Context

The needs assessment was carried out by an organization specializing in evaluations and advocacy for education and community initiatives, in response to a request from a CTL at a private doctoral-granting university in the southwestern United States. The university offered programs across liberal arts, fine arts, sciences, engineering, business, communication, nursing, medicine, and education. With an undergraduate acceptance rate under 50%, the institution primarily served about 11,000 traditional full-time undergraduates alongside roughly 1,800 graduate students. Among more than 100 undergraduate and nearly 90 graduate degree programs, only about 5% were offered online. Although online courses were offered during the COVID-19 pandemic, instruction was primarily delivered in-person, complemented by content hosted on a learning management system (LMS). Full-time faculty were expected to provide effective teaching and service, with tenure-track faculty additionally responsible for producing a high level of scholarship or creative activity.

For more than 20 years, the center has served as a campus resource for promoting student engagement and improving learning. Funded through the university’s general operating budget, it resided within Academic Affairs, under the division of Faculty Affairs, which oversaw faculty recruitment, hiring, mentoring, development, promotion, and tenure. At the time of the assessment, the CTL employed six full-time staff—close to the 2020 average of 5.4 reported by Wright (2023)—including a director, an administrative assistant, a learning technology manager, a learning technologist, an instructional designer, and a faculty developer. Figure 1 shows the areas supported by the CTL. Following Wright’s (2023) HITS framework (hubs, incubators, temples, and sieves), the center functioned as a hub, offering workshops, teaching observations, virtual labs, consultations, LMS management, and distance learning support. Hubs, the most common CTL type, provide centralized services while connecting people and resources through dialogue and collaboration.

Figure 1. Areas Supported by the CTL

Participants

As shown in Table 2, survey respondents were mostly full-time instructors. Half of the participants were women, while the rest were men or did not reveal their gender. Most identified as White, while 12% were Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, and others did not disclose their race or ethnicity. Participants had diverse teaching experience with the most having taught for 10–19 years. Most participants taught undergraduate or a mix of undergraduate and graduate courses with 15–30 students.

Data Collection

Faculty participants were recruited via email to take a confidential survey.¹ The initial email and three reminders were distributed using Qualtrics. The response rate, based on the 185 people who completed at least 40% of the survey, was 13.5%. We chose the 40% cutoff because it was the lowest percentage of responses that provided usable data. Most missing responses resulted from participants skipping the demographic questions at the end of the survey. After completing the questionnaire, respondents could volunteer to participate in a focus group. Of the 24 respondents who expressed interest in participating in a focus group and provided contact information, 13 ultimately took part.

Survey. The 21-item survey addressed faculty’s use of and satisfaction with the CTL, teaching improvement priorities, interest in learning new strategies, preferred professional development modes, CTL strategic goals, potential enhancements, and demographic information. At the end of the survey, participants were invited to volunteer for a focus group through a separate, linked survey designed to preserve confidentiality, with the focus groups intended to generate additional qualitative data. The survey was adapted from an instrument described by Cruz et al. (2020) and refined in consultation with CTL leadership to ensure contextual relevance, consistent with POD Network (2018) guidelines for CTL evaluations and the TRIP framework. This expert review confirmed item clarity and consistency, supporting both reliability and validity. Reliability was further reinforced by the instrument’s prior use in similar contexts. Careful adaptations preserved the integrity of the original items while ensuring institutional relevance. One key modification, recommended by a CTL administrator, was the addition of an open-ended question designed to elicit deeper insights into faculty perceptions.

Focus Groups. Focus group interviews were conducted in-person, via Zoom, or as a hybrid, depending on participant preferences. All conversations were audio-recorded, transcribed, and carefully reviewed for accuracy before coding and analysis. Each session began with introductions of the research team and participants. In keeping with the TRIP framework, we then presented preliminary quantitative survey results to spark discussion and involve participants in interpreting the findings. Next, they engaged in a semi-structured group interview, discussing impactful professional development activities, desired relationships with the CTL, services to add or discontinue, support needed for their teaching, and incentives or barriers to engaging with CTL programming. They were also invited to reimagine the center’s future by considering the question: “If you could reinvent the center, what would it look like, or what would make you rate it as excellent?” This question was modified based on conversations with CTL staff after reviewing preliminary survey results, reflecting collaborative refinement of the methodology.

