3 A scholarly approach to excellence in teaching: Identifying, framing, and planning faculty work for success

Introduction

The scholarly conversation surrounding excellence in teaching, including defining and documenting excellence, is both robust and ongoing in the academic literature across disciplines. My own experience as a teacher-scholar, program director, department chair, and faculty developer has demonstrated that often, one of the most significant challenges instructors face during required reviews is making their teaching—and, in particular, their excellence in teaching—visible and tangible to colleagues outside of their classroom spaces, including fully articulating and demonstrating the why and how of that teaching. Although some institutions or individual units (i.e., departments or programs) may provide explicit descriptions of and expectations for teaching excellence, in other cases in order to encourage and to reward a wide range of diverse activities and applications, instructors may be expected to demonstrate this excellence with few specific examples or guidelines. Mentoring may play a role in how instructors learn to document or find models for documenting teaching excellence, yet because it is often informal, that mentoring, as much scholarship has demonstrated, can be uneven and inconsistent across instructor experiences, including for minoritized and underrepresented instructors (Costello, 2017; Denise & Louis, 2024; LaMonaca Wisdom, 2021; Mettetal & McGuire, 2013; Sotto-Santiago, 2020).

For teaching-focused or contingent faculty who increasingly represent the majority of instructors at many institutions and for whom teaching may constitute the largest portion of their professional activities, clear and deliberate documentation of achievements in teaching becomes essential as part of annual and multi-year reviews. Although student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are generally included as part of these reviews, extended conversations in the academic literature point to SETs’ significant biases, noting that they may not be useful measures of teaching excellence; evidence of this bias is found in both qualitative studies and personal narratives of faculty work, demonstrating the ways these instruments may disadvantage minoritized and underrepresented instructors, including those who are underrepresented in specific fields (Chun & Evans, 2015; Linse, 2017; Rideau & Robbins, 2020). Further illuminating the connections between teaching and learning conditions, scholarship reveals that course content and experiences that don’t align with students’ world views or that reveal their privileges also shape classroom interactions and students’ evaluations of teaching, often resulting in women of color being challenged, dismissed, and their expertise questioned in classroom settings (Flores Niemann, Gutiérrez y Muhs, & Gonzalez, 2020; Huston, 2006; Wallace, Lewis, & Allen 2019). Finally, local conditions may further compromise the validity of SETs as measures of excellent teaching. At my university (Kennesaw State University) for example, a move from hard-copy to fully online evaluations resulted in much lower rates of response, with abysmally low response rates for asynchronous online courses. Given these multiple complex realities, while student evaluations may be a required part of the annual- or multi-year review process, instructors should be prepared to point to other evidence of excellence in teaching to provide a more robust and nuanced picture of their work.

In this chapter, I introduce a framework for identifying, framing, and planning that fosters excellence in teaching in ways that are meaningful and visible within instructors’ unique institutional contexts. This scholarly approach to teaching is grounded in a reflective process that supports meaningful intersections with other areas of faculty work, is documentable in annual and multi-year reviews—including reviews for promotion and tenure—and supports ongoing success. In the sections that follow, I define and illustrate a scholarly approach to teaching and demonstrate how this process of identifying, framing, and planning is essential in articulating the quality and significance of teaching in annual and multi-year review narratives, including those that highlight and apply a philosophy of scholarly teaching. In addition to modeling how a scholarly approach to teaching can increase opportunities for meeting responsibilities in other areas of faculty work, I offer strategies for highlighting expertise as a facet of this intentional and reflective approach and demonstrate ways to make more visible connections to institutional missions, goals, and strategic initiatives as part of scholarly teaching. As part of this process, I invite readers to consider how to make more intentional choices about teaching, service, and research with an integrated vision of faculty work as a guide and goal, recognizing “that the happiest, most successful academics are those who blend required professional tasks” (Gaillet & Guglielmo, 2014, p.17). Finally, I demonstrate how a scholarly approach to teaching is generative, allowing instructors to reframe, rethink, and document work while in process with the potential to move toward research and scholarship.

