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

2. 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?

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

4. 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?”

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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.

14. 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?

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. Levers to Foster Change in Higher Education

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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?

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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. [
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 ). Netherlands: Springer.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G, & Deal, T. E ). 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,

28. 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.

29. 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