Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Multi-Institutional STEM Reform Networks on Member Institutions: A Case Study of CIRTL

  • Published:
Innovative Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multi-institutional networks have become an increasingly common change mechanism in higher education, especially in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education reform. However, little is known about the impact of such networks on participating institutions. This study examined one network, the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL), to understand the multi-level impact of network membership on participating campuses. Framed by CIRTL’s mission to prepare future STEM faculty, results showed that the Network provided four major benefits for member institutions, which were translated and used to expand and modify local teaching professional development programs, subsequently impacting program participants and campus perceptions of graduate student professional development.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Council on Education (2018). ACE Women’s network. Retrieved from the ACE website: http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/ACE-Womens-Network.aspx

  • Austin, A. E. (2011). Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education: A paper commissioned by the National Academies National Research Council Board on science education. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (Eds.) (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organizational Science, 2, 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7293-1.50010-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (2017). About CIRTL. Retrieved from the CIRTL website: http://www.cirtl.net/About

  • Coalition for Reform of Undergraduate STEM Education. (2014). Achieving systemic change: A sourcebook for advancing and funding undergraduate STEM education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50005-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, P. L. (2010). Special issue: Partnerships and collaborations in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36, 1–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elrod, S., & Kezar, A. (2016). Increasing student success in STEM: A guide to systemic institutional change. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. (2009). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Washington, DC: Board of Science Education, National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2016). STEM reform outcomes through communities of transformation. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2016.1121084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332, 1213–1216. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. (2014). Higher education change and social networks: A review of research. The Journal of Higher Education, 85, 91–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A., & Gehrke, S. (2017). Sustaining communities of practice focused on STEM reform. Journal of Higher Education, 88, 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1271694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 621–643. https://doi.org/10.5465/256961

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., & Sparks, J. (1998). The interorganizational learning dilemma: Collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9, 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003691287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malcom, S., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2016). Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees: Systemic change to support students’ diverse pathways. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7222-1.50009-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Network of STEM Education Centers (2017). The network. Retrieved from the NSEC website: https://serc.carleton.edu/StemEdCenters/network.html

  • Pfund, C., Mathieu, R., Austin, A., Connolly, M., Manske, B., & Moore, K. (2012). Advancing STEM undergraduate learning: Preparing the nation's future faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.728957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

  • Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibility (2016–2017). About us—SENCER. Retrieved from the SENCER website: http://sencer.net/about-us/

  • Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–128). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, United Kingdom. Oxford University Press.

  • Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 289–305. https://doi.org/10.5465/255842

    Google Scholar 

  • University Innovation Alliance (2018). Who we are. Retrieved from the University Innovation Alliance website, http://www.theuia.org/

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1231286. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 566 Educational Sciences Bldg., 1025 W. Johnson St, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Lucas B. Hill, Julia N. Savoy & Bipana Bantawa

  2. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Ann E. Austin

Authors
  1. Lucas B. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia N. Savoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ann E. Austin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bipana Bantawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucas B. Hill.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Some of the material and data in this article was first presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, 2016.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hill, L.B., Savoy, J.N., Austin, A.E. et al. The Impact of Multi-Institutional STEM Reform Networks on Member Institutions: A Case Study of CIRTL. Innov High Educ 44, 187–202 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9461-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9461-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation