One of the many ironies about universities are its hiring processes. Universities need good teachers, and so of course they find the best researchers to fill those jobs. It was an understanding of the problematic nature of this approach that led to the creation of various activities in universities designed to assist professors in developing their craft as teachers. This in turn led to a more sophisticated understanding of teaching as merely the complement of learning, and from there it was a short step to the creation of Centers of Teaching and Learning, often called CTLs. These offices have become pretty ubiquitous in modern universities, though the strategies, goals, tactics, and efficacy can vary a lot from one campus to another.

With me today is Mary C. Wright. She’s the Associate Provost of Teaching and Learning at Brown University, and also the author of the recent book, Centers of Teaching and Learning, the New Landscape in Higher Education, from Johns Hopkins Press. Her book is the result of one of the most comprehensive set of web scrapings I’ve ever seen, but it’s carefully done. This approach yields some real insights into the differences among CTLs in terms of their strategies, goals, and tactics, and the result is a very rare and high quality look under the hood at how one piece of the modern university operates right across the wild west that is the U.S. higher education system.

One of the most interesting threads in the discussion Mary and I had is about CTLs acting as agents of change within institutions. They often do this from a position of weakness, particularly when they’re mostly staffed by untenured workers who, let’s face it, tend not to have a lot of power in very status conscious universities. And yet, despite this, their advocacy for students, and in particular for creating inclusive learning environments, goes on. And many can count themselves successful in moving the needle on institutional culture to be more focused on the acts of teaching and learning. But enough from me, let’s turn it over to Mary.

---

The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.5 | Centers for Teaching and Learning with Mary C. Wright

Transcript

Alex Usher (AU): Mary, you’ve written a book on Centers for Teaching and Learning. What are the aims of these centers? What are they trying to accomplish within an institution, and how has their mission changed over time?

Mary C. Wright (MW): Thanks for the question, Alex, and thank you for having me on this podcast. In the book, I looked at over 1,200 U.S. Centers for Teaching and Learning, and I examined what I call “statements of purpose”—their mission, vision, values, and goals as listed on their websites. From that analysis, I found that the centers’ aims have changed compared to a study done 10 years ago.

Currently, the most frequent ambition is to support student learning, which represents a significant increase from the previous study by Connie Schroeder. This takes the form of supporting student success, creating effective and equitable learning environments, focusing on student learning outcomes, and to a lesser degree, supporting student-faculty partnerships and lifelong learning.

I think this shift has happened for a few reasons. First, there have been increasing requirements in U.S. higher education, particularly from accreditors, to show leadership in student success initiatives and assessment. Second, books like Great College Teaching by Corbin Campbell highlight that what the US public most wants from institutions is evidence of excellent teaching, and centers are responding to that demand. Finally, there’s a growing body of evidence showing that professional learning around teaching—one of the core functions of these centers—has a positive impact on student learning outcomes and success. I also saw some new aims emerge that hadn’t appeared in previous research. One is a focus on scholarly and creative work, which is interesting given that these centers are primarily known for supporting teaching and learning. Centres are taking a more holistic approach to supporting to faculty development and also focus on supporting research and scholarly initiatives. Another emergent focus is diversity, equity, and inclusion.

One last thing I’ll note is a decrease in focus on supporting the institutional mission, strategic plans, and goals. I speculate this is because centers increasingly see themselves as change agents—working both within and, at times, against the institution. But this tricky middle ground could be a challenge for them moving forward.

AU: So, those are the aims. But what do these centers actually do? There’s a wide variety of activities they could engage in to reach those goals. How similar are CTLs to one another in terms of what they actually do?

MW: I’m glad you ask that question, Alex. There’s a stereotype in U.S. higher education that centers only focus on one-on-one consultations or the one-off brief workshops. But what I found from analyzing their websites is that there’s actually a wide variety of tactics they use. While one-on-one work with individual instructors is still common, many centers have scaled up their efforts to focus on broader levels, such as course-level work, departmental initiatives, and institution-wide efforts, including assessment.

