The University of Virginia’s week long CDI is grounded in the literature and supported by the theoretical frameworks of backward integrated course design and Fink’s taxonomy of significant learning (Fink, 2013). The overarching goal is for participants to design or redesign a course—and future courses—grounded in learning focused, evidenced based principles...This focus and intentionality makes CDIs like ours potentially powerful instructional development experiences capable of shifting teacher beliefs, levels of confidence, and practices toward a learning focus. However, to what extent, exactly, do these types of intensive course design interventions impact teaching beliefs and practices and, ultimately, student learning? In other words, can CDIs be viewed as a high impact educational development practice?

These findings challenge institutions and STEM disciplines to reflect on practices and policies that sustain the status quo. Specifically, institutions should revise their tenure, promotion, and merit-recognition policies to incentivize and reward implementation of evidence-based instructional practices for all academic ranks…These policy changes would require institutions and STEM professional organizations to provide effective pedagogical training for the current and future professoriate, similar to the level provided for research. Further, these policy changes cannot be meaningfully implemented without research-based guidelines for measuring effective teaching practices. Funding agencies should prioritize the development of such guidelines.

Participants experienced significant increases to both dimensions of their sense of belonging to the institution with large practical effects. Participants increased their sense of connectedness after participating in CDI and maintained these levels throughout their FLC experience. For most participants, CDI marked the beginning of their cohort experience and with it their sense of being connected with members of the institution outside of their departments.

The present study examined students’ perceptions of a learning-focused and content-focused syllabus to better understand how the syllabus influences perceptions of the document, course, and instructor. Both quantitative and qualitative data collected support the hypothesis that the syllabus does matter: for the most part, students who read a learning-focused syllabus have more positive perceptions of the document, instructor, and course than students who read a content-focused syllabus.

Educational developers are increasingly asked to demonstrate the efficacy of their work and to provide evidence that the investment in educational development (ED) is worthwhile. This study contributes to research focused on establishing the link between participation in ED programs, changes in teaching practices, and improved student learning. Specifically, drawing on research on intensive course design workshops and faculty learning communities, it examines the impact of different ED intervention types and durations. Unique in its design, this study uses a multi‐indicator strategy and direct measures such as syllabi and classroom observations to assess changes in teaching as well as institutional grade data to approximate student success.