higher education is an agent of change essay outline

• Current Affairs
• Pakistan Affairs
• World In Focus
• ESSAYS: CSS/PMS/PCS
• English (Precis & Composition)
• Pakistan Affairs MCQS
• Islamic Studies MCQS
• General Science & Ability MCQS
• Mathematics
• Everyday Science
• Scholarships
• Etimes Urdu
• Our Services

Women universities as agents of change: CSS ESSAY 2020

Table of Contents

Thesis Statement

Women universities play a crucial role in empowering women and driving social change by creating inclusive learning environments, challenging gender norms, and addressing gender disparities in education and employment.

Introduction

Women universities, dedicated to providing higher education exclusively to women, have emerged as powerful agents of change in societies around the world. By focusing on the education, empowerment, and leadership development of women, these institutions have transformed the lives of countless individuals and contributed to the progress of communities. This essay explores the significance of women universities as agents of change, highlighting their role in fostering gender equality, challenging gender norms, and driving social and economic development.

Exposition: The Role of Women Universities in Empowering Women

Women universities, also known as female-only institutions, are educational institutions specifically designed to cater to the needs and aspirations of women. While the concept of women’s education dates back centuries, women universities have gained prominence in recent times. They offer a unique educational environment that nurtures and empowers women, providing them with opportunities to pursue their academic and professional goals. Women universities are guided by the principles of inclusivity, empowerment, and gender equality.

Description: Advantages and Benefits of Women Universities

Women universities offer several advantages and benefits that contribute to the empowerment of women. Firstly, they create safe and inclusive learning environments where women can freely express themselves, explore their potential, and engage in intellectual discourse without the limitations imposed by traditional gender roles. Secondly, these institutions foster gender equality by providing equal opportunities for women in education and leadership. Finally, women universities focus on developing the skills, knowledge, and confidence of women, equipping them with the tools necessary to succeed in their careers and make a positive impact on society.

Argumentation: Women Universities as Agents of Change

Women universities serve as agents of change in multiple ways. Firstly, they challenge gender stereotypes and norms by breaking down barriers that hinder women’s progress. By providing women with access to education and creating supportive environments, these institutions empower women to defy societal expectations and pursue their passions. Secondly, women universities address gender disparities in education and employment by bridging the gender gap in traditionally male-dominated fields and promoting female representation in leadership positions. Lastly, women universities drive social and economic development by producing educated and empowered women who contribute to their communities and economies.

Narration: Success Stories and Impact of Women Universities

The impact of women universities can be seen through the success stories of their graduates. Many influential women leaders, innovators, and change-makers have emerged from these institutions. Their accomplishments serve as inspirations and proof of the transformative power of women universities. Additionally, case studies of women university initiatives, such as entrepreneurship programs, community development projects, and research advancements, highlight the broader impact these institutions have on society.

Counterargument and Refutation: Addressing Criticisms of Women Universities

While women universities have proven to be catalysts for change, they are not without criticisms. Some argue that these institutions promote segregation and exclusivity, separating women from the broader educational landscape. However, it is essential to counter these arguments by emphasizing the unique needs and challenges faced by women and the importance of safe spaces for their education. Women universities complement coeducational institutions by addressing gender-specific barriers and providing specialized support to women.

Women universities are powerful agents of change, playing a vital role in empowering women and driving social progress. By creating inclusive learning environments, challenging gender norms, and addressing gender disparities in education and employment, these institutions have transformed the lives of women and contributed to the advancement of societies. As we celebrate the accomplishments of women universities, it is crucial to recognize their ongoing significance in creating a more equitable and inclusive world. By investing in women’s education, we invest in the future of our communities and the betterment of humanity as a whole.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Boys will be boys css essay 2022, is pakistan ready for the digital revolution css essay 2020, i do not agree with what you have to say, but i’ll defend to the death your right to say it. css essay 2020, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Privacy Policy

16 Student Leaders as Agents of Change

Kadian M. Callahan, Kaylla Williams, and Scott Reese

1 Background

Student difficulty with learning experiences in undergraduate STEM courses have influenced their decisions to switch out of a STEM degree program (e.g., President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997); however, programmatic structures, policies, and practices also create barriers to academic achievement and retaining students, especially women and students from racial/ethnic minority groups that are traditionally underserved in STEM (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Seymour et al., 2019). Thus, approaches that extend beyond the classroom are needed to improve success in undergraduate STEM education.

Student Leaders (SLs; e.g., learning assistants, teaching assistants, or peer mentors) are often involved in course-related efforts to enhance teaching and learning in STEM. Interactions with more advanced peers can enhance thinking within the zone of proximal development so that students are able to move beyond what they would have been able to do on their own (Vygotsky, 1978) and bolsters academic outcomes for a diversity of undergraduate STEM students (Bowling, 2015; Tien et al., 2002). In addition to their ability to enhance students’ learning experiences in course-related contexts, SLs have the potential to improve success in STEM more broadly. Breslin et al. (2018) assert that by valuing the expertise of SLs’ ideas and lived experiences, institutions can become more student-centered. They argue that SLs should be fully engaged “not just in the delivery of services to students, but also in program development, assessment and evaluation, outreach, peer training, and research” (p. 51). Specifically, SLs’ insights can help faculty, staff, and administrators understand challenges that students face and can offer suggestions for how to reshape structures, policies, and practices (Healey et al., 2010; Tien et al., 2002) in ways that may make a difference in students’ decisions to persist in STEM programs (Bowling, 2015). This grass-roots approach to fostering change in undergraduate STEM involves altering the mindsets and perspectives of faculty, staff, and administrators and may be a powerful way to create and sustain change (see Klein et al, this volume).

Although existing research suggests that SLs can improve undergraduate STEM education both in and outside of course-related contexts, research is very limited on the extent of SLs’ involvement in leading change, particularly in making improvements to programmatic structures, policies, and practices. Our study represents an effort to expand understandings of how SLs can serve as change agents for making broad improvements to undergraduate STEM education with an eye on influencing students’ decisions to continue to pursue STEM degrees. The specific research question was: How do Student Leaders influence efforts to improve success in undergraduate STEM education in course-related and non-course-related contexts?

2 Theoretical Framework

Improving undergraduate STEM education most often involves training faculty to use new curriculum tools or pedagogical strategies, working to develop faculty into reflective practitioners, or enacting policies to influence change (Borrego & Henderson, 2014). While there is some evidence of success with individual instructors and courses, approaches that apply multiple levers can counteract forces that work against change (Miller & Fairweather, 2016). Henderson and colleagues (e.g., Henderson et al., 2011; Henderson et al., 2010) evaluated a wide range of STEM improvement projects and categorized them into four change strategies based on two criteria. The first focuses on the aspect of the system that is to be changed: individuals, institutions, environments, or structures. The second focuses on the outcomes of the change strategy and whether it is intended to be prescribed or emergent. The four change strategies that resulted from using these criteria were:

a) Disseminating curriculum and pedagogy, b) Developing reflective practitioners, c) Enacting policies to influence change, and d) Developing a shared vision.

Although applied less often, developing a shared vision is a change strategy that works to develop new knowledge and perspectives from within the organization—often by disrupting organizational patterns (Borrego & Henderson, 2014). While SLs’ involvement in course-related contexts contributes to developing reflective practitioners, inserting student voices into spaces that have traditionally only involved faculty or administrators was used as a strategy to disrupt existing tendencies and catalyze change that is more emergent and authentically addresses the needs of a diversity of learners. For this study, SLs were included to stimulate new conversations focused on improving teaching and learning in courses and changing programmatic structures and policies to support success and retention in STEM for a broader diversity of students.

3 Setting and Context

This study was conducted at a mostly undergraduate, regional institution in the southeastern United States with over 35,000 students. The diverse student body is comprised of approximately 21% African Americans and 10% Hispanics, and 19% of undergraduate students are over 24 years old. While the university retains ~75% of students from the first year to the second, the STEM programs retain only ~69% and only ~64% of students from traditionally underserved populations. Participants in this study (SLs, faculty, staff, and administrators) were situated in the STEM College that is responsible for early science and mathematics courses taken by both STEM and non-STEM majors. Most of the SLs have a major in that STEM College and a majority are members of traditionally underserved groups. They are involved in supporting student learning during class, serve on different College committees (e.g., inclusion and diversity, curriculum alignment, grade appeals), and work as undergraduate researchers involved in examining the impact of STEM improvement efforts. Additionally, SLs have been involved in workshops designed to expand faculty and administrators’ awareness of the student experience and deepen understanding of inclusive practices.

The primary data for this qualitative study was gathered through individual interviews with four faculty members and two SLs, and focus group interviews with seven administrators, six faculty members, two staff members, and four SLs working in the same STEM College. Each interview was conducted by one or two researchers using the same semi-structured interview protocols, which asked participants how SLs are influencing perspectives on teaching, learning, or the student experience relative to programmatic structures, policies, and practices. Interviews were audio recorded and the researchers’ written notes were digitally recorded. Artifacts from committee meetings and instructional episodes served as a secondary data source to provide additional context for interview data.

Data analysis involved open coding with constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Each of the three researchers, the authors, independently reviewed data collected from the interviews and then coded and recoded the data to identify emergent themes reflected across the data corpus with a particular focus on SLs’ influence on structures, policies, and practices. After discussing the proposed themes and supporting data, the researchers refined and came to consensus on three overarching themes:

a) Student Leaders build a sense of community b) Student Leaders communicate information between students and faculty c) Faculty and administrators see Student Leaders’ input as advisory

These themes and illustrative data are shared in the section that follows.

