One of higher education's greatest challenges in recent years has been adapting to major shifts in institutional priorities, technological advancements, changing patterns of student demand and engagement, and broader workforce trends. The rapid pace and broad scope of these changes have particularly reshaped the teaching and learning workforce in higher education—the faculty, instructional designers, instructional technology professionals, and others who advance, deliver, and support effective educational practices at colleges and universities. These professionals are now tasked with navigating complex emerging technologies and pedagogical methods while also continuing to advance student engagement, instructional delivery, and workforce preparedness. As institutions navigate the evolving higher education environment to position themselves for long-term success, understanding how teaching and learning professionals perceive and respond to these shifts is essential for identifying the support they need to thrive in their roles and effectively serve students.

This report is the first in a series that examines three distinct workforce domains in higher education in 2025 (teaching and learning, cybersecurity and privacy, and IT leadership) to determine respondent priorities and challenges. The findings in this report, taken from a survey of teaching and learning professionals in higher education, highlight their perspectives on seven key topics:

• Flexible work arrangements
• Integration of technologies
• Workload and staffing
• Job satisfaction and transition/succession planning
• Mental health and well-being
• Culture of belonging
• Professional development

Overall, respondents indicated that they are finding ways to be resilient in the face of change and uncertainty while remaining attentive to emerging student priorities, especially around enhanced generative AI instruction, accessibility, and the integration of emerging technologies into teaching and learning. They also highlighted critical needs for institutional investments, especially in terms of staffing, transition planning, and professional development.

Flexible Work Arrangements

• Respondents reported that they had access to and used several flexible work arrangements, most notably hybrid work (70%), remote work (62%), and flexible hours (58%).
• The most frequently reported benefits of flexible work arrangements included improved work-life balance (84%), job satisfaction (80%), and productivity (73%), but respondents who had used at least one flexible work arrangement also noted some negative effects, with 19% of respondents indicating that flexible work arrangements had a negative impact on their sense of belonging and 16% saying it worsened their communication and collaboration.
• When asked to identify flexible work arrangements not currently offered by their institution that they would like to access, respondents emphasized flexible work-week options (i.e., 32-hour workweeks, condensed workweeks, and three- or four-day workweeks) and the ability to work fully remotely.
• Many respondents expressed frustration about a perceived lack of consistency and fairness around flexible work arrangements at their institutions.

Integration of Technologies

• Positive impacts of using technology at work included increased efficiency in completing tasks (57%), easier access to materials, data, or institutional resources (57%), and an enhanced ability to work remotely or with flexible hours (57%). Still, respondents also reported negative impacts such as the overwhelming volume of digital communication (44%) and more distractions due to technology (38%).
• Respondents had mixed views on the impact of technologies that support collaboration, as well as on artificial intelligence and machine learning tools, with both positive and negative impacts reported.

Workload and Staffing

• The majority (60%) of respondents said that their workload was very excessive or somewhat excessive, and 37% of respondents overall indicated that their institutions had taken no action to address this problem.
• When asked if their department/unit had sufficient staff to meet its needs and goals, the majority of respondents (57%) strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed. Of those, 53% said their institutions had not taken any action to address this.
• Respondents suggested several strategies to address understaffing and decrease excessive workloads, such as regularly (re)evaluating priorities, ensuring fairness and accountability for all staff, and strengthening planning and strategy for capacity management.

Job Satisfaction and Transition/Succession Planning

• Roughly one-third of respondents (33%) indicated that they had applied for a new position in the past 12 months.
• Respondents at smaller and medium-sized institutions were more likely than those at the largest institutions to indicate that they would be seeking new positions.
• The most commonly selected factors driving respondents to seek new positions included a lack of support from leadership (34%), insufficient compensation (33%), lack of career advancement opportunities (28%), and burnout (28%).
• When asked whether their department had a formal plan in place for managing workforce transitions, the majority of respondents (72%) said no.

Mental Health and Well-Being

• According to 44% of respondents, support from leadership or supervisors was the factor that had the greatest impact on their mental health and well-being at work.
• The majority of respondents (56%) said they were aware of their institution's mental health resources but had not needed to use them.

Culture of Belonging

• While a majority of respondents (60%) reported that their department was very welcoming, only 37% said their institution was very welcoming.
• Respondents who indicated that their institution and/or department were not at all welcoming, slightly welcoming, or moderately welcoming indicated several key barriers to fostering a welcoming environment, including a lack of trust in leadership and a lack of collaboration with other areas.

Professional Development

• Respondents most frequently selected three technology-focused areas as key professional development priorities for teaching and learning professionals: using emerging technologies (49%), integrating educational technology tools (44%), and adapting curriculum design and instructional methodologies to incorporate new technologies and pedagogical trends (39%).
• Respondents also expressed an interest in professional development around integrating AI into teaching and learning and enhancing accessibility.
• When asked about institutional efforts to develop a talent pipeline for future staffing needs, 52% of respondents reported that their institutions were investing in professional development and upskilling opportunities for current staff.

Many respondents reported benefiting from flexible work arrangements such as hybrid work, remote work, and flexible hours. Flexible work arrangements have become increasingly important in higher education in recent years as institutions seek to support faculty and staff productivity and well-being while continuing to meet student needs. To better understand how institutions are implementing flexible work arrangements, we asked respondents to share the options available to them and the impact of those options on a range of job functions. The most commonly used flexible work arrangement among respondents was hybrid work, with 70% of respondents reporting that they had used this option (see figure 1).1 Two other popular flexible work arrangements were remote work (62% of respondents) and flexible hours (58%). Respondents also seemed to be highly aware of their access to available flexible work arrangements. For example, only 3% of respondents reported that they were unsure if they had access to remote work and 2% of respondents expressed uncertainty about their access to hybrid work arrangements.

Flexible work arrangements improve work-life balance, job satisfaction, and productivity. Respondents with access to and experience using at least one flexible work arrangement reported several key benefits when asked about the impact on various job functions. The most frequently reported benefits included improved work-life balance (84%), job satisfaction (80%), and productivity (73%) (see figure 2). Respondents also reported that flexible work options improved mental health and well-being (69%) and the quality of their work (64%). Certain flexible work arrangements appear to be specifically connected to improvements in job satisfaction and work-life balance. Job satisfaction improved for 86% of respondents who had used compressed workweeks and 84% of respondents who had used flexible days. Also, 89% of respondents who had used flexible days and 88% of respondents who had used flexible hours reported improved work-life balance. However, some respondents who had used at least one flexible work arrangement noted detrimental effects, with 19% of respondents indicating that flexible work arrangements had a negative impact on their sense of belonging and 16% saying it worsened communication and collaboration.

Respondents reported a lack of consistency and fairness around flexible work arrangements. Respondents were also asked to identify flexible work arrangements not currently offered by their institution that they would like to access. Many indicated interest in increased flexible work week options, including 32-hour workweeks, compressed workweeks, and three- or four-day workweeks. Perhaps most interesting, though, was that many respondents expressed interest not in a particular flexible work arrangement but in promoting greater consistency and fairness in offering these options.

"I will say that my institution['s] remote work policy varies from department to department based on the comfort level/mood of the person overseeing that department, which leads to animosity. I wish a more uniform approach that allows the flexibility I currently have…was offered universally."

While certain job roles and responsibilities may make it more challenging to accommodate flexible work arrangements, respondents were frustrated by inconsistent access to work options with critical benefits, especially when the inconsistency felt arbitrary.

Productivity technologies have increased efficiency and flexibility, but they have also exacerbated information overload and distractions. When asked how the adoption of technologies for work productivity had improved their overall job performance in the past 12 months, the three most frequently selected impacts were increased efficiency in completing tasks, easier access to materials, data, or institutional resources, and an enhanced ability to work remotely or with flexible hours (each identified by 57% of respondents) (see figure 3).

Negative impacts of work productivity technologies on job performance in the past 12 months included the overwhelming volume of digital communication (44%), more distractions due to technology (38%), and difficulty keeping up with new systems and tools (36%) (see figure 4). However, 19% of respondents reported that no technologies had worsened their overall job performance.

