Keywords: Curriculum development and change, change agent, zone of feasible innovation), zone of ... ture, the application of which is important for the suc- ...... London. [21] J. H. McGivney, W. Moynihan (1972) School and community, Teach.
Q 2011 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 233–241, 2011
Bridging the Gap Bridging the Educational Research-Teaching Practice Gap CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, PART 2: BECOMING AN AGENT OF CHANGE Received for publication, October 7, 2010, and in revised form, January 23, 2011 John M. Rogan and Trevor R. Anderson‡ From the From the Science Education Research Group (SERG), Department of Genetics and Microbiology, School of Biochemistry, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
Many faculty members in science departments are experiencing pressure to improve their courses, particularly with respect to the ways in which students are taught and assessed. The purpose of this article is to provide some insights and practical ideas on how curriculum change can be brought about—how motivated individuals can become agents of change. Change almost always elicits opposing and supporting forces, examples of which are given. Finally, we discuss examples of strategies to deal with these forces and highlight various factors that need to be considered when implementing such strategies, including the concepts of a zone of feasible innovation, the zone of tolerance, and the development of communities of practice. Keywords: Curriculum development and change, change agent, zone of feasible innovation), zone of tolerance, communities of practice, learning communities, faculty development. Curriculum reform is one of the hottest topics in scientific institutions of learning across the globe. This is because faculty are coming under increasing pressure to design courses that incorporate modern educational innovations, in the teaching of core scientific knowledge and skills, which will more specifically address the expectations of students, employers, and other stakeholders [1]. One trend that is having a powerful influence on science curricula is the notion that ‘‘Science should be taught how science is practiced at its best’’ [2]. In practice, this requires a curriculum that includes training and practice in asking testable and meaningful questions, thinking critically about problems, designing and undertaking rigorous research, and generally coming to realize what it means to be a scientist. By and large, lectures and cookbook labs do not achieve this ideal. Much can be learned from medical institutions that have had extensive experience over the years in successfully implementing curriculum change (e.g., [3]). However, in the area of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education various authors (e.g., [4]) have expressed concern that most reform efforts are falling far short of their goals, despite extensive resources being invested in the development and
*This work was supported by The National Research Foundation (NRF) (GUN Number 2053218). ‡ To whom correspondence should be addressed. P/Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal 3209, South Africa, Tel.: þ27332605464; Fax: þ27332605462. E-mail: anderson@ ukzn.ac.za. This paper is available on line at http://www.bambed.org
dissemination of curriculum materials. As pointed out by these authors, efforts invested in the development of high quality teaching materials are wasted if the dissemination process fails to lead to implementation of innovations. Thus, there is an urgent need for science faculty to reconsider the nature of and the manner in which change strategies are deployed, and to rigorously monitor the successful implementation of innovations during reform processes. To guide the process of curriculum development and change, we are fortunate to be able to tap into an extensive body of curriculum theory and research literature, the application of which is important for the successful design of a curriculum. Furthermore, should the task of sifting through hundreds of research articles filled with educational jargon become too taxing, we are also fortunate in having various curriculum experts available to help us. Such experts are better able to select and decontextualize complex educational theory and philosophy, and to help colleagues recontextualize and usefully apply this theory in their own area of science teaching. In the previous paper ([5] Part 1), we described components of the curriculum and some influences on the process of curriculum design. In this article, we take a closer look at how change can be brought about at the level of a university department, school or institution. The purpose of this article is to provide some insights and practical ideas on how curriculum change can be realized—how motivated individuals can become agents of change. We begin with the assumption that the introduction of a new development within one of the influencing
233
DOI 10.1002/bmb.20509
234
FIG. 1. Relationships between influencing factors, change forces, and strategies for promoting innovative change in the curriculum.
factors (see Fig. 1 and Part 1 [5]) will create the opportunity and/or pressure necessary for curriculum change. For example, advances in biochemical knowledge and research might create the incentives to change what is taught in some of the courses. Changes in the influencing factors will usually generate forces at the local level, both positive and negative, that will in turn create pressure to either accept or resist change. These forces can be harnessed or curtailed by using strategic change strategies as depicted in Fig. 1. In this article, we will give examples of some of these forces and strategies, and elaborate on some of the latter.
