Advancing the
Research and Practiceof Educational
Development in
Higher Education
Since 1976

DEFINING WHAT MATTERS
Guidelines for Comprehensive Center for
Teaching and Learning (CTL) Evaluation

GUIDELINESGUIDELINES FOR COMPREHENSIVE CENTER FOR TEACHING
AND LEARNING (CTL) EVALUATION
Calls to improve Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) evaluation began soon after thefounding of the POD Network (Levinson-Rose & Menges, 1981). Recent scholarshipconfirms that challenges persist (Hines, 2009), and POD Network and Educational
Developers Caucus members report a great need for assistance with measuring
CTL impact (Kolomitro & Anstey, 2017; POD Network, 2016). Therefore, building on
the 2017 POD Conference theme, “Defining What Matters,” a learning community of
15 educational developers across four countries and multiple U.S. institutional types
convened to develop educational development-specific CTL evaluation guidelines.*
One possible reason for CTLs’ struggles with evaluation is that many existing frameworks
primarily focus on the measurement of individual change attributable to the CTL (e.g.,teaching behaviors or student learning) (see, for example, Chalmers & Gardiner, 2015;
Hines, 2017; Hurney, et al., 2016; Kirkpatrick, 1998; Kreber & Brook, 2001). While these areexcellent frameworks for evaluating instructor-level change, our field is pivoting froman emphasis on 1:1 work or workshops to longer-term, systemic change initiatives (Beach,
Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016; Gibbs, 2013; Schroeder, 2010). Indeed, in response to the2017 POD Network presidential address activity prompt, “What are you most proud of?”larger-scale organizational or culture change initiatives were named frequently (Wright,2017). Examples written by participants in the session include:—M y leadership of the CTL has played a key role in facilitating a culturechange at our institution.
— Our undergraduate research initiative has created so many opportunities over
the years to the point that it has now become its own center.
— We have taken a university mandate to reduce campus DFW rates andpartnered with 3 different centers to lead faculty support and moneyfor faculty time and grants.
Therefore, our evaluation guidelines need to reflect this shift.
CTL evaluation guidelines — framing principles, areas of potential impact, possible
short- and long-term measures, contextual considerations — should align with educational development values and trends. These guidelines offer a lens that is distinct toour field and represent emergent directions in our work that are important to capture,
particularly larger-scale change initiatives in alignment with college and university
priorities. This tool should be useful to institutions and center professionals who wish
to demonstrate their impact in these areas.
Our focus is on comprehensive CTL evaluation, rather than how to evaluate a particular
type of educational development program. (A good resource on the latter topic is Hines,
2009.) However, for campuses that do not have a centralized CTL, a campus could use
this tool to examine the distributed resources that support educational development,
as well as needs for new resources.

