This paper defines and operationalizes definitions of good teaching, scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning in order to measure characteristics of these definitions amongst undergraduate instructors at McMaster University. A total of 2496 instructors, including all part-time instructors, were surveyed in 2007. A total of 339 surveys were returned. Indices of good teaching, scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning were developed. The data illustrated a strong correlation between good teaching and scholarly teaching and between scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning. The perceived value placed upon teaching varied across the different Faculties. New instructors and those engaged in scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning perceived teaching to be more valued than their peers.Le présent article définit et opérationnalise les définitions d’enseignement efficace[1], d’enseignement érudit[2] et de la publication sur l'enseignement supérieur[3] afin de mesurer les caractéristiques de ces définitions chez les enseignants de premier cycle de l’Université McMaster. Au total, 2 496 enseignants, y compris tous ceux qui travaillent à temps partiel, ont été sondés en 2007 et 339 questionnaires ont été retournés. Les chercheurs ont élaboré des indices d’un bon enseignement, d’un très bon enseignement et d’un excellent enseignement. Les données illustrent une forte corrélation entre un bon enseignement et un très bonenseignement, de même qu’entre un très bon enseignement et un excellent enseignement. La valeur perçue accordée à l’enseignement variait selon les différentes facultés. Les nouveaux enseignants pratiquant un très bon enseignement et un excellent enseignement trouvaient l’enseignement plus utile que leurs pairs

No abstract

This chapter describes the assumptions and principles for good practice based on case studies at a research‐intensive university in which several departments introduced curriculum change through a novel departmental grants program.

In recent years, as pressures for accountability have increased in higher education, some members of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) community may worry that the inquiry-based, improvement-focused practices they advocate could be put at risk by easy-to-administer, one-size-fits-all forms of assessment, quality assurance, and administrative control. But while acknowledging both real and perceived tensions between these two movements, we also examine some of the ways and settings in which they are converging, featuring a number of international examples in which external quality and assessment mandates have been employed to support SoTL-like work. We look, too, at the roles that scholars of teaching and learning can play as mediators and brokers between the two movements, helping to translate accountability requirements into opportunities for improvement. In short we argue that these two movements present opportunities for each other. SoTL can contribute to what is, or should be, the central goal of accountability: ensuring and improving the quality of student learning. The accountability movement, for its part, can provide a new context for integrating and valuing SoTL as a force for positive change on campuses and beyond. Taken together, the two approaches can make meaningful contributions to higher learning today. The paper concludes with recommendations to the SoTL community for building bridges between the two movements.

No abstract