Adding a scholarly analysis of teaching and learning to SoTL: the development of the hands-on Utrecht Roadmap for SoTL

ABSTRACT

This article outlines the development of a tool designed to enhance Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) endeavours: the Utrecht Roadmap for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (UR-SoTL). Integral to this tool is the incorporation of the Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome (CIMO) logic model, offering a nuanced analysis of the teaching and learning context within the conventional SoTL steps. The CIMO-logic model aims to guide both novice and experienced SoTL practitioners in scrutinizing their teaching activities within the framework of generative learning processes described in relevant literature. This approach enables the scholarly analysis that directs SoTL-projects towards formulating well-grounded and focused research questions and plan-of-approaches.

KEYWORDS:

• CIMO-logic
• instructional design
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
• teacher professional development

Introduction

Since Boyer’s (1990) introduction of the Scholarship of Teaching, the reflective practice of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) has grown into a fast-maturing field of study within many universities. SoTL is a systematic, research-informed approach that allows academic teachers, hereafter referred to as teachers, to investigate their disciplinary teaching practices with the specific aim of optimizing student learning. Engaging teachers in SoTL benefits student learning, course experiences, and student satisfaction, while also stimulating the use of innovative, student-activating teaching methods (Brew & Ginns, 2008). SoTL offers a powerful form of professional development, thus contributing substantially to one’s career in teaching (Dunn et al., 2018). Furthermore, because its results are shared, SoTL contributes to the building of knowledge about teaching and learning (T&L) within the disciplines (Felten, 2013).

There is a wealth of resources on ‘how to SoTL’. Examples are books (Bishop-Clark & Dietz-Uhler, 2012; Chick, 2018; Dewar et al., 2018), websites (Elon University, 2022; Vanderbilt University, 2022), tutorials, (Brown et al., 2011) and peer reviewed publications (Rowland & Myatt, 2014). Most of these resources introduce first-time SoTL-practitioners to a common set of steps to be taken, resembling the steps of the research cycle, namely: identify a research question; ground the project in a scholarly context by performing a literature review; design the study by choosing the appropriate methodology; collect and analyse data; draw conclusions; and present and publish the results.

University teachers are experts in working in a scholarly manner in their own disciplinary field, but often lack experience when attempting to employ a scholarly approach to their daily teaching practice (MacMillan, 2018). Even when using available SoTL-resources, teachers may struggle to locate suitable literature, determine the relevance of that literature for their SoTL project, formulate a research question, and choose a suitable methodology. In addition, they often lack the time to engage in intensive and extensive SoTL-research and would benefit from support that makes their literature search more focused and directed. SoTL-projects are thus often insufficiently grounded in scholarly context, which can lead to disappointing educational and professional outcomes.

It is notable that existing resources often pay no explicit attention to the instructional design of the teaching activity. The risk of not paying sufficient attention to the design is that teachers choose teaching activities in which they already have an interest or which they already know, instead of those that, according to the literature, have a high chance of solving their teaching and learning problem. In other words, a mismatch may occur between the central T&L problem and the intervention chosen to address it.

The starting point of any SoTL-project should not be a research question, but rather a scholarly analysis of the T&L central to the SoTL-project – that is, an analysis that aims to explicate the relation(s) between the teaching activities and student learning. A literature review is an important part of this analysis preceding the research question rather than following it. This scholarly analysis can reveal the actual cause of the T&L problem, leading to a more focused research question which sometimes may even differ from what the teacher initially had in mind. Furthermore, the research question formulated based on the scholarly analysis is now equally founded in practice and theory, instead of in practice alone. Finally, an analysis of T&L provides grounded direction to the instructional design that the teacher could use in the SoTL-project to improve the likelihood of a successful SoTL project and encourage T&L innovation.

The goal of the authors was to develop a supporting tool for those new to SoTL that would emphasise the scholarly analysis of T&L early in the project. For this purpose, CIMO-logic (Denyer et al., 2008) was integrated before the formulation of the research question in the SoTL-process. CIMO-logic states that in a specific context (C), an intervention (I) is used to invoke generative mechanisms (M), to deliver desired outcomes (O). In an educational context, this would read as: in a specific course and T&L context (C) a teaching activity (I) is used to invoke generative learning processes (M) to deliver effective student learning (O) (Table 1).

Table 1. Overview of CIMO-logic elements (Denyer et al., 2008).

