5 The Roles of Teaching and Learning Centers

This chapter shares findings from a survey of teaching and learning centers on college and university campuses in the United States. Topics addressed include organizational infrastructure, assessment and accountability, factors/challenges contributing to successful implementation, and a list of functions and program offerings found in teaching and learning centers across the country.

INTRODUCTION

For decades, American institutions of higher education have established teaching and learning centers (TLCs) to help faculty members develop, assess, and refine their teaching skills (Epper & Bates, 2001; Sorcinelli, 2002). However, as Bartlett (2002) points out in a Chronicle article about the closing of the 30-year-old TLC at the University of Nebraska, budget constraints can leave such centers especially vulnerable. The central questions to be asked are, “What do these centers provide co enhance and improve the teaching climate of their institution?” and “How do they achieve their goals, overcome obstacles, address accountability, and survive in times of budgetary constraints?”

In an effort to address these questions, we sought to identify specific principles, practices, and leadership strategies that would assist in decision-making about developing or enhancing a comprehensive TLC. Wright (2000), in one of the few extant survey research studies of the operation of faculty development centers, found that over 80% of the center directors report to the chief academic officer of the institution. In addition, she reported that almost two-thirds of the 33 campuses she surveyed received their funds from general, instructional, or administrative sources; the remaining third were funded from such external revenue streams as grants, contracts, student fees, gifts, endowment funds, or earned income. The costs for administering these services were quite varied. Wright reported that in the fall of 1997, when her survey was distributed, seven programs reported budgets over $300,000; six were in the $l50,000-$299,000 range; four centers ranged between $75,000 and $149,000; and the remaining centers had budgets below $74,000, with six of those below $24,999.

The range of services was also quite varied. All 33 centers Wright surveyed were engaged in faculty and instructional development activities, including faculty consultation services (100%), resource rooms for faculty (98%), workshops (97%), and newsletters (63%). Other services provided by some of the centers in the survey included instructional technology support (57%), media production facilities (27%), examination services (21%), grant proposal assistance (95%), student learning skills assistance (6%), supplemental instruction learning skills (3%), teaching awards (3%), and multicultural teaching and learning services (3%).

Sorcinelli (2002) distilled 10 principles of good practice for developing and maintaining TLCs predicated on her own experience in developing two centers. She explains, “these principles are not Ten Commandments; they are guidelines for getting started. They are not perfectly linear; rather they follow a loose progression, starting from before a center exists and moving to when a center is in place” (p. 10). The 10 principles of good practice are:

1. Build stakeholders by listening to all perspectives.

2. Ensure effective program leadership and management.

3. Emphasize faculty ownership.

4. Cultivate administrative commitment.

5. Develop guiding principles, clear goals, and assessment procedures.

6. Strategically place the center within the organizational structure.

7. Offer a range of opportunities, but lead with strengths.

8. Encourage collegiality and community.

9. Create collaborative systems of support.

10. Provide measures of recognition and rewards. (pp. 10–21).

Although there appears to be a widely disseminated understanding of what teaching and learning centers are, there have been only a handful of studies that have examined the functions of TLCs and other faculty development programs (Centra, 1976; Chambers, 1998; Crawley, 1995: Diamond, 2002; Erickson, 1986; Gullatt & Weaver, 1997; Kalivoda, Broder, & Jackson, 2003; Sorcinelli, 2002). Despite the 10 guiding principles identified by Sorcinelli, campus leaders who wish to establish a center often have specific questions about how to inaugurate and sustain a TLC, particularly when expenses outside of direct instruction come under close scrutiny. This study sought to identify specific practices and programs of successful TLCs as identified by current directors of these centers, particularly best practices that could help others who are seeking to initiate a center, strengthen an existing center, or assist those who are documenting the impact of a center on the campus climate of teaching and learning.

METHODOLOGY

Five members of the American Council on Education (ACE) Fellows program collaborated on a leadership team. Fellows spend a year studying and observing the world of higher education, with a special focus on leadership. Fellows are assigned to leadership teams, in which they complete a major project. They are mentored by one or more senior administrators at a host institution.

The team members identified six areas of interest for a survey regarding faculty development centers.

• The functions or programs offered by each center

• Perceived best practices

• Obstacles to goal attainment

• Organizational or reporting structure

• Accountability measures

• Relationship between the TLC and faculty use of technology

After individually and collectively visiting a number of centers and visiting the websites of many others, our team developed an eight-item survey; one item contained 45 characteristics or offerings to be marked with an X if it applied to the faculty development center or program. With approvals from the Human Subjects Review boards at our institutions, we sent the survey electronically to 260 directors of TLCs during the spring of 2003. The survey was sent primarily to those institutions listed on the University of Kansas web site of TLCs in the United States and Canada, including universities, four-year, and two-year colleges (see http://www.ku.edu/-cte/resources/websites.html). The survey was also posted on the listserv of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD), a group with more than 1,000 faculty, administrators, and staff members, primarily in the United States. Although there was potential for duplication, we also posted the survey on the POD listserv of small colleges, as we hoped to elicit responses from smaller institutions that were not on the University of Kansas list, and where faculty may oversee some TLC functions without the presence of an actual center on their campuses.