Follow-up. The evaluators compiled a report and presented it to the CTL staff, engaging in a conversation about the findings and their implications. After a period of about 6 months, and again at 12 months, we followed up with the CTL to determine the changes they had made based on the needs assessment results and recommendations.

Data Analysis

The inclusion of closed-ended and open-ended question types generated both quantitative and qualitative data for analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated for responses to closed-ended survey questions, with counts and/or percentages reported in text, tables, and graphs as appropriate. Open-ended survey responses and focus group transcripts were anonymized and transcribed for qualitative thematic analysis using NVivo, with the research team conducting open coding and then identifying themes. NVivo was used to organize and manage the data, facilitate searchability, and create visuals. No artificial intelligence or auto-coding features of NVivo were utilized in this study. Following Braun and Clarke’s (2021) four-phase approach, the research team first familiarized themselves with the data through the transcription process and additional readings of the data before generating a list of potential codes based on response patterns and the research questions. After discussing the initial themes, the team developed a coding tree with clear definitions. Then they systematically reviewed the data again, applying codes where appropriate. They named and described findings based on evolving, refined code definitions and sorted relevant quotations into categories.

Impact of the Pandemic

In qualitative responses, several participants used temporal language to differentiate their experiences with the CTL before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. In some of these instances, the transition to lockdown during the pandemic was specified as the moment in time in which things changed for the CTL and the university at large. In the words of one participant, “I really liked the open lab times we had before the pandemic and would like that to resume. I value the opportunity to talk through an idea or problem.” In this example, the CTL is remembered as a supportive resource, available for in-person, informal consultations. This participant, like others, noted a decline in services, explicitly mentioning budget cuts or reduction of staffing in their remarks.

The CTL’s pivotal role in supporting online learning also shifted faculty perceptions dramatically. A quote from one participant provided insight, indicating that the CTL “saved us during COVID, and they were thanked by not being fully staffed.” Unlike many other respondents, this participant considered the CTL as “saving” the university during the pandemic. For many other respondents, the CTL became, at best, a nuisance during a difficult time and, at worst, a villain during the shift to online learning. As one participant commented,

I would add that I felt like there was a just kind of a decisive moment when the pandemic hit. And it seems to me [the CTL] was tasked with enforcing something very unpleasant for everyone. But we were all in crisis. We’re also told, you must do this series of modules at home, in isolation, and I found it very bewildering. I sort of lost my trust in [the CTL].

Beyond the immediate burdens of online learning, some participants reflected on the broader pedagogical challenges that have emerged in the post-pandemic landscape. One faculty member expressed the need for ongoing support to navigate changing student behavior, stating, “I would like training on general social shifts in the students. For example, after COVID, it seems that we have a student body that is increasingly less resilient, more anxious.” This quote highlights the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the evolving nature of teaching and learning since then.

Trust in the CTL

Open-ended responses highlighted several factors contributing to faculty distrust of the CTL, including insufficient funding and personnel changes. Some respondents attributed distrust to the role the CTL sometimes plays in faculty evaluation, while others questioned the qualifications of CTL staff, noting a preference for staff that have “actual university teaching experience, not just adjunct teaching.” Faculty also emphasized the need for CTL events to be grounded in empirical evidence and advertised as such. In one poignant comment, a faculty member stated, “I am open to learning about what works best, serious engagement with learning literature applied to teaching, not fairy dust uncritical talks that hawk the latest methods.” Although this comment represents a single voice, it reflects a larger distrust of the CTL, alluding to a desire for more transparency about workshop topic selection.

Barriers to Participation

As shown in Figure 2, quantitative survey responses indicated that the most frequent reason for not attending CTL events was “too many competing demands on my time” (29%), followed by “scheduled time of event was inconvenient” (27%). In addition, respondents selected “attendance not valued in faculty evaluation” (10%) as another barrier to participation. Many also identified “topics not matching learning needs” as a barrier to their participation in CTL events, a topic discussed later under “programming.” The qualitative findings confirm these results and provide more nuance to these reasons for not participating.

Figure 2. Barriers to Participation

Time Constraints. In open-ended responses, participants often recounted limited time as a reason for not partaking in CTL events that they might otherwise have attended. Many expressed the need for more convenient scheduling of CTL activities, such as evening or lunch sessions as well as synchronous or asynchronous virtual options. Although this sentiment was common, faculty described experiencing time strain in different ways. For example, full-time faculty members often pointed to research, teaching, service, mentoring, and advising duties, whereas adjunct instructors mentioned limited time spent on campus or other responsibilities, such as additional jobs.