Supporting and Opposing Forces and the Selection of Appropriate Change Strategies Once an innovation has been agreed upon in broad outline, an early step in the implementation process should be to identify possible supporting and opposing forces. Almost any proposed change is likely to give rise to a number of these types of forces. In Appendixes A and B, we have provided a detailed, but far from exhaustive list, of possible forces that faculty might encounter when attempting curriculum reform. We recommend that these appendices are used to facilitate faculty and curriculum development workshops and learning communities. Opposing forces (Appendix A) can comprise both logistical and personality factors. Logistical factors often revolve around issues of time, money, and resources, whereas personality ones are based on the fact that change might be uncomfortable or inconvenient for some individuals. In this regard, a major cause of negative pressure can be the poor communication and lack of mutual respect and trust between change agents and other faculty members [4]. Details of the types of issues of relevance to this problem are given in Appendix A. The first article in the Bridging-the Gap series by Ander-
BAMBED, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 233–241, 2011 son [6] also includes a detailed coverage of the potential barriers to change and resistance shown by faculty. Supporting forces (Appendix B) tend to revolve around issues of quality evaluation and accreditation; competition between universities and globalization of courses; the awarding of external funding to promote innovation; scholarship, tenure and promotion of faculty; and, expectations of students, employers, and other stakeholders. Invariably money comes into the equation. For example, the financing of the introduction of new innovations could promote curriculum change ventures while the tightening of budgets could also force universities to be more innovative and cater to their strengths [7]. The availability of change agents who are compatible with other faculty members in terms of overlapping knowledge and personality can also serve as a very positive force. Such change agents might be existing staff with expertise in education or Science Faculty with Educational Specialties (SFES) [8] especially employed for this purpose. In considering supporting and opposing forces, it is also important to realize that student opinion is crucial for implementing any successful curriculum reform. Students may resist change for various reasons. These include, ‘‘students, belief that they can’t change, they don’t want to change, they don’t know what to change, or they don’t know how to change’’ [9]. Table I includes some strategies on how to address such student issues. Having identified the forces, the next step is to consider each one individually to determine whether anything can be done about it. Where possible, opposing forces should be eliminated or diminished and supporting forces should be strengthened using selected change strategies. Henderson et al. [10] have exhaustively analyzed over 300 articles published on change strategies used in STEM education. Their findings revealed four major categories of change strategies namely, disseminating curriculum and pedagogy, developing reflective teachers, enacting policy, and developing shared vision. Their findings also suggest the need for educational researchers and change agents to work more closely together in improving change strategies and more rigorously monitoring their success. In Appendix C [14–16], we have listed a far from exhaustive list of possible strategies that instructors could try when addressing the forces and attempting curriculum reform. Although many of the strategies are self-evident and based on common sense, some warrant further comment. Generic to all the listed strategies is the need to make use of science education experts (e.g., SFES [8] or current faculty members with an interest in education) to facilitate any curriculum change process, and to encourage science faculty to take ownership of their own curriculum development. Such experts can participate with groups of science faculty in learning communities and partnerships [11] and with individuals where actual development is occurring (See also Communities of Practice below). In this regard, Dancy et al. [4] have highlighted the strategies they believe are crucial to build bridges between change agents and faculty. Another important strategy is what we term ‘‘educational resources-driven change.’’ Many initiatives (See the forthcoming paper 3 in this series) are using
235 TABLE I Examples of forces and change strategies Examples of opposing forces The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) is not valued by most faculty in the department, and it does not count for promotion
Examples of supporting forces Some faculty members are keen to implement new teaching methods, and to do research on their effectiveness. Science Faculty with Educational Specialties (SFES) are available to facilitate the changes
Science education developers attempt to introduce new innovations but many science faculty see this as a top-down imposition that they do not really need. Students are very enthusiastic about the new teaching methods because they have a better understanding of the concepts Students are apprehensive about and/or opposed to change from a memorization-of-facts approach, with which they are comfortable, to a problem-based/application-ofknowledge approach to learning. Many faculty members perceive SoTL as lacking rigor, and of little value in the real world
Pressure from professional organizations to engage in SoTL and to apply science education research
Faculty members, while supportive of the proposed changes to the delivery of the curriculum, are overwhelmed by the complexity and pace of change and the additional demands on their time. The Department lacks the resources to support the changes it is attempting A few faculty members begin to make changes to their teaching but become discouraged by a sense of isolation and lack of support. A few faculty members embark on change, only to encounter strong opposition from students, faculty, or even the public to what they are doing.
