Inclusive teaching has become one of the most frequently written about topics in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and Educational Development. However, the field’s advancement is limited by an overreliance on faculty perspectives, affective student measurement, and a lack of measurement tools for specific instructor behaviors that promote inclusion. The present study took a multi-step, mixed-methods approach to the initial development of a power-sharing practices checklist. The authors created the initial items based on the examination of the literature and focus groups with both faculty and students. The checklist was administered to 276 students and 32 instructors. Results demonstrate initial reliability and validity of the checklist and its relationship to college persistence, university belonging, intrinsic motivation, and professor-student rapport. Students and faculty differed on their perceptions of power-sharing in the classroom, suggesting that faculty attitudes are not always translating to the student experience. Implications for educational developers working to support inclusive pedagogy are provided.
Graduate student instructors (GSIs) play a critical role in higher education, serving as instructors of record for a substantial portion of courses at research universities. This study evaluates the structure and processes of Duke University Graduate School’s Teaching Triangles (TT) program, an interdisciplinary peer observation and feedback process designed to prepare graduate students for academic careers. Guided by the framework of communities of practice (CoP), this study explores how TT fosters pedagogical development, interdisciplinary learning, and professional preparation for GSIs. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, the study analyzes 694 reflections from GSIs who participated in TT between Fall 2011 and Summer 2022. The findings indicate that TT effectively fosters a supportive environment for GSIs, promoting pedagogical self-reflection, confidence growth, and the adoption of improved teaching practices. Female GSIs, in particular, reported notable confidence gains, aligning with existing literature on gender and teaching self-efficacy. GSIs also valued the interdisciplinary nature of the program, which broadened their perspectives on teaching across various disciplines. Additionally, peer evaluation emerged as a key strength, allowing GSIs to experiment with new strategies in a non-hierarchical, low-stakes setting. This study provides recommendations for enhancing the TT program, such as modifying discussion formats to encourage timely feedback, expanding opportunities for long-term peer engagement, and developing a framework for continued evaluation. The findings emphasize the effectiveness of pedagogical training rooted in the CoP framework, demonstrating how peer observation programs can cultivate professional growth among graduate student instructors while fostering interdisciplinary collaboration in higher education.
Structured classroom observation protocols provide instructors with data about their teaching practices, but instructors may not meaningfully engage with those data without guidance. To facilitate instructor reflection, educational developers from the Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) and educational researchers from STEM departments across three campuses collaborated to design and implement a novel faculty professional development program that would promote reflection on teaching using instructors’ Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS; Smith et al., 2013) data—a program we call data-informed professional development (DIPD). The program involved faculty completion of/participation in a teaching reflection, structured classroom observations from two course sessions, at least one meeting with CTL staff, an exit interview, and an opportunity to update their original teaching reflection. Through qualitatively coding the post-DIPD exit interviews, we found that instructors primarily reflected on their COPUS data with a desire to increase student engagement. Instructors also described being more open to making small changes to their courses, feeling supported to make changes to their teaching, and feeling that there was an important element of community-building in the DIPD program. And finally, instructors described how the DIPD experience was beneficial for promoting reflection on teaching practices, but the meeting portion was critical–providing data from the structured observations alone was not sufficient for a variety of reasons. Our study can serve as a teaching professional development model for how educational developers and education researchers can collaborate to prompt instructors to critically reflect on their teaching practices using structured observation protocols.
Due to lack of research to track inclusive teaching behavior changes, the extent of faculty application of inclusive teaching practices remains unknown. Therefore, direct evaluation of faculty behavior change is needed to understand the process of incorporating inclusive practices into their teaching such as through the syllabus or course design. This study investigated the impact of a faculty development workshop and Syllabus Challenge toolkit using a pre-post survey of faculty attitudes toward inclusive teaching, self-efficacy, intentions to incorporate inclusive teaching, and actual inclusive changes via pre-post syllabi comparisons. Based on pre/post workshop surveys, faculty positive attitudes, inclusive teaching self-efficacy, and inclusive teaching behavioral intentions increased following the intervention. Comparisons of course syllabi revealed that faculty made between 1 and 9 inclusive syllabus changes across sections of the syllabi. Findings highlight the benefits of a brief workshop and the Syllabus Challenge toolkit for faculty to increase inclusive attitudes and syllabus practices and support future work to understand the relationship between intentions to engage in and behaviors associated with inclusive teaching practices.
Educational development is often scheduled during academic breaks with the intent of allowing faculty participation; however, this can actually make it more difficult for faculty who are in parenting roles, particularly during summer and school breaks when childcare options are limited. This article provides case studies from two different institutions describing approaches to offering childcare support to faculty participants in professional development. Ultimately, although both cases were successful, they were limited solutions to what is actually a much larger cultural problem. Our discussion shares lessons learned, recommendations, and urges others to embrace inclusive and equity-focused endeavors in supporting faculty caregivers' involvement in professional development programs.
