To Improve the Academy
Latest Publications

Our paper names the importance of communities of practice for ourselves as educational developers, inviting us to witness and name: the communities in which we belong; the important functions they engage; who they nurture and how; and what visible and hidden labor is undertaken to sustain these communities. We include narratives from educational developers who share examples of the functional roles and relational meanings from their membership in different communities of practice. Through these stories, we amplify the particularly important role these groups have played in our professional and personal lives during 2020. As these groups are fragile, we end with specific actions we can take to tend to our communities of practice, maintaining them so that they will provide us support and shelter into the future.

The global pandemic that began in 2020 amplified the chasm between higher education’s stated goals to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and the systemic realities that many students, instructors, and staff grapple with on a daily basis. We contend that attenuating the barriers to DEI outcomes means first acknowledging that DEI is a wicked problem, in that it is impossible to solve because of often competing, conflicting, and complex sociocultural forces from within and outside our institutions. We also contend that educational developers (EDs) are particularly well-situated within the higher education ecology to be key cultural influencers in how to mitigate DEI-related wicked problems by tapping into our deep commitment to lifelong learning as a means for honing and modeling an equity mindset.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought about unprecedented changes in our approach to delivering educational development (ED) programming. In this article we discuss how our dual ED centers pivoted during the sudden switch to online learning, highlighting how we overcame challenges such as a small staff, tight timelines, and faculty anxieties. Particularly, we explore how we adapted to the university’s investment in technologically advanced Hybrid-Flexible (HyFlex) classroom spaces and utilized a multi-pronged team approach to provide effective and timely ED to faculty. By identifying key faculty leaders, identifying multiple sources of data, and using multiple modalities, we supported the faculty in their mission to effectively serve their students during this difficult and stressful time. In pivoting from a triage approach to more tactically focused development, the two ED centers discovered that they could more effectively serve faculty (and by extension students) by shattering the structural silos that had previously defined them and instead working as a unified entity.

Institutions are redesigning gateway courses—lower-division courses known to create student success bottlenecks—to influence persistence and completion goals. These initiatives, student success course redesigns (SSCR), are specialized versions of course design institutes (CDIs). This investigation into SSCRs uses content analysis to examine the implementation plans created during a SSCR. Results demonstrated that the majority of the strategies planned focused on the Learning key performance indicator (KPI), and the minority of the planned-for strategies focused on the Monitoring Student Performance KPI. A more granular analysis of the Learning strategies revealed five themes: Content, Assessment, Pedagogy, Syllabus, and Student Success. Additional results indicated the majority of planned strategies would occur out of class, and disciplinary differences between science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and non-STEM faculty for pedagogical and content design changes. Results also demonstrated a need for more faculty to utilize actionable language for course redesign strategies. Moreover, the implementation plans provided useful assessment feedback of the CDI itself.

In today’s impoverished higher education fiscal climate, especially considering the enormous financial implications to higher education of accommodating the changes required by the coronavirus pandemic, “nonessential” though highly important programs, such as centers for teaching and learning (CTLs), are very likely to be underfunded. In this study, we illustrate how underfunded programs can leverage peer collaboration and support to initiate productive, formal systems of assistance for faculty by describing a number of such programs developed by and/or coordinated by our CTL. Moreover, we propose that sustainable programs, especially at small liberal arts institutions, must include a strong component of peer networking and in-house expertise rather than relying on outside consulting services. In a climate of shrinking dollars, CTLs can still perform some key roles effectively while continuing to advocate for more adequate funding.

This article describes the rationale, development process, and initial artifacts and outcomes of a faculty support (a.k.a. mentoring) model developed for a specific academic context: a College of Education at a Southeastern comprehensive public university. The purposes of this article are to (1) describe the research and theoretical models that guided the development of the program; (2) provide a research-based rationale for a context-based community development model of faculty support; (3) propose a set of principles for a context-based developmental community model of faculty support; (4) describe the process for developing a community development mentoring model for faculty at all career levels; and (5) offer artifacts, tools, and activities that faculty developers and institutions may use or adapt for their own context-based communities of support.

As higher education shifts toward a culture of evidence-based teaching practices, future faculty are seeking opportunities to develop their pedagogical knowledge and skills. Many centers for teaching and learning (CTLs) have not proportionally grown in resources to meet the demand for graduate student and postdoctoral scholar programming (e.g., teaching certificates and pedagogy seminars). This article presents a model of a wide-ranging, coherent pipeline of educational development for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars managed by a CTL with modest staffing.

This study focuses on the lived experiences of nine university faculty who were attempting to implement inclusive teaching practices following university-sponsored faculty development. While the participants were each successful in their respective implementations, they all expressed anxiety at the beginning of the semester as well as at the end when they reflected upon the changes they made. This occurred despite deeply held motivations to change their teaching and make a difference for their students. The participants encountered barriers that centered on feelings related to self-confidence, student perception, and peer approval. Findings include descriptions of these anxieties and the supports that meaningfully helped them push through difficulties and sustain their journeys toward inclusive pedagogy.

The Association of American Colleges and Universities calls for improvements in teaching preparation in graduate programs as a transferable skill for future faculty. However, the amount of institutional and faculty support for these programs is limited. For the relatively few programs that exist, rarely do they have their outcomes assessed in a data-driven manner. This is disconcerting considering that participation in professional development can improve work-life balance, and graduate students often work long hours, suffer from mental health issues, and face increasing career competition. In this case study, we explore how two teaching development programs impacted pedagogical knowledge, perceived quality of life, and sense of community in graduate students at the University of California, Irvine. Using a mixed methods approach, we demonstrate that participants in our introductory quarter-long Developing Teaching Excellence course increased their pedagogical knowledge, and participants in both our introductory course and our advanced year-long Pedagogical Fellows Program reported having improved quality of life and sense of belonging. Most commonly, participants framed these pedagogical programs/courses as providing a safe and inclusive space to explore teaching in an interdisciplinary manner; a network of like-minded and supportive peers; and an opportunity to develop greater confidence in teaching, mentorship, and other aspects of graduate life such as conducting research and entering the academic job market. Taken together, our results indicate that providing a structured, nurturing environment for graduate students to develop their pedagogical knowledge and practice may lead to improved quality of life and sense of belonging.

This article describes how a focus on outcomes can be a tool for guiding systemic change. By focusing on positive outcomes to be achieved, a group can guide its collective efforts toward an ideal future rather than becoming fixated on individual problems to solve. While there is support for an outcome-guided approach in the literature on individual and organizational change, this approach has not been used extensively to support department-level changes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.