Appropriate change strategy Senior management (e.g., dean) needs to openly support SoTL, and change policy if necessary to ensure it counts towards promotion Change agents need to be active and respected members of a department, but receive encouragement, rewards, and supportive policies from upper management Survey faculty on teaching issues and needs and focus on addressing these issues rather than trying to impose ideas where there is no faculty buy-in Provide a forum for faculty and other students in which students can express their support. If there is research to support the students’ claim of better understanding, make these results available. Take time to help students understand the change, its rationale and benefits. Provide opportunities for students to provide feedback and suggestions. See Minho case study in Part 3 Organize workshops in which exemplary SoTL research is featured and provide faculty with expertise to design their own rigorous research Phase the changes in more gradually. See section on the Zone of Feasible Innovation later in the paper
Create a support group. See section on communities of practice later in the paper. Before embarking on change, determine if it is acceptable to all stakeholders. See section on the ZoT later in the paper
Note: Some forces are potentially both opposing and supporting depending on the context and how they are addressed.
resources as a means of stimulating and guiding faculty to change their curricula. Froyd [12] describes a number of ‘‘promising practices’’ that can be used to promote and guide faculty and curriculum development. In addition, many faculty do not have the time or expertise to develop their own resources and so if they are provided with something readymade and easy to use they are more likely to implement it, and the positive spin-off is that the curriculum will be influenced accordingly. For example, a major goal of concept inventories [13] should be to use them to stimulate faculty development and curriculum change. Faculty appreciate the idea of having banks of questions available for easy use, and so if for example the questions focus on conceptual understanding and skill competence, they will be encouraged to change the focus of their teaching so that students can cope with this type of questioning. This is in line with the notion of assessment-driven faculty and curriculum change as proposed by Anderson [14].
Finally, when designing a change strategy it is important to realize that faculty buy-in is crucial for any successful reform process. Faculty need to see the value of doing things both from a personal point of view, such as promotion and salary incentives, and from an academic point of view. Regarding the latter, imposing new ideas in a top-down manner usually leads to resistance. It is far better to consult with faculty and graduate students about the teaching and learning problems that they have identified and to then offer to help resolve them. In the same vein, the learning community model involving democratic consultation works better than top-down faculty development workshops. Internship programs (e.g., [15]) for graduate and post-doctoral students can also be extremely effective as will be demonstrated in Part 3 of this series. The information presented in Table I, illustrates how one might select appropriate change strategies to address particular opposing and supporting forces.
236
BAMBED, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 233–241, 2011 cept ‘‘kaizen’’, which means continuous improvement— no matter how good, try to become better. The upper boundary will depend on the amount of support, that is, available. With a high level of such support, it is possible to push the boundary further and faster. However, pushing the boundary too far results in a situation of diminishing returns—more support effort with less to show for it. A second consequence of pushing the upper boundary too far is that when the support mechanisms are removed or diminished, practices are likely to regress to a lower level where implementation is more congruent with the capacity to support it.
FIG. 2. The ZFI suggests practices beyond the current practice, but not beyond what is feasible at the time.
Implications for Action Whereas some strategies can be used to address a range of difference forces, others are more specific for individual forces. The different scenarios can also involve different agents of change, including senior management, science education specialists, innovative science faculty, and students.
The Process of Implementation of an Innovation An important part of the process of implementing an innovation is to consider what will be feasible from a resources perspective and what will be tolerated by faculty and/or the wider community. In this section, we discuss the application of two concepts: the zone of feasible innovation (or ZFI) and the zone of tolerance (ZoT). We end by discussing learning communities, an invaluable approach to ensuring successful implementation of all the change strategies.
