggested organizing schema and common language for understanding different types of SoTL programming. It is intended to support educational developers’ exploration of existing SoTL program models to facilitate adoption or adaptation of existing models, reducing the “reinventing the wheel” phenomenon. In other words, it is a framework for educational developers to “see” generally what institutions might do to engage and support faculty in SoTL work. We intend the tool to be of value to developers at any stage of program planning. For example, for those working on developing their first SoTL offering, the taxonomy shows the range of possibilities. For those reviewing well-established SoTL programs, the taxonomy supports reflection on programming gaps. In these ways, the SoTL Program Taxonomy is a complementary tool to the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet to aid educational developers in designing institution-specific, strategic SoTL programming.

The taxonomy consists of four program categories, derived from Gravett and Broscheid (2018), to help communicate the scope and scale of the 13 different types of SoTL support program models (Table 2). In addition to the program categories and models, the taxonomy includes a description of each model and an example in practice. The examples especially help to connect the SoTL Program Taxonomy with the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet as they offer a glimpse into real-world, context-specific examples of aspirational SoTL programs.

It is important to note that while the SoTL Program Taxonomy organizes SoTL programs into distinct models, SoTL programs in practice often use a combination of models to create an integrated or multi-pronged approach to supporting SoTL. For example, in an Engaged Teacher-Scholar (ETS) program at James Madison University, faculty who do SoTL are selected to join a faculty community in which they are financially supported to make progress on a SoTL project while also learning how to do faculty professional development (see Henry et al., 2021). These elements of the ETS program span four of the 13 SoTL Program Taxonomy models: (1) “incentives to develop or complete SoTL project,” (2) “awards or title recognizing faculty engaged in SoTL work,” (3) “SoTL faculty learning community or reading group,” and (4) “train-the-trainer model.” The SoTL leaders from the ETS program then offer various types of SoTL programming based on the needs and interests of the SoTL leaders, faculty, and departments. These additional SoTL programs spanned additional SoTL models, such as “ ‘How to’ . . . SoTL informational sessions or workshops,” “SoTL faculty learning community or reading group,” and “one-on-one consultations.”

Efficacy of SoTL Planning Tools

As mentioned above, we piloted these tools among members of our CoP (see Lukes et al., 2023) before using them in workshops with other educational developers similarly seeking to strategically develop SoTL program plans. We collected feedback from workshop participants on the tools after each session. After the lead author’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed our work and declared it not human subject research, we proceeded with analyzing our aggregated feedback. We share those results below.

Two virtual offerings of the planning workshop were given at POD’s annual conference, one in January 2021 and one in October 2021. Each workshop consisted of two 90-minute sessions spaced two weeks apart. In the first workshop session, participants engaged in two major exercises: indicating where in the SoTL planning process participants were (nascent, emerging, evolving, established) and participating in a virtual gallery walk (using shared slides) exploring an early iteration of the SoTL Program Taxonomy. Between workshops, the participants were asked to complete a SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet. In the January workshop series, the authors gave feedback on all the partially or fully completed worksheets; in October, due to facilitator time constraints, this feedback was not provided. For both workshops, in the Day 2 session, participants were placed in breakout groups to peer review one another’s strategic planning worksheets. The authors facilitated these breakout groups and provided additional feedback as requested. Participants were asked at the end of the Day 2 session to complete a survey, and all registrants were sent two reminder emails.

Altogether, these workshops included 176 registrants from 139 unique institutions (five of these individuals registered for both workshops), with 102 in total attending across the two workshops (28 in January and 74 in October). Forty-six people (15 in January, 31 in October) provided their feedback, yielding a response rate of 45% for attendees. Overall, participants perceived the tools as valuable. Nearly all of the workshop survey respondents who reported that they participated in the taxonomy activity (n = 39) also reported that they found the SoTL Program [Taxonomy] gallery walk activity to be “highly” (74%) or “moderately” (23%) useful (six respondents indicated they did not participate in this activity, and one did not respond). As one participant described learning about the models, “I like the idea of not having to fully reinvent the wheel.” Similarly, all survey respondents who reported that they participated in using the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet (n = 44; one did not use the worksheet, and one did not respond) found the worksheet to be “highly” (70%) or “moderately” (27%) useful, with only one person reporting it was only “minimally useful.”

With regard to the peer review activity for the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet, the majority of those who participated (n = 41) reported it was “highly” (41%) or “moderately” (41%) useful. The remaining reported it to be “minimally useful” (10%) or “not at all useful” (7%). Two of the respondents who reported the worksheet to be “minimally useful” also reported that the peer feedback they received on their worksheets to be “highly” and “moderately” useful, indicating that while the reflection may not have been useful to them, the worksheet gave them a framework to receive useful peer feedback.

Participants were then asked to indicate how aspects of the workshop and tools were useful to them from a list of options that were “check all that apply” (n = 42). A strong majority (81%) reported they “gained new knowledge about SoTL Program models.” Two-thirds (67%) reported the workshop and tools “provided a framework for how to organize my SoTL planning.” More than half reported this experience gave them “an opportunity to articulate my SoTL program ideas and plans to others” (55%) and “a new perspective on my ideas and plans from peer feedback or comments” (55%). Overall, these responses suggest that the majority of participants found the tools useful, though it is difficult to directly attribute the benefits to a specific tool or to how the tools were utilized in workshop activities.

Of the 46 respondents, the majority reported they strongly agreed (20%) or agreed (50%) that they “made significant progress in completing my SoTL strategic plan for my institution as a result of this program.” Nearly all participants strongly agreed (24%) or agreed (65%) that “as a result of participation in this program, I felt more confident in the content of my strategic plan.” Similarly, nearly all the participants strongly agreed (26%) or agreed (57%) that “my strategic plan has improved as a result of this program.” One respondent reported that “the feedback I received in my plan was so helpful!” suggesting that the peer-peer engagement facilitated by the use of these tools had a positive impact on their strategic planning process.

However, not all open-ended responses were positive. One participant mused:

I would’ve appreciated a more scaffolded or tiered approach to participation—whether you’re just beginning to brainstorm a program, and then following up once you have more of a concrete plan. It was challenging for peers to give me feedback because I was in a more developing stage than they were.

Contributions to Educational Development & Future Work

Based on our experiences developing, testing, implementing, and assessing the two SoTL planning tools presented in this article, we have identified three important educational development implications of our work.

First, both the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet and the SoTL Program Taxonomy can be used by educational developers with a range of experience levels and positions. For example, the SoTL planning tools can support early career educational developers by increasing awareness of SoTL program types and providing an introduction to the process of strategic planning. More experienced educational developers can also find value in using both SoTL planning tools to characterize the scope of their SoTL programming and consider how the process of strategic SoTL planning could translate to planning of other programs/initiatives. CTL directors may find the SoTL planning tools useful in communicating to leadership the systematic and reflective process for which a SoTL program was developed or, when integrating our recommended opportunities for peer review, in a collective center-wide approach to SoTL strategic planning.

Second, both SoTL planning tools can be used within and across CTLs that are in varying stages of SoTL planning: nascent (no existing programming or plans yet), emerging (initial plans or piloting programs), evolving (tried a few programs and revising), and established (have been offering programming for years, revising, or scaling). The SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet and SoTL Program Taxonomy in combination provide educational developers across stages of the strategic planning process a way to systematically assess one’s institution’s current offerings and prioritizing programming scope and efforts for the future. Furthermore, the SoTL Program Taxonomy could be reorganized according to different dimensions such as time and effort or desired outcomes to assist educational developers in the complex decision-making process of selecting SoTL programs for their CTL portfolios.

Third, both SoTL planning tools have the potential to advance the scholarship of educational development (SoED). By scaffolding the development of a proactive assessment plan, and in conjunction with review by an ethical human subject research board, educational developers may be better prepared to contribute to the literature on what aspects of SoTL programs work, why, for whom, and in what context(s). Furthermore, both SoTL planning tools provide one approach to a common language for educational developers to organize SoTL programs and their assessment plans, which can enable more systematic comparisons of cross-institutional SoTL programming. Such comparisons allow researchers to examine SoTL programs at scale, beyond the case study.

Conclusion

In summary, the SoTL-C used an iterative, evidence-based approach to develop two practical tools for educational developers, the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet and the SoTL Program Taxonomy. Through internal and external testing, we believe these tools provide added value for educational developers who are leading, or plan to lead, SoTL programs on their campuses. As scholars and practitioners increasingly recognize the importance of both studying teaching practices in higher education and applying that learning to pedagogy (McMurtrie, 2022), educational developers will play a key role in advancing these practices. Without planned and strategic support, SoTL risks a continued future of dismissal and under-engagement (McMurtrie, 2022). We hope the tools presented in this article will offer educational developers strategies for affecting systemic and cultural transformation in support of SoTL.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors are not aware of any conflicts of interest.