Administrator Breakout Combined Numbered Packet

Action 1: Communicate and maintain a strong and clearly defined institutional commitment over time * Getting Started: Leaders identify need, make commitment, and prepare to engage stakeholders through a leadership team 001 * Ongoing until normative practice is established Continuous Improvement: Working groups and individuals follow evaluation and communications plans under oversight of leadership team Implementing: Working groups and individuals follow implementation plan under oversight of leadership team Action 10: Evaluate and improve over time * Action 9: Establish processes and structures for student enrollment Action 8: Design, staff, and schedule courses Action 7: Align math pathways to programs of study so that one clear and appropriate pathway is defined for each program Planning: Cross-functional leadership group Action 3: Plan for communication and engagement over time * collects and reviews data to define problem and Action 4: Gather and review information on current context establish goals Action 5: Define goals and vision Action 6: Create implementation plan Action 2: Establish and convene a leadership team * Essential Actions Stage of Implementation The Dana Center has identified ten Essential Actions for implementing high-quality mathematics pathways There are also additional steps that colleges and universities need to identify to ensure the best possible implementation and to address the specific needs of their students For a more in-depth discussion of implementation, see the New Mathways Project Implementation Guide on the Dana Center Mathematics Pathways Resource Site, http://www.dcmathpathways.org An Overview Institutional Implementation Process: 10/2016 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Action Over Time Do leaders continue to support and stay up-todate on implementation? Communicate institutional commitment 002 Establish implementation plan Understand current context Establish goals and vision Designed and scheduled courses Is the leadership team providing ongoing oversight? Is there wide understanding of and support for pathways? Is there capacity to sustain the work? Was plan implemented with fidelity? Are goals and vision still appropriate? Does new information require any changes? Do all programs have an appropriate default pathway defined? Have major transfer issues been addressed? Are students learning? Are students succeeding? 10/2016 Are students enrolling in the right pathway? Is the project moving towards full scale? Establish process for student enrollment Align pathways, initial work; identify current state and easy wins Action 9 Enroll students Action 8 Offer Courses Action 7 Align Pathways Initial Offering of Courses Revise, update communication and engagement plan Establish initial communication and engagement plan Actions 4–6 Create the Plan Action 10: Evaluate and Improve Review data, revise, improve across all strands of implementation Establish leadership team to manage implementation Action 3 Action 1 Action 2 Communication Institutional Leadership and Leadership Team Engagement Essential Actions May Overlap in Time Institutional Implementation Process: An Overview CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Clearly define charge, roles, and responsibilities Action 2: Establish and convene a leadership team Ongoing until normative practice is established Organize a well-functioning leadership team, which includes representatives from key stakeholder groups, that engages in the planning process, oversees implementation, and evaluates progress over time Action 1: Communicate and maintain a strong and clearly defined institutional commitment over time Ongoing until normative practice is established Institutional leaders (including the president, provost, vice-presidents, and deans) communicate a clear and consistent message about how math pathways connect to institutional mission, keep updated on progress, and provide needed supports Essential Actions 003 Action 3: Plan for communication and engagement over time Ongoing until normative practice is established Cross-functional Plan for evolving communication and engagement needs over time to: leadership group collects and • Gather input to improve implementation and quality reviews data to • Build deep understanding of and support for mathematics pathways define problem and • Build capacity for implementing and sustaining the pathways over time establish goals • Build depth of leadership across multiple stakeholder groups Planning: Leaders identify need, make commitment and prepare to engage stakeholders through a leadership group Getting Started: Stage of Implementation Implementation Process: Expanded detail on Essential Actions Institutional Implementation Process: An Overview 10/2016 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 004 Planning (cont’d) Stage of Implementation Action 7: Align math pathways to programs of study so that one clear and appropriate pathway is defined for each program Map all programs of study to a single default map requirement that identifies clear and predictable transfer and applicability of math courses This process is likely to take time to fully implement pathways For initial implementation, identify programs that are already appropriately aligned or those that are likely to be changed easily Create an evaluation plan Create a high-level strategic plan to meet the scaling goals Create a more detailed action plan for the first year of implementation Action 6: Create implementation plan Identify the course structures that