AU: One thing I found interesting in your book is that you created a typology for these centers, based partly on their missions and also on the tactics they use. You call it the HITS Framework—hubs, incubators, temples (I like that one), and sieves. How does this framework help explain the diversity of Centers for Teaching and Learning across the country?

MW: The HITS Framework is actually less about tactics. In the book, I say that maybe centres focus a bit too much on programs and services and that we really need to be pivoting to talking more about strategy. I adapted the HITS Framework from a 2000 Annual Review of Sociology article, where three sociologists (Michell Stevens, Elizabeth Armstrong, and Richard Arum) categorized higher education literature using metaphors. I borrowed and stretched their metaphors to help understand the theories of change that centers use. For example, to take the response of your previous question, if student success is the aim, how will we get there? How will we achieve them? So that’s what I use as a typology to understand the strategies that centres are using.

A hub strategy is the most commonly applied theory of change at these centers. As the name suggests, centers act as conveners, connectors, and coordinators. The next most frequent theory of change is the sieve strategy, which focuses on evidence-based practices, assessment, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. So, just like a sieve it filters and screens out ineffective practices. The remaining two—incubators and temples—are more common at four-year and master’s institutions, though less common overall. Incubators support growth and development, with tactics like new faculty orientation or grant programs. Temples aim to elevate the value of teaching and learning by providing spaces for recognition and reward.

AU: Those are the strategies. Is there evidence that some of these models are more effective than others at driving institutional change? And how do issues of structure and goals intersect with questions of leadership and governance models?

MW: There’s evidence that all of these strategies can be effective, and I present pros and cons for each in the book. When it comes to the associated tactics, there’s varying levels of evidence. I argue that in resource-constrained times, it’s essential for centers to align their aims, strategies, and tactics to ensure there’s no misalignment.

Regarding leadership and governance, I make three key points in the book. First, engagement structures are critical for centers to stay connected with key stakeholders, whether through formal mechanisms like advisory boards or informal programs like student partnerships or faculty fellow. This connection is vital, especially since many centers are administrative units in institutions where shared governance is common. So to make change, it is important for CTLs to position itself by staying connected to both administration and faculty.

Second, most centers are led by faculty, though this is less common at larger centers like the one I work at. I’m personally agnostic on whether centers must be led by faculty, as there are many ways to achieve authority and credibility beyond a faculty title. However, I think rotational faculty leadership can be a disadvantage because it underestimates the importance of educational development as a specialized field and so we need to honour that by having enduring leadership.

AU: Maybe you could tell me a bit more about the balance between faculty and non-academic staff within a CTL. How does the makeup of the staff influence how a center functions? For example, are hubs or temples more likely to be run by non-academic staff?

MW: That’s an interesting question, Alex. I’m not sure it’s one that I directly address that in the book, but faculty engagement is important across all HITS strategies. In my chapter on Center for Teaching and Learning evaluation, I mention that centers using a hub strategy should carefully track faculty reach as a key metric if they’re using a hub theory of change, given that their theory of change revolves around connection and convening.

AU: Interesting. In the book, you mention the challenge of centers acting as change agents, given that universities are famously resistant to change. So for a CTL to be in a position of trying to change a university, that’s a huge challenge and I imagine that is one of the reasons why CTLs have traditionally shied away from trying to influence institutional policies. How have centers become more engaged in this space, and what advice would you give to a CTL looking to be more of a change agent?

MW: You’re right that policymaking is rarely mentioned on CTL websites—I found it on only about 1% of them. It could be simply because that isn’t the kind of thing that we put on our website. For example, I do committee work but that doesn’t appear on our website. However, centers have traditionally positioned themselves in the policy implementation space, using social networks and learning communities as powerful change agents to move policies forward. But I think this is shifting.

Centers have been cautious about policymaking, possibly because they don’t want to be seen as too top-down. Another challenge is that many centers are administrative units, not academic units, and their leaders don’t always have tenured appointments, which can make it harder to participate in key committees and governance processes.