Systems convening is a style of leadership developed by Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner (2021) that focuses on crossing social and institutional boundaries to facilitate change. Faculty developers are increasingly called on to cross disciplinary and institutional boundaries in their work supporting teaching and learning. A systems convening mindset includes being able to bring people together across boundaries, wanting to make a difference in educational outcomes, knowing the academic landscape, knowing the people to talk to in each silo, and valuing learning as a part of this leadership style (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2021). In a case study of 18 faculty developers at a multi-campus research university, we document the developers' approach to their work and evaluate the usefulness of the systems convening mindset in the context of university faculty development. We conclude that approaching faculty development leadership from a systems convening perspective can help developers successfully cultivate the cross-boundary relationships necessary to facilitate communities of change in universities.
The STEM Equity Learning Community (SELC) project guided multidisciplinary teams from nine large, public research institutions through a yearlong experience. We aimed to support instructors and undergraduate students in developing equity-mindedness to drive structural change efforts on their campuses. The SELCs were supported by access to equity data, which included student enrollment and performance in courses disaggregated by student demographics. The learning communities prioritized collaborations between students and instructors that facilitated authentic interactions and cross-institutional partnerships. In this paper we investigate the value added of the SELC experience, measuring impact on participants and institutions and highlighting the power of student voice throughout the project. An analysis of pre- (N=55) and post-survey data (N=58) from program participants and reflections from project leadership reveal key nuances of the program that can inform best practices for equity-minded STEM reform. Participants indicated that the project was worth the investment of time and effort, that they had increased access to equity data, and that they intended to both expand access to equity data for others and use the data for making future decisions both inside and outside the classroom. We argue that the approach to equity work described in this paper—sustained, multi-institutional, multidisciplinary, multi-role learning communities leveraging equity data—drives equity-minded change in courses and departments across the higher education landscape.
The purpose of this study was to understand the lived experiences of be(com)ing among faculty members who participated in educational development. It aims to contribute to our knowledge on be(com)ing, a portmanteau of becoming and being that emphasizes that these two processes are often interconnected. I generated data for this study using semi-structured interviews with eight faculty members who participated in at least one program through the Center for Teaching and Learning at a research university in the southeastern United States. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, I identified five themes in the data: (1) Reimagining Faculty Identities in the Academy, (2) Embracing a Culture of Experimentation, (3) Thriving Amid Constraints, (4), Building Transformative Communities, and (5) Cultivating Spaces for Equity and Inclusion. The findings of this study not only shed light on the complex landscapes that faculty members navigate but also demonstrate the potentialities of educational development to enable them to shape their professional growth in meaningful ways.
A course syllabus provides an easily accessible source of information about the learning activities, teaching methods, assessments, and policies the instructor intends to apply in a course. This paper describes our process of developing and applying a rubric designed to identify and describe inclusive and equitable practices observed in course syllabi. Using the rubric as a tool, we analyzed course syllabi as one of multiple data sources in a larger multi-method project aimed at guiding departmental change in inclusive and equitable teaching. Our approach yielded insights into teaching practices within an individual course and allowed us to observe patterns in pedagogy across courses and within and across departments. This paper also discusses outcomes from the syllabus analysis, including how we presented and discussed department-specific findings to guide changes in departmental policies and instructor pedagogy. Finally, we offer potential applications and considerations for educational developers and departmental leaders seeking to borrow and adapt this tool to analyze and share data on the inclusive and equitable teaching practices observed in course syllabi.
Leaders for Inclusive Learning (LIL) is a theoretically grounded initiative focused on faculty and designed to increase inclusive teaching and decrease academic success equity gaps across 15 departments responsible for a largest proportion of general education courses. Designed as a combination of the Change, the Adopters, the Change Agents, and the Organization (CACAO) change model and the Progress towards Inclusive Excellence through Reflection (PIER) critical reflection process, the LIL program created a faculty cohort of inclusive teaching experts to lead significant equity-focused change in the culture of teaching and learning within their respective departments and, therefore, across the college. This innovative leadership program has already begun to garner impressive results within departments and across the college. Authors provide a list of recommendations for implementation to advance second- and third-order institutional change.
Given the unique proximity and approachability of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) to students, training GTAs to support student mental health is critical. However, GTAs play dual roles as educators and students, who face their own stress and mental health challenges. This study examined the efficacy of an online module for GTAs focused on how to offer support to students while considering their own self-care. Using an online survey, GTAs’ beliefs (feelings of preparedness, and sense of responsibility) and responses (supportive behaviors) to scenarios of students in distress were examined. Participants also completed a measure of self-care. Compared with a general sample of GTAs who had not participated in the module (n = 111), module participants (n = 42) had higher intentions, felt more responsibility, and felt more prepared to support students in distress. They also reported higher levels of self-care. This study shows training can not only be effective at enhancing GTAs’ ability to support undergraduate student mental health but also positively impact their own self-care.