will allow underprepared students to move to and through gateway courses as quickly as possible Identify faculty and staff needs to prepare for implementation Action 5: Define goals and vision Determine which pathways are needed Define goals for scaling that result in normative practice Action 4: Gather and review information on current context Gather information to define the problem: • Institutional student data at both the gateway and developmental levels • Any enabling or limiting structures state policies • Mathematical needs of programs and students • External information including research, effective practices, and advice from experts and other practitioners Essential Actions Institutional Implementation Process: An Overview 10/2016 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 005 Action 10: Evaluate and improve over time Ongoing until normative practice is established Use data to build institutional momentum, coordinate student success agenda projects, and support continuous improvement through an evaluation plan Continuous Improvement: Working groups and appropriate personnel engage in Essential Actions outlined in the evaluation and communications plans under the oversight of leadership group Create student-friendly materials that explain each pathway, its relevance to student’s career and life needs, and the institution’s course offerings Action 9: Establish processes and structures for student enrollment Ensure appropriate, transparent advising structures and practices that help students identify appropriate pathway Eliminate ambiguity in choices Ensure adequate faculty capacity and professional learning Align support services to actively support students as learners Use backwards mapping to define needs of underprepared students Action 8: Design, staff, and schedule courses Design gateway courses: Establish learning outcomes; make pedagogical and curricular decisions Essential Actions Working groups and appropriate personnel engage in Essential Actions outlined in the implementation plan under oversight of leadership group Implementing: Stage of Implementation Institutional Implementation Process: An Overview 10/2016 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 006 007 Activity 2: Establish and convene a leadership team Ongoing until normative practice is established • • • • • There is a strong and clearly • defined institutional commitment Ongoing until • normative practice is • established • Activity 1: Self-Assessment A leadership team with active involvement from representatives of diverse stakeholders (e.g., faculty, staff, administration) is established with a clear charge and defined roles and responsibilities Team meets regularly, and has a timeline and an action plan Team has effective processes for monitoring progress and documenting decisions As implementation progresses, team evaluates for quality and for success in meeting goals for scale, and revises and refines plans based on the evaluation Next steps: Description of current status: Rating on a scale of 1 to 5: Rating on a scale of 1 to 5: Top administrative leaders (president, provost, vice presidents, and deans, etc.) have a full understanding of Description of current status: and are committed to math pathways at scale Leaders have integrated math pathways into the vision and strategic plan of the institution The work is explicitly connected to other student success initiatives Leaders consistently communicate the commitment to the full institutional community Next steps: The institutional community understands and embraces this commitment Leaders actively and regularly monitor progress towards goals, provide guidance and support when necessary, and provide resources to support implementation A “5” looks like Activity Getting Started Implementation Process Self-Assessment: 10/2016 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 008 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Created by Tamela D Randolph, Southeast Missouri State University Page 1 (Insert University’s Name) (Insert Date) Course Redesign Planning Session Where Are You Now? Thoughts Questions Notes • Why do you want to go to a co-requisite model in mathematics? • What do you hope to accomplish with corequisite courses? • What are the strengths and weaknesses of your current mathematics program? • What additional pathways might you need? • What is the timeline for accomplishing this redesign with co-requisite courses? • 009 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Created by Tamela D Randolph, Southeast Missouri State University Page 2 Current Courses Questions Notes • Which courses might be involved in the redesign? Include their pre-requisites • What is the structure of current schedule (credit hours of each course, meeting times per week, days of the week, etc.)? • How many sections do you currently have of each course? • What is the annual student enrollment in each course? • What support materials are used for each course (textbooks, websites, LMS, technology, etc.)? • What is the delivery format for each course (ITV, webinar, F2F, etc.)