3

If teaching and the scholarship it embodies are to be

evaluated and valued, then it is critical to define its
characteristics and outcomes. Our judgments about
teachers, their scholarship, and their teaching require
information that can be used to support both formative
and summative decisions. Michael Theall discusses
formative considerations in Part I, and John A. Centra
provides guidelines and criteria for decision making
in Part II.

Assessing the Scholarship of Teaching:

Valid Decisions from Valid Evidence
Michael Theall, John A. Centra

In this chapter, the focus is on assessing the scholarship of teaching. We

consider the available definitions and the results of a recent Delphi study by
this volume’s editor (Kreber, 1999), and propose what assessment or evalu-
ation data, methods, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions would be
appropriate and most likely to result in valid and reliable decisions. We
examine how the data collected can support both formative and summative
uses, and how the improvement of teaching as a result of such assessment
can itself be a documentation of scholarship. We also consider the context
in which the scholarship and its assessment take place and make recom-
mendations for practice that meet both technical and practical criteria. We
consider instrumental (process) and consequential (outcome) data, and
how these different kinds of information can be used effectively to docu-
ment and establish the scholarship of teaching.

Background
Prior to Boyer’s development of the phrase scholarship of teaching (1990),
there was a distance between teaching and other aspects of faculty life
and responsibility. The classic teaching-research-service triad treated the
three aspects of faculty performance differently, and evaluation practice at
the time suggested that although it was assumed that data for judgments
about research and service were both accessible and understandable, infor-
mation about teaching was more of a problem because it was complex and
time intensive. From the mid-1960s, the emphasis on student ratings dra-
matically increased the amount of use of these data. One important change

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING, no. 86, Summer 2001 © Jossey-Bass, A Publishing Unit of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 31
32 SCHOLARSHIP REVISITED

was initiated in the 1980s when the Canadian Association of University

Teachers proposed a teaching dossier (Shore and others, 1986) and this
process was popularized by Seldin (1993) in the form of the teaching port-
folio. At the same time, interest in the techniques of successful college
teaching resulted in several books (for example, Davis, 1993; Ebel, 1977;
Lowman, 1984; McKeachie’s Teaching Tips (1999), now in its tenth edition;
and since 1980, the New Directions for Teaching and Learning series). Shul-
man’s development of the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (1989),
a combination of content expertise and deep understanding of the most
effective methods of teaching and learning that content, added to the cred-
ibility of teaching as an act that incorporated scholarship. This work was
supplemented by the rising importance and acknowledged usefulness of
classroom assessment techniques and classroom research for both formative
and summative purposes (Cross and Angelo, 1988; Cross and Steadman,
1996). The confluence of these streams of interest and investigation made
the discussion of the scholarship of teaching both timely and important.

Definitions
Boyer (1990) said, “The work of the professor becomes consequential only
when it is understood by others. When defined as scholarship, however,
teaching both educates and entices future scholars” (p. 23). Further, Boyer
noted the importance of deeply knowing content, building bridges between
the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learning, carefully planning
and examining of pedagogical procedures, stimulating active learning, and
going beyond transmitting knowledge to transforming and extending it.
These criteria and explanations served to enliven the discussion, but
they did not provide sufficient clarity to be operationally useful in the assess-
ment of the scholarship of teaching. Boyer began his investigation of schol-
arship in the 1980s, and he was deeply involved in the work leading to the
publication of Scholarship Assessed (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff, 1997, for
which Boyer also wrote the prologue). Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff propose
“that there is a common language in which to discuss the standards for schol-
arly work of all kinds,” and they further identify six standards for scholarly
work: “clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant
results, effective presentation, and reflective critique,” noting that these six
criteria are “appropriate to the full range of scholarly work” (p. 35).
The authors further explain each criterion through a short series of
general questions. But are these criteria and attendant questions sufficient
to allow the valid and reliable assessment of teaching as scholarship? On the
one hand, there is a problem because the questions in the list are phrased
only in terms of the teacher-scholar. For example, with respect to the crite-
rion of significant results, the question is “Does the scholar achieve the
goals?” (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff, 1997, p. 36). In an instructional set-
ting, this language does not sufficiently distinguish between instructional
 ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 33

