Change is the one constant in life. But while the literature provides guidance, there is no set recipe for change. Educational change is “technically simple and socially complex” (Fullan, 2001). Culture also plays an important role in change (Kamppuri, Tedre, & Tukiainen, 2006). There are many factors at play when one considers change, especially educational change. Change agents are often guided by one change strategy. Focusing too narrowly on one perspective increases the chances of overlooking influential factors and processes (Borrego & Henderson, 2014). What does it take to design a robust change effort?
Changing teaching practices in education has been an important issue for educa-tion leaders and policy makers for many decades (Emerson & Mosteller, 2000; Lev-inson-Rose & Menges, 1981; Perry & Smart, 1997). Considering levels of change at the level of an individual instructor, department, college, university or broader edu-cational system adds more complexity. As there are stakeholders in the education system that range from individuals to organizations and beyond, we need models of change that can be applicable to these various levels. Complex higher education change processes addressing individual and organizational levels have been re-searched and summarized (Heath & Heath, 2010; Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011; Kezar, 2001). In this section, we will look at a few models of change that have been widely used that are applicable to individuals and organizations, followed by Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2010), which has been very pop-ular in various fields and in education in particpop-ular for scalability in change. Then we will take a look at applying multiple strategies of change to facilitate change in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Management) education, as proposed by Henderson et al. (2011). In reviewing 191 journal articles from 1995-2008, for promot-ing change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices, Henderson et al. (2011) found that most training programs are compartmentalized, with the focus on either student training, teacher training with focus on pedagogy, or higher education re-searchers with focus on how change happens but with little guidance on strategy for change. They theorize that that employing multiple perspectives on change will lead to better results, but there is little empirical evidence or theory-based rationale to support or refine this assertion (which itself is an important direction for future re-search) (Borrego & Henderson, 2014). The multiple strategies of change model are particularly relevant in the context of this research in information technology educa-tion.
47 2.3.1 Lewin’s and Kotter’s models for change
Lewin’s 3-stage model of change (Lewin, 1947) (Figure 2.4), including unfreeze, change (or transition) and freeze (or refreeze), applies both to individual change and at an organizational level. In this model, Lewin first works on unfreezing the situa-tion of the individual, then applies the change or transisitua-tion and then brings about the idea of freezing so that the change is now a part of the individual.
Figure 2.4. Lewin’s 3-stage model of change (adapted from Lewin, 1947)
Kotter’s (1995) 8-step process for leading change has been refreshed in order to remain relevant in the current competitive business environments, and it applies to organizational contexts (Figure 2.5). It is also interesting to note that the eight steps proposed by Kotter align with the 3-stage model of change proposed by Lewin. In Figure 2.5. ‘creating a climate for change’, one can see the unfreeze; the ‘engaging and enabling’ serves as the change or transition; the ‘implementing and sustaining’
serves as the freeze. Thus, one can use Kotter’s model for leading change for individ-uals or organizations.
Figure 2.5. Kotter’s 8-Step Model (adapted from Kotter, 1995)
48
2.3.2 Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovations
Everett Rogers (1995) created a comprehensive, well-studied and widely used theory of diffusion of innovations. His key assumption is that communication is necessary for change. This is a valid and viable theory for effecting change in higher education and has also been applied in many other disciplines, including medicine and tele-communications.
Rogers (2003) describes innovation adoption using a five-stage framework of awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption.
1. Awareness: One is aware of the innovation but does not have complete in-formation about it.
2. Interest: One’s interest increases in the innovation, and one seeks more in-formation about it.
3. Evaluation: One decides to try or not try the innovation based on the current and future situation.
4. Trial: One uses the innovation.
5. Adoption: One continues to use the innovation.
Further, Rogers (2003) talks of stages of adoption (knowledge, persuasion, passive rejection, decision, implementation, active rejection and confirmation) to describe the participants and study their responses according to the context.
2.3.3 Change strategies in information technology and higher education Fullan (1985) suggests that change creates anxiety and uncertainty for those who are involved. When everyone is involved in the higher education change process, then they must work on resolving this anxiety and uncertainty. To do so requires guid-ance, direction and some pressure from educational leaders who have a vision of the outcome. A combination of pressure and assistance has been powerful in educational improvement programs (Borrego & Henderson, 2014; Guskey, 2002; Henderson et al., 2011; Huberman & Crandall, 1983; Whitworth & Chiu, 2015).