? • 010 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 and uncertainties One key vehicle is the newly created GRLeadership Academy, which provides training in management and leadership skills, including a significant focus on both internal and external communications We often believe it is somebody else’s responsibility to provide us Employing Those Same Middle Managers to Gather Feedback, Comments, and Concerns for Consideration in Future Decisions A “cascading communications” process is under development that assigns specific responsibilities and defines communication channels between mid-level managers and their employees One explicit management responsibility is to gather feedback from employees on upcoming issues, proposed changes, and related topics of concern Identifying and training “administrative ambassadors” within each department—essentially rank-and-file staff—will assist middle management in doing this with the information we need, rather than our responsibility to stay informed middle management that is not fully engaged in and trained for the communication process can derail any transformation efforts We Don’t Believe We Have Been Communicated With Academics are generally talented and trained skeptics, striving to uncover the underlying complexity of things, even when there is none After all, sometimes a rose is, in fact, a rose As a result, we often believe there must be more to what is going on: deep and covert operations to which we are not privy And human nature, focused as it is on survival, tends to look for the negative (i.e., danger) rather than the positive in the messages we hear Add to this many faculty’s intrinsic distrust of administration, and the result is that we often don’t trust even the communications that we receive Instituting Methods for Soliciting Faculty and Staff Contributions to the Decision-Making Process Examples include town-hall-style meetings with opportunities for people to ask questions or make suggestions, submitted anonymously ahead of time or asked during the meeting We have other mechanisms for faculty, staff and students to submit questions or suggestions as well—e.g., an “ask the provost” opportunity on our website and an option to submit questions to our weekly on-campus newsletter, GReport In this way, they are able not only to provide input to decisions as they are being discussed but also to raise issues for future consideration Such faculty and staff engagement results in better choices and people who are less anxious and more supportive when changes are announced I’ll offer one example of successful and effective bidirectional communication in a decision-making process early We Believe Someone Else Should Keep Us Informed We often believe it is somebody else’s responsibility to provide us with the information we need, rather than our responsibility to stay informed Thus when we learn something we did not know, we are surprised and bothered: “Where was the person who’s in charge of keeping me posted?” We tend not to look to the most important person in the communication process—ourselves At GRU, understanding why communication is so poor within academia and within our own institution has helped us develop better communication strategies We have made great strides in some areas, while in others, processes are still being developed and tested They include: One explicit management Systematically Training Middle Administrators to Proactively and Effectively Deliver Key Information For reasons explained above, we knew that middle managers were key sources of information for their employees and that we needed to provide them with the tools to inform their constituents about institution-wide priorities, challenges, upcoming issues, proposed 34 responsibility is to gather feedback from employees on changes, and related topics of concern 020 #HANGEs-ARCH!PRIL CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 in our 2013 consolidation In merging the two institutions, senior administrators and academic leaders wanted to create a unified faculty One way to that was through standardizing the means of communication Faculty on one campus relied heavily on the use of a listserv, especially for internal communications among faculty, while faculty on the other did not Administrators proposed eliminating the use of the listserv for internal communications Faculty members who were used to that mode of communication voiced their concerns, so we conducted several meetings that included individual faculty members, faculty senate representatives, and senior leadership The result is an all-faculty listserv with opt-out capability It is not used as an “official” means of communicating university business but as a tool for individual faculty to use in communicating with colleagues Messages must be clear, succinct, and easily understandable All leadership units should be aligned on the message—and on their responsibility to deliver it municate the message—certainly not in the transforming environment Understanding the “20-60-20” Rule In any transformation, generally 20 percent of the community will readily embrace the new vision, 60 percent will take a “wait-and-see” position, and 20 percent will vehemently oppose it We often focus considerable effort on trying to bring the opposing 20 percent along, expending a lot of energy and losing significant traction with little to show but frustration Better to focus resources and attention on the undecided 60 percent, while leveraging the help of the 20 percent who fully embrace the vision Developing Tools to Measure the Effectiveness of Communication We are developing and implementing periodic surveys to measure the effectiveness of our communication efforts The data gleaned will allow us to identify and gauge the degree of problems, prioritize resources, and develop targeted approaches to challenges Ensuring Both Uniformity of Messaging and Diversity of Communication Modalities Messages must be clear, succinct, and easily understandable All leadership units should be aligned on the message—and on their responsibility to deliver it A strategic communications plan for emerging issues can help It might include preparing message points and distributing them to credible messengers and leaders, identifying a spokesperson to share information with the media when appropriate, and developing FAQs targeted to specific audiences Messages should be delivered in multiple ways—e.g., the same message might be posted on the website, e-mailed, and tweeted Start Communicating as Early as Possible We should not wait for a major change or a crisis to communicate, because by then it may be too late We should ensure that effective, robust, and diverse communication modalities are in place, leaders are trained, and staff and faculty are primed—starting now Greater attention and respect for the value, means, and measurement of communication will help ensure that when broad-based transformation is needed in academe (as it surely will be for many of us), the university community can respond rapidly and effectively C Engaging Faculty and Staff to Help Determine the Optimum Modalities to Effectively Reach Them We conducted surveys asking employees how they prefer to receive communications, then used the results to develop a mix of email, social media, video, letters, etc One size does not fit all In addition, we offer town hall meetings or small-group listening sessions with the president at varying times, including at night or early in the morning to ensure that interested shift employees can participate Assuming that One Cannot Over-Communicate While we can overuse a modality (e.g., stuffing inboxes with repetitive and ignored emails), we cannot over-com- WWWCHANGEMAGORG 021 35 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 022 023 What do they need to know? Tailor the information to the audience When do they need to know it? How do they get information? Are there existing venues or platforms (e.g., events, newsletters, blogs) that reach the target audience(s)? How can people engage with the information? • • • • Instructions: Identify 1-3 communications goals for this period Record these goals in the tables starting on page 2 Complete the table for each goal to create a plan When you have completed your plans for each goal, add the action steps to your 2-Month Timeline Period for this plan: _ Who needs to know? Consider different stakeholder groups • Use this template to facilitate and document a discussion to build a communication and engagement plan Consider the following questions: Instructions: Developing an effective communication and engagement plan not only involves communicating information to stakeholders, but it also includes finding meaningful ways to engage them Engagement allows people to interact with information and, potentially, provide input It also creates interest and a sense of ownership Opportunities for engagement should be planned strategically at appropriate times for appropriate audiences Purpose: This template is designed to help develop a strategic plan for communication and engagement with diverse stakeholder groups Communication and Engagement Plan 05/2017 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 024 Audience Goal 3 Audience Goal 2 Audience Goal 1 Activity or Product Activity or Product Activity or Product Delivery Method & Frequency Delivery Method & Frequency Delivery Method & Frequency Who’s Responsible Who’s Responsible Who’s Responsible Deadline Deadline Deadline Communication and Engagement Plan 05/2017 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Missouri Completion Action Plan Gateway Course Success: Scaling Corequisite MATH What Who When IR request and identify benchmark comparisons – Develop research questions and identify what is “success” EMSS/DoS, IR, and Math – IR complete research September 2013 Dean shares with math faculty, executive staff, and chairs – Invite Loretta to campus to help share concepts Dean COSTA November 2013 Research other courses that could be in place of college algebra Search peer (website) institutions for examples of other courses, possible follow up via phone as needed Dean COSTA & Math Chair October 2013 Define and explain concept to stakeholders (internal vs external), academic departments, advisers, community college partners Conversation with Deans and Executive Staff, Dean COSTA VP EMSS/DoS October 2013 Inventory math requirements by major Review bulletin and look program by program Registrar & VP EMSS/DoS October 2013 Meet with other departments to discuss alternatives to college algebra Meet with department who have questions if MA134 is needed Math faculty & Dean from delegation November 2013– January 2014 Identify tool to use predictive matrix to guide advising Q squared process to establish research questions for use of predictive modeling M Tapp & Co-Chair (Dean) Recommendation by Feb 14 Review math requirement for graduation Ask Dean’s Council & Academic Council Review Dean COSTA McGowan February – May 14 Department develop implementation plan Course approval and implementation COSTA Dean & Chairperson Jan 2015 Develop research and data to support a redesign of math courses Develop research questions and identity what is “success” Get Math faculty, executive staff, and Chairs buy in How V2 Page of 025 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Missouri Completion Action Plan Gateway Course Success: Scaling Corequisite ENGLISH What How Who When Personal discussion with chair or leader of composition program (Missy Phegley) Meet with stakeholders, chairs, comp Director, Frank (COLA Dean) Dean COSTA & Chairperson Bowen October 13 Meet with English Faculty Sharing of