Frameworks for Inclusive Excellence and Systemic Change
Susan Shadle Boise State University Susan Shadle, Boise State University
In the work I and my colleagues have done to create change around STEM Education on our own campus we've intentionally worked at two levels. We try to focus both on what will help individual faculty to make changes to their teaching and on how we can shift norms, structures, and teaching culture at the institutional level. My focus as a faculty developer has historically been focused on helping faculty make changes to their pedagogy through exploration and adoption of a variety of active learning pedagogies. I've also been interested in how the spaces in which faculty teach and the norms and policies that guide their practice can promote the adoption of evidence-based teaching practice. More recently, and for a variety of reasons, I've become more interested in how to support faculty to pay attention to their classrooms as inclusive places for learning and the degree to which their courses help to support equitable outcomes for students. While these ideas are connected to good pedagogical practice, thinking about inclusivity has prompted me to expand my toolbox.

Promoting Evidence-based Change in Undergraduate Science Education
Promoting Evidence-based Change in Undergraduate Science Education Drawing on the literature on organizational change, the paper uses a systems approach to identify and understand barriers to change in STEM ...

TIDES Program at University of Texas
× TIDES Program at University of Texas The Texas Institute for Discovery Education in Science (TIDES) in the College of Natural Sciences aims to catalyze, support, and showcase innovative, evidence-based ...

AAU Framework for systemic change in undergraduate STEM teaching and learning
AAU Framework for systemic change in undergraduate STEM teaching and learning Outlines framework developed by AAU to guide institutional commitment to teaching and learning, including cultural change, scaffolding, ...

Insights into systemic reform from K-12 research on data driven decision-making
Matthew Hora University of Wisconsin-Madison Matthew Hora
In the Spring of 2015 I was part of a research team that visited three California universities, as part of a study on the prevalence of data driven decision-making (DDDM) in STEM departments. We spoke with people about student evaluations, exams, hallway conversations, learning analytics, ABET, and increasing pressure from institutional accreditors, finding that these issues were on everybody's minds. This was unsurprising, because it's safe to say that higher education has entered a data-focused accountability and reform phase not unlike the K-12 sector in the 1990s. But as we gathered accounts of how people used these forms of data "in the wild" of their departments and offices, the study took a surprise turn. We simply couldn't escape an issue that we hadn't anticipated being so central to our research – that of organizational systems and how they function (or not).

Breaking Down Silos meeting contributes to the goals of Working Group 1
Tessa Andrews, University of Georgia; Daniel Reinholz, San Diego State University
Twenty-five researchers met for a 2.5-day meeting at the Center for Mathematics and Science Education at San Diego State University to discuss change theories. This working meeting was supported by a National Science Foundation conference grant (#1830897/1830860) and led by PIs Daniel Reinholz and Tessa Andrews. The meeting brought together early-career scholars to foster cross-disciplinary sense-making and collaborations around change theories. Meeting attendees included graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, faculty of higher education, project advisors, and Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER) faculty in the disciplines of mathematics, biology, physics, geoscience, chemistry, and engineering.

Connecting the Stakeholders: Departments, Policy, and Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
Naneh Apkarian, Western Michigan University; Dana Kirin, Portland State University; Jessica Gehrtz, Colorado State University; Kristen Vroom, Portland State University
This article reports on major themes that arose from discussions at the Mathematical Association of America's Precalculus to Calculus: Insights and Innovations Conference.

Implementing Integrated Comprehensive Student Programs in STEM: Challenges and Facilitators from the CSU STEM Collaboratives
Elizabeth Holcombe, Indiana University-Bloomington
In my last post, I described the benefits of integrated support programs for underrepresented students in STEM. These integrated programs bridge organizational silos and build a unified community of support, in which faculty and staff work together to break down barriers to student success. The campuses that participated in the CSU STEM Collaboratives project saw increased student success and other organizational benefits as a result of creating integrated programs. While integration across functional areas represents a promising strategy for supporting student success, it represents a new way of working in higher education. Implementing integrated programs presents some unique challenges that may not be evident when implementing other types of interventions. In this post, I will briefly discuss a few of these challenges, as well as some strategies that STEM Collaboratives campuses used to overcome them.

Turning on the Thrive Channel to Accelerate Change in Higher Education
Susan Elrod, Indiana University-South Bend; Lorne Whitehead, University of British Columbia
Conversations about "institutional change" in higher education have become pervasive. This is probably because colleges and universities are under tremendous pressure - to graduate more students, to improve success of underrepresented minority students, to reduce costs, and to expand the benefits they provide to our society. Many state systems are engaged in developing performance-based funding metrics that are intended to promote achievement of specified goals. Others are engaged in major reorganizations that are merging or possibly eliminating campuses in service of larger goals that are important to the state, such as enhanced transfer, graduation or fiscal efficiency. This seems scary, but at the heart of all of this is a sound idea - since our society has a long history of improvement and undoubtedly there are still more improvements to make. And to do that, organizations must be adaptable; they must make changes for the better. Why then, is this so concerning for so many? A key challenge is that achieving change in any organization is hard. It is complicated. It involves many levels of the organization. It is motivated by a variety of purposes. It is challenged by competing agendas. It is frequently stalled by a variety of obstacles. Further, positive change requires a vision, strategy, and tactics. But most importantly, it requires effective change leadership. What does that actually entail?

Work organization and ergonomics
Work organization and ergonomics Carayon & Smith. Paper from field of systems engineering and ergonomics that describes theory of Work Systems and applied methods for understanding socio-technical aspects of ...