Taking a Systems Approach to Change in Undergraduate STEM Education Ann E. Austin Presentation at the PULSE Pacific Northwest Conference October 14, 2017

Guiding Questions What are key lessons from theory, research, and practice about fostering and accomplishing major change in higher education? What are key elements of change processes that are sometimes forgotten in planning for change—and that have the potential to serve as facilitators or barriers to change? How do these ideas relate to your institutions?

My Perspectives Involvement in : Reform in undergraduate STEM education New approaches in STEM doctoral education More inclusive environments supporting women in STEM

Frequently Heard Comments and Questions “Why won’t the faculty make changes in their teaching in line with research on evidence-based practices?” What are “the best three strategies” we should use to change our institutional culture? “We want to help our faculty be change leaders.” “Change in higher education is hard. How can we think about it and do it?”

Key Themes to Discuss The importance of: Taking a systems approach Using organizational frames to identify multiple levers for change (and to identify possible barriers) Considering the strategic roles and diverse forms of leadership in fostering effective change

I. The Importance of Taking a Systems Approach Higher education institutions are complex organizations with unique features Collegium/bureaucracy Shared governance Power based on expert expertise/ specialized knowledge Traditions of autonomy Loose coupling, decentralization, organized anarchy Disciplinary differences—different cultures Lessons: Difficult to “push” change, must be “fostered” Must acknowledge, build on, and work with distinct features

Multiple Contexts Change in higher education occurs within and across multiple contexts The influences, possibilities, and barriers associated with these contexts need to be considered in designing change initiatives Key Contexts: Departments Institutions External Environment and Stakeholders Societal Context and Forces

A Systems Approach to Understanding Contexts Relevant to Change in Higher Education

Individual Faculty Members Prior experiences Socialization Career Stage Nature of appointment Disciplinary traditions and interests Sense of self-efficacy

Departmental Context Immediate context for faculty work Key characteristics that relate to change: Unique disciplinary cultures—work traditions, balance of teaching and research Priorities of the chair Curricular structures Class size and physical arrangements Use of teaching assistants

Institutional Context Different missions—history, missions, values, traditions Size, location, prestige Centralization vs decentralization in decision making Types of alliances Types of policies, processes, and structures related to change goal

External Forces Stakeholders Societal Forces Employers Government agencies Accrediting organizations Foundations Scholarly associations Societal Forces Economic trends Political trends Societal mores

Taking a Systems Approach: Lessons for Change Efforts Change processes can be more strategic and are likely to be more effective if leaders invest time up front in analyzing key contextual factors. What factors will affect the change process? What factors in the context may be facilitators? Or barriers? The multiple contexts produce many factors that are relevant to change processes. Effective change leaders select strategies that fit the relevant contextual situations in their institutions. Contexts can change over time, so leaders must monitor and adjust to changing contexts.

Discussion What are key contextual features in your departments and institutions that are important to consider as you seek to reform undergraduate teaching and learning?

II. Using Multiple Change Levers Transformational change requires the use of multiple levers across multiple contexts. Linear, single approaches are unlikely to be adequate. Many forces affect teaching choices Disciplinary cultures. appointment types, faculty development, reward systems

Frames for Identifying Change Strategies We can understand higher education institutions by looking through several different frames (drawing on four main perspectives in organizational theory) (Bolman & Deal, 1991). Structural Human Resources Political Symbolic Each frame highlights particular aspects of the organization, enabling identification of potential levers or barriers to change.

Frames Structural emphasizes rules, policies, organizational arrangements Human Resources emphasizes demographics, experiences, and needs of the people in the organization Political emphasizes power, resources Symbolic emphasizes meaning, cultures, symbols

Levers to Foster Change in Higher Education

Examples of Levers Structural Human Resources Tenure & Promotion Policies Reward systems Organization of Work Appointments to address change goals Accountability processes Recruitment Processes Professional Development (for faculty or leaders) Mentoring/networking Individual consultations or grants

Example of Levers Political Symbolic Leadership practices Governance processes Appointment of committees, task forces, and commissions Data gathering and analysis (e.g., use of baseline data, publicizing and discussing data, accountability processes) Opportunities for sense-making Structured conversations Publicity and communication Awards and celebrations Events

Using Multiple Levers: Lessons for Change Leaders Major change requires the use of multiple levers across multiple levels of the institution. Linear, single lever strategies for change are unlikely to be adequate. The different frames highlight different possible levers that can be used to foster change– and also suggest areas that may be problems or barriers for achieving the change goal, if not addressed. Institutions vary in the constellation of levers that are most effective. Effective change processes require analyzing the goals, contexts, and levers that would be effective at the specific institution.

Discussion As you think through each of the four frames, what factors stand out to you as particularly challenging barriers to change? As you look through each of the four frames, what levers stand out as particularly promising for advancing change?

III. The roles and forms of leadership in fostering a change process Leadership plays a key role in fostering effective change. Leadership can take a variety of forms, and each makes distinctive and important contributions. Different kinds of leadership may be important at different points in a change process.

Types of Leaders Senior Leaders Project Leaders Grassroots Leaders Can commit the institution, articulate expectations, impact the culture, provide symbolic and political impact Project Leaders Motivated by passion and knowledge, often able to link a project to institutional priorities and the broader institutional community Grassroots Leaders Able to produce workable ideas, understand the issues and context, are the ones to carry out the change Leadership Teams Can maximize diverse talents, can foreground different strategies as needed

Lessons about Leadership Effective change processes involve a variety of leaders and types of leadership that can support the project in different ways. Senior leadership without grassroots leadership makes it difficult to implement change. Grassroots leadership without senior leadership poses challenges regarding resources and sustainability. Savvy change teams explicitly analyze leadership needs and resources, and use leadership strategically.

To summarize….Fostering Change requires systemic and strategic thinking and action, including: Using a systems approach to analyze the context Selecting and using multiple levers Analyzing and using leadership strategically

Selected Relevant References Austin, A. E. (2011). Promoting Evidence-Based Change in Undergraduate Science Education. Paper commissioned by the Board on Science Education of the National Academies National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies. [http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_080124] Austin, A. E. (2010). Reform efforts in STEM doctoral education: Strengthening preparation for scholarly careers. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. 25 (pp. 91-128). Netherlands: Springer. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolman, L. G, & Deal, T. E. 91991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fairweather, J. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American academic life. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fairweather, J. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 401-422.

Selected References (cont.) Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education: A status report for the National Academies National Research Council Board on Science Education. Commissioned Paper for the National Academies Workshop: Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (September, 2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, v. 3. Kezar, A (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28 (4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. New York: Routledge. Weick, K. Q. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.

Contact Information Ann E. Austin Professor, Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education Associate Dean for Research, College of Education Assistant Provost for Faculty Development 419A Erickson Hall Michigan State University 620 Farm Lane East Lansing, MI 48824 517-355-6757 aaustin@msu.edu