Postcards from the edge of SoTL: A view from faculty development


  • Linda C. Hodges University of Maryland



faculty development, educational development, faculty beliefs, pedagogical change


As a past SoTL scholar turned faculty developer, I have come to realize that SoTL is a mindset: one of questioning old assumptions about what teaching entails and how our students learn, gathering and examining evidence of the effects of our approaches, and reflecting on and sharing insights gained. This perspective changed my own teaching. Now it informs each consultation I have with faculty, upending much of what faculty traditionally believe about teaching on intellectual, social, and personal levels. By adjusting the frame through which we view teaching, SoTL has revelatory power in catalyzing change. In this article, I discuss how key precepts of SoTL enhance the day-to-day work of faculty development. Specifically, through SoTL, faculty realize that course design is an intellectual endeavor, that students are complex individuals from whom they can learn, and that teaching is an ongoing transformational journey to be shared.


Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Linda C. Hodges, University of Maryland

Linda Hodges is Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and Director of the Faculty Development Center at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.


Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M., & Jackson, C. (2002). Evidence of teaching anxiety among accounting educators. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1), 16-22.

Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA : Anker.

Bass, R. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: What’s the problem? Inventio: Creative Thinking about Learning and Teaching, 1(1).

Fraser, I., Houlihan, M., Fenwick, K., Fish, T., & Möller, C. (2007). Teaching anxiety and teaching methods of university professors: A correlational analysis. AABSS Journal, 78-90.

Gardner, L. E., & Leak, G. K. (1994). Characteristics and correlates of teaching anxiety among college psychology teachers. Teaching of Psychology, 21, 28-32.

Hodges, L. C. (2004). The “problem” as metaphor in teaching. Thought and Action, 20, 39-48.

Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). Scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McCrickerd, J. (2012). Understanding and reducing faculty reluctance to improve teaching. College Teaching, 60, 56-64.

McManus, D. (2005). Leaving the lectern: Cooperative learning and the critical first days of students working in groups. Bolton, MA : Anker.

Middendorf, J., & Pace, D. (2008). Easing entry into the scholarship of teaching and learning through focused assessments: The “Decoding the Disciplines” Approach. To Improve the Academy, 26, 53-67.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pratt, D. (1998). Five perspectives of teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Price, C. (2009). Why don’t my students think I’m groovy?: The new “R’s” for engaging Millennial learners In S. A. Meyers & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Essays from e-xcellence in teaching (Vol. 9, pp. 29-34). Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology Web site:

Robertson, D. (1999). Professors’ perspectives on their teaching: A new construct and developmental model. Innovative Higher Education, 23(4), 271-294.

Shulman, L. (1993). Teaching as community property. Change, 25(6), 6-7.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75-84.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.




How to Cite

Hodges, Linda C. 2013. “Postcards from the Edge of SoTL: A View from Faculty Development”. Teaching &Amp; Learning Inquiry 1 (1):71-79.