Change theory in STEM higher education: a systematic review

International Journal of STEM Education

Review

Tessa Andrews¹  Isabel White²  Daniel L. Reinholz² 

[1] Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, 120 East Green St., 30602, Athens, GA, USA;Department of Mathematics and Statistics, San Diego State University, 92182, San Diego, CA, USA;

关键词: Change;    STEM education;    Discipline-based education research;    Higher education;    Change theory;    Systemic change;    Educational reform;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s40594-021-00291-2

 received in 2020-10-20, accepted in 2021-04-14,  发布年份 2021

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

This article systematically reviews how change theory has been used in STEM higher educational change between 1995 and 2019. Researchers are increasingly turning to theory to inform the design, implementation, and investigation of educational improvement efforts. Yet, efforts are often siloed by discipline and relevant change theory comes from diverse fields outside of STEM. Thus, there is a need to bring together work across disciplines to investigate which change theories are used and how they inform change efforts. This review is based on 97 peer-reviewed articles. We provide an overview of change theories used in the sample and describe how theory informed the rationale and assumptions of projects, conceptualizations of context, indicators used to determine if goals were met, and intervention design. This review points toward three main findings. Change research in STEM higher education almost always draws on theory about individual change, rather than theory that also attends to the system in which change takes place. Additionally, research in this domain often draws on theory in a superficial fashion, instead of using theory as a lens or guide to directly inform interventions, research questions, measurement and evaluation, data analysis, and data interpretation. Lastly, change researchers are not often drawing on, nor building upon, theories used in other studies. This review identified 40 distinct change theories in 97 papers. This lack of theoretical coherence in a relatively limited domain substantially limits our ability to build collective knowledge about how to achieve change. These findings call for more synthetic theoretical work; greater focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion; and more formal opportunities for scholars to learn about change and change theory.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2021

【 图 表 】

Fig. 3