Label	Description
Context	The context in which teaching and learning takes place
Intervention	The teaching activities used to achieve the desired outcomes
Mechanism	The mechanisms that influence achieving the desired outcomes
Outcome	The desired outcomes of teaching and learning

The Utrecht Roadmap for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (UR-SoTL) is the result of integrating a scholarly analysis of T&L using the CIMO-logic in the SoTL-research cycle. In this paper we elaborate on the design of the tool, CIMO-logic, its alignment with the other steps of the SoTL-research cycle, and the way in which the UR-SoTL supports first-time practitioners when designing a SoTL-project.

Approach

Context

The UR-SoTL was developed at Utrecht University (UU), a research-intensive university in the Netherlands. The target group for the tool are first-time SoTL practitioners working in higher education, and educational developers who support them. Also, for those with varying degree of experience in SoTL, the UR-SoTL should provide a practical reference that can be helpful in designing and reflecting on novel SoTL-projects.

Development process

The first iteration of the UR-SoTL was developed based on information from literature and experiences guiding first-time SoTL practitioners during courses on SoTL (Meijerman, 2019, 2023). Based on the participants’ feedback and comments, and our observations and experience with using preliminary versions of the UR-SoTL, it was adapted. Some examples of adaptations can be found in the descriptions of the design principles below. After completing the course, all participants were interviewed about their experiences with the UR-SoTL. Again, based on their feedback and our own experiences, the UR-SoTL was further developed and adjusted. During development, intermediate versions of the UR-SoTL were used in various workshops, for teachers from various disciplinary domains. Presentations and workshops were given, both in-person and online, at other universities and conferences, such as the Leiden University of Applied Sciences, the University of Edinburgh, the University of the West of Scotland, and the EuroSoTL conference in Manchester (2022). Several rounds and iterations, with discussion between the authors, brought the UR-SoTL into its final form. The development took approximately two years. Even at the time of writing, minor adjustments were made to make the roadmap even more relevant to the users’ needs.

Design principles

In the design of the roadmap, three specific areas have been refined through iterative updates, informed by user feedback and theory.

1. Layout: The information provided in the roadmap is visualized to effectively support users in their learning process (Mayer, 2005). This entailed providing a visual overview of all steps (Figure 1), giving each step a different colour, limiting the amount of text, and using symbols to organize the information provided (Figure 2).

   Figure 1. Overview of the eight steps in the UR-SoTL.

   

   Figure 2. The different elements of the UR-SoTL and their symbols.

   

2. Terminology: SoTL focuses on individual teaching practices while educational research examines broader educational systems and structures. In our development phase, we obtained feedback that ‘research’ had a negative connotation, stemming from the belief that research is not typically integrated into teaching and, if recognized, is viewed as difficult. To minimize the use of the label ‘research’, we incorporated alternatives like ‘project’ or ‘inquiry’. Another example is the use of the term, ‘researchable teaching question’ (RTQ), instead of ‘research question’.

3. Visualisation of non-linearity and circularity: Multiple users sought more circularity in the initial versions of the roadmap. Questions were raised about where to start and how the various steps are connected. To enhance connectivity and facilitate users starting at their preferred point, icons such as circles with two-sided arrows in the middle (Figures 2 and 3) were used. These icons emphasise the possibility to start and proceed in all directions. The circular shape of the UR-SoTL process (Figure 2) shows that the outcomes of SoTL-projects always raise new questions and prompt further inquiry. Furthermore, within the different steps, there is often a referral to other, related steps.

   Figure 3. Analysis of teaching & learning using the CIMO logic model.

   

A roadmap for SoTL

In the UR-SoTL (Kirschner et al., 2021), eight steps (Figure 1) guide all phases of a SoTL-project by providing detailed explanations, together with information, tips and tricks, points of attention, and relevant questions (Figure 2). The content of the roadmap is inspired by the five principles of good SoTL practice as described by Felten (2013). The first principle, grounded in context, refers to the scholarly and local context of a SoTL-project. The scholarly context is built on what is already known from prior research. The local context refers to the classroom, discipline, institution, and educational culture. Inquiry focused on student learning means that the goal of each SoTL-project is to improve student learning. Learning here can be understood in a broad sense, including change in student attitudes and habits, as well as explorations of how teaching and teachers influence student learning (Biggs, 1999). SoTL-projects need to be methodologically sound, which means that the research methods are thoughtfully selected and address the research question, which is often dependent on the disciplinary field of research (Chick, 2014). The fourth principle, conducted in partnership with students, urges practitioners to engage students in the inquiry process. Having students engage in partnerships benefits both students and staff in various ways, such as a sense of community and changed understandings of T&L (Healey et al., 2014). Felten’s final principle is appropriately public. This means sharing one’s work and insights to help improve T&L in their context and field. As Felten describes, these five principles help ‘clarify’ and ‘demystify’ SoTL and serve as a ‘heuristic for understanding and evaluating work in our field’ (p. 122), making them useful to a supporting tool that should be practical, understandable, and informative. The five principles, sometimes in a slightly adapted formulation, are printed at the base of the UR-SoTL circle (Figure 1).

