Search

How faculty choose--or feel compelled--to spend time on preparing for and reflecting on their teaching is influenced both by capitalist notions of efficiency and productivity and by human, relationship-focused conceptions of growth. The educational development opportunities that faculty are offered at the intersection of these influences can foster self-directed, meaningful, and empowering ways to conceptualize and use time. This article reports on a study that aimed to deepen understanding of how faculty think about, experience, and make choices about time during and after participating in a particular form of educational development: one-on-one pedagogical partnership with liminally positioned student consultants. Anonymous survey responses revealed that, while participating in this form of educational development, faculty experienced pedagogical partnership as a useful/practical way to spend time, as a source of insights into the student perspective on and experience of time, as inspiration to use time to center student learning, and as a worthwhile investment of time to grow as reflective practitioners. Survey responses showed that, after participating in this form of educational development, faculty carried forward new understandings of the importance of spending time outside of class reflecting on teaching, of feeling more confident and capable in planning for teaching, of using time differently in class, and of continuing to invest time in revising their sense of self as a teacher in meaningful learning relationships with students. The article concludes with recommendations for educational developers who wish to support faculty in rethinking time through creating or expanding opportunities to participate in student-faculty pedagogical partnerships.

As centers for teaching and learning increasingly offer support and leadership for the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) at their institutions, educational developers need better tools to plan their SoTL programming. This article shares the work of a regional network of educational developers across six institutions in Virginia, who aimed to enhance SoTL offerings within and across their institutions. While SoTL tools and models for individual instructors proliferate, this community of practice noted a gap in support for developers doing more institution-level planning. Through their collaboration, they developed two tools for planning and launching institution-level SoTL programs: the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet and the SoTL Program Taxonomy. This article describes the development of these tools and assesses their implications for educational development practice.

Faculty members impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic inadvertently participated in a historic, widespread, and rapidly occurring educational development phenomenon: the global shift toward emergency remote teaching. We surveyed faculty members (n = 502) at four different institutions (a community college and a small, medium-sized, and large university) and collected self-reported data on faculty members' continued use of educational technology tools or teaching techniques that they adopted for the first time during the pandemic. Faculty respondents also shared their perceptions on why this change to their teaching was valuable. Approximately 62% of the faculty surveyed reported their continued use of an educational technology tool, and 34% reported their continued use of a teaching technique or strategy. Higher education institutions must now consider the implications of these enduring pandemic practices, evaluate their effectiveness, and work to sustain the skill-building momentum of faculty who have invested time in adopting new technology tools and teaching techniques.

In the library and information science (LIS) literature, there are examples of librarians leading educational development initiatives, often centered on information literacy (IL). However, there does not appear to have been significant exploration in the educational development literature of librarians acting as educational developers. This article is intended fill this gap by providing an overview of academic librarians' engagement with educational development and offering a brief case study of a librarian who is involved in educational development, followed by discussion of key questions and potential implications that are raised when considering librarians acting in this role. The goal is to open up a dialogue between and among educational developers and librarians about the role of librarians in educational development. This may also encourage discussion among educational developers about how the field should be defined and who qualifies as an educational developer.

In this article, the authors share the challenges we faced as we launched a center for teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we describe how we used design thinking as a strategy for working through these challenges. The article presents an overview of the design thinking process, a case study of our application of the process, and recommendations for how educational developers can leverage design thinking as a strategy for solving problems related to limited resources and low faculty engagement.

The demands of current instructional realities for moving to completely online formats have led to dramatic changes in the ways that centers for teaching and learning serve their communities. Pedagogical programs have been adapted, invented, and reimagined for online modalities. In this article, we share an approach borrowed from marketing--segmentation, targeting, and positioning (STP)--and describe three cases showing the application of STP in our center's work with instructors. This approach has helped us clarify and target our pedagogical priorities, allowing us to make appropriate trade-offs to produce more focused educational development programming that better meets our audience's needs, constraints, and contexts.

