Jun 26, 2016

It’s a productive day!!

I’m happy that I have a progress in my paper. Today I wrote the literature review in the second part which is about the Four Categories Change Strategies. So now I still have two more parts to write which is “Change and Impact” and “the perceptions of impact (previous studies)”. For the change strategies, I started with how this strategies has been used in other studies. I mentioned about it first because I wanted to emphasize the importance of the framework and I just wanted to make it fancy by reordering the points. Then I talked about how they created this table. After that, stated each strategy and gave the example of each change strategy. At this point I have a question. Can I use the example that Henderson or other authors used in their papers? If yes, should I cite Henderson or the original paper?

It’s still a long way to finish the literature review of this paper. Tomorrow I’ll focus on the important of the change strategies in our study.

This is what I have written today.

The Four Categories of the Change Strategies model (Henderson, Beach & Finkelstein, 2011) has been served as a framework in order to understand the changes in STEM education in several studies (Beach, Handerson & Finkelstein, 2012; Besterfield‐Sacre, Cox, Borrego, Beddoes & Zhu, 2014; Minichiello, Campbell, Dorward & Marx, 2015). According to the study of Besterfield‐Sacre, Cox, Borrego, Beddoes & Zhu (2014), the model helped to identify the gap between what engineering education should look like and how to achieve this vision. Moreover, the model could help to explore the emergent process of STEM teacher change in post-secondary education (Minichiello, Campbell, Dorward & Marx, 2015).          

           Henderson, Beach and Finkelstein (2011) developed the change strategies in undergraduate STEM instruction. Based on the review of 191 literature, the categories of change strategies lie in the results that individuals and environments and structures are two primary focuses that change strategies seek to directly affect. For individual, “the change strategy seeks to influence directly on the beliefs and behaviors of instructors, assuming that they act as free agents. Whilst the environments and structures “are assumed to influence the action of individuals” (Beach, Handerson & Finkelstein, 2012). The secondary focus that lead to the categories of change strategies is whether the intended outcome is prescribed or emergent as it is known in advance (Borrego & Handerson, 2014). If the change agents know in advance about “what kinds of behaviors or mental states in individuals or groups” they want to change, this falls into prescribed outcomes (Henderson, Beach & Finkelstein, 2011) On the other hand, the emergent outcomes refer to the action that people involved in the change have important information needed to define outcomes as a part of the change processes (Beach, Handerson & Finkelstein, 2012).

           Based on the combination of those focuses in change process, the cross-typology framework is developed, as shown in Figure 1, to illustrate the four different categories of change strategies when concerning what is changed and how it is changed. The first quadrant emphasizes on the development and dissemination of instructional practices. Once the innovations developed by the change agents shown to be successful, they are then disseminated to instructors who are expected to adopt these materials (Henderson & Dancy, 2011; Henderson, Beach & Finkelstein, 2011). For example, “the author developed a ready-to-use activity modules focused on helping instructors actively engage students in introductory physiology topics. After presentations and workshops at a summer professional conference, 56 instructors volunteered to field test the inquiry-oriented course modules (Silverthorn, Thorn & Svinicki, 2006).” However, the barriers in this strategy lead to the ineffective change in STEM education (Dancy & Henderson, 2008; Henderson & Dancy, 2011)

           The second strategy which is developing reflective teachers appear to be more effective in STEM educational change, due to its focus on “engaging and empowering instructors to reflect their instructional practices in order to make instructional changes on the basis of their judgement (Borrego & Henderson, 2014).” This strategy help change agents and faculty to overcome the barriers in adopting the innovations by providing the faculty the meaningful role in the change process (Dancy & Henderson, 2008). The study of Lynd-Balta et al. (2006) demonstrates as an example which described a learning community that faculty who were interested to develop students’ critical thinking skills could work together by allowing them to reflect and discuss the ideas that could apply to the courses. Interestingly, faculty said that they could make a significant change in their instructions (Borrego & Henderson, 2014).

           The next quadrant is enacting policy emphasizing on “the strategy that shapes the system as well as the faculty (Henderson & Dancy, 2011)” . In this category, change agents develop policy in faculty’s workplace in order to influence the instructional behavior (Henderson, Finkelstein & Beach, 2010; Borrego & Henderson, 2014). This structural change could be formal like general policy, or informal such as rewarding system (Henderson, Finkelstein & Beach, 2010). An example of this strategy is the integrating of problem-based learning (PBL) across the curriculum at a private university. As a result, this intervention change “ the roles of content, faculty, and student (Major and Palmer, 2006).” However, if the change agents do not truly understand the system that they seek to change, this change strategy is not likely to be highly successful (Borrego & Henderson, 2014).

           The final change strategy in Shared Vision category focuses on the collaboration of faculty and many stakeholders in developing of “shared vision in instructional improvement” and the environment that support those changes (Henderson, Finkelstein & Beach, 2010; Borrego & Henderson, 2014). This is a foundation of change in a larger, more institutional levels (Ingram et al., 2014) Moreover, “consultation and partnership are beneficial” in order to make an effective change (Ingram et al., 2014) Aalborg University (Denmark) is the sample institution that use “a learning organization perspective to increase the productive incorporation of information technology throughout institutional operations.” The good sharing ideas between each small group were combined and became institutionalized. Then, “a number of specific mechanisms were used to facilitate the sharing of ideas and resulting organizational learning (Dirckinck-Holmfeld & Lorentsen, 2003).”

Have a good night 🙂


One thought on “Jun 26, 2016

  1. jeremilondon says:

    Nice job on your writing! (By the way, you don’t have to paste the writing text in the blog.) As for your question about the examples, I’d prefer we brainstorm a couple of new examples instead of use the ones Charles and Henderson mention. Let’s discuss this further during one of the research group meetings.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s