1 Introduction and Background
Central to many universities’ missions is the ambition to develop graduates who are ready to enter employment, able to make contributions to tackling complex global challenges and able to navigate ever increasing information in meaningful ways (Grant, 2021). Higher education (HE) needs to support the increasingly diverse body of learners to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes required for the complexities and uncertainties of the 21st century (Hazelkorn, 2017). This requires teachers who are not only masters of their discipline but who also understand how students learn and are able to relate student needs to pedagogy and their own teaching practice.
Although the relationship between student learning outcomes and ‘what the teacher does’ is complex, there is a significant body of research which identifies that there are ways of thinking and practising as a teacher in HE that are more effective than others (Budwig & Alexander, 2020; Simonson et al., 2021). Teachers who understand, for example, how to use social learning, feedback and deliberate practice to advance students’ skills, and can adapt to changing environmental and interpersonal interactions can be described as ‘expert’ and more effective than those without these ways of thinking and practising (Wieman, 2019).
In 2018 we began a conversation and related reading around what we described as ‘scholarly teachers’. By this we were referring to those teachers in HE who we observed seemed to care deeply about students and their learning, showing this through a range of actions including: using evidence-informed techniques, enhancing teaching sessions using appropriate technologies, and seeking and acting on student feedback. We were interested to understand more about the factors and influences that supported academics to think and act in these ways.
There has been an increasing body of literature about the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in HE over the past 20 years (McEwan, 2022). Kanuka (2011) notes that there are a range of understandings of SoTL,
There is a growing body of literature in academic development and innovation in HE exploring what SoTL entails and how it evolves for academics across a range of disciplines and professions (Geertsema, 2016; McEwan, 2022; Webb & Tierney, 2020). What we also identified was different ways to research or explore what scholarly teachers did or thought or how they developed in relation to career trajectories or biographical accounts. Taking a perspective that teaching practice is inherently social and complex, shaped by ways of thinking, knowing, being and belonging (Ropo, 2006), we considered the value of using the threshold concepts framework as an exploratory lens. We sought a theory or framework that would enable capture of both the cognitive and participatory dimensions of learning and development.
Threshold concepts is an area of educational research that has been used across a wide range of disciplines in HE to examine dimensions of difficulty and transformation in learning, including SoTL. Key components of threshold concepts that we were particularly interested in were troublesome aspects of learning and experiencing a liminal (or ‘unsettling and uncertain’) phase associated with changing understandings and identity (Cousin, 2006). As well as some existing work evaluating threshold concepts and scholarly teaching (e.g. Tsang, 2010), threshold concepts have also been identified as a potential approach to support HE teachers in curriculum development work (Timmermans & Meyer, 2019). This existing work leant weight to linking threshold concepts with our interest in scholarly teaching.
In this chapter, we set out our interpretation of the range of literature and other evidence we gathered as we explored how teachers in HE changed their thinking and knowing, becoming and belonging, in relation to their teaching
The chapter is organised in accordance with the chronological development of the work. In Part 1, we outline the approach to, and findings of, the literature review which culminated in the development of a model capturing threshold concepts associated with being and becoming a scholarly teacher.
In Part 2 the model is subject to critique and reform through presentation and discussion at the British Educational Research Association conference in 2018. In Part 3 we relate the model to the experiences of teachers, using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of a disruptor, a time when academic identity shifts for those involved in teaching were amplified. A discussion captures the potential use of the model, alongside its scope and limitations. We conclude with ideas about the next steps for this work. We hope the open nature of the account and illustration of the critique with communities in HE mirrors the open endeavour of scholarly enquiry into how we can support teachers’ and our own development, and we invite response, debate and collaboration.
2 Literature Review
The first phase of the work was a focused literature review to identify potential threshold concepts and evidence of liminality relating to the development of the scholarly teacher in HE. The question ‘How can threshold concepts, liminality and troublesomeness advance understanding of how academics become scholarly?’ guided a search of ERIC and the British Education Index between 2000–2021, using keywords and phrases relating to: academic; teacher; scholarship; higher education; and difficulty. This initial search identified 24 relevant articles, from over 3000 found. Qualitative work was included that presented evidence of participants experiencing an ontological or epistemological shift in relation to educational scholarship or encountering liminality during activities relating to development as a teacher in HE. From the articles that met these criteria, a narrative synthesis was undertaken to tease out elements that might indicate threshold concepts, particularly focusing on troublesome knowledge, liminality, transformation and discourse. Three themes emerged: trouble and liminality; identity crisis; and solutions and transformations.
Trouble and consequent feelings of liminality were found in teachers who had come recently to HE, as well as those who had been academics for some time but were encountering educational research and pedagogical language for the first time. This related to the unfamiliar language and discourse of education. Kelly et al. (2012), Marquis et al. (2017), Tierney (2017) and Weller (2011)
The liminality and trouble experienced was associated with aspects of academic identity, particularly identity as a teacher in HE. This presented from the perspectives of individual identity as well as community. Harland et al. (2014) and Matsumoto (2016) identified the importance of the individual sense of identity and how this can positively link to transformation in teaching practices. Newer teachers also reported imposter syndrome linked to identity as an academic (Stewart, 2019). However, belonging and a sense of community, or group identity, appears to be equally, if not more influential in navigating trouble and liminality. Fortune et al. (2016) described the importance of mentorship in helping to develop a sense of belonging for those who otherwise might remain on the outside of the scholarly teacher community. Adendorff (2011) and Fanghanel (2007) also emphasised the significance of communities to foster feelings of connection and build confidence, though Adendorff notes the potential for tensions between disciplinary and education communities that for some can contribute to feelings of trouble. Across most of the included articles there are accounts of identity shifts and development as academics engage in the study of education and try new practices associated with what we have defined as scholarly teaching. Åkerlind (2003), Mckenzie (2003) and
While the articles included captured a general sense that development as a scholarly teacher will lead many into a liminal space, there are numerous accounts of the facilitators which can support both positive engagement with liminality and transformation in practice and also identity formation as a scholarly teacher. The role of uni- and inter-disciplinary peers and communities in supporting development is apparent in much of the evidence, whether this is through informal or formal groups and networks (for example Fortune, 2016; Marquis et al., 2017; Warhurst, 2006; Webb, 2015). Much of the literature considers the experiences of academics undertaking formal, often mandatory, postgraduate education in academic practice, so the impact of peer networks and communities understandably impacts on the prevalence of this in the literature. There is also a dominant theme relating to confidence and building expertise in scholarly teaching over time. While many participants across the studies included in the review reported feeling like imposters or lacking in credibility, over time they also reported growing self-efficacy and competence in relation to learning and teaching (for example Stewart, 2019). Kelly et al. (2012) capture this and even extend it to the shifts that engagement with SoTL has prompted in their wider lives. This may in part reflect people being able to transfer skills they already have relating to their disciplines. Kreber (2005) notes that scholarly teachers will start to question and challenge their teaching using similar approaches and questioning as they have built up in their subject expertise, while Field (2012) found that academic staff reported having transferable skills when starting to teach in HE.
The literature review identifies trouble and liminality in becoming a scholarly teacher. For those who engage, this develops over time, supported by formative experiences and contexts, and develops into a valued identity and skillset in relation to learning and teaching. The sense of a journey described in many of the articles lends weight to there being a range of thresholds that teachers in HE can navigate. Based on the evidence identified from the literature review, we developed a model to visualise the ways of thinking and practising as a scholarly teacher, as well as identifying the potential ‘stuck’, liminal places along the way. In the next section we discuss the development of the model.
3 Model Development and Refinement
The initial focus in developing the model (Figure 25.1) was to take the idea of journeying and draw out the trouble and liminality, as well as driving/enabling
Initial model of scholarly teacher development
This progresses to a ‘teaching practice focus’. At this stage, two thresholds are proposed. The first, evidence-informed teaching and learning, recognises the need to use educational literature and feedback to develop teaching practices, whether it is linked to disciplinary norms for educational approaches or from general education literature. Secondly teachers start to value recognised approaches to learning and teaching and understand the benefits to their teaching of using established methods and tools. This teaching practice focus is summed up by one of Tierney’s respondents who said:
[W]hen I started teaching, I thought I was there to actually tell them stuff and tell them things that they didn’t know or couldn’t find out … and it took me a good few years to realise that I was there to help them understand stuff and sort of curate knowledge for them in a way that made sense.