Remote teaching created a unique opportunity to study the experiences of faculty participating in a course design institute. Hundreds enrolled in our online institute, where technologies (e.g., Zoom, Canvas, Google Docs) facilitated interactions among participants and preserved their ideas and perspectives throughout the program. Using a grounded theory analysis approach attentive to the participants' words, the authors uncovered participants' experiences and their perspectives on the structures that shaped those experiences. The data ultimately revealed five themes (pedagogical knowledge, student perspective, community and connection, technology, and emotion) that relate to changes in participant attitudes, perceptions, and/or pedagogical approaches. Drawing on these themes, we identify implications for future professional development programming design that align with other results from the literature, including the importance of modeling the student experience, deliberately addressing community and connection, building in time for synthesis and commitment, and prompting faculty to identify and reflect on their emotions. Though some of the identified themes may have been more visible because data were captured in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, these themes are aligned with prior research and existing learning theories and will apply to the design of course design institutes beyond the context of crisis situations.

In times of crises, educational developers (EDs) work to ameliorate the teaching- and learning-related impacts caused by campus-wide disruptions such as health-related emergencies, mass shootings, and environmental disasters. These incidents may impact the personal-psychological factors and processes of EDs that, in turn, influence their engagement with team members and faculty. Given the vital role EDs play in improving faculty teaching and student learning across higher education (Dawson et al., 2010; Grupp, 2014; Schroeder et al., 2010), understanding the impacts of campus-wide disruptions on their functioning is critical. The present, novel study uses a psychological-phenomenological methodology and the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI; Kaplan & Garner, 2017) as a guiding theoretical framework to examine how a major disruption impacted the sense of self and engagement of EDs (n = 6) who hold different specialties (i.e., pedagogy or educational technology) and work in an educational development center housed within a large research institution. Participants completed three, open-ended survey questionnaires focused on their perceptions and actions before and during the COVID-19 disruption to institutional operation. Using the DSMRI "Analysis Guide and Codebook" (Kaplan & Garner, n.d.), five themes emerged from the data. These themes were used to address primary research questions and inform future directions and implications for theory, research, and practice.

We share insights from a mixed methods study to describe the experience of educational developers participating in a community of practice (CoP). This CoP consisted of 19 leaders at eight institutions, serving collectively as facilitators of a hybrid, across-institutional, seven-week workshop series on course design for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. From results of a survey examining the functional and sustaining features of the community, we illustrate that members experience the community aspect of our CoP primarily as a sense of satisfaction/personal fulfillment and, to an extent, in the effectiveness/productiveness of collaborations between members. Members of our CoP experience several community-related benefits specific to their across-institution collaborations. We demonstrate the importance of members' sense of belonging, overall professional development, and well-being for sustaining our CoP.

Across higher education, educational developers and their supporting campus communities are being called upon to scale up evidence-informed practices, to enhance student experiences, and to document the changes. This article builds on the work of scholars who have taken up this evaluative challenge, by examining varied aspects of the evidencing process using an adaptation of Saunders's (2000) RUFDATA framework for evidencing value. Reflections on emerging patterns and tensions in the evidencing of educational development are subsequently discussed. We argue for making evidencing value a purposeful and intentional process, and we chart a path forward for creating and implementing a vision for the age of evidence.

This article describes the rationale, development process, and initial activities and outcomes of a faculty mentoring guild that engages experienced faculty volunteers in supporting their near peers in navigating their teaching, research, service, and life expectations and obligations. The purposes of this article are to: (1) describe the mentoring guild model; (2) provide a research-based rationale for a craft model of faculty support; (3) detail examples of mentoring guild activities, including the benefits and challenges; (4) recount explicit and implicit personal and professional outcomes for mentoring guild members; and (5) offer activities and lessons learned that faculty developers and institutions may consider if they want to begin their own craft-based or mentoring guild model.

Given the backdrop of multiple concurring crises--a global pandemic, political instability and violence, and multiple structural inequalities--we see the problem of now as this: How do educational developers continue to address the wicked problems in teaching and learning when we are simply so exhausted? Our article presents the importance of communities of practice for educational developers, inviting us to witness and name the communities in which we belong; the important functions they engage; who they nurture and how; and what care is undertaken to sustain these groups and ourselves. To help educational developers understand and appreciate the ways that communities of practice support our work (emotionally, professionally, and socially), we share a framework from the literature of organizational management and apply it to communities in educational development. We include narratives to demonstrate this framework in action to amplify the particularly important role these groups have played in our professional and personal lives. We end with actions we can take to care for our communities of practice that build upon the presented theoretical foundation. As these groups are fragile, maintaining our communities is important so that they will provide us support and shelter into the post-pandemic future.