5.1 Student Leaders Build a Sense of Community

Study participants recognized the important role that SLs have in building a sense of community among students. They referenced SLs’ ability to connect with students’ experiences, build students’ confidence and motivation, give students advice, and serve as role models. These comments were consistent across course-related and non-course-related contexts. When describing SLs who support her course, Cindy [Chemistry faculty] noted, “It is very important for the students to have someone they can go to who is more on their level … able to explain things to them in a different way … and to have that role model—this person succeeded so I can do it too. I can learn what they did or how they did it.” This quote speaks to the way that SLs can influence success in a course by helping students learn challenging material and demonstrate that it is possible for students to successfully progress through their programs—particularly important for traditionally underserved populations (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997).

SLs’ expression of care about students was also reflected outside of the classroom. After speaking with SLs about the challenges students face and witnessing their interactions with students, Chyna [associate dean] stated, “it changed me and helped me a lot to understand the student experience … how much they care about their peers, … [and] how much they enjoy being in community with each other.” Noel [dean] added, “I tend to be more purposeful in seeking student voice in terms of what is going on and chatting with them in [in]formal settings.” And, when reflecting on her involvement with the College, Neda [SL] said,

Through fostering connections among peers both in and outside of class, SLs increase students’ academic and social integration and their involvement in the academic experience—important for increasing students’ retention and persistence (Callahan, 2009; Milem & Berger, 1997). Moreover, by making faculty, staff, and administrators aware of students’ need for community, they can influence opportunities provided for students in both contexts.

5.2 Student Leaders Communicate Information between Students and Faculty

SLs played a particularly important role in course-related contexts by sharing information between faculty and students, which shaped students’ learning experiences and influenced instructional practices. One barrier to students’ academic success in STEM is the need to move beyond memorization and algorithmic thinking toward analysis and synthesis—moving from lower to higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002). Faculty consistently described SLs as helpful to students, providing information about what content to focus on, how to study, and encouraging them to attend office hours and help sessions. Moreover, SLs helped students make connections with the content in ways that are familiar to students, addressed learning challenges, and built students’ self-efficacy. Saundra [SL] stated, “when [students] feel really confident in mathematics, their odds of staying in STEM increases.” She recognized the importance of SLs helping to build students’ skills and their beliefs about their ability to be successful.

Faculty noted that SLs also provided them with information about how students were learning that they could use to make instructional changes. Xavier [Physics faculty] appreciated SLs sharing information when students were working hard to understand the material. Willette [Mathematics faculty] indicated that her SLs ask questions that remind her to readjust her instructional practices to address students’ needs as novice learners. And, when describing his SLs, Barker [Chemistry faculty] stated, “They have a more first-hand experience of the struggles that these students might face, so talking to [SLs] certainly allows for changing things on the fly.”

Outside of course related contexts, SLs communicated information to help shape structures and policies. During a focus group, an administrator noted that SLs share “great ideas that can enhance what we do for the students.” This included suggestions about improving processes for connecting students to help, creating meaningful off-ramps for challenging programs, and offering a minor that was of interest; these were areas where student voices were seriously considered. At times, SLs also communicated information to students that was gained from interacting with faculty and administrators. For example, Neda [SL] felt that it was important to share some of the information that she was learning from serving on the Inclusion and Diversity Committee, “I just tell [students] to be aware that not everybody has the same situation as them … If someone doesn’t do their part or if they are a little behind on their part, they should not automatically think this person is lazy.” In this and other ways, SLs were conveying messages that were central to the College’s efforts to improve success in undergraduate STEM education.

5.3 Faculty and Administrators See Student Leaders’ Input as Advisory

Unfortunately, many faculty, staff, and administrators did not value SLs as experts of the student experience. They appreciated SLs sharing their ideas to shape course learning opportunities; however, they responded with reluctance when taking actions in response to those ideas to adjust broader structures, policies, and practices. The primary role of SLs in course-related contexts is to assist with fostering student learning. They are not given authoritative or evaluative responsibility; thus, SLs are positioned in an advisory capacity. Cindy [Chemistry faculty] recognized the value of SLs’ advice when she explained that SLs provide information that she can use to determine if she needs to spend more time on a topic and that helps her to anticipate questions students might ask, but ultimately, she decides whether there was a need to adjust her instructional practices. Thus, she was open to making minor changes to her practice, but hesitant about giving up authority on what was best for her students.

When SLs shared ideas with faculty and administrators informally or formally on committees, the resistance to those ideas heightened. For example, Noel [dean] said, “I am not going to change the way instructors are doing their testing or things like that, but there are some very good suggestions.” Also, when an SL made a suggestion about what aspects of diversity the committee should work to expand, faculty on the Inclusion and Diversity Committee ended up explaining why they were focusing on the aspects that they were focused on rather than trying to find ways to incorporate the SLs’ ideas into their work. Thus, there was a dynamic when SLs shared their perspectives about ways to improve structures, policies, and practices that minimized the consideration of those ideas—limiting the College’s ability to shift away from traditional approaches.

6 Discussion

The role of change agents in undergraduate STEM improvement efforts can be complex. Some are identified as change agents without intending to serve in such a role, with no training to enact change, and needing to negotiate change within the constraints of existing systems (McGrath et al., 2016). This was largely the case for the SLs in the present study. Although SLs working in course-related contexts received pedagogical training, they were not trained on how to press faculty to rethink teaching and learning structures. Thus, faculty looked to SLs for information about their students’ needs and received it as advice to consider. Faculty did not see SLs as experts for transforming their course to intentionally address students’ needs. Kim et al. (2019) recognized the importance of SLs working with faculty to transform teaching and learning experiences in STEM classrooms and have seen promise in SLs serving as learning researchers—former learning assistants who support faculty in improving STEM courses by providing detailed weekly reports of student learning, including specific recommendations for improvement. Although faculty initially received the information with a focus on students’ understanding, over time they became more reflective and open to using the feedback to change their instructional practices.

While making course adjustments in response to advice shared by SLs is helpful, improving success in undergraduate STEM requires broader changes and greater consideration of students’ needs and interests. The SLs in this study who served on College committees were positioned to help identify opportunities for improvement that may have been missed because of faculty, staff, and administrators’ expert blind spot (Catrambone, 2011). Unfortunately, the study participant (including SLs themselves) saw SLs as unidirectional conduits of information from the College to students. Thus, SLs’ improvement ideas became more of an opportunity to educate them on why structures, policies, and practices are and should remain in place.

7 Recommendations

Students Leaders play an important role in improving undergraduate STEM education through academic-centered peer interactions that foster student learning during class (e.g., Callahan, 2016; Chan & Bauer, 2015) and create community among students outside of class (Treisman, 1992). Nevertheless, the challenge that institutions face is not finding ways to help students navigate through the current state of STEM, it is with enacting new structures, policies, and practices that transform undergraduate STEM education so that a broader diversity of students will be attracted to, retained in, and complete STEM degrees. One way to achieve this goal is to apply an additional change lever (see Halasek et al., this volume) of recognizing SLs as experts of the student experience and incorporate their ideas into decisions related to improving programmatic structures, policies, and practices. We suggest that institutions provide structured opportunities for guided exploration of topics moderated by change leaders where SLs are presented as experts on the student experience. This will explicitly challenge faculty and administrators to listen to the student voice as authoritative and elicit the necessary disruption to the status quo that can support institutional change, especially as they work together to foster equity and inclusion in STEM (see Cook-Sather et al., this volume).

Much more information is needed on how to position and support SLs to effectively serve as change agents, particularly given their limited decision-making authority in traditional STEM contexts. Studies also need to examine approaches for helping faculty, staff, and administrations receive SLs’ ideas and perspectives with more than just interest, but rather from a curious stance where they are open to change and improvement possibilities. As this body of research expands, it is our hope that those working to foster change in undergraduate STEM education will develop a better understanding of how to leverage SLs’ ideas to broaden student success and retention in STEM and continually revise efforts to improve over time. We invite others interested in this work to join us in this endeavor.

8 About the Authors

Kadian M. Callahan is the Assistant Dean for Faculty and Student Success in the College of Science and Mathematics at Kennesaw State University.

Kaylla Williams is a undergraduate research assistant for the College of Science and Mathematics at Kennesaw State University.

Scott Reese is the Assistant Dean for Curriculum in the College of Science and Mathematics at Kennesaw State University.

8 References

Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence‐based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies.  Journal of Engineering Education ,  103 (2), 220–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20040

Bowling, B. (2015). Professionalizing the role of peer leaders in STEM.  Journal of STEM Education ,  16 (2), 30–39. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1908/1662

Breslin, J. D., Kope, M. H., O’Hatnick, J. L., & Sharpe, A. G. (2018). Students as colleagues: A paradigm for understanding student leaders in academic support.  Learning Assistance Review (TLAR) ,  23 (2), 41–64. https://nclca.org/resources/Documents/Publications/TLAR/Issues/23_2.pdf

Callahan, K. M. (2009). Academic-centered peer interactions and retention in undergraduate mathematics programs. Journal of College Student Retention, 10 (3), 361–389. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.10.3.f

Callahan, K. M. (2016). Prospective middle school teachers’ generalizing actions as they reason about algebraic and geometric representations of even and odd numbers. Teacher Education & Practice, 29 (4), 630–641.

Catrambone, R. (2011, June). Task analysis by problem solving (TAPS): Uncovering expert knowledge to develop high-quality instructional materials and training [Paper presentation]. 2011 Learning and Technology Symposium , Columbus, GA.

Chan, J. Y., & Bauer, C. F. (2015). Effect of peer‐led team learning (PLTL) on student achievement, attitude, and self‐concept in college general chemistry in randomized and quasi experimental designs.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52 (3), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21197

Cook-Sather, A., White, H., Aramburu, T., Samuels, C., & Wynkoop, P. (this volume). “Moving toward greater equity and inclusion in STEM through pedagogical partnership.” In K. White, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, C. Henderson, S. Simkins, L. Slakey, M. Stains, G. Weaver, & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education (ch. 15). Pressbooks.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed . ). Sage.