–2–

FRAMING PRINCIPLESPURPOSE AND SCOPE(1) These guidelines define evaluation as information used for local decision making,which can also make a CTL’s work visible on campus. In contrast, research is about
creating generalizable knowledge that makes CTL work visible beyond a campus.
Evaluation and research are distinct endeavors (Levin-Rozalis, 2003), and not all
CTLs will have the resources, interest, or need to engage in research. However,research for the development of the field of educational development is important,and good resources for those who wish to conduct rigorous educational development
research include Amundsen & Wilson, 2012; Condon et al., 2016; Kenny et al., 2017,
and Kucsera & Svinicki, 2010.
(2) E valuation is a valuable activity in which all CTLs should engage, for three reasons.
First, for internal decision-making, CTLs should engage in a continuous process offormative evaluation, or low-resource activities like immediate participant feedback
with reflection. Second, evaluation supports CTL decision-making and campus visibility.
Finally, by evaluating our programs and using data to inform iterative improvement,
we are modeling a practice that is central to effective teaching.
(3) Evaluation should highlight both strengths and areas for improvement. While CTL
evaluation should recognize “narratives of constraint” (i.e., honest assessments ofareas in need of enhancement), “narratives of growth” are equally important to tell(O’Meara, Terosky, & Neumann, 2008). Some evaluation efforts may appropriately
emphasize a center’s strengths, such as an annual report or resource requests. Thereis also value in transparency about areas in which a center can do better, as a way
to model an effective practice for teaching development.
(4) Although evaluation is important, the educational and service missions of
CTLs must remain primary. This means that some approaches may be “off the table”
because of resource constraints or ethical questions (e.g., in some cases, a comparisongroup may not align with a CTL’s mission). In light of both our educational mission
and resource constraints, CTLs may want to prioritize evaluation methods that serve
dual purposes as effective educational development tools. For example, a postworkshop question that asks participants one thing they might change about theirteaching also helps cement commitment to implementing ideas in the classroom.
CONTEXT SENSITIVITY(5) Effective evaluation is “a contextually bound practice [that] allows for diversity”
in application and presentation (Montrosse-Moorhead & Griffith, 2017, p. 596).
Likewise, effective CTLs are responsive to campus context (Beach et al., 2016; Kezar& Eckel, 2002). Therefore, evaluation approaches must be flexibly applied, guided
by the questions raised by a CTL’s key constituencies, as well as institutional
priorities and resources.

*Created collaboratively by: Eli Collins Brown (Winston-Salem State University, USA), Veronica M. Brown (University of Waterloo, Canada), Alan Chace (Cape Cod Community
College, USA), Anna L. Bostwick Flaming (The University of Iowa, USA), Jennifer Frederick (Yale University, USA), Molly Hatcher (University of Texas at Austin, USA), Lauren
Herckis (Carnegie Mellon University, USA), Carolyn Hoessler (Ryerson University, Canada), Erika Kustra (University of Windsor, Canada), Debra Rudder Lohe (Saint Louis
University, USA), Jessica Mansbach (Loyola University Chicago, USA), Susannah McGowan (Kings College, UK), Ana María Troncoso (Universidad de los Andes, Chile), Firm
Faith Watson (Murray State University, USA), and Mary C. Wright (Brown University, USA). Illustrations by Gary Hawkins (Warren Wilson College, USA). Thanks to Vania
Figueiredo (Brown University, USA) for her assistance with transcription, and to the many POD Network members who offered valuable suggestions.

–3–

METRICS(6) CTL evaluation metrics need to reflect commonly held values and understandingsof our field, e.g., community, connectivity, inclusion. For example, although participant counts are often dismissed as “non-rigorous,” this indicator may best capture
our field’s emphasis on networks (Little, 2015) and offer valuable information for
CTL planning. Indeed, Beach et al. (2016, p. 37) note that “one of the hallmarksof a networked faculty development enterprise is collaboration across campus
to reach a range of audiences.” Likewise, rather than speaking dismissively of“the usual suspects,” we might instead regard repeated engagement as an important
metric of impact because of our field’s value of community-building and leadershipdevelopment.
(7) CTL evaluation approaches also need to use a range of types of evidence andmethodological approaches because educational development professionals work
across and with different disciplines. A “utilization-focused” evaluation approach,a term developed by evaluation scholar Michael Patton (2008) that looks at intended
use by intended users, also suggests the value of methodologies that speak tovaried audiences.
(8) Short-term (i.e., “This year, I will see…”) and long-term (i.e., “In 10 years, I will see…)
indicators are needed. With the shift in educational development towards systemicchange initiatives (Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016), one important implication is that large-scale change initiatives often take many years to come to fruition.
Therefore, a staged evaluation approach will better capture the evolution of
those changes.
(9) While achievement of student learning outcomes is one possible impact of CTL
work, they are not the only metric by which CTL impact should be measured.
Because documentation of student learning impacts may not reflect the core
objectives of all CTLs — and because this investigation is resource-intensive(for a summary, see Wright, Horii, Felten, Sorcinelli, & Kaplan, 2018) — this isa contextually-bound metric that should not be required of all centers.

–4–

CTL EVALUATION GUIDELINES
What follows is a flexible, four-part lens for evaluating key possible dimensions ofa CTL’s work — hub, incubator, temple, sieve — derived from a heuristic developedby others to categorize the literature on purposes of higher education (Stevens,
Armstrong, & Arum, 2008).

Although many CTLs will see all of these dimensions in their work, no one CTL shouldhave to encompass all of these functions, and some CTLs may see other dimensions.
Educational development is often embedded in a highly variable campus ecosystem
where other units or individuals may take on some of these roles. Additionally, CTLs
may evolve over time to prioritize certain areas over others.

Below are four dimensions of CTL work that could guide a comprehensive evaluation
plan, along with non-exhaustive examples of short- and long-term indicators. Eachdimension also includes examples of how CTL evaluation may be contextually sensitive,
with four sample questions and illustrations for each:		— Who are the CTL’s key constituencies?

		— What is the context and mission in which the CTL is embedded?

		— What are the resources available to the CTL?

		— What is the structure of educational development on campus, e.g., is therea centralized CTL and/or more distributed models, such as individuals
with this charge, disciplinary-based centers, or disciplinary-based education
researchers (DBER, Bush et al., 2016)?

These questions are offered as examples; other features of context may certainly
also be important.

–5–

HUB
“We make connections between people who would not otherwise be connected.
We have a view into the university that’s unique and can build on that tosupport initiatives and work towards cultural change.”

Definition: The hub role was named most frequently by attendees at the 2017 POD Network
presidential address activity, in response to the prompt, “What are you most proud of?” In thiscapacity, CTLs serve as a forum, in the ancient Roman sense, as a place for exchange of ideas andwhere collaborative actions can occur. Actions that happen when CTLs play a hub role include
adaptation, translation, redistribution, and cross-pollination — all of which reflect the importance oftranscending disciplinary boundaries, elevating collective voices, including all voices, and amplifying
voices typically unheard. Additionally, CTLs serve as hosts or facilitators of important institutional
initiatives, which they may also lead or co-lead, and they highlight the work of others in the teaching
and learning realm. Key values employed in this work are inclusion and collaboration. The
institutional visibility of a CTL increases with this role, and the hub function has grown with theprevalence of campus-wide engagement in campus initiatives (e.g., diversity & inclusivity efforts,
reforming general education, or STEM education).
Possible indicators to consider for documenting activity/achievement in this area:
In one year:

o In how many collaborations across campus, especially around key institutional initiatives,
did your CTL engage? Are there ways that the CTL includes less visible populations, orvoices from those with less authority, in programmatic or policy-related initiatives?

o Are there documented instances when the CTL disseminated examples of excellence inteaching and learning, so that they became more visible, or translated a project in one
area to a parallel version adapted to another area?

o What networks were created when there was CTL involvement in projects that bringpeople together from different disciplines to work toward a common goal? How manycross-disciplinary teams or projects were developed in response to CTL programs?

o In what ways have CTL services (e.g., learning communities, year-long learning experiences)brought colleagues together to explore teaching and learning?

Over several years:o Are there increases in the number and extensiveness of collaborations between the CTL and 		other groups on campus? In addition to breadth, are there examples of deep engagement withparticular departments or units? Do partners experience positive relationships, climate, and 		
expectations (RCE) with the CTL (Greenwald & Zulowski, 2018)?

o Is the CTL recognized as a “go-to” unit for convening diverse offices to work on a projector issue, as measured by the number of requests that come to the CTL (even those that go
beyond the boundaries of its scope and mission)?

o Is there an increase in resources given to the CTL to advance its work over time(e.g., subawards from grants, FTE for assessment of collaborative initiatives)?