goals, the instructor’s targets of accomplishment, and instructional objectives,

the targets of accomplishment set for, with, and sometimes by the students.
Too often, the terms are mixed, and the so-called course objectives include
only statements of course content or activities, without reference to specific
student achievements and the methods used to determine whether these
achievements meet prespecified criteria.
This problem can be solved, however, with some translation. Goals can
be easily changed to instructional objectives, and the quality of course design
can be judged, in part, by determining whether (1) the objectives are realistic
and appropriate; (2) the instructional strategies, activities, assignments, and
assessments match the specified objectives; and (3) the course design presents
adequate evidence of student learning and achievement of the objectives. Sig-
nificant results are thus defined in terms of outcomes. With respect to the
assessment movement and classroom assessment techniques (Angelo and
Cross, 1993), a parallel is found in the use of ongoing classroom assessment
for formative purposes, and with respect to outcomes assessment for purposes
such as institutional research, program evaluation, and accreditation.
In sum, the application of the principles of Scholarship Reconsidered and
Scholarship Assessed to real-world and now to virtual classrooms requires
careful review of the general criteria and the development of more specific
standards if reliable and valid measurement of the scholarship of teaching
is to take place. In the remainder of this chapter, we explore ways in which
to match the methods of investigation to the instructional situations, and
we consider how the necessarily varied kinds of information about teach-
ing and learning can be analyzed and reported for best use by decision mak-
ers. We also propose a synergy between the evaluation and assessment
functions of the investigative processes and the application of findings to
instructional improvement and faculty development. Although the goal of
evaluation is always to make a judgment of worth, the roles of evaluation in
this case are not only to make decisions and to enable improvement but also
to identify excellence so that it can be recognized and rewarded.

Part I: Scholarship and Improvement

The experts in Kreber’s study (1999) did not agree when asked to rank the
five most important components of the scholarship of teaching, nor did they
agree about its five most critical unresolved issues.
There was some agreement, however, when the panelists rated each of
the items in the two categories. Highly rated items dealt with the need to
possess the equivalent of pedagogical content knowledge, with teachers’
ongoing reflection and inquiry into the process and outcomes of instruc-
tion, with sharing knowledge in formal and informal ways, and with atten-
tion to students’ needs and individual differences. The panel also agreed that
the scholarship of teaching did not require successful grant writing, that
being engaged in the work of teaching did not guarantee that a person was
34 SCHOLARSHIP REVISITED

a scholar of teaching, and that effective teaching can take place even if the
faculty member is not engaged in the formal scholarship of teaching. Finally,
the panel agreed that effective teaching and demonstrations of the scholar-
ship of teaching must be valued and supported, and that many faculty need
training in the design of effective instruction, the process of classroom
research, and the documentation of their efforts.
What does the study tell us about the relationship of scholarship to
instructional improvement? Despite the lack of unanimous agreement, what
stands out is quite simply that the two must coexist. In a discussion of the
evaluation of teaching, Theall and Franklin proposed “a multipurpose sys-
tem for evaluation, improvement, and research” (1990, p. 31). In this sys-
tem, theory, research, and practice interact, with the various components
constantly informing each other. A similar model is proposed here in Fig-
ure 3.1 to demonstrate the important and necessary synergy between the
scholarship of teaching and the improvement of teaching.
In Figure 3.1, current scholarship from three general areas is repre-
sented within the circles. The italicized terms are typical contributions of
the research to day-to-day practice. For example, the literatures of research,
evaluation, and assessment provide processes for data collection and analy-
sis. The central triangle represents day-to-day teaching practice, which is
informed by the research, theory from the circles, and the disciplinary spe-
cialty and practical experience. The bidirectional arrows indicate that schol-
arship of teaching involves both the use of existing research and theory and
the contribution of new understanding through the application of scholarly
process to day-to-day practice. Improvement comes about through the
teachers’ investigation of specific teaching and learning contexts, and this
process adds to pedagogical content knowledge by incorporating important
factors in teaching and learning across disciplines. Thus one way to improve
practice is to carry out classroom research (Cross and Steadman, 1996),
which contributes to the realms of research and theory as well as to better
understanding of the immediate context.
This research is brought back to practice in two ways: by the direct con-
tributions of faculty who carry out the classroom research and by the work
of instructional design and faculty development practitioners who help fac-
ulty to enhance instructional effectiveness and to improve learning. When
faculty participate in this cycle, they use skills from the arena of the schol-
arship of discovery, which, according to Boyer (1990), is aimed at the pro-
duction of knowledge in a given field through research. They bring together
information from varied sources and integrate it into the perspectives of
their disciplines and classrooms. They apply it to their own and others’
teaching and learning situations. And in doing all this, faculty demonstrate
the scholarship of teaching.
Collaboration. The literature of instructional consultation (for exam-
ple, Brinko and Menges, 1997) has concentrated on the interactions of fac-
ulty and professionals in instructional design and development for the
 ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 35