Halasek, K., Heckler, A., & Rhodes-DiSalvo, M. (this volume). “Transforming the teaching of thousands: Promoting evidence-based practices at scale.” In K. White, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, C. Henderson, S. Simkins, L. Slakey, M. Stains, G. Weaver, & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education (ch. 20). Pressbooks.

Healey, M., O’Connor, K. M., & Broadfoot, P. (2010). Reflections on engaging students in the process and product of strategy development for learning, teaching, and assessment: An institutional case study.  International Journal for Academic Development ,  15 (1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440903529877

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439

Henderson, C., Finkelstein, N. D., & Beach, A. (2010). Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: An introduction to four core change strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39 (5), 18–25.

Klein, C., Lester, J., & Nelson, J. (this volume). “Leveraging organizational structure and culture to catalyze pedagogical change in higher education.” In K. White, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, C. Henderson, S. Simkins, L. Slakey, M. Stains, G. Weaver, & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education (ch. 19). Pressbooks.

Kim, Y. A., Cox, J., Southard, K. M., Elfring, L., Blowers, P., & Talanquer, V. (2019). Learning researchers: Promoting formative assessment in STEM courses.  Journal of College Science Teaching ,  48 (5), 36–41.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice , 41 (4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

McGrath, C., Barman, L., Stenfors-Hayes, T., Roxå, T., Silén, C., & Laksov, K. B. (2016). The ebb and flow of educational change: Change agents as negotiators of change.  Teaching & Learning Inquiry ,  4 (2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.2.9

Milem, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38 , 387–400.

Miller, E. R., & Fairweather, J. S. (2015). The role of cultural change in large-scale STEM reform: The experience of the AAU Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative. In G. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, L. Slakey, & A. L. Childress (Eds.),  Transforming Institutions: Undergraduate STEM Education for the 21st Century (pp. 48–66). Purdue University Press.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541511.pdf

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences . Westview.

Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., & Weston, T. J. (2019). Why we are still talking about leaving. In E. Seymour & A. B. Hunter (Eds.),  Talking about Leaving Revisited  (pp. 1–53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_1

Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer‐led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,   39 (7), 606–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10038

Treisman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college.  The College Mathematics Journal,   23 (5), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.2307/2686410

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society . Harvard University Press.

Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education by Kadian M. Callahan, Kaylla Williams, and Scott Reese is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Models of Change in Higher Education

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2020
• pp 2062–2073
• Cite this reference work entry

• Suzanne Crew 3 &
• Vernon Crew 4  

89 Accesses

1 Citations

Change management

Change capability in higher education.

Introduction

Research (Anderson and Ackerman Anderson 2011 ) shows that around 60% of change efforts fail, with higher education providers (HEPs) no exception. The reasons for this seemingly endemic failure to cope with the management of change have been well-researched and remedies developed and offered, often commercially. Yet the failure rates remain consistent. Why? For higher education, there is no easy answer, not least as the sector as a whole is complex, involving public universities and private providers of higher education, varying widely in culture, mission, authority structures, policy, and processes. Nevertheless, analysis of some of the commonalities offers a way forward and the ways in which HEPs can build this capability form the central thrust of this chapter.

The chapter begins with a general introduction to change, change management and change capability; moves on to consider theories of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ackerman Anderson, L., and Anderson, D. 2013. Awake at the wheel: Moving beyond change management to conscious change leadership A-conscious-change-leadership . Retrieved online from http://changeleadersnetwork.com/free-resources/awake-at-the-wheel-moving-beyond-change-management-to-conscious-change-leadership .

Anderson, D., and L. Ackerman Anderson. 2001. Beyond change management . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, D., Ackerman Anderson, L. 2011. Conscious change leadership: Achieving breakthrough results. Leader to leader. Retrieved online from http://www.leadertoleaderjournal.com/article-print-page/conscious-change-leadership-achieving-breakthrough-results.aspx .

Baird, L., and I. Meshoulam. 1988. Managing two fits of strategic human resource management. The Academy of Management Review 13 (1): 116–128.

Burke, W., and G. Litwin. 1992. A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management 18 (3): 523–545.

Cohen, D. 2005. The heart of change field guide . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Crew, V., and Crew, S. 2017, forthcoming. Building change capability in tertiary education . Melbourne: LH Martin Institute.

Drucker, P. 2015. Innovation and entrepreneurship . New York: Routledge.

Duck, J. 2008. Lessons from my three decades with the change monster. Retrieved from PCG perspectives website https://www.bcgperspectives.com .

Eckel, P., B. Hill, and M. Green. 1998. On change: En route to transformation . Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

EFQM Excellence Model® Higher Education Version. 2003. Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Hearn, J.C. 1986. Transforming U.S higher education: An organizational perspective. Innovative Higher Education 21 (1): 141–154.

Hiatt, J. 2012. Change management- the people side of change . Vol. 2. Loveland: Prosci Inc..

Hiatt, J.M. 2013. Employee’s survival guide to change . Vol. 3. Loveland: Prosci Inc..

IBM Global Business Services. 2008. Making change work . Somers: IBM Global Services.

Judge, W. Q. J. 2012. Focusing on organizational change . Retrieved online from http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/catalog/editions/judge-focusing-on-organizational-change-1-0 .

Kanter, R. 2011. The change wheel: Elements of systemic change and how to get change rolling . Retrieved online from https://hbr.org/product/The-Change-Wheel--Element/an/312083-PDF-ENG website.

Kanter, R., B. Stein, and T. Jick. 1992. The challenge of organisational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it . Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan.

Kezar, A. 2001. Understanding and facilitating organisational change in the 21st century – recent research and conceptualisations . San Francisco: Jossy Bass.

Kezar, A. 2009. Synthesis of scholarship on change in higher education. Paper presented at the Mobilizing STEM Education, Atlanta, USA.

Kotter, J. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, March–April 1995 , 59–67.

Kotter, J. 2012. Leading change . Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Leach, A., Wandmacher, R., and Ayres, J. 2003. Creating an internal change capability: What’s the right organizational model? Retrieved online from http://www.accenture.com/us-en/outlook/Pages/outlook-online-2013-creating-internal-change-capability-right-organizational-model.aspx .

Leidtka, J., and T. Ogilvie. 2011. Designing for growth: A design tool kit for managers . New York: Colombia University Press.

Miller, D., and P. Friesen. 1984. A longitudinal study of the corporate lifecycle. Management Science 30 (10): 1161–1183.

Pannoni, R., and Ricketts, G. 2010. From change management to governance – A framework for increasing success with technology. Retrieved online from http://www.razorlearning.com/blog/2010/03/change-management-governance-framework-increasing-success-technology/ .

PROSCI. 2014. Prosci change management maturity model audit preparation guide. Retrieved from Enterprise Chance Management website: http://www.prosci.com/ecm1/maturity-audit/ .

Senge, P. 2011. Navigating webs of interdependence. Retrieved 13 Sep 2011 online from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOPfVVMCwYg .

Waters, T. 2003. Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement . Denver: McRel.

Weick, K. 1982. Management of organisational change among loosely coupled elements. In Change in organisations: New perspectives on theory, research and practice , ed. P.S. Goodman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bibliography

Ackerman Anderson, L. 2010. Ten common mistakes in leading transformation . Retrieved online from http://www.beingfirst.com/resources/pdf/Prevent10Mistakes091119.pdf .

Change First. 2008. Building sustainable change capability . West Sussex: Change First.

Change Management Institute. 2012b. Change management practitioner competencies . Retrieved online from Change Management Institute website: https://www.change-managementinstitute.com/sites/default/files/cmi_accreditation_cmpcompetencymodel.pdf .

Darbi, W.P. 2012. Of mission and vision statements and their potential impact on employee behaviour and attitudes: The case of a public but profit-oriented tertiary institution. International Journal of Business and Social Science 3: 95–109.

Davis, H., and S. Jones. 2014. The work of leadership in higher education management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 36 (4): 367–440.

DiMaggio, P., and W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.

Edgar, L., C. Marshall, and M. Bassett. 2006. Partnerships: Putting good governance principles in practice , 2–3. Ontario: Ontario Institute on Governance.

Kotter, J. 1996. Leading change . Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Lane, I. 2007. Change in higher education: Understanding and responding to individual and organisational resistance. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 34 (2): 85–92.

Rezvani, S. n.d. An introduction to organizational maturity assessment: Measuring organizational capabilities . Powerpoint presentation. International public management association assessment council. Retrieved online from http://annex.ipacweb.org/library/conf/08/rezvani.pdf .

Seiken, J. 2013. How I got my team to fail more. Harvard Business Review. September 13, 2013.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

Suzanne Crew

University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Vernon Crew

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne Crew .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies and Faculty of Economics - U., Porto, Portugal

Pedro Nuno Teixeira

Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

Jung Cheol Shin

Section Editor information

Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Bjorn Stensaker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Crew, S., Crew, V. (2020). Models of Change in Higher Education. In: Teixeira, P.N., Shin, J.C. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_547

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_547

Published : 19 August 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-017-8904-2

Online ISBN : 978-94-017-8905-9

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 17 January 2020

Change theory and theory of change: what’s the difference anyway?

• Daniel L. Reinholz 1 &
• Tessa C. Andrews   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7008-6853 2  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  7 , Article number:  2 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

114k Accesses

74 Citations

15 Altmetric

Metrics details

This commentary focuses on the difference between a theory of change and change theory, as it relates to systemic change projects in STEM higher education. A theory of change is project-specific and related to evaluation. It makes the underlying rationale of a project explicit, which supports planning, implementation, and assessment of the project. In addition, a theory of change is often required by funding agencies as part of grant proposals. In contrast, change theories represent theoretical and empirically grounded knowledge about how change occurs that goes beyond any one project. Ideally, a theory of change is informed by change theories. This essay describes the connections between a theory of change and change theory and provides examples of how change theory can inform a project’s theory of change. Grounding projects in change theory allows change agents to draw on existing knowledge and to better contribute to our collective knowledge about how to achieve meaningful change in STEM higher education.