The global pandemic that began in 2020 amplified the chasm between higher education's stated goals to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and the systemic realities that many students, instructors, and staff grapple with on a daily basis. We contend that attenuating the barriers to DEI outcomes means first acknowledging that DEI is a wicked problem, in that it is impossible to solve because of competing, conflicting, and complex sociocultural forces from within and outside our institutions. We also contend that educational developers (EDs) are particularly well situated within the higher education ecology to be key cultural influencers in how to mitigate DEI-related wicked problems by tapping into our deep commitment to lifelong learning as a means for honing and modeling an equity mindset.

Often working in multiple roles and operating at multiple scales, educational developers deal with layered tensions and a complex context that can be difficult for an individual or team to reconcile. In May 2020, the authors participated in a cross-institutional scholarly project, the Pandemic Educational Development Research Collaborative (PEDRC), designed to explore the impact of multiple crises (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic and our collective civil and political unrest) and associated large-scale instructional changes on educational developers and their work. The Contexts for Agency framework reflects the project's emergent theme that the circumstances in which we act have considerable influence on our decision-making. Specifically, the framework identifies "identity," "institution," and "impact" as critical contexts for the decisions educational developers make. The authors highlight multiple benefits to analyzing what we know--and what we do not know--about our respective contexts and offer suggestions for applying the framework using a guide for structured reflection.

This brief piece has two purposes: to reflect on the argument in "What's the Problem Now?" (Bass, 2020) in light of the events of the past two years and to give that essay's core argument--that the problem of learning in higher education is a wicked problem--a more practical grounding for how it can shape the work of educational developers going forward. For the latter especially, the argument builds off of the outstanding articles that have been selected for this issue, which provide a set of both pragmatic and visionary responses for the role of educational developers in supporting the next phase of transformation made possible by the changes undergone in the pandemic adaptation.

MegaSoTL projects are scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) projects that generate evidence of learning from multiple institutions. While being increasingly practiced, MegaSoTL projects and their potential contribution to improve higher education pedagogy remain understudied in higher education literature. In this article, we introduce Transparency in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (TILT) and ManyClasses projects as two MegaSoTL case studies, and we describe their research goals, processes, and administration. We then discuss the potentials and challenges of MegaSoTL projects for educational developers to promote SoTL at micro and mega levels. The article concludes with recommendations to develop a collaborative infrastructure for supporting MegaSoTL projects.

Faculty fellows have long served as a staple of centers for teaching and learning (CTLs), but to date little to no evidence has been gathered regarding their broader impact. The current study provides a snapshot of U.S.-based faculty fellows programs today, based on a comprehensive review of CTL websites. We categorize faculty fellows programs across five modalities that reflect decades of evolution and adaptation in the field of educational development. Our findings are intended to provide the foundation for new pathways of research, practice, and inquiry regarding the implementation of CTL fellowship programs.

