Why Does SoTL Happen in a Librarian-Free Zone?

Anne Grant, Kyle Feenstra, and Mills Kelly*

This exploratory study seeks to gather preliminary information about the roles that academic librarians in the United States (US) and Canada play in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) work on their campuses. It also provides insight into how librarians at US Carnegie Research 1 (R1) classified universities and U15 Group of Canadian Universities (U15) participate in SoTL, to discover ways by which these librarians might grow these roles, as well as their understanding of SoTL expertise, to better support students. Data was collected through an internationally distributed survey. The authors used thematic analysis along with descriptive statistics to examine how academic librarians participated in SoTL practices as consultants, developers, partners, and scholars. Results from this study expand upon prior research on the role of librarians in this field of study and examines how barriers can be broken down to improve the working relationships between teaching faculty and librarians at research intensive universities to enhance student learning.

Introduction

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) involves research in “which faculty frame and systematically investigate questions related to student learning—the conditions under which it occurs, what it looks like, how to deepen it, and so forth—and do so with an eye not only to improving their own classroom but to advancing practice beyond it” (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999, p. 8). SoTL scholars have unprecedented access to information through databases and other library resources; yet, how much of their research in this complex web of information involves librarians? Based on anecdotal evidence and the authors’ experiences, scholars appear to rely most often on individual knowledge of their university’s resources rather than partnering with their institution’s information specialists, academic librarians. This becomes problematic because SoTL scholars not only need to be fluent in the information landscape of their own field of research, but they must also be familiar with the vast literature on teaching and learning.

The authors framed this introductory, exploratory study around two research questions:

• In what ways are academic librarians in the United States (US) and Canada involved in SoTL on their respective campuses?
• What are the barriers and opportunities for librarians in their participation in SoTL?

In order to preliminarily explore these questions, the authors chose to focus on library employees at institutions that encourage research activity. They distributed a survey to gain a glimpse into the involvement of academic librarians involved in SoTL at research intensive universities. The researchers chose to focus on R1 (US) and U15 (Canadian) universities because their identification as research intensive institutions fit this criterion (Doctoral Universities…, 2020; U15, 2020). This paper specifically builds on the work of McClurg et al. (2019), who describe four potential roles for librarians in SoTL: consultant, developer, partner, and scholar. Through an exploration of these four roles, this paper examines the extent to which a sample of academic librarians at R1 or U15 libraries are involved in SoTL activities in their campus communities.

Literature Review

SoTL and Academic Librarianship

While librarians were not mentioned in early SoTL publications such as Boyer’s (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, nor those about SoTL in Higher Education in particular, such as in Murray’s (2008) Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, librarian involvement in SoTL is increasing, as is evident in more recent publications such as The Grounded Instruction Librarian: Participating in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (Mallon et al., 2019). In one chapter of this book, Coonan notes that SoTL “offers teaching librarians not only the tools and insights required to conduct formal inquiry into their practice, but also the means to confront deeper questions about themselves and their identities; about the roles they play and the responsibilities these roles bring” (2019). Academic librarians at research intensive universities have great potential to play key roles in SoTL activity on campus because of their knowledge about interdisciplinary databases and information sources, and efforts have been made to extend opportunities for support as seen in blog entries and hashtag campaigns like #librarianSoTL (Sancomb-Mora, 2017). If teaching faculty and academic librarians are able to collaborate in meaningful ways, student learning has the potential to be maximized and SoTL efforts vastly improved, as Peter Otto said: “The likelihood that students will acquire skills in information-seeking behavior surely increases in proportion to librarians’ well-developed pedagogical skills and knowledge” (2014, 77-78).

In order to better understand the connection between academic librarianship and SoTL, it should be noted that SoTL research involves studies conducted in partnership with students, and then taking that research and making it public. Academic librarians teach and interact with the public in a myriad of ways every day, which provides many opportunities for librarians to take this work to the next level and publish their discoveries about their practice (Felton, 2013). Miller-Young and Yeo (2015) link the following learning theories to SoTL: Behaviorism, Constructivism, Cognitivism, and Humanism. That is, instructors are working with students as they seek to understand how they best learn course content. Knowing this can help librarians understand how they might apply these theoretical frameworks to their own teaching and then add to the scholarship that already exists. Hutchings et al. describes SoTL as “an approach to teaching that is informed by inquiry and evidence (both one’s own, and that of others) about student learning” (2011, p. 3) However, while there are many benefits to the publication of research involving teaching practice, there are challenges for SoTL because—on many university campuses across the US and Canada—SoTL research is not strictly disciplinary. Therefore, some Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment (TPR) committees will not count this work as scholarship toward tenure or promotion, which could limit the willingness for tenure-track faculty to engage in this work. Academic librarians may have an advantage here, as teaching and learning is a part of the discipline of librarianship and thus this kind of research would be seriously considered for the tenure and promotion process in this field.

