名古屋高等教育研究 第 15 号 （2015）

An Institution-wide Approach
to Pedagogical Change
Mathew L. OUELLETT*＜Abstract＞
Research demonstrates an ongoing gap between what pedagogicaland educational researchers in the United States show are the mosteffective methods for teaching and learning in higher education andthe implementation of such best practices in our university classrooms. This article explores how a significant change in the teaching
and learning culture of a university requires a systemic approach
incorporating strategies and action for change at course, department
and college levels. Additionally, it explores how educational development units contribute to addressing this disparity to promote thedissemination and implementation of evidence-based teaching
methods in higher education.

1．Introduction
This paper advances an argument for an institutional change approachto the implementation of student-centered active learning pedagogies.
While this is not a new call to act (Boyer 1998), there remains a need to
identify evidence-based strategies for disseminating and institutionalizing
more effective teaching and learning practices (Henderson, Beach, andFinkelstein 2012).
Changes in economic and social demands and the importance of acollege educated and science literate workforce have sparked an
Associate Provost and Director, Office for Teaching and Learning
Purdy/Kresge Library, Teaching Commons, Wayne State University(Visiting Associate Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher Education,
Nagoya University)267industry-led

demandfor

more

graduatesinscience,technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (PCAST 2012, Strohl 2010).
Additionally, changing demographics demand that such graduates include
more women and underrepresented minorities (PCAST 2012). Furthermore, complex global and national social issues such as environmental
justice, climate change, agribusiness and genetically modified food streams
require a significant commitment to increased scientific literacy acrossUnited States citizenry if we are to confront and contribute to theamelioration of such issues in a meaningful and democratic fashion. Such
demands are reflected in the strategic priorities of national policies andfunding agencies (National Science Foundation 2011).
Adoption of more complex accountability measures in university
accreditation procedures also pushes for greater transparency andarticulation of institutional goals and structures regarding student success(i.e., retention and graduation) and assessment of progress in traditional,
hybrid, and online instruction (Eaton 2013, Jackson, Davis and Jackson
2010). Additionally, there is an expanded commitment to teaching andundergraduate learning in STEM disciplines as evidenced by the
emergence of discipline based educational research (National ResearchCouncil 2012), national summits on teaching and learning (AAAS 2010,
Brewer and Smith 2011), columns on educational research and pedagogy in
top tier journals such as Science, and discipline-based association
sponsored special interest and standing committees on teaching such as
the American Chemistry Society and the American Association ofChemistry Teachers.
Faculty and educational development units have proven important to theimplementation and diffusion of faculty innovation in teaching and learning.
As campus wide resources, centers for teaching and faculty development
approach institutional change initiatives with the balance of organizational
and individual development foci required to facilitate such campus wide
initiatives (Diamond 2005, Schroeder 2011).

268

An Institution-wide Approach to Pedagogical Change

2．Building an Institutional Climate to Support Innovation
Institutions of higher education can be notoriously difficult and slow
organizations to change. For any such efforts to succeed, a combination ofinterventions are required, most especially the ongoing support and effortof chief academic administrators and faculty opinion leaders (Henderson,
Dancy and Niewiadomska-Bugaj 2012, Mervis 2013). Collaboration between instructors and administrators is essential to development andimplementation of institutional changes, to remove the risk of charges of
top-down administrative demands (Henderson and Dancy 2007).
Often, senior faculty members cite a lack of time and the researchfocused university reward structure as reasons for continuing to use
passive lecture formats (Henderson, Beach and Finkelstein 2011). They also
appear to demonstrate less persistence with teaching changes than
younger faculty (Ebert-May et al. 2011); thus, there have been several
national initiatives over the past several decades designed to influence thebehaviors and priorities of less intractable new faculty.
For example, the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program, initiated in
1993 by the Council of Graduate Schools, uses a cohort model and mentors
to work directly with senior doctoral students before they enter theacademy as junior faculty members (Wurgler et al. 2013). Another example
was the Carnegie Scholars Program. Begun in 1998 and continuing until
2005, this program worked with five interdisciplinary cohorts of facultyfrom across a range of higher education institutions. The participants
worked individually and in peer groups on scholarship of teaching andlearning projects (Hutchings, Huber and Ciccone, 2011). Discipline-specificinitiatives include the Association of American Universities Undergraduate
STEM Education Initiative (AAU 2011). However, the deep-seated changes
in teaching and learning practices failed to catch fire.
More recently, discipline-based new faculty workshops have been aimed
at influencing early career tenure-track faculty members by bringing them
together as cohorts (Henderson 2008). For example, the American
Chemistry Society (ACS) targets changes in teaching and learning with new
chemistry faculty (Hilborn 2012), along with similar efforts in physics and269

biology (Hake 1998, Henderson 2008, Ebert-May et al. 2011).
Faculty members’ beliefs about teaching and learning and perceptionsof what is most important for career success are deeply socialized. Quite
rightