Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 418–437 | Cite as

Analysis of Propagation Plans in NSF-Funded Education Development Projects

  • Courtney Stanford
  • Renee Cole
  • Jeff Froyd
  • Charles Henderson
  • Debra Friedrichsen
  • Raina Khatri
Article

Abstract

Increasing adoption and adaptation of promising instructional strategies and materials has been identified as a critical component needed to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This paper examines typical propagation practices and resulting outcomes of proposals written by developers of educational innovations. These proposals were analyzed using the Designing for Sustained Adoption Assessment Instrument (DSAAI), an instrument developed to evaluate propagation plans, and the results used to predict the likelihood that a successful project would result in adoption by others. We found that few education developers propose strong propagation plans. Afterwards, a follow-up analysis was conducted to see which propagation strategies developers actually used to help develop, disseminate, and support their innovations. A web search and interviews with principal investigators were used to determine the degree to which propagation plans were actually implemented and to estimate adoption of the innovations. In this study, we analyzed 71 education development proposals funded by the National Science Foundation and predicted that 80% would be unsuccessful in propagating their innovations. Follow-up data collection with a subset of these suggests that the predictions were reasonably accurate.

Keywords

Effective propagation strategies Educational innovations Proposal writing Diffusion Transfer of innovation Broader impacts Dissemination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant nos.1122446, 1122416, and 1236926. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We are grateful for the contributions of PIs who have allowed us to analyze their proposals and members of the STEM education community for sharing their knowledge of well-propagated innovations.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Permissions

In this article, Table 2 has been published in a previous journal article by the authors. This table is printed in Stanford, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J. E., Friedrichsen, D., Khatri, R., & Henderson, C. Supporting sustained adoption of education innovations: The Designing for Sustained Adoption Assessment Instrument. International Journal of STEM Education. (2016). This is an open access journal where the copyright is retained by the authors. In the article, we have cited it accordingly as a reprint and have referenced where the original publication can be found.

