Presentations: Session V

Some education change initiatives focus on developing programs intended to promote long-lasting, large-scale improvement to undergraduate education. When initiatives are launched by temporary external funding, sustaining these programs over time in a professional society, department or institution can result in ongoing impact on undergraduate education. We present a theory from organizational psychology, organization-based psychological ownership (Pierce, Kostova & Dirks, 2001). We have used this theory as an analytical tool to investigate how grant-initiated programs are sustained in organizations and present it as a practical tool for the design of innovative programs to transform undergraduate education. We illustrate the framework with examples and findings from our research that investigated how the leaders of a professional society developed a sense of responsibility for sustaining a grant-initiated, faculty development program for two-year college mathematics faculty. In this presentation, we present the theory and suggest ways change agents might use the theory to design change initiatives that will be 'owned' by organizational leadership. These suggestions include activities that help leaders (1) connect the new program with organizational strategic goals, (2) come to know the program, and (3) invest time in the program. These activities provide opportunities for organizational leaders' development of psychological ownership of the program that may lead to a shared responsibility for sustaining it.  

Institutions of higher education are experiencing a paradigm shift. Research activity has long been seen as separate from teaching and of greater value to the institution's prestige and impact. We take the view that the bedrock of all institutions of higher education is effective, evidence-based, student-centered, culturally relevant pedagogy. An institution claiming to have achieved the highest levels of teaching effectiveness does not separate research from teaching, but instead views teaching as a scholarly act, and signals this value through its reward structure. T1 universities will have mechanisms for objective metrics to determine effective teaching and learning, to include inventories, observation protocols, and self-reflections and growth mindset. Student efficacy at such an institution is high, as they are empowered both by the inclusive instruction they experience in the classroom and the disciplinary research opportunities they are offered. Skills for future career success, such as communication, empathy, and teamwork, are integrated into all areas of study.

There are currently no metrics to measure whether any institution meets the criteria of teaching excellence. Consequently, a working group has been pursuing the idea of "T1" designation, to mirror the Carnegie Classifications for Institutions of Higher Education (R1, R2, M1, M2, etc,) that measure research activity. We aim to complete a meta-analysis surrounding, "what constitutes a T1" and will present these ideas in this session. We welcome willing partners, strong objectors, and constructive supporters to help us frame a rubric in pursuit of this idea.  

 In their landmark publication ten years ago, Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein (2011) advocated that STEM institutions must be viewed as complex systems for long-term change initiatives to be successful. That notion has recently gained momentum in scholarly works (e.g., Reinholz & Andrews, 2020) and funding solicitations (e.g., National Science Foundation, 2020) focusing on transforming STEM institutions. While this notion has led productively to a greater focus on the use of change theories that incorporate complex systems literature, general approaches to change projects in STEM remain largely the same. Namely, we still focus on interventive approaches to change, where single projects can be scoped, evaluated, and funded in isolation of other systemic factors and initiatives that affect the change process.

However, complex systems theory, by its definition, pushes back on the notion that institutional change can be envisioned as a chain of cause and effect between a single initiative and a lasting result (Boeing, 2016; Mason, 2009). Rather, institutional change requires attention to systemic conditions for change, such that all actors are willing and agile enough to collectively move in a productive direction—a feat that requires significant, intentional, and continuous preparation (Bain, Walker, & Chan, 2011; Mason, 2009; Stoll, 2009). Across interdisciplinary change literature, the work done by change agents to create such agile institutions and prepare organizations for change is called capacity building (Bain et al., 2011; Brinkerhoff & Morgan, 2010; Stoll, 2009).

This presentation will provide a framework to help participants understand the dimensions of institutional capacity and what ongoing initiatives to build capacity can look like. Particularly, I will review two change theories—connected learning communities (Stoll, 2009) and self-organizing schools (Bain et al., 2011)—created specifically to help change agents build capacity in educational organizations, and showcase how my institute is leveraging these theories to build our College of Engineering's capacity. Finally, I will discuss implications for priorities in future change practice, research, and funding.

Networks are a powerful lever for advancing improvements in STEM education by leveraging sustained collaboration focused on a common goal. This proposed workshop will provide an opportunity for ASCN attendees to learn about and discuss results from a study of major networks focused on effecting change in STEM education and to apply those findings to networks to which they might belong. The workshop will draw on a National Science Foundation-funded multi-year study of six organization-focused networks (networks of organizations or focused on change within organizational units, such as departments). Informed by theory concerning collaboration and alliances, network improvement communities, and communities of transformation, the project uses robust qualitative methods (including interviews, document analysis, participant observation, and case studies). The study has examined the features defining these networks, the processes characterizing their functioning, and the outcomes and impacts of their efforts. Furthermore, the project has been particularly attentive to the complex environmental contexts in which these networks sit, which require their attention to the interests and goals of multiple stakeholders. The six networks studied include Advanced Technological Education (ATE Network), BVA, CIRTL, NSEC, PULSE, and the Reinvention Collaborative.

Now, three years into the research, we have identified key life stages of Organization-focused Change Networks (including formation, development, maturity, and transition) and Critical Challenges such networks must address at each stage (Purpose and Problem, Leadership, Membership, Governance, Communication, and Viability/Sustainability).