Figure 3.1. Scholarship-Improvement-Practice Synergy

Research Teaching
Evaluation and
Assessment Learning

Analysis Resources
Data
References
Collection
Practice

Action

Interpretation Prescription

Improvement
Development
Planned
Change

specific purpose of improving teaching and learning. A broader view (for

example, Schuster, Wheeler, and Associates, 1990) includes faculty devel-
opment issues such as professional growth, career development, and faculty
vitality. When we combine these complementary views, the cast of players
involved in the scholarship of teaching increases because instructional
improvement can be combined with exploration and investigation of teach-
ing and learning phenomena. These efforts can and should include evalua-
tion and assessment processes; thus professionals in these areas can also be
partners in efforts to better understand and explain what happens in and
out of classrooms. An additional benefit is that what we learn in such efforts
is important and meaningful to institutional research and other needs of
departments, colleges, and universities.
In Kreber’s study (1999), panelists differed about the extent to which
the public presentation and dissemination of information and knowledge
were part of the scholarship of teaching (see Chapter Five of this volume).
An additional benefit of institutional collaborations is that they enlarge the
array and accessibility of forums for disseminating what is learned in class-
room studies, assessment, activities, evaluations, or other joint efforts to
gather and use information. The professional organizations of the partici-
pants in collaborative efforts are often more receptive to presentations on
pedagogy than are disciplinary associations that focus on research specific
to the discipline’s own body of knowledge.
36 SCHOLARSHIP REVISITED

Increasing the range of opportunities to present and discuss one’s ped-

agogical knowledge, process, or findings has two benefits for faculty devel-
opment. First, there is direct benefit to those who present or publish results.
Second, but equally important, collaborative efforts bring the life of the
classroom into the day-to-day reach and attention of units and individuals
across campus and reinforce the notion that, rather than being in a closed
society apart from the academic community, they are partners with the rest
of the institutional community in achieving excellence. Their work supports
and is supported by what others learn and share. The scholarship of teach-
ing thus becomes the scholarship of the institution, and it is inclusive and
meaningful rather than separate and unrelated to practice.
Practical and Contextual Concerns. The scholarship of teaching is not
a concept, a practice, an idea that can exist in a vacuum. Making it so would
return the scholar to a lonely ivory tower and put distance between scholar-
ship and practice, between scholars and the real academic world of teachers
and learners. The implications are that the scholarship of teaching requires
time and emphasis on shared visions, shared efforts, and shared accomplish-
ments. Are there practical limitations? The answer must be yes. Institutional
size, mission, history, resources, and vitality all play a part. A small liberal arts
college dedicated to teaching and learning may have an environment suitable
to furthering the scholarship of teaching but may not have resources to sup-
port dissemination. Conversely, a large research-intensive institution may have
many resources but focus on traditional research in the disciplines and a
reward structure that does not reward the scholarship of teaching. The
dynamics within departments differ widely and may affect levels of faculty
interest and involvement, and the nature of differences across disciplines may
impact at the department or even college level (for example, see Hativa and
Marincovich, 1995; Smart and Feldman, 1998).
This kind of situational variety makes it difficult to propose a standard
process or set of criteria that can be used to assess the quality or importance
of the scholarship of teaching. Like any other complex endeavor, it has
many components, and these form a whole greater than the sum of the
parts. To exhibit all the qualities of one who is engaged in the scholarship
of teaching, a teacher must have time, talent, technique, and training. For
this reason, it is imperative for institutions to establish supportive condi-
tions and to actively recognize and reward those who make it part of their
professional and academic lives to inquire into and to contribute to our
understanding of the dynamic and multidimensional constructs we call
teaching and learning.