Examples of context-specific considerations for this aspect of CTL evaluation:
What is the context and mission in which the CTL is embedded?
Mission, as well as institutional and cultural context, can significantly impact how this function isevaluated. For example, CTLs at research-focused institutions may wish to measure contributions
to products such as institution-wide grants (e.g., co-PI, evaluation support), while those at teachingfocused institutions might track participation in arenas such as SoTL groups and faculty learning
communities. Further considerations also may include internationally variable expectations for
instructional or professional development in higher education, e.g., mandatory certification or
responsiveness to government mandates. For example, in the UK, the National Student Survey,
which measures students’ satisfaction across higher education, often prompts reactive efforts
to “fix” assessment, feedback, or curriculum design issues.

–6–

INCUBATOR“Many of our faculty participants from intensive, year-long programs havetaken important admin positions and can now influence their department
or the whole university in the US and internationally.”“Seeing TAs grow in their role.”

Definition: The incubator role, rooted in educational development’s traditional focus on nurturing
and engagement, was named second most frequently in 2017. As incubators, CTLs prioritize
fostering growth and development, cultivating individuals and communities, nurturing relationships,
promoting transformation, and creating a sense of belonging. Integrated CTLs — or those also
charged with student academic support, writing, service learning, digital learning, and so forth(Kelley, Cruz, & Fire, 2017) — also may see key roles in fostering these outcomes for students,
writers, community-engaged practitioners or other relevant constituencies. Essential for thisfunction are the values of confidentiality, safety, autonomy, and collegiality. Together, these values
create a foundation for near-term connection-building, as well as sustained development andgrowth over longer periods of time. This foundational function remains a vital wellspring ofinstitutional transformation for today’s CTLs, while honoring the traditional role of the teaching
center as a source of individualized service.
Possible indicators to consider for documenting activity/achievement in this area:
In one year:

o What is the breadth of the CTL’s “reach” on campus (e.g., number of individuals

encountered, quantity of departments touched, range of disciplines reached, numberof committees served)?

o Is there positive participant feedback for events, and do comments suggest themesof care, collegiality, safety, growth, and connection across difference?

o Are there “usual suspects”? What is the frequency of repeat attendance/participationin events and stated reasons for returning?

o Is the CTL involved in mentoring or supporting others in mentoring roles, in areas ofteaching and learning? Does the CTL encourage graduate students or faculty to engage
with the center (e.g., advisory board, consultants, liaisons, or fellows) or to take on future
educational development roles?

Over several years:

o Is the reach of the CTL growing, by individual and unit? Within units, has the numberof CTL participants reached a critical mass (ACE & POD Network, 2018)?

o Is there an increased sense of institutional belonging for those who use CTLs, asmeasured by campus climate data?

o Are faculty members who go through CTLs getting tenure and promotion? Taking onroles that impact teaching and learning (e.g., curriculum committees)? Moving into
positions of leadership?

o What is the degree of instructor involvement in CTL work (e.g., leading workshops,
serving as fellows, serving on advisory boards, bringing colleagues to events)?

Examples of context-specific considerations for this aspect of CTL evaluation:
Who are the CTL’s key constituencies?
At a small college, it may be important to track growing faculty participation in and leadershipwithin the CTL. At some institutions, adjunct or part-time faculty are a numerically larger groupand their needs must be met and nurtured so that all feel a part of the larger effort. At larger
institutions, students are served consistently by staff, and it is this staff that has a great opportunity
to influence success rates. Some integrated CTLs offer academic support services, suggesting
students are a key constituency to measure. In summary, a context-appropriate measurement
will reflect the constituencies most important to measure, in alignment with the CTL’s mission.

–7–

TEMPLE“We are a sanctuary on campus where people can come to talk about
and think about teaching and learning.”

