An editor stands on the shoulders of her reviewers, and I was fortunate to have had many strong shoulders to stand on—45 sets of shoulders, to be exact. As a team, they provided over 130 reviews, most of which offered thoughtful, constructive, in-depth comments on each of their assigned manuscripts. Those who wrote two-to­three single-spaced pages of feedback and evaluation on each manuscript they reviewed certainly deserve some kind of award. The reviewers didn’t always agree about a given manuscript, but they explained the values and standards they used to arrive at their recommendations. Here is the list of those unsung, behind-the­scenes heroes: Danilo Baylen, Laurie Bellows, Donna Bird, Phyllis Blumberg.Jeanette Clausen,Jodi Cressman, Bonnie Daniel, Cynthia Desrochers, Michele DiPietro, Sally Barr Ebest, Bonnie Farley-Lucas, Judy Grace, Elizabeth Yost Hammer, Jace Hargis, Eric Hobson, Wayne Jacobson, Frances Johnson, Kathleen Kane, Mick LaLopa, Marion Larson,Jean Layne, Virginia S. Lee, P. Rachel Levin, Deandra Little, Alice Macpherson, Vilma Mesa, Daniel Mercier, Bonnie Mullinix, Ed Neal, Ed Nuhfer, Leslie Ortquist-Arhens, Patrick O’Sullivan, Donna Petherbridge, Susan Polich, Nancy Polk, Edwin Ralph, Gerald Ratliff, Jen Schoepke, Ike Shibley, Jennifer Shinaberger, Judy Silvestrone, Karen St. Clair, Suzanne Tapp, Karen Ward, and Mary Wright.

Hoag Holmgren, executive director of the POD Network, furnished information, updates, and files I desperately needed. More than that, he was joy to work with and always a bright spot in my day.

On the publisher’s side, David Brightman served as my editor at Jossey-Bass, patiently answering my many questions and keeping me on track. It was also a pleasure to work again with Carolyn Dumore, formerly of Anker Publishing, who guided the production process.

Douglas Reimondo Robertson, editor of the last two volumes of To Improve the Academy, was sitting just behind me, even though he didn’t know it and most of the time was physically over four hundred miles away. In my communications with contributors, reviewers, and authors, I often recalled his experiences as editor and little pieces of advice he shared with me along the way. Before I acted, responded, or made a decision, I reflected on Doug’s words and asked myself, “What would Doug do?” Then the best course of action became pretty clear.

Associate editor Judith E. Miller proved to me that I had selected a superb successor. Always prompt to respond and respectful of deadlines, she did an amazing amount of careful, close editing of just over half the manuscripts accepted. She also functioned as an additional reviewer, with her wise comments and suggestions for revisions. Just as valuable were her ideas about improving aspects of the TIA “operation.” Judy brings a highly effective combination of practical and scholarly intelligence to all she does, so I didn’t worry about a thing.

I wish I had staff members to thank for their assistance in preparing this volume, but Clemson’s Office of Teaching Effectiveness and Innovation is pretty much a one-person unit. (I deeply appreciate the help and social interaction that William Weathers and Geraldine Hunter provided, even though they belonged to the instructional technology unit.) Therefore, my shifting from a paper-based to a wholly electronic operation was essential, and it worked out very well. All of those involved in producing this volume had a little more time to complete their tasks, whether writing, reviewing, or editing. In addition, I was able to provide the actual reviews (edited to pre­ serve anonymity) to all the manuscript authors using copy-and-paste functions. Many thanks to the dozens of reviewers and authors for effortlessly making the change to an electronic production process.