What are Centers for Teaching and Learning?
Centers for Teaching and Learning promote pedagogical and curricular improvement through faculty development activities such as workshops, seminars, and conferences. Some centers also promote the scholarship of teaching and learning by supporting faculty research on college teaching practices. On some campuses, teaching centers provide targeted support for new faculty, teaching assistants, adjunct faculty, and senior faculty undergoing post-tenure review.
Many of these centers were founded in the 1980s and early 1990s in response to public concerns regarding the quality of undergraduate education. According to a HofstraUniversity clearinghouse, there are at least 304 teaching and learning centers in the US. Nearly every research extensive and research intensive university has a center for teaching and learning.
How are these centers organized?
Two variables differentiate how most teaching and learning centers are organized. The first variable is governance: faculty governed or administratively driven. Faculty-governed centers are led by a faculty member who serves as director of the center. Administratively-driven centers are led by instructional designers or professional staff members who are not faculty. The second variable is whether instructional technology support for faculty is also included in the mission of the center. On some campuses, instructional technology is part of the mission of the center; on other campuses, a separate unit provides these services to faculty. The array of different organizational structures is displayed in the table below.
Administratively Driven / Faculty GovernedInstructional Technology in a Separate Unit / Northeastern University, Center for EffectiveUniversity Teaching
PortlandStateUniversity, Center for Academic Excellence
University of WisconsinMilwaukee, Center for Instructional and Professional Development / UMass Boston, Center for the Improvement of Teaching (CIT)
University of Illinois Chicago, Council for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
University of Oklahoma, Instructional Development Program
WesternCarolinaUniversity, CoulterFacultyCenter for Excellence in Teaching
HofstraUniversity, Center for Teaching and Scholarly Excellence
Instructional Technology as part of the Center / IndianaUniversityPurdueUniversityIndianapolis, Center for Teaching and Learning
University of MassachusettsAmherst, Center for Teaching / University of Southern California, Center for Excellence in Teaching
Is one model better than another? Like any question involving “best practices,” the appropriate structure depends on the institutional context and goals. However, research by Adrianna Kezar at the University of Southern Californiaand Peter Eckel at the American Council on Education (ACE) suggests that a faculty-governed structure is more likely to generate long-term commitment to teaching improvement, and is more likely to yield innovations that enhance student learning.
What resources are necessary to support teaching and learning centers?
The scope and mission of a teaching and learning center will determine the types of resources necessary to support effective performance. Institutional size also plays a determining role with more resources necessary in larger institutions.
In order to facilitate appropriate comparisons, the table below includes information from faculty-governed teaching and learning centers that do not have responsibilities for instructional technology support. These centers are organized in the same way as the Center for the Improvement of Teaching at UMass Boston.
Institution / Type of Resources AllocatedHofstraUniversity /
- Reassigned time for center director (faculty member in legal studies)
- Reassigned time for associate director of the center (faculty member in journalism)
- Full-time administrative assistant
- Reassigned time for three faculty project leaders (academic program evaluation, student outcomes assessment, and writing across the curriculum)
- Multiple teaching awards, course releases, and services for faculty (This is fairly typical of all centers for teaching and learning.)
- Online resources and web site
WesternCarolinaUniversity /
- Reassigned time for center director (faculty member in religious studies)
- Reassigned time for associate director of the center (faculty member in mathematics and computer science)
- Full-time office manager
- Multiple teaching awards, course releases, and services for faculty
- Online resources and web site
University of IllinoisChicago /
- Reassigned time for center director (faculty member in pharmacology)
- Full-time project coordinator
- Multiple teaching awards, course releases, and services for faculty and teaching assistants
- Online resources and web site
University of Oklahoma /
- Reassigned time for center director (faculty member in geography)
- Reassigned time for associate director of the center (faculty member in education)
- Full-time administrative assistant
- Multiple teaching awards, course releases, and services for faculty and teaching assistants
- Online resources and web site
It is important to note that the resources necessary for an administratively-driven center are typically much higher than for a faculty-governed center. PortlandStateUniversity’s Center for Academic Excellence, for example, supports nine full-time professional staff members in addition to the awards, course releases, and internal grants provided to faculty members. The University of Wisconsin Milwaukee’s Center for Instructional and Professional Development supports four full-time professional staff members in addition to the resources provided directly to faculty members.And the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Center for Teaching employs six full-time administrators and staff members, as well as four graduate assistants.
Which trends will shape teaching and learning centers in the future?
Without question, the diversity of college students will continue to shape the agenda for teaching and learning centers across the US. College classrooms today are more likely than ever to include adult learners, students who are first in their families to attend college, English language learners, low-income students, recent immigrants, students with disabilities, and students from traditionally under-represented racial and ethnic backgrounds. These dramatic changes in student populations necessitate equally dramatic changes in the ways that higher education organizes teaching and learning. After decades of blaming students for their lack of preparation, faculty members and academic leaders are now beginning to take much more seriously the need to re-examine and reform curricula and teaching practices.
Research by Sylvia Hurtado and Mitchell Chang at UCLA, Ernest Pascarella at the University of Iowa, and George Kuh at Indiana University shows that students who participate in diversity-related academic activities have greater improvements in critical thinking, factual knowledge, and civic leadership development than their peers who did not have these types of experiences. Pedagogical approaches that empower student voices and that engage students actively in academic content have been shown to improve learning outcomes for all students, regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, centers for teaching and learning are challenged to promote pedagogical and curricular changes that will help students and institutions realize the educational benefits of diversity.
The Center for the Improvement of Teaching (CIT) and the New EnglandCenter for Inclusive Teaching (NECIT) at UMass Boston are at the forefront of this trend in higher education. For more than 20 years, CIT has promoted inclusive teaching practices that empower student voices in a dynamic urban learning environment. Established in 2003, NECIT promotes these practices and perspectives across New England. NECIT has worked intensively with seven institutions over a two-year period to revitalize and re-orient their faculty development programs toward advancing the educational benefits of diversity.
NECIT is unique in the national higher education landscape. It is the only multi-institutional faculty development network in the nation that focuses on institutional transformation and the educational benefits of diversity. The only comparable programs are the New Jersey Project at WilliamPatersonUniversity and the WashingtonCenter for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education at Evergreen State College. These centers employ a multi-institutional framework to improve faculty development programs, but only NECIT and the New Jersey Project have an explicit focus on the educational benefits of diversity. And only NECIT provides an intensive faculty developmentexperience that builds grassroots leadership for faculty-governed teaching centers.
CIT and NECIT provide new models for faculty development that are based in sophisticated understandings of how students learn. These new models are founded on principles of grassroots collaborative leadership across multiple institutions of higher education. These collaborative experiences have generated shared understandings from which faculty, staff, and administrators have developed positive strategies for pedagogical and institutional change. Through future projects, CIT and NECIT will work with faculty, staff, and administrators at the regional and national levels to promote pedagogical approaches that advance the educational benefits of diversity. Our collaborative projects will emphasize inclusive teaching, interdisciplinary dialogue, and access and equity for all students in higher education.
Prepared by Jay R. Dee, Associate Professor, Graduate College of Education, UMass Boston (October 2005)
Email: , Telephone: 617.287.7694
1