Introduction

Research in recent decades has greatly advanced our knowledge of effective and equitable teaching and learning in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, translating these discoveries into tangible reforms in undergraduate education has proven challenging. Many efforts designed to promote change in undergraduate STEM education have fallen short of their intended outcomes (Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011 ). When efforts have been successful, such as the FIRST project in biology and the New Faculty Workshops in physics, they have improved their impact over time through iterative evaluation research and revision (e.g., Henderson, 2008 ; Ebert-May et al. 2011 ; Ebert-May et al., 2015 ; Derting et al., 2016 ; Chasteen, Chattergoon, Prather, & Hilborn, 2016 ; Olmstead & Turpen, 2016 ). Despite some successes, on a national scale in the USA, we see that traditional instructional strategies continue to dominate in STEM classrooms (e.g., Stains et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, instructors who adopt evidence-based strategies often quit using them (Henderson, Dancy, & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, 2012 ) or use them ineffectively (Andrews, Leonard, Colgrove, & Kalinowski, 2011 ; Dancy, Henderson, & Turpen, 2016 ).

Given this reality, researchers and funding agencies have recognized the need to better understand how change occurs in STEM higher education. This has resulted in increased scholarly focus on change in STEM education (Henderson et al., 2011 ). This has been accompanied with (and driven by) a change in funding priorities from US national agencies. For instance, starting in 2014, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program created a strand focused on Institutional and Community Transformation. The goal of this strand is for researchers to integrate theories and findings from education research with the aim of translating theory to practice. Studies in this strand aim to generate knowledge about how educational change happens. Furthermore, this program recognizes that achieving meaningful change in undergraduate STEM education requires changing the entire system, not just faculty thinking or behavior.

A key challenge faced by projects aiming to enact change in undergraduate STEM education is knowing what actions are likely to result in the desired outcomes within the targeted system. In other words, what should change agents do to try to achieve change, and what might they need to know to make change in their particular context? Recognizing this challenge, funding agencies now routinely ask grant proposers to use theory. For instance, the NSF expects proposals to the Institutional and Community Transformation track of IUSE to include “one or more theories of change to guide the proposed work” (National Science Foundation, 2019 ). Similarly, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s (HHMI) Inclusive Excellence Initiative expects an institution that wins the award to “develop its theory of change within the particular context of the campus” (Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2019 ). Both agencies seem to expect clear articulation of how and why the planned activities are likely to lead to the desired outcomes, and may also want proposers to draw on the existing research and theory about how change occurs. Yet this may not be apparent to their audiences. These quotes suggest that NSF and HHMI may not mean the same thing when they refer to “theory of change.” This is indicative of the broader ambiguity in terminology within the discipline-based education research community. NSF appears to be referring to drawing on existing theory about how change occurs—what we will call change theory. In contrast, HHMI appears to be referring to a project-specific articulation of planned activities and how they are expected work—which is referred to as a “theory of change” in the evaluation community. This example emphasizes the need for consensus around terminology (Table 1 ).

The goals of this essay are to:

Distinguish between a theory of change (and related terms) and change theory and research

Describe the various roles that change theory and research can play in building and refining a theory of change for a specific project

We aspire to arrive at a common language that change agents, Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER) scholars, and funding agencies can use to communicate about theory. We also hope to provide a starting place for researchers who are new to studying change and are grappling with how to ground a change initiative existing knowledge and contribute to our collective knowledge about how to achieve change in undergraduate STEM education. This essay is not a how-to guide or a list of theories of change from other projects. We direct the reader elsewhere for examples of theories of change in STEM education (Connolly & Seymour, 2015 ) and for guides about how to create a theory of change for your work (Anderson, 2005 ; Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, 2003 ).

• Theory of change

The historical roots of a theory of change come from the field of theory-driven evaluation, which came to prominence in the 1990’s (Chen, 1990 ; Coryn, Noakes, Westine, & Schröter, 2011 ). Theory-driven evaluation aimed to move beyond a simplistic input-output notion of evaluation and instead required that program designers explicitly state how they expected a program to work, thereby making their implicit assumptions explicit. This allows an evaluator to better understand what is being implemented and why, making clear connections between a given intervention and its outcomes. By making the underlying rationale of an initiative explicit, it can be interrogated, assessed, and revised systematically as it is being implemented (cf. Design-Based Research; Cobb, Confrey, Disessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003 ).

The term “theory of change” itself was popularized by Weiss, through the work of the Aspen Institute and the Roundtable on Community Change (Anderson, 2005 ; Weiss, 1995 ). Within the evaluation community, this term is often capitalized (i.e., Theory of Change), but this can cause confusion among scientists who do not think of an individual project’s theory of change as akin to how they use the term theory. Given our intended audience of discipline-based education researchers, we have opted for lower case letters in this commentary. To evaluate complex community initiatives focused on social change, a theory of change was designed as a tool to help clearly articulate underlying assumptions from the offset. The process of creating the theory of change allows a team to reach consensus on its underlying assumptions, which are then codified in an explicit product (often displayed as a diagram). This product accounts for the context of a specific initiative. Rather than simply asking “does it work?” the goal of this process is to work toward understanding “under what conditions does something work, and for whom?” (Pawson & Tilley, 1997 ). Articulating the underlying rationale for a project is not just a matter of appeasing funding agencies, but is a critical component of engaging in high-quality scholarship. Thus, many change agents are faced with the challenge of articulating a theory of change for their work. The initial theory of change for a project is really a series of hypotheses about how change will occur and these hypotheses are investigated and revised as the project proceeds. Ongoing projects constantly reconsider and revise their theory of change as they gather data that indicates whether and how their efforts are working.

Given its roots in program evaluation and social change, the methodology behind a theory of change may be less familiar to DBER scholars. However, a theory of change has similarities to many methodologies used by DBER scholars; Design-Based (Implementation) Research (Cobb et al., 2003 ; Penuel, Fishman, Cheng, & Sabelli, 2011 ), Improvement Science (Lewis, 2015 ), and Backwards Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005 ) are all examples. Because these research threads have developed largely in parallel to research from the evaluation community, they are similar to, but not connected to the scholarship around theory of change. A theory of change is a particular approach for making underlying assumptions explicit, and using the desired outcomes of a project as a mechanism to guide planning, implementation, and evaluation. We now outline the specific aspects of a theory of change with a DBER context in mind.

Anatomy of a theory of change

A comprehensive description of the elements of a theory of change was developed through the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change (Anderson, 2005 ; Weiss, 1995 ). Here, we draw from the terminology used in the guidebook, recognizing it as one of the definitive sources for developing a theory of change. Because terminology is not used consistently throughout the literature, we carefully define the main terms used when talking about a theory of change. We are not advocating that what we describe below is the only approach to developing a theory of change. Rather, what we describe is based on a well-established approach from the evaluation literature and serves as a useful framework for clarifying the differences between a theory of change and change theory. In later sections, we elaborate the meaning of each component of a theory of change and discuss how change theory and research relate to these specific components of the theory of change.

The process of developing a theory of change begins with recognizing the context in which the change effort will occur. Change in STEM higher education occurs within a complex system and attending to various parts of the system helps change agents consider factors that may influence the way in which a change initiative plays out. These factors are moderators of the change process, potentially speeding, slowing, initiating, or stalling change. Since every context is different, we must understand the conditions under which something works, and how it might need to be adapted to new situations. This is only possible when a project is explicit about its particular circumstances.

After describing the context, the team goes through a process of backwards mapping, first focusing on the end results and then working backwards to describe how one is supposed to get to those results. To do so, a team makes explicit the outcomes it is trying to achieve. In general, this is done by articulating a guiding long-term outcome for the initiative. The long-term outcome will eventually be attained only after a number of medium-term and short-term outcomes—which are called preconditions—are first achieved. Articulating the preconditions that may need to be achieved en route to the ultimate outcome makes it easier for a team to track its progress and see whether an initiative is on the right track as it unfolds. Rationales describe why particular preconditions are necessary and sufficient to achieve the long-term outcome, and how particular interventions will achieve preconditions.

A theory of change articulates the specific interventions that will be used to try to achieve preconditions and long-term outcomes. These represent the project’s concrete activities. Developing well-articulated outcomes and preconditions helps a team choose interventions intentionally, as compared to a project that begins by planning its interventions and then stipulating what it hopes to achieve.

Each long-term outcome or precondition is paired with a number of indicators, which describe the types of evidence needed to determine whether or not an outcome has been achieved. These indicators may be measured in a variety of ways, depending on the research methodologies adopted by a project.

Finally, a project team articulates the assumptions behind the above elements and the linkages between them. These assumptions should be based in the prior experience of the project team and the research literature. Nonetheless, because our collective knowledge of how change occurs in STEM higher education is incomplete, teams will still rely on some assumptions when they design a project.

To depict a theory of change visually, a pathway of change is created as a visual representation for the connections between preconditions, long-term outcome, indicators, and interventions, and of the underlying context (Fig. 1 ). The lines in a pathway of change represent the hypothesized rationale of the project, and may be written out in detail alongside the project’s context, in a document accompanying the diagram. Assumptions may also be listed on the pathway of change diagram. The construction of such a diagram typically begins from the top down, with a user first identifying the long-term outcome, then the preconditions on the way to the outcome, and finally appropriate interventions. These may be adjusted in light of the assumptions and context. Lastly, indicators are added.