Roles of Librarians in SoTL

The present study primarily builds on McClurg et al. (2019) in which the authors discuss the overlaps between scholarship of teaching and learning, and information literacy research. The authors of this work describe four models for librarians participating in SoTL research and practice. These include: Consultant, Developer, Partner, and Scholar. These models indicate a range of engagement in SoTL, from a supporting role to independent researcher and author.

Consultant

In the Consultant role, librarians provide support to facility researchers by guiding the literature reviews process. McClurg et al. argue that, because librarians are comfortable conducting searches in broad, interdisciplinary topics where there are no established controlled vocabularies or subject-based databases on their expertise, they “can help scholars of teaching and learning ‘step into the unknown’ to share or edit a literature search to ensure it… fully supports the project” (2019, p. 6). Others suggest that serving as an “information consultant” can be a higher level of involvement in a project and that it can imply more of a partnership than the smaller role suggested by McClurg et al. (Frank et al., 2001). Still others conclude that “viewing librarians as consultants emphasizes the value of both communication and expertise” (Eldridge, et al., 2016, p.162). In the Consultant role, librarians are considered to be least engaged in the research process.

Librarians often find themselves supporting the research of faculty and students, but they do not often participate in research on teaching. Hays and Studebaker examined the teaching identity of librarians as seen through the development of SoTL and noted that librarians defined themselves differently when it came to teaching—some did not initially see themselves as teachers but, by reconsidering their roles, they identified more as teachers (2019). Coonan notes that librarians often fall in a unique space between academic support, and instructional and research support (2019). The American Library Association also notes that many librarians participate in SoTL, yet does not directly mention the role that librarians could play in supporting faculty in their own SoTL research (“Keeping up with,” 2017). In the role of Consultant, librarians can bring their expertise to the table as they offer advice about how to navigate the research environment.

Developer

As Developers librarians could be embedded in their institution’s teaching and learning center—which would allow them to work more collaboratively with educational developers and faculty members as they design student learning experiences—or they could be connected with these centers more tangentially. In this Developer role, librarians are able to be more involved in departmental problem solving and planning, and can extend support for faculty research and publishing by working with educational developers. This role can provide librarians the opportunity to learn more about teaching and learning and to improve their own practices, and it can provide spaces for cross-disciplinary conversations (Perini, 2014). One theme that emerged from a survey of non-library faculty was that “librarians have the capacity to build bridges and relationships across campus and disciplines, which can further the work of the CTLs (Centers for Teaching and Learning)” (Mader & Gibson, 2019, p. 788). Others contend that “in the new environment of learning centres, the academic library extends the concept of useful and valuable information further than scientific and technological information” (Schopfel et al., 2015, p. 69). Other scholars acknowledge the importance of librarian collaborative involvement:

Faculty members bring to the table expertise in their disciplines, knowledge of their students, and skill in teaching. Librarians also bring to the collaborative table special expertise, in a way similar to the expertise that consultants bring to any entity. Librarians offer knowledge of resources, information search skills, teaching skill, and understanding of the research process and questioning strategies honed at the reference desk.” (Donham & Green, 2004, p. 315).

This quote helps to illuminate the many ways that librarians can be brought into SoTL projects especially considering many faculty who are undertaking SoTL work are often experts in their discipline, but not in the area of educational research. For example, if a professor in physics was interested in understanding how their students were engaging in an active learning assignment, they may not know where to go in the literature to find information about active learning or educational theory. In this case, a librarian with experience in educational research would be an invaluable collaborator.

Partner

In a third role, at a higher level of engagement, librarians can also serve as equal Partners in SoTL research projects. In this role librarians can contribute their expertise in “data analysis… writing, presenting and publishing to the overall research process” (McClurg et al., 2019, p. 8). McClurg et al. (2019) also point out that because of their unique relationship to students, often acting as safe advisors, librarians are able to gain valuable insights into student learning, which makes them ideal collaborators on SoTL projects. The existing literature on collaborations between librarians and faculty/academic staff engaged in SoTL work has largely cast academic librarians as resources, rather than as partners or as SoTL scholars in their own right. Moreover, librarians often frame their research as “information literacy” rather than as SoTL (2019, p. 4). When this happens, it can leave librarians out of SoTL conversations. Helping librarians and faculty to bridge this gap may be as simple as re-examining language and perceptions regarding the place of information literacy in SoTL research and practice.

When it comes to developing their teaching, Bradley (2009) discusses the possibility of collaboration between librarians and teaching development centers. Participation in SoTL has also shown that teaching skills of librarians can benefit alongside their faculty peers through the implementation of SoTL principles, as discussed by Hays (2017). This partnership can be further enhanced once teaching faculty realize the amount of technical expertise that librarians bring since librarians are often well informed about new technology and innovations in the field of research (Mitchell & Mitchell, 2015). Library staff in the United Kingdom revealed that “library staff see integration into the curriculum and partnership with academic colleagues as the way forward” (Hardy & Corrall, 2007, p. 86).

