In 1990, Ernest Boyer argued in Scholarship Reconsidered for a renewed commitment to college teaching by recasting instruction as a form of scholarship. He intended to enhance the visibility of teaching on college campuses and to reduce what he saw as an overemphasis on traditional faculty scholarly publication (scholarship of discovery) (Boyer, 1990). Boyer's work appeared at a time when a dramatic recasting of teaching seemed essential. Traditional scholarly productivity in various forms had become an almost universal expectation for promotion and tenure at all types of 4-year colleges and universities (Bok, 1992; Massy & Wilger, 1995; Trow, 1984). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it also dominated the internal and external academic labor markets (Winston, 1994). During this time, research consistently showed scholarly productivity as the strongest correlate of faculty pay. Teaching was typically unrelated to or a negative factor in faculty compensation. According to the 1987-1988 and 1992-1993 National Surveys of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-88 and NSOPF-93), faculty who taught less and published more received the highest average salaries regardless of type of 4-year institution or academic discipline (Fairweather, 1994, 1996, 1997). Boyer's seminal work unquestionably influenced the policy conversation within and outside of academe. Efforts such as Gene Rice's American Association of Higher Education Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards have led to many reforms in the assessment of faculty work (Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997). Legislative policies in Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and many other states now tie some public university resources to a commitment to teaching and learning (Banta, 1986; Burke & Serban, 1998). Federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), and independent foundations, such as the Bush Foundation, have invested heavily in undergraduate education and professional development for teaching. The NSF has gone so far as to require aspiring grantees to demonstrate how their proposed research work will improve teaching and learning. The past decade also has seen increasing evidence about the effectiveness of active and collaborative instructional practices in improving student learning as well as about faculty development strategies to encourage the use of these practices by college teachers (Bruffee, 1993; Seldin & Associates, 1990; Wankat, 2002). Many colleges and universities have established centers for teaching and learning for this purpose (Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000). Braxton, Luckey, and Helland (2002) found evidence that some institutions are starting to define expectations for faculty scholarship more consistently with institutional mission (p. 103). Johnstone (1993) has led the call for colleges and universities to focus on efficiently increasing student learning outputs rather than focusing exclusively on faculty instructional inputs. In the past decade, we also have learned that research universities, often the most criticized for paying inadequate attention to undergraduate teaching (Bok, 1992), vary in their origins and in their policies toward instruction and scholarship. Some have been research-oriented for decades; others evolved from a commitment to public service and only recently have focused heavily on research and scholarship. These historical differences are reflected in differing commitments to teaching and learning (Fairweather & Beach, 2002; Geiger & Feller, 1995). Indeed, some land-grant research universities, including the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Michigan State University, and the Pennsylvania State University through the new NSF Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning and other initiatives, are leading efforts to promote effective instructional practices. Yet countervailing forces remain. Some have argued that a national labor market for faculty based primarily on enhancing prestige through research productivity persists (Fairweather, 1995; Trow, 1984; Winston, 1994). …