Zone of Feasible Innovation (ZFI) The ZFI may be defined as comprising those new teaching methods or policies that go beyond current practice, but nevertheless are realistic in terms of the current context [16]. It comprises steps towards the ideal, the realization of which may not be immediately possible. It suggests strategies that are innovative in terms of current practice, but not so radically different that their implementation will likely result in frustration (Fig. 2). Implicit in the concept of a ZFI is that there exists a continuum of practice on which the zone is located. The ZFI then is that area on the continuum beyond those practices that have already become routine in the Department, and which includes new practices which might be implemented with some kind of support. Its upper boundary is the interface between what is deemed to be feasible at the given point in time and context, and that which is only likely to be feasible at some later stage. However, the zone is dynamic and will change as the various innovations take root. The upper boundary is neither static nor impermeable. Over time, as new practices become routine, the boundary will shift upwards. This continuous striving towards an ideal is in line with the Japanese con-
To explore the implications of the ZFI, let us consider a hypothetical curriculum change—the introduction of inquiry learning. With this end point in mind, the ‘‘desired ideal practice’’ in Fig. 2, the question is how much can be achieved immediately (i.e., in the coming academic year) and what should be put off for implementation in the years that follow. An initial step would be to hold one or more workshops in which a whole range of possible practices that promote inquiry learning are considered. Outside expertise might need to be drawn on so as to obtain a comprehensive picture of the range of possible practices. Some practices might be feasible in a lecture room, some in small discussion groups, some in the laboratory. Next those who will be doing the actual implementation need to define their individual ZFIs. The full range of practices needs to be put into three categories: 1. Practices which are already routine. 2. Practices to be introduced in the coming year or semester, that is, the ZFI 3. Practices for later implementation (or perhaps never) Finally, consider the Category 2 practices carefully from the point of view whether the resources and expertise are available. Implementing some of these practices might involve developing new curriculum materials, a task requiring both faculty time and financial resources. A realistic assessment of the requirements of this task might show that it could not be completed in time for the next academic year. Decisions of this nature are driven essentially by logistical factors, where the extent of change will be determined by the capacity of the Department in terms of human and material resources and time needed to successfully implement an innovation. In this regard Rogers [17] defines a factor termed ‘‘diffusion’’ or ‘‘the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.’’ This factor will directly affect how much time should be allowed for an innovation to take hold before perhaps a related innovation could be considered, and thus timelines are essential in curriculum planning. Personality factors also play a role. Research shows that individuals react differently to any given innovation.
237 The so-called ‘‘early adopters’’ are quick to embrace and implement an innovation which makes sense to them (e.g. [18, 19]). The more cautious middle group may embrace the innovation in theory, but would rather see if it really works in practice before taking the plunge. Finally there is sometimes a small group who are wedded to the old way of doing things, and who will never make a change [20]. Hence, another option of easing in an innovation over a number of years would be to have the ‘‘early adopters’’ volunteer to set the pace during the first years (implement the changes in the courses that they teach) and let the middle group learn from their experiences. The above are by no means prescriptive, but rather illustrative of some of many possible ways of phasing in an extensive innovation over a period of time. Rogan [16] has suggested a series of steps that are designed to manage and facilitate the implementation of an innovation. These steps are not seen as being applied in a linear fashion, but rather as building blocks to be considered as the need arises, and indeed should be revisited more than once. • Build a broad-based consensus for a vision of what the innovation will look like once it is fully realized, as well as a clear understanding of the base line (current practice) on which to build, or from which to start. • Construct a continuum, starting with current practice, and list in sequence steps that will need to be taken to finally arrive at the endpoint—the desired ideal practice. • With the continuum in mind, decide on timelines and what is feasible for the first phase of the implementation of the innovation, that is, the boundaries of the Zone of Feasible Implementation (ZFI). • Implement those practices that fall within the first phase ZFI, and at the same time revisit the three steps above with a view to developing a new ZFI for the next phase of implementing the innovation.
Zone of Tolerance (ZoT) The ‘‘ZoT’’ was first defined by McGivney and Moynihan [21] as ‘‘the latitude or maneuverability granted (or yielded) to the leadership of the schools by the local community’’ (p. 221). In other words, this zone is concerned with the amount of change that the community of which the institution contemplating change is a component will accept or tolerate. If the change agents propose changes outside of this zone, the community will object, and the degree of opposition is likely to be in proportion to how far outside this zone the proposed change lies. Oakes et al. [22] build on this ‘‘ZoT’’ to propose a ‘‘zone of mediation’’, which essentially describes the space accorded to mediating institutions involved in reconciling the conflicting viewpoints of stakeholders in the change process. Two salient features of this zone are: 1. Its boundaries are ‘‘shaped by forces originating at the societal and global levels as well as forces originating in the community.’’
FIG. 3. There are a number of possible Zones of Tolerance in conjunction with the ZFI. ZoT 1 ¼ No innovation at all- stay with current practice; ZoT 2 ¼ Some of the feasible innovation tolerated; ZoT 3 ¼ All of the feasible innovation tolerated; ZoT 4 ¼ Innovations are acceptable but not feasible.