Scholar

In the final role discussed by McClurg et al. (2019), librarians act as Scholars when they work independently as SoTL researchers. In this role librarians are lead practitioners, researchers, and authors of their own scholarship. One study reported “Findings include that 1.38% of articles published in these journals were written by a librarian author or authors, most of who are employed at research institutions. Information literacy was the most common topic, and theoretical articles were the most popular article type” (Folk, 2014, p. 76). Lack of formal educational training for librarians can hold them back from scholarship in teaching and learning (Nimon, 2002). At this highest level of SoTL work, a librarian would be fully responsible for a research project and its publication.

Methodology

In order to address the exploratory research questions, data was collected through an online survey distributed to librarians involved in instruction at research intensive (R1 and U15 libraries) in the US and Canada. The survey was distributed in January 2020 via library listservs, as well as through some direct emails to heads of research and instruction units at selected R1 and U15 universities; the survey remained open until the end of February 2020. In total, 47 surveys were completed by academic librarians from the universities contacted. Ethics approval from both Canadian and US Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) was granted for this project.

Recruitment

Two techniques were used to recruit participants. First, the authors compiled a list of librarians identified as leaders in library instruction at each U15 and R1 university library in Canada and the US. Librarians who met this criterion were listed either as heads, directors, or coordinators of library instruction on publicly available staff directories at U15 and R1 institutions. Each librarian selected was sent an invitation to participate in the study (Appendix B). The invitation also requested that those originally contacted please forward the survey to colleagues at their institution who were employed as librarians or library staff, and whose academic responsibilities included instruction or participation in SoTL. Second, a request for participation was distributed through listservs managed by American and Canadian academic library associations. Invitations were also sent internally to librarians at the institutions where each of the authors were employed.

The researchers recognize that, as a broadly defined discipline, many librarians may already be involved in various aspects of SoTL without personally identifying as SoTL workers or scholars, and that this could result in lower participation levels. The recruitment email, therefore, included a broad definition of the scholarship of teaching and learning, indicating that it is often used to denote a range of activities related to the study of teaching practices in higher education and that librarians employed at R1 and U15 universities involved in any aspect of SoTL met the criteria for participation. The researchers also recognize that there is a difference between those who work at academic libraries in the US and Canada as many Canadian library employees work in non-tenure track positions. In addition, the researchers acknowledge that the 47 completed surveys represent a small percentage of academic librarians at R1 or U15 institutions; nevertheless, even this modest sample can hopefully provide some direction for future research.

The Survey

The survey used for this study was adapted from the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) survey originally distributed in 2004 (Cox et al.). Adaptations made by the authors were based on an article by McClurg et al. (2019) focusing on four roles of academic librarians in SOTL collaboration identified in the article: Consultant, Partner, Scholar, and Developer. The survey was created and distributed using Qualtrics and included 14 multiple choice questions, each with additional space where participants could add comments to clarify their responses. Respondents were permitted to skip questions they preferred not to answer. The complete instrument can be found in Appendix A.

Participants

To maintain anonymity the survey did not require participants to disclose any self-identifying information. All respondents were required to indicate whether they were employed at a R1 or U15 institution in the US or Canada to ensure they met the criteria for participation. To gain a clearer picture of the employment status, respondents were also asked to indicate if they were employed as tenure track, non-tenure track, or as library staff. Academic librarians at R1 institutions may be employed as tenure track, non-tenure track, or library staff. At U15 universities librarians may have tenure track or non-tenure track appointments whereas the term library staff typically refers to support staff or library assistants. Tenured and tenure-track librarians are required to participate in the same type of research and service efforts undertaken by other faculty at the university, while those who are not in the tenure track usually focus less on research and more on their primary roles as librarians.

A majority of respondents identified as a member of academic institutions in the US (57%); respondents from Canadian academic institutions comprised 36.2%, and 6.4% of respondents choose not to identify. While the majority of respondents were from the US, the Canadian sample remains significant. At the time of the study there were 131 R1 universities with Canadian U15 universities comprising just 10% of total institutions potentially represented (Doctoral Universities, 2020 & U15, 2020). As for status of participants, most participants indicated faculty status, and only 8% identified as staff. A total of 55% of participants identified as tenure-track faculty.

Data Analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected. Quantitative data was analyzed by looking at the descriptive statistics from the close-ended, multiple-choice questions and a thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data collected.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Quantitative data is represented graphically throughout this article. Simple graphs are used to display the total number of responses to the yes and no questions. JMP, a suite of computer programs for statistical analysis developed by a subsidiary of SAS Institute, was used to compare the results for selected areas (US or Canada) and status (type of employee). This was done for each question by creating a graph to explore the means for the responses according to the different countries and job status. The x-axis was represented as the location (two countries), the y-axis was the binary question response, and the overlay was the three types of library employee (faculty, tenure-track; faculty, non-tenure track; or staff). This type of graph allows the reader to visualize the difference in the means for the three different groups to determine the degree to which each group might be participating in the different areas according to their job classification.