Part II: Criteria and Sources of Information

The scholarship of teaching can exist at the level of the individual teacher,
the department, or the institution. Assessment of this scholarship must
therefore be conducted at each of these levels. The important features or
components of the scholarship of teaching as identified by the panel (see
 ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 37

Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2) can be grouped into three areas: (1) a shared public
account of teaching, (2) an emphasis on learning outcomes and relevant
teaching practices, and (3) discipline and pedagogical knowledge and inno-
vation. I identified these three areas or dimensions by grouping the items
that the panel of experts agreed were significant.
To assess the scholarship of teaching for each of the three areas, I first
identified criteria in the form of questions. Each set of criteria relates to
scholarship at the individual, the department, or the institutional level.
Next, I identified the sources of information or methods of evaluation for
the criteria. By so doing, I present a template that allows valid decisions to
be made about the scholarship of teaching. The three areas or dimensions
of the scholarship of teaching, along with specified items that illustrate the
dimension, follow. I list examples of criteria or questions under the three
levels (individual teacher, department, and institution).

Shared Public Account of Teaching

2. Those who practice the scholarship of teaching carefully design ways
to examine, interpret, and share learning about teaching. Thereby, they
contribute to the scholarly community of their discipline.
45. The scholarship of teaching entails a public account of some or all of
the following aspects of teaching: vision, design, interaction, outcomes,
and analysis, in a manner that can be peer reviewed and used by mem-
bers of one’s community.
20. People practicing the scholarship of teaching make a deliberate effort
to share their experience with others (they act as mentors, communi-
cators, faculty developers, etc.).

Individual Teacher Level. We can identify several criteria that help deter-
mine whether the person practices a shared public account of teaching.
Does the teacher

• Invite colleagues into his or her class to gain their reactions?

• Visit colleagues’ classes to offer useful suggestions?
• Prepare publicly available course outlines and examinations that reflect
course objectives, instructional methods, and expected student learning?
• Talk about course content, teaching, or students with colleagues at lunch
or other informal gatherings?
• Invite discussions with faculty development or other advisors (for exam-
ple, media, computer, or testing specialists)?
• Discuss new findings in the discipline with colleagues?
• Show a willingness to share or discuss publicly his or her student evaluations?
• Mentor students or young colleagues on teaching or research activities?
• Participate in conferences, workshops, and seminars on teaching and
learning?
• Write articles on teaching or student learning?
38 SCHOLARSHIP REVISITED

Department Level. Criteria to help assess the extent to which a shared

public account of teaching exists at this level include the following. Does
the department

• Have a system for peer review of teaching?

• Encourage discussion of teaching and course content topics at depart-
ment meetings?
• Encourage or require members to prepare a teaching portfolio or self-
report that describes instructional objectives and vision, teaching meth-
ods, learning outcomes, and other aspects of teaching?
• Have a mentoring system for junior faculty that includes teaching as well
as research performance?
• Encourage classroom visits and other means of fostering informal dis-
cussions of teaching?
• Make public department-level student evaluations of teaching?
• Support faculty attendance at conferences or workshops on teaching and
learning?

Institutional Level. The following criteria help determine whether the

institution reflects a shared public account of teaching. Does it

• Support an active faculty development or teaching and learning program?

• Have a public policy that encourages the use of student and colleague
evaluations?
• Support a mentoring program for junior teachers?
• Support a training program for teaching assistants?
• Weight teaching performance heavily in personnel selection and promo-
tion?
• Sponsor seminars or workshops on teaching and learning?
• Encourage or require faculty to construct a teaching portfolio or a detailed
report on teaching?
• Have a policy of periodic review of teaching for tenured and nontenured
faculty?
• Publish results of learning outcomes and teaching environment surveys?

Emphasis on Learning Outcomes and Relevant Teaching

Practices
21. Faculty who practice the scholarship of teaching are curious about the
ways in which students learn and the effects of certain practices on that
learning.
43. Scholarly teachers know that people learn in diverse ways; hence, they
know that instruction should be diverse as well.
39. Individuals practicing the scholarship of teaching investigate the rela-
tionship between teaching and learning.

Other items in this dimension are numbers 15 and 47 (see Exhibit 1.1).
 ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 39

Individual Teacher Level. The following criteria are important as a basis

of assessment for an emphasis on learning outcomes and relevant teaching
practices. Does the teacher

• Conduct classroom research and use the results to modify teaching?

• Employ a variety of methodologies to supplement or replace lecturing?
• Take into account different student learning styles in designing instruction,
exams, and assignments?
• Read extensively about student learning styles and innovations in teaching?
• Discuss classroom research results at seminars or conferences?

Department Level. The criteria listed here are examples of an emphasis

on learning outcomes and relevant teaching practices. Does the department

• Administer comprehensive exams in the major field?