Evidence-based practice in educational development includes leveraging data to iteratively refine center for teaching and learning (CTL) services. However, CTL data collection is often limited to counts and satisfaction surveys rather than direct measures of outcomes. To directly assess impacts of consultations on course and syllabus design, we analyzed 94 clients' syllabi (32 faculty, 62 graduate students and postdocs) before and after consultations. Faculty and non-faculty clients demonstrated significant change following consultations (6% and 10% gains in syllabus rubric scores, representing 50% and 31% of possible gains and effect sizes of 0.73 and 1.04 standard deviations, respectively). We compared faculty clients to quasi-experimental control groups that did not receive consultations. Syllabi from non-clients scored lower and did not demonstrate similar changes across semesters. Attendance at a CTL seminar on course and syllabus design did not explain variation in clients' syllabi. We discuss implications for assessment of CTL services and how we leveraged formative assessments to inform and iteratively refine our educational development practices.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty scrambled to move courses online and to master technology tools seemingly overnight. Keeping a focus on course design and teaching techniques became a central challenge for a center for teaching and learning (CTL) in the midst of the emergency move to online and blended learning. This article chronicles one CTL's design and implementation of a virtual Forward Looking Explorations in Teaching Camp (FLEX Camp) that aimed to address pedagogy and technology simultaneously by immersing faculty in learning experiences. It details the planning process, learning goals, key activities, assessment methods, and lessons learned from the FLEX Camp approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged educational developers, like instructors across the world, to pivot their traditionally face-to-face faculty development programs to online formats. At the Stearns Center for Teaching and Learning at George Mason University (classified as research-intensive and the largest public institution in Virginia, U.S.), we faced the challenge of reimagining our annual pedagogy conference that scaled from 497 registered in 2019 when it was face-to-face to over 800 in 2020 as it was moved online. Under pressures of limited resources and increased uncertainty, leaders can find it difficult to imagine pathways toward innovation rather than just daily responses to crises, yet centers for teaching and learning (CTLs) need to take and maintain leadership roles in our institutions. Here we outline our programmatic goals, our guiding user-centered principles (from user experience frameworks; i.e., Zarour & Alharbi, 2017), and the user-centered iterative design process from learning engineering (Kessler, 2019) that enabled our evidence-based decision-making processes to select conference support technology platforms and create the conference infrastructure and workflows. We discuss a variety of data sources that informed our decision-making processes throughout the conference planning and actual event. We share assessment results and lessons learned that guide innovation in CTLs and can be applied to a range of educational development programs from large conferences like ours to small workshops and even one-to-one consultations.

The purpose of this article is to reflect on the pertinence and utility of using a trauma-informed lens in educational development. A trauma-informed approach is a framework grounded in an understanding of and responsiveness to the impact of trauma. After I describe the primary source of traumatic stress many faculty members are experiencing, I offer trauma-informed suggestions for how educational developers can help mitigate the effects of that stress. Importantly, in order to do this work of supporting faculty effectively and sustainably, it is critical that educational developers continue to attend to their own well-being. The overarching theme of this article is the importance of cultivating empowering relationships to help engage faculty members in supporting and improving the design and development of inclusive and equitable student learning experiences.

This study seeks to explore the physical spaces centers for teaching and learning (CTLs) occupy; with an emphasis on gaining a better picture of what CTL spaces look like; where they are located; how they developed: and what these spaces represent. We gathered visual, empirical, and qualitative data to take the first steps towards developing a shared vision of not only of our physical spaces, but also as a jumping off point for further analysis of the CTL as a meaningful place.

In this article, we explore how supporting faculty writers can also help them to become more effective teachers of writing in their disciplines. Based on over ten years of facilitating and studying faculty at our writing retreats, we demonstrate how understanding and improving their own writing experiences can spark insight into their students as writers. Furthermore, we suggest that helping faculty make this "turn to teaching" exemplifies the potential for an integrative model of educational development, one that leverages connections across faculty roles and responsibilities.

Supporting instructor implementation of equitable and inclusive teaching approaches is a critical area of focus in educational development. However, there is limited empirical evidence on factors that either support or hinder instructors' implementation of inclusive teaching. The results of this national survey study reveal several predictors of instructors' utilization of inclusive teaching approaches and reported obstacles faced. For this sample, knowledge of inclusive teaching was a statistically significant predictor of implementation, as was being from a non-STEM discipline. Responses highlighted promising approaches, several of which can inform the efforts of educational developers.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought about unprecedented changes in our approach to delivering educational development (ED) programming. In this article we discuss how our dual ED centers pivoted during the sudden switch to online learning, highlighting how we overcame challenges such as a small staff, tight timelines, and faculty anxieties. Particularly, we explore how we adapted to the university's investment in technologically advanced Hybrid-Flexible (HyFlex) classroom spaces and utilized a multi-pronged team approach to provide effective and timely ED to faculty. By identifying key faculty leaders, identifying multiple sources of data, and using multiple modalities, we supported the faculty in their mission to effectively serve their students during this difficult and stressful time. In pivoting from a triage approach to more tactically focused development, the two ED centers discovered that they could more effectively serve faculty (and by extension students) by shattering the structural silos that had previously defined them and instead working as a unified entity.