Definition: The secular temple metaphor for CTLs functions in two ways. First, the temple provides
legitimacy, credibility, authority, and even recognition for instructors through support of teaching,learning, and educational development. As a site of legitimation, the temple function of CTLs
establishes teaching as an ongoing scholarly endeavor, worthy of professional development.
Second, the temple is a sanctuary, a space where campus teaching and learning communities canfind hope and inspiration, as well as an institutionally-sanctioned space for exploring pedagogy.
This function is a more radical departure from past CTL definitions, raising educational
development to a respected and visible place within an institution’s culture.
Possible indicators to consider for documenting activity/achievement in this area:
In one year:

o How many instructors or university staff rely on the CTL for institutionally recognizedsupport?

o How many and what type of CTL services/programs play a selective or legitimizing

function (e.g., teaching recognition event, competitive grants program, teaching certificates,
SoTL communities)?

o Based on a qualitative analysis of “affective” components of CTL evaluation responses,
do themes of trust, hope, and inspiration emerge?

o Do institutional messages (e.g., leadership talks, institutional incentives) encourage instructors
or university staff to participate in CTL activities?

Over several years:o Based on interviews or case studies, are there narratives of teaching development, whereindicators and stories of learning (both students’ and instructors’) attribute the CTL for
helping to inspire pedagogical growth (Wenger, Trayner, & de Laat, 2011) and legitimate
time spent on teaching?

o Are there examples where an enduring, deep engagement with a department or othercampus unit results in behaviors or practices that recognize the CTL’s role on campus(e.g., sending all new faculty for an instructional consultation)?

o Are there changes in key policies affecting teaching on campus (e.g., tenure and promotion, 		
documentation of professional development or teaching effectiveness)?

o Is the CTL named in strategic plans, self-studies for reaccreditation, and other institutional 		
documents?

Examples of context-specific considerations for this aspect of CTL evaluation:
Where does the CTL fit in the campus ecosystem in relation to institutional priorities?
A campus’s organizational milieu can significantly impact how this function is evaluated. In
contexts with a more distributed model of educational development, the location of the legitimacy
and recognition function may not be housed in a CTL. Other aspects of CTL organizational
structure — reporting lines, budget, and rank or status of its leadership — are highly variableby campus and may shift the evaluation of this dimension by shifting the institutional powerthat a CTL has available.

–8–

SIEVEWe “read the research and share the best.”

Definition: The sieve function reflects vetting roles that a CTL might play. Essential for thisfunction is the value of evidence-based practice. Evidence about student learning and teachingeffectiveness currently plays a greater role in educational development as institutions strive to
adopt data-driven priorities. CTLs act as sieves that both “filter in” and “filter out” as needed indifferent contexts. CTLs are looked to as sources of expertise about the research basis for educational practice and work with instructors and academic programs to implement these ideas andgrow innovations. At times, CTLs may even play a helpful role in “slowing down,” or opposing, a
new pedagogical initiative by bringing in research, asking questions about key goals, or gathering
feedback from key campus constituencies. Interestingly, this role was selected least frequently by
2017 POD Conference attendees, perhaps because of the hesitancy many CTLs have in taking
on an evaluative role, or difficulty saying “no.”Possible indicators to consider for documenting activity/achievement in this area:
In one year:

o What are the number of new resources produced/curated by a center and the number		of times they are accessed?

o How many times, and in what ways, does the CTL respond to requests for educational

		

research on a topic?

o How many mission-focused areas of programming does the CTL offer, and what is the

		
		
		
		

evidence basis for these? Is there alignment between CTL offerings and needs assessment 		
data? Does the CTL have intended and achieved faculty learning outcomes for programs: 		“what faculty will know, do, and find valuable as a result of their participation in centerprogramming” (Hurney et al, 2016)?