Sample theory of change diagram (pathway of change)

Logic models, logframes, and outcome maps

One area of confusion for researchers is the myriad terms and representations for the underlying logic of a project. One of the most common representations is a Logic Model, which explicates, in detail, the resources that go into a project, the activities undertaken to produce the outcomes, and the tangible results of the activities (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004 ). Logic models often communicate the overall vision or aspiration of the project, as well as short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes anticipated as a result of the project. Some theory of change advocates make a clear distinction between a theory of change and Logic Model, arguing that a theory of change is much more flexible and has more explanatory power, because a Logic Model does not always make explicit the underlying assumptions about how change will happen (e.g., Clark & Anderson, 2004 ). Yet in practice, the distinction between a theory of change and Logic Model is often murky. For example, a Logic Model may explicitly articulate assumptions and relevant contextual factors of the project, explaining both the how and why of a project, similar to a theory of change (University of Kansas Center for Community Health and Development, 2018 ). From this perspective, a Logic Model can be conceptualized as a different (albeit more structured) format for organizing the same information that would be found in a pathway of change diagram for a theory of change. The simpler, more rigid organizational structure of a Logic Model can be beneficial for a quick summary and more easily communicating with funders and other stakeholders.

In addition to a Logic Model, a wide variety of other related terms are used. These include Program Roadmaps, Theory of Cause, Theory of Action, Concept(ual) Maps, Outcome Maps, and Logical Frameworks or LogFrames (Center for Disease Control, 2018 ). While there are distinctions between each of these tools, in general we view them as mechanisms for articulating and depicting a program’s desired outcomes and rationale for achieving them. In this way, they can be viewed as tools that are consistent with, or at least complementary to, a theory of change. Regardless of the particular representation used, the theory guiding a particular organization or initiative should be informed by existing theory and research related to the desired outcomes.

The role of change theory and research

We define change research broadly, as any scholarship that focuses on how to make change happen. Some change research has a strong theoretical or empirical basis, while other scholarship may be more conjectural. An important subset of change research is change theory , which we define as a framework of ideas, supported by evidence, that explains some aspect of change beyond a single project.

Change theories represent generalized knowledge about how change works. Some theories are mature, with a strong empirical basis, whereas other theories may have emerged from a single context and thus are supported by more limited evidence. In the realm of educational change, there are relevant theories that deal with many different components and processes related to change.

A theory of change for a change effort in undergraduate STEM education can better serve a project and the larger community when it is developed in consultation with theory and research from the scholarly literature. The degree to which theories of change draw on change theory and research varies considerably. Change initiatives that are not informed by change research (including theory) have two major limitations: (1) the initiative is less likely to succeed, because it does not leverage the wealth of knowledge already developed by change researchers, and (2) without building on what is already known in the field, the initiative itself is less likely to contribute to generalizable knowledge, because it will be more difficult to cast the findings of the study in terms of existing scholarship.

Although there are many ways that research and theory can contribute to a change effort, we focus on five that we argue are a useful guiding framework for grounding a theory of change in existing scholarly work. For each category, we give two examples of change research and theory to illustrate how they can inform the development of a theory of change (Table 2 ). The change theories and research we have used to illustrate each category do not represent endorsements of the utility or value of these particular theories, nor a negative evaluation of theories not mentioned. Given the complexity of real change scenarios, efforts can benefit from drawing on multiple change theories and diverse research areas (Kezar & Holcombe, 2019 ). A single change theory can contribute to multiple aspects of a theory of change, or it can only contribute to one. Similarly, a project may draw from multiple change theories to inform each part of a theory of change. Each project is unique, which means that existing research and theory must be adapted to the specific initiative. Once a theory of change is created using an amalgam of prior work, it will represent a synthesis of change theory and research that is relevant and unique to a given project.

An important advancement for education reform efforts in undergraduate STEM has been increased focus on the system and culture in which teaching and learning occur (e.g., Henderson et al., 2011 ). Change theory and research can inform our understanding of the context of a change effort, including relevant communities, actors, and stakeholders; existing policies, practices, and beliefs; capacity and receptiveness of the targets of the change effort; and historical, political, and sociocultural factors. Viewing change as occurring within a complex system is important because context will influence the impact of a change intervention. Theories relevant to context help change agents and researchers identify and characterize aspects of the system and culture and describe how these might moderate how a change intervention proceeds. Projects benefit from drawing on diverse research and theory to adequately describe context. To illustrate how theory can inform the recognition of context in a theory of change, we provide examples from two theoretical frameworks: the teacher-centered systemic reform model (TCSR) and the four frames model.

The TCSR (Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002 ) maps out the context of efforts that aim to change K-12 teachers’ practices, including personal, structural, and cultural factors. The model inventories and describes parts of this system and why they can be expected to influence education reform. Though developed with K-12 contexts in mind, this framework can be translated to a higher education system. For example, The Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop is aligned with TCSR. The workshop explicitly addresses personal factors, teacher’s thinking, and contextual factors in training newly hired chemistry assistant professors about evidence-based instructional practices (Stains, Pilarz, & Chakraverty, 2015 ). Other researchers used TCSR as a framework for analyzing data about what influenced the use of the SCALE-UP model within one university (Enderle, Southerland, & Grooms, 2013 ), demonstrating that a change theory may become useful for considering context late in a change initiative.

The four frames model of organizational change can draw attention to different aspects of the system, because it focuses specifically on culture within organizations. This model defines different lenses through which an organization’s culture can be viewed (Bolman & Deal, 2008 ). Specifically, the four frames model operationalizes culture as an ever-changing set of structures and underlying ways of thinking , and the resulting power relationships between individuals (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018 ). Applied to change efforts in undergraduate STEM, this model can define which cultural factors an agent will need to attend to in order to understand the success of an effort, as well as what a project might aim to change in a culture in order to support the desired long-term outcome (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018 ). These theories, and others like them, help change efforts recognize the various parts of their system that are likely to be important to a change effort. Since change agents work from one particular vantage point of the system (e.g., a faculty member in a department, a dean in a college, a professional developer in a Center for Teaching and Learning), it can be hard for individual actors to recognize how more distant parts of a system will influence change efforts.

In summary, change theory and research can inform a theory of change by mapping out and defining the components of a system and the various ways those components interact with each other that may influence (i.e., moderate) change efforts.

Preconditions and rationale

A key part of the process of developing a theory of change is identifying the short- and intermediate-term outcomes, called preconditions, that may need to be met to arrive at the ultimate long-term outcome of the change effort. The preconditions included in a theory of change should be necessary and sufficient to achieve the long-term outcome. Thus, there must be a rationale for linking a precondition to another precondition and for linking preconditions to the ultimate outcome (Anderson, 2005 ). Rationales explain how the expected interventions in a change effort are likely to result in meeting preconditions and achieving the long-term outcome. How does intervention A cause precondition B to be met? And how does meeting precondition B help to achieve the long-term outcome? Change theory and research can help a team recognize important preconditions and why it will be necessary to achieve them on the path to the long-term outcome. Drawing on diverse work is crucial for developing a theory of change with preconditions and rationales that are based on more than our own intuitions about how to achieve change.

We introduce two theoretical frameworks that can inform preconditions and rationale in a theory of change, including one framework relevant to achieving behavioral change among individuals—the theory of planned behavior—and one framework relevant to achieving organizational change—the 4I framework of organizational learning.

The theory of planned behavior was developed to explain what shapes behaviors over which individuals have the ability to exert self-control. The theory of planned behavior stipulates that a key factor influencing behavior is an individual’s intention to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991 ). In turn, intention is influenced by an individual’s attitude toward the behavior, the subjective norms they perceive related to the behavior, and their perception of their own control over the behavior (Ajzen, 1991 ). Attitudes encompass the individual’s favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the behavior. Subjective norms include perceived social pressures or expectations to perform or not perform the behavior. Perceived behavioral control has similarities to self-efficacy, and deals with an individual’s confidence in their ability to perform a behavior successfully (Ajzen, 1991 ; Bandura, 1997 ).

Applied to a change effort to increase the adoption of evidence-based teaching practices, the theory of planned behavior proposes that preconditions to adopting a new teaching strategy include a positive attitude about the strategy, perceptions of social pressure to adopt the strategy, and confidence that one can successfully adopt the strategy. The theory stipulates the preconditions and provides rationales for why we can expect these preconditions to lead to the long-term outcome of the adoption of evidence-based teaching strategies.

The 4I framework of organizational learning describes processes involved in creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999 ). The framework contends that organizational learning is a multi-level process that involves individual, group, and organizational learning. Individual, group, and organization learning are connected by four bi-directional processes: intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing (Crossan et al., 1999 ). Intuiting occurs at the level of the individual and involves developing insights based on personal experience that can be “fed forward” beyond the individual. These insights might recognize patterns and new possibilities based on personal experience and may become metaphors that individuals use to talk about experiences with others. Interpreting is a bridge between individuals and groups, and involves explaining an insight to oneself and others. This level is more conscious than intuiting and involves conversation and dialogue that names ideas, makes them explicit, and links them to other ideas. This can lead to enhanced mental models among individuals and improved organizational knowledge. Integrating is the third process and it connects the group and organizational levels. It involves developing shared understanding among individuals and taking coordinated actions. This process is focused on coherent, collective action. The last process, institutionalization, occurs at the organization level when new ideas and actions become embedded into routines, rules, procedures, and infrastructures. This is the hallmark of organizational learning because changes in structures makes the change available to all members, independent of the original individual or group that generated the idea.

The Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL), a network of 38 research institutions, used the 4I model of organizational learning to analyze the impact that CIRTL had on member institutions (Hill, Savoy, Austin, & Bantawa, 2019). They observed intuiting among local institutional CIRTL leaders, interpreting in the work between local leaders and local constituents, and integration of learning gains associated with CIRTL across campus by the local leaders (Hill et al. 2019). The 4I model helped these researchers recognize the role of the local CIRTL leader in all four of the organizational learning processes in the 4I model. Thus, a precondition for the impact of the CIRTL network on member institutions may be a local CIRTL leadership team that can translate and tailor the network efforts to the specific needs of their institution (Hill et al., 2019).