Respondents were ambivalent about the impact of technologies that support collaboration on job performance. Respondents were asked to select up to five specific technologies that had had the greatest impact on their work role and job performance. Technologies that supported collaboration were among those most frequently selected as having a positive impact, especially videoconferencing tools (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet) (75%) and collaboration tools (e.g., Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google Workspace) (66%) (see figure 5). Interestingly, though, when asked to select up to five tools that had the greatest negative impact on their role and job performance, 20% of respondents selected collaboration tools. One respondent clarified the complicated impact of such tools on job performance: "[W]hile Teams is helpful with communication, online team meetings, and document sharing, the constant notifications and chats are distracting and can interfere with work/life balance." Similarly, while 42% of respondents reported that artificial intelligence and machine learning tools (e.g., AI-based grading, chatbots for student services) had a positive impact on their work role and performance, 23% said it had a negative impact.

Respondents emphasized the need for better strategy and communication when implementing a new technology to improve work productivity. When asked about what their institution could do to ensure that the adoption of technologies for work productivity had the greatest positive impact on job roles and performance, many respondents suggested that institutions should improve the strategy and process for choosing to implement a new technology. In particular, several respondents indicated that greater care could be taken to ensure that the tools being considered meet an organizational need. Respondents also noted that gathering feedback from a range of stakeholders (especially end users), increasing investments in training and ongoing support for new tools, and allocating dedicated time to learn and adapt to new technologies would help ensure that productivity technologies positively impacted job roles and performance. Other respondents emphasized the importance of establishing consistent tools and processes across departments to reduce technology overload and enhance collaboration. As one respondent explained, "Faculty/staff tend to use whatever they are familiar with, and at times [this] makes it difficult to do interdepartmental work when everyone is using different tools."

The majority of respondents said their workload is excessive. Workload was a challenge for many respondents this year, with a majority (60%) saying their workload was very excessive or somewhat excessive (see figure 6). On a positive note, however, this is a decrease of 5 percentage points since 2024. Meanwhile, just 4% of respondents said that their workload was very light or somewhat light. When asked what their institutions had done to address excessive workloads, 37% indicated that no action had been taken (see figure 7). Interestingly, this figure jumped to 46% for respondents from institutions with 5,000–9,999 students, indicating that the efforts at some medium-sized institutions to manage intensifying workload demands for teaching and learning professionals may be especially falling short. The most common actions respondents said their institutions had taken included offering flexible work arrangements (31%), hiring additional staff or faculty to distribute the workload (25%), and encouraging better work-life balance through policy changes (17%). Of those who said their institution had taken action to manage excessive workloads, 74% said the actions taken had been somewhat effective in reducing their workload, indicating modest improvements but room for additional efforts in this area.

Staffing is not sufficient to meet institutional goals. When asked if their department/unit had sufficient staff to meet its needs and goals, the majority of respondents (57%) strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed (see figure 8), and among these respondents, 76% said their workloads were very or somewhat excessive. Respondents who felt staffing was insufficient were also asked to identify actions their institution had taken to address this issue. Of those who felt that their department/unit had insufficient staffing, 53% said their institutions had not taken any action to address this (see figure 9). Meanwhile, relatively small proportions of respondents reported that their institutions had taken one or more actions to address staffing challenges, including hiring temporary or contract staff (20%) or canceling or reducing lower-priority projects or programs to free up staff time (13%). Just 12% of respondents indicated that their institution had hired additional full-time staff to alleviate staffing shortages.

To further understand current staffing and workload challenges, we asked respondents to identify strategies their institutions could prioritize to address understaffing and mitigate excessive workloads. Although respondents continued to emphasize the need to hire more full- and part-time staff, they also acknowledged that current budgetary challenges would likely make these solutions unfeasible for the foreseeable future. In turn, they identified creative solutions that institutions could implement to help manage excessive workloads and staffing shortages:

• Set and regularly evaluate priorities and, when possible, identify areas that might be deprioritized or terminated.
• Ensure fairness and accountability for all staff by better managing underperforming employees and redistributing workloads when appropriate.
• Offer benefits, such as pay increases and work flexibility, to employees who have excessive workloads due to staffing shortages.
• Establish clearer communication channels and greater transparency with faculty and staff around staffing decisions, challenges, and departmental needs.
• Strengthen planning and strategy for capacity management, with a focus on project timelines.
• Consider timing, available resources, value, and existing projects before starting new initiatives.
• Leverage digital tools to automate time-consuming processes and simplify workloads, where appropriate.
• Foster a culture of communication and collaboration across departments to manage complex initiatives and reduce redundancies.
• Seek regular feedback from faculty and staff and actively listen to their suggestions about concerns, challenges, and opportunities.

While these strategies may lead to greater efficiency and reduced workloads, they may not be sufficient to address the serious staffing challenges some institutions are facing. As one respondent stressed:

"We have reached our limits on hand-waving fixes. We simply need more people. This institution reduces staff and budgets and expects everyone to pick up the slack. When dedicated staff patch things up, it is seen as proof that the reductions worked. When those same staff burn out, they are seen as the problem. When burned-out staff leave or are dismissed for holding the line on doing excessive work, admin hires new inexperienced people who burn out even faster."

Relatively modest numbers of respondents have sought or plan to seek employment at another institution. When asked if they had applied for a new position in the past 12 months, 33% indicated that they had, while 67% said they had not (see figure 10). Interestingly, though, respondents indicated uncertainty about their future pursuit of new roles; when asked if they were likely to apply for other positions outside their current institution in the next 12 months, 39% of respondents said no, 31% said yes, and 30% were unsure. As table 1 indicates, a higher percentage of respondents at smaller and medium-sized institutions indicated that they would be seeking new positions.

Dissatisfaction with leadership support and insufficient compensation are prompting some to seek other positions. Respondents were also asked to select up to five factors that would be most likely to cause them to pursue job opportunities outside their current institution. Notably, the most common reason for seeking new job opportunities was lack of support from leadership or administration (34%), slightly more than even insufficient compensation and benefits (33%), highlighting the importance of a genuine commitment from leadership for employee well-being and success (see figure 11). These factors were mostly consistent reasons given for applying for new positions in the next 12 months, with top factors that would cause them to pursue a new position including insufficient compensation and benefits (40%), lack of career advancement opportunities (38%), and lack of support from leadership or administration (36%).

Although respondents reported low turnover overall, institutions might invest in employee transition planning efforts. Approximately one-third (33%) of respondents indicated that they had pursued a new position over the past 12 months; however, this did not seem to translate into high rates of reported turnover or staff departures. A majority of respondents (61%) said that they had seen low to moderate turnover over the past 12 months, indicating few to occasional staff departures within their department. For 22% of respondents, there had been no turnover at all, while 17% said they had witnessed high to very high turnover. Even though turnover seemed to be limited for many respondents' departments, there was room for growth in terms of workforce transition planning. When asked whether their department had a formal plan in place for managing workforce transitions, a wide majority of respondents (72%) said no. Respondents also identified several critical gaps in their departmental and institutional employee transition planning efforts, including poor communication about transition or succession plans (56%), insufficient planning for key role transitions (e.g., retirements, resignations) (56%), and a lack of identified successors for key roles (54%) (see figure 12).

Respondents also highlighted actions their department had taken to support smooth transitions for incoming or new employees, including creating a welcoming and supportive workplace environment (58%), establishing regular check-ins with supervisors or department heads (56%), and providing training on institutional systems and tools (52%) (see figure 13). To a slightly lesser extent, respondents also reported that their institutions were providing access to professional development resources and training (47%) and providing comprehensive onboarding and orientation programs (47%), demonstrating that institutions are recognizing the importance of setting new employees up for success, both in the short term and the long term.

Leadership and supervisor support is critical to mental health. When asked to rate their mental health and well-being as it relates to their current role, a plurality of respondents (41%) reported that it was good, 26% said fair, and 20% said excellent (see figure 14). While it is encouraging to see that many respondents characterized their mental health as fair to excellent, 10% of respondents said that their mental health was poor and 4% very poor.

Respondents were asked to select up to five factors that had the greatest impact (positive or negative) on their mental health and well-being at work. According to 44% of respondents, support from leadership or supervisors was the factor that had the greatest impact (see figure 15). Respondents clearly recognized the impact of leadership support, with a higher percentage selecting it as important to their mental health than even factors including workload, sense of community and belonging, and job security.

The majority of respondents are aware of available mental health resources but have not needed to use them. Respondents indicated high levels of awareness of mental health and well-being resources available to them at their institution, with only 7% saying that they were not aware of available resources. The majority of respondents (56%) said they were aware of the resources but had not needed to use them, 22% were aware and had used them, and 15% have needed them but not used them. Respondents who were aware of mental health services but had not used them identified several key factors that had prevented them from using the services, including feeling that their mental health concerns were not severe enough to warrant resource use (41%), skepticism that the resources would be effective (30%), preference for seeking support outside the workplace (30%), and limited time and excessive workload (28%).