2. Its ‘‘boundaries are not simply set by outside forces—they are largely created by people mediating among themselves and between themselves and those outside forces.’’ Its boundaries depend ‘‘on each person’s perception or standpoint . . . the zone changes with time and with identity and place.’’ ([22] p. 959) The ZoT can be considered in conjunction with the ZFI. (See Fig. 3.) It is possible that although some innovation is feasible, it is simply not acceptable to most of the stakeholders. It is also possible that a small degree of change is acceptable, even though more is feasible. This zone is labeled ZoT2 in Fig. 3. If all that is deemed feasible is also acceptable, we have ZoT3 in Fig. 3. Finally the situation might exist where more innovation is acceptable than is feasible. This zone is labeled ZoT4 in Fig. 3.
Implications for Action Any proposed change affects all members of the institution and possibly the wider society. Cultural, ethical and religious beliefs of all stakeholders will need to be taken into account when determining whether the change probably falls within the ZoT. For example, if the proposed change required experimentation with live animals, many stakeholders, both staff and students, might have serious ethical or religious objections. Before embarking on any change, a change agent needs to consider how the change might affect the various stakeholders, especially those beyond the Department itself. In particular, they need to make sure that the proposed changes do not conflict with the policies of other Departments, the institution as a whole, or with accreditation agencies. For example, the proposed introduction of inquiry learning might de-emphasize the importance of a single final examination in favor of continuous assessment [14] and/or it might increase the number of credits assigned to that course. While everyone in the change agent’s department are in favor of this change, there are students who take courses offered by the department who will graduate from different departments. Hence the proposed change might be in conflict
238
BAMBED, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 233–241, 2011
with the graduation requirements of one or more of these departments, for example by overstepping the number of outside credits allowed. Discussions with these departments would need to take place to ensure that the proposed change is acceptable to them—,that is, it falls within the ZoT. Furthermore, if the degrees offered by the department are accredited by an outside agency, it would be important to make sure that the proposed change is not in conflict with the conditions of accreditation. The introduction of inquiry learning in and of itself may not be controversial, but aspects of its implementation might fall outside the ZoT for a small group of stakeholders. For example, if the materials used in the course included evolution there might be objections from some fundamentalist religious groups. Another example might be opposition from those few students whose habit is to turn up once a semester only to take the final examination, and now have to come to class on a regular basis because of the introduction of continuous assessment. Decisions will need to be made on practices that fall outside of the ZoT for a small number of stakeholders. One option would be to ignore the disaffected and take the consequences. Alternately, attempts to accommodate those outside the ZoT could be made by treating their objections as ‘‘barriers to innovation’’ and using strategies to diminish their opposition.
Working Towards Change Collaboratively— Communities of Practice Implementation of innovation provides an unparalleled vehicle for collaboration between faculty members who hitherto might have worked mainly in isolation. Experience and the literature suggest that those grappling with innovation are likely to do so more successfully if they are part of what has been termed a ‘‘community of practice’’, sometimes referred to as a ‘‘learning community’’ [23]. Often being part of such a community constitutes a powerful mechanism for professional growth and satisfaction, beyond just curriculum development. Wenger [23] defines a community of practice as, ‘‘Members of a community informally bound by what they do together . . . and by what they have learned through their mutual engagement in these activities.’’ The community develops around issues or practices that are of mutual interest to a group of practitioners. According to Wenger, a community of practice defines itself along three dimensions: • What it is about—its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members • How it functions—mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity • What it has produced—the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, materials, policies.) that members have developed over time. Another approach which also makes use of learning communities to foster curriculum reform, involves the establishment of scientific community partnerships either between tertiary institutions or with K-12 education com-
munities (See e.g., [11]). In our experience a very useful and effective adjunct to learning communities and partnerships is follow-up activities involving one-on-one interactions (See Table I) where science education experts can directly assist science faculty with the development of specific classroom or laboratory activities, methods of assessment etc. For learning communities to be successful, it is important to involve the services of at least one science educator who will have expertise and experience in both science education and the specific or related science discipline under consideration. To address this issue, there is a growing number of SFES being employed across science education institutions worldwide [8].