concepts in series of meetings with faculty and other stakeholders Dean COSTA & Chairperson Bowen, COLA Dean October 13 Set success data for ELA and research examples Ask Mike for recommendations November 13 Data analysis EMSS/IR/English draft research questions, IR runs analysis Composition Director & COLA Dean EMSS, IR, and English Department develop implementation plan Comp Director & Chairperson COLA Dean & Chairperson Jan 2015 September & October 2013 V2 Page of 026 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Missouri Completion Action Plan Time and Intensity: 15 to Finish What How Who When University President sets credit hours completion goal in place of retention goal MCA committee meets with Executive Staff and reports out on CCA MCA committee September 13 Examine and reconsider First Step orientation MCA committee meets with Orientation Coordination Committee (OCC) Katie K, Admissions & Orientation Coordination Committee September 13 Explore developing a consistent AAC meets to review current campus wide advising model for process and first year advising all first year students model Michele Tapp November 13 Define capabilities of DegreeWorks Meet with Northwest Missouri State on best practice Registrar Spring 14 Train MCA team on DegreeWorks Arrange training Registrar November 13 Develop UI100 meta majors After meta majors are created, create UI100 classes that are centered on meta majors University Studies & UI100 Committee Fall 2014 V2 Page of 027 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Missouri Completion Action Plan Guided Pathways to Success (GPS) DEGREE MAPS What How Who When Define primary users of plan and explain concept to stakeholders SEM Committee defines users and stakeholders for degree maps VP EMSS/DoS September 14 Develop system for regular updating maps SEM Committee and Dean’s Council Provost & VP EMSS/DoS October 13 Agree on definition and format for degree maps Share format, as being developed, to rest of campus VP EMSS/DoS September 13 Collect course information for maps Ask professional advisers for content to be put into maps Registrar November 13 Define policy and procedure for degree maps, including where it is shown, where on web, and what items are shown in the map (WP003, CL001, etc) Ad hoc Committee of the Academic Advising team will meet to create the details Registrar & M December 13 Tapp Co-Chairs Develop years plans for all academic majors, publications, not academic program Marketing staff create documents Registrar January 14 Define and identify milestone courses Departments review courses within programs to determine milestone courses Develop meta majors and the reasoning behind these, including common pathways for majors within a college Department Chairs March 14 Dean Council May 14 Developing marketing plan to promote degree maps Identify process and timeline for having students into meta majors, including NSP, Admissions, etc Registrar December 13 Organize Meta Majors Marketing of degree plans Force students to into meta majors Require students to update years plans in DegreeWorks ??? Fall 15 ??? Fall 15 V2 Page of 028 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Missouri Completion Action Plan Acceleration &Block Scheduling What Consider specific applications for block scheduling a chance, identify programs, locations, and demographics that could be blocked complete a regression analysis on undecided students and colleges How Q squared project Who Below & Ball When Begin September 14 V2 Page of 029 ep CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 Missouri Completion Action Plan Date Gateway Course Success: Scaling Corequisite Time & Intensity: 15 to Finish Guided Pathways to Success (GPS) GuiGui Block Scheduling Conditions For Change: Metrics & Aligned Resources Sept ‘13 Oct F Mar Ap A Oct ‘13 Nov ‘13 Dec ‘13 Jan ‘14 Feb ‘14 Mar ‘14 Apr ‘14 May ‘14 Jun ‘14 Jul ‘14 Aug ‘14 V2 Page of 030 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 NSIDE A publication of the Scaling Innovation project Faculty Orientations Toward Instructional Reform Some of the most promising developmental education innovations require that instructors significantly change their classroom practice For example, instructors may be asked to teach to a more heterogeneous group of students, prepare students for statistics rather than algebra, or attend more explicitly to students’ nonacademic needs Responsibility for cultivating such behavioral change usually falls on the leaders who are working to launch or scale a new approach to teaching and learning Reform leaders often report that generating and sustaining change in classroom practice requires buy-in from faculty, and that obtaining buy-in is one of the most challenging aspects of reform implementation Regardless of whether a college is launching a homegrown pilot or adopting a state-mandated policy at full scale, bringing colleagues on board and supporting them during the change process is essential to the success of an initiative Without faculty members’ willingness and ability to reflect on their classroom practice and tailor their teaching strategies to a new curriculum or course structure, any effort at instructional improvement is vulnerable to lackluster implementation and possible derailment Facilitating the reform process involves both convincing faculty members and other stakeholders that the innovation is legitimate and worthwhile and providing resources to bolster their confidence and success in carrying out the reform Over the course of the Scaling Innovation project,1 we have conducted interviews with developmental education instructors and faculty leaders We have identified among this group three orientations toward reform that consistently manifest when an innovation is introduced, regardless of its type: ready to act, ambivalent, and reluctant to change In order to effectively engage all stakeholders in the process of reform, it is critical that leaders understand the perspectives that inform each of these three orientations This issue of Inside Out delves into these broad categories to examine the diversity of perspectives within each and the implications for faculty members’ investment in instructional reform Three Orientations Toward Instructional Reform When a new instructional reform is introduced, faculty members’ perspectives toward participation can be broadly grouped into three categories (see figure on p 2) These orientations are both fluid (subject to change over time) and contextual (formulated in reaction to the specific proposed reform) In this section, we describe these orientations, the variation within each category, and the factors that shape these perspectives The first category, those who are ready to act, is comprised of the faculty members who are most likely to play a role in launching or leading the reform in its early stages However, while they may share a willingness to be early adopters, individuals in this group bring differing levels of knowledge, experience, and confidence to the reform Some faculty are ready to act because the proposed reform aligns with their teaching philosophy The approach to teaching embodied in the reform may resemble their current classroom practice In other cases, the instructor may wholeheartedly embrace the philosophy but need significant support to successfully enact the reform For example, many early adopters of integrated reading and writing courses reported uncertainty about how to address sentence-level skills during the comparatively limited class time As one instructor said, “I’m no longer using [grammar] worksheets, but I’m perplexed on how to deal with grammar in this class.” A third group of early adopters might opt to participate in the reform for reasons that are unconnected to the reform principles For example, several early adopt- Issue 031 ICON - 4” CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 ers of an innovation that reduced class size reported that they point, “I wasn’t ready to hear it.” Prior to this self-described were attracted to the reform because of the perceived benefit transformative moment, he was teaching the course but relyto their work life rather than because of a strong belief in the ing primarily on lecture rather than using the recommended pedagogical strategies reform’s theory of action The final group in our typology is comprised of those The second category includes those faculty members who are ambivalent toward reform This orientation is common who are reluctant to change Individuals with this orientation when a reform is introduced Faculty who are ambivalent are differ from their ambivalent colleagues in their active resisneither active proponents nor opponents of the reform While tance to the reform Reform leaders often spend significant their lack of enthusiasm might be perceived as apathy, we find energy responding to this group, which at many campuses is that their ambivalence stems from various sources and may characterized as “a vocal minority.” It is sometimes assumed not reflect a lack of commitment to instructional improvement that faculty in this group are resistant to any form of change Some ambivalent faculty may in fact be highly motivated While this may be true occasionally, our data suggest more to improve student success but may participate in other profes- complex factors are almost always in play The rationale for reluctance may stem from satisfaction sional activities that demand a significant portion of their time They may be experimenting with alternative instructional ap- with the status quo or skepticism about the necessity for improaches or leading other campus initiatives Their lack of provement In developmental education, this may mean a participation in the new reform reflects different professional lack of awareness of prevailing poor outcomes of students in priorities rather than a negative opinion of the reform Others, aggregate For example, an instructor may see no need for such as adjuncts, may find that their work lives are not condu- change if he or she is focused only on pass rates for indicive to participating in a change effort and thus may be unable vidual courses and is unaware of low rates of persistence to the college-level course.2 On the other hand, some faculty are to dedicate time and energy to adopt a new approach A second group of ambivalent stakeholders is awaiting evi- aware of the magnitude of the problem but feel that student dence of the reform’s effectiveness and is likely to buy in once outcomes are largely beyond their control They may locate positive outcomes have been established Some individuals “the problem” within the student, abdicate responsibility for may want to view data on course pass rates and student perfor- improvement, and perceive change efforts as futile Others mance in subsequent courses before participating in a reform may support reforms to academic or student services but reAlternatively, an instructor may be uncertain of his or her sist changes in the classroom Alternatively, some reluctant faculty believe that instrucown ability to improve outcomes for students using the approach This was the case for one instructor considering par- tional