Tierney (2017, p. 176)
The third component of the model shifts to a ‘student learning focus’ when the key transformation is towards student-centred approaches to learning and teaching. To reach this stage, there appear to be three thresholds. The first is learner-centredness, which places learning at the forefront of all activities. Linked to this is a pedagogical content knowledge threshold in which disciplinary knowledge becomes intertwined with pedagogical understanding. This
The final stage of the model retains the student-centred focus and reflects that some teachers will make a further transformation to practising SoTL. Evidence of crossing two thresholds marked this stage. The first was viewing scholarship as an open endeavour, one in which scholarship is marked by collaboration and dissemination as part of a community of scholarly teachers. The second threshold aligns with this, as teachers value and engage with the ongoing advancement of scholarship, viewing scholarly activities as an enhancement-led process characterised by continuous improvement.
The resulting model is shown in Figure 25.1.
The driving and restraining forces, shown in Figure 25.1, reflect the factors that may support or hold back teachers from moving from one stage to the next. Proposed driving and restraining forces were captured in the literature review in the experiences, issues and situations that caused trouble and liminality, as well as those that supported development.
3.1 Sharing the Model to Enable Critique and Revision
Following the development of the model, we subjected it to scrutiny from academic colleagues during a workshop at the British Educational Research Association (BERA) Conference in September 2018. Feedback and questioning from participants centred on three areas: was there evidence of liminality in the scholarly teaching journey; is the model’s linear presentation reflective of reality or would a spiral and iterative model be more representative; and are the thresholds identified at the most pertinent places in the model, particularly with respect to reflection?
The question about evidence of liminality prompted us to return to the literature to explore this in more depth and the results of this are reflected in the literature review reported above. Focusing on qualitative studies allowed us to identify evidence of liminality in areas that relate to: attitude of self and others (such as conflict and tension between disciplinary allegiances and engaging in educational literature, theory and research); concepts (such as the unfamiliarity of educational language and ideas); and practice (such as engagement in mentoring and peer support). In the model the liminality is reflected in the driving and restraining forces, emphasising the troublesome but also developmental aspects of liminality (Land et al., 2014).
The discussions about how to define the thresholds at different stages of the model led to proposal of some minor changes. Most contested was that reflection is only included in the third part of the model and this was felt to be too late, given that reflection could be argued as being an important part of the ontological shifts needed when moving from one threshold to another. Consequently, reflection was included at stage two, then stage three was extended to include reflexivity as well as reflection. Including reflexivity in the ‘student-centred focus’ stage recognises the teacher’s awareness of the impact of their actions, words and approaches on teaching and learners that is essential to be being student-centred. The final change made at this stage was a move away from using ‘student’ towards ‘learner’, to acknowledge the focus on learning and to remove some of the other associations that the term ‘student’ can bring, as opposed to the more generic and educationally focused ‘learner’.
Following this critical review work the model was changed to that found in Figure 25.2.
Revised model of scholarly teacher development
3.2 Revisiting the Driving and Restraining Factors
At the BERA conference we shared some initial themes associated with driving and restraining factors or contexts and these resonated with participants. Given the importance of the driving and restraining forces, since they provoke and inform trouble and liminality experienced by teachers in HE, we revisited
There was a distinction between factors that were specific to the individual and others that reflected external influences. The external factors were sub-divided into three areas, at the meso, macro and mega levels. This potential to identify the mediators of trouble (or indeed positive influence) may help to explain why some teachers will develop more readily in taking a scholarly approach to teaching in HE, whereas others habituate different stages in the model. An easy – or lazy – assumption that those not interested in developing teaching skills and student-centred ways of thinking are discipline- and research-focused became more nuanced when we started to delve into the
The model, as presented in Figure 25.2 represents our interpretation of the evidence from the literature review into how scholarly teachers may develop over time, with emphasis on liminality as characterised through the driving and restraining forces. In the next section we consider the model in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, using this exemplar to reflect on the potential of the model to bring to light potential thresholds in this area and the trouble and liminality associated with them. We also discuss how the threshold concepts framework might help to inform our understanding of academic development and how to support teachers in HE to become scholarly teachers.
