I cannot talk about the scholarship of teaching without first talking about the "scholar" within the scholar"ship." The scholar"ship" (or, metaphorically, the ship of scholars) is composed of individuals who, according to Emden, possess the following traits: "intense intellectual curiosity" (22); "disenchantment with prevailing systems" (23); "tenacity for progress within one's scholarly life" (24); "ability to move between disciplines and their respective schools of thought"(28); "holding a viewpoint" (29); and "an openness to scrutiny from peers" (31). Meleis, Hall, and Stevens identify some traits similar to and others different from Emden. To them a scholar has the attributes of "critical thinking, a connection to practice, a commitment to the discipline's mission, substantive mastery areas, philosophical analyses, rigorous investigations, and a social awareness of the relationship between knowledge development and impact on society" (41). Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff include three qualities of a scholar that merit special consideration: "integrity, perseverance, and courage" (63). Finally, to Boyer, a scholar is a person who recognizes that knowledge is acquired through "the scholarship of discovery, of integration, of application, and of teaching...." (25).

Based on these four viewpoints, the questions for you to ponder are these: Are all teachers scholars? Are all scholars teachers? Can persons called "not-scholars" engage in the scholarship of teaching? Can such persons engage in teaching without scholarship? Or is scholarship essential to the scholarship of teaching?

But, first, what is meant by the scholarship of teaching? For this inaugural issue of inventio, all authors were asked to react to The Carnegie Foundation's  working definition:

Both my immediate reaction (first reading) and long-term reaction (several readings over several weeks) is that the definition "misses the boat" about the scholarship of teaching. It is a definition about research on teaching or on learning. This is not to say that such research is not crucial to pedagogy; it is. But to me the scholarship of teaching encompasses so much more. That is why I cannot separate the scholar from the scholarship. Who the teacher is reflects scholarliness or lack thereof. When a student says, "My teacher is a true scholar" [notice the differentiation from just a scholar], what is that student saying? The student is saying that the teacher's behavior in the classroom or laboratory (apart from that teacher's written scholarship which the student may or may not know about) reflects scholarliness. The teacher has high educational standards. The teacher questions the status quo. The teacher not only challenges students to think for themselves but also encourages them to think "out-of- the box." The teacher is creative. The teacher has expert command of the subject matter and is not threatened by students' questions. The teacher is responsible for observable scholarly growth of the students. The teacher is professional, has a passion for her/his areas of expertise, and is ethical. To me, behaviors such as these are at the heart of the scholarship of teaching. In my opinion, the Carnegie Foundation's definition primarily speaks to Boyer's   scholarship of discovery but not to his (or my) primary definition of the scholarship of teaching, although the two complement each other beautifully.

Next Section: Personal Examples: Pedagogical Research