Understanding Local Definitions of Excellence

What do we mean when we use the term “excellence” to describe teaching? Relevant to exploration of this term is the broader conversation on “the language of excellence [as] one of the more insidious ways that neoliberal discourse circulates in the university, in part because it appears to be so ideologically neutral” (Wright, 2017, p. 272; see Saunders & Blanco Ramírez, 2017). With this claim in mind, we must question and remain mindful of how a rhetoric of “excellence” can also mean “more,” shaping workloads with ever-increasing and vaguely-defined expectations. Notably, Behari-Leak and Mckenna (2017) “acknowledge that teaching and learning discourses are emergent and in a constant state of flux, depending on who is invoking them and for what reason,” (p. 410), and they caution that if “academics . . . simply do what is understood to be required . . . while not actually reflecting on their contextual practice in any meaningful way . . . [this] ‘culture of excellence’ . . . can ironically result in mediocrity” (p. 411). Scholars have interrogated complexities of the term, especially if “excellence” becomes performative and disconnected from student learning (Gourlay & Stevenson, 2017; Wood & Su, 2017) and is defined by an instructor having “arrived” at excellent teaching rather than remaining engaged in a dynamic, ongoing, and context-specific process (Behari-Leak & Mckenna, 2017, p. 417).

In addition to these considerations and cautions on the rhetoric of excellence, how might local exigencies shape the use and meaning of that term? What does teaching excellence look like on your campus, in other words? What are the coded ways that “excellence” is being used? How does the language of institutional initiatives, policy documents, and strategic plans allow you to decode the term “excellence” within your immediate context? And finally, how might definitions of excellence shift over time depending on changes in institutional goals and priorities, administration and leadership, and student enrollment? With these considerations and potential limitations in mind, I offer scholarly teaching as a generative alternative to “excellent” teaching, an approach that is universally adaptable as I demonstrate in the sections that follow and grounded in sustainable reflection and practice.

Why Scholarly Work

My use of the term scholarly to describe teaching engages an established and ongoing conversation in the faculty development literature. This work includes both definitions and justifications for the significant value of a scholarly approach to teaching, and works to distinguish it from scholarship, including the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and discipline-based education research (DBER) (Gansemer-Topf, et.al, 2024; Molinaro, et. al., 2020; Potter & Kustra, 2011; Tocco, et. al., 2023). Grounded by these ongoing scholarly conversations, the terms scholarly teaching and scholarly work are often used within institutional discourse surrounding faculty work and may appear in official documentation on annual or muti-year reviews, tenure, and promotion. At my institution, for example, the section of our faculty handbook on the faculty review process includes this overview: “’Scholarly’ is an umbrella term used to apply to faculty work in all performance areas. Scholarly is an adjective used to describe the processes that instructors should use within each area. In this context, scholarly refers to a cyclical process that is deliberate and intentional, systematic and planned, measured and evaluated, revised and rethought” (Kennesaw State University, 2025).

Whether or not the term scholarly is used within your institution’s review documents or guidelines for multi-year or annual reviews, using that language to describe your work can provide a useful lens for highlighting and prioritizing growth and achievements in teaching, articulating connections between your teaching philosophy and classroom practices, and both showing and telling the why of your work. Second, because the term scholarly work or scholarly activity is used in ways that distinguish it from scholarship and creative activity, that distinction provides additional ways to describe and to capture ongoing professional work. Finally, reflecting on the scholarly dimension of your teaching is also an important step in articulating the quality and significance of that work, which is what instructors typically must do in annual and multi-year reviews. Because this approach is grounded in a deliberate, reflective, and ongoing process, scholarly teaching is not performative but highlights growth and achievement over time and connected to local exigencies.

Identifying, Framing, Planning Scholarly Teaching

A scholarly approach to teaching involves a process that is deliberate, planned, and systematic; it engages in metacognition and reflective revision and is supported by professional development activities (Gansemer-Topf, et al, 2024; Potter & Kustra, 2011; Tocco, et al., 2023). Although an annual or multi-year review might provide the initial impetus for initiating this process, as the strategies that follow will demonstrate, the larger goal is to assimilate this cyclical and dynamic process as part of ongoing work. With these goals in mind, think about scholarly work connected specifically to teaching with these primary aims: identifying, framing, planning.

Identifying

Begin by reflecting on your current teaching and its scholarly dimensions within the context of expectations for your specific position, your institutional context, and your academic field or discipline. This process of identifying will help you to explain decision-making about the content and design of your courses in ways that are visible and meaningful to those evaluating your teaching. Identify your scholarly work in teaching using the following prompts:

• Reflecting on a course you teach frequently, explain how you make/have made decisions about course content and course design? How does your planning of course assignments and activities align with formal course or program outcomes?
• When you think about your teaching philosophy or teaching values, where can you point to evidence or examples of that philosophy or those values shaping the design and content of your courses? How does this intersection of theory and practice provide a glimpse into the why and how of your teaching?
• How does your previous and ongoing engagement with scholarship on teaching and learning and/or disciplinary scholarship in your area(s) of expertise shape the design and content of your courses? Where can you point to evidence of application of that content in your course assignments or activities?
• Outside of student evaluations of teaching, how do you assess what is working well in your courses and where and how you have been successful as an instructor?

Reviewing content from these reflections and with the expectations for teaching and/or teaching effectiveness at your institutions in mind, begin to highlight information you can include in annual or multi-year review documents pointing to the quality and significance and the scholarly dimension of your teaching. Your goal in this process is to make a deliberate and reflective process visible to those evaluating your work.

Framing

Next, consider how you might better frame scholarly teaching that you haven’t yet considered in this way. In other words, where and/or how can you reframe work you have done and are doing to highlight and to more clearly articulate its scholarly dimension? This process of framing also invites you to point to expertise as a facet of this intentional and reflective approach and to make more visible connections to institutional missions, goals, and strategic initiatives as part of scholarly teaching, which is often where professional development opportunities and funding are found. Frame your scholarly teaching using the following prompts:

• Reflect on a recent section of a course you taught. Did you revise a previous version of the course during this iteration? If yes, what motivated your revisions? How did previous student evaluations or your own reflections on the course shape your revisions? How did your planning of course assignments and activities align with formal course or program outcomes?
• Reflecting on recent participation in professional development activities focused on teaching (e.g., department or institutional workshops, webinars, conference sessions, symposia, formal trainings, faculty learning communities, etc.), where can you point to evidence of application of that content or learning in your courses? Consider here development of new content, assignments, and activities as well as revisions to previous course content or designs.
• Explore current institutional initiative or strategic plans, including those at the program or department level. Where and how does your current teaching already align with or respond to the language or focus of these initiatives in meaningful ways?

Reviewing content from these reflections and with the expectations for teaching and/or teaching effectiveness at your institutions in mind, begin to highlight information you can include in annual or multi-year review documents pointing to the quality and significance and the scholarly dimension of your teaching. Your goal in this process is to make a deliberate and reflective process visible to those evaluating your work.

Planning

Finally, consider how you might plan for future scholarly teaching, considering what next steps you can undertake in teaching guided by a deliberate and intentional, systematic and planned process during the next semester or academic year. This planning may begin with attention to your reflections from the identifying and framing prompts above yet may also grow out of previous feedback on your teaching in annual or multi-year reviews and allow you to set goals for future work. Plan your scholarly teaching using the following prompts:

• What might it look like to develop a new course or redesign a course in a new modality with attention to program outcomes or strategic institutional initiatives? What internal (programmatic, departmental, or institutional) resources might you engage with to support this work?
• Consider a problem or challenge you identified in a recent course you taught, and plan an intervention to address this problem for a future section of the course. This intervention might involve the larger course design or course content, or it might include more intentional engagement with campus resources (e.g., student support services) to foster student success.
• Explore local or national professional development opportunities or resources focused on teaching (e.g., workshops, symposia, faculty learning communities, course redesign institutes), and make a plan to engage those resources and apply that content in a future section of a course, assessing its impact on student learning and engagement.
• Plan to engage with scholarship on teaching and learning and/or disciplinary scholarship in your area(s) of expertise as you design a new course or develop future iterations of a course you regularly teach. Determine how best to apply that content in a future section of a course, assessing its impact on student learning and engagement and aligning your plan with course or program outcomes and/or institutional goals and initiatives.

