Short Communication

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Health Professions Education: Triggers, Drivers, Accelerators and Chaos

Introduction

The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in health professions education (HPE) has emerged as a vibrant and essential field, reflecting a shift toward evidence-based and reflective educational practices. Over recent decades, SoTL has evolved from traditional HPE into a multidisciplinary domain that draws from both the health sciences and educational research.¹ It emphasizes systematic inquiry into teaching and learning, encouraging educators to investigate, document, and share insights that enhance student outcomes and professional practice.² Central to SoTL is the commitment to public dissemination and critical peer review, fostering a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement. Contemporary frameworks, such as those outlined in AMEE Guide No. 142, advocate for a more inclusive definition of scholarship, recognizing diverse forms of scholarly engagement and impact within HPE.³ This ongoing evolution underscores the field’s dedication to advancing teaching excellence and preparing future health professionals for the complexities of modern healthcare.^1,3 The SoTL has become a powerful catalyst for change in HPE, although its development has been far from straightforward.⁴ The landscape is shaped by a complex interplay of triggers, drivers, accelerators, and, at times, chaos. As we reflect on the recent disruptions and innovations in higher education, it is timely to examine how these elements interact to shape the future of SoTL in HPE.

Materials and Methods

To obtain the most important articles that address the topic under study, the author conducted an extensive search in reputable sources such as Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The search was performed using keywords such as “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning”, “Educational Scholarship”, “Health Professions Education”, “Medical Education”, “Triggers”, “Drivers”, “Driving forces”, “Accelerators”, and “Chaos”. Ultimately, 17 articles, mostly published in the last ten years, were reviewed.

Results

A review of the literature showed that achieving SoTL in HPE requires triggers, driving forces, and accelerators, and ultimately, its implementation can lead to chaos. Therefore, the results of the study are presented in four categories as follows.

Triggers: What Sparks SoTL Engagement?

SoTL is often ignited by a sense of curiosity and a desire to improve student outcomes. For many educators, the initial trigger is a recognition of gaps in student engagement or learning, or a personal experience of teaching that prompts deeper inquiry. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, served as a global trigger, forcing educators to rapidly adapt to online modalities and re-examine their teaching practices.⁵ This disruption highlighted the need for flexibility, adaptability, and a willingness to embrace new roles as both teachers and learners.

Other common triggers include:

• Institutional mandates for curriculum reform.⁶

• Student feedback indicates unmet needs.⁷

• Exposure to new pedagogical theories or technologies.⁸

• Professional development opportunities that encourage reflective practice.⁹

These triggers often push educators out of their disciplinary comfort zones and into the realm of SoTL, where the focus shifts from content delivery to evidence-based exploration of teaching and learning processes.

Drivers: Sustaining the SoTL Journey

Once engaged, several drivers sustain and deepen SoTL involvement. Chief among these is the pursuit of improved educational outcomes—not just for students, but for educators themselves.¹⁰ The collaborative nature of SoTL, which often involves interdisciplinary teams, provides a sense of community and shared purpose that can be highly motivating.

Key drivers include:

• Institutional support and recognition of SoTL as legitimate scholarship ¹¹

• Access to professional development and mentorship.⁴

• Opportunities for collaboration and dissemination of findings.¹²

• The intrinsic satisfaction is derived from seeing tangible improvements in student learning and well-being.¹³

However, these drivers are not always present. Many SoTL scholars report feeling isolated, undervalued, or constrained by institutional cultures that prioritize disciplinary research over pedagogical innovation. Overcoming these barriers requires intentional efforts to foster supportive environments and reward systems that value SoTL contributions.⁴

Accelerators: Catalysts for Change

Accelerators are the factors that propel SoTL forward, often transforming isolated efforts into broader institutional or systemic change. The pandemic, while chaotic, acted as a powerful accelerator by necessitating rapid innovation and flexibility in teaching.⁵ SoTL scholars, already accustomed to navigating uncertainty and complexity, were well-positioned to lead these changes.

Other accelerators include:

• The development of communities of practice that share resources and expertise.¹⁴

• Strategic professional development programs focused on SoTL methodologies.¹⁵

• Institutional policies that embed SoTL into promotion and tenure criteria.¹¹

• Access to funding and resources for educational research and innovation.¹⁵

These accelerators not only enhance the quality and impact of SoTL work but also help to legitimize it within the broader academic community.

Chaos: Navigating Complexity and Uncertainty

Despite the presence of triggers, drivers, and accelerators, the path of SoTL is often marked by chaos. The complexity of educational environments, the diversity of student needs, and the unpredictability of external events (such as global pandemics) create a landscape that is anything but orderly. As Regehr aptly noted, education research is less like rocket science and more akin to chaos theory—nonlinear, unpredictable, and deeply contextual.¹⁶

This chaos can be both a challenge and an opportunity. On one hand, it can lead to frustration, burnout, and resistance to change. On the other hand, it fosters resilience, creativity, and a willingness to experiment with new approaches. SoTL scholars, by embracing the messiness of teaching and learning, are uniquely equipped to generate rich, context-sensitive understandings that drive meaningful change.¹⁷

Discussion

This review highlights the dynamic interplay of triggers, drivers, accelerators, and chaos in shaping the SoTL within HPE. Triggers such as institutional reforms, student feedback, and disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic prompt educators to critically examine and innovate their teaching practices, often moving beyond traditional paradigms^5-7 These initial sparks are sustained by drivers including institutional support, professional development, and the intrinsic motivation to enhance both student and educator outcomes.^4,11,13 However, the journey is frequently challenged by insufficient recognition and support for SoTL, underscoring the need for cultural and structural change within academic institutions.