Qualitative Data Analysis

According to Guest et al., the primary goal of inductive thematic analysis is to present “the stories and experiences voiced by study participants as accurately and comprehensively as possible” (Guest et al., 2012, p. 17). The survey produced 21 open ended responses that were coded by identifying themes. A coding manual was developed to describe these themes and then each researcher independently assigned codes to each of the comments. It was possible for one comment to have multiple codes depending on the content of the response. One author read through the comments and suggested eight preliminary codes, along with a coding manual to describe these codes. Next, the other two researchers used these suggested themes and individually coded the data to examine inter-rater reliability. It was determined via Fleiss’s Kappa that the raters came to a fair agreement about the codes with a result of 0.382 expected agreement.

Results

The following information is summarized from the survey responses and arranged by the four roles of consultant, developer, partner, and scholar. This exploratory study examines the various models of engagement and how this engagement took place. Each section includes the quantitative results in two ways: the first chart for each question show the binary results for the “yes/no” questions along with the number of total responses and the second graph shows the mean of the response for each category of respondent (faculty, tenure track—those faculty who are tenured or who are on track to be tenured at their institution; faculty, non-tenure track—those faculty who are considered to be of faculty rank, but are not eligible for tenure; and staff—library employees who are not considered to be faculty) and shows the difference in that mean for the US and for Canada. Presenting the results allows for analysis of the reasons why librarians may choose to participate in SoTL, or not, at their institutions. All the qualitative responses for each section are also included for each role.

Consultant

McClurg et al. define the role of consultant as when a “librarian acts as a consultant for the literature review for a colleague engaged in SoTL” (2019, p. 5). In Table 1, the survey reveals how these librarians have served in this role at their institutions.

The following were the comments made by respondents when asked to give the primary reason for not having worked in this area, if they indicated that they had not worked in the capacity of consultant:

Comments:

• Not my subject area, I do data support.
• I initiated a couple of total projects involving in different course/ program contexts. I am not Education liaison, as such I don’t receive in support in other SoTL support.
• My position does not focus on teaching and learning in these ways (rather than the lack of time).
• Not been asked.
• I have worked with some of these capacities, but not in an integrated way. I think the reason why I have not engaged with more of these capacities is because the archives at time has not been included in some of the instructional activities (some of it has been because the archives have not been included in discussions and/or the person that has engaged with the instructional team and liaisons has not filtered down information so it results in a lack of knowing.
• professors were mainly not interested in this.

Developer

Librarians working in the role of developer would be ones who work closely with teaching and learning centers on campus. McClurg et al. describe this role as librarians who work “essentially as specialized educational developers,” and who “enjoy a sense of membership in the unit and even a physical proximity to the center staff” (2019, p. 7)

The following were the comments made by respondents when asked to give the primary reason for not having worked in this area, if they indicated that they had not worked in the capacity of Developer:

Comments:

• My position does not focus on teaching and learning in these ways.
• I have recently assumed responsibility for Learning Services at the campus libraries, after a reorganization. Many of these areas of work are within my portfolio, and I will either participate directly or have others participating in the future.
• The Library has titled positions specifically for these purposes; mine is not one of them, although I do work with faculty on their teaching & student learning within my disciplines.

Partner

The role of partner is the most involved as in this capacity, “librarians are full collaborators or members of a team throughout a project, from design to data analysis to dissemination. They contribute to the vision, direction, scope, and scale of the project. They bring their perspectives and areas of expertise to the data analysis, as well as the work of writing, presenting, and publishing” (McClurg, 2019, 8) Table 3 visualizes the responses of the participants.

The following were the comments made by respondents when asked to give the primary reason for not having worked in this area, if they indicated that they had not worked in the capacity of Partner:

Comments:

• Did not have opportunities.
• External challenges.
• My position does not put me in a place to do these activities.
• Not been asked.
• None of the above.
• We lost our teaching and learning center after the recession and have not gotten it back.
• Both don’t have the time to focus on teaching and learning in these ways, and it’s not in my academic or research interests.
• Same answer as before; we have an Instruction Librarian and an UG Experience Librarian, with these specific areas of responsibilities. My responsibilities concentrate in other aspects of academic librarianship.
• The ones I haven’t done I haven’t sought to do, as I am more effective in the areas I do focus on.

Scholar

In this final role, librarians are in full control of the research taking place. As a SoTL Scholar, they “are sole researchers, well equipped to conduct studies drawing on their existing expertise, experiences, and contexts” (McClurg, 2019, p. 9).