Implications for Action Sirum, Madigan, and Klionsky [24] attribute the creation of a learning community as the essential factor in bringing about changes in teaching at their institution. A group of volunteers in the Department of Biological Science meet on a regular basis throughout the academic year with the aim of ‘‘Bringing Active Learning to the Classroom.’’ Together they explored possible ways of realizing their goals, settled on a number of teaching strategies, tried them out in their own classrooms, and reflected on their successes and failures. In subsequent years they developed procedures for doing rigorous research on the effects and value of the learning community experience [25]. Because the thrust of this article is on the implementation of an innovation, it might be assumed that the creation of a community of practice or partnership is just one step in this direction. However it is possible, and we would like to emphasize this point, that the creation of such a community might in the long run be of more benefit than the innovation itself as more extensive professional development usually results from such close interactions between faculty members. For example, one of the authors (TRA) facilitated group meetings in his school to share and jointly evaluate examination and test questions. The upshot has been that more colleagues are now designing questions that focus on conceptual understanding and cognitive skills and this is, in turn, starting to change the way they think about their teaching and the design of their courses. This assessmentdriven approach to faculty development is proving successful because of the manner in which the learning community was created. The community is managed by a ‘‘champion of the cause’’ (Appendix C), an enthusiastic but democratic leader, who is a scientist that faculty trust. The community defines clear and common goals, clear deadlines and timelines for tasks. The group is compatible, open-minded, comprises good listeners, nobody is domineering, and has a range of complimentary talents, skills and knowledge. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
Curriculum change is indeed feasible, and according to many long overdue in some university science
239 TABLE II An example of how to put the ideas in this article into action Conceptualization and planning Issues and questions What are some initial innovative ideas for curriculum change? Are there other like-minded persons who are keen to work collaboratively in bringing about this change? What can we learn from the literature about the kind of change envisaged, for example, inquiry learning? Can we find examples of places where this change has been implemented? Are materials available? Which of all the available practices could be implemented next semester (or year)? Can we realistically implement the proposed change? Is it within the ZFI? If our group were to implement this change, what are the likely opposing and supporting forces? What strategies could be used to diminish the opposing forces and strengthen the supporting forces? Are the changes acceptable to the Department (Students and Faculty), the Institution, and society? Implementation Is the implementation going according to plan? What, if any, are the unexpected difficulties? Was the innovation successful?
departments. It is often the case that change can be brought about through the efforts of relatively few motivated individuals. In Table II, we summarize some of the key ideas and concepts presented in this article, but in a form that could be used as a stimulus and guide to action by an individual, or preferably a group of individuals who form a community of practice. In going through this process of curriculum change we recommend that appendices I-III as well as considerations of the ZoT and ZFI are used to facilitate faculty and curriculum development workshops and learning communities. Faculty should consider the examples of forces and strategies given but also consider the possibility of alternate forces and strategies that might be more appropriate for their context and could be added to the lists. In this way their experience and knowledge of curriculum reform will continue to grow. The final article in this current series (Part 3) will give real life examples of institutions that are putting some of the ideas expressed in Parts 1 and 2 into practice. Acknowledgments— We thank Nancy Pelaez, Purdue University for very useful comments and critique of the manuscript.
Task Form a community of practice. Get like-minded persons together and start talking about the kind of changes you would like to see, such as inquiry learning. Commit to meet regularly, and keep notes of ideas. Assign members of the group to bring research papers and supporting curriculum materials to the group. Build up a portfolio of possible practices that would contribute to the desired change such as inquiry learning. Categorize all possible practices as 1, 2 (the ZFI), or 3 as suggested in this article. Consider the feasibility and ramifications of implementing the ZFI practices. Draw up a table similar to Table I, but designed specifically for your context. Use the lists of forces and strategies in the Appendices if necessary. Invite student representatives, other faculty members, upper management to meet with the group to be informed about the possible changes and to give their input. Continue to meet regularly as a group and reflect on the attempt to innovate. Provide support for one another and try to resolve problems together. Evaluate the new practices. See Part 1 of [5]. Distribute the findings to all stakeholders.
