Understanding the Complexity of Centers for Teaching and Learning: Introducing a Four-Dimensional Model
Saved in:
| Title: | Understanding the Complexity of Centers for Teaching and Learning: Introducing a Four-Dimensional Model |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Alexandra I. Mihai (ORCID |
| Source: | Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research. 2025 90(6):1693-1712. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 20 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Teacher Centers, Models, Higher Education, Governance, Faculty Development, College Faculty, Professional Identity, Social Capital, Learning Activities |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10734-025-01399-y |
| ISSN: | 0018-1560 1573-174X |
| Abstract: | Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) are gaining visibility in the higher education landscape as key actors that support universities in providing high-quality education and fostering a culture that values teaching and learning. While existing research on CTLs typically focuses on evaluation, impact, or institutionally context-specific work, we sought to unearth a framework that could be universally applied to understanding CTL work and functionality. Following data collection and 25 interviews with CTL Directors from higher education institutions across the USA, we created an integrative approach that brings together organizational, behavioral, and relational perspectives. The four dimensions--governance, identity, social capital, and activities--enable us to investigate CTLs from various angles and at different levels, providing valuable clues for understanding CTL performance and challenges. This integrative model can also be used as a framework to inform CTL design decisions. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1500626 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEAclFORVo7b4omkpECJo4SAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDH6p-h5RX9in1WvjUgIBEICBm8MMnmfuhl5zyXybR4Gv9ye6mV3qsACl8axvUwjpL6v2eu274bzY2gIlHb9rewFZKNEKvFvY0pNT0rNLfQYnCTdE5QfgCEnifI7439m87bD-ZSWkyYwoRFSWXC5GT1XXf2wM5-Zam39phJSbqdU2qbGY4ZNHR9Vct1TmLBWEAXUFpz8yLVNyWDCjSkuXuimkiXFOVfrRwN-lfVwa Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0190548568;hie01dec.25;2026Jan01.00:31;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0190548568-1">Understanding the complexity of centers for teaching and learning: introducing a four-dimensional model </title> <p>Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) are gaining visibility in the higher education landscape as key actors that support universities in providing high-quality education and fostering a culture that values teaching and learning. While existing research on CTLs typically focuses on evaluation, impact, or institutionally context-specific work, we sought to unearth a framework that could be universally applied to understanding CTL work and functionality. Following data collection and 25 interviews with CTL Directors from higher education institutions across the USA, we created an integrative approach that brings together organizational, behavioral, and relational perspectives. The four dimensions—governance, identity, social capital, and activities—enable us to investigate CTLs from various angles and at different levels, providing valuable clues for understanding CTL performance and challenges. This integrative model can also be used as a framework to inform CTL design decisions.</p> <p>Keywords: Center for teaching and learning; Professional development; Faculty; Higher education; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Universities are complex ecosystems (Ellis &amp; Goodyear, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]), with interdependent actors engaged in a continuously evolving landscape, coupled with pressure to create effective knowledge flows to function as a learning organization. Challenges arise as faculty try to balance research, teaching, and service responsibilities, which often results in teaching ranked at a lower priority level, especially in research-intensive universities. In many cases, developing pedagogical competence around teaching is considered a "nice to have" in the context of an already overwhelming agenda of tasks. Furthermore, defining and measuring teaching excellence at an institutional level is not a straightforward endeavor. Higher education has been faced with recent challenges such as the Covid-19 pandemic, constantly evolving technology (generative artificial intelligence being just one example), changing student numbers and demographics, and varied teaching staff backgrounds that reinforce the need for continuous professional development of faculty members.</p> <p>Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) are one of the key actors that can support universities in addressing these challenges to grow into genuine learning organizations, where learning and development play a crucial role. As Dickens et al., ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref2">6</reflink>], p. 1) state, "through a variety of services and initiatives, CTLs tangibly support faculty to meet the multiple and rigorous expectations of the institution." Equally important, CTLs help foster a teaching and learning culture and facilitate the creation of learning communities. These units come in different shapes and under a variety of names, such as Center for Teaching Innovation, Center for Educational Development, Learning Academy, and Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology. For the purpose of this study, we will use the term Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs).</p> <p>Due to this diversity and very context-dependent space, it is difficult to find one definition that describes all CTLs well. In her recent mapping of US-based CTLs, Wright ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]) defines a Center for Teaching and Learning as "a unit that serves a postsecondary audience, focuses at least part of its mission on teaching, and is actively engaged in interpersonal work- such as consultations, programs, or services- that goes beyond a digital list of resources" (p. 12). Despite the lack of one comprehensive definition, we can identify what lies at the core of CTLs' existence by looking at their primary mandate and goals. Irrespective of the differences in structure, size, or position, three characteristics are always present: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>) supporting faculty members in their teaching; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>) creating an impact on student learning (directly or indirectly), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>) ensuring the quality of the education at the respective institutions.</p> <p>With CTLs becoming more visible in the past years and moving beyond educational development to take up new roles in the realm of organizational development (Schroeder, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]), it is increasingly important to develop frameworks that distil the defining dimensions and characteristics of CTLs. These can help place CTL practice into context and better understand how CTLs relate to the various actors in the higher education landscape. As part of a Fulbright-Schuman Fellowship, this study uses 25 semi-structured interviews conducted at different American higher education institutions to capture the knowledge and expertise of CTL Directors, and it is used to map out the most important dimensions of CTL work.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-2">Theoretical framework</hd> <p>While the existing literature on educational development is very rich, its institutional forms (such as CTLs) require further exploration based on their context-specific work and functioning that can be hard to generalize. Moreover, it is difficult to gain a comprehensive overview of the field, without thorough documentation of CTL work and even less of it researched. Many studies cover one geographical area, such as Australia (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]; Palmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]), Scandinavian countries (Havnes &amp; Stensaker, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]), and the USA (Wright, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]), and while this approach helps shed light on CTL functioning and development, it often makes it difficult to disentangle it from the very specific higher education context in which they operate.</p> <p>A majority of studies focus on the effectiveness and evaluation of CTL work (Wright, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>], Kolomitro &amp; Anstey, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>], Zakrajsek, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]) and on educational development approaches (Czerniewicz, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]; Dickens et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]; Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>]; Little, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]). CTLs are in a state of continuous evolution and restructuring, and this aspect is often missed by research that typically captures centers at a particular point in time. Wright ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref19">25</reflink>]) maps the current state of CTLs in the USA while also consistently referring back to previous studies in order to understand CTL evolution throughout their history.</p> <p>There are, however, not many studies that offer a comprehensive framework comprising all the different dimensions that define a CTL. We identified three such studies that provide a diversity of perspectives, from a geographical and temporal point of view but also in terms of scope and purpose.