by Tanja Kraemer-McCaffery, University of Freiburg, Germany, Gemma Mas Crespo, University of Barcelona, Spain, and Peter van Baalen, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Within the last three decades, we have seen big changes within the teaching and learning sector of Higher Education organisations in Europe. Starting from the Bologna reform in 1999, there has been a growing focus on mobility and internationalisation, quality management, and an explosion of diverse and specialised course programs, including in continuous education, flanked by an ever-increasing and ongoing digitalisation. These developments have led to new areas of activity for faculties and teachers as well as to the proliferation of new professional roles within the university. Consequently, a “Third Space”, has emerged, whose members often act as change agents in multiprofessional teams, providing services for students and teachers and building new bridges between administration and academia. Organised traditionally in separate units, there has been the realisation that shared strategic planning and coordination, agile cooperation and visibility are essential to support students and teachers optimally and develop the area of teaching and learning further. This insight has led to an increased interest in new organisational structures that provide a common “roof” for those units and allow their deep integration to deliver a “One-Stop-Service” to their customers: Centres for Teaching and Learning (CTLs).
The League of European Research Universities (LERU) has also discussed and investigated the rise of CLTs and their potential for its member universities and published a briefing paper entitled “Centres for Teaching and Learning at LERU Universities in an Age of Digital Education,” which examines the evolving functions of Centres for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) in the context of digital education.
This paper is the result of a study undertaken by LERU digital education experts that analysed CTLs from the initial function of improving teaching and learning development at universities to a more complex ecosystem of functions that require different units, services, professional roles and structures. This evolution reflects the growing significance of digital education and the diverse approaches adopted by universities, influenced by the particular university context in terms of culture, strategies, policies, etc.
Based on practices at LERU universities, the study identified three different organisational designs for CTLs, each with its own advantages and challenges. These three models are flexible and global designs (in terms of schemas), related to digital education, which can be combined in different ways according to the university context, culture and strategic priorities, resulting in an infinite number of possible combinations. There is no one-size-fits-all model for CTLs.
Models:
- Centralised: All the services are centralised, covering a wide range of functions across different units at central level offering internal efficiency and consistency through all the faculties. It requires a shared vision and two-way communication channels between faculties and the central system, engaging faculties in the institutional strategy.
- Decentralised: Here, the central university services support a wide range of functions for the whole university, whereas, within the majority of faculties, there are CTLs focused on tailored support aligned closely with specific faculty requirements. In this model, although it offers a powerful tool for enhancing autonomy and flexibility, collaboration also becomes a challenge that can result in misaligned priorities and duplication of efforts. It requires shared goals and objectives, collaborative processes and communication channels between central and faculty services for this model to be successful.
- Hybrid: This model combines elements of both the centralised and decentralised model. It consists of a central CTL, which offers services to support and coordinate faculty initiatives and projects as well as university strategy, with teaching and learning services embedded in (some) faculties. These faculty services strongly collaborate and share responsibilities with the central services. It requires a shared vision and good communication channels that reinforce the idea of building an institutional network of services.
After analysing functions, profiles and proposing three possible organisational models for CTLs, the study focuses on the real obstacles and challenges that CTLs currently face and clearly points to three main ones for which best practices are also provided: organisational aspects, strategy and collaboration.
Finally, the paper highlights ten key recommendations that universities can implement if they are considering the development, redesign, or expansion of their CTLs that effectively enhance teaching quality and embrace the opportunities presented by digital education.
For a more detailed analysis and additional insights, the full paper is available on the LERU website: https://www.leru.org/files/LERU-paper_Centres-for-teaching-and-learning-at-LERU-universities_Digital-education.pdf
Authors
Tanja Kraemer-McCaffery, University of Freiburg, Germany.
Gemma Mas Crespo, University of Barcelona, Spain
Peter van Baalen, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