As higher education shifts toward a culture of evidence-based teaching practices, future faculty are seeking opportunities to develop their pedagogical knowledge and skills. Many centers for teaching and learning (CTLs) have not proportionally grown in resources to meet the demand for graduate student and postdoctoral scholar programming (e.g., teaching certificates and pedagogy seminars). This article presents a model of a wide-ranging, coherent pipeline of educational development for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars managed by a CTL with modest staffing.

A recent survey of educational developers revealed that nearly all respondents (96%) had experienced impostor phenomenon (IP) in their professional lives. Here, we use survey data to investigate the consequences of and coping strategies for IP among educational developers. We describe the repercussions of IP for the personal and professional lives of educational developers (including stress, lowered self-esteem, not speaking up, and diminished career trajectories), the ways in which they cope with IP, and the unique ways that they may be positioned to leverage their own experience with IP to work more effectively with instructors.

Predominantly White institutions (PWIs) in creative class cities offer contradictory experiences for Black faculty, who engage in invisible additional labor in response to racial aggressions, termed cultural taxation (CT). With an understanding that equity-minded faculty development is an essential space in which to respond to this reality, our study employed a phenomenological focus group design to investigate how Black faculty at a research-intensive PWI located in a creative class city buffeted by racial tensions navigated their service and community experiences. While finding their work meaningful, the participants shared experiences of the multifaceted nature of CT, their stress from teaching about race, and the burdens of providing extra support to the next generation of scholars of color. Participants viewed the campus and community as interconnected and CT as a wage they were willing to pay. At the same time, participants regretted the lack of recognition for this work in the academy. We proffer recommendations for developers and centers for teaching and learning that endeavor to support Black faculty and faculty from other marginalized identities.

Revisiting an essay from 1999, this article explores the current conditions in higher education, and society more broadly, that help shape the roles for the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and educational development. By seeing the current "crises" of higher education not only as "problems" to be investigated but as a "wicked problem," we might be able to elevate and complicate the role that inquiry into teaching and learning might play in institutional change and the expansion of higher education. The article argues for the necessity, even urgency, of seeing educational development as a lever for change, fully engaged with the most important questions surrounding the role of higher education in shaping the future.

While impostor syndrome or impostor phenomenon ("IP") is prevalent in higher education, with known negative effects, no study has yet investigated the experiences of IP among educational developers. After first reviewing prior research on the phenomenon, we use survey data to describe its frequency and manifestations within educational development. We identify factors and experiences that contribute to IP among educational developers, focusing on those that are distinct to the field. We conclude with suggestions for future research and broad recommendations for educational development as a field to tackle this problem.

This article presents a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) scaffold, a conceptual model designed for educational developers (and others) who support the values, practices, and production of the SoTL, both on their campuses and beyond. The SoTL scaffold explicates distinct support levels, ranging from spark to lead, each of which call for differentiated strategies and programs to be used by Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) and similar units.

Educational developers are called to serve as thought leaders, change agents, and advocates while also working to fulfill the teaching and learning mission of their centers. Research on change leadership informs our understanding of the work, yet may not go far enough to describe the complex roles, responsibilities, and positions of educational developers. In this study, we analyze survey and interview data to explore the meta-competencies that guide the work of developers as they navigate a shifting landscape and serve as "levers" for change.

Some scholars want help from educational developers to become better, more prolific writers. This study examines one such program, Publish & Flourish, that holds participants accountable for writing daily and for receiving weekly feedback from peers on drafts of writing. In this mixed-methods study, 95% of participants (N = 93) reported that they improved their writing by making it more organized and reader centered. Participants also reported that they increased their extrapolated average of submissions of scholarly manuscripts per year from about two to "almost six." We then compared Publish & Flourish to several other studies of scholarly writing programs, each of which had only a few participants or failed to have participants report their minutes of writing on a shared and monitored spreadsheet. We concluded that if daily writing is required and reported on a shared and monitored spreadsheet, scholarship programs can be scalable to large numbers of participants. Therefore, Publish & Flourish, with its accountability for writing daily, may be superior to other programs for educational developers who want to improve writing and jumpstart research productivity with many participants on a large scale.