This model could also be used to inform the design of a change project. For example, applied to an effort to change how teaching is evaluated for promotion and tenure, the 4I framework of organizational learning suggests that a precondition to institutionalizing new structures includes individuals in a group (e.g., a department) developing shared understandings. In this example change effort, that might be shared understanding about what constitutes effective teaching and how effectiveness can be documented. Shared understandings can then inform collective actions, such as piloting a new evaluation approach. Developing shared understandings occurs through interpreting and integrating, and relies heavily on developing common language, ongoing dialogue, and even storytelling to reflect complexity without abstraction (Crossan et al., 1999 ). These shared understandings then provide the basis for a change that can affect the organization as a whole.

In summary, change theory and research can inform a theory of change by helping a team determine what preconditions are likely to be important to achieve a desired long-term outcome and why those particular preconditions are important.

Indicators are how a project team determines if each precondition and the long-term outcome have been met. Ideally, a theory of change specifies one or more indicators for each precondition and the long-term outcome. This allows a project to assess the degree to which implementation of project activities is having the intended impact. Indicators must be fully operationalized to usefully inform a project. Operationalizing an indicator includes determining what variable will be measured, the target population for change, what threshold of change will be sufficient to conclude that a precondition or outcome has been met, and how long it is expected to take to achieve this threshold in the target population (Anderson, 2005 ; Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, 2003 ). Setting indicators aids in setting outcomes for a project, so they should be set early in the planning stages of a project. In addition, assessing indicators helps measure progress made toward those outcomes as a project is being implemented. For members of a project team, assessing indicators can help provide motivation as it makes progress towards outcomes visible. It also provides formative feedback to support revision of activities and the theory of change as a whole. Furthermore, assessment of indicators helps communicate the outcomes and progress toward outcomes for people outside of the project team (Kotter, 1996 ).

Many researchers have developed approaches and tools to measure important variables in the context of undergraduate STEM education. Change research draws attention to variables that can be measured and how to measure them, including a wide variety of qualitative and quantitative research techniques and methodologies. Projects may use surveys and inventories, interviews, systematic classroom observations, participant observation, and other approaches to collect data about an indicator.

Some desired outcomes in a change project in undergraduate STEM education may deal with teaching practices. Many possible indicators for teaching practices are described in a single report that reviews approaches to measuring and documenting STEM teaching practices (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2012 ). Some projects may aim to measure the quality of education on a larger scale. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine published a report that outlines a set of national-level indicators of the status and quality of undergraduate STEM education (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018 ).

Change projects in undergraduate STEM education will also include important preconditions and long-term outcomes besides changes in teaching practice. For example, some initiatives aim to change thinking, relationships, policies, and practices in departments, colleges, and institutions (Elrod & Kezar, 2015 ; Reinholz, Corbo, Dancy, & Finkelstein, 2017 ). This requires different indicators. For instance, research on social networks can be useful because it helps identify opinion leaders and tracks relationships across a social system, such as a department (e.g., Andrews, Conaway, Zhao, & Dolan, 2016 ; Grunspan, Wiggins, & Goodreau, 2014 ; Hayward & Laursen, 2018 ; Quardokus & Henderson, 2015 ). Examples of social network indicators may be increasing the number of opinion leaders, increasing the density of a network, or increasing the strength of relationships related to undergraduate teaching in a department. Another example of indicators relevant to departments are rubrics developed by the Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE) to assess the degree to which life sciences undergraduate programs align with recommendations in the Vision & Change Report. These rubrics can be used by departments and administrators to assess the degree to which curriculum alignment, assessment, faculty practice and support, infrastructure, and climate for change are supportive of the recommendations in Vision & Change (AAAS, 2011 ; Brancaccio-Taras et al., 2016 ).

In summary, change theory and research can inform a theory of change by helping a team determine which indicators can assess progress toward a long-term outcome and the preconditions on the way to the outcome.

Interventions

An intervention is what a project “does” to try to achieve change. Interventions are often described as a list of steps, even though the steps may be nonlinear and not all steps are always followed in order. Many different terms are used to describe interventions, such as strategy, process, approach, and model. The intervention provides an organizing framework for the types of project activities that a change effort engages in. Often, a project team has made tentative decisions about their intervention before they begin developing a theory of change. Building a theory of change ensures that careful consideration has been given to how the activities will lead to preconditions and how preconditions contribute to achieving the long-term outcome.

Change interventions are generally part of the change research literature, rather than being change theories themselves. Some interventions that have been implemented and studied are solidly grounded in existing change theory and others have less robust theoretical underpinnings. Which change interventions have been designed and revised with change theory in mind may become obvious as a team builds their own theory of change around an intervention and is faced with questions about how the suggested activities will result in the desired outcomes. Here, we highlight two change interventions designed specifically for STEM higher education and grounded in existing change theory: the Keck/PKAL model (i.e., River Model) and Departmental Action Teams.

The Keck/PKAL (Project Kaleidoscope) model, sometimes referred to as the River Model, is a process for achieving institutional change in undergraduate STEM education and its steps are meant to be spearheaded by campus leaders (Elrod & Kezar, 2015 ). This model is informed by change theories about organizational learning, organizational culture, readiness for change, and more. The River Model includes eight stages: (1) establishing vision, (2) examining the landscape and conducting capacity analysis, (3) identifying and analyzing challenges and opportunities, (4) choosing strategies, (5) determining readiness for action, (6) beginning implementation, (7) measuring results, and (8) disseminating results and planning next steps.

Some of these steps are expected to occur in a loop and through multiple iterations, resulting in the change project being “caught in an eddie” as team members work toward shared understandings and consensus. For example, stages (1) establishing vision and (2) examining the landscape and conducting capacity analysis are envisioned as two looping and iterative processes that ultimately align a change effort with institutional priorities. Though these two stages are the suggested starting place, the model is meant to be dynamic and the process can be entered at multiple points (Kezar & Elrod, 2015). Additionally, projects may sometimes flow “upstream” rather than “downstream” in the pursuit of change. Kezar and Elrod (2015) is a report designed to guide step-by-step planning, provide tools, and prompt ongoing reflection. A change effort that opts to use the River Model as its guiding intervention may also need to incorporate interventions at other levels of the system, such as departments and individual faculty.

Departmental Action Teams (DATs) are externally facilitated groups of faculty, students, and staff working collaboratively in a department toward a collective educational outcome. DATs focus on a single department as a unit of change, recognizing that (a) departments tend to have relatively consistent cultures, and (b) making sustainable changes to education requires cultural change (Reinholz et al., 2019 ). A DAT meets regularly for up to four semesters, typically for an hour every other week. To guide its work, a DAT completes a series of shared visioning activities to develop consensus on a focal issue and set of outcomes. Next, the DAT collects, analyzes, and interprets relevant data. This supports the creation and implementation of an action plan, as well as monitoring of that plan. Typically, DATs aim to create a sustainable structure within a department that leads to continuous improvement, rather than trying to “solve” a problem all at once.

To utilize DATs a part of a larger change initiative, a project team would need to hire or develop skilled external facilitators who could lead DATs in academic departments. The use of DATs would also inform the overall approach of a project. Because DATs focus on lasting, sustainable changes, they would be most appropriate for a multi-year effort that aims for cross-cutting improvements. For example, if a project team were to apply DATs to achieve an outcome of improving instruction in a department, potential outcomes of the DATs would be (1) onboarding and mentoring opportunities for new faculty; (2) developing mechanisms for sustained, discipline-based professional development in the department; or (3) seminars, colloquium, and brown bag meetings for faculty to talk about teaching. All of these outcomes would be aimed at supporting teaching over the long-term.

A single change initiative may draw upon multiple interventions to achieve its outcomes. There is not a single best intervention, and very often, different interventions could play a similar role in a project. Thus, in building a theory of change, a team may identify multiple interventions that can be used and adapted to the particular context of interest.

Assumptions

A major feature of a theory of change is the articulation of underlying assumptions about how change occurs. These include assumptions about the nature of the context and how it will moderate the change process, the preconditions that are necessary and sufficient to reach the long-term outcome, the rationales connecting preconditions to each other and to long-term outcomes, the rationales for how interventions will achieve preconditions and the long-term outcome, and more. Identifying and articulating assumptions is challenging because they may be taken for granted and deeply held (Argyris, 1976 ). Challenging assumptions is likely to occur throughout a change project, as some assumptions may only come to light when aspects of an initiative fail. Thus, change research and theory should inform the initial development of a theory of change. Critically, it is common for change efforts to fail in various ways. Change theory can be very useful for guiding sense-making and trouble-shooting that takes place when aspects of the project are stalled or unsuccessful.

Given that assumptions may be found throughout a theory of change, diverse change theory and research will be relevant to articulating assumptions. Here, we highlight two lenses that propose alternative ways of thinking about areas relevant to change in undergraduate STEM education: community cultural wealth and appreciative inquiry. These two lenses advocate for moving away from deficit views focused on what is lacking or problematic toward views focused on existing and diverse strengths and successes.

Community cultural wealth is a framework that characterizes “knowledge, skills, abilities, and contacts possessed and utilized by communities of color to survive and resist macro- and micro-forms of oppression” (Yosso, 2005 ). This framework recognizes different forms of capital that are resources that people of color develop and use and that contribute to their success. For example, linguistic capital includes cognitive and social skills gained through experiences communicating in more than one language or style (Yosso, 2005 , Means et al., in review).