</p> <p>The first framework is put forward by Holt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]) in their study exploring Australian CTLs which focuses on paradigm shifts in terms of CTL strategic leadership. It mainly focuses on institutional considerations, like CTL position, representation in the decision-making at the university level, relationships with other actors, and the overall purpose of CTLs. More importantly, the study also discusses the synergies between different dimensions, offering a more nuanced analysis of CTL governance, both internally and at an institutional level.</p> <p>Secondly, the matrix developed by the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network (ACE and POD Network, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]) provides a useful overview of the different dimensions that contribute to the existence and work of a CTL. It can be used as a practical tool for CTLs to assess their functioning and level of maturity. The matrix is conceptualized across three levels: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>) beginning/developing—an emerging level, representing evolving practice in educational development; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>) proficient/functioning—a competent level, representing skillful practice in educational development; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>) accomplished/exemplary—a desired level, representing best practices in educational development. It defines three broad domains of practice in CTLs that include the following: organizational structure, resource allocation and infrastructure, and programs and services. However, although based on existing research, the framework is not validated by empirical research. Due to its practical focus, it synthesizes functions rather than providing an in-depth analysis of the different elements. For instance, all the aspects related to the institutional dimension—vision, position, functioning—are grouped under one pillar, which leads to missing nuances linked to how these elements are aligned or influence each other.</p> <p>The third framework is an analytical review by Czerniewicz ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]) that covers various aspects related to CTL structure and activities, while also including considerations on CTL alignment with the overall institutional vision. The framework also refers to the types of relations CTLs establish with other actors, suggesting there are different approaches a CTL can take: responsive service (emphasis on the reactive role, sensitive to the needs of faculty and students), partnership (with a focus on co-creation together with faculties and other actors on campus), and leader (where CTL takes a proactive stance on various initiatives). This can help shed light on the role of CTLs in the overall university ecosystem as well as the sense of identity and vision CTLs set for themselves. The timing of the study is also important, as it was conducted in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, when CTLs played an important part in ensuring teaching continuity.</p> <p>While these three frameworks provide insight into practical aspects of CTL strategic leadership, development progression of the center, and structural alignment to institutional vision, they lack the nuanced interplay between and identification of universally applicable dimensions that could be applied to all CTL work.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-3">CTL evolution and relevance</hd> <p>In the past decade, we have seen notable changes in the structure and positioning of CTLs, through mergers and integration with other units, which have implications at an institutional level (Kelley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]). Some of the most important implications have included an increase in responsibility and resources, restructuring, staff integration, and developing a new identity. The changes have also brought benefits, such as increased visibility, more alignment to institutional goals, a broader mission, and potentially enhanced impact. One particular change due to the Covid-19 pandemic has been the integration of educational technology support units within CTLs. While this development has some previously established roots (Kelley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>]), the pandemic sped up the process and helped establish new structures.</p> <p>During the Covid-19 pandemic, CTLs assumed a leadership role to assure continuity of the education process via emergency remote teaching and heavily supported faculty. This aligns with Kezar's ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]) conceptualization of second-order change ("transformational change") in higher education, a process where the mission and fundamental structures of the organization change, often triggered by a crisis brought about by external forces. These developments also led to more studies being published on CTLs (Naffi et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]; Trotter et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]). However, it is important to be mindful of the temporary nature of these circumstances. These studies provide good insight into CTL work in crisis situations, but it is still hard to assess whether there will be lasting consequences in the way CTLs operate and are embedded in higher education institutions.</p> <p>Given all the changes and challenges mentioned above, CTLs have increasingly taken up roles that go beyond the field of educational development and into the broader realm of organizational development (Havnes &amp; Stensaker, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref31">9</reflink>]; Clark &amp; Saulnier, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]; Schroeder, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref33">20</reflink>]), albeit not always explicitly. With CTLs emerging from the fringes of the academic landscape, it is more important than ever to analyze them through a more holistic lens that captures not only their activities but also their position and roles within the university governance systems.</p> <p>Our research question is as follows: <emph>What are the defining dimensions and characteristics of CTLs and how do these shape the CTLs' practice?</emph> The focus of this study characterizes CTLs both deductively, based on dimensions defined by literature, and inductively, analyzing the data collected. More specifically, 25 semi-structured interviews were conducted with directors of CTLs at different American higher education institutions. Based on the results, we developed a four-dimensional model that can further systematize the research on CTLs and at the same time provide a practical frame of reference for practitioners working in CTLs. Gaining insights into the dimensions and characteristics of CTLs will enable CTL leadership and staff to reflect on their work in a comprehensive and meaningful way within the context of their respective universities. This multidimensional framework can also help design or redesign CTLs by supporting design decisions and avoiding any potential blind spots. Finally, it can be used to set up research on practices and effects of CTLs.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-4">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190548568-5">Sample and setting</hd> <p>The research was conducted in the USA in 2022 and consisted of 25 semi-structured expert interviews with directors of CTLs at different American Higher Education institutions. In order to get a more nuanced picture and to better understand the functioning and specificities of CTLs, we chose our interviewees from a variety of institution types, from community colleges to Ivy League universities, as well as institutions of different sizes, with both a research and a teaching orientation, and representing a broader cross section of the Carnegie University Classification (see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1 Key characteristics of university sample and their CTLs</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;University&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;University type&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;University size&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CTL size&lt;sup&gt;b&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CTL position&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private, nonprofit&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small-medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small-medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private liberal arts college&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small-medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Public research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;8&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Public research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small-medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Public liberal arts college&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Public research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small-medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private liberal arts college&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Public research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;19&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Community college&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Faculty based&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;21&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Public research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;22&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Public research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;23&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Public research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;24&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Small&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Faculty based&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Private research&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Medium&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Large&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Central&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>a</sups>University size: large (30 k + students); medium-sized (10 k–30 k students); small-medium (5 k–10 k students); small (less than 5 k students) <sups>b</sups>CTL size: large (&gt; 20 FTE); medium (5–20 FTE); small (&lt; 5 FTE)</p> <p>The interviews were conducted in person or via Zoom and were recorded with the permission of the participants. The length of the interview was approximately one hour. Prior to the interview, participants received information about the purpose of the research. They were informed that their answers would be treated confidentially and anonymously and provided their consent to participate in the study. The researchers also gained access to the strategic reports of some CTLs, which were analyzed, together with the CTL websites, to provide context to the rest of the data. Thus, by using a variety of sources, we were able to explore in depth both the functioning of CTLs and the way they interact with the institutional environment in which they operate.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-6">Problem-centered expert interviews</hd> <p>The choice for a qualitative methodological approach consisting of expert interviews, complemented by document analysis, is grounded in the nature of our research question—to gain a better understanding of how CTLs function, both internally and within the broader context of university structures. The status and position of the interviewees, as CTL Directors, point towards expert interviews as being a suitable tool, allowing us to investigate the knowledge and experience of the expert, based on a topical guide (Meuser &amp; Nagel, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]). Experts can be described as persons with specific knowledge who hold a certain status or exercise a function in decision-making processes in a particular field of action (Bogner &amp; Menz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]). Moreover, aiming to move beyond process knowledge to also reveal interpretative knowledge (Bogner &amp; Menz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>]), defined as subjective viewpoints or perspectives on which experts draw, we chose problem-centered expert interviews (Döringer, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>]) as a research tool for our study. At the intersection between theory-generating expert interviews and problem-centered interviews (PCI) (Murray, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>]), this method helps capture the implicit dimensions of expert knowledge by reconstructing individual perspectives (Döringer, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]). In the context of CTLs, this played a critical role as it allowed us to gain both immediate knowledge about their functioning and, at the same time, explore themes that cut across interview topics and are illuminated by the personal perspectives of the interviewees. This broader understanding allowed us to identify dimensions within a framework to help unravel the complexity of CTLs.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-7">Interview guide</hd> <p>The interviews were conducted using a semi-open, thematically structured framework (Bogner &amp; Menz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>]). A mix of questioning techniques was used, beginning with an open question, encouraging a narrative approach from the interviewee, followed with general and specific explorations based on the interview guide (that draws on existing CTL analytical frameworks). The main themes explored were CTL history, positioning within the university, mission and roles, internal structure, activities, and participation in various networks. The interviews were conducted in a non-linear, open, and flexible manner, allowing the interviewees to expand on issues they felt were important. The initial narrative component encouraged the interviewees to reflect upon the process, including personal perspectives and explanations.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-8">Thematic analysis and coding process</hd> <p>The data gathered through interviews was analyzed using thematic analysis (Clarke &amp; Braun, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>]). We started by using a deductive approach, coding the data based on the different theoretical frameworks used when preparing the interview framework. After the first themes emerged and were discussed by the author team, a second round of coding followed, to ensure the richness of the data was well represented in the analysis. The complete list of themes and sub-themes was subsequently reviewed and refined collaboratively by the authors; some of the themes were merged and some were excluded as redundant. A thematic map was created to reflect how the various themes connected to each other and to the dataset as a whole. This was helpful in developing a narrative for the study, linking the empirical data with the theoretical frameworks. As an iterative method, thematic analysis suited our study, and it allowed us to refine the themes in several rounds, which enabled us to collaboratively explore and interpret the various nuances within the rich dataset. After analyzing the data, five main themes emerged: governance, identity, social capital, activities, and organizational context. For each theme, we addressed specific questions that linked back to the theoretical framework. For instance, for governance, we looked at how the CTLs are positioned and whether they are aligned with the institutional vision, as well as analyzing aspects related to structure and staff backgrounds.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-9">Results</hd> <p>We will use the five emerging themes (governance, identity, social capital, activities, and organizational context) to present the results of our study.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-10">Governance</hd> <p>In the context of this study, the concept of governance is used to refer to both how the CTLs are positioned and embedded in universities, as well as how they are structured and staffed internally. This combination of elements provides a good understanding of their functioning, not only as stand-alone entities but also as part of the university ecosystems.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-11">Position and alignment with the institutional vision</hd> <p>Depending on whether the university has a rather centralized or decentralized structure, CTLs can be positioned at the central level or at the faculty level, with many occasions in which they co-exist. When placed at the central level, CTLs are mostly part of the "education wing" of the administration, be it undergraduate or graduate education. In some cases, they can also be part of faculty affairs, where there is a connection to research activities. As proof of their versatility and broad scope, CTLs can sometimes be found as part of libraries or academic innovation units and even, in few cases, together with teams in charge of continuous studies (life-long learning and executive education). Most CTLs report to the Provost and in the past few years; many CTL Directors have been appointed Associate or Vice Provost, in recognition of their important role as liaisons between faculty and university administration.</p> <p>The advantages of this central position are well summarized by one of the interviewees: "The thing I most love about being a central unit is I really understand the entirety of the ecosystem, in ways that not many people get to. So it's a real privilege" (interviewee 2). Moreover, being part of the Provost's Office in some cases, or closely connected to undergraduate education in most cases, can be very beneficial for CTLs as they are in close contact with other actors on campus involved in teaching and learning—such as student—facing offices, as well as with senior management. As interviewee 10 points out, "access to information I think is one of the most valuable resources that I have."</p> <p>In more decentralized universities, there are various units providing teaching and learning support based at the faculty level (most common in medical schools, but also in engineering and business schools). Disciplinary support that is closer to teaching staff's identity can be viewed as more effective. In these cases, the central CTL plays the role of a hub and facilitator, to help signpost existing support and create connections across departments and disciplines.</p> <p>CTL position is only one indicator of how it is embedded in the university structures. Another element our study investigated was alignment with the institutional vision, referring to various ways of "placing the CTL narrative within the overall university narrative" (interviewee 23). Most interviewees agreed that CTLs' work is more effective when it is aligned to the strategic vision at the university level, for instance, through an intentional connection to strategic priorities—such as curriculum redesign, internationalization, inclusiveness, or academic well-being. They also noted that in the past years, in their capacity as CTL Directors, they have been increasingly involved in various committees where strategic decisions on education are made (e.g., committees that address curriculum affairs, evaluation, and digital education). This provides them with access to information about strategic planning, which is crucial for alignment. However, this is not the case everywhere. Some interviewees mentioned less transparent and participatory strategic planning processes that do not directly involve CTLs. In some cases, CTLs leverage the lack of strategic guidance as an opportunity to be proactive and take initiative on certain topics, which then feed into the institutional strategy. Thus, sometimes CTLs can also help shape the strategic agenda, and not only align with it.