The increase in size of the student body, which often exhibited signs of stress, was linked to heavier faculty workloads and greater time demands. One respondent captured the urgency and time-consuming nature of student advising, stating, “Current faculty and staff are chronically stretched too thin, further exacerbated by the crisis of the poor state of student mental health . . . . This takes time and emotional energy.” Participants also expressed concerns that reliance on adjunct faculty to accommodate growth added to full-time faculty mentoring duties with larger class sizes and greater advising responsibilities, further intensifying time strain.

Evaluation Policies. A frequently mentioned sentiment in the open-ended questions was that instructors did not feel that their efforts to improve their teaching were valued by others. This was often mentioned in relation to their dedication to improving teaching practice, as well as tangible outcomes. For some, incentivizing attendance at CTL events, from providing stipends for attending workshops to offering small teaching grants, would boost their motivation to improve their teaching. A related issue was the unclear connection between CTL event participation and merit raises. Several participants wanted more transparency on whether attending these events impacted their pay.

Programming

Despite concerns noted earlier, quantitative data indicated that most faculty (75%) attended 1–3 professional development activities annually, while 20% never participated, and 5% attended four or more events. Their top priorities for improving teaching practices were improving student engagement, using new technology, and addressing diverse learner needs. Participants also expressed interest in learning about high-impact practices, problem-based learning, and Universal Design for Learning. They generally perceived the CTL’s services positively, with most rating the quality of mentoring and support (84%) and professional development (91%) as fair, good, or very good. When we presented this finding to CTL staff, they indicated a desire to understand what actions might lead participants to rate the center as excellent, prompting a revision of a focus group question.

Instructional Topics. Qualitative data suggest that to achieve excellence, the center should provide more variety and differentiation in their programming. Some sought deeper dives into advanced material, while others sought programming tailored to their specific disciplines, pedagogic interests, or teaching philosophies. For example, some emphasized their pedagogic commitment to equity, while others expressed interest in the latest higher education research or the scholarship of teaching and learning. Cross-disciplinary collaboration was suggested to address unfamiliar pedagogic approaches not often used in participants’ disciplines, and some recommended role-specific activities, such as an “an adjunct camp” to mentor part-time instructors, particularly newcomers, on policies and practices.

Timeliness. A recurring theme in participant feedback regarding CTL events was “timeliness,” referring to the center’s responsiveness to an evolving higher educational environment. Faculty desired more timely responses from the CTL in addressing current events and emergent technology. Timeliness not only applied to societal changes, such as the pandemic or the introduction of generative AI, but also to ongoing changes at the university such as increasing class sizes. Faculty sought support in managing the challenges of larger classes, including grading, advising, and course logistics. Many were interested in learning about technological innovations that could help them maintain a student-centered approach amid these challenges.

Technology. Many of the qualitative responses pertained to technology, signaling a strong interest among faculty. In the words of one respondent, “We are long past the days of lecture style classrooms and need access and budgets for technologies and activities beyond PowerPoint and Adobe Creative Cloud.” Notably, this participant, as well as several others, sought not only instruction on new technology but also pathways to funding for digital classroom tools. Generative artificial intelligence was an area of particular concern, with faculty highlighting the need for guidance on how to integrate it into their teaching while managing risks, such as cheating. In the words of one participant,

I think the [CTL] needs to really focus on AI pedagogy for all disciplines. This is the most rapid change in learning, teaching, and evaluation, maybe in educational history and every faculty member is being asked to more or less figure it out for themselves on the fly.

Apart from AI, participants were interested in additional professional development regarding the LMS. Instructors, particularly part-time or adjunct, requested more resources on LMS basics as well as advanced topics. As one participant noted, “I’m beyond the beginner . . . I’m ready to progress to the next level.” Open lab times, where instructors could drop by or call for real-time assistance, were frequently mentioned as a valuable support. In addition to workshops, participants requested well-indexed web materials and instructional videos that they could use for just-in-time support.

