The project has the potential to reveal an alternative model for achieving systemic change in teaching and learning practices in STEM higher education. It draws upon systems theory and organizational behavior research to identify high-leverage catalytic interventions that are designed to cooperatively, compassionately, and responsibly disrupt the systemic structure and habits of thought that have left the teaching practices of many instructors mired in tradition. Despite evidence that suggests greater effectiveness of alternatives, such as evidence-based teaching practices, many STEM instructors persist in applying traditional ways of teaching and learning such as lectures.
This project is complementing the traditional approach to STEM instructional change, which focuses on developing and disseminating new materials or methods that are expected to create systemic change through diffusion and adoption. As an alternative to this approach, this project is seeking to prove that institutions of higher education can intentionally undergo a benevolent, spontaneous, epidemic change toward cultures of transformational teaching and learning innovation.
Evidence of reaching the postulated institutional 'tipping point' is expected to be early signs of wide-spread transformative teaching and learning, which is being collected, analyzed, and published for public access on YouTube.
We explored the possibility that institutional change in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) university teaching and learning happens through a "tipping point" phenomenon catalyzed by a coherent student voice. In this two-year project, we discovered that universities behave as if they are a complex human system that is designed to conserve past practices and historical distribution of political power; the unintended consequence of preservation is the active prevention of transformative innovations. The idea of helping the student voice be heard occurred as threatening to those holding institutional power such that it was prevented from happening. The opportunity for change at universities is generally tied to disruptive external events, such as budget crises, or internal events, such as changes in university administrators. STEM fields present a particular challenge because their scientific paradigms work against new ideas. That is, resistance to transformation is deeply embedded in the invisibly-held mental models of STEM faculty and administrators. Transformative change in universities then requires the intentional work of a skilled group of institutional change agents of "institutional entrepreneurs" (S. Dorado). Effective actions rely on their ability to sense the opportunity context for institutional change and take actions appropriate to their situation. Such a group of institutional entrepreneurs needs to have representation from those that hold differing mental models, practices and beliefs about what counts as knowledge and how one creates knowledge. Groups that consist only of professionals in STEM fields are unlikely to be effective because they lack the diversity of thought required to analyze and create alternatives to existing models of teaching and learning. Most faculty members do not have the skillful means to navigate transformational institutional change; furthermore, institutions that are organized around disciplines are structurally disabled from fostering the types of cross-disciplinary collaborations that are required for institutional entrepreneurs. This work has given insight into how to effectively intervene for transformative change in STEM education. Specifically, it has confirmed that the barriers to change are institutionally held in the culture of the STEM faculty and administrators. It also has shown that transformative change is possible by investing in building the capacity for change in a group of faculty change agents from widely-diverse disciplines. It requires creating a safe community where change agents can be engaged in an on-going reflective dialogue. In this process, they encounter conflict with one another and themselves; this must be navigated in a compassion way. Indeed, transformative change begins with transforming the inner state of the actors in the system, rather than changing the way STEM is taught. The outcome is a new vitality. This work has also confirmed that creating access to the voice of a coherent student community holds promise as a catalyst for transformative institutional change in STEM education.