Community cultural wealth can be a useful lens for change efforts related to broadening participation in STEM. For example, using this lens, an effort to increase the hiring and retention of faculty from groups minoritized in STEM may recognize that their planned activities are grounded in deficit thinking because they aim to support new faculty in areas in which they are assumed to be lacking, rather than capitalizing on the unique strengths and capital of these new hires. Adopting such a framework, a hiring committee may aim to see how a new hire would add to their culture, rather than just fitting in it.

Appreciative inquiry is a stance toward organizational change that assumes that organizations have infinite constructive capacity to improve. Appreciative inquiry achieves change by discovering, magnifying, and eclipsing positive attributes and successes in an organization, rather than focusing on identifying and solving problems (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001 ). This stance on change translates into a change process that asks questions of many (or all) members of an organization to learn what is working very well in an organization. A basic principle of appreciative inquiry is that organizations change in areas where they persistently ask questions, and the more positive the questions asked, the more long-lasting and successful a change effort will be (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001 ).

Using appreciative inquiry as a lens to examine a change effort may reveal contrasting or contradictory assumptions like these: the outcome of a change effort is to solve problems; members of the organization are not a valuable source of ideas about what or how to change; and easily measured successes are more important to the momentum of an effort than feelings like hope, excitement, inspiration, caring, and joy (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001 ).

Change research can also reveal other assumptions that may be implicit in a theory of change. For example, it is tempting to conclude that scientists will be convinced to adopt evidence-based teaching practices when presented with strong evidence of the effectiveness of the strategies. However, research on why faculty adopt evidence-based teaching strategies indicate that they rely on personal experiences to a much greater extent than empirical evidence (Andrews & Lemons, 2015 ; Dancy et al., 2016 ). Thus, a theory of change that included presenting faculty with evidence to increase their interest and motivation to use evidence-based practices should reconsider assumptions they are making about how faculty use evidence in making teaching decisions. As another example, researchers might assume that lasting changes can be made through a single, momentous change event, rather than through careful, ongoing attention to sustainable improvements. However, research indicates that even very successful change efforts may ultimately result in backsliding, unless explicit attention is paid to sustainability (Reinholz et al., 2019 ).

In summary, all change efforts are built around some assumptions, but the construction of a theory of change helps make those assumptions explicit, and can ensure that the assumptions are grounded in prior research and practice as much as possible.

Summary and conclusion

This essay sought to distinguish between change theory and research and a theory of change in STEM education. Ultimately, we argue that change efforts should develop their own theory of change that is grounded in change theory. In this way, a project contextualizes change theory to their own particular situation, which will increase the likelihood of project’s success, and also enhances the project’s capacity to contribute to generalizable knowledge. Far from exhaustive, this manuscript provides examples of how some commonly used change theories can inform a change project. We also propose common terminology that DBER communities could use to refer to the articulated logic of an individual project (Tables 1 and 2 ).

Given that STEM educational change research is conducted by a diverse community of researchers and practitioners across disciplines, it is often difficult to compare across studies. A theory of change can help to address this challenge. As teams make their underlying assumptions and theories explicit, it will facilitate comparisons of research across diverse settings. In addition, when theory is set from the offset, the implementation of a project provides a test of the theory in practice, which supports refinement of the theory. We propose a theory of change as a powerful mechanism for making theory explicit both for a project internally and for externalization.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Departmental Action Team

Discipline-based education research

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Improving Undergraduate STEM Education

National Science Foundation

Project Kaleidoscope

Science, technology, engineering, mathematics

Teacher-centered systemic reform

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T .

Article   Google Scholar  

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A call to action . Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Google Scholar  

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2012). Describing & Measuring Undergraduate STEM Teaching Practices . Retrieved from American Association for the Advancement of Science website: https://live-ccliconference.pantheonsite.io/measuring-teaching-practices/ Accessed 12 Sept 2019.

Anderson, A. (2005). The community builder’s approach to theory of change: A practical guide to theory development. Retrieved from Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change website: http://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/TOC_fac_guide.pdf . .

Andrews, T. C., Conaway, E. P., Zhao, J., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Colleagues as change agents for undergraduate teaching. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15 ( 2 ), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-08-0170 .

Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). It’s personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14 (1), ar7.

Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10 (4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061 .

Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly , 363–375.

Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. (2003). Guided example: Project Superwoman. Retrieved from https://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/Superwomen_Example.pdf . .

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: Freeman.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brancaccio-Taras, L., Pape-Lindstrom, P., Peteroy-Kelly, M., Aguirre, K., Awong-Taylor, J., Balser, T., et al. (2016). The PULSE vision & change rubrics, Version 1.0: A valid and equitable tool to measure transformation of life sciences departments at all institution types. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15 (4), ar60. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-12-0260 .

Center for Disease Control. (2018). Evaluation guide: Developing and using a logic model. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/eval/logicmodels/index.htm . .

Chasteen, S., Chattergoon, R., Prather, E., & Hilborn, R. (2016, July 20-21). Evaluation methodology and results for the new faculty workshops. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2016, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=14196&DocID=4548 . .

Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clark, H., & Anderson, A. A. (2004). Theories of change and logic models: Telling them apart. Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association. Presented at Atlanta, GA.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009 .

Connolly, M. R., & Seymour, E. (2015). Why theories of change matter (No. WCER Working Paper No. 2015-2). Retrieved from Wisconsin Center for Education Research website: https://wcer.wisc.edu/docs/working-papers/Working_Paper_No_2015_02.pdf . .

Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (2001). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. Public Administration and Public Policy, 87 , 611–630.

Coryn, C. L. S., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schröter, D. C. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32 (2), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010389321 .

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.2307/259140 .

Dancy, M., Henderson, C., & Turpen, C. (2016). How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12 (1), 010110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010110 .

Derting, T. L., Ebert-May, D., Henkel, T. P., Maher, J. M., Arnold, B., & Passmore, H. A. (2016). Assessing faculty professional development in STEM higher education: Sustainability of outcomes. Science Advances, 2 (3), e1501422.

Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., & Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14 (2), ar22.

Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience, 61 (7), 550–558.

Elrod, S., & Kezar, A. (2015). Increasing student success in STEM: A guide to systemic institutional change. A Keck/PKAL Project at the Association of American Colleges & Universities.

Enderle, P. J., Southerland, S. A., & Grooms, J. A. (2013). Exploring the context of change: Understanding the kinetics of a studio physics implementation effort. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 9 (1), 010114.

Grunspan, D. Z., Wiggins, B. L., & Goodreau, S. M. (2014). Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: a primer for social network analysis in education research. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13 (2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0162 .

Hayward, C. N., & Laursen, S. L. (2018). Supporting instructional change in mathematics: using social network analysis to understand online support processes following professional development workshops. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 (1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0120-9 .

Henderson, C. (2008). Promoting instructional change in new faculty: An evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop. American Journal of Physics, 76 (2), 179–187.

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (8), 952–984.

Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8 (2), 020104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104 .

Howard Hughes Medical Institute. (2019). Inclusive excellence new competition announcement. Retrieved from https://www.hhmi.org/science-education/programs/inclusive-excellence-new-competition-announcement . .

Kezar, A. J., & Holcombe, E. M. (2019). Leveraging multiple theories of change to promote reform: an examination of the AAU STEM initiative. Educational Policy, 0895904819843594 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819843594 .

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44 (1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15570388 .

Means, D., Stanton, J., Mekonnen, B., Oni, O., Breeden, R., Babatola, O., Osondu, C., Beckham, M., & Marshall, B. A deeper calling: the aspirations and persistence of black undergraduate students in Science. American Education Research Journal in review.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Indicators for Monitoring Undergraduate STEM Education. Retrieved from The National Academies Press website: doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24943

National Science Foundation. (2019). Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Education and Human Resources (IUSE: EHR). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf19601 . .

Olmstead, A., & Turpen, C. (2016). Assessing the interactivity and prescriptiveness of faculty professional development workshops: The real-time professional development observation tool. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12 (2), 020136.

Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London, UK: Sage.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40 (7), 331–337.

Quardokus, K., & Henderson, C. (2015). Promoting instructional change: Using social network analysis to understand the informal structure of academic departments. Higher Education, 70 (3), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9831-0 .

Reinholz, D. L., & Apkarian, N. (2018). Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0103-x .

Reinholz, D. L., Corbo, J. C., Dancy, M., & Finkelstein, N. (2017). Departmental Action Teams: Supporting faculty learning through departmental change. Learning Communities Journal, 9 , 5–32.

Reinholz, D. L., Ngai, C., Quan, G., Pilgrim, M. E., Corbo, J. C., & Finkelstein, N. (2019). Fostering sustainable improvements in science education: An analysis through four frames. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21526 .

Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., et al. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359 (6383), 1468–1470.

Stains, M., Pilarz, M., & Chakraverty, D. (2015). Short and long-term impacts of the Cottrell Scholars collaborative new faculty workshop. Journal of Chemical Education, 92 (9), 1466–1476.

University of Kansas Center for Community Health and Development. (2018). Community Toolbox: Developing a logic model or theory of change . Retrieved from https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/overview/models-for-community-health-and-development/logic-model-development/main . Accessed 20 April 20 2019.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide: Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, & action. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts, 1 , 65–92.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16 (5), 763–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/089590402237312 .

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8 (1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for ongoing efforts to build community around the scholarship of change in STEM education. The authors began their collaboration after meeting at the Transforming Research in Undergraduate STEM Education (TRUSE) Conference. We have also benefitted from the support of the Accelerating System Change Network (ASCN) and the STEM-DBER Alliance. We thank Alice Olmstead, Erika Offerdahl, Isabel White, and Susan Shadle for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for feedback that improved the quality of this manuscript.

