Post on 26-Dec-2015
transcript
F a l l 2 0 1 4
S t e p h a n i e J . J o n e s , E d . D .Te x a s Te c h U n i v e r s i t y
C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 4 b y t h e C a r n e g i e P r o j e c t o n t h e E d u c a t i o n D o c t o r a t e , I n c . ( C P E D ) . T h e f o r e g o i n g m a t e r i a l m a y b e u s e d f o r n o n c o m m e r c i a l e d u c a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s , p r o v i d e d t h a t C P E D i s a c k n o w l e d g e d a s t h e a u t h o r a n d c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r . A n y o t h e r u s e r e q u i r e s t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f C P E D .
Webinar
Strategies for Organizational Change – Redesigning the Education Doctorate
Overview of CPED Principles and Design ConceptsBackground to StudyChange in Higher Education OrganizationsProcesses of Organizational ChangePlanned Approach to Organizational ChangeSetting the Vision for Change & Change AgentsCommunicating Vision for ChangeChange Process
Challenges to Change Strategies to Overcome Challenges
OVERVIEW
CPED has six (6) working principles that guide the professional doctorate in education:1. Is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social
justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice.
2. Prepares leaders who can construct and apply knowledge to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and communities.
3. Provides opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate collaboration and communication skills to work with diverse communities and to build partnerships.
4. Provides field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions.
CPED PRINCIPLES
5. Is grounded in and develops a professional knowledge base that integrates both practical and research knowledge, that links theory with systemic and systematic inquiry.
6. Emphasizes the generation, transformation, and use of professional knowledge and practice. (“Definition of and Working Principles,” n.d., para. 6)
CPED PRINCIPLES
CPED has six (6) design concepts that define program components that support the development of the Scholar Practitioner: Scholarly Practitioner blend practical wisdom with
professional skills and knowledge to name, frame, and solve problems of practice;
Signature Pedagogy is a set of practices used to prepare scholarly practitioners for all aspects of their professional work;
Inquiry as Practice is the process of posing significant questions that focus on complex problems of practice. By using various research, theories, and professional wisdom, scholarly practitioners design innovative solutions to address the problems of practice;
CPED DESIGN CONCEPTS
Laboratories of Practice are settings where theory and practice inform and enrich each other;
Problem of Practice is a persistent, contextualized, and specific issue embedded in the work of a professional practitioner; addressing the issue has the potential to result in improved understanding, experience, and outcomes; and
Dissertation in Practice is a scholarly endeavor that impacts a complex problem of practice. (“Design Concept Definitions,” n.d., para. 2-6)
CPED DESIGN CONCEPTS
In 2012, faculty and Fellows from CPED Consortium member institutions engaged in a mixed-methods, multi-case study of work at 21 of the 25 original CPED member institutions
Focus of the study was to explore the experiences of the institutions in the design/redesign process of their CPED-influenced education doctorate
Cross-case analysis of institutional experiences were used to identify strategies used for organizational change
BACKGROUND TO STUDY
Change can be defined as simply “the introduction of something new to an organization” (Bess & Dee, 2008, p. 796)
According to Keller (1983), higher education institutions are known to change incrementally and adapt in an unplanned way Incremental change is unlikely to address societal needs It is often not guided by a united vision Adaptations are often haphazard, inefficient, and may not
be responsive to institutional goals Often takes on the form of adding more responsibilities to
existing personnel, which place unreasonable burdens on those involved (e.g., faculty, staff, administration)
CHANGE IN HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONS
In order to redesign a degree program in higher education, faculty must be involved in the change process
Theories of change can be used to assess the change process when working with faculty Lewin’s (1951) force field analysis of change supports that
change resistance can be addressed when people understand and contrast the need for change and the forces that may lead them to resist change (restraining forces) and those that induce them to change (driving forces)
PROCESSES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Lewin’s process for managing change includes: Unfreezing – presenting information to organizational
members that supports change is needed Changing – create a change in the way people think –
want to create ownership in the change process Refreezing – stabilizing the new change into the
culture of the organization
PROCESSES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Results of this study implied that most of the study institutions utilized a planned approach to facilitating change, which is normally aligned with a top-down, centralized structure (Bess & Dee, 2008)
Planned change approach is normally driven by: Need to be responsive to external constituents Resources and time are limited Change initiative formulated by ambitious change
agent(e.g, College of Education Dean) with vision but executed by others who may not share vision/ambition (e.g., faculty)
Over time, change initiative will lose energy unless faculty and staff are involved in the development of the change
Communication and institutionalization of vision should be managed from the top for institution-wide change
PLANNED APPROACH TO FACILITATING CHANGE
At the study institutions, the vision to redesign the education doctorate was generated predominantly from administration Mainly through the College of Education Dean At some institutions, the change was demanded by the state or
University PresidentRedesign of the EdD need for multiple reasons
Institutions had a number of students who were ABD and who were not completing
Indistinguishable differences existed between the EdD and PhD within a program and/or college
Pressures from state leaders who saw other states developing EdD practitioner-based programs; and
Demands from the community/region/state for qualified educational leaders were increasing
SETTING THE VISION FOR CHANGE
Administration was instrumental in the planned change processes at the study institutions Driven by external demands Funding shortfalls
Principal Investigators (PI’s) for CPED project were identified at each institution Appointed by the Dean of the College Charged with leading the change processes to achieve
the visionGrassroots faculty were identified at some institutions
who believed in the vision and felt impelled to lead
CHANGE AGENTS
Committees, task forces, PI, and transparency through documentation was used to convey changes and the vision
Information was shared through university-wide communication systems, regular faculty meetings, and individual meetings
COMMUNICATING THE VISION FOR CHANGE
Change process was based on planned change model Charge from top-level administration that the deficiencies of
the education doctorate needed to be addressed Appointment of leadership to lead the change process and
carry out the vision At some institutions, faculty participation in the change
process was mandated; at others resistors to change were realigned to other foci areas
Development of human resources was conducted through sharing of CPED convening information, as well as CPED principles and design concepts; participation in curriculum development and teaching of courses and chairing dissertations
CHANGE PROCESS
Reinforcement of the vision was constant and continuous
Incentives were provided at some institutions to support change processes through opportunities to co-teach, course releases, and retreats
Constant dialog supported the forward progression of change
CHANGE PROCESS
Leadership Deans came and went Many individuals in the PI positions
Resources Lack of sufficient resources to support increased faculty
workloads due to design concepts of CPED-influenced EdD and the shortening of time to degree
Communications Often not at all levels of the organization Unclear and inconsistent
CHALLENGES TO CHANGE
Faculty Resistors who prevented forward progress in change
initiatives Concerns about working with the EdD and how it was
viewed in tenure and promotion Curriculum was in a constant state of flux and redesign Differing philosophies on what the education doctorate
should look and feel like
CHALLENGES TO CHANGE
Leadership PI should have the skills and abilities to collaborate and
communicate effectively Participate in CPED convenings and disseminating
information broadly Utilize faculty “champions” to lead initiatives Utilize work groups, task forces, and committees with
foci on specific components of the redesign effortsCommunications
Monthly meetings that provide structured agendas and clear communication of information consistently
STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME CHANGE CHALLENGES
Resources Allocation of resources to support co-teaching and
course releases Travel support to CPED convenings Support of retreats and other activities to support
redesign work and dialogFaculty
Resistance to change overcome by creating transparency through distribution of documentation; involvement in committees and leadership support
Mandated involvement of all faculty resulted in greater support at all levels
STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME CHANGE CHALLENGES
Bess, J. L., & Dee. J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice. Volume II - Dynamics of the system. Sterl ing, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Definit ion of and Working Principles for EdD Program Design. (n.d.). The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Retrieved from http://cpedinit iat ive.org/working-principles-professional-practice-doctorate-education
Design Concept Definit ions. (n.d.). The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Retrieved from http://cpedinit iat ive.org/design-concept-definit ions
Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in higher education . Balt imore: John Hopkins University Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science . New York: Harper & Row.
REFERENCES