This paper gives an example of an inductive Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) process, adapting Anthony Ciccone’s five conditions of a meaningful SoTL question. Presenting a study on pre-class reading in an undergraduate religion class, I describe how my question went through five life stages. I began with nine different pre-class reading assignments. Students judged the “map” assignment to be most helpful. This led to a further question: why maps? In a close reading of students’ reading reflections, two themes stood out: students experienced maps as helping them create a mental overview of the reading, and maps facilitated greater ownership of the act of reading. In conclusion, I argue that humanities instructors who wish to teach advanced reading skills can start by providing pre-class assignments that allow for making-while-reading, and that this making should not be merged with other reading steps. In an epilogue I reflect on the inductive research process. I suggest that SoTL scholars who use this process may reach an impasse when deciding how to present meaningful answers because their conceptual answers will stand in tension with SoTL’s practical orientation. I propose focusing on conceptual generalization (rather than empirical generalization), while still foregrounding a balance between “what works” and “what is.”

中文翻译：

---

边读边读对本科生的重要性：归纳 SoTL 的一个例子

本文给出了一个归纳教学和学习 (SoTL) 过程的示例，改编了 Anthony Ciccone 的有意义的 SoTL 问题的五个条件。在本科宗教课上展示一项关于课前阅读的研究，我描述了我的问题是如何经历五个生命阶段的。我从九个不同的课前阅读作业开始。学生认为“地图”作业最有帮助。这又引出了一个问题：为什么要使用地图？在仔细阅读学生的阅读反思时，有两个主题很突出：学生体验到地图有助于他们对阅读进行心理概述，而地图有助于更好地掌握阅读行为。总之，我认为希望教授高级阅读技能的人文学科教师可以从提供允许边读边创作的课前作业开始，并且此制作不应与其他阅读步骤合并。在结语中，我反思了归纳研究过程。我建议使用这个过程的 SoTL 学者在决定如何提出有意义的答案时可能会陷入僵局，因为他们的概念性答案将与 SoTL 的实践导向相矛盾。我建议专注于概念概括（而不是经验概括），同时仍然强调“什么有效”和“什么是”之间的平衡。