• Encourage team teaching or interdisciplinary courses?
• Display openness to innovation in teaching?
• Encourage research on teaching and learning?
• Ask students to include in course or department evaluations their percep-
tions of learning outcomes as well as the effectiveness of teaching practices?

Institutional Level. The following criteria are examples of an institu-

tion’s emphasis on learning outcomes and relevant teaching practices. Does
the institution

• Support research on learning outcomes and teaching through grants to

the faculty?
• Have a testing program across the institution on learning outcomes?
• Survey students and graduates regarding their learning experiences at the
institution?
• Survey students and graduates regarding their learning experiences at the
institution?
• Emphasize evidence of student learning in personnel decisions?

Discipline and Pedagogical Knowledge and Innovation

4. The key features of the scholarship of teaching are content knowledge
in the deepest sense and knowledge of pedagogy in the broadest sense,
resulting in pedagogical content knowledge.
36. Scholarly teachers are always learning both about knowledge in their
field and how to make connections with students.
1. A key feature in the scholarship of teaching is having an understand-
ing of how people learn, knowing what practices are most effective, and
having knowledge about what we have learned about teaching.

Other items in this dimension: 6, 9, 13, 23, 32, 38, 40, and 44 (see Exhibit 1.1).
40 SCHOLARSHIP REVISITED

Individual Teacher Level. The following are criteria for assessing disci-
pline and pedagogical knowledge and innovation. Does the teacher

• Read extensively in the literature of the discipline and on how to connect

with students?
• Design courses and assignments that reflect active learning and exami-
nations with real-world applications?
• Design course content that includes a synthesis of new knowledge in the
field?
• Encourage students to conduct research or scholarly inquiry in the field?

Department Level. Criteria related to discipline and pedagogical knowl-

edge and innovation include the following. Does the department

• Sponsor seminars or workshops about teaching in the discipline?

• Encourage nontraditional approaches to teaching?
• Reward members who publish or give conference papers on teaching in
the discipline?

Institutional Level. The following are criteria to help assess discipline

and pedagogical knowledge and innovation. Does the institution

• Emphasize in its reward system not only knowledge of subject content

but also effective teaching practice?
• Have a faculty development program with staff committed to working
with departments to promote the unique ways in which discipline knowl-
edge may be related to students?
• Have a faculty development program that emphasizes nontraditional
teaching practices?

Sources of Information
The following are examples of sources of information that may address the
criteria for a scholarship of teaching.
At the individual teacher level, the self-report or teaching portfolio
could provide evidence of classroom assessment projects, teaching method-
ologies, and personal reflections on teaching. Course syllabi should reflect,
to some extent, a teacher’s knowledge of both the discipline and pedagogy,
as well as innovations in teaching. Analyses of assignments and examina-
tions can be a source to identify the quality and quantity of learning. Stu-
dent and peer evaluations provide another source of information on
teaching practices and student perceptions of learning.
Consulting the departmental annual review can be helpful for assess-
ing the extent to which a department exhibits a scholarship of teaching.
Although such reviews tend to emphasize faculty workload, publications,
and grants, they should also provide evidence on the quality of teaching in
 ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 41

the department. Results of major field tests, the Graduate Record Examina-
tion, or other senior examinations also provide indicators of learning out-
comes. A department’s publications and public statements, which may
discuss and provide evidence of the quality of teaching and learning among
its faculty, is another source of information.
At the institutional level, several documents address the criteria listed:
the faculty handbook, the catalogue, and other publications that describe
institutional policies and practices are important sources of information. So,
too, is the institution’s annual calendar of events and, in particular, its record
of faculty attendance at relevant seminars, symposia, and workshops. In
addition to these data of record, surveys and interviews of selected admin-
istrators, faculty, and students should provide insights.
The criteria and sources of information discussed provide valid evi-
dence and are the basis for valid decisions. Those decisions can be made by
an institution as part of a self-study or as an audit of its environment.
Accrediting teams or other outside evaluators may also use the criteria to
make judgments about the scholarship of teaching at the various levels of
an institution.