Mentoring and Collaboration. Some participants noted that impactful faculty development involves meaningful interactions and collaboration. Others discussed using the CTL as a hub for informal in-person or online collaboration and mentoring. One participant exemplified this perspective:

It’s always fruitful when I’m able to sit down in person with fellow faculty and talk about teaching, the challenges, potential solutions. We have so many very, very talented teachers here, doing very creative things . . . even a program of coordinating lunch opportunities [for] collaboratively sharing ideas could be an inexpensive way . . . that [fits] into people’s schedules.

The underlying message suggested that quality conversations about teaching practice among experienced professionals enhanced professional development. Specific ideas included faculty-led brown bag lunches, sometimes with pre-determined topics, or an online system where faculty could answer each other’s questions and discuss teaching-related topics.

Service Modalities. According to survey responses, the two most popular modes for faculty development reflected familiar approaches: workshops and web-based resources. As shown in Table 4, faculty preferences for the remaining options were more diverse, spanning seminar series, faculty dialogue, learning communities, lesson observation, and other approaches.

Communication Methods

Quantitative data showed that 65% of instructors preferred email notifications about faculty development events, while 30% also wanted web-based notifications on the CTL website or LMS platform. However, qualitative data revealed mixed preferences: some wanted more emails per event, while others did not want to be notified by email at all. One participant noted, “I get so many, I usually don’t have time to read them all. Perhaps some signs around campus that can be read to and from class, meetings, etc. would help.” Faculty also suggested making announcements more relevant, including “how the information in the session can be applicable to the classroom itself . . . something to directly connect the event’s topic to specific moments in the classroom.”

Strategic Priorities

When ranking strategic goals commonly associated with CTLs, survey respondents prioritized fostering a culture of teaching excellence, promoting innovative instructional methodologies and technologies, and advancing new teaching and learning initiatives. This feedback highlights faculty interests and indicates instructors’ desires regarding the CTL’s purpose. Rather than serving primarily in a supportive role, responses indicate a desire for the CTL to assume a more proactive leadership stance.

Resource Allocation

Overwhelmingly, participants articulated, in response to open-ended survey and focus group questions, a desire for more resources to be allocated to the CTL. Several faculty members expressed nostalgia for the services that the CTL had provided in the past when it had more staff prior to the pandemic. Acknowledging staffing as limiting the CTL’s ability to reach its full potential, one participant said, “I mean, even five people [is] not going to be enough for an institution the size of [this university] for all the things you guys are wanting them to do.” Expressing the necessity of institutional support, another participant remarked, “I hope [the CTL] gets the resources they need to funnel down to the faculty. Because I know they’re stretched [thin] . . . I would like those resources available.”

Adaptive Programming

Qualitative data also highlighted the importance of the CTL readily adapting to evolving faculty needs amid changes in the university and society. Many expressed a desire for regular evaluations to ensure that offerings consistently align with faculty priorities. One participant suggested “crowd-sourcing topics so they’re timely,” while another urged the center to “conduct a needs assessment more frequently.” Participants’ comments suggest that providing regular opportunities for input potentially builds trust in the center and strengthens instructors’ sense of ownership and engagement. They also indicated that such opportunities could enhance transparency by helping instructors better understand how and why workshop topics are chosen, increasing the perception that events are relevant and responsive.

Response to Recommendations

The CTL made several changes following the completion of the needs assessment, which are described here to illustrate how the study’s findings and resulting recommendations informed early institutional responses, rather than as findings derived directly from the quantitative and qualitative data. Report recommendations included tailored professional development, flexible learning modalities, adaptation to emerging trends, cross-departmental collaboration, strategic resource allocation, and improved communication strategies. The CTL’s subsequent actions reflect a commitment to responsiveness and provide a clear direction for enhancing the center’s relevance and relationships with faculty.

Following the release of the report, the CTL used the assessment results to inform professional development initiatives, strategic planning discussions, and staffing considerations. In follow-up emails, they conveyed several actions they took to strengthen the CTL’s impact, improve faculty engagement, and increase access to resources and services. An 18-member advisory board representing diverse ranks, disciplines, and teaching interests was established to shape strategies and prioritize goals. To address negative perceptions and increase relevance, the CTL partnered with a public relations firm, using the needs assessment to guide rebranding efforts, including a website redesign. Programming was expanded to include in-person and online workshops at varied times, drop-in open labs, and scheduled consultations to improve accessibility. Communication was also streamlined through revised message formats and a new platform to promote workshops, resources, and services.