Accelerators—such as communities of practice, strategic faculty development, and policy integration—can rapidly propel SoTL initiatives from isolated efforts to widespread educational transformation.^11,14,15 The pandemic, while chaotic, exemplified how external shocks can act as powerful accelerators, fostering adaptability and innovation among educators. Yet, the inherent complexity and unpredictability of educational environments mean that chaos is an ever-present factor, demanding resilience and creative problem-solving from SoTL scholars.¹⁷ Embracing this “productive chaos” enables the generation of context-sensitive insights that drive meaningful, lasting change.

In sum, advancing SoTL in HPE requires intentional efforts to nurture supportive cultures, invest in ongoing professional development, and recognize the value of educational scholarship. By acknowledging and leveraging both the order and chaos inherent in this field, institutions can better prepare educators and learners for the evolving demands of healthcare.

Recommendations for Medical Education

To harness the full potential of SoTL in HPE, this study proposes the following:

• Foster institutional cultures: Develop environments that value and reward SoTL equally with disciplinary research, providing time, resources, and recognition for educational inquiry.

• Support professional development: Offer sustained mentorship, communities of practice, and opportunities for skill development in SoTL methodologies.

• Encourage flexibility and reflection: Promote adaptive teaching practices and reflective inquiry, especially in times of uncertainty and change.

• Prioritize well-being: Recognize the impact of SoTL on both educator and student well-being, and integrate these considerations into educational policy and practice.

Conclusion

The SoTL in HPE is a dynamic, evolving field shaped by a constellation of triggers, drivers, accelerators, and chaos. By acknowledging and embracing this complexity, we can better support educators in their pursuit of excellence and innovation, ultimately enhancing the learning experiences and outcomes for all.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was not obtained and is not applicable for this study.

References

1. Ten Cate O. Health professions education scholarship: the emergence, current status, and future of a discipline in its own right. FASEB Bioadv 2021; 3(7):510-22. doi: 10.1096/fba.2021-00011 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
2. Mirhosseini F, Mehrdad N, Bigdeli S, Peyravi H, Khoddam H. Exploring the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): concept analysis. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2018; 32:96. doi: 10.14196/mjiri.32.96 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
3. Cleland JA, Jamieson S, Kusurkar RA, Ramani S, Wilkinson TJ, van Schalkwyk S. Redefining scholarship for health professions education: AMEE Guide No 142. Med Teach 2021; 43(7):824-38. doi: 10.1080/0142159x.2021.1900555 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
4. Moradi S, Zarezadeh Y. The perspectives of faculty around factors affecting the development and sustainability of educational scholarship: a qualitative content analysis. Res Dev Med Educ 2022; 11(1):10. doi: 10.34172/rdme.2022.010 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
5. Connolly N, Abdalla ME. Impact of COVID-19 on medical education in different income countries: a scoping review of the literature. Med Educ Online 2022; 27(1):2040192. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2022.2040192 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
6. Novak RT, Patil S, Bailey E, Soffe B, Jensen J. Curriculum reform and stereotype threat in medical education: implications for student well-being. J Dent Educ 2025; 89(1):62-71. doi: 10.1002/jdd.13686 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
7. Soemantri D, Nurokhmanti H, Qomariyah N, Claramita M. The practice of feedback in health professions education in the hierarchical and collectivistic culture: a scoping review. Med Sci Educ 2022; 32(5):1219-29. doi: 10.1007/s40670-022-01597-8 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
8. Altintas L, Sahiner M. Transforming medical education: the impact of innovations in technology and medical devices. Expert Rev Med Devices 2024; 21(9):797-809. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2024.2400153 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
9. Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, Barnett BM, Centeno A, Naismith L. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update: BEME Guide No 40. Med Teach 2016; 38(8):769-86. doi: 10.1080/0142159x.2016.1181851 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
10. O’Sullivan PS, Irby DM. Reframing research on faculty development. Acad Med 2011; 86(4):421-8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820dc058 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
11. Berisha M, Cruz L, Kaja A. SoTL in the health professions: an international case study. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2024; 2024(178):61-9. doi: 10.1002/tl.20590 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
12. Neubauer LC, Merzel C, Weist EM, Corvin JA, Forsman A, Fraser J. Realizing promising educational practices in academic public health: a model for the scholarship of teaching and learning. Front Public Health 2021; 9:750682. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.750682 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
13. Steinert Y, Naismith L, Mann K. Faculty development initiatives designed to promote leadership in medical education A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No 19. Med Teach 2012; 34(6):483-503. doi: 10.3109/0142159x.2012.680937 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
14. du Plessis AM, Schreck CM, Bisschoff CA, Coetzee D, Kahts-Kramer SA, Oosthuizen JJ. Recommendations for success in forming and maintaining a SoTL community of practice. Teach Learn Inq 2025; 13:1-17. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.13.9 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
15. Tierney AM, Aidulis D, Park J, Clark K. Supporting SoTL development through communities of practice. Teach Learn Inq 2020; 8(2):32-52. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.2.4 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
16. Regehr G. It’s NOT rocket science: rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Med Educ 2010; 44(1):31-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03418.x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
17. Ramani S, McKimm J, Findyartini A, Nadarajah VD, Hays R, Chisolm MS. Twelve tips for developing a global community of scholars in health professions education. Med Teach 2021; 43(8):966-71. doi: 10.1080/0142159x.2020.1839034 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]