4 Scholarly Teaching in the Moment: Reflections on the Model’s Applicability When Teaching Has Been Disrupted
Over the period April 2020–July 2021, we revisited our model of scholarly teaching through the lens of the ‘moment’ that the COVID-19 pandemic brought to HE. We did this through personal reflections, reviewing the emerging literature associated with the emergency pivot online and the more slowly considered blended learning approaches to teaching and learning. Those involved in teaching and learning were significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, given the speed and magnitude of change that was required to teaching and assessment practices (Schleicher, 2020). The impact on academic staff included substantial uncertainty, leading to stress, discomfort and vulnerability, but there were also opportunities associated with becoming a scholarly teacher, for example through immersion in online learning (Cutri et al., 2020; Howden et al., 2021; Muller et al., 2021).
In July 2021, we were able to share the model with participants (academics, academic developers and students) at a Round Table discussion session at the Biennial Threshold Concepts Conference Thresholds in the Moment (2021) to again garner reactions and insights. At that session, we were able to capture contributions about how academic teaching staff encountered liminality provoked by the system shock of the pandemic and the implications for enabling transformation towards scholarly teaching.
As discussed in the previous section, one of the key contentions about the model was whether those teachers who progress towards scholarly ways of working do this in a linear way or whether it is iterative or even whether there is potential to regress. The pandemic offered a unique opportunity to explore this, given that so many teachers in HE were forced to move at speed to online
As we explored the impact of the pandemic this seemed to be reflected in recent literature (Cutri et al., 2020; van der Spoel et al., 2020). It applied to traditional teaching approaches, based in the university settings (Muller et al., 2021) as well as to other settings, such as practice learning in healthcare education (Lawton et al., 2021). Such experiences were mirrored in our personal reflections and in those expressed at the Round Table. Many teachers who had previously viewed themselves as having good levels of skills and capability in learning and teaching experienced doubt in their abilities. This even extended to deeply negative emotional and psychological experiences. This evidence seems to suggest that teachers at times reverted to the safety/certainty of more teacher- or content-focused approaches. This was partially related to the inability to judge students’ responses to how teaching was progressing, due to being online, and often felt by some to be exacerbated by the lack of visual cues, with many students having no video access or a preference to having video off. It also linked to the trouble, for some, associated with not being confident with certain technologies or how to apply them in the classroom. We had personal experiences of delivering teaching using predominantly didactic approaches in ways we would have avoided if teaching had been in a classroom or more time had been available to craft more interactive sessions.
The ability to adapt during the pandemic seemed to vary significantly from individual to individual as well as from setting to setting. For example, it appears that for novice teachers the pandemic experiences may have given opportunities to test out innovative and creative approaches in a wholly positive way, whereas some experienced teachers found the novelty of the context to be challenging. This serves as a reminder of the highly individual ways that thresholds and liminality are often experienced. Recent literature seems to confirm that teacher response to the move to online learning varied greatly. It was often dependent on the experience of online teaching and learning, discipline and other personal and contextual factors (Bartolic et al., 2021).
This evidence suggests that there may be an iterative component to thresholds relating to scholarly teaching, i.e. that teachers may choose or revert to teacher-focused or content-focused approaches, as discussed above in relation to the feedback from participants in the BERA workshop. While this seems to challenge the threshold feature of irreversibility, it opens a different perspective of threshold concepts, which is that for some thresholds there is a relational or situational component. Taking the example of being a scholarly
The development of the model in Figure 25.1 began as a way to interpret and make sense of the evidence from the literature review, using threshold concepts as a lens through which we could try to illuminate the development of scholarly teachers. We subsequently incorporated personal reflection and discussion with others into this, resulting in the model as presented in Figure 25.2. However, as we moved from retrospective examination of the literature to the prospective question of ‘what is the potential value of this model?’ we started to explore how the model might inform academic development.