</p> <p>Maintaining the balance between being aligned with the institutional vision while still being perceived as a safe space for faculty is one of the main goals of a CTL and can be a sensitive issue. This point becomes more salient as CTLs are more deeply involved in the educational policy-making space and can lead to being perceived as "an arm of the administration."</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-12">Structure and staff</hd> <p>Moving on to the internal aspects, there is a great variety in terms of CTL size and structure, from one- or two-person offices to integrated centers of over 30 people (see Table 1). While small CTLs rely on connections with other actors on campus and, therefore, have a rather flat structure, larger CTLs tend to be organized in different teams, usually according to operational areas (faculty development, graduate students support, educational technology, assessment, and research). Student-facing teams and digital learning teams feature less often. In some cases, the teams are organized according to their target audience (faculty, graduate students, etc.), while in others they are divided by discipline (STEM, humanities...).</p> <p>Integrated CTLs bring together different teams under the same roof, which has both benefits and challenges. "The benefit is that we have so many rich perspectives on the work. It's like a kaleidoscope of work. The challenge is that each of these areas has its own disciplinary culture, its own habits of work," as interviewee 10 pointed out. Building a common identity can be very sensitive and requires intentional action to facilitate collaboration between teams. One example is creating cross-unit teams for various projects; the Covid-19 pandemic offered the opportunity for educational technology and faculty development teams to work closely together.</p> <p>CTL structures are not static. Especially in the recent years, different offices merged with consequences in terms of size and in terms of cohesion and balance among teams. Growth can also bring about more functional differentiation, which can be seen specifically in the case of small CTLs moving towards middle-sized status and striving for more structure while trying to maintain a good working atmosphere.</p> <p>In terms of staff, CTLs employ people with a variety of backgrounds: faculty (from various disciplines), administrative staff, IT specialists, graduate and undergraduate students, etc. Teaching experience and having a PhD are seen to offer credibility to their CTL work. Most of the interviewees mentioned that they strive to use this diversity positively: "Our portfolio is largely reflective of the interest and the passions of the team," as indicated by interviewee 12. However, managing staff with different backgrounds, particularly balancing academic and non-academic positions to create an inclusive environment, can be a challenge.</p> <p>One feature of many CTLs is faculty fellows. Their role, as mentioned by interviewee 21, is to "augment the work of the Center, to really grow it in specific, necessary directions without having to fight the battle of increasing staff." This is particularly important for small and medium-sized CTLs, as it enables them to increase their impact and create a bridge towards discipline-specific support.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-13">Identity</hd> <p>For our research, the concept of identity covers both self-perception and more strategic aspects such as CTL mission and roles. All interviewees emphasize the idea that CTLs are "a safe space for faculty," "a trusted space, or trusted resource," "the pedagogical conscience of the university" (interviewee 5), and "not just a physical space where people come together, but an intellectual and social space" (interviewee 13). This self-projection seems to be largely matched by the way CTLs are perceived by other actors and their target audience on campus, especially after having played a crucial part in ensuring teaching continuity during the Covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, several interviewees mentioned that they want the CTL to be seen as "a place where you intentionally go to improve teaching" (interviewee 12), clearly dissociated from an evaluative or policing role. A sense of neutrality is desired, whereby CTLs are not perceived as "co-opted by institutional systems" (interviewee 5). However, this neutrality is endangered by CTLs increasing involvement in strategic planning and policy-making at the university level, as mentioned above.</p> <p>The core mission of CTLs is to support and strengthen teaching, which in turn leads to meaningful student learning. Building on Schroeder's Mission Matrix Tool for CTLs ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]), two categories of roles can be distinguished: those related to faculty development activities, at the heart of CTL identity, and broader roles connected to the organizational culture at the department and university level. In terms of educational development, most interviewees emphasized the idea of partnering with faculty and helping them develop, rather than teaching or evaluating them. The main role of CTLs is to help faculty understand core pedagogical principles and to go beyond that by exploring concepts such as inclusiveness, belonging, and well-being. More importantly, CTLs aim to create a space for people to come together and reflect on their teaching, both in a structured and less structured manner. In some cases, where research plays an important part in the CTL mission, one of their roles is supporting faculty as "teacher scholars" (interviewee 17), involved in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL).</p> <p>At an institutional level, many interviewees pointed out that CTLs are increasingly playing the role of change agent, striving to influence organizational culture, by creating an environment where "people value talking about teaching" (interviewee 3). More than that, they work towards fostering a "faculty culture of continuous learning" (interviewee 1) for all teaching staff. Some interviewees also mentioned an advocacy role, with CTLs taking the lead to get teaching recognized and valued on par with research and service.</p> <p>Perhaps one of the most important roles of CTLs in their institutional context is that of community building. This is particularly valuable in decentralized universities, where levels of support vary and are often not always well signposted. Yet, this is also found in very small CTLs that have to rely on collaboration and relationship-building to achieve trust and impact. Supporting student learning is, of course, one of the end goals of CTLs, and this is achieved in some cases directly, where CTLs include student-facing teams (rarely) or indirectly, by helping faculty provide high-quality education.</p> <p>The way CTLs approach their diverse roles can be proactive or reactive. While the roles are generally set up according to the strategic vision of the university, they are also often reflective of the areas CTL staff are passionate about or the specific priorities CTLs want to lead. That puts CTLs "in this liminal space where they're both responding to strategic aim but pushing against it as well," as interviewee 10 mentioned. It is important to note that the roles and mission are not fixed, and several interviewees mentioned that an intentional pause occurred to reflect on their CTL's mission after the Covid-19 pandemic.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-14">Social capital</hd> <p>Depending on ambitions and resources, CTLs can take a central role in knowledge sharing and capacity building both within and across institutions, playing the role of "hubs" (Wright, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>]) and being active in "integrated networks of practice" (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]). This relational dimension appears to be key in enhancing the impact and visibility of CTL work. In this third dimension—social capital—we explore the internal and external networks of CTLs.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-15">Internal networks</hd> <p>As most of the interviewees pointed out, CTLs act as hubs in the university ecosystem with a clear overview of who does what on campus and usually being well-connected to other actors. CTLs often need to navigate an intricate network of relationships at the university level (Lindsay, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref45">14</reflink>]), not always very logical and efficient, and they strive to partner with other teams and offices, focusing on awareness of each other's roles and with a clear division of labor based on complementarity.</p> <p>"Nothing happens with teaching and learning on a campus without collaborations. Collaboration is the fuel that drives teaching related change," as interviewee 21 mentioned. The actors that CTLs collaborate with most are educational technology teams, library, student-oriented services, writing centers, faculty advancement teams, continuing education, and teaching and learning units in colleges and departments. Some collaborations are based on specific projects, while others are more long-standing relationships. In some cases, CTL staff members act as liaisons to other units on campus, or as the "expert" and thus the contact person on a specific topic. Many interviewees pointed out that collaboration often starts with informal connections, and personal relationships play an important role in this process. It is nteresting to note that CTLs operate in a "third space," where they consistently interact with both academic staff and with professional services—a position that provides a good vantage point of the institutional ecosystem.</p> <p>However, not in all cases is collaboration easy or possible. Different offices can be "territorial" in protecting their own areas of expertise, and a lot of work is done in silos, characterized by poor communication and often resulting in duplication or lack of coherence. In turn, this can lead to internal tensions. The Covid-19 pandemic increased the scope and intensity of collaborations, specifically including educational technology teams. Joint task forces and learning communities were created, and people from different teams had the opportunity to work together supporting faculty. Although this way of working proved to be effective, it is not yet clear whether (and to what extent) such close collaborations will continue. As one interviewee mentioned, many people seem to be "slowly going back to their silos."</p> <p>One particular case of internal collaboration is the relation between centrally based CTLs and teaching and learning teams at the college or department level. Central CTL programs bring together people from different disciplines, which is a good entry point for more systematic department-based work, consisting of tailor-made programs, often offered in partnership with the departments themselves. CTLs can also play the role of service provider for colleges or departments that want to start their own teaching and learning unit.</p> <p>College- or school-based CTLs focus on discipline-based faculty development. They act as liaisons between colleges and central CTLs, feeding in information about specific needs. Their work is complementary to and supplements the work central to CTL. Where such teams do not exist, or are very small, central CTLs offer faculty fellow schemes, whereby faculty are embedded in their departments but also part of the CTL.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-16">External networks</hd> <p>Alongside internal networks, many CTLs are also active in external networks. The most commonly mentioned network is the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education, where most CTL staff participate in Special Interest Groups. Regional networks that bring together higher education institutions of various types from one geographical area are also popular. However, their usefulness is somewhat questioned, as the member institutions can have different student populations and thus also different teaching and learning challenges. This is why many CTLs tend to network more with centers from universities with the same status (e.g., Ivy Plus, Big 10). Thematic networks (e.g., educational technology, assessment), disciplinary associations (e.g., politics education, engineering education), and research-focused networks (e.g., the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISOTL)) also offer opportunities for CTLs and CTL staff to interact. In some cases, more established collaborations take the form of consortia where universities pool together their resources, which proves particularly valuable for small CTLs.</p> <p>Some networks increased their activities and new networks were created during the Covid-19 pandemic (e.g., the Pandemic Educational Development Research Collaborative). One important point mentioned by all interviewees is that most often the networking is done by CTL Directors and staff individually, with institutional-level networking being less of a priority, despite its perceived usefulness. Moreover, informal connections are seen to be as important as formal networks. Technology plays an important role in facilitating collaboration and external networking across borders, and social media networks such as X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn promote a global, non-hierarchical culture of connectivity.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-17">Activities</hd> <p>The core CTL activities are in the area of learning and development, as they design and deliver a variety of professional development opportunities for teaching staff. This fourth dimension complements the previous three by outlining the principles and methods based on which CTLs engage in educational development and research.</p> <p>All interviewees pointed out that CTL activities need to be grounded in and responsive to faculty needs. The main idea is to help faculty develop—not teach them—and equip them with skills rather than only solving their problems. This happens by building a partnership based on trust between faculty and CTL staff. "We have to meet people where they are at, where they are excited and help them come forward," said interviewee 16. This can take the shape of designing learning paths to address specific needs faculty have at various stages in their careers. Putting teaching staff at the center, as experts, is another way in which CTLs try to create a space for exchange and engagement. These formal or informal conversations are critical, and interviewees wanted to make clear that if CTLs are to become valued conversation partners they should stay away from playing an evaluative role, or what can be seen as "policing."</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-18">Educational development</hd> <p>In terms of educational development programming, interviewee 12 summarized the CTL approach well: "the combination of institutional needs and individual wishes and their mastery, that's how I think about how we drive the programming for our Center." Alongside more "traditional approaches," such as workshops, consultations, and classroom observations, CTLs have developed a variety of new activities post-pandemic, many of them supported by technology. In some cases, there has been a shift of focus away from relying solely on providing individual support and towards combining it with digital resources that faculty can access in their own time, which helps scale up CTL work. CTLs are also facilitating less structured initiatives, such as learning communities, enabling faculty to connect with like-minded peers and support each other. One important thing most interviewees highlighted is the importance of aligning educational development work with institutional-level strategies (e.g., on assessment, technology-enhanced learning) and to strategically involve actors across campus, which resonates with the findings outlined in the previous dimensions.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-19">Assessment</hd> <p>CTLs are often involved in assessing the quality of their own activities and of the educational practices at the university level. This can serve both as a tool to justify the relevance of CTL work to university management and as a contribution to quality assurance concerning the educational offer, in collaboration with other specialized offices on campus. Our research showed that Centers are increasingly hiring for positions related to assessment, or in some cases, contracting external consultants. The most common assessment tools are surveys, but some CTLs are planning to dive deeper using a multi-modal approach that includes peer review and, increasingly, the student voice in order to better grasp the impact at the student level, which is often a challenge. However, not all Centers are willing to invest time and resources in more thorough assessment activities, as they prefer to prioritize educational development activities.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-20">Research</hd> <p>Some CTLs intentionally keep research out of their scope and prefer to use their resources on providing support to faculty by means of workshops, consultations, and other types of activities. The engagement with research depends on institutional factors, as interviewee 7 from a research-intensive university, points out: "we put a lot of energy and resources into this because we feel like research is the language of our university. If we want teaching and learning to be more valued, if we want the work that we do to be more valued, we have to speak the language of the university."</p> <p>The CTLs that are active in research see this as a way to "support teaching and learning from a scholarly perspective" (interviewee 12), by linking their educational development activities with research projects. Moreover, sometimes research is connected to the evaluation of teaching practices and of CTL impact, as seen above. In other contexts, research is perceived as part of CTL staff professional development (writing articles and presenting at conferences), as a way to communicate CTL work and gain visibility nationally and internationally, or as a way to acquire external funding by supporting faculty with writing grant proposals.</p> <p>CTL staff can do research on their own or in collaboration with faculty, or can choose to facilitate and support research done by faculty, as interviewee 3 mentioned: "it's a Center facilitating faculty doing research." Faculty fellowship schemes, learning communities, and small grants or stipends are some of the initiatives that CTLs offer to support research activities.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-21">Organizational context</hd> <p>Next to the four dimensions—(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>) governance, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>) identity, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>) social capital, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>) activities—an overarching theme emerged from the interviews, the organizational context in which the CTLs operate. This refers to several aspects, from the size and type of university, to organizational culture, status of teaching faculty, and university leadership.