That said, to scale their work, centers are realizing that they need to be more involved in policy leadership. One recommendation I make is for senior leaders to appoint CTL directors or staff to key committees to help amplify their impact. However, I also caution that top-down policy changes are often less effective than strategies that involve co-developing a shared vision or creating a community of practice. Which was studied about 10 years ago by three STEM education researchers, Maura Borrego, Charles Henderson, and Andrea Beach who reviewed almost 200 articles on change management and categorized them into four main change strategies. So, I do think that centres have a really valuable way to be in the change space through implementing a shared vision of what that policy might look like.

AU: Your book primarily focuses on U.S. Centers for Teaching and Learning, but have you looked at similar centers outside the U.S.? Are there significant differences in their structure or influence?

MW: That’s a great question, and yes, there are definitely some key differences. One difference, beyond the spelling of “centre” versus “center,” is in how professional learning is incentivized for academic staff. In the U.S., it’s mostly voluntary, and faculty have a lot of autonomy in how they implement what they learn. In other countries, professional learning is more often required.

I think this difference in incentivization leads to different approaches. For U.S. centers, the focus has to be on figuring out what motivates faculty to participate if it’s not mandatory. Another difference is that U.S. centers, historically, have been more focused on tactics—programs and services—rather than larger strategies. This is something that’s changing, but as Graham Gibbs, a UK educational developer, has noted, the U.S. might be a little behind in adopting a more strategic approach. One reason for this is that the U.S. doesn’t have a centralized higher education system. We don’t have a central coordinating body issuing mandates or reports, so we’re more responsive to regional or professional accreditors. This tends to create a focus on specific initiatives like critical thinking or active learning, which vary widely in their implementation.

Lastly, in other countries, central government strategies can have a more direct impact on CTLs. For example, in the mid-2010s, the Chinese government made a significant investment in developing model research universities, which included funding for Centers for Teaching and Learning. In 2013, I traveled with colleagues to the Ministry of Education in China and conducted a multi-day workshop with educational developers there on how to run CTLs. I admire how some countries recognize the importance of continuous professional learning and invest heavily in it.

AU: Let me ask you one last question. Teaching has undergone significant shifts since the pandemic, with the rise of digital and hybrid teaching and now AI in the classroom. How do you see these trends impacting the role of Centers for Teaching and Learning over the next decade?

MW: I definitely think centers are evolving in response to these trends, as well as to others that predate COVID. One change I talk about in the book is the trend toward integration in U.S. centers, what I call the rise of the “integrated Center for Teaching and Learning.” These are centers that are starting to bring together functions that were traditionally housed elsewhere in the academy, like instructional technology, online learning, and even research and creative work. Holistic professional learning is becoming more of a focus, along with things like assessment and service learning.

Another change is that centers are responding to resource constraints that are affecting higher education more broadly. We’re seeing centers collaborate with other institutions more often, sometimes on small things like a shared event, but also for more ongoing programming. I also stress the importance of alignment—making sure that centers stay focused on their core theory of change and avoid trying to do everything. Mission creep is a real risk for centers, especially when administrators tend to see them as places to house all sorts of functions.

A third shift is the rise of learning-focused aims. Centers are now focusing not only on student learning and success, but also on faculty learning and organizational learning. Learning is really at the heart of what centers are doing now, and I think there’s growing evidence that centers are making a difference in these areas.

Ultimately, I hope the book shows the power of a good Center for Teaching and Learning to contribute to institutional effectiveness, improve the faculty experience, and advance equitable student outcomes. But I also see centers as critical for helping colleges and universities become learning organizations. With all the crises and challenges that seem to come up every week, institutions need to develop institutional resilience, and centers are well-positioned to help navigate those challenges.

AU: Mary, thank you so much for being with us today.

MW: Thank you for having me, Alex.

AU: And that’s it for today. Thanks to our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to you, our listeners. If you have any comments or questions, please get in touch with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education. Join us next week when we’ll be speaking with Marijk van de Wende from Utrecht University about the cuts being imposed on universities by the new government in the Netherlands. See you then.

*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.