Summary
Effective and scholarly teaching is deep, personal, multidimensional, and
dynamic. The scholarship of teaching requires a broad array of skills and
knowledge. It embraces scholarly teaching but requires more. In effect, one
could say that the scholarship of teaching brings together all of the kinds of
scholarship that Boyer defined.
It requires the ability to undertake and carry out the scholarship of dis-
covery, for a teacher must be versed in the habits of thought and inquiry of
the discipline and must be able to translate the principles of the discipline
to learners. The teacher must be able to solve problems and to model the
discovery process as well as to be able to discover new ways of helping
learners gain knowledge and skills. The scholarship of discovery applied to
teaching and learning is part of this benchmark.
It requires the scholarship of integration. In teaching, a world of infor-
mation must be made orderly and understandable: the teacher must place
in context what has been discovered in order to breathe life and meaning
into courses, classes, and the discipline. This process must extend across
disciplines as well, and the teacher who can put the area of specialization
into a larger context helps the learner to understand both the principle at
hand and the importance of integration itself.
But the investigation and synthesis that reflect both the scholarships
of discovery and integration are not enough. The scholarship of teaching
also involves the scholarship of application, because the theories and prin-
ciples of the discipline are meaningless if taken in isolation. As the current
terms active learning, reflective practice, experiential learning, and others
42 SCHOLARSHIP REVISITED

suggest, it is the involvement of the learner, who applies principles and the-
ories to consequential problems in and beyond the discipline, that brings
knowledge to life. If education is to have meaning and learners are to
become reflective practitioners, they must be engaged in the discipline and
its application.
Boyer said, “The work of the professor becomes consequential only
when it is understood by others. . . . When defined as scholarship, however,
teaching both educates and entices future scholars” (1990, p. 23). The per-
son who demonstrates the scholarship of teaching, then, embodies all the
forms of scholarship and directs them toward the goal of creating future
scholars and arming them with the necessary skills and habits of thought
and action that maintain the ongoing cycle of learning and teaching and
teaching and learning. Scholars care deeply about their disciplines and about
their work. In the scholarship of teaching, the teacher cares deeply about
the discipline but, equally, about the learners and their connection to both
the material, the discipline, and learning. This is the investment of self that
Palmer (1983) refers to when he speaks about “the kind of community that
teaching and learning require” (p. 89), the joint discovery of the beauty and
power of understanding and the scholarship that enables it.

References
Angelo, T. A., and Cross, K. P. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College
Teachers. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Boyer, E. L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990.
Brinko, K. T., and Menges, R. J. (eds.). Practically Speaking: A Sourcebook for Instruc-
tional Consultants in Higher Education. Stillwater, Okla.: New Forums Press, 1997.
Cross, K. P., and Angelo, T. A. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for Fac-
ulty. Ann Arbor, Mich.: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary
Teaching and Learning, 1988.
Cross, K. P., and Steadman, M. H. Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of
Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Davis, B. G. Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Ebel, K. E. The Cult of Teaching: A Guide to Mastering the Professor’s Art. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1977.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., and Maeroff, G. I. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the
Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Hativa, N., and Marincovich, M. Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: Impli-
cations for Practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 64. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Kreber, C. “Defining and Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching: The Results of a
Delphi Study.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the
Study of Higher Education, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, June 1999.
Lowman, J. Mastering the Techniques of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.
McKeachie, W. J. Teaching Tips. (10th ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999.
Palmer, P. To Know As We Are Known. New York: HarperCollins, 1983.
Schuster, J. H., Wheeler, D. W., and Associates. Enhancing Faculty Careers: Strategies for
Development and Renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
 ASSESSING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING 43

Seldin, P. A. The Teaching Portfolio. Bolton, Mass.: Anker, 1993.

Shore, B. M., and others. The Teaching Dossier. (Rev. ed.) Montreal: Canadian Associa-
tion of University Teachers, 1986.
Shulman, L. S. “Toward a Pedagogy of Substance.” AAHE Bulletin, 1989, 41(10), 8–13.
Smart, J. C., and Feldman, K. A. “Accentuation Effects of Dissimilar Academic Depart-
ments: An Application and Exploration of Holland’s Theory.” Research in Higher Edu-
cation, 1998, 39, 385–418.
Theall, M., and Franklin, J. “Student Ratings in the Context of Complex Evaluation Sys-
tems.” In M. Theall and J. Franklin (eds.), Student Ratings of Instruction: Issues for
Improving Practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 43. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1990.

MICHAEL THEALL is associate professor of educational administration and direc-

tor of the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Illinois at
Springfield.

JOHN A. CENTRA is professor emeritus, research professor, and former chair of

the Higher Education Program at Syracuse University.
Copyright of New Directions for Teaching & Learning is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.