Over several years:o Do program offerings change -- or even stop -- in response to new research or		a campus-based needs assessment?

o Do faculty interviews or promotion and tenure dossiers attribute change in practice to		

CTL evidence-based programs or resources?

o Is there evidence of raised institutional awareness of evidence-based practices in teaching

		
		
		

and learning (e.g. new policies or practices that have an explicit research basis)? Are there
examples of how the CTL fostered innovative teaching and learning ideas, through practices 		such as competitive grants, intensive collaboration, and publicizing examplars’ work?

Examples of context-specific considerations for this aspect of CTL evaluation:
What are the resources available to the CTL?
CTLs with fewer human and material resources will need to prioritize differently than centers thatare more amply resourced. Large CTLs with many personnel may be better able to create scholarly
works and campus resources. Smaller CTLs may find it more efficient to vet resources createdby other centers or to develop them in collaboration with other centers. Quantitative indicators ofactivity/achievement such as number of resources produced will not be comparable between small
and large CTLs. However, other indicators, such as analysis of resources created, might possibly
be compared across institutions with very different resources. The presence or absence of aschool, college or faculty of education may influence the sieve function of a CTL, such as theextent to which they collaborate on research projects or external funding proposals and how
their specific expertise is valued.

–9–

APPLICATIONThis document establishes comprehensive CTL evaluation guidelines, or principles,
metrics, and contextual considerations that centers can use for the purposes ofdecision-making or making their work visible on campus. We end by offering
advisement on the pragmatics of planning a CTL evaluation, using the hub-incubatortemple-sieve lens. Although CTL evaluation planning is our primary focus, otherpotential applications include needs assessment, identification of strategic directions
for a center, annual report planning, and interpretation of existing feedback anddata about the center.
For established and well-resourced CTLs, we recommend that a selection of short-term(one-year) metrics in all four areas are feasible to capture and valuable to document.
However, some CTLs will likely need to make choices based on its unique set of
constraints, which might include center priorities, evaluation activities, and allocationof resources. For example, a new CTL engaged in relationship-building will wish to focus
on the hub or incubator metrics. CTLs seeking a very efficient approach might lookholistically at the metrics, because there are some areas of overlap, such as attendanceor resources, that can address multiple questions at once.
For longer-term (over several years) evaluation, we would encourage a more selective
approach, one guided by long-term planning. A comprehensive evaluation matrix(Wright, 2011), learning outcomes grid (Hurney, Brantmeier, Good, Harrison, & Meizner,
2016), and integrated data approach (Plank, Kalish, Rohdieck, & Harper, 2005) are
possible tools for planning a long-term CTL evaluation strategy. We advise centers to be
selective in which questions they address, perhaps doing a “deep dive” in a different
quadrant every year.
While we offer these guidelines as a resource for the educational development community, we acknowledge that CTL work is highly context-specific and users should adapt
as needed. We highlight four examples of how context might shape data collection orinterpretation, but there are most certainly others. Likewise, while the hub-incubatortemple-sieve lens applies to many dimensions of educational development work, otherpossible heuristics could apply.In conclusion, because of two key purposes of CTL
evaluation — visibility and decision-making — educational developers need to be able
to use evaluation approaches that are rooted in the values and practices of the field.
We encourage feedback on your use of this tool by emailing podoffice@podnetwork.org.