The following were the comments made by respondents when asked to give the primary reason for not having worked in this area, if they indicated that they had not worked in the capacity of Scholar:

Comments:

• Did not have the opportunities.
• I have few classes that are my own.
• My responsibilities are distributed over too many programs to devote this level of effort to any one, singly—instead, I support faculty and student research in targeted, specific ways.

Thematic Analysis of Open-Ended Responses

Upon the review of the qualitative responses, the researchers found that themes or topics emerged via an initial open coding by one of the researchers. A coding manual was developed and shared with the other two researchers, and then each person coded the responses to follow guidelines about memo writing to provide more information about each theme (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). A total of eight themes emerged as those commenting expressed their insights to the question: “If you have not worked in these capacities, what do you think was the primary reason?” Here are the themes extracted from the responses:

• Lack of support
• Lack of focus on SoTL in job area
• Plan to engage in future
• Professors not interested
• Lack of opportunity
• External challenges
• Lack of time
• Disconnected with office of Teaching & Learning or with the topic in general

Discussion

The data from this survey provide deeper insights into the nature and scope of the working relationships between faculty and academic staff engaged in SoTL and their librarian-partners at research intensive universities, the degree to which the librarians surveyed engage in SoTL scholarship, and the forms that this scholarship takes. Through these results, it is possible to examine the current role of librarians in SoTL activities on their campuses as well as the barriers and opportunities that have been presented by participants.

Current Role of Librarians in SoTL

Regarding the Consultant role, the survey data indicates that librarians were about evenly split on those who supported faculty with literature reviews (22) and those who were not currently working with other faculty members (23). The weakest area reported was in support of data management with 15 librarians saying they had worked with faculty on managing data related to a SoTL project and 29 indicating they had not provided such assistance. The main reason librarians did not help in this area was they felt as though they had a lack of expertise. Librarians also found it difficult to find faculty who were involved in SoTL projects.

The strongest area for librarians who responded to the survey appears to be in the Developer area or, more specifically, working with faculty to develop learning outcomes for students in the areas of information literacy. Twenty-five librarians indicated that they had participated in this activity and 18 said they had not. Overall, librarians felt that they did not have the expertise to help with SoTL projects and instead felt more qualified to assist with subject related research in their areas of expertise. Respondents also indicated that they did not feel supported in their pursuit of SoTL projects.

Most respondents indicated they have not felt they have partnered with faculty on SoTL work in their current roles, with 33 librarians reporting they have not partnered and 10 stating they have been a partner. This is similar to their responses regarding their role as Scholar, where 11 librarians indicated they were currently participating on a project with faculty and 30 were not engaged in a project. Either the faculty interest was not there, or librarians did not have connections with teaching and learning centers on their campuses.

In response to survey questions about the scholar role librarians felt that they were often seeking ways to improve their teaching, but that they did not have the time to write up their findings for a public audience. This was often because they did not feel they had the time along with their other job duties. Overall, librarians indicated an interest in SoTL, but found there were barriers to full participation.

Barriers to Productive Librarian Relationships with SoTL

There seem to be three main barriers to productive librarian relationships with SoTL on their campuses: lack of expertise, lack of support, and exclusion from campus SoTL activities. First, many librarians who responded to this survey felt that their lack of expertise was a major reason that they had not worked more in SoTL. This may be indicative of a lack of training in teaching and pedagogy available to librarians through graduate programs and professional organizations. Confidence and expertise in teaching are also derived from experience and, while other academics are responsible for teaching full courses, librarians are typically only invited to lead ‘one-shot’ instruction sessions. Looking outside of librarianship, the sense that one lacks expertise in SoTL may be common amongst other academics as an additional hurdle mentioned by librarians was the lack of faculty interest in SoTL. Overall, this contributes to the scarcity of opportunities to become involved in SoTL projects.

The second barrier is that librarians felt that they had no support to pursue SoTL projects and that time was a constraint. This could be the result of administrative priorities or professional demands that limit the time available to librarians for SoTL research and practice. Finally, librarians indicated that they simply are not asked to participate in SoTL projects either because those professors who are active in SoTL are not thinking to include librarians, or because librarians are not well connected to staff at their teaching and learning center who may be able to assist with arranging librarian-faculty collaborations. An additional challenge for both librarians and teaching faculty lies in the fact that SoTL is not part of the traditional faculty system and “Upsetting the current rewards, cultural, and power system that privileges basic or discipline-based scholarship above both SOTL and teaching practice will not come easily” (Asarta et al., 2018, p. 741). This will be a huge cultural shift that will be difficult for library faculty to tackle on top of their daily workloads.

Opportunities for Productive Librarian Relationships to SoTL

In light of these barriers, engagement in SoTL offers a number of opportunities for librarians at R1 and U15, including professional development, opportunities to participate in research, and deeper involvement in teaching on campus.