[5]
[6]
[7] [8]
[9] [10]
[11]
[12]
REFERENCES [1] T. Woodin, V. C. Carter, L. Fletcher (2010) Vision and change in biology undergraduate education, a call for action- initial responses, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 71–73. [2] American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990) The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action. The report of the project on liberal education and the sciences, AAAS, Washington, DC. [3] C. J. Bland, S. Starnaman, L. Wersal, L. Moorhead-Rosenberg, S. Zonia, R. Henry (2000) Curricular change in medical schools: How to succeed, Acad. Med. 75, 575–594. [4] M. H. Dancy, J. C. Smith, C. Henderson (2008) Barriers and promises in STEM reform, Commissioned Paper for National Academies of Science Workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising Practices
[13]
[14]
[15] [16] [17]
in STEM Undergraduate Education, Washington, DC, Oct 13–14, 2008, Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/ Dancy_Henderson_CommissionedPaper.pdf (accessed September 13, 2010). The National Academies Press. T. R. Anderson, J. M. Rogan, Curriculum development, Part 1: Components of the curriculum and influences on the process of curriculum design, Add Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 39(1), 68–76. T. R. Anderson (2007) The importance of bridging the gap between science education research and its application in biochemistry teaching and learning: barriers and strategies, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 35, 465–470. D. A. Jones (2010) Financial pain should focus universities, Nature 465, 32–33. S. D. Bush, N. J. Pelaez, J. A. Rudd, M. T. Stevens, K. S. Williams, D. E. Allen, K. D. Tanner (2006) On hiring science faculty with education specialties for your science (not education) department, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 5, 297–305. M. H. Dembo, H. P. Seli (2004) Students’ resistance to change in learning strategies courses, J. Dev. Educ 27, 2–11. C. Henderson, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature (Submitted June 2010), Available at: http://homepages. wmich.edu/~chenders/Publications/HendersonChangeStrategiesSubmi tted.pdf (accessed September 13, 2010) K. M. Foster, K. B. Bergin, A. F. McKenna, D. L. Millard, L. C. Perez, J. T. Prival, D. Y. Rainey, H. M. Sevian, E. A. VanderPutten, J. E. Hamos (2010) Partnerships for STEM education, Science 329, 906– 907. J. E. Froyd (2008) White paper on promising practices in undergraduate STEM education, Proceedings of a meeting about Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education, Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Froyd_Promising_Practices_ CommissionedPaper.pdf, (accessed September 12, 2010) J. I. Smith, K. Tanner (2010) The problems of revealing how students think: Concept inventories and beyond, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 1–5. T. R. Anderson (2007) Bridging the educational research-teaching practice gap: The power of assessment, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 35, 471–477. I. Romm, S. Gordon-Messer, M. Kosinski-Collins (2010) Educating young educators: A pedagogical internship for undergraduate teaching assistants, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 80–86. J. M. Rogan (2007) How much curriculum change is appropriate? Defining a zone of feasible innovation. Sci. Educ. 91, 439–460. E. M. Rogers (1983) Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York.
240
BAMBED, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 233–241, 2011
[18] V. Mahajan, E. Muller, R. K. Srivastava (1990) Determination of adopter categories by using innovation diffusion models, J. Market. Res., 27, 37–50. [19] D. M. Berwick (2003) Disseminating innovations in health care, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 289, 1969–1975. [20] P. Dalin (1978) Limits to Educational Change, Chapter 2, MacMillan, London. [21] J. H. McGivney, W. Moynihan (1972) School and community, Teach. Coll. Rec. 74, 209–224. [22] J. Oakes, K. Welner, S. Yonezawa, R. L. Allen (1998) Norms and politics of enquiry-minded change: Researching the ‘‘Zone of
Mediation’’. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, D. Hopkins, Eds. International Handbook of Educational Change, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 952–975. [23] E. Wenger (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, June 1998. [24] K. L. Sirum, D. Madigan, D. J. Klionsky (2009) Enabling a culture of change: A life science faculty learning community promotes scientific teaching, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 38, 24–30. [25] K. L. Sirum, D. Madigan (2010) Assessing how science faculty learning communities promote scientific teaching, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 38, 193–202.
