Attention:The NSF Public Access Repository (PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 5:00 PM ET until 8:00 PM ET on Friday, September 11 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Are Department Heads Ready for Change? Leveraging a Leadership Action Team to Advance Teaching Evaluation Practices
We relied on change theory to design a 3-year intervention with STEM department heads to provide space for busy heads to focus on research-based change in teaching evaluation practices. The impact on departmental practices was variable and department head readiness for change mattered.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1821023
PAR ID:
10566660
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Editor(s):
Hora, Matthew
Publisher / Repository:
CBE-Life Sciences Education
Date Published:
Journal Name:
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Volume:
24
Issue:
1
ISSN:
1931-7913
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract Desired reforms in undergraduate education require shifts in departmental practices. Department heads are positioned to be change agents, but often lack formal leadership training, and their approaches to change have received little scholarly attention. Research findings from disciplines like organizational management can offer relevant insights. We drew on Kotter’s 8-step model for leading change as a theoretical lens for examining the ideas and actions of heads leading changes to departmental teaching evaluation practices. We used deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis to identify what was present and absent in the approaches taken by department heads. Department heads used some, but not all the steps in the 8-step model and prioritized additional actions. They sought faculty input to foster a sense of ownership in new practices and address concerns. Heads also proposed new changes strategically, worked with colleagues to develop new practices and build buy-in, and aimed to cultivate confidence about the feasibility of new practices. Compared to the 8-step model, heads did not foster a sense of urgency or intentionally craft messaging. Drawing on the collective wisdom of department heads and Kotter’s model, we present an adapted process for leading change in academic departments. The process recognizes the flat hierarchy of academic departments by including iterative steps of proposing, piloting, and revising new practices. It also highlights important steps that might not be the norm in departments, such as formulating careful messaging about the need for a change and repeatedly and intentionally broadcasting progress. 
    more » « less
  2. Bauerle, Cynthia (Ed.)
    Inadequate teaching evaluation practices undermine a department's ability to encourage, recognize, and reward effective teaching. Adopting more robust and equitable evaluation practices can address this, but faculty often worry their colleagues will resist such changes. We describe the development of the Teaching Evaluation Readiness Assessment (TERA), a survey to measure faculty readiness for reforming departmental teaching evaluation practices. The TERA is grounded in the readiness for change framework from organizational management, which stipulates components that contribute to productive engagement with an organizational change. This survey is designed to measure the extent to which faculty: (a) see value in teaching evaluation reform for themselves and their department, (b) feel their department would be capable of successfully changing teaching evaluation practices, and (c) perceive that their department head would be supportive of these changes. We used existing instruments, expert review, think-aloud interviews, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and comparisons across time and departments to develop the TERA and gather evidence of its validity as a measure of faculty readiness to change teaching evaluation. Findings suggest readiness for reform may be higher than what faculty and change agents perceived anecdotally. We discuss how the TERA can serve change agents and researchers. 
    more » « less
  3. Three diverse public universities(North Carolina State University, University of North Carolina Charlotte, and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University)have adapted and implemented an institutional change model that proposes five core elements for achieving cultural change in colleges and universities to increase the percentage of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in STEM fields. Since URM doctoral students spend most of their time exposed to the culture of their academic department as they take classes, conduct research, and interact with departmental faculty, staff, and other graduate students, the climate they experience and the support they receive at the departmental level can have a major impact on their success. When interventions address students directly, once they graduate, there may be no lasting change in the department. However, when faculty attitudes and mentoring practices along with departmental processes and procedures change, the changes are likely to be more sustainable. Using institutional theory as the analytical lens, the purpose of this paper is to examine how one collaborative project implements a faculty-led institutional change model for diversifying the STEM professoriate. Each participating doctoral granting department has a volunteer faculty member interested in URM success designated as a Faculty Fellow. The Fellow receives programmatic support to increase their understanding of the issues facing URMs in doctoral programs and assessment support to identify the departmental practices that may be hindering URM student success. Together with their department head and director of graduate programs, they work with the departmental faculty to understand graduate student pathways, identify practices and policies that promote success, and diagnose trouble spots. Based on this study of the graduate student experience in their own department, the Fellow develops a departmental initiative designed to address departmental weaknesses. The faculty as a whole develop a departmental diversity plan to build these insights into departmental practices and procedures. This paper will explore the process of developing the departmental initiatives and diversity plans as well as report on some initiatives and plans developed. The benefits and drawbacks of the approach are discussed along with best practices identified to this point 