Professional Development

First, a theme emerged from the data that showed librarians feel that they need to gain more expertise in the area of SoTL in each of the four roles. This helps explain why more librarians are not involved in SoTL at their institutions. Addressing this issue could begin in library school by integrating SoTL into programming for Library and Information Science students. As McNiff and Hays (2017) suggest: “Using SoTL to develop LIS students who are reflective practitioners may create more proficient instruction Librarians” (p. 374). This idea was reinforced during a panel discussion where SoTL practices were described as beginning in library schools (MacMillian et al., 2016). Graduates of LIS programs may not be aware of the degree to which academic librarians are typically involved in teaching and should have the opportunity to participate in both information literacy and SoTL research prior to employment.

Opportunities to Participate in Research

Another opportunity to increase librarian involvement in SoTL would be to more clearly define what SoTL means for librarianship, which would facilitate more consistent conversations about how librarians can be involved. The main solution, however, would be to support librarians in the area of scholarship because librarians are often doing the work of SoTL, but are not taking the initiative to publish the results of their work. This could include more education when it comes to setting up a research project and producing research articles. There have also been successful programs offered via teaching and learning institutes that have incentivized SoTL activities and these could be opportunities for librarians to be involved as well (Wright et al., 2011). Librarians could also be encouraged to “ride the third wave” of SoTL, with the first wave being the introduction of the practice, and the second being the rise of interdisciplinary research in SoTL. The third would be about future possibilities, such as moving SoTL research into mainstream, disciplinary literature and bringing more attention to research in teaching and learning, according to Gurung and Schwartz (2010). There is considerable opportunity for librarians, faculty, and university administrators to explore SoTL collaborations as “a close relationship between librarians and education developers is central to integrating information literacy into the learning and teaching strategies of universities, as well as into curricula” (Fallon & Breen, 2008, p. 148). In some cases, faculty would benefit from gaining more awareness of the ways librarians can contribute to SoTL research and practice. A great deal of collaboration could follow from a deeper investigation into the many ways that information literacy and SoTL practice overlap each other, perhaps in the form of conferences, symposia, panel discussions, or publications.

Deeper Involvement in Teaching on Campus

According to the data gathered, there seem to be opportunities for librarians to provide support for SoTL projects on campus by providing expertise in data management. However, communication both within and without the library will be crucial to the increased confidence and involvement of librarians in SoTL. Librarians who do not have direct contact with instruction librarians or public services departments indicated they felt cut off from information regarding instruction opportunities.

However, as mentioned by the respondents in this study, any such collaborations in the areas of professional development, research, or collaboration would benefit from the support of university administrations who value SoTL research, and who provide faculty and librarians the required time, resources, and rewards.

Study Limitations

While many efforts were made to recruit participants for this study, the overall response rate was low. Another limitation is that the survey was clearly related to SoTL, thus it’s possible that this survey and research study may have appealed to those who are already familiar with SoTL, and participants may have had a bias. It would have also been helpful to clarify the questions in the Developer portion to determine if librarians are working on SoTL projects or if they are working on information literacy projects with subject faculty. By leaving the survey anonymous, it was also impossible to determine which institutions were represented and it could be possible that many librarians from only a few institutions participated in the study.

Future Research

This introductory research was specific and produced a small research sample. Future research could take these preliminary results and focus on specific areas that would help librarians move past these barriers. In particular, librarians feel as though they have a lack of expertise, lack of support, and feel excluded from campus SoTL activities. Each of these areas could be investigations in and of themselves. Interviews with librarians to gather more detailed qualitative data about ways that librarians could feel more involved in SoTL would be helpful. Increased international communication about different approaches to teaching in both Canada and the US, as well as looking to other countries and their teaching practices, would also be useful. Discovering what specific programming or practices could encourage librarians to participate more in the role of Scholar, in particular, would be interesting to learn more about via future studies. Finally, it would be interesting to see the link between SoTL work and tenure track status: is it more likely that librarians who have tenure or are on tenure track are the ones who are pursuing projects that more deeply explore teaching and learning? The bottom line is that librarians have a great deal to offer explorations into SoTL work and could make a positive impact on student learning.

References

Asarta, C. J., Bento, R., Fornaciari, C. J., Lund Dean, K., Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2018). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Changing the Dominant Narrative about (and in) Research Institutions. Journal of Management Education, 42(6), 731–748.

Boyer, Ernest L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton University Press.

Bradley, C. (2009). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Opportunities for librarians. College & Research Libraries News, 70(5), 276-278. https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/8181/0

Coonan, E. M. (2019). Inside/outside/in between: Librarians and SoTL research. In M.M., L.H., C.B., H.R., & J.B. (Eds.) The Grounded Instruction Librarian: Participating in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL).

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A.L. (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Fourth edition. SAGE.