Peer observation of teaching (PoT) is a recognized evaluation tool. However, faculty concerns persist regarding bias, beneficial feedback, and lack of peer observer training. While faculty desire to provide quality and equitable reviews, many higher education faculty peers have little expertise in conducting observations and evaluations. This article proposes a comprehensive approach to enhance the quality and fairness of PoT in higher education through the use of a community of practice model, aligning it with the evolving needs of teaching evaluation processes. The authors share their growth process from an ad hoc committee into a long-term organic community of practice to meet formative and summative observations of teaching needs. Based on literature supporting PoT steps, the collaborative vision between the faculty and the Center for Teaching and Learning director resulted in a supportive model for reviews that provided faculty with feedback and professional growth. The training model starts with new members experiencing the observational process, completing an in-depth practicing PoT training, pairing with experienced peers to grow confidence, and then eventually training new members.
This article builds on previous research on diversity statements, adding insights to the resource sharing among educational developers who provide guidance in crafting such statements. In response to the existing knowledge gap about what transpires after submitting diversity statements to hiring committees, we conducted a survey involving 299 academic hiring committee members serving between 2015 and 2021 at five predominantly white, research-focused institutions in the Midwest and Southwest. The findings from the survey are the basis of this reflection on practice. Our analysis reveals a lack of preparedness and a prevailing sense of uncertainty among committee members, coupled with nuanced considerations associated with the complexities of this genre. Based on firsthand experiences and feedback from committee members, this article attempts to go beyond current literature, fostering a deeper understanding of the challenges and providing new perspectives for educational developers engaged in supporting diversity statement writing.
Despite its many benefits, curriculum review has yet to become a widespread practice in many areas of higher education. Previous research suggests that this is because of a lack of faculty time and expertise to conduct curriculum reviews independently. As such, this action research study builds on the existing literature to explore the utility of educational developers at a large research university in developing faculty communities of practice around the continuous improvement of their curriculum by facilitating a curriculum review process. The findings suggest opportunities for educational developers to partner with faculty to support this substantial work.
As centers for teaching and learning (CTL) expand in the United States, so, too, does the need and desire for those of us working in the field of educational development to provide evidence of the impact of our work. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, our CTL and eCampus Center, like many faculty support units across the country, developed and implemented an intensive professional development program to prepare faculty to teach flexibly in the fall of 2020. Using faculty self-reported data about their adoption of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) that was collected annually since 2014, we investigated comparisons over time and sought evidence of the impact that professional development program had on faculty’s use of EBIPs. The study shows that intensive professional development programs have a positive effect on faculty’s use of EBIPs. We also found that the level of improvement was higher for those who participated in the more intense version of the program. This study contributes to the existing literature on the impact of educational development initiatives by demonstrating a positive correlation between educational development and instructor practice and adds to it by looking at an institutional-level program.
The Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) created a Small Teaching Challenge, leveraging department chairpersons to encourage faculty adoption of evidence-based, small teaching practices. Inspired by James Lang’s Small Teaching (2016) and previous collaborations with department chairpersons, the Small Teaching Challenge reached 12 out of 18 departments and 29% of full-time faculty. Post-challenge survey results revealed 94% of participating faculty would likely continue the small teaching practices, and 100% of department chairpersons would participate again. The article reviews literature on department chairpersons’ contributions to faculty development, program details, results, and implications for educational developers.
Since 1997, the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network has hosted the Institute for New Educational Developers (INED), a multi-day event intended to help people just entering the field. While each iteration of the INED is enacted in a highly localized and contextualized fashion, each seeks to address the needs of the intended (though imagined) community and to model and embody the values that are significant to both POD and the field as a whole. Using case studies from 2015–2023, the authors posit academic hospitality as an ongoing framework not only for how we (as educational developers) are invited into the field but also for how we enable, enact, and envision our community to others.
The claim has been made for decades that college teaching, like research, should be peer reviewed if we are to see it as a serious scholarly activity; yet peer review as a method of evaluating teaching is not widespread. Interest in peer review is increasing, however, as institutions have sought ways of evaluating teaching informed by professional practice instead of solely data gathered from student evaluations of teaching, which are based on consumer satisfaction models and have proved biased against women and people of color. Yet if faculty are to engage in peer review of teaching, whether for formative or summative purposes, they should be trained in best practices to ensure that the reviews are of high quality and, most important, that they focus on improving the observed instructor’s teaching. In this article we describe our program to train faculty to be peer reviewers, describe faculty reactions to our training, and outline the lessons we as consultants have learned in facilitating this program.