By representing threshold concepts associated with scholarly teaching visually, we encouraged scrutiny and critical evaluation of how the model resonates with the experiences of colleagues in HE – researchers, teachers, academic developers and educational leaders. Risjord (2019) suggests that this type of theoretical model has its value in being able to trigger academic debate and consider its application to practice. In this spirit the ongoing development and evolution of the model (hopefully) provokes reflection and debate that can support individuals to think about their personal developments as teachers and/or the development of others. We propose the value is in supporting dialogue with academics, academic developers and those leading educational initiatives which have the enhancement of student learning as a central concern.
5 Conclusion
Our original question was: how can threshold concepts, liminality and troublesomeness advance understanding of how academics become scholarly teachers? The model developed is formative and untested but grounded in literature and shaped by perspectives from our HE communities (from the BERA workshop and the Thresholds in the Moment round table, as well as our own reflections). It has enabled us to address the original question posed by generating a rich picture of potential thresholds associated with becoming a scholarly teacher and the complex array of interacting contextual factors that go with this. This has potential to be useful for anyone interested in reflecting on their
References
Adendorff, H. (2011). Strangers in a strange land – on becoming scholars of teaching. London Review of Education, 9(3), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2011.616323
Åkerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher - Variation in meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000122242
Bartolic, S. K., Boud, D., Agapito, J., Verpoorten, D., Williams, S., Lutze-Mann, L., & Guppy, N. (2022). A multi-institutional assessment of changes in higher education teaching and learning in the face of COVID-19. Educational Review, 74(3), 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1955830
Budwig, N., & Alexander, A. J. (2020). A transdisciplinary approach to student learning and development in university settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 2724. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.576250
Clavert, M., Björklund, T., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Developing as a teacher in the fields of science and technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 685–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901957
Cousin, G. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, 17, 4–5.
Cutri, R. M., Mena, J., & Whiting, E. F. (2020). Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: Transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 523–541.
Fanghanel, J. (2007). Investigating university lecturers’ pedagogical constructs in the working context. Higher Education Academy.
Field, S. (2012). The trials of transition, and the impact upon the pedagogy of new teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 38(5), 811–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.701658
Flavell, H., Roberts, L., Fyfe, G., & Broughton, M. (2019). Shifting goal posts: The impact of academic workforce reshaping and the introduction of teaching academic roles on the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45, 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-017-0247-6
Fortune, T., Ennals, P., Bhopti, A., Neilson, C., Darzins, S., & Bruce, C. (2016). Bridging identity ‘chasms’: Occupational therapy academics’ reflections on the journey towards scholarship. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(3), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1141289
Geertsema, J. (2016). Academic development, SoTL and educational research. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2016.1175144
Grant, J. (2021). The new power university: The social purpose of higher education in the 21st century. Pearson Education Limited.
Harland, T., Raja Hussain, R. M., & Bakar, A. A. (2014). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Challenges for Malaysian academics. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827654
Hazelkorn, E. (2017). What does global higher education mean for university leaders? The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/what-does-global-higher-education-mean-university-leaders
Howden, S., Beresford-Dey, M., & Martindale, L. (2021). Critical reflections on academic leadership during Covid-19: Using complexity leadership theory to understand the transition to remote and blended learning. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 9(2), 118–126.
Johnson, H., Ehrlich, S., Watts-Taffe, S., & Williams, C. (2014). Who am I here? Disrupted identifies and gentle shifts when teaching in cyberspace. The Journal of Instructional Research, 3, 43–54.