APPENDIX APPENDIX A: SOME EXAMPLES OF ‘‘FORCES’’ THAT COULD OPPOSE INNOVATION [4, 6] A complex change process with poor management strategies Change agents and faculty at variance with each other Change agents and educational researchers perceived by faculty as insensitive to teacher and student needs, only interested in testing innovations Faculty feel excluded from the change process and not part of the solution as their experience and knowledge is not valued Faculty believe current instruction effective and that change will not add value Faculty believe that educational research says they are bad teachers Lack of faculty motivation to invest time in teaching because of other (e.g., research) priorities Lack of faculty capacity to integrate and implement innovations Faculty resistance to change due to historical habit, and political, social, cultural and philosophical issues Psychological barriers to change such as fear of change, and fear of failure in new endeavors Resistance to changing teaching philosophy from, for example, a traditional to a more alternate mode of practice Student resistance to changes in teaching, learning, and assessment styles with which they are not accustomed, for example, from a rote-learning to a problem-solving approach Pressure to conform to department norms which may be low on innovation and high on maintaining status quo Inadequate dissemination of educational research outcomes Educational literature not readily accessible to faculty Complex educational research outcomes, laden with jargon and technical terms that are alien to most faculty Failure of educational researchers to emphasise implications of their findings for teaching Different expectations of educational researchers and faculty: faculty expect clear solutions to teaching problems and researchers expect faculty to be able to implement ideas themselves Perception of Faculty that educational research lacks rigor, reliability and validity Discounted as scholarly activity worthy of promotion within science departments Innovation overload Limited resources such as staff, facilities, technical, expertise, ideas, money, time, logistical Belief by faculty that all the content of their subject (the whole textbook!) needs to be covered (not just core) Poor change strategies that do not confront and address above points . . .. (Any more examples from your own departmental context?)
APPENDIX B: SOME EXAMPLES OF ‘‘FORCES’’ THAT COULD SUPPORT INNOVATION
Pressure to demonstrate scholarship, accountability and professionalism in teaching practice Possibility of tenure, promotion, or a salary increase Quality evaluation of practice—a driving force for curriculum reform and faculty development Change agents and faculty highly compatible both in overlapping knowledge and personalities Possibility of better-prepared research students Student expectations of high quality education with guaranteed employment Expectations of employers and feedback on graduate attributes and performance Expectations of accreditation bodies Internationalization of curricula to cater for a multicultural student body Pressure to develop curricula that cater for educationally marginal students of variable backgrounds Pressure to cater for part-timers expecting flexible learning arrangements Competition among universities for recruitment of students Pressure to develop niche area curricula to give a competitive edge Expectations of the public Financial pressures due to the financing of curriculum change ventures or to tightening of budgets forcing universities to be more innovative and play to their strengths . . .. (Any more examples from your own departmental context?)
241 APPENDIX C: SOME EXAMPLES OF STRATEGIES THAT COULD WEAKEN OR ELIMINATE OPPOSING FORCES AND STRENGTHEN FORCES THAT SUPPORT INNOVATION Strategies for Learning Communities and Change Agents: Promote scholarship through evidence-based teaching practice Sell idea that improving undergraduate curricula could lead to better research students Use an evolutionary (phased approach) not a revolutionary approach to change Promote addition not replacement—do not discontinue successful approaches—build on them Survey faculty and student needs and focus on helping them with these, rather than imposing own agendas Consider the positive and negative forces (App. A and B) affecting the introduction of new innovations and deploy strategies to strengthen the former and weaken the latter Consider the ZFI and ZoT [16] when planning which innovations to support and implement Facilitate change in a one-on-one interaction and ‘‘hands-on’’ manner Empower faculty to take ownership of their own curriculum development Show respect for faculty experience and knowledge—include them in meaningful roles in the change process Do not accuse colleagues of being close-minded, resistant and negative—this will make them even more resistant to change Develop faculty capacity to innovate by, for example, * Translating research, removing jargon * Publishing teaching experiences * Disseminating teaching ideas through open web resources * Providing curriculum resources that are convenient for faculty to use Use assessment-driven faculty and curriculum change [14] Aim to raise curriculum quality and reduce quantity of faculty teaching loads by focussing on: * Teaching core knowledge and generic skills * Rationalising duplication between courses * Sharing the development of cross-disciplinary courses Management Strategies: Nurture a single educational ethos and vision, and a concerted staff effort with joint responsibility and accountability for the change process Continually manage, monitor and reflect on the whole change process so that it runs smoothly, and keep faculty and students informed throughout Do not do implement change for the sake of change—it must be appropriate Place a strong emphasis on faculty development in parallel with curriculum development Ensure faculty have the academic freedom to be innovative (e.g., policy not too restrictive) Consider the typical faculty context of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards [20] in every change system and be more understanding of such individuals Apply for grants to fund innovations Establish and promote learning communities to facilitate the process Identify and encourage ‘‘champions of the cause’’ to accelerate the change process Develop internship programs for graduate students and postdocs [15] and deploy them as change agents, for example, as tutors or in the development of curricular resources Deploy appropriate change agents (e.g., SFES) to facilitate the change process . . .. (Any more examples from your own departmental context?)