Respondents are seeking clearer communication about institutional challenges and more authentic efforts to address mental health. The efforts that respondents most frequently said institutions were taking to support employee mental health and well-being included providing access to counseling or therapy services (63%), offering employee assistance programs (60%), and providing wellness programs (55%) (see figure 16). When asked about the effectiveness of their institution's efforts to support the overall mental health and well-being of employees, 26% of respondents said they were very ineffective or somewhat ineffective, 41% were neutral, and 33% said they were very effective or somewhat effective (see figure 17).

Asked what else their institution could do to foster a healthier work environment that prioritizes mental health and well-being, many respondents suggested that leadership could do a better job communicating regularly and with transparency and honesty about issues facing the institution, such as resource cuts and reorganizations. Other respondents said that institutional expressions of concern around mental health and well-being felt insincere when they were not accompanied by supportive action, especially surrounding excessive workloads. As one respondent shared, "Honestly, though there are some mental health resources (like yoga, wellness programs), these seem merely performative in a system where there is such chronic overwork. I need less work, not another obligation!"

Proximity influences sense of belonging. When asked to rate the degree to which their institutional and departmental work environments were welcoming and fostered a sense of belonging, respondents indicated that their departments were more welcoming than their institutions (see figure 18). While a majority of respondents (60%) reported that their department was very welcoming, only 37% said their institution was very welcoming.

Organizational fragmentation impedes a sense of belonging. Respondents who indicated that their institution and/or department was not at all welcoming, slightly welcoming, or moderately welcoming also highlighted challenges their department, unit, and/or institution faced in fostering a welcoming environment. First, respondents indicated that a lack of trust, transparency, and communication with leadership was a significant barrier. As one respondent explained:

"Lack of meaningful engagement between leadership and staff [creates] a sense of disconnect and hinder[s] efforts to build a cohesive and welcoming environment…. While leadership may state they have an open-door policy, staff often do not believe it is genuine. This perception, coupled with leadership's apparent discomfort with being questioned, discourages employees from voicing concerns or providing feedback."

This lack of meaningful engagement extends, for many respondents, to interactions with colleagues. Many respondents pointed to silos and a lack of collaboration and cohesion across departments as another barrier to a welcoming environment. Respondents indicated a range of reasons for these silos, including differing ideologies and political views, a lack of opportunity to share in decision-making, discrimination, competition over resources, territorial disputes, and departmental isolation.

Proficiency with technologies was the key professional development priority. Ongoing professional development is critical for teaching and learning professionals because it allows them to stay current with evolving pedagogies and content areas, foster innovation, adapt to technological advancements, and enhance student outcomes. When asked to select up to five areas where the teaching and learning workforce currently needs the most professional development opportunities, respondents particularly emphasized the effective use and integration of technology tools (see figure 19). Respondents most frequently selected three technology-focused areas for professional development for teaching and learning professionals: using emerging technologies (49%), integrating educational technology tools (44%), and adapting curriculum design and instructional methodologies to incorporate new technologies and pedagogical trends (39%).

Respondents are interested in professional development around integrating AI into teaching and learning and enhancing accessibility. Respondents were asked to describe the specific types of professional development opportunities they most needed and, further, to specify topics or issues that should be prioritized for teaching and learning professionals. Respondents most frequently mentioned AI as a topic where there was a critical need for additional training, especially AI for teaching and learning, AI and assessment, AI literacies, and the ethical use of AI. Respondents also indicated a need for increased professional development related to the intersection of accessibility and technology. As one respondent shared, "With new federal regulations, faculty, instructional designers, and IT staff will need significantly more support in creating accessible course materials…[i]n my mind, there is no more pressing need in teaching and learning right now." Other areas where professional development would be most beneficial included technology-enhanced teaching and learning, principles of effective course design, course tool and LMS training, and online learning best practices.

Respondents overwhelmingly mentioned workshops and hands-on training opportunities as the types of professional development opportunities they preferred and most needed, although they also mentioned webinars, certifications and microcredentials, asynchronous/self-paced trainings, communities of practice, and mentorship opportunities. Many respondents also expressed concerns about lack of faculty and staff participation in available offerings due to lack of time, lack of incentives, and burnout.