We offer a framework for guiding an effective Center for Teaching and Learning: Responsiveness, Relationships, Resources, and Research. Our intention is to fill a gap in the literature on guidance for CTL leadership. These four principles are grounded in both scholarly and experiential evidence, drawing from multiple CTL directors with a range of experience levels at different center and institutional types.

Working remotely and collaboratively, our interdisciplinary team created an educational development workshop, "Thinking Skills for the 21st Century: Teaching for Transfer," in which participants not only experience, apply, and reflect on teaching across educational settings but also connect this work to principles that have been demonstrated by learning science to support the transfer of knowledge. We used backward design to develop the workshop and evidence-based pedagogies in its implementation. We facilitated the workshop at two different national meetings for distinct audiences and also as part of an on-campus faculty development program. Here, we report on the workshop development and revision, assessment of participant experience, and the evolution of our collaborative process.

In this article we present 4 dimensions of transformative facilitation, each conceptualized using the "wisdom of practice" (Weimer, 2006, p. 54) gathered through our experience facilitating educational development and through the experiences posted by participants in a POD Network conference session. Composed of theoretical underpinnings we drew from several bodies of literature and practical applications generated by us and participants during the session, these dimensions include: (a) liminality (context); (b) organization (structures); (c) attitudinal stance (tone); and (d) process. Through their multidirectional interactions with one another, these dimensions aim to transform facilitation as enacted across educational development contexts.

One thing that has shaped my understanding of educational development more than anything else is a commitment to seeking and doing justice. I see this commitment as the animating force that breathes life into the best of what educational developers do and the core value that continually challenges us to do better. In the many contexts in which we work, the one thing that defines the role of educational development is the recognition that we need to continually examine and improve how well our institutional systems are doing justice to the communities that we are trusting them to serve.

We have been asked to describe One Thing that guides us as educational developers. For me, this is the strategic planning process described in Jim Collins' Good to Great (2001). Collins provides a model that helps leaders navigate through change to build effective and influential centers. This framework has allowed me to develop a successful center despite periods of transition and uncertainty. Much of what I experience in my professional life is good. The challenge is to take it to the next level--to turn good into great. Collins' strategic model provides a roadmap for how this might be accomplished.

The authors claim that disciplinary epistemologies--disciplinary habits of mind and ways of thinking--offer productive lenses for observing teaching practices. Furthermore, they argue that educational developers who draw from multiple epistemologies in combination provide rich evidence with regard to teaching and learning and can speak to academic colleagues from an array of disciplines. Clarity is provided for career paths in educational development for colleagues from academic disciplines who are contemplating part- or full-time work in a teaching center. The authors hope that this opening collection develops into a toolkit and area of inquiry about disciplinary approaches to the practice of educational development.

This essay examines the idea of educational development, inspired both in content and approach by John Henry Newman's influential 19th century work on the idea of a university.

This chapter responds to the call for educational developers to isolate the one perspective that guides our work. It retraces the author's career steps, seeking the origin of love as a guiding principle, and describes its evolution and application during her career. To do so, the piece includes a theoretical perspective on love and argues that its utility as a characterizing perspective for our profession stems from its significance to learning and justice. It suggests the timeliness and urgency of elevating the role of love in our field, notes associated risks and rewards, and suggests resources for doing so.

As my interests and job duties have shifted toward holistic educational development beyond teaching support, I have sought a conceptual framework to organize my efforts. Joining my identities of educational developer and yogi, I have adapted the chakra system from yoga philosophy. The One Thing in my personal life has become The One Thing in my professional life too, informing programming and pointing out voids to fill. This essay reviews the classic articulation of the chakra system in the seven major chakras and offers examples of how the chakras can illuminate our institutional work, both individually and as an integrated system.

In response to the recent special call in "To Improve the Academy," we offer the following collaborative essay that describes how feminism is our characterizing perspective on educational development. The essay details various, interrelated facets of feminism that inform our work in the field: gender, intersectionality, power, privilege, standpoint theory, and collaboration. Not only do these facets characterize our own feminist approach to educational development--from consultations to organizational development to publications--but, we argue, they also align well with the values and approaches of the field as a whole.