References

  1. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation: STEM Higher Education (2016). http://www.sloan.org/major-program-areas/stem-higher-education/the-science-of-learning-stem. Accessed 11 April 2016
  2. Australian Learning and Teaching Council (2008) The ALTC dissemination framework. Retrieved from http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/161519/dissemination_altcframework_2008.pdf. Accessed February 2017
  3. Beach AL, Henderson C, Finkelstein N (2012) Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM education. Change 44(6):52–59. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2012.728955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borrego M, Henderson C (2014) Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: a comparison of eight change strategies. J Eng Educ 103(2):220–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borrego M, Froyd JE, Hall TS (2010) Diffusion of engineering education innovations: a survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. J Eng Educ 99(3):185–207. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01056.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourrie DM, Cegielski CG, Jones-Farmer LA, Sankar CS (2014) Identifying characteristics of dissemination success using an expert panel. Decis Sci J Innovat Educ 12(4):357–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brookhart SM, Chen F (2015) The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Edu Rev 67(3):343–368Google Scholar
  8. Dancy M, Henderson C (2010) Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. Am J Phys 78(10):1056–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fairweather J (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. In: Board of Science Education, National Research Council, & The National Academies (Eds.). Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Farquhar JD, Surry DW (1994) Adoption analysis: an additional tool for instructional developers. IETI 31(1):19–25Google Scholar
  11. Fishman B, Marx RW, Blumenfeld P, Krajcik J, Soloway E (2004) Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. J Learn Sci 13(1):43–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F (2005) Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, National Implementation Research Network, TampaGoogle Scholar
  13. Froyd JE (2001) Developing a dissemination plan. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, RenoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gannaway D, Hinton T, Berry B, Moore K (2013) Cultivating change: disseminating innovation in higher education teaching and learning. Innov Educ Teach Int 50(4):410–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghaith G, Yaghi H (1997) Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teach Teach Edu 13(4):451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hazen BT, Wu Y, Sankar CS (2012) Factors that influence dissemination in engineering education. IEEE Trans Educ 55(3):384–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson C (2008) Promoting instructional change in new faculty: an evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop. Am J Phys 76(2):176–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henderson C, Dancy MH (2007) Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: the influence of both individual and situational characteristics. PRST PER 3(2):020102Google Scholar
  19. Henderson C and Dancy M H (2011) Increasing the impact and diffusion of STEM education innovations, a white paper commissioned for the characterizing the impact and diffusion of engineering education innovations forumGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson C, Finkelstein N, Beach A (2010) Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: an introduction to four core change strategies. J Col Sci Teach 39(5):18–25Google Scholar
  21. Henderson C, Beach A, Finkelstein N (2011) Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature. J Res Sci Teach 48(8):952–984. doi: 10.1002/tea.20439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson C, Cole R, Froyd J and Khatri R (2012) Five claims about effective propagation, a white paper prepared for January 30–31, 2012 meetings with NSF TUES Program DirectorsGoogle Scholar
  23. Henderson C, Cole R, Froyd J, Gilbuena D, Khatri R, Stanford C (2015) Designing educational innovations for sustained adoption: a how-to guide for education developers who want to increase the impact of their work. Increase the Impact, KalamazooGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinton T, Gannaway D, Berry B, Moore K (2011) The D-cubed guide: planning for effective dissemination. Australian Teaching and Learning Council, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  25. Hora MT (2012) A situative analysis of the relationship between faculty beliefs and teaching practice: implications for instructional improvement at the postsecondary level. Wisconsin center for education research working paper no. 2012–10Google Scholar
  26. Hora MT, Anderson C (2012) Perceived norms for interactive teaching and their relationship to instructional decision-making: a mixed methods study. High Edu 64(4):573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. I-Corps for Learning (2016). https://www.asee.org/i-corps-l/about. Accessed 3 March 2016
  28. Jonsson A, Svingby G (2007) The use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ Res Rev 2(2):130–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kezar AJ (2012) The path to pedagogical reform in the sciences. Lib Educ 98(1):40–45Google Scholar
  30. Kezar AJ, Eckel PD (2002) The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? J High Educ 73(4):435–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khatri R, Henderson C, Cole R, Froyd JE, Friedrichsen D, Stanford C (2016) Designing for sustained adoption: a model of developing educational innovations for successful propagation. Physical Review Physics Education Research 12:010112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khatri R, Henderson C, Cole RS, Froyd J, Friedrichsen D, Stanford C (2017) Characteristics of well-propagated teaching innovations for undergraduate STEM disciplines. Int J of STEM Edu 4(2):1–10Google Scholar
  33. King H (2003) Disseminating educational developments. In: Kahn P, Baume D (eds) A guide to staff and educational development. Kogan Page, London, pp 96–115Google Scholar
  34. Lattuca LR (2011) Influences on engineering faculty members’ decisions about educational innovations: a systems view of curricular and instructional change. A White Paper Prepared for Characterizing the Impact of Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations ForumGoogle Scholar
  35. Lattuca LR, Stark JS (2009) Shaping the college curriculum: academic plans in context, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindblom YS, Trigwell K, Nevgi A, Ashwin P (2006) How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Stud High Educ 31(3):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Litzinger TA, Zappe SE, Borrego M, Froyd JE, Newstetter W, Tonso KL et al (2011) Writing effective evaluation and dissemination plans for innovations in engineering education. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  38. Lund TJ, Stains M (2015) The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. Int J STEM Edu 2:13. doi: 10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKenzie J, Alexander S, Harper C, Anderson S (2005) Dissemination, adoption and adaptation of project innovations in higher education. University of Technology, Sydney, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  40. McMartin F, Giersch S, Tront J, Shumar W (2012) A tale of two studies: is dissemination working? In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital Libraries. ACM, Washington, DC, USA, pp 47–50Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council (2012) Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. The National Acedemies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  42. National Science Foundation (2009) Course, curriculum, and laboratory improvement (CCLI) Program Solicitation 09–529. Education & Human Resources Division of Undergraduate Education. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09529/nsf09529.html. Accessed November 2016
  43. National Science Foundation (2015) Improving undergraduate STEM education: education and human resources (IUSE: EHR) program solicitation NSF 15–585. Education & Human Resources Division of Undergraduate Education (https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15585/nsf15585.htm). Accessed November 2016
  44. Norton L, Richardson T, Hartley J, Newstead S, Mayes J (2005) Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. High. Edu. 50(4):537–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olson S, Riordan DG (2012) Report to the president. 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, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Prosser M, Trigwell K (1997) Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. Brit J Educ Psychol 67(1):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  48. Seymour E (2002) Tracking the processes of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Sci Educ 86(1):79–105. doi: 10.1002/sce.1044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singer E (1996) Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Res High Educ 37(6):659–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith K (2012) Lessons learnt from literature on the diffusion of innovative learning and teaching practices in higher education. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 49(2):173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Southwell D, Gannaway D, Orrell J, Chalmers D, Abraham C (2005) Strategies for effective dissemination of project outcome. Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  52. Southwell D, Gannaway D, Orrell J, Chalmers D, Abraham C (2010) Strategies for effective dissemination of the outcomes of teaching and learning projects. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32(1):55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stains M, Pilarz M, Chakraverty D (2015) Short and long-term impacts of the Cottrell scholars collaborative new faculty workshop. J Chem Educ 92:1466–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stanford C, Cole R, Froyd JE, Friedrichsen D, Khatri R, Henderson C (2016) Supporting sustained adoption of education innovations: the designing for sustained adoption assessment instrument. Int J STEM Edu 3:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stark JS (2000) Planning introductory college courses: content, context and form. Instr Sci 28(5):413–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute: Building Authentic Research Experiences (2016). http://www.hhmi.org/advance-science/building-authentic-research-experiences. Accessed 11 April 2016
  57. The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust: Our Grants (2016). http://helmsleytrust.org/our-grants. Accessed 11 April 2016
  58. Tront J, McMartin F and Muramatsu B (2011) Improving the dissemination of CCLI (TUES) educational innovations. In: Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  59. Turpen C, Finkelstein N (2009) Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. PRST PER 5(2):020101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ChemistryThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.College of EngineeringTexas A&MCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Department of Physics and Mallinson Institute for Science EducationWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA
  4. 4.MJ Innovations, LLCCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations