1887
  1. Home
  2. Conference Proceedings
  3. QScience Proceedings
  4. Engineering Leaders Conference 2014 on Engineering Education
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Twenty to thirty years ago, efforts to improve engineering education focused on developing new instructional strategies and materials to increase percentages of engineering students that graduated, numbers of entering undergraduate engineering students, and the diversity of engineering graduates. Today, a considerable body of studies has shown that this goal has been achieved. Efficacy of many instructional strategies and materials has been demonstrated with the support of compelling evidence. In light of these developments, the focus of efforts to improve engineering education appears to be shifting to promoting broader adoption of instructional strategies and materials already developed and supported by substantial bodies of evidence. What change strategies could be used in these efforts? Research in many fields, while it does not provide definitive answers for each organizational culture and scenario, embodies knowledge from which change strategies can be developed. Four change models and eight change strategies have been synthesized from extensive literature reviews. This paper extends this work incrementally by adding that change strategies should be synthesized across multiple perspectives of organizations, what Bolman and Deal refer to as leadership frames. Examples of strategy fragments for each of the four leadership frames have been presented for each of the eight change strategies to provide options for change agents looking to develop coherent strategies for their particular circumstances at their specific organizations. The principal intended contribution of this paper is to present strategy fragments from each of the four leadership frames that could be used in developing change strategies.

© 2015 Froyd, licensee Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation Journals.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.79
2015-08-29
2025-01-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/qproc/2015/4/qproc.2015.elc2014.79.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.79&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Jamieson LH, Lohmann JR. “Innovation with impact: Creating a culture for scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education,” American Society for Engineering, Washington, DC, 2012..
  2. Froyd JE, Beach A, Henderson C, Finkelstein N. Improving educational change agents' efficacy in science, engineering, and mathematics education. In: Hartman H, ed. Integrating the sciences and society: Challenges, practices, and potentials. 16. London, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2008;:227–255.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Olson S, Riordan DG. “Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the President,” Executive Office of the President, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Washington, DC, USA, 2012..
  4. McKenna AF, Froyd JE, Litzinger TA. The complexities of transforming engineering higher education: Preparing for next steps. Journal of Engineering Education. 2014; 103::188–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Borrego M, Henderson C. Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education. 2014; 103::220–252.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Henderson C, Beach A, Finkelstein N. Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2011; 48::952–984.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolman LG, Deal TE. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. 5th ed. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolman LG, Deal TE. Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management. 1991; 30::509–534.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Wankat PC, Felder RM, Smith KA, Oreovicz FS. The scholarhip of teaching and learning in engineering. In: Huber MTMorreale S, eds. Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2002.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Fairweather JS. Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. The Journal of Higher Education. 2005; 76::401–422.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Prince MJ, Felder RM, Brent R. Does faculty research improve undergraduate teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies. Journal of Engineering Education. 2007; 96::283–294.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York, NY: The Free Press 2003.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Senge PM. The fifth discipline. London: England: Currency Doubleday 1990.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. The Royal Academy of Engineering. Achieving excellence in engineering education: The ingredients of successful change. London, England: The Royal Academy of Engineering 2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Graham R. The One Less Traveled By: The Road to Lasting Systemic Change in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education. 2012; 101::596–600.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.79
Loading
Change strategies and leadership frames for advancing engineering education
QScience Proceedings 2015, 79 (2015); https://doi.org/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.79
/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.79
/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.79
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error