While these reviews help in understanding the complexity of change in a higher education system, there is no cookie-cutter change process, as such, that can be ap-plied to a given situation (Borrego & Henderson, 2014). Henderson et al. (2011) de-vised four categories of strategies for creating change in undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (STEM) education. These categories de-scribe change at individual and organizational levels in prede-scribed and emergent ways. The four categories of change model was enhanced by Borrego and Henderson (2014), where two possible strategies for change in each of the four categories were developed (Figure 2.6), leading to eight strategies of change.
49 Figure 2.6. Four categories of change strategies (adapted from Borrego & Henderson, 2014)
The eight strategies of change are diffusion, implementation, scholarly teaching, faculty learning communities, quality assurance, organizational development, learn-ing organizations and complexity leadership. These change strategies model is po-tentially relevant for our research in information technology education. Below are detailed descriptions of the eight strategies of change (Borrego & Henderson, 2014):
1. Diffusion: This refers to Rogers’ diffusion of theory of innovations, as in Sec-tion 2.3.2. A diffusion strategy is based on developing good products and spreading the word about them so they may be tried and adopted.
2. Implementation: An implementation strategy is deliberate and direct. The strategies focus on designing a set of activities to successfully put the innova-tion into practice (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Imple-mentation strategies are not yet widely used in higher education.
3. Scholarly teaching: This has been defined as
…a method of finding out what works best in your own classroom so that you can improve student learning, which fits in the center of a continuum ranging from
50
personal reflection at one end to formal educational research at the other. (Mettetal, 2001, p. 1)
The main characteristics of teaching-as-research include trying new methods of teaching and learning, gathering data and reflecting and acting on obser-vations. The teacher engages in an iterative loop of research driving practice and of practice driving research, drawing also from education research.
4. Faculty learning communities: They help create a social and support net-work around ideas for improving teaching. Cox (2004) defines faculty learn-ing communities in higher education as a type of community of practice:
…a cross-disciplinary faculty and staff group of six to fifteen members…who en-gage in an active, collaborative, yearlong program with a curriculum about enhanc-ing teachenhanc-ing and learnenhanc-ing and with frequent seminars and activities that provide learning, development, the scholarship of teaching, and community building. (p. 8) This strategy is dependent to a great extent on faculty motivation to sustain the communities.
5. Quality assurance: This includes setting goals, creating a self-study report with evaluation evidence, enabling an external review by peers and respond-ing to the external review report (Ewell, 1997; Rhoades & Sporn, 2002).
6. Organizational development: This involves planned changes to the work environment, where behavioral changes in employees create improved or-ganizations. This top-down approach is initiated by management when a mismatch is identified, so a planned change effort can be implemented (Porras & Silvers, 1991).
7. Learning organizations: Organizations need to continually learn and im-prove in an environment of rapid change. Learning organizations need to fulfill two essential conditions: (1) new ideas must originate and be devel-oped within the organization and (2) these ideas must lead to changes in the way the organization operates (Dill, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 1997).
8. Complexity leadership theory: This suggests that innovation occurs through the collective action of self-organizing groups in the system. This collective action can be stimulated but not controlled (Goldstein, Hazy, & Lichtenstein, 2010). A key phenomenon is emergence and cycles of emergence. Within each cycle, the role of the leader is to create conditions for productive emer-gence to take place and then to take the productive results from this process and ensure that these are integrated into the organization (Schreiber & Car-ley, 2008). Leaders can use the three mechanisms of disrupting existing
51 patterns, encouraging novelty and acting as sense makers to encourage emergence (Plowman et al., 2007).
In summary, a structured application of change strategies is important to effect change in the education system. Several models have been examined, from Lewin’s and Kotter’s models, which support viewing strategies from individual and organi-zational levels, to Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovations, which can help with ideas of scaling and sustaining change. Borrego and Henderson’s eight strategies in four categories shed further light on possible change strategies to apply in a given situation to effect change in information technology education.