Reviewing content from these reflections and with the expectations for teaching and/or teaching effectiveness at your institution in mind, begin to highlight information you can include in annual or multi-year review documents pointing to the quality and significance and the scholarly dimension of your teaching. As part of this process, aim to highlight growth and future goals for teaching that will be tangible and visible to prospective reviewers, and explain why and how that growth and those goals are meaningful within the specific context of your program, institution, and/or discipline.

Reflecting on the Process

Essential to this process of identifying, framing, and planning is ongoing reflection on teaching throughout the semester and especially at the end of an individual course. This reflection might take the form of a digital “future course notes” document to provide a companion to student evaluations of teaching and becomes essential not only for planning purposes for the next time you teach the course (which may not be the following semester), but also for supporting reflection on scholarly teaching for annual and multi-year reviews. While it may make sense to schedule a brief reflection session (30-45 minutes) at the end of every semester to reflect on that semester’s teaching while the experience is still fresh, I have found that I also add to this document throughout the semester as I continue developing and sharing course content and engage with and provide feedback on students’ assignments. This document captures my reflection in real-time on what is working well, where students are struggling or providing insights on how I might refocus or reimagine course content, and when I encounter a resource or idea in another context that might be useful in a future iteration of the course.

Although it’s worth reiterating that approaching your teaching as scholarly work is not synonymous with producing scholarship, including SoTL and DBER, there does exist an important potential connection between scholarly teaching and scholarship. Taking a scholarly approach to teaching is generative in that it creates opportunities for ongoing reflection, revision, investigation, and potentially for scholarship that results from making that work public. Not all scholarly work leads to scholarship, however, nor should that be the expectation of taking a scholarly approach to teaching. As the prompts above demonstrate, this process creates space for demonstrating a deliberate, reflective approach to teaching and for reframing and rethinking your work in process, and it allows you to document growth and achievements in teaching in ways that are visible and meaningful within your unique institutional context.

Integrated Faculty Work

As the next stage of the Identify, Frame, and Plan framework for scholarly teaching, instructors can further document teaching excellence by envisioning and approaching faculty work as integrated. Here, I use the term integrated to refer to the three primary areas of faculty work—teaching, research and creative activity, and professional service—identifying the existing connections among those three areas and creating more intentional opportunities for intersections as you plan future work. For teaching-focused or contingent instructors for whom scholarship and creative activity may not be a required or evaluated part of their workload, integrated work can still provide meaningful support in documenting teaching excellence, as I demonstrate in the next sections of this chapter.

According to Berg and Seeber (2016), authors of The Slow Professor, we have chosen a profession where our work may feel like it is “never done,” and the presumed flexibility of our work may “translate into working all the time.” Berg and Seeber (2016) capture many shared feelings about overwork this way: “Our responses to student papers could always be fuller; our reading of scholarly literature could always be more up-to-date, and our books could always be more exhaustive” (p. 3), and I would add here that we may also find ourselves thinking that one more service commitment surely won’t add too much more to our already full plates. To complicate matters, Berg and Seeber explain, “these self-expectations are escalated by the additional external pressures of the changing academic culture” (3). In her book, Agile Faculty: Practical Strategies for Managing Research, Service, and Teaching, Pope-Ruark (2017) identifies similar challenges and notes that we are making micro-decisions throughout the day “about how to spend time, achieve goals, and meet self-imposed high standards of performance” (p. 3) as “definitions of . . . productivity continue to evolve” (p. 2)

