Abstract
The field of STEM education is increasingly focusing on processes of individual, cultural, and organization-level change in postsecondary institutions, yet current approaches tend to focus on individual leverage points isolated from other factors and the broader institutional context. Research on reform implementation highlights how individual decision-making is shaped by a variety of inter-connected factors - or what we call 'decision chains’. Organizational learning theory offers a way to conceptualize how these decision chains are implicated in the change process. Organizational learning refers to the processes whereby organizations store information in what is known as the ‘organizational memory’, how this information is retrieved, and how alterations to these processes can affect organizational. In this paper, we report findings from a qualitative case study of how 24 science and math faculty at a large, public research university in the United States engaged with their organization’s memory while planning courses. We also explore how a reform initiative—the Undergraduate Science Education (USE) project—influenced these memory functions. We analyzed semi-structured interviews using a structured approach to grounded theory as well as techniques for graphically depicting verbal data. Results indicate that faculty accessed five repositories of curricular information within the organizational memory: individual memory, cultural norms, social networks and human resources, curricular artifacts, and external archives. When retrieving information from these repositories, faculty primarily ‘fine-tuned’ existing curricular artifacts (i.e., lecture notes and PowerPoint slides). Analyses of decision chains used by faculty highlight the idiosyncratic manner in which planning unfolds in practice, the centrality of existing artifacts, the role of contextual factors, and the absence of continuous improvement systems. Analyses of the USE project’s effects indicate changes to features of the organizational memory. Besides contributing new insights into the nature of organizational learning in higher education, the decision chain method described in this paper can be used to complement existing metrics for program evaluation and to diagnose leverage points for new STEM education change efforts. A potentially useful approach may target curricular artifacts for regular updating and the imposition of continuous improvement systems, while allowing faculty local control over this process.
Highlights
The field of STEM education is increasingly focusing on processes of individual, cultural, and organization-level change in postsecondary institutions, yet current approaches tend to focus on individual leverage points isolated from other factors and the broader institutional context
Researchers are focusing on change processes in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, given the considerable attention paid to improving the way that faculty plan and teach their courses (e.g., Henderson et al 2011)
A commonly used theoretical framework is that of diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers 1995), which in its application in STEM education research tends to focus on perceptions about reform and subsequent instructional behaviors at the individual level (e.g., Henderson et al 2012)
Summary
The field of STEM education is increasingly focusing on processes of individual, cultural, and organization-level change in postsecondary institutions, yet current approaches tend to focus on individual leverage points isolated from other factors and the broader institutional context. A commonly used theoretical framework is that of diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers 1995), which in its application in STEM education research tends to focus on perceptions about reform and subsequent instructional behaviors at the individual level (e.g., Henderson et al 2012). While this approach is predicated on the notion that adoption is strongly influenced by the situation surrounding the potential change, less attention has been paid to the nuances of institutional contexts and how they affect faculty adoption (or rejection) of instructional reforms. As Stark noted in relation to survey-based research on curriculum design (2000, p. 435), ‘Our work fell short of exploring in depth the actual decisions teachers make about course plans and curriculum’
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.