Kanuka, H. (2011). Keeping the scholarship in the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050103
Kelly, N., Nesbit, S., & Oliver, C. (2012). A difficult journey: Transitioning from STEM to SoTL. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060118
Korhonen, V., & Törmä, S. (2016). Engagement with a teaching career - How a group of Finnish university teachers experience teacher identity and professional growth. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.895301
Kreber, C. (2005). Reflection on teaching and the scholarship of teaching: Focus on science instructors. Higher Education, 50(2), 323–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6360-2
Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. (2002). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 476–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649149
Land, R., Rattray, J., & Vivian, P. (2014). Learning in the liminal space: A semiotic approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education, 67(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9705-x
Lawton, V., Vaughan, R., Jones, T. M., & Pacey, V. (2021). Rising to the challenge of COVID-19: Pivoting to online and project-based physiotherapy student placements in contemporary professional settings. International Journal of Practice-based Learning in Health and Social Care, 9(2), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.18552/ijpblhsc.v9i2.747
Manarin, K., & Abrahamson, E. (2016). Troublesome knowledge of SoTL. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 2.
Marquis, E., Holmes, T., Apostolou, K., Centea, D., Cockcroft, R., Knorr, K., Maclachlan, J. C., Monteiro, S. D., & Karamanis, T. (2017). SoTL research fellows: Collaborative pathfinding through uncertain terrain. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.3.9
Matsumoto, Y. (2016). The power of self-directed journals: Being a temporary ‘other’ for learning to teach. Teacher Development, 20(4), 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2016.1155475
McEwan, M. P. (2022). The journey to SoTL: Institutionally supporting a transition to scholars of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(2), 5. http://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2022.160205
Mckenzie, J. A. (2003). Variation and change in university teachers’ ways of experiencing teaching [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Technology, Syndney.
McLean, N. (2012). Researching academic identity: Using discursive psychology as an approach. International Journal for Academic Development, 17(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.599596
Muller, A. M., Goh, C., Lim, L. Z., & Gao, X. (2021). COVID-19 emergency elearning and beyond: Experiences and perspectives of university educators. Education Sciences, 11(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010019
Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.006
Risjord, M. (2019). Middle-range theories as models: New criteria for analysis and evaluation. Nursing Philosophy, 20(1), e12225.
Ropo, E. (2006). Teaching expertise: Empirical findings on expert teachers and teacher development. In H. P. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert (pp. 159–180). Springer Science & Business Media.
Ruiz, E. C., & Machado-Casas, M. (2013, Winter–Spring). An academic community of Hermandad: Research for the educational advancement of Latin@s (REAL). Educational Foundations.
Schleicher, A. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on education: Insights from education at a glance 2020. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Simonson, S. R., Earl, B., & Frary, M. (2021). Establishing a framework for assessing teaching effectiveness. College Teaching, 70(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1909528
Stewart, M. J. (2019). Exploring perceptions of the transition from health science practitioner to academic [Doctoral dissertation]. Walden University.
Tierney, A. M. (2017). Threshold concepts in academic practice: Engagement with the scholarship of teaching and learning. Practice and Evidence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 165–184.
Timmermans, J. A., & Meyer, J. H. (2019). A framework for working with university teachers to create and embed ‘Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge’ (ITCK) in their practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(4), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1388241
Tsang, A. K. (2010). The evolving professional (EP) concept as a framework for the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 4(1), 1–10.
Van der Spoel, I., Noroozi, O., Schuurink, E., & van Ginkel, S. (2020). Teachers’ online teaching expectations and experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1821185
Warhurst, R. P. (2006). “We really felt part of something”: Participatory learning among peers within a university teaching-development community of practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 11(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440600924462
Webb, A. S. (2015). Threshold concepts in the scholarship of teaching and learning: A phenomenological study of educational leaders in a Canadian research-intensive university [Doctoral dissertation]. University of British Columbia.
Webb, A. S., & Tierney, A. M. (2020). Investigating support for scholarship of teaching and learning; We need SoTL educational leaders. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(5), 613–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1635905
Weller, S. (2011). New lecturers’ accounts of reading higher education research. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2010.516744
Wieman, C. E. (2019). Expertise in university teaching & the implications for teaching effectiveness, evaluation & training. Daedalus, 148(4), 47–78. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01760