This dissertation presents an essential faculty development program framework for teaching and learning centers in research extensive universities for introducing, enhancing, and improving faculty development programs. In this study, the Delphi method was used to gain consensus from the study experts on essential and model faculty development programs, key goals and biggest challenges for teaching and learning centers in research extensive universities. This study included two major phases: (1) creation of the original survey instrument, and (2) conducting the surveys with the identified experts. The first phase utilized three experts in the field of faculty development to validate the questionnaire instrument. The second phase was completed by a panel of 15 experts representing 14 states and was conducted in four iterations. The study answered five research questions: (1) What are essential faculty development programs for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities? (2) What are model faculty development programs for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities? (3) What programs will be essential for faculty development in the future as forecasted by faculty professional development experts on the Delphi panel? (4) What should be the key goals for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities? (5) What are the biggest challenges for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities? This dissertation study identified 18 currently essential faculty development programs and 28 future essential faculty development programs for teaching and learning centers in research extensive universities. Additionally, the Delphi panel members provided descriptions of model programs for identified essential faculty development programs that are considered as successful best practices to faculty development. The Delphi panel also provided insights into key goals and key challenges for teaching and learning centers that can be used by directors to plan essential faculty development programs. This dissertation is significant because the results are expected to serve as a means for evaluating existing faculty development programming and guiding the planning of new faculty development programs to enhance teaching and learning on research extensive university campuses.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the activities, funding, accountability, and evaluation of selected teaching and learning centers relative to the professional development of faculty in four-year public institutions of higher education. Using a qualitative research design, in-depth interviews were conducted with directors of four teaching and learning centers. In accordance with the concept of purposeful sampling, the centers chosen for study were located in Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. The following research questions were investigated: (1) What is the primary mission or purpose of teaching and learning centers relative to faculty development? (2) What types of activities are offered for professional development of faculty? (3) How is the center funded? (4) How are the center activities evaluated? Conclusions reached in this study included: (a) a variety of opportunities for professional development must be given to meet individual faculty member's needs; (b) topics offered by these centers included teaching and presentation techniques as well as special interest and discipline related topics; (c) a variety of programs should be offered to faculty; (d) all four centers studied were funded by institutional funds; (e) center directors produced annual reports following no guidelines or specifications from their supervisors; (f) research and publication are still the primary avenues for promotion; and (g) center directors should continue to teach at least one course to keep abreast of the trials and tribulations of faculty. Based on the findings of this study, six recommendations are offered: (a) teaching and learning centers should be assessed by moth internal and external evaluators; (b) formative evaluation procedures as well as summative should be used in the evaluation of faculty; (c) evaluations should be shared cutside the organization; (d) centers should assist faculty only on a voluntary basis; (e) directors off teaching and centers should previously have been full-time findings faculty; and (f) the reward structures of universities need to be changed to include a stronger emphasis upon classroom teaching.

As online learning continues to grow and became an integral component of many higher education institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2017), the role of leadership in guiding those online learning initiatives differs from institution to institution. At small, private colleges and universities, where online learning is seeing greater enrollment and growth (Clinefelter & Magda, 2013), teaching and learning centers (TLC) often have involvement in guiding and shaping online learning initiatives. This study investigated the role of TLC leaders in leading online learning initiatives. The value of this study is an examination of leadership during a period of transformation and change that requires TLC leaders to manage administrative directives, work with a diverse faculty base, and balance these sometimes competing interests. This research study sought to explore the perceptions and lived experiences of TLC leaders in online learning leadership within small, private higher education institutions. Utilizing complexity leadership theory as a framework for exploring the various leadership functions of TLC leaders, the study employed a transcendental phenomenological methodology (Moustakas, 1994). Participants included seven TLC leaders or other TLC staff who were involved in online learning initiatives at their institutions. Data was collected through a series of three semi-structured interview sessions based on the qualitative interview design of Seidman (2005). Analysis of the data generated themes centered around the three leadership functions of complexity leadership theory: administrative, adaptive, and enabling leadership.

This study was designed to obtain an increased understanding of faculty members’ perceptions of faculty-development activities offered by the Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) at one location of a multicampus, regionally accredited, private, nonprofit university. This study was necessary to help with administrative and academic decisions regarding faculty development. The first of the four research questions addressed participants’ perceptions of the TLC’s professional development through workshops to prepare and assist faculty with teaching. The second research question addressed participants’ perceptions of their mentoring experience to support faculty members during their initial teaching assignments. The third and fourth research questions addressed the influence of experience and demographic factors on participants’ overall perceptions of activities offered by the TLC. Survey methodology was utilized to obtain quantitative data. Because the researcher designed the instrument, the questionnaire utilized was validated by a formative and a summative committee and pilot tested. The instrument included questions that were formatted and ordered to address each of the research questions. The first sequence of questions addressed the first research question and offered an opportunity for comments on the overall TLC experience. The second sequence of questions addressed the second research question and allowed an opportunity for comments on mentoring. The third sequence of questions addressed the third and fourth research questions. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The analysis revealed that respondents’ perceptions of the TLC were positive; it adequately prepared them for initial teaching assignments at the university. However, respondents’ comments indicated the need for a variety of topics they would like to have presented at workshops. Participants’ perceptions of mentoring experiences were mixed; however, there was a general indication that there were problems with mentoring experiences and relationships that needed to be addressed. Analysis also indicated that demographic and experience factors had very little impact on respondents’ perceptions of the TLC workshops and mentoring.