change is warranted but remain unconvinced that the ticipating in a new pre-statistics course that includes group chosen approach will be effective Unlike their colleagues problem-solving as part of the instructional model As he ex- who are awaiting further data, reluctant stakeholders have plained, “I’m not sure I have the disposition for all that group fundamental questions about the reform’s ability to meet stuwork I’m not a group work Faculty Orientations Toward Reform kind of guy.” Even those who are participating in the reform Ready to Act Ambivalent Reluctant to Change can display this type of ambivalence, often to the detriment Teaching philosophy Engaged with other Satisfied with of implementation For examaligned with reform professional priorities status quo philosophy ple, a faculty member reported that it was only after teaching for three semesters in a math Unconvinced of Willing to change, Awaiting evidence class redesigned to be studentreform effectivensss but in need of support on effectiveness centered and participating in an in-depth professional development opportunity that Participation not Uncertain about own Discomfort with he really “got” the theory of related to reform ability to change reform approach philosophy action behind the reform He explained that up until that February 2014 032 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 dent needs For example, many stakeholders who expressed resistance to the implementation of a pre-statistics pathway reported a deeply held belief that students need to learn algebra content to develop their mathematical thinking skills Similarly, some individuals who objected to reforms that employ a student-led instructional approach stated their concerns that students would struggle and perform poorly without direct instruction Many who oppose reforms that accelerate students’ progress through developmental education are convinced that students need more instructional time to be successful An additional source of reluctance can often be traced to faculty members’ discomfort with the reform approach—for instance, due to beliefs about instructor and student roles in the classroom If instructors understand their responsibilities as delivering knowledge for student consumption, reforms that ask them to facilitate student discovery or attend to students’ nonacademic needs will seem incompatible with their role Likewise, if stakeholders have doubts that students will be able to take on new roles and responsibilities, they may object to a reform for fear it will harm students It is important to note that orientations toward reform are not inherent to the individual but formulated in reaction to specifics of the proposed change For example, a faculty member at a college reforming its developmental reading and English sequence was reluctant to eliminate levels of developmental coursework because she was unconvinced that that students could be prepared for college-level English in one semester However, she was extremely enthusiastic about integrating formerly separate reading and writing courses because it aligned with her teaching philosophy Faculty orientations toward reform are contextual; if they see a likely payoff to the proposed change and feel supported in adopting the approach, even the most reluctant faculty members can become ready to act Moving From Reluctant to Ready On the surface, ambivalence and reluctance can appear as apathy and obstructionism; however, our data suggest that faculty largely have rational and legitimate reactions to reform If reform leaders understand more about their colleagues’ orientations toward proposed changes, they will be in a better position to provide information, activities, and supports to increase the numbers of faculty who are ready and prepared to make changes in the classroom Most of the varied perspectives from ambivalent and reluctant faculty can be grouped into two broad concerns: (1) faculty are unconvinced that the reform will be effective, and (2) faculty are uncertain whether they could successfully February 2014 implement the approach To address these concerns, reform leaders must make clear what the reform is designed to and how it can be implemented in the classroom To convey the what, reform leaders may need to make the case for change using data on the problem the reform is designed to address; clearly explain the reform’s theory of action; and present an array of evidence on the efficacy of the approach, ranging from course pass rates and persistence rates to assessment results and examples of student work To demonstrate the how, leaders can provide a concrete picture of implementation through videos of classroom practice, demonstration lessons, and sample course materials Reform leaders in the Scaling Innovation project listened carefully to uncover the source of faculty hesitation and provided targeted supports to move their colleagues from reluctance to readiness For example, to counter critiques that particular teaching styles (such as “project-based learning” or “the discovery approach”) would be too challenging to implement in the developmental education context, reform leaders used videos of classrooms, curricular examples, and samples of student work to create what they called “a vision of the possible.” It was important for this vision to be considered achievable by the faculty participants Reform leaders were often regarded by their colleagues as exemplary, contributing to an assumption that “average” instructors could not successfully implement the approach In response, faculty leaders intentionally