Cox, R., Huber, M.T., & Hutchings, P. (2004) 2004 Survey of CASTL Scholars. Carnegie Foundation Archives. http://archive.carnegiefoundation.org/resources/tools-sharing.html

Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity. (2020, November 23) Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/srp.php?clq=%7B%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%2215%22%7D&start_page=standard.php&backurl=standard.php&limit=0,50

Donham, J., & Green, C.W. (2004) “Developing a Culture of Collaboration: Librarian as Consultant.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(4), 314–21.

Eldridge, J., Fraser, K., Simmonds, T., & Smyth, N. (2016). Strategic engagement: New models of relationship management for academic librarians. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 22(2-3), 160-175.

Fallon, H., & Breen, E. (2008). The Changing Role of The Academic Library in Learning and Teaching. In B.H. & M.M. EMERGING ISSUES II The Changing Roles and Identities of Teachers and Learners in Higher Education (pp. 141-152). National Academy for Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning.

Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 121-125.

Folk, A. L. (2014). Librarians as authors in higher education and teaching and learning journals in the twenty-first century: An exploratory study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1), 76-83.

Frank, D. G., Raschke, G. K., Wood, J., & Yang, J. Z. (2001). Information consulting: The key to success in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 90-96.

Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M., & Namey. E.E. (2012) Applied Thematic Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.

Gurung, R.A.R., & Schwartz, B. M. (2010). Riding the Third Wave of SoTL. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 4(2), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2010.040205

Hardy, G., & Corrall, S. (2007). Revisiting the subject librarian: A study of English, Law and Chemistry. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607077575

Hays, L. (2017). “Bringing together academic librarianship and SoTL.” The SoTL Advocate (blog) https://illinoisstateuniversitysotl.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/bringing-together-academic-librarianship-and-sotl/

Hays, L., & Studebaker, B. (2019). Academic Instruction Librarians’ Teacher Identity Development through Participation in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2). https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol13/iss2/4/

Hutchings, P., Huber, M.T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). Feature Essays: Getting There: An Integrative Vision of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), Article 31.

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L.S. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, New Developments. Change, 31(5), 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389909604218.

“Keeping Up With… The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” (2017) American Library Association, http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/keeping_up_with/sotl (Accessed December 17, 2020) Document ID: 74ba8aa9-0daa-4054-bd7c-d11b931c24e9

MacMillan, M., Yeo, M., Currie, G., Pace, D., McCollum, B., & Miller-Young, J. (2016). The Decoding Interview, Live and Unplugged. Transcript of a decoding panel with Margy McMillan. https://arcabc.ca/islandora/object/mru%3A398

Mader, S., & Gibson, C. (2019). Teaching and learning centers: Recasting the role of librarians as educators and change agents. Recasting the Narrative: Teaching and Learning Centers. ACRL 2019. https://alair.ala.org/bitstream/handle/11213/17689/TeachingandLearningCenters.pdf?sequence=1

Mallon, M., Hays, L., Bradley, C., Huisman, R., Belanger, J. (eds). (2019). The Grounded Instruction Librarian: Participating in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL).

McClurg, C., MacMillan, M., & Chick, N. (2019). Visions of the Possible: Engaging with Librarians in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 7(2), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.1

McNiff, L., & Hays, L. (2017). SoTL in the LIS Classroom: Helping Future Academic Librarians Become More Engaged Teachers. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(2), 366-377. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2017.11.2.8

McVeigh, J. (2011). Librarians, Faculty and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Pennsylvania Library Association Bulletin, 66(2), 13-16. http://libproxy.clemson.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lxh&AN=62241267

Miller-Young, J., & Yeo, M. (2015). Conceptualizing and communicating SoTL: A framework for the field, Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 3(2), 37-53.

Mitchell, L. N., & Mitchell, E. T. (2015). Using SoTL as a lens to reflect and explore for innovation in education and librarianship, Technical Services Quarterly, 32(1), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2015.972876

Murray, R. (2008). The Scholarship of Teaching And Learning In Higher Education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Nimon, M. (2002). Developing lifelong learners: controversy and the educative role of the academic librarians, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 33(1), 14-24. http://libproxy.clemson.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=ISTA3701909

Otto, P. (2014). Librarians, Libraries, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(139), 77-93. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tl.20106

Perini, M. (2014). Enhancing collaboration through the scholarship of teaching and learning. Collaborative Librarianship, 6(1), 8.

Sancomb-Mora, M. (2017). Anchoring Our Practice #acrl2017: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Academic Libraries. Impromptu Librarian (blog) https://impromptu.wordpress.com/2017/03/

Schopfel, J., Roche, J., & Hubert, G. (2015). Co-working and innovation: new concepts for academic libraries and learning centres. New Library World, 116(1/2), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-06-2014-0072

U15: Group of Canadian Research Universities. (2020, November 23). https://u15.ca/

Wright, M.C., Finelli, C.J., Meizlish, D. & Bergom, I. (2011) Facilitating the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at a Research University. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(2), 50-56. Https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.550255

Zapf, A., Castell, S., Morawietz, L., & Karch, A. (2016). Measuring inter-rater reliability for nominal data–which coefficients and confidence intervals are appropriate?. BMC medical research methodology, 16(1), 1-10.

