3 questions from BU Wendy Colby about the Center for Academic Innovation and Teaching

In the evolving higher education landscape, centers and institutions dedicated to teaching and learning are no longer viewed as optional support units; they have become critical engines that drive large-scale academic innovation. Success in this mission depends on rethinking traditional structures, fostering a culture of collaboration across schools and colleges, identifying opportunities for broad impact, and remaining grounded in the core principles that make teaching truly effective: clarity, engagement, reflection, inclusivity, adaptability, support and rigor.

Wendy Colby, vice president and vice provost at Boston University, leads BU Virtual and BU’s new Institute for Teaching Excellence. The Institute was established to develop a new vision and approach, thoughtfully reorganizing and expanding the role of several former units such as the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Center for Innovation in Digital Learning. The goal is to build connections across the University to promote excellence in teaching and academic innovation.

In the first part of our conversation, Wendy and I discussed the role of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) within the university ecosystem.

Question 1: How can a new institute be conceived and built that truly advances scholarly innovation and delivers on the promise of greater impact among a faculty—especially one as large and diverse as Boston University?

one: This is very interesting. I approach leadership of the Institute the same way I approach any new leadership assignment. It starts with a lot of listening—going out into the community and talking to teachers and students to understand what’s working well and where there are still challenges. I audited some classes and was invited to give guest lectures. I’ve seen some of the best examples of truly outstanding teaching, and I’ve looked at how teachers and students use technology and tools (or don’t) to support the learning experience.

Needless to say, I learned a lot. I see where innovation thrives and where teachers often tackle similar challenges independently, without a shared platform for collaboration or access to scalable resources. I also saw the importance of senior leadership and advocacy – working closely with deans and academic leaders to achieve shared goals and priorities. It is clear that we need to create conditions for teachers to feel that this is an institute by them and for them.

Based on these early observations, we began to define the goals of the institute. We have established a Strategic Advisory Committee and College Faculty Liaison Group, made up of teacher champions from our schools and colleges. We have also developed close alliances with key partners, particularly the Office of Undergraduate Affairs and the Dean of Students, to clarify the College’s role in student success and the broader student experience. These partnerships, established at the institute’s inception, are critical to creating the conditions for success.

Ultimately, it is most obvious that our success depends on shared ownership. Impact on this scale cannot be achieved by any one unit alone. In a university made up of many different academic and business units, each with its own priorities and ways of working, collective coordination is not automatic, but it is powerful. When we operate as a connected university, able to leverage, contribute and amplify the extraordinary work already happening across our community, the potential for impact is far greater than the sum of its parts.

Question 2: What initial initiatives have you initiated at the college? How do these initiatives promote meaningful faculty engagement and better student experiences?

one: Let me start by saying that I have now spoken with many leaders at other institutions who either lead similar centers or institutions or are working to transform their own centers or institutions in more meaningful ways. A common theme I hear is that these units typically have extremely talented teams (often comprised of former faculty) who work hard to develop thoughtful programming, offer workshops, and create resources for evidence-based pedagogy. However, their impact is often limited. They strive to establish a clear institutional identity; they compete for faculty attention; and they often reach only a small portion of the community. Historically, this is a challenge we face at Boston University as well.

So, in addition to developing a new vision and direction for the Institute (and locating it in a more central and visible location on campus), we organized our initial work around a small number of shared strategic initiatives designed to achieve scale, coherence, and broad relevance.

One of the institute’s core initiatives is a campus-wide focus on the use of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning, developed in close collaboration with the Artificial Intelligence Development Accelerator (AIDA), a new center designed to place BU at the forefront of artificial intelligence. By combining AIDA’s strategic and technical expertise with the institute’s focus on pedagogy, teacher engagement, and evidence-based practice, this collaboration enables a coordinated, campus-wide approach to education, experimentation, and the responsible integration of artificial intelligence into teaching and learning. Early efforts include the launch of a new online certificate in artificial intelligence at Boston University to all undergraduates, as well as discipline-specific studio courses, guidance and resources designed to help teachers thoughtfully integrate artificial intelligence into curriculum, assessment and classroom practice.

Another flagship effort is the Classroom LX (Learning Experience) transformation program, which addresses the holistic student experience across courses and programmes. Through early listening sessions with faculty and students, we identified a recurring challenge: While individual instructors do excellent work, students often experience inconsistent experiences from course to course, particularly regarding the use of digital platforms, learning resources, communication norms, and expectations. These inconsistencies create unnecessary friction for students and extra work for teachers.

The Classroom LX program focuses on establishing shared principles, practices, and design patterns to enhance the learning experience without restricting academic freedom. By providing teachers with a common framework, toolkit, and course design support—particularly in high-enrollment and foundational courses—we aim to reduce friction, increase clarity and engagement, and create more inclusive and supportive learning environments. Importantly, this work is developed with teachers, is grounded in evidence-based pedagogy, and is designed to scale across disciplines while remaining flexible enough to meet individual needs.

Taken together, these initiatives are just a few examples of our shift from siled projects to intentional, institution-wide efforts that support faculty, improve the student experience, and create lasting impact at scale.

Question 3: Looking to the future, what role do you think such institutions will play in the future of higher education? What lessons can other universities learn from this work?

one: I believe that teaching institutions must evolve from “centers of excellence” to strategic engines that help drive institutional priorities. Our role goes beyond faculty support and engagement to connecting pedagogy, scholarship, technology, student experience and career preparation. We also discuss topics such as digital health and the growing connection between student health and academic success. Institutions like ours are at the intersection of academic mission and institutional change.

At a time when higher education faces major disruption, our institutions have an opportunity to accelerate long-term conversations about curriculum innovation, assessment in the age of artificial intelligence, learning design, inclusion and well-being, and what it really means to educate students in a rapidly changing world. Our team is uniquely positioned to guide and collaborate on this work thoughtfully and responsibly.

At the same time, there is no single blueprint for success. Every university has its own culture, structures, and constraints, and meaningful change must be grounded in that reality. For me, work always starts with learning and listening – showing up in class, engaging teachers and students, and observing teaching and learning in practice. Rarely does anyone provide you with a clear road map. Instead, the work requires synthesizing what you hear, identifying recurring patterns and common challenges, and distinguishing isolated problems from opportunities for wider impact. This sensemaking—bringing complexity into clarity—is a critical leadership skill in its own right.

It’s also important to build alliances early. Sustainable impact depends on strong partnerships with academic leaders, deans, faculty, and students and building shared ownership around priorities and outcomes. Research institutions can be powerful catalysts for change when they can convene communities, coordinate stakeholders, and design initiatives that respect academic autonomy while supporting scale. Ultimately, the lesson is that instructional innovation succeeds not through missions or isolated initiatives, but through trust, collaboration, and an ongoing commitment to improving the educational experience for all learners.