</p> <p>The type of university, whether private, liberal arts, or community college, has important implications on the student population, in terms of both size and diversity, as well as the overall mission of the institution and the principles it upholds. Moreover, it also plays a role in the size and distribution of the financial resources, which in turn can affect CTL activities, faculty salaries, and ultimately, the quality of teaching. Another important element is the focus on research or teaching. Research-intensive universities do not prioritize teaching, which can be discouraging for faculty to engage in teaching enhancement activities, thus potentially limiting the scope of CTL impact. Conversely, liberal arts colleges focus on teaching and offer a good student-faculty ratio, while specifically encouraging efforts to improve and innovate teaching. The size of the university is an important contextual factor, as usually with increased size comes increased complexity in terms of structures and processes, which can have an impact on the functioning of CTLs. The interviewees belong to institutions of various sizes, from small colleges to very large state universities, some of them with different campuses and even part of university systems (see Table 1).</p> <p>In terms of organizational culture, several themes became apparent in the interviews. The most mentioned is related to the ways of working, whereby different parts of university operate in their own silo. This seems to be particularly notable in decentralized institutions and it is often linked to lack of communication and coordination, leading to duplication in efforts and decreased efficiency. As CTLs' work often overlaps with that of other actors on campus, this "territorial" attitude can affect their overall impact, but at the same time, it can also create opportunities for CTLs to act as a bridge builder between different units. Another theme is linked to the inclusiveness in decision-making at the university level: who is invited to sit at the table when important decisions related to education are taken? As mentioned earlier, CTLs have largely joined these processes during the Covid-19 pandemic, but it is still unclear whether this will be a long-term feature. The perceived importance of continuous professional development was also extensively mentioned by the interviewees, especially in terms of levels of engagement and efforts of the CTLs to make their offer visible on campus.</p> <p>The status and background of teaching faculty are also an important factor that needs to be taken into account when looking at CTLs' work. Tenure track systems differ, as well as the ratio between tenure track and fixed contract faculty. In some cases, faculty is also a practitioner (e.g., in medical schools), which creates a specific context for the activities of CTLs. In other cases, faculty are geographically dispersed, which leads to an increased frequency of online learning that brings along specific roles for CTLs.</p> <p>All these factors, while mostly operating in the background, can influence CTLs' identity and functioning, as we will explore in the discussion section.</p> <p>Based on the findings of the study which identified four primary dimensions and the influence of organizational contextual factors, we propose a new model that integrates these important domains with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of CTLs.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-22">Discussion</hd> <p>Interpreting our data in light of the existing literature and especially the three aforementioned frameworks that cover, to different extents, dimensions which define the functioning of a CTL (Holt et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref50">10</reflink>]; ACE and POD Network, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]; Czerniewicz, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]), we make a distinction between the following dimensions: governance, identity, social capital, and activities, positioned within the overarching theme of the organizational context (see Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 The four-dimensional CTL model (4DCTL)</p> <p>Governance refers to the various elements that define the operation of a CTL at the institution: its position in the institutional structure, its alignment with the university strategy, and its internal organization in terms of size, structure, and staffing. Identity stands for the way CTLs perceive their position and carve out their roles within the university context. Social capital focuses on the relationships CTLs build on campus and beyond, which are at the core of their existence and functioning. Activities relate to the various programs and tasks CTLs are engaging in, with a core focus on educational development but also extending to research and impact assessment.</p> <p>In the ideal case, these four dimensions are strongly aligned. Only by analyzing them and their alignment can we do justice to the complexity of CTLs and understand their interactions with the environment. The organizational context, specific to each institution, plays an important role that will be analyzed in connection to each dimension. In some cases, for instance, even though a CTL is fully aligned with the institutional vision, this does not automatically translate into efficient functioning. Conversely, a more autonomous CTL could be an arena for discussion and critical review of institutional policies and objectives.</p> <p>Structuring our results across the four dimensions enables us to better understand not only the internal complexity of CTLs but also their interactions with the environment in which they operate. This holistic approach provides valuable insights into how CTLs work at various levels that combine organizational, relational, and behavioral aspects. By exploring how the four dimensions impact and reinforce each other, we hope to shed light on how CTLs can carve their space in the institutional framework, shape their identity, and play their roles in relation to other actors on campus.</p> <p>Firstly, the position of a CTL can shape the overall scope of its work, its identity, and the way it is perceived by its audience. The internal organizational aspects of a CTL—such as size, structure, and staff backgrounds—have a direct impact on the number, type, and frequency of activities and the way these activities are designed and conducted. The variety of staff backgrounds found in most CTLs is often mirrored in the diversity of their activities. Moreover, our research shows that most external networking is done by CTL staff and not the CTL as a unit. Therefore, the hiring and professional development processes have an impact on building social capital. The level of interaction, and thus the CTL's social capital, is increased when the Center's mission and work are well-aligned with the overall institutional vision, and CTL Directors are involved in the educational policy-making space. However, one potential pitfall is the loss of confidence from the primary target audience (faculty) as CTLs are likely to become more embedded in the system and viewed as less of a safe, neutral space.</p> <p>Secondly, CTL identity is closely connected with the choice of activities and their guiding principles, but also with the types of relations the CTL establishes with other actors and networks. Despite their variety, one common thread found across CTLs is the aim of providing a "safe space for faculty" to learn and share, without judgement or negative implications for career progression. This part of the CTLs' identity is increasingly challenged by their closer integration with university administration. Centers have been taking on various roles at an institutional level such as striving to change organizational culture by increasing the visibility of teaching; community building by providing space and opportunities to share teaching practices; or even an advocacy role by taking the lead on certain initiatives (e.g., diversity and inclusion or technology-enhanced learning). While these roles can provide CTLs with increased visibility and potentially a greater impact, they slowly move away from the neutrality they had deemed central to their existence. Although this in itself is not negative and can be seen as a sign of CTLs' ability to adapt to new circumstances, it does bring about the necessity for CTLs to constantly reassess their identity and core mission.</p> <p>Thirdly, social capital, as a crucial aspect in the functioning of a CTL, influences the way it runs its activities, its very identity, and the way it is embedded in the institutional framework. The majority of interviewees identified the creation of connections as one of the main roles of their CTL. Internally, collaborating with various teams on campus ensures that faculty receive coherent and comprehensive support while at the same time consolidating the position of the CTL at the institutional level. Externally, plugging into national and international networks can raise the overall profile of the CTL and create opportunities for further growth and development. The two types of networks (internal and external) can complement and reinforce each other and CTLs may decide where to direct their efforts according to their mission, goals at a specific moment, and their resources.