Leveraging Multiple Theories of Change to Promote Reform: An Examination of the AAU STEM Initiative

Kezar, Adrianna; Holcombe, Elizabeth

doi:10.1177/0895904819843594

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The change theories and research we have used to illustrate each category do not represent endorsements of the utility or value of these particular theories, nor a negative evaluation of theories not mentioned. Given the complexity of real change scenarios, efforts can benefit from drawing on multiple change theories and diverse research areas (Kezar & Holcombe, 2019). A single change theory can contribute to multiple aspects of a theory of change, or it can only contribute to one.…”

Section: Logic Models Logframes and Outcome Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change theory and theory of change: what’s the difference anyway?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary focuses on the difference between a theory of change and change theory, as it relates to systemic change projects in STEM higher education. A theory of change is project-specific and related to evaluation. It makes the underlying rationale of a project explicit, which supports planning, implementation, and assessment of the project. In addition, a theory of change is often required by funding agencies as part of grant proposals. In contrast, change theories represent theoretical and empirically grounded knowledge about how change occurs that goes beyond any one project. Ideally, a theory of change is informed by change theories. This essay describes the connections between a theory of change and change theory and provides examples of how change theory can inform a project's theory of change. Grounding projects in change theory allows change agents to draw on existing knowledge and to better contribute to our collective knowledge about how to achieve meaningful change in STEM higher education.

show abstract

Section: Logic Models Logframes and Outcome Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change theory and theory of change: what’s the difference anyway?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aim of this commentary is to expand on existing notions of instructors' decision-making to explicitly account for how academic peers influence the implementation of research-based instructional practices. To this end, we have incorporated literature regarding innovation adoption (e.g., Andrews and Lemons 2015;Marbach-Ad and Hunt Rietschel 2016;Rogers 2003), peer influence (e.g., Dancy et al 2016;Quardokus and Henderson 2015;Tomkin et al 2019), departmental climate (e.g., Knight and Trowler 2000;Landrum et al 2017;Lund and Stains 2015), and institutional change (e.g., Austin 2011; Kezar and Holcombe 2019;Marker et al 2015;Reinholz and Apkarian 2018) to model three mechanisms through which peer interactions affect instructors' innovation adoption decisions. We conclude with implications and suggestions for future research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A model of peer effects on instructor innovation adoption

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A considerable body of evidence demonstrates that active, student-centered instructional practices are more effective than lecture-based, transmissionist approaches in improving undergraduate STEM learning. Despite this evidence and extensive reform initiatives, the majority of STEM instructors continue to teach didactically. Awareness of teaching innovations is widespread in some STEM disciplines, and instructors report trying new instructional approaches, yet the majority of them fail to continue using active learning strategies. Recent work suggests that the decision to experiment with and persist in using a teaching innovation is influenced more by instructors’ perceived supports (e.g., access to curricular resources, supportive colleagues, positive departmental climate toward teaching) than perceived barriers. This commentary expands on the notion that the instructional decision-making process is personal and influenced by both individual and contextual factors to explicitly model the potential mechanisms by which peers encourage or discourage adoption of teaching innovations. We also discuss implications of this work for future research. We hope that this model will be helpful for work related to increasing the prevalence of active, student-centered instruction in undergraduate STEM.

show abstract

“…Institutional type and structural distinctions also require nuance in the change process deliberation. For example, structural differences might limit collective work (Kezar & Holcombe, 2019) due to timing in collaboration and institutional type contributing to competition for resources. Reinholz and Apkarian (2018) described "collective goals that attend to, and include, individual goals and concerns", and a "shared vision for the department can help shape the direction of future change initiatives to align with the needs of individual members as well as build coherence among those goals and ideals" (p. 4).…”

Section: Stakeholder Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting critical STEM interventions: a literature review of STEM organizational learning

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is inconclusive evidence on the ability of scientific research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education to scale-up from one context to another and ultimately become institutionalized. The dearth of evidence draws focus on how organizations change and evolve or the process of organizational learning. We designed this systematic review of the literature to uncover to what extent and how organizational theory has been leveraged within STEM interventions or as a research tool to inform the policies and practices of STEM education organizations. Unlike previous reviews, we explicitly focused on how organizational learning informs cultural transformation toward the success of racially and ethnically underrepresented minority (URM) students in STEM. The research question was: How has organizational theory and learning informed the potential for STEM education to center the success of URM students? Our results reveal that STEM entities that did not leverage organizational theory consistently fell into either the “decision trap” identified by Langely et al. created by ignoring temporal structures or deemed the innovation threatening, as Kezar suggested. We conclude with practical recommendations for the design of STEM education interventions.

show abstract

Leveraging Multiple Theories of Change to Promote Reform: An Examination of the AAU STEM Initiative

Cited by 19 publications

References 30 publications

Change theory and theory of change: what’s the difference anyway?

Change theory and theory of change: what’s the difference anyway?

A model of peer effects on instructor innovation adoption

Revisiting critical STEM interventions: a literature review of STEM organizational learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About