Steps one to five: focusing, analysing, and aligning

The first five steps of the UR-SoTL combine parts of the research cycle and CIMO-logic with the aim to design a plan of approach for a SoTL-project (Denyer et al., 2008). The CIMO-logic (Table 1) is used to help teachers conduct a scholarly analysis of the teaching practice that is the focus of their project – the problem they experience or the question they have. This analysis, which is part of steps 1 and 2, leads into the formulation of a RTQ in step 3. In step 4, teachers think about the methods they need to gather data about the intervention, its mechanisms, and its outcomes to answer their question. This is also the step where they must think about ethical issues. In step 5, a practical plan is written in which the research approach is made concrete in time and place.

Step 1: reason and context

The reason to start a SoTL-project differs among teachers. We have deliberately chosen the formulation ‘reason’ over ‘problem’ because the motivation to start a SoTL-project does not always originate from an experienced problem; it can also be an interest, a heart-felt mission, a frustration, or an insecurity. This is in line with Poole (2018), who also emphasizes that not all SoTL-projects must solve a problem and that they can also originate from intuition, anecdotal experiences, and direct observation.

For the UR-SoTL, we have formulated three overarching categories of reasons: find a solution to a problem (solution); describe the effect of a new (innovative) learning activity (effect); or discover something about how students learn in a specific teaching context (insight) (see Supplementary Materials 1 for further elaboration). With these classifications we build on Hutchings’s (2000) typology of questions: (1) what works; (2) what does it look like; (3) visions of the possible; and (4) theory-building questions. Identifying a reason and motivation helps teachers immediately give more direction to, and narrow down, their SoTL-project. It is a first step to managing the cognitive overload often experienced when first thinking about a possible SoTL-project.

The context part of step 1 – the C in CIMO-logic – helps teachers to ground the project in situational factors that are part of the teaching environment, for example, class size, discipline, and type of institution. By using a visual diagram, these situational factors can be explored, providing an overview of factors that should be considered when analysing the T&L context (Figure 4). The context determines the possibilities of a SoTL-project because it largely influences the study’s design, and how previous work and educational literature on the same topic should be interpreted and used (Dewar et al., 2018).

Figure 4. Mind map to visualize the context of a SoTL-project.

Step 2: analysis of teaching and learning context

Step 2 of the UR-SoTL is what distinguishes it from other supporting tools, as it forces the SoTL practitioner to analyse the T&L context in a structured and systematic way before formulating a specific RTQ. Using CIMO-logic, this step helps the SoTL-practitioner to: 1) explicate what they already know about the intervention, the mechanism, and outcomes in their T&L context; 2) explicate what they do not (yet) know; 3) use existing knowledge and educational literature to fill in gaps; and 4) relate and connect all three elements to each other in a logical manner (Figure 3). Analysing the T&L context helps formulate a focused and specific research question grounded in educational literature and theory.

Outcomes

Outcomes are defined by ‘a change in knowledge, skills and/or attitude of students’, which is in line with the definition of learning used by Felten (2013). In this step, the SoTL-practitioner defines the project outcomes, which can be student learning, attitudes, or habits that connect to learning. The outcomes can be formulated at different levels of abstraction, from outcomes that are concrete, those that are more conceptual in nature, and outcomes that directly or indirectly describe student learning (Supplementary Materials 2). If the purpose of a SoTL-project is centred around the potential effects of a learning activity, there will be a significant focus on researching the outcomes.

Intervention

The intervention is defined as an existing, newly implemented, or yet-to-be-developed learning activity that should lead to realizing defined outcomes. Sometimes teachers choose a teaching activity that they want to include in the SoTL-project, but often they have no idea what teaching activity will lead to the desired outcomes. In the latter case, the UR-SoTL stimulates teachers to search educational literature to find an answer to the question: What existing intervention provides my desired learning outcomes? or Which intervention has a high chance of reaching the desired T&L outcomes? This is, for a large part, determined by the mechanism. If the motivation for a SoTL-project is to address a problem in T&L, there will be a strong emphasis on researching interventions.

Mechanism

The mechanism is defined as the processes that enable students to learn. The UR-SoTL pays attention to mechanisms, because finding out how students learn is the starting point from which to make changes in a teaching activity (interventions) to achieve the desired outcomes. The UR-SoTL defines cognition, motivation, and regulation based on the distinction made by Vermunt and Donche (2017) (Figure 3). Cognitive processes are those that contribute to gaining knowledge and understanding through the processing of information. Motivational processes are the motives for students to learn, while regulation refers to the level of control and responsibility students take over their own learning process. Thinking about these three mechanisms is crucial when determining why specific desired T&L outcomes are not achieved or which teaching activity could lead to achieving certain outcomes in the future. If the purpose of a SoTL-project is to gain insight into student learning, there will be a significant emphasis on researching the mechanisms involved.

Analysing relevant T&L mechanisms will involve using theories on student learning, thereby grounding the project in a scholarly context (Felten, 2013). Clearly, step 2 – particularly the mechanism – is the phase in which information, for example, from subject-specific pedagogical literature is needed. Understanding the mechanism central in a SoTL-project by reading about experiences of others in a comparable situation, along with educational theories related to the mechanism, will lead to a better understanding of student learning and a more focused RTQ (Miller-Young & Yeo, 2015). At the same time, a literature study conducted at this stage can provide examples of interventions related to the mechanism, and direction for the choice of qualitative and quantitative tools that can be used in step 4 of the research method (MacMillan, 2018).

Aligning intervention, mechanism, and outcome

To achieve optimal effectiveness of a teaching activity on the learning of students, intervention, mechanism, and outcomes should be aligned. Table 2 outlines an example of how different learning interventions, through different learning mechanisms, can lead to the same learning outcomes.

Table 2. Examples of the alignment between intervention, mechanism, and outcomes.

(Learning) Intervention	(Learning) Mechanism	(Learning) Outcomes
A. Discussing feedback examples	Cognitive process	My students can give each other peer feedback on essays
B. Workshop on the added value of peer feedback	Motivation process
C. Structuring the peer feedback process through a rubric	Regulation process

Step 3: researchable teaching question (RTQ)

The RTQ should combine the most important aspects of the intervention, mechanism, and outcome (Step 2), with the reason (Step 1) for starting the project. If the aim is to gain insights into student learning, the focus of the RTQ will often be on the mechanism. If the SoTL-practitioner, however, wants to investigate an effect or find a solution, the RTQ will be focused on the outcomes or the intervention. Furthermore, SoTL-practitioners are primed to make the question specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). An important aspect of SMART is the relevance or significance of the project, which involves identification of existing educational knowledge regarding similar research questions. By making the RTQ the final step in a process of explicating, analysing, and understanding a teaching context, teachers automatically end up on the narrow side of a funnel where there is focus, specificity, and relevance. Having come from a situation in which there was only an idea or ‘gut feeling’ for a possible project, there is now a well-formulated, grounded RTQ that will form the basis for the research method (step 4).

Step 4: research method

Step 4 guides teachers when developing a plan for systematic, methodologically sound data collection to answer their RTQ. This step familiarizes the SoTL-practitioner with some basic aspects of educational research and terminology, related to 1) what data should be collected (data); 2) when and from whom the data are going to be collected (design); and 3) how the data can be collected (instruments). Step 4 also includes ethical considerations to be considered when carrying out a SoTL-project.

The UR-SoTL does not include all possible data collection options, because the context and question of every project requires different choices. Consequently, besides the UR-SoTL, first-time SoTL practitioners often require extra guidance when familiarizing themselves with common educational research methods.

In Step 4 we refer to the previous steps. The context influences choices concerning the ethical considerations, design, and instruments of the project. The analysis of a given T&L activity and the RTQ will largely determine the type of data to be collected. The RTQ is also the backbone of the research method as, at the end of the project, it is important that the teacher can answer the RTQ. It is important to align all the steps of the UR-SoTL, not only to make sure the project is methodologically sound, but also to support teachers in managing the amount of information they must process to make these decisions.