– 10 –

References
ACE and POD Network. (2018). A Center for Teaching and Learning matrix. Available podnetwork.org and acenet.edu.
Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of educational development
in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 90-126.
Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices,
future imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bush, S. D., Rudd J. A. II, Stevens M. T., Tanner K. D., & Williams, K. S. (2016). Fostering change from within: Influencing
teaching practices of departmental colleagues by science faculty with education specialties. PLoS ONE, 11(3):https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150914
Chalmers, D., & Gardiner, D. (2015). An evaluation framework for identifying the effectiveness and impact of academic teacher
development programmes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 81-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.02.002
Condon, W., Iverson, E.R., Manduca, C.A., Rutz, C., & Willet, G. (2016). Faculty development and student learning: Assessing
the connections. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Gibbs, G. (2013). Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic
Development, 18, 4–14.
Greenwald, H.P., & Zukowski, A.P. (2018). Assessing collaboration: Alternative measures and issues for evaluation. American
Journal of Evaluation, 39(3): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214017743813
Hawkins, G. (2018). I reckon—When I count at all [Ink on paper].
Hines, S. (2009). Investigating faculty development program assessment practices: What’s being done and how can it
be improved? Journal of Faculty Development, 23(3): 5-19.
Hines, S. (2017) Evaluating centers for teaching and learning: A field-tested model. To Improve the Academy, 36(2): 89-100.
Hurney, C.A., Brantmeier, E. J., Good, M. R., Harrison, D., & Meizner, C. (2016). The faculty learning outcome assessment
framework. Journal of Faculty Development, 30(2): 69-77.
Kelley, B., Cruz, L., & Fire, N.. (2017). Moving toward the center: The integration of educational development in an era of
historic change in higher education. To Improve the Academy, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20052
Kenny, N., Popovic, C., McSweeney, J., Knorr, K., Hoessler, C., Hall, S., Fujita, N., & El Khoury, E. (2017). Drawing on the principlesof SoTL to illuminate a path forward for the Scholarship of Educational Development. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarshipof Teaching and Learning, 8 (2). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.10
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P.D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal
principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education,73(4): 435-460.
Kolomitro, K., & Anstey, L. M. (2017). A survey on evaluation practices in teaching and learning centres. International
Journal for Academic Development, 22(3): 186-198.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kreber, C., & Brook, P. (2001). Impact evaluation of educational development programmes. International Journal for Academic
Development, 6, 96–108.
Kucsera, J.V., & Svinicki, M. (2010). Rigorous evaluation of faculty development programs. Journal of Faculty Development,
24(2): 5-18.
Levin-Rozalis, M. (2003). Evaluation and research: Differences and similarities. The Canadian Journal of Program
Evaluation, 18(2): 1-31.
Levinson-Rose, J., & Menges, R. J. (1981). Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Review of Educational
Research, 51(3): 403-434.
Little, D. (2015, Nov. 5). President’s address at POD Network annual conference. San Francisco, CA.
Montrosse-Moorhead, B. & Griffith, J. C. (2017). Toward the development of reporting standards for evaluations.
American Journal of Evaluation, 38(4): 577-602.
O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L. & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective.
ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(3). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Plank, K. M., Kalish, A., Rohdieck, S.V., & Harper, K. A. (2005). A vision beyond measurement: Creating an integrated datasystem for teaching centers. In S. Chadwick-Blossey & D.R. Robertson (Eds.), To improve the academy, 23 (pp. 173-190).
POD Network. (2016). The 2016 POD Network membership survey: Past, present, and future. Available:
https://podnetwork.org/content/uploads/2016podmembershipreportprintnomarks.pdf
Schroeder, C., Ed. (2010). Coming in from the margins: Faculty development’s emerging organizational development rolein institutional change. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Stevens, M. L., Armstrong, E. A., & Arum, R. (2008). Sieve, incubator, temple, hub: Theoretical advances in the sociologyof higher education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34: 127-151.
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks:
A conceptual framework. Rapport 18, Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open University of the Netherlands.
Wright, M. C. (2011). Measuring a teaching center’s effectiveness. In Cook, C.E. & Kaplan, M. (Eds.) Advancing the culture ofteaching on campus: How a teaching center can make a difference. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Wright, M. C. (2017, October). Defining what matters. Presidential address at POD Network annual conference. Montreal, Canada.
Wright, M., Horii, C.V., Felten, P., Sorcinelli, M. D., and Kaplan, M. (2018). Faculty development improves teaching and learning.
POD Speaks, 2. Available: https://podnetwork.org/pod-speaks/.

– 11 –

www.podnetwork.org
For Further Information: Phone: 303-258-9521

Email: podoffice@podnetwork.org