Explanation of the role CTL’s play in improving faculty development and why it works. Reformers from all sides of the political spectrum are demanding change in higher education.
Reformers from all sides of the political spectrum are demanding change in higher education, ranging from more rigorous measurement of learning outcomes to a greater focus on diversity in the classroom. Many colleges and universities have at least a portion of a full-time employee (FTE) devoted to faculty development, also sometimes called “educational development,” an inclusive term that reflects the range of centers for teaching and learning (CTL) constituencies (departments, faculty, graduate students, postdocs, and sometimes undergraduates) (POD Network, 2016). Although intended aims of CTLs are diverse – including goals such as faculty career advancement, development of climate and community, and graduate student professional development – most aim to advance teaching and learning in their campus contexts. In light of the current atmosphere of criticism of higher education, how can faculty and administrators make the case that CTLs have a positive impact on campus teaching and learning?
Here, we argue that there is a strong evidence base for the impact of educational development on student learning, and we summarize recent research that comprises this solid foundation. Second, because evaluation and research often fulfill different demands (Levin-Rozalis, 2003), we describe typical features of individual CTLs’ evaluation work. Finally, we offer advice for faculty and administrators who wish to support their own CTL’s evaluation.
Faculty Development and Student Learning
Campus stakeholders often ask CTL directors, “What is the impact of your work on student learning?” This is a challenging question to answer because it involves establishing a causal chain of evidence from a CTL’s work, to the classroom teaching of individual or groups of faculty, and then to specific student behaviors and outcomes. Despite the complexity of such analysis, in 2015, a rigorous Spencerfunded multi-institutional, longitudinal study examined this question by first studying if faculty learn as intended at teaching development workshops (yes, as indicated by interviews) (Condon, Iverson, Manduca, Rutz, Willett, 2016). The authors next researched if the same faculty translated the ideas learned in workshops to their teaching (again, yes, as suggested by an analysis of syllabi and assignments). Finally, they looked at the “million dollar question”: Is improved teaching associated with enhanced learning for students in the classes taught by these same faculty? Again, the answer was a solid yes, based on analysis of student writing on measures of critical thinking and quantitative reasoning. Similarly, a 2004 study across eight countries found that the students of faculty who taught and concurrently participated in faculty development programs reported fewer surface learning approaches (focus on memorization rather than understanding) over time, while there was no change for the control group (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004). In short, faculty development, done well, enhances student learning.