Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
If the notions of scholarship, scholar and scholarly are to avoid emptiness and become useable as descriptors of teaching, as Ernest Boyer hoped, the concepts behind these terms need clarifying and tightening-up, particularly in the context of a university system re-inventing itself and unsure of its future direction. A three-fold analysis of scholarly is proposed, referring to critical reflectivity as a habit of mind, scrutiny by peers as a modus operandi, and inquiry as a motivation. The paper asks what scholarly teaching might look like if this conceptualisation were adopted. Answers suggested include knowledge-based teaching, discipline-based teaching and inquiry-based teaching. The implications of these ideas are explored in regard to contributing to "good teaching", opening up teaching to peer-scrutiny, strengthening teaching as a collective enterprise, and sustaining university teachers in danger of burn-out and demoralisation. An extensive bibliography of recent work on scholarly teaching and an Appendix illustrating micro-level, scholarly analysis of a teacher's work are included.
Lee Andresen (Sat,) studied this question.