selected video clips from both novice and experienced teachers and structured conversations to highlight the strengths of each Sharing testimonials from instructors who were initially reluctant—for example, because they were resistant to addressing students’ nonacademic needs or giving up lecture-based pedagogy—was an important strategy for surfacing faculty assumptions and beliefs about teaching and student learning and for modeling how beliefs can change through engagement Beyond concerns about reform effectiveness and individual uncertainties about changing classroom practice, institutional factors also play an important role in promoting readiness Faculty in departments with a history of adopting and then abandoning reforms may be reluctant to buy into what they see as the latest fad Departments with strong cultures of collaboration and experimentation may have more individuals who are ready to act Many faculty rightly observe that teaching in a new course takes time, effort, and energy they not have, given their heavy teaching loads and other professional responsibilities Departments and colleges can create the conditions to increase buy-in by providing instructors the time they need to learn about, prepare for, 033 CSU Math Co-req Summit August 2017 and reflect on teaching a new course This might be achieved through course released time, monetary incentives, or structured opportunities to focus on teaching in the reform in the context of regular work duties (e.g., department meetings) The array of perspectives in the typology presented above suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach to orienting faculty to reform or providing professional development is insufficient to achieve widespread buy-in In practice, this means that leaders need time to meet with faculty to hear their perspectives and concerns throughout the reform planning, implementation, and refinement processes Once leaders have heard from their colleagues, they can develop learning and support structures that are varied and address the dominant orientations toward reform and their underlying causes Data we collected in interviews indicate that inquiry groups, curriculum development or improvement teams, course steering committees, and other structures that allow for conversations that are grounded in the specifics of teaching and sustained over time are valuable in helping faculty gain confidence and proficiency with the new approach.3 Reform leaders also leveraged electronic resources to catalogue basic information about the reform (e.g., outcome data, curricular resources, videos, and orientation materials) new approaches are well positioned to strategically allocate engagement resources and attend to the needs of faculty as they change over time Endnotes Scaling Innovation team (2012) Doing developmental education differently Inside Out, 1(1) Retrieved from http://www.scalinginnovation.org /doing-developmental-education-differently/ Hern, K (with Snell, M.) (2010) Exponential attrition and the promise of acceleration in developmental English and math Perspectives, June/July Retrieved from http://www.rpgroup.org/sites/default/files /Hern%20Exponential%20Attrition.pdf For more information about the limitations of one-time training sessions and the promise of long-term engagement structures such as inquiry groups, see Bickerstaff, S., Edgecombe, N., & the Scaling Innovation team (2012) Pathways to faculty learning and pedagogical improvement Inside Out, 1(3) Retrieved from http://www.scalinginnovation.org /pathways-to-faculty-learning-and-pedagogical-improvement/ This issue of Inside Out was written by Susan Bickerstaff and the Scaling Innovation team Moving Beyond Ready Once a faculty member is ready to act, he or she no longer needs to be convinced to participate but may still need support to ensure optimal implementation Thus, faculty engagement activities must go beyond simply broadening participation and also strive to deepen it—helping faculty stay invested and facilitating pedagogical improvement to maximize improvements to student outcomes Reform refinement activities (including the collaborative reviewing of data for the purposes of improvement) can provide a powerful venue to deepen engagement, as can professional learning activities that are explicitly tied to faculty members’ everyday experiences in classrooms and that are seamlessly integrated into their work responsibilities Institutional leaders and professional developers who can identify those of their faculty members who are ready to interrogate their own practice, those who are ambivalent, and those who are reluctant to experiment with Scaling Innovation is a project of the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University Funding for this project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation We invite you to join the discussion For updates on Scaling Innovation, follow CCRC on Twitter and Facebook through our website: www.scalinginnovation.org February 2014 034 ... academia has experienced change incrementally rather than through comprehensive transformation Combined with the segmented nature of universities (departments and colleges, laboratories and institutes,... being developed and tested They include: One explicit management Systematically Training Middle Administrators to Proactively and Effectively Deliver Key Information For reasons explained above,... Math Co-req Summit August 2017 in our 2013 consolidation In merging the two institutions, senior administrators and academic leaders wanted to create a unified faculty One way to that was through