This is a question I have asked and have been asked many times. Several research articles, books, and essays have been written on it, a significant number of which I have read, notably one by Diane M. Enerson, Director, Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at Penn State University.

There is also very little disagreement that good teaching-especially at the university level-demands a high level of subject matter expertise. But subject expertise alone does not a good teacher make. The difference between subject expertise and the kind of explanatory expertise that results in good teaching is real and important. Explanatory expertise involves more than merely telling students what you know in the hope that they will come to know it too. Rather, it involves revealing the solutions to the problems and also how you got there. In a sense, the real difference between being an expert in something and being an expert who teaches is showing your students how you got--and how they can get--the rabbit out of the hat.

I remember while attending law school, the complete and utter frustration I felt during classes where Law Professors apparently found great joy in "hiding the ball." They seemed to enjoy making simple concepts appear arcane and seemed obnoxiously pedantic in their Socratic dialogue. Happily, there is generally a consensus at the Nevada Campus that good teaching plays off the strengths of each individual teacher. Good teachers fall back on their strengths while working on their weaknesses. Cute tricks and theatrics are not our forte, so we don't try to use them. Your love and enthusiasm for the subject matter, your belief that it is relevant, important, and absolutely fascinating is critical. Enthusiasm is compelling and infectious. Lack of enthusiasm is also infectious, but it is pernicious.

Finally, good teaching is about community. Like a good community, good teaching is purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring and celebrative. (1) But as Willits notes in the recent report on Penn State as a Community of Learning, these are abstract principles that "need to be personalized in time and space." (2) Implementation is not always easy. And the same strategy does not work in every situation. There are no simple algorithms that will guarantee good teaching. A specific strategy like points for participation and attendance or requiring a closed book final exam may work in one class but not in the next. What works for me may not work for you. But each solution suggests another, which in turn suggests still others. We can always learn from one another. While there is no one-size-fits-all strategy for good teaching, happily there are a few activities that do seem to make a difference and around which this faculty development web site is designed.

One such activity is planning. Good teaching involves planning, lots of it and at every level. What do I want my students to learn? It's hard to get somewhere if you don't know where you are going. What makes the subject interesting to me? What will make it interesting to my students? Good teaching also involves adapting to the constraints of the circumstances in which we teach, including the constraints of students' prior knowledge and the constraints of scale. Good teaching never happens in a vacuum but is part of a larger cultural and institutional context. Good teaching involves feedback—both feedback collected from your students and feedback provided to them. Feedback, accurate feedback, is the bedrock that supports learning. It is necessary for learning. Sometimes students can provide it to themselves, but often they can't. And good teaching involves critically analyzing and responding to the feedback. Finally, good teaching is about self-knowledge and growth. Finding and respecting your limits is an important part of effective teaching.

The reader will note that good teaching requires a considerable amount of thought, planning, and self-analysis. Good teaching is an ongoing, iterative process that involves careful planning, feedback, analysis, and the courage to try again when things don't go quite as expected. As even a cursory glance at the philosophies in the Nevada Campus Academic Issues web site will attest, good teaching is something that is always labor intensive, sometimes frustrating, but doable. And it is worth the effort.

1.Fern K. Willits, Betty L. Moore, and Diane M. Emerson, Penn State--Quality of Instruction: Surveys of Students and Teachers at University Park (University Park: Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, 1997).

2.These characteristics of learning are described by Ernest Boyer in his paper In Search of Community.