Recommendations

Based on the current assessment, we believe there are several actionable recommendations that other CTLs might consider when designing their own needs assessment. Such evaluations, which can assist with decision-making and problem-solving while making the CTL’s work more visible on campus, should use a range of evidence and methodologies and align with an institution’s context, priorities, and resources, as well as educational development trends and values (Cruz et al., 2000; POD Network, 2018). Further, they should be guided by questions that are important to various campus stakeholders, including faculty at different career stages, full- and part-time faculty, as well as instructional leaders and staff.

As an organization using the TRIP framework in evaluation research, we emphasize that recommendations are most valuable when CTLs adopt a comprehensive collaborative process. This can be carried out internally or with an external evaluation partner committed to working together and sustaining ongoing dialogue. Guidance exists for conducting comprehensive CTL evaluations in general (e.g., Hines & Ford, 2025) and for CTL needs assessments specifically (e.g., Cruz et al., 2020). Integrating the TRIP framework with this guidance ensures that evaluations are collaborative, responsive, and sustainable. One key finding highlights these qualities: faculty requested greater input into professional development offerings, including “crowd-sourcing topics so they’re timely” and conducting “needs assessments more frequently” to build trust and engagement with CTL programming.

A robust evaluation plan should be developed and implemented, particularly one that utilizes a TRIP framework (e.g., Smith & Helfenbein, 2009; Weinberg et al., 2023) to foster an ongoing collaborative relationship between an evaluator and a CTL. As Carr and Bradley-Levine (2016) noted, the type of partnership required by the TRIP model “is not considered an end in itself but rather an ongoing practice” (p. 45). Returning to the TRIP core commitments, a CTL and its evaluation partner should consider the following:

1. Commitment to Learning: CTLs and their evaluation partners are in a continuous state of listening to the campus and its various constituencies, especially when considering new professional development opportunities.

2. Commitments to People and Social Advocacy: CTLs should have a clear idea of the people that make up their communities and campuses. This can help determine the purpose of the work a CTL does and with whom collaboration is a necessity.

3. Commitments to Teaching: In this sense, the TRIP model is not referring to teaching in the traditional way, but rather that a CTL and its evaluation partner clearly communicate and teach what a collaborative approach means and requires to all those involved in the work of the CTL and the evaluation thereof.

4. Commitment to Work: Perhaps too simple on its face, this commitment requires both the CTL and program evaluation partner to recognize that the work is not linear and/or ever complete but an ongoing process that requires both to work through ongoing problems and solutions.

For example, in our needs assessment, we found evidence that CTLs should consider the TRIP commitment to learning in the faculty’s desire for the center to provide timely responses to emerging technologies like generative AI. The commitment to people and social advocacy emerged in participants’ recommendations for differentiated programming for varied faculty roles and disciplines. The commitment to teaching manifested in faculty requests for transparent communication about workshop purposes and intended audiences. Finally, the commitment to work—recognizing ongoing, non-linear processes—aligned with faculty calls for regular needs assessments and continuous adaptation of services. These connections demonstrate how TRIP provides not just a methodological approach but a conceptual framework that aligns with the dynamic nature of CTL work in higher education contexts.

Our methods of conducting program evaluation may not be applicable to all CTLs. Centers should recognize that evaluation approaches may need to be adapted to fit their specific institutional and contextual factors. Needs assessments at institutions characteristically different from ours may require alternative methodological approaches. For example, surveying all faculty and analyzing extensive qualitative data may not be feasible at larger universities, making sampling strategies more practical. Given typical resource limitations, CTLs cannot be responsible for meeting all faculty needs. Instead, needs assessments should be used to help prioritize initiatives based on the most pressing needs or challenges identified in an evaluation.

Integrating evaluation, adapted to an institution’s context, into a CTL’s routines can support continuous improvement. Sharing data with staff as it is collected and presenting findings across the institution can foster engagement and strengthen connections at multiple levels, while a structured plan and collaboration with evaluation-savvy colleagues can make the process more feasible even with limited resources (Hines & Ford, 2025; Wright, 2023). Periodic studies allow CTLs to examine multiple measures of faculty engagement and teaching effectiveness, including workshop feedback and student perceptions of teaching. Incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives provides a comprehensive understanding of needs and challenges. The Centers for Teaching and Learning Matrix (American Council on Education & POD Network, 2018) can be used to guide needs assessments and other evaluations, helping staff identify gaps, shape programming, and demonstrate their contributions to the institution.