At many institutions, expectations for faculty work are continuously evolving as our institutions evolve, our student populations change and grow, technological developments continue to reshape teaching and learning, and narratives of economic precarity and political overreach attempt to remake higher education. And none of these changes fully accounts for the ways that the COVID-19 pandemic created lasting changes to and demands on our time and work. How do we continue to meet the expectations of our professional roles while still balancing multiple areas of work and demonstrating excellence in teaching and learning? Although I don’t always appreciate reductive statements like “work smarter not harder,” approaching your professional work with the goal of making meaningful intersections can offer a practical way both to create additional balance and to engage with institutional goals and expectations.

In addition to excellence in teaching, integrated faculty work can increase opportunities for meeting responsibilities in all areas – teaching, research and creative activity, and professional service – which is something instructors are typically asked to demonstrate in annual and multi-year reviews. This approach also offers a way to highlight expertise in all three areas and to demonstrate intentionality, reflection, and growth in teaching. As explored in the Frame section above, this scholarly approach allows you to capture or to document current work that is already integrated that you may not be highlighting or describing in that way and may allow you—where and when possible—to make more deliberate choices in planning teaching, service, and research with this integrated vision of your work as a guide or goal. As part of this planning, an integrated approach allows you to make connections to institutional missions, goals, and strategic initiatives, which is often where professional development opportunities, funding, and institutional recognition of quality, significance, and excellence are found.

Identifying, Framing, Planning Integrated Faculty Work

In this section, I provide a few examples of integrated faculty work to help you document excellence in teaching. Some of these examples will be more specific, pulled from my own work to demonstrate application, and others more general that can be adapted across disciplines to support you in thinking about possibilities for teaching, research and creative activity, and service within the context of your disciplinary expertise. The most apparent or immediate integration in faculty work might originate in a recent or current scholarly research project. Perhaps you are working on or have recently published a journal article or chapter in an edited collection, and you create a new course or even a course module or short unit for an existing course based on that content. Thinking about this intersection between research and teaching as a course unit can be especially helpful if developing a new course is not currently feasible or possible. This strategy is also helpful if you are teaching some of the same courses frequently and are thinking about how to update course content.

As a joint-appointed faculty member, I teach in both the Department of English and the Interdisciplinary Studies department at my institution. My areas of expertise include rhetoric and writing studies and gender and women’s studies, and my teaching and research often cross both of those areas. After working on a chapter for an edited collection on women’s ethos, I blended content from that work into a new unit for a senior seminar for English majors that I had taught previously and was preparing to teach again. Although the publication was not focused on teaching, this integration allowed me to engage in reflective and deliberate application of my scholarly expertise into my teaching and to demonstrate a planned and intentional approach to course design and content. Because I was also invited by a colleague to give a guest lecture on this content in another course, this integration of teaching and scholarship also extended beyond my own courses, an example of scholarly teaching at my institution. Similarly, after working on an undergraduate research project on the rhetoric of teen pregnancy with an undergraduate student, I created a new module for a gender and women’s studies course on reality television programs and the rhetoric of the teen mother. In both cases, the topics of the courses were much broader than those individual projects, but I was able to demonstrate in annual and multi-year reviews how my research and scholarship informs my teaching, even when the research is not based on teaching and learning. Because undergraduate research is a valued and supported high-impact practice (HIP) at my institution, this extension of teaching and mentoring outside of my classroom space provided further evidence of excellence in teaching aligned with institutional goals and initiatives.

Consider these possibilities for identifying, framing, and planning your own integrated faculty work supported by teaching excellence:

Online teaching and learning. Perhaps you’ve been teaching online for some time, or you now find yourself thinking much more critically about online synchronous and asynchronous teaching and learning in our post-COVID-19 context. Consider sharing this new knowledge in a department or college best practices workshop or webinar, one that might include a strategy for teaching online across disciplines or a specific approach to a commonly taught course in your department. This kind of best practices workshop can be especially helpful if you’ve been able to address a common challenge in teaching that course. Here, you are moving your teaching outside of your own classroom, which allows you to share your expertise and to demonstrate that sharing in annual or multi-year reviews. And depending on what professional service expectations look like in your department, this activity might allow you to blend teaching and service. You also might extend the reach of this work, increasing its quality and significance, by exploring local, regional, or national conferences for which you develop a more traditional conference presentation or workshop.

New course. Perhaps you recently have taught or soon will be teaching a new course or redesigning a course you have taught in a previous semester. Given all of the preparation that goes into developing the course, including consulting relevant scholarship and other resources, consider how reading and engagement with that scholarship may spark a new avenue for your own research, one that you develop separate from the course you’re teaching. In this case, the work that grows out of this course prep would not have to be focused on your teaching of the course or on student learning in the course. Yet it still could provide you an opportunity to explore new ways to contribute to ongoing scholarly discussions in your field precisely because of new ideas or theories you encountered in preparing content for the course or exploring that content with students. Here, you blend teaching and scholarship, demonstrating that this expertise and intersection moves in both directions. In some disciplines, scholarly journals invite course designs accompanied by teacher-scholars’ reflections grounded in current scholarly discourse (e.g., Composition Studies course designs), which may provide a publication venue for this work.

Assessment. Regardless of the programs you teach in or are involved with, it’s very likely that you will participate in program assessment in some way. Perhaps this assessment takes place in a committee in your department or program and is a component of your professional service activities. For colleagues in STEM fields like Engineering, for example, this assessment work might be guided or governed by accrediting organizations. Following the assessment cycle, you might explore retention and progression in a specific course within your department or program or another area of growth identified through the program assessment. Working with colleagues on that committee, you might create a collaborative course design that allows you to meet shared learning outcomes for the course. Recognizing that other colleagues in your field may benefit from these findings, this collaborative work might lead to a workshop or presentation (locally, regionally, and/or nationally). Later, that presentation can become the foundation for a publication. I often find that professional service activities can feel least connected to our other areas of faculty work, so opportunities for meaningful intersections don’t always seem immediately apparent to us. However, we are almost always showing up in those activities with our expertise. Articulating how we contribute that expertise or how it influences our contributions in those spaces is another way to move toward more meaningful connections to teaching and research.

With these illustrations in mind, as you look ahead and plan future work, identify one facet of your teaching, research and creative activity, or service that seems less connected to other areas of your work or that might present an opportunity for growth in another area (e.g., a new course you were asked to develop, a course you’d like to revamp, a scholarly research project you are working on, a new service commitment you were asked to take on, specific feedback from your most recent annual review, etc.). Thinking broadly about this facet of your work, what opportunities exist for better framing its intersections with existing teaching, research and creative activity, or professional service that you had not yet considered? How is your varied expertise or experience likely to show up in this new work, in other words? With an eye toward continued growth, consider planning one activity for the next semester or academic year in a separate area (teaching, research and creative activity, or professional service) that will allow you to demonstrate deliberate integration of this work in your next annual or multi-year review.

Conclusion

Taking a scholarly approach to teaching can increase opportunities for meeting responsibilities in other areas of faculty work, allows instructors to highlight expertise as a facet of this intentional and reflective approach to teaching, and provides space to make more visible connections to institutional missions, goals, and strategic initiatives as part of scholarly teaching, often facilitating pathways to professional development opportunities and institutional funding. By making more deliberate choices about teaching, research and creative activity, and professional service, with an integrated vision of faculty work as a guide and goal, instructors engage in a process of identifying, framing, and planning that fosters excellence in teaching in ways that are meaningful and visible within their unique institutional contexts.

References 

Behari-Leak, K. & Mckenna, S. (2017). Generic gold standard or contextualised public good? Teaching excellence awards in post-colonial South Africa. Teaching in Higer Education, 22(4), 408-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1301910

Berg, M., & Seeber, B.K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. University of Toronto Press.

Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2015). The department chair as transformative diversity leader. Stylus. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447757

Costello, L. A. (2015). Standing up and standing together: Feminist teaching and collaborative mentoring. Feminist Teacher, 26(1), 1-28.

Denise, E.J., & Louis, B.M. (2024). Conditionally accepted: Navigating higher education from the margins. Univ. of Texas Press.

Gaillet, L.L., & Guglielmo, L. (2014). Scholarly publication in a changing academic landscape: Models for success. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137410764

Flores Niemann, Y., Gutiérrez y Muhs, G., & Gonzalez, C.G. (Eds.). (2020). Presumed incompetent II: Race, class, power, and resistance of women in academia. Utah State UP. http://dx.doi.org/10.7330/9781607329664

Gansemer-Topf, A.M., McCloud, L.I., & Braxton, J.M. (2024). Defining the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). New Directions in Student Services, 185, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20502

Gourlay, L. & Stevenson, J. (2017). Teaching excellence in higher education: Critical perspectives. Teaching in Higer Education, 22(4), 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1304632

Huston, T.A. (2006). Race and gender bias in higher education: Could faculty course evaluations impede further progress toward parity. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 4(2), 591-612. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol4/iss2/34 

Kennesaw State University (2025). Definitions of scholarly activity and scholarship. Faculty Handbook 2024-2025. Retrieved from https://catalog.kennesaw.edu/content.php?catoid=78&navoid=7987 

Linse, A. R. (2017). Interpreting and using student ratings data: Guidance for faculty serving as administrators and on evaluation committees. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.12.004 

Mettetal, G. & McGuire, G.M. (2013). Formal and informal support for pretenure faculty: Recommendations for administrators and institutions. To Improve the Academy, 32(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2013.tb00698.x

Molinaro, M., Finkelstein, N., Hogan, K., Mendoza, N. & Sathy, V. (2020). Scholarly teaching for all, research for some: On the roles of research and scholarship of education in the disciplines. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 52(5), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1807875

Pope-Ruark, R. (2017). Agile faculty: Practical strategies for managing research, service, and teaching. The University of Chicago Press.

Potter, M.K. & Kustra, E. (2011). The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions, and clarifications. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050123 

Rideau, R., & Robbins, C. K.  (2020). The Experiences of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Members of Color with Racism in the Classroom. To Improve the Academy, 39(2), 129-160. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0039.206

Saunders, D.B. & Blanco Ramírez, G. (2017). Against ‘teaching excellence’: ideology, commodification, and enabling the neoliberalization of postsecondary education. Teaching in Higer Education, 22(4), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1301913 

Tocco, A.J., Mehrhoff, L. A., Osborn, H.M., McCartin, L.F., & Jameson, M.M. (2023). Learning communities promote pedagogical metacognition in higher education faculty. To Improve the Academy, 42(1), 224-254. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.2044

Wallace, S. L., Lewis, A.K., & Allen, M.D. (2019). The state of the literature on student evaluations of teaching and an exploratory analysis of written comments: Who benefits most? College Teaching, 67(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2018.1483317

Wisdom, M.L. (2021). Why don’t we teach Ph.D.s to be mentors? Adding mentoring skills to doctoral training is a key to graduate education reform. Chronicle of Higher Education. September 21. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-dont-we-teach-ph-d-s-to-be-mentors

Sotto-Santiago, S. (2020). “’Am I Really Good Enough?’: Black and Latinx Experiences with Faculty Development.” To Improve the Academy, 39(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0039.205

Wood, M. & Su, F. (2017). What makes an excellent lecturer? Academics’ perspectives on the discourse of ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education. Teaching in Higer Education, 22(4), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1301911

Wright, A.L. (2017). The rhetoric of excellence and the erasure of graduate labor. In S. Kahn, W. B. Lalicker, & A. Lynch-Biniek (Eds.), Contingency, exploitation, and solidarity: Labor and action in English composition. (pp. 271-278). WAC Clearinghouse/Univ. Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2017.0858.2.17