Partial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation’s Improving Undergraduate STEM (IUSE) program under awards 1830897 and 1830860. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 92182, USA

Daniel L. Reinholz

Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

Tessa C. Andrews

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DLR and TCA collaborated to conceive of these ideas and write the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tessa C. Andrews .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Reinholz, D.L., Andrews, T.C. Change theory and theory of change: what’s the difference anyway?. IJ STEM Ed 7 , 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3

Download citation

Received : 25 September 2019

Accepted : 02 January 2020

Published : 17 January 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Change theory
• Education reform
• Undergraduate STEM

Higher Education as an Agent of Change

• Definition of education
• Role of education
• Higher education 
• History or evolution of human development
• Economic development and higher education
• Social development and higher education
• Technological development and higher education
• industrial growth and higher education
• Political scenario
• Role of higher education in building international relations
• Role of the higher education commission
• Conclusion 

Introduction

Human beings are the most blessed creature of the universe. Humans have priority because of sentience on other creatures. Education plays a great role in developing manners, ethics, moral values to move in a society.  

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world’” by Nelson Mandela

Role of Education

Education is as necessary as oxygen to survive. It gives knowledge, builds confidence, and opens the doors of opportunities to compete with the world. Education helps people to survive on the individual level, national level, and international level. It overcomes poverty, provides employment, boosts up the economy of a country, decreases crime level, and these types of various factors make a nation super strong.

Higher Education

Higher education is the tertiary type of education also known as post-secondary education. It leads to an academic degree level. Higher education contributes to highly educated, professional and skilled people to the manpower of the nation. Scientists and engineers can develop more technologies to ease human life, highly trained managers can run their organizations more effectively, highly specialized doctors can do more relief to humans, and professional teaching staff can contribute more to the future development of youth rather than non-professional or least educated staff.  

Higher education is important in every sector. It is equally significant in social, economical, political, technological reforms. 

History or Evolution of Human Development

There was a time million years ago when men used to live in caves, ate leaves of trees, no sense of wisdom, knowledge, how to live, what to eat, etc.

According to science, the human brain developed from 650cc to 1500cc. Then the voice box developed and also various types of cries. Gradually, the pictorial language developed. After the invention of the wheel, printing was the major invention. It made it possible to store knowledge. In the last century, man has invented the radio, the telephone, satellites, and mobile technology, etc. it is only possible due to higher education. 

Economical Development and Higher Education

The strong economy is the backbone of the nation and the highly educated and innovative people directly contribute to the economy of the nation. So the people with higher education have better pay structures so they have lesser chances to remain unemployed and to live in poverty. According to research people with higher education tend to earn more than people like school graduates. So if a person is highly qualified then he will automatically value the importance of education and will continue education from generation after generation. This will increase the income of families from decades to decades. 

Thus income will Eventually contribute to the economy of the nation thus improving the economy of the country. educated people contribute significantly to tax. Payments and local state and federal government levels.

Social Development and Higher Education 

Higher education affects people in the social sector. Social scientists lay stress on higher education in order to equip individuals with more skills and etiquette. 

Though it is always not true, social scientists believe that highly educated people are more likely to behave soberly. As he/she will be more cultured. He /she will be more likely to engage in voluntary work, for example, donation of blood, etc. 

Highly educated people are more conscious about their health and also take care of their hygiene. So children of highly educated people have higher cognitive skills than children of other people. 

Educated people are supposed to be more responsible citizens than uneducated people. They are more aware of the importance of family, education, family planning, etc. They are more aware of drug abuse, smoking, violence against women, or child labor, etc. They are more prone to the disadvantages of these activities than illiterate people. That is why highly skilled and educated people are running schemes for youth promotion, promoting the culture of tolerance, eradicating poverty and working for human resources management. Technological development and higher education

This is an age of technology. Technological development is only possible with skills and education. Examples of the technological revolution are from ringing alarms to ringing phones in our pockets, from stoves to microwaves, etc. These are all the miracles of technology. The significant changes in manufacturing, telecommunication, telecom industry, production, textile, sanitation system, clean water facilities, all are brilliantly done by highly skilled scientists and engineers. 

All departments are working online and they store all data on their websites. This is only possible due to computer engineers. All organizations are dependent on the computer for their work. Complex Softwares have been developed. Different apps that are available on the play store are also an example of the technological revolution. Highly skilled professionals can help a lot to boost the productivity of organizations. 

Industrial Growth and Higher Education

Industrial growth is directly related to the economical growth of a country. Those countries whose industries are developed are most likely to appear stronger in the economy rather than other countries whose industries are not well-developed.

 High skilled laborers are required in industries to fully flourish. High profile technology, improved manufacturing, and production techniques operating heavy machinery, etc are only possible by highly skilled industrial managers. These factors will eventually boost industrial growth. 

Political Scenario

Political leaders are those who determine the entire attitude and destiny of the nations. People before the present age of education were experiencing political leaderships like monarchy, dictatorship, etc. Now people living in the age of democracy in which they elect their own representative. This only happens due to awareness. People know their interests better so choose leaders according to their interests. Education spreads awareness in every sense.

On the other side, higher education also develops world-class leaders which represent the nation gracefully. 

Role of Higher Education in Building International Relations

This is an era of globalization. A country cannot remain isolated from other countries. So countries have to build international relations with all over the world. Countries improve relations with each other by exchanging student professionals so that they can learn from each other’s practices. These delegates of students are professionals who don’t represent them individually but in fact, Carry a whole nation’s image. So it is very important for them to be highly sophisticated and is only possible due to higher education which teaches them how to behave and how to live.

On the other side, political leaders and foreign ministers also play a huge role in International relations so These political leaders should be highly skilled, qualified and educated.

Role of the Higher Education Commission (HEC)

The Higher Education Commission is working remarkably to improve higher education in Pakistan. It allocates budgets to government universities Which in turn offer scholarships. Scholarships are merit Best and to the needy students Who have an urge to get higher education.

The following are developments by the higher education commission. 

• Development of digital library
• Development of computer labs
• Development of multimedia and projectors
• Development of online teaching and learning resources.

Conclusion  

Pakistan is in need of higher education reforms.

Pakistan is a developing country so it requires effort to increase job opportunities, business opportunities, opportunities to eradicate poverty and invite investments and FDI, development of industry, development of IT, development of health, medical, engineering.

So Pakistan needs revolutionary reforms in political and technological, social, and industrial sectors; these reforms are only possible due to higher education.

Share this:

1 thought on “higher education as an agent of change”.

Pingback: Higher Education As An Agent Of Change? Quick Answer

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Women Universities As Agents Of Change CSS Essay

The post is about “Women universities as agents of change CSS essay . Women education as agent of change. Advantages of female education. Women universities as agents of change.”

Women Universities As Agents Of Change

In today’s world where women are subject to gender based violence and discrimination in different societies, women universities can prove as agents of change. They can change the prevailing system and ideology in the world and can bring positive changes both to women’s lives and society. Some of the major changes that women universities can bring in women’s lives and society are given below.

Access to Higher Education

Women universities give an excellent opportunity to women of easy access to higher education. Due to limited number of women universities, women often have to take admission in men universities for higher education.  Because of large number of students these institutions offer admission only to a limited number of students thus left a greater number of women un-admitted who are willing to get higher education.

You May Also Like: CSS Essay Notes

Literary Work: Highlighting Women Issues

In today’s world there is a dire need of highlighting women issues because only by doing this we can bring a change both in women’s lives and the prevailing social setup. Women universities can provide a platform to feminists in any society through which they not only can propagate their ideologies but also can successfully highlight prevailing women issues in the society.

More Stable and Prosper Society

Another important change that women universities that can bring is economic independence of women in society. Women being illiterate and inept are not only dependent on men in society but these two reasons are also major causes of violence against women (VAW) and their discrimination in the society.

You May Also Like: CSS Gender Studies Notes

By seeking skills women will not only become economically independent but this will also result in the equal distribution of wealth in society.  

In our society the major cause of high infant and maternal mortality rates is the illiteracy of women. By seeking higher education in universities, women will be more able to take due care during pregnancy, follow medical instructions and take necessary gap between child’s birth. In this way a decrease both in infant and maternal mortality rates can be achieved. 

Women Can Pull Up Women

Being educated and economically independent, women would not only be able to highlight downtrodden women issues but will also help them to get rid of them. Only a woman can better understand another woman’s problem and position and so only she can better help her than any other person in the world.

National Prosperity

Women education is also a promising factor for national prosperity. Women make at least half of the world population. If such a large portion of population remains illiterate and economically dependent, how can a nation prosper?

In the same way as we know that mother’s lap is called the first school of child and what he (she) learnt from mother at that becomes part of his (her) instinct. In such case if mother is educated and well trained, she will raise her child as a more responsible and worthy person otherwise she will not be able to do so.

In today’s world where social, political and economic prosperity can only be achieved if every member of the society participate either directly or indirectly. In such case women’s education becomes more important because educated women would be able to participate more effectively than un-educated.

Tags: Women Universities As Agents Of Change. Women Universities As Agents Of Change. Women Universities As Agents Of Change. Women Universities As Agents Of Change. Women Universities As Agents Of Change.

Related Posts

Women’s Employment in Pakistan – 7 Great Hurdles

Problems With #MeToo Movement

Difference Between Gender Studies And Women’s Studies CSS

Queer Theory Gender Studies CSS Notes

About the author.

Askedon helps aspirants in their preparation for CSS, PMS, PCS and one paper MCQs based tests. We have syllabus wise complete notes of Current Affairs, Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, Essay, Gender Studies and many other compulsory and optional subjects of CSS, PMS and PCS. The blog is owned and managed primarily by Ataulhaq Yusufzai. For more details please visit About US and Privacy Policy page.

hlpful but would be more if there are some facts n fgrs …being student of css we cant rely on mere discussions .

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

• Beginner's Guide
• Past Papers
• CSP Members
• Members List
• Social Groups
• Mark Forums Read