Faculty Grassroots Leadership in Science Education Reform: Considerations for Institutional Change, Culture, and Context

David B. May, Danielle Susskind, Nancy S. Shapiro

Division of Academic Policy, Maryland State Department of Education, Baltimore, USA.
Office of Academic Affairs, University System of Maryland, Adelphi, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2013.47A2005                

Abstract

A multi-institution project was implemented with the goal of improving science education through redesigned courses, inquiry-oriented pedagogy, and outreach to public schools. We examined the nature of faculty grassroots leadership in science education reform in the four main higher-education partners of the project: a community college, a master’s level university, and two different research universities. The main focus of the study was the interplay and role of top-down leaders in positions of authority (typically administrators) versus grassroots leadership among faculty and how these two converge and interplay to create organizational change. The convergence of bottom-up and top-down leadership is affected by institutional culture and context. Cross-comparative findings from the four cases are presented, including the context for change in each case, the role of administrative leadership on each campus, factors that either facilitated or hindered the emergence of faculty grassroots leadership, and the institutionalization and sustainability of these reforms. We then address the broader implications of the study with respect to understanding how grassroots leadership and traditional forms of authority and leadership can complement each other and facilitate organizational change. We contend that faculty grassroots leadership emerges on different campuses when there is sensitivity to the contextual differences. In particular, some attention needs to be given to the campus culture and the nature of faculty interactions at that site. The context for change at each institution and the role of administrative leadership and support shaped the conditions under which faculty grassroots leadership had emerged and, ultimately, the degree to which it was sustained over time. In addition, the faculty ownership of this project was essential to its success because, ultimately, the faculty needed to embrace the goals of curricular redesign and inquiry-oriented pedagogy for the desired institutional changes to be sustained.

Keywords

Course Reform; Faculty Engagement; Leadership; Science Teaching; Higher Education

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Burack, C., & Saltmarsh, J. (2007). Advancing civic engagement through strategic assessment. Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education.
[2]	Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[3]	Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
[4]	Eckel, P., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: ACE/ORYX Press.
[5]	Ewell, P. (1997). Organizing for learning: A point of entry. Snowbird, UT: Draft Prepared for Discussion at the American Association of Higher Education Summer Academy.
[6]	Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The ultimate faculty evaluation: Promotion and tenure decisions. New Directions for Institutional Research, 114, 97-108. doi:10.1002/ir.50
[7]	Frank, J., & Shapiro, N. (2007). MSP Learning Network Conference Report: Engaging STEM faculty in MSP: Promises and challenges. http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/14515
[8]	Frost, S. H., & Teodorescu, D. (2001). Teaching excellence: How faculty guided change at a research university. Review of Higher Education, 24, 397-415. doi:10.1353/rhe.2001.0007
[9]	Ginsberg, A., & Abrahamson, E. (1991). Champions of change and strategic shifts: The role of internal and external change agents. Journal of Management Studies, 28, 173-190. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00276.x
[10]	Greenberg, R. (1991). High school-college partnerships: Conceptual models, programs, and issues. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (No. 5), Washington DC: The George Washington University.
[11]	Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R. et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521-522. doi:10.1126/science.1096022
[12]	Hearn, T. (2006). Leadership and teaching at the American university. In D. G. Brown (Ed.), University presidents as moral leaders. West port, CT: Praeger.
[13]	Henderson, C., Beach, A., Finkelstein, N., & Larson, R. S. (2008). Preliminary categorization of literature on promoting change in undergraduate STEM. In Proceedings of the Facilitating Change in Undergraduate STEM Symposium. Augusta, MI. http://www.wmich.edu/science/facilitating-change/PreliminaryCategorization.pdf
[14]	Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169-211.
[15]	Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. Washington DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports.
[16]	Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or cultur ally responsive concepts? Journal of Higher Education, 73, 435-460. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0038
[17]	Levine, A. (1980). Why innovation fails. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
[18]	Lewin, K. (1951). Field-theory in social science. NewYork: Harper and Row.
[19]	Merton, P., Froyd, J., Clark, M. C., & Richardson, J. (2004). Challenging the norm in engineering education: Understanding organizational culture and curricular change. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (Session 2630).
[20]	National Science Foundation (2007). Engaging STEM faculty in MSP: Promises and challenges. In Transcript Proceedings from the 2007 Math and Science Partnership Learning Network Conference. http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/14001
[21]	Neave, G. (1979). Academic drift: Some views from Europe. Studies in Higher Education, 4, 143-159. doi:10.1080/03075077912331376927
[22]	O’Meara, K. (2006). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Have academic cultures really changed? New Directions for Institutional Research, 29, 77-95. doi:10.1002/ir.173
[23]	Peck, R. D. (1983). The entrepreneurial college presidency. Educational Record, 18-25.
[24]	Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[25]	Timpane, P. M., & White, L. S. (Eds.) (1998). Higher education and school reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[26]	Verbeke, K., & Richards, P. O. (2001). School-university collaborations. Fastback 485, Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
[27]	Wallace, J. (1993). Building bridges: A review of school-college partnership literature. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
[28]	Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19. doi:10.2307/2391875
[29]	Wiseman, D. L., & Knight, S. L. (Eds.) (2003). Linking school-university collaboration and K-12 student outcomes. Washington DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
[30]	Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
[31]	Zhang, X., McInerney, J., Frechtling, J., Nyre, G., Michie, J., Miyaoka, A. et al. (2007). Effect of STEM faculty engagement in MSP: A longitudinal perspective. Rockville, MD: WESTAT.