Step 5: plan of approach

The relevance of a plan of approach should not be underestimated. First-time SoTL-practitioners often proceed too quickly into step 6 (teaching activity and data collection) after having defined their research methodology. In doing so, they risk forgetting aspects of their research and often encounter problems during data collection, such as problems with the time schedule, support needed, responsibilities for collecting the data, and potential risks. The goal of the plan of approach is to put all decisions and considerations together to ensure that everything is aligned, and to consider the feasibility of the SoTL-project.

Steps six, seven, and eight: executing, analysing, and formulating an answer

In the final three steps of the roadmap, all that was planned will be executed with the goal of being able to formulate an answer to the RTQ. CIMO-logic does not play an active role in these steps, and therefore, they do not differ greatly from the SoTL research cycle, for which support is provided elsewhere (Bishop-Clark & Dietz-Uhler, 2012; Chick, 2018; Dewar et al., 2018). For this reason, in this paper we do not examine this in great depth.

Step 6: teaching activity & data collection

Implementing the teaching activity and collecting data are different for every project. This is the part of a project that takes place in the teaching context. In the previous steps, the SoTL-practitioner made well thought-out plans for this step. The UR-SoTL provides some tips as to how to align data collection and analysis and why making notes during the teaching activity and data collection will help to interpret the data.

Step 7: data analysis & interpretation

The UR-SoTL distinguishes quantitative and qualitative data and provides an overview of the phases of data analysis. Again, we refer to the RTQ to guide the analysis and interpretation. We also highlight that the SoTL-practitioner can consider support, such as from an experienced statistician, a colleague, or a student.

Step 8: reflection & dissemination

The principle, appropriately public (Felten, 2013), is described in step 8. We give ideas and tips on how and where to share insights from the project. SoTL is also a path to professional development for teachers, and for this reason, reflection is also part of the UR-SoTL.

Preliminary experiences with the UR-SoTL

Our goal was to develop a tool that integrates the analysis of T&L into the SoTL research cycle to support a scholarly, grounded approach to a SoTL-project. This is now reflected by step 2 – analysis of T&L – in the UR-SoTL. This step should help teachers to think in a more critical and scholarly manner about how they organize their teaching and use literature about T&L. It also provides more direction for a well-grounded and focused RTQ and plan of approach.

Based on feedback from the initial users of the UR-SoTL, we believe that the roadmap successfully achieves this goal. A teacher from the University of York, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, who attended a UR-SoTL-based workshop at the 2023 International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning conference in Utrecht, The Netherlands, wrote an email stating:

The prompts, and especially CIMO, are helping me to critically think through a scholarship project I am developing. Inspired by the UR-SoTL workshop, I now have a realistic plan to help me explore the effects of a teaching intervention, in collaboration with a student intern, and clearer articulation of what I want to achieve and why.

Not only did the roadmap help the participant to think critically about her project, but it also gave her a vocabulary (i.e., ‘clearer articulation’) to do so. The acquisition of a shared language, as facilitated by the roadmap, plays an important role in enabling communication and discussion with others about a SoTL-project.

A teacher at the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at UU, who became interested in SoTL soon after starting as a teacher at the university, was provided with the UR-SoTL as a tool to define her project. She stated in her feedback on the tool:

When I found the roadmap, suddenly starting a SoTL project did not seem so overwhelming anymore. I could focus on one step at a time and developed a greater understanding of the learning mechanisms involved, which helped me to define the project better.

Thinking in the CIMO way helped her identify the challenge within her teaching, ground her research and instructional design within literature, and narrow down her RTQ. It helped her define her project in a scholarly manner.

The fact that the UR-SoTL also aids lecturers in the challenging task of finding and assessing suitable literature is evidenced by the following quote from a biology teacher at UU:

What I have also learned is to look for literature, educational literature, because I simply did not know a lot of those, yes, articles or journals. Yes, I can Google something via Google Scholar, but you get [following the UR-SoTL] more of an idea of: what kind of literature is behind it and where can it all be found.

For some teachers, the pivotal learning moment was not in discovering how or where to find relevant literature, but rather in the realization that educational research constitutes a distinct academic discipline. An interviewed teacher, that participated in a SoTL-course at UU, realised ‘that there really is a science behind it [educational innovation], because, sorry, we scientists tend to forget that education is also a subject that you can do research into, which you will learn [using the UR-SoTL in a course]’. In the same course we saw that several participants, after step 2, ended up with a unexpected RTQ and different research methods than those they initially had in mind.