FINDINGS

Table 5.1 presents the findings from the 109 surveys that were returned electronically. Of the 109 responses, 91 resulted from the 260 direct requests (35%), and 18 resulted from the listserv posting. The table shows the percentage and numbers of responses by institutional type for the various characteristics and offerings of faculty development centers. Of our total 109 responses, we received only two responses from public baccalaureate colleges and only one from a specialized college; thus, those three responses are represented in the total percentages given, but not depicted in the graphs (indicated by an asterisk). To read the graphs, please bear in mind the number and percentage given in parentheses after the item. The graph shows the actual number of responses, segmented by institutional type in this order: 51 public doctoral universities, 13 private doctoral universities, 19 public master’s universities, 8 private master’s universities, 8 private liberal arts colleges, and 7 public associate’s colleges.

TABLE 5.1 Offerings of Teaching and Learning Centers

In addition, center directors reported offerings and grant opportunities that were not among those we listed. The most common offerings appear below.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The survey responses and our contacts with other centers lead us to eight distinct recommendations for those who are considering developing, expanding, or changing TLCs.

• The range of services provided by a TLC should be aligned with institutional mission and conceptions of faculty work. Expectations of faculty that arc most important in serving the mission should be the highest priorities for the TLC.

• Administrative support for centers should include not only financial and human resources but also advocacy for the center’s function in promoting high standards for teaching and learning at an institution. If administrators attend or introduce workshop sessions at least occasionally, this sends a strong message to faculty.

• If a center is intended to serve as a resource for all faculty and a means of making the teaching mission visible, administrators should be cautious about using a center as a clearinghouse for responsibilities that may have no other home (such as assessment, graduate research assistant training, or administration of course evaluations). These responsibilities are possible if the staffing and budget are sufficient; otherwise, they will detract from the core faculty development purpose of the TLC.

• Administrators should work with center directors and faculty leaders to promote the perception of the center as a site of inquiry about learning, not primarily a source of remediation for faculty who are having difficulties in the classroom. When a faculty member does receive needed assistance with teaching, the TLC ought to be known as a place where confidentiality is assured.

• Although many of the topics and services that draw faculty into a center address practical concerns of their professional lives—promotion/tenure issues, classroom management, use of instructional media and technology. Administrators should encourage the center to offer programs that also address the ways faculty can meet the learning needs of undergraduate and graduate students. Examples include learning communities, student use of technology, and diverse learning styles.

• Administrators should support center directors as they experiment with new programs that address changing ideas about students, learning, and faculty work.

• Administrators should support efforts to use emerging technology as a resource in all faculty and staff development initiatives, including a TLC. A key phrase faculty often state is the desire to learn “appropriate use of technology.”

• Administrators should encourage and rely upon varied means of communicating with those within and outside the institution—newsletters, web sites, and discussions—to advertise and recognize the activities a center offers in support of the teaching mission.

FUTURE RESEARCH

The purpose of this survey research was to learn the range and varieties of offerings at TLCs, their perceived best practices, strategies for and obstacles to achievement of goals, accountability practices, and reporting lines. We consider future research questions that delve deeper into the areas we have touched upon to be of value. One such area is how small institutions approach faculty development when they do not have formal centers. Another area is the use of technology for delivering faculty development programs. We heard about institutions that are beginning to offer online faculty development and use their web sites to archive programs. This area needs especially careful analysis. Finally, it would serve TLC directors well to know how others are addressing the serious issue of assessment in a time of budget cuts. It is interesting to note that of 80 TLCs that reported involvement in assessment at the course and/or institutional level, only 21 of them reported any assessment or accountability measures of their own operations. Why is this? Are there star assessment programs in place? If so, what do their assessment plans entail? Information about best practices in assessment could be valuable to any center that needs to collect data that demonstrate its effectiveness. By the time the center’s budget is being cut, it is too late to initiate an assessment plan. We do not wish to read about a repeat of the Nebraska experience in the Chronicle.

NOTE

Requests for copies of the survey may be directed to Alan Frantz at [email protected].

REFERENCES

• Bartlett, T. (2002, March 22). The unkindest cut. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A10.
• Centra, J. A. (l976). Faculty development practice in US colleges and universities. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Chambers, J. (1998). Teaching and learning centers in US higher education: Current and projected roles and services. Unpublished report, Florida Community College, Jacksonville, FL.
• Crawley, A. (1995). Faculty development programs at research universities: Implications for senior faculty renewal. In E. Neal & L. Richlin (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 14. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 65–90). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
• Diamond, R. M. (2002). Faculty, instructional, and organizational development: Options and choices. In K. H. Gillespie, L. R. Hilsen, & E. C. Wadsworth (Eds.), A guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources (pp 2–8). Bolton, MA: Anker.
• Epper, R., & Bates, A. (2001). Teaching faculty how to use technology: Best practices from leading institutions. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press/American Council on Education.
• Erickson, G. (1986). A survey of faculty development practices. In M. Svinicki, J. Kurfiss, & J. Stone (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 5. Resources for student, faculty, and institutional development (pp. 182–196). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
• Gullatt, D., & Weaver, S. (1997, October). Use of faculty development activities to improve the effectiveness of U. S. institutions of higher education. Paper presented at the meeting of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, Nines City, FL.
• Kalivoda, P., Broder, J., & Jackson, W. K. (2003). Establishing a teaching academy: Cultivation of teaching at a research university campus. In C. M. Wehlburg & S. Chadwick-Blossey (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 21. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 79–92). Bolton, MA: Anker.
• Sorcinelli, M. D. (2002). Ten principles of good practice in creating and sustaining teaching and learning centers. In K. H. Gillespie, L. R. Hilsen, & E. C. Wadsworth (Eds.), A guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources. Bolton, MA: Anker.
• Wright, D. L. (2000). Faculty development centers in research universities: A study of resources and programs. In M. Kaplan & D. Lieberman (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 18. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 291–301). Bolton, MA: Anker.