All AI-focused professional development areas are seen as highly important. The AI-related areas most frequently cited as being very or extremely important for additional training and support over the next five years include ensuring the ethical use of AI in educational technologies and applications (94%), understanding how AI impacts teaching, learning, and assessment practices (92%), and developing policies for responsible AI use in the classroom and learning environments (90%) (see figure 20). It is notable that very few respondents (less than 5%) found any AI-related professional development area unimportant, suggesting that all facets of AI integration—from impact on teaching and learning to responsible use to data privacy—are important to a very strong majority of respondents. For the 86% of respondents who selected "Other" concerns as very important/extremely important, exploring ways to cultivate student AI literacies emerged as a critical area for continued professional development.

Institutional actions to support workforce development prioritize flexibility. Respondents were asked to identify actions their institutions were taking to proactively support workforce development and sustainability. When asked about specific actions or efforts their department/unit was taking to develop a talent pipeline for future staffing needs, respondents reported that their institutions were investing in professional development and upskilling opportunities for current staff (52%), providing mentoring and coaching programs for employees (23%), and offering internships, fellowships, or apprenticeship programs for students and early-career professionals (22%). However, 29% of respondents indicated that their institutions were taking no action to develop a talent pipeline for future staffing needs. As one respondent put it, "We barely have time to do our jobs, let alone plan for the future."

Key actions institutions were currently taking to create easy-to-access professional development programs that meet the needs of an evolving workforce included offering flexible learning formats (e.g., online, in-person, hybrid, and self-paced options) (66%); using accessibility features, such as closed captions, screen reader compatibility, and alternative text (44%); providing financial support or incentives for participation in professional development (e.g., stipends, tuition reimbursement) (37%); and scheduling training sessions at various times to accommodate different time zones and work schedules (36%) (see figure 21).

Respondents also indicated that institutions were finding savvy ways to effectively balance upskilling and reskilling efforts with existing workload demands. When asked about strategies their institutions were using, respondents most frequently selected offering flexible training options (67%), providing dedicated time within work hours for professional development and upskilling (43%), and encouraging a culture of learning and growth that supports gradual adaptation rather than sudden shifts (37%). Amid widespread burnout and heavy workloads among teaching and learning professionals, institutions must employ strategic thinking and creativity to design professional development opportunities that are both accessible and impactful—sustaining growth without further straining their workforce.

The teaching and learning workforce has often been at the forefront of key changes in higher education, simultaneously adapting to these shifts while serving as the first point of contact for students who are navigating the same changes. These professionals play a critical role in bridging institutional priorities with student needs, making their insights and contributions essential in shaping the future of higher education. The complex challenges teaching and learning professionals are facing, such as excessive workloads, technological overload, and anxieties over staffing and budget cuts, are made all the more difficult when the resources for solving them remain limited. What emerges from this report, though, is a picture of a teaching and learning workforce that is firmly committed to serving students in spite of these challenges by continuously refining teaching methods and pedagogies, making classrooms more accessible, integrating emerging technologies to drive innovation, and ethically incorporating generative AI into the curriculum. Respondents were clear, too, about their needs: flexible work arrangements that improve their work-life balance and job satisfaction, professional development that equips them to adapt to emerging educational technologies and practices, and better strategic planning and communication surrounding important decisions. As institutions continue to grapple with the many shifts facing higher education, they must continue investing in the people stewarding the student experience—those who thoughtfully guide, nurture, and sustain student learning and success to ensure its long-term impact.

While the challenges facing higher education are complex and the uncertainties persistent, respondents highlighted key strategies for building better and more resilient institutions. These starting points can help forge connections between teaching and learning professionals and institutional leaders seeking solutions and opportunities for continued growth and improvement:

• Take initiative through grassroots community building. Many respondents indicated that they feel siloed and disconnected from the broader campus community and are eager for that to change. Communities of practice and mentorship opportunities were also frequently mentioned as opportunities that are especially meaningful and impactful. While resource shortages and other limitations may make it challenging to organize collaborative efforts institution-wide, respondents indicated widespread interest in collective problem solving and resource sharing that might be started at the local level. By fostering a community of practice or building a mentorship relationship with a trusted colleague, you can create a supportive space for knowledge and resource sharing and ongoing professional growth.
• Advocate for creative workload management strategies when resources are limited. While many respondents recognized that limited resources would make hiring additional staff challenging for the foreseeable future, they also suggested that better prioritization of new initiatives and project/capacity management could alleviate some of the excessive workload stress they were experiencing. Flexible work arrangements also emerged as an important way for respondents to enhance their work-life balance and productivity. By advocating for creative solutions such as these, individuals and organizations can create more sustainable work environments, minimize burnout, and maintain productivity even in resource-constrained settings.
• Explore strategies for creating meaningful engagement in a distributed workforce. While this report highlights many benefits of flexible work arrangements, including hybrid and remote work, these options also negatively impacted sense of belonging and team cohesion for some respondents. Teaching and learning professionals might explore ways to go beyond basic interaction and actively cultivate meaningful connections in a distributed workforce. Structured virtual meetups, working groups, and clear communication norms can strengthen relationships and create a sense of belonging, regardless of physical distance.

Digital Learning Leaders Institute. The EDUCAUSE Digital Learning Leaders (DLL) Institute is for professionals whose campus role involves the support, promotion, and leadership of teaching and learning. The curriculum provides a solid foundation for professionals in their current (and future) roles by focusing on critical areas of learning leadership success, academic communication, data-driven solutions, digital leadership and transformation, and technology initiatives.           

Digital Learning Transformation Institute. The EDUCAUSE Digital Learning Transformation Institute is for professionals whose campus role involves envisioning, designing, and supporting meaningful change in the learning organization. The institute will equip learners with a framework to make informed decisions that can impact meaningful, context-based change opportunities.

Professional Pathways. For more information on navigating the teaching and learning career pathway, check out EDUCAUSE's Professional Pathways: The Teaching & Learning Pathway, which provides professionals with an overview of sample positions, skills for success, and advancement strategies for a range of career stages. The Teaching & Learning Pathway Toolkits also help individuals and mentors assess strengths, identify growth areas, and choose activities to enhance skills in selected areas.

Teaching with AI. The Teaching with AI online program is an engaging online program tailored for higher education faculty, instructional designers, and support staff designed to deepen participants' understanding of AI and empower them to seamlessly integrate it into their curricula. Participants will explore real-world AI applications, engage in interactive activities, and collaborate with peers to develop actionable insights for their teaching practices.

Generative AI Readiness Assessment. Educators and institutions looking to assess their readiness for strategic AI initiatives and position themselves at the forefront of future developments should explore EDUCAUSE's Higher Education Generative AI Readiness Assessment Engage a cross-functional team at your institution in this assessment to spark discussion, build a shared understanding of your institution's current state, and explore AI's potential.

AI Landscape Study. The EDUCAUSE AI Landscape Study summarizes the higher education community's current sentiments and experiences related to strategic planning and readiness, policies and procedures, workforce, and the future of AI in higher education.

Mental Health Action Plan. The 2025 EDUCAUSE Horizon Action Plan: Mental Health Supports builds on the trends, technologies, practices, and scenarios described in the 2024 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: Teaching and Learning Edition. An expert panel was tasked with envisioning the preferred future of mental health supports in higher education and developing an action plan to achieve that future.

Community Groups

For those seeking to learn more about cross-institutional community building opportunities, we suggest checking out the following EDUCAUSE community groups:

• AI
• Instructional Design
• Instructional Technologies
• Blended and Digital Learning

The 2025 EDUCAUSE Workforce Survey was administered January 9–27, 2025. The survey consisted of 52 closed- and open-ended questions, although some respondents may have received fewer questions due to survey branching. Participants indicated their primary area of responsibility from the following categories: cybersecurity and privacy, IT/technology, or teaching and learning. We analyzed the data separately for each workforce domain to identify trends and insights specific to each area. The survey was distributed via EDUCAUSE marketing emails, yielding 539 respondents from 388 participating institutions for the teaching and learning domain. Inclusion criteria were based upon a survey item completion rate of 30% or more.

Data from closed-ended survey items were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics, and open-ended survey data were manually coded. Quantitative data presented in this report were rounded to the nearest whole number. Open-ended respondent quotes presented in this report were lightly edited for readability.

The tables below display response rates by respondent demographic and professional characteristics and institution type and enrollment size.