We also found that the UR-SoTL is useful not only for those who want to engage in SoTL, but also for teachers who want to innovate or change their teaching activities in a scholarly manner, without the inquiry and sharing elements of SoTL. With this in mind, we have used the UR-SoTL in a teaching qualification course at UU. Steps 1 and 2 of the UR-SoTL prompted awareness of the relevance of educational literature for teachers’ practice, and increased their conceptual thinking about T&L. In certain contexts, deploying only steps 1 and 2 of the UR-SoTL will lower the barrier for teachers making the step to SoTL.

Discussion

UR-SoTL development was solidly grounded in theory and practice. The UR-SoTL is unique in its integration of instructional CIMO-logic with the familiar SoTL-research cycle.

However, UR-SoTL implementation can present several challenges because the tool itself contains a limited amount of information. In general, first-time SoTL-practitioners need guidance with the steps of the UR-SOTL. In line with this observation, we noticed that teachers need support in finding and interpreting relevant literature as well as in the design of the SoTL project itself. A second challenge is that although the roadmap is designed for use across all disciplines, feedback from teacher in the humanities department has suggested a slight bias toward science and social sciences, potentially making it less suitable for humanities.

The UR-SoTL is best used as a tool with some form of support, such as a workshop, training or course. Currently, we are in the process of developing an online module to guide teachers through the roadmap and provide extra information such as worksheets, sources, and examples of literature, and more detailed information about research methods and data analysis. Nonetheless, the UR-SoTL can be used on its own, especially by those who already have some experience with scholarly work.

Although research paradigms as such are not included in the roadmap, many questions and problems first-time SoTL-practitioners face when using the UR-SoTL are related to their beliefs about research. These beliefs can cause biases that can affect T&L and limit the alternatives for methodologically sound SoTL research. By exploring their beliefs and how these shape their interests and approaches, first-time SoTL practitioners can cross barriers and become more open to alternative ideas and opportunities (McKinney, 2013; Williams, 2015).

While the five fundamental principles identified by Felten (2013) form the base of the UR-SoTL, the tool does not pay specific attention to the role of students as partners in SoTL-projects. As having students engage in partnerships benefits both students and staff in various ways (Healey et al., 2014), SoTL-practitioners should think about involving students in all steps of the roadmap, and not only as the ‘source’ for data collection.

Conclusion

Based on sound theoretical grounds, CIMO-logic early in the process is key to a grounded, inquiry-based, methodologically sound, and well-thought-out SoTL-project. The UR-SoTL, integrates the analysis of teaching activities, using CIMO, into the SoTL-research cycle. This tool is suitable for a broad range of scholars, from first-time SoTL practitioners to advanced scholars and educational developers. It can also be used by those who want to adopt a more scholarly approach to their teaching. The UR-SoTL promises to contribute to an academic culture in which approaching T&L in a systematic manner, using the principles of SoTL, becomes second nature to all academic teachers.

Utrecht Roadmap for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

The Utrecht Roadmap for Scholarly Teaching and Learning can be found via the QR code (Figure 5). The UR-SoTL is freely available and open for use, however, we ask all users to fill out a short questionnaire about their experience.

Figure 5. QR-Code — Utrecht Roadmap for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (or https://www.uu.nl/en/education/centre-for-academic-teaching/educational-scholarship/scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning/utrecht-roadmap-for-scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr Jessie Paterson, University of Edinburgh, for her critical view, feedback, and help with the translation of the UR-SoTL into English. Furthermore, we thank Anne Geesink for her input and support with the graphic design, and all participants in UR-SoTL courses, workshops, and presentations for their enthusiasm and feedback.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2024.2361428

Additional information

Funding

The development of the UR-SoTL was made possible by a grant awarded by the Faculty Utrecht Education Incentive Fund, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University.

Notes on contributors

Irma Meijerman

Irma Meijerman is a Principal Fellow of the Centre for Academic Teaching and Learning (CAT), and an Associate Professor in Pharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science at Utrecht University (NLD).

Lindy Wijsman

Lindy Wijsman is a former educational consultant at Educational Development & Training at the Faculty of Social Science at Utrecht University. Currently, she is manager of the Center for Teaching and Learning at vocational school SintLucas.

Femke Kirschner

Femke Kirschner is an educational consultant at Educational Development & Training at the Faculty of Social Science at Utrecht University (NLD).