Educational development philosophy statements provide a framework to communicate the values and beliefs that guide the practices and approaches of individual educational developers across various career stages. This paper presents narratives to illustrate how seven educational developers conceptualize the "one thing" that guides our work through the process of reflecting on the beliefs that we articulate through our educational development philosophy statements. Although each narrative illustrates our diverse backgrounds and philosophies, common themes are revealed relating to reflective practice, scholarly approaches, and facilitating change, which lead to improvements in student learning. This exploration suggests further opportunity to conduct research on how educational development philosophy statements illuminate implicit definitions and beliefs about this diverse and evolving field.

One core concept in educational development is reframing, which involves new labels, new perspectives, and the examination of assumptions. In this reflective article, I explore the use of reframing at different levels of educational development work via the 4M framework (micro, meso, macro, and mega) in an effort to assess the utility of this concept to practitioners. I conclude that reframing has utility at all levels and posit why it may assist with change management. Connections to educational developer identity are also explored.

This essay characterizes educational development as an invitation. The author provides a rationale for using Invitational Theory (IT) to guide educational development programming and practice. The five assumptions of IT are included and linked to scholarly literature that grounds educational development. Examples of invitational educational development initiatives or programs are provided for each assumption.

In this article, we focus on questions that come into view when we look at educational development through the lenses of signature pedagogies and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). We offer this as a thought experiment in which we consider if SoTL is a signature pedagogy of educational development, simultaneously enacting and revealing the practices, values, and assumptions that underpin the diverse work of our field. By envisioning SoTL in this way, we may more clearly see the purposes and practices that unite--and that ought to guide--educational developers and educational development.

Educational developers around the world are employed in a range of settings and under different working conditions, including academic (faculty) positions and administrative (professional staff) roles. Curiously, in a survey of 1,000 developers from 38 countries, the authors find that a full 51% of developers in the United States are on administrative contracts, while only 16% are on employed as faculty--figures that are markedly out of kilter with the overall international data. In this paper, the authors argue that the positioning of educational developers matters because of the "wall in the head"--the perceived division between faculty and staff in U.S. institutions; narratives of distrust along that dividing line pervade not only the higher education press but also the research, indicating the extent to which this metaphorical barrier could thwart educational developers' attempts to enhance teaching and learning at their institutions. Ironically, this is happening at a point when universities are increasingly choosing to appoint educational developers: the miscategorization of developers' work may be inadvertently undermining institutions' own investment. The authors seek to explain the U.S. anomaly in positioning developers as staff by mining their international dataset, focusing on developers' qualifications, academic experience, institutional contexts, and personal identities.

This paper provides a program evaluation model, along with field-testing results, that was developed in response to the need for an evaluation model able to support systematic evaluation of teaching and learning centers (CTLs). The model builds upon the author's previous studies investigating the evaluation practices and struggles experienced at 53 CTLs. Findings from these studies attribute evaluation struggles to contextual issues involving evaluation capacity, ill-structured curricula, and ill-conceived evaluation frameworks. This field-tested Four-Phase Program Evaluation Model addresses these issues by approaching evaluation in a comprehensive manner that includes an evaluation capacity analysis, curricular conceptualization, evaluation planning, and plan implementation.

Educational developers have generally articulated their mission around three major poles: faculty/professional development, instructional development, and organizational development (Diamond, 2002; Lewis, 1996). While the first two poles have received greater attention in the past, an increasing amount of emphasis is being placed on organizational development. This shift is a result of a growing tendency to see educational development as an integral component in helping colleges and universities effect change in multiple areas. The challenges higher education faces "require multiple teams of cross-unit expertise in order to make progress" (Schroeder, 2011, p. 202), and educational developers are often called on to be facilitators or catalysts of change. This article examines the results of a survey that collected data on the reorganization and integration of Centers of Teaching and Learning (CTLs) with other educational and administrative units, including the timing, level and effect of integration. A second element of the survey asked respondents to evaluate the process of change. Our study shows that change brings with it challenges and benefits as CTLs continue to make decisive moves to "come in from the margins" (Schroeder, 2011).