    more » « less
  4. DeChenne-Peters, Sue Ellen (Ed.)
    Persons Excluded due to Ethnicity and Race (PEERs) remain underrepresented in university faculties, particularly in science, technology, engineering, math and medicine (STEMM) fields, despite increasing representation among students, and mounting evidence supporting the importance of PEER faculty in positively impacting both scientific and educational outcomes. In fact, the ratio of PEER faculty to students has been steadily dropping since 2000. In our case study, we examine the factors that explain creation of an unusually diverse faculty within a biology department. We analyzed nearly 40 years of hiring data in the study department and show that this department (the study department), historically and currently, maintains a significantly higher proportion of PEERs on faculty as compared to two national datasets. Additionally, we identify factors that contributed to hiring of PEERs into tenure and tenure-track positions. We observed a significant increase in the hiring of PEERs concurrent with the implementation of a co-hiring policy (p= 0.04) which allowed a single search to make two hires when at least one candidate was a PEER. In contrast, three key informants at sister departments reported that co-hiring policies did not result in PEER hires, but instead different practices were effective. In line with one of these practices, we observe a possible association between search committees with at least one PEER member and PEER hiring (p = 0.055). Further, the presence of particular faculty members (Agents of Change) on search committees is associated with PEER hiring. In this case study the combination of a co-hire policy based on the principle of interest-convergence to redress hiring inequities, along with the presence of agents of change, increased faculty PEER representation in STEMM departments. 
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    A major barrier to increasing the percentage of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in STEM fields is the small number of URM applicants for academic positions. One factor contributing to this situation is that the two-year attrition rate of URM doctoral students is nearly 50%, substantially greater than the rate for non-URM students at most institutions. Many efforts have been made to decrease the attrition, most involving direct work with doctoral students and others concentrating on institutional changes such naming a high-level administrator to coordinate recruitment and retention efforts. Often lacking in these efforts are attempts to change faculty attitudes and practices that negatively affect student retention. Three public universities including one HBCU are currently carrying out a five-year project to develop and pilot-test a department-level process to fill this gap. Why the focus on the department level? Since URM students spend most of their time in their departments as they take classes, attend seminars, conduct research, and interact informally with department faculty, staff, and other graduate students, the climate they experience and the support they receive can have a major impact on their success. In addition, changes in a department can last well beyond the end of a grant. When interventions address students directly, once they graduate there may be no lasting change in the department. When faculty attitudes and mentoring practices change, on the other hand, the changes may last and continue to help students succeed long after the grant expires. The project seeks to help department faculty increase their understanding of the issues facing underrepresented minorities in doctoral programs, identify and remedy the departmental practices that may be hindering URM student success, and examine and improve their own mentoring practices. In the project, six cohorts of faculty members and both URM and non-URM doctoral students—two cohorts at each participating university—will be assembled and surveyed. The faculty members will be asked how their departments address recruitment and retention of URM students, how they personally support and mentor their URM students, and how welcoming and supportive of URM students they perceive their department to be. The students will be asked to express their level of satisfaction with their coursework and their relationships with faculty and other graduate students, describe the learning opportunities and mentoring they have received, and discuss how welcoming and supportive of URM students their departments have been. To initiate the gathering of baseline information, the first cohort—79 faculty members, 16 URM students, and 94 non-URM students from six STEM departments at one of the universities—was surveyed. This presentation will report and discuss the results. 
    more » « less