Sustainable Educational Innovation Through Engaged Pedagogy and Organizational Change

This Research-to-Practice Work-in-Progress Paper presents a midway report on a change initiative underway in the College of Computing and Informatics (CCI) at UNC Charlotte. Comprised of approximately 100 faculty members and nearing 2,000 undergraduate majors, CCI was awarded a 5-year, $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation in 2015 to revolutionize computer science education at the collegiate level. This initiative, which seeks to simultaneously achieve both pedagogical and organizational change, is built upon a foundation of educational innovation through engaged teaching practices. To sustain educational innovation in CCI beyond the funded scope of the project, pedagogical change is thus strategically embedded in CCI's organizational structure through a 3-stage model of faculty adoption, redesigned student course evaluations, and realigned values in the reappointment, promotion, and tenure process. By recognizing that sustained organizational change takes root when there is concurrent buy-in from organizational members—both bottom-up and top-down— this reform initiative seeks to embed two-pronged change not only via educational innovation (pedagogical change), but also in the day-to-day practices, policies, and physical environment of the College itself (organizational change).

[1]  Mary Lou Maher,et al.  Flipped Classroom Strategies for CS Education , 2015, SIGCSE.

[2]  Kristina M. W. Mitchell,et al.  Gender Bias in Student Evaluations , 2018, PS: Political Science& Politics.

[3]  Kristi Johansen,et al.  Teaching to Transgress , 1997 .

[4]  D. J. Merritt Bias, the Brain, and Student Evaluations of Teaching , 2007 .

[5]  Meera E. Deo A Better Tenure Battle: Fighting Bias in Teaching Evaluations , 2015 .

[6]  H. A. Hornstein Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance , 2017 .

[7]  Scott Lathrop A Call to Action to Prepare the High-Performance Computing Workforce , 2016, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[8]  Tom Lupton Organisational Change: ″Top‐down″ or “Bottom‐up” Management? , 1991 .

[9]  Sheri Stover,et al.  Impact of Active Learning Environments on Community of Inquiry. , 2017 .

[10]  Erkki Sutinen,et al.  Three traditions of computing: what educators should know , 2008, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[11]  Bojan Cukic,et al.  Organizational change for broadening participation in CS education , 2018 .

[12]  Linda J. Sax,et al.  Women planning to major in computer science: Who are they and what makes them unique? , 2016, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[13]  Celine Latulipe,et al.  Structuring Flipped Classes with Lightweight Teams and Gamification , 2015, SIGCSE.

[14]  J. Gee Identity as an analytic lens for research in education , 2000 .

[15]  Fotini Paraskeva,et al.  Educating the Future Workforce: Bridging the Gap Between Learners' Needs and Skills in Need , 2018 .

[16]  S. Brownell,et al.  Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and…Tensions with Professional Identity? , 2012, CBE life sciences education.

[17]  Judith S. White,et al.  Can universities become true learning organizations , 2005 .

[18]  Sarah L. Rodriguez,et al.  Developing the next generation of diverse computer scientists: the need for enhanced, intersectional computing identity theory , 2017, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[19]  Regina Deil-Amen Socio-Academic Integrative Moments: Rethinking Academic and Social Integration among Two-Year College Students in Career-Related Programs , 2011 .

[20]  Andrea N. Hunt,et al.  What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching , 2015, Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy.