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

Abstract

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.

Development of the Cooperative Adoption Factors Instrument to measure factors associated with instructional practice in the context of institutional change

“…This knowledge can come from the exchange and sharing of ideas and experience between change agents and potential adopters of EBIPs. López et al (2022) stress that network expansion is an important driver for the change process. When individual faculty members expand their social networks, they have the potential to gain access to resources, including knowledge of and support for using EBIPs.…”

“…Evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) are techniques that have been reported in the literature to consistently improve students' academic performance and affective outcomes in a wide variety of STEM disciplines (Freeman et al, 2014;Schroeder et al, 2007;Stains et al, 2018;Theobald et al, 2020). While EBIPs show promise in attracting and retaining more students in STEM, they have yet to become the predominant mode of instruction in college STEM courses (Borrego et al, 2010;Durham et al, 2017;Henderson & Dancy, 2009;López et al, 2022;Stains et al, 2018). Within the literature on institutional change efforts designed to promote the use of EBIPs in STEM education, several researchers have noted that discussions about teaching among faculty members impact practice (Kezar, 2014;Sachmpazidi et al, 2021).…”

Inclusion in practice: a systematic review of diversity-focused STEM programming in the United States

“…The program features identified do not show the full breadth of actions that program-running institutions can and should take to promote diversity in STEM and tackle discrimination in the world of academia and beyond (Allen-Ramdial and Campbell, 2014;BrckaLorenz et al, 2021;George et al, 2019;McGee, 2020). While this systematic review primarily focuses on programs implemented within existing systems or institutions, what may really be necessary to remedy this issue sustainably is a fundamental change in the way that these systems and institutions operate (López et al, 2022;McGee, 2016McGee, , 2020Miriti, 2020;National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2016;Robinson, 2022;Whittaker & Montgomery, 2012).…”

“…Achieving these less tangible markers of meaningful postsecondary STEM diversity may require broader institutional reform. Scholars including López et. al.…”

A model for principals' STEM leadership capability

“…Key to addressing the challenges associated with integrated STEM learning is 'systematic and joined-up policies' (Timms et al, 2018, p. 25), enacted by principals who recognise and reward teachers' efforts to integrate STEM, particularly when conducted in collaboration with external stakeholders (Kennedy & Odell, 2014). This observation identified the key role of leadership in integrated STEM education and how they enact principles of organisational learning (López et al, 2022), which are needed to manage the expectation of school systems, coordinate the efforts of teachers, ensure quality learning outcomes for all students and harness the support of the school community.…”