</p> <p>Lastly, its activities can shape how the Center is perceived and the influence it has within the institutional setup. The choice of activities, as well as the frequency and modality, are closely linked to CTL mission and its internal organization, but also with the different connections it builds on and off campus. Aligning educational development work with institutional-level strategies (e.g., on assessment, technology-enhanced learning) and strategically involving actors across campus can lead to a higher reach and potential impact. The level of engagement with CTL activities, combined with its reputation, can sometimes lead to a step up on the institutional ladder, as was the case during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, other factors related to organizational culture can have an influence on whether or not CTLs can maintain the status achieved through their activities and engagement.</p> <p>The organizational setup of the institutions where CTLs are embedded has an impact on all four dimensions of the model. Firstly, the type of institution plays a role in the mandate, scope, and size of the CTL. Large state universities, small liberal arts colleges, Ivy League universities, and community colleges all have different target audiences, student-to-teacher ratio, and overall goals and identity. All these factors contribute to the CTL identity and governance, while also determining the type of activities they develop. Additionally, the degree to which an institution is research-intensive or teaching-oriented has direct implications on the role teaching quality plays and, consequently, in making structures and resources available to support faculty with their teaching practice, as well as "creating recognition rich environments for teaching," as mentioned by an interviewee. This links back to CTL identity and mission and several aspects related to governance. Finally, a hierarchical environment often encountered in higher education and the practice of working in silos (e.g., disciplinary area, faculty vs administration, pedagogical support vs IT support, faculty support vs student support) shape the way CTLs conduct their activities and especially their relations with other actors on campus, as discussed under the dimension of social capital.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-23">Questions for consideration</hd> <p>Based on how the results of our model could be used, we propose <emph>four main questions</emph> that provide a framework for CTLs to reflect on their current functioning and indicate directions for future research:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How does the CTLs' governance and alignment with the institutional vision impact their practices?</item> <p></p> <item> How do the various roles played by CTLs shape their identity?</item> <p></p> <item> How do CTLs build their social capital and is this internally and/or externally focused?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the CTL trademark programs and does research feature within the CTL activities?</item> </ulist> <p>As CTLs do not operate in a vacuum, these questions cannot be fully answered without considering the underlying aspect of the organizational context. The way CTLs are positioned, the activities they choose to offer, relations with other actors, and their very identity are heavily influenced by the culture of their respective institution. Our research has shown that CTLs are being increasingly proactive in interacting with this culture and even attempting to change it by making teaching a central focus, while enabling staff and students to learn more effectively.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-24">Limitations and suggestions for future research</hd> <p>Exploring the alignment of the four dimensions and their intersection with the organizational context provides a comprehensive picture for understanding how CTLs function and interact with their environment. However, this study was based on data gathered in a particular context—higher education institutions in the USA. In order to further develop and validate our model, future research could focus on different contexts, both from the geographical point of view and in terms of institutional system and typology.</p> <p>The empirical data for this research was gathered from CTL Directors through expert interviews. While their experiences are very valuable in unravelling the complexity of CTL work, future studies could gather data from different CTL staff, to grasp the various nuances of the CTL landscape. Moreover, network analysis could be conducted to explore how CTLs interact with the various actors on campus and beyond.</p> <p>Lastly, this study captured CTLs at a certain moment in their evolution—incidentally a high point due to their role in the Covid-19 pandemic. Longitudinal studies could shed light on how CTLs and their position in universities evolve over time, providing rich data with implications both for research and for practice.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-25">Implications for practice</hd> <p>Understanding how and why the four dimensions align—or not—is important in building meaningful CTL work. The results of this study could be used by CTL leadership and staff in the following ways:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Reflective evaluation</emph>: Evaluating where a CTL falls within each dimension can assist with meaningful and intentional work. If, for instance, internal networks are strong but the CTL has very few or weak external networks, there is an opportunity for growth based on that assessment. Likewise, if a center is struggling after being merged with another unit, having a better understanding of the positionality dimension can lead to finding ways to create a more cohesive team.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>A framework to share</emph>: Having a framework to share with academic leadership allows CTLs to create a shared vocabulary, scope of work, and expectation based on evidence and CTL practices in the field of learning and development. This model can be used to provide validation, which can help protect the CTL's work and scope.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Mapping evolution</emph>: Seeing how CTLs have changed and evolved over time is also a valuable way to use the model, to better understand their evolution through the four dimensions.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Informing reorganization, restructuring, and mergers</emph>: This framework could be used to help CTLs who are in the midst of integrating or merging with other institutional units/departments, or who are in the midst of strategically planning to be agile and adaptable to changing needs in the future.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0190548568-26">Conclusions</hd> <p>Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) have been playing an increasingly important role in the higher education landscape, undergoing a series of changes in terms of position, structure, and capabilities in the past decades. While existing studies cover particular aspects of CTL work, an empirically validated, integrative perspective on the functioning of CTLs is still missing.</p> <p>By interviewing 25 CTL directors across American higher education institutions, we aimed to capture their experience and use it to map the various dimensions of CTL work. With its four dimensions—governance, identity, social capital, and activities—our model integrates insights from educational science with organizational management and learning and development. This multidimensional approach allows for an in-depth exploration of CTLs at different levels, providing important insights for understanding CTL performance and challenges.</p> <p>Based on our results, we propose four questions that can constitute a framework to support CTL staff and leadership to reflect on their current practices as well as guide future design or redesign decisions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>) How does the CTLs' governance and alignment with the institutional vision impact their practices? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>) How do the various roles played by CTLs shape their identity? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>) How do CTLs build their social capital and is this internally or externally focused? (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>) What are the CTL trademark programs and does research feature within the CTL activities?</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-27">Funding</hd> <p>Data collection for this research was funded through the Fulbright Scholars Program.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-28">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190548568-29">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0190548568-30">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0190548568-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> ACE and POD Network. (2018). A center for teaching and learning matrix. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from podnetwork.org</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bogner A, Menz WBogner A, Littig B, Menz W. The theory-generating expert interview: Epistemological interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. Interviewing experts. 2009; Palgrave Macmillan UK: 43-80. 10.1057/9780230244276_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3; 2: 77-101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clark DJ, Saulnier BM. Broadening the role of the teaching and learning center: From transforming faculty to transforming institutions. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning. 2010; 2: 111-130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Czerniewicz, L. (2021). Changing centres of teaching and learning an analytical review. UCT. Retrieved October 23, 2022, from <ulink href="http://hdl.handle.net/11427/33848">http://hdl.handle.net/11427/33848</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref2" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dickens E, Cruz L, Alderson J, Atias D, Graham R, Hurney C, Parker M, Smentkowski B, Smitherman M, Thomas M, Troisi J, Vincent-Layton K, Wang C. Starting a center for teaching and learning. POD Speaks. 2019; 3: 1-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref37" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Döringer S. The problem-centred expert interview. Combining qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2021; 24; 3: 265-278. 10.1080/13645579.2020.1766777</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Ellis R, Goodyear P. The education ecology of universities: Integrating learning, strategy and the academy. 2019; Routledge. 10.4324/9781351135863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Havnes A, Stensaker B. Educational development centres: From educational to organisational development?. Quality Assurance in Education. 2006; 14; 1: 7-20. 10.1108/09684880610643584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holt D, Palmer S, Challis D. Changing perspectives: Teaching and learning centres' strategic contributions to academic development in Australian higher education. International Journal for Academic Development. 2011; 16; 1: 5-17. 10.1080/1360144X.2011.546211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley B, Cruz L, Fire N. Moving toward the center: The integration of educational development in an era of historic change in higher education. To Improve the Academy. 2017; 36; 1: 1-8. 10.1002/tia2.20052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4). Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolomitro K, Anstey LM. A survey on evaluation practices in teaching and learning centres. International Journal for Academic Development. 2017; 22; 3: 186-198. 10.1080/1360144X.2017.1313162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsay P. Teaching centers as teaching advocates: Navigating university politics. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning. 2011; 3: 7-20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little D. Reflections on the state of the scholarship of educational development. To Improve the Academy. 2014; 33; 1: 1-13. 10.1002/tia2.20005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meuser M, Nagel UBogner A, Littig B, Menz W. The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. Interviewing experts. 2009; Palgrave Macmillan UK: 17-42. 10.1057/9780230244276_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray LC. Book review: The problem-centred interview. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2016; 10; 1: 112-113. 10.1177/1558689815577032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naffi, N, Davidson, A.-L, Snyder, D, Kaufman, R, Clark, R. E, Patino, A, Gbetoglo, E, Duponsel, N, Savoie, C, Beatty, B, Wallace, G, Fournel, I, Ruby, I, &amp; Paquelin, D. (2020). Whitepaper: Disruption in and by centres for teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic leading the future of higher ed. Observatoire international sur les impacts sociétaux de l'IA et du numérique (OBVIA). Retrieved March, 25, 2022, from https://<ulink href="http://www.docdroid.com/L0khasC/whitepaper-disruption-in-and-by-centres-for-teaching-and-learning-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-leading-the-future-of-higher-ed-21-08-2020-pdf#page=3">www.docdroid.com/L0khasC/whitepaper-disruption-in-and-by-centres-for-teaching-and-learning-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-leading-the-future-of-higher-ed-21-08-2020-pdf#page=3</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmer S, Holt D, Challis D. Australian teaching and learning centres through the eyes of their directors: Characteristics, capacities and constraints. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2010; 32; 2: 159-172. 10.1080/13600800903575454</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schroeder, C. (2011). Coming in from the margins: Faculty development's emerging organizational development role in institutional change (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003443476</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schroeder C. Unpacking and communicating the multidimensional mission of educational development: A mission matrix tool for centers of teaching and learning. To Improve the Academy. 2015; 34; 1–2: 20-62. 10.1002/tia2.20030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor KL, Kenny NA, Perrault E, Mueller RA. Building integrated networks to develop teaching and learning: The critical role of hubs. International Journal for Academic Development. 2022; 27; 3: 279-291. 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1899931</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trotter H, Huang C-W, Czerniewicz L. Seeking equity, agility, and sustainability in the provision of emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A center for teaching and learning takes an expanded role. Higher Learning Research Communications. 2022; 12: 1-24. 10.5590/10.18870/hlrc.v12i0.1280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, M. C. (2011). Measuring a teaching center's effectiveness. In C. E. Cook, &amp; M. Kaplan (Eds.), Advancing the culture of teaching on campus: How a teaching center can make a difference. Stylus.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, M. C. (2023). Centers for teaching and learning: The new landscape in higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zakrajsek T. Documenting and assessing the work of the CTL. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning. 2018; 10: 59-71</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Alexandra I. Mihai; Amber L. Dailey-Hebert and Simon Beausaert</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref45"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1500626 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Understanding the Complexity of Centers for Teaching and Learning: Introducing a Four-Dimensional Model – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alexandra+I%2E+Mihai%22">Alexandra I. Mihai</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9024-7338">0000-0001-9024-7338</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amber+L%2E+Dailey-Hebert%22">Amber L. Dailey-Hebert</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6910-2783">0000-0001-6910-2783</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simon+Beausaert%22">Simon Beausaert</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3036-8143">0000-0002-3036-8143</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education%3A+The+International+Journal+of+Higher+Education+Research%22"><i>Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 90(6):1693-1712. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 20 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Centers%22">Teacher Centers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Governance%22">Governance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Identity%22">Professional Identity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Capital%22">Social Capital</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Activities%22">Learning Activities</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s10734-025-01399-y – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0018-1560<br />1573-174X – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) are gaining visibility in the higher education landscape as key actors that support universities in providing high-quality education and fostering a culture that values teaching and learning. While existing research on CTLs typically focuses on evaluation, impact, or institutionally context-specific work, we sought to unearth a framework that could be universally applied to understanding CTL work and functionality. Following data collection and 25 interviews with CTL Directors from higher education institutions across the USA, we created an integrative approach that brings together organizational, behavioral, and relational perspectives. The four dimensions--governance, identity, social capital, and activities--enable us to investigate CTLs from various angles and at different levels, providing valuable clues for understanding CTL performance and challenges. This integrative model can also be used as a framework to inform CTL design decisions. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1500626 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1500626 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10734-025-01399-y Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 20 StartPage: 1693 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Teacher Centers Type: general – SubjectFull: Models Type: general – SubjectFull: Higher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Governance Type: general – SubjectFull: Faculty Development Type: general – SubjectFull: College Faculty Type: general – SubjectFull: Professional Identity Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Capital Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Activities Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Understanding the Complexity of Centers for Teaching and Learning: Introducing a Four-Dimensional Model Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Alexandra I. Mihai – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Amber L. Dailey-Hebert – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Simon Beausaert IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0018-1560 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-174X Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 90 – Type: issue Value: 6 Titles: – TitleFull: Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