Appendix A: Survey

Modified CASTL (Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning) Survey, 2004 based on the article by Nancy Chick and the four areas she highlighted:

Participation in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

The phrase “the scholarship of teaching and learning” may be used to denote a range of different kinds of activities and work. We are interested in knowing what kinds of activities you have engaged in since becoming involved in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Are you:

Faculty

Staff

Other

Have you engaged in the following activities in the following capacities?

Consultant

1. I have worked with colleagues at my institution by assisting with literature reviews about topics dealing with teaching and learning. For example, have you worked with either individual faculty members or with an office of teaching development on your campus?

NO YES

2. I have worked with colleagues at my institution on their teaching and learning projects by providing information on research data management, or planning for securely storing and sharing documents, drafts, and data for the project’s life cycle by, for instance, utilizing institutional repositories and developing filing systems with file names, login procedures, and organizations that keep the data appropriately discoverable and usable.

NO YES

3. I have worked with colleagues at my institution to identify places to disseminate the work they have done on their teaching and learning practices. For example, have you discussed open access, copyright, predatory journals, and knowledge mobilization beyond the scholarly journal can also inform decisions about where and how to go public with SoTL projects.

NO YES

4. If you have not worked in these capacities, what do you think was the primary reason?

Did not have the time to focus on teaching and learning in these ways

Did not have the support (training, release time, lack of interest from colleagues) to pursue these activities.

Did not have enough expertise to explore these activities.

Other:

Developer

5. I have been a direct part in developing teaching and learning projects in collaboration with the campus teaching and learning center.

NO YES

6. I have directly collaborated with colleagues in my liaison/subject areas in framing and investigating questions about teaching and learning. For example, you have been included by teaching faculty on teaching and learning outcomes on the creation of information literacy assignments for their courses and have created reports on the student success in these assignments.

NO YES

7. I have provided workshops designed specifically to help faculty improve their SoTL work on topics such as conducting effective literature reviews or providing information on publication and/or data management.

NO YES

8. I have participated in campus faculty learning communities on SoTL topics.

NO YES

9. If you have not worked in these capacities, what do you think was the primary reason?

Did not have the time to focus on teaching and learning in these ways

Did not have the support (training, release time, lack of interest from colleagues) to pursue these activities.

Did not have enough expertise to explore these activities.

Other:

Partner

10. I have been a full collaborator or member of a team throughout a SoTL project, from design to data analysis to dissemination. For example, I have contributed to the vision, direction, scope, and scale of the project or I have brought my perspectives and areas of expertise to the data analysis, as well as the work of writing, presenting, and publishing.

NO YES

11. If you have not worked in these capacities, what do you think was the primary reason?

Did not have the time to focus on teaching and learning in these ways

Did not have the support (training, release time, lack of interest from colleagues) to pursue these activities.

Did not have enough expertise to explore these activities.

Other:

Scholar

12. I have framed and investigated questions about teaching and learning within my own classroom. For example, you have used student learning outcomes and session evaluations to determine the extent of student learning.

NO YES

13. I have worked or am currently working on a SoTL project by discussing my teaching in a systematic review, scoping review, evidence summary, meta-analysis that synthesize and evaluate the work that’s been done, or other format.

NO YES

14. If you have not worked in these capacities, what do you think was the primary reason?

Did not have the time to focus on teaching and learning in these ways

Did not have the support (training, release time, lack of interest from colleagues) to pursue these activities.

Did not have enough expertise to explore these activities.

Other:

Appendix B: Invitation Email

Dear Librarian,

Are you familiar with the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)? Have you been involved in the study of teaching and learning in higher education with other librarians or faculty?

The phrase “the scholarship of teaching and learning” is used to denote a range of activities related to the study of teaching practices in higher education. As a broadly defined discipline we recognize that many Librarians may already be involved in various aspects of SoTL without personally identifying as SoTL workers or scholars.

The purpose of this survey is to collect data on the involvement of librarians with teaching responsibilities employed at R1 (United States) and U15 (Canada) universities in any aspect of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). If you fit these criteria, please tell us more about your involvement in higher education teaching and learning by responding to the survey below. It should only take a few minutes of your time and all results will remain anonymous*.

https://clemson.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8xj65LTVjVi7EBD

Author 1

Author 2

Author 3

*By completing the survey you consent to participate in this study. Participation in the study is voluntary and you may withdraw from the survey at any time without consequence. Information from incomplete surveys will be discarded.

*Participants interested in viewing a brief report on the survey findings will be able to download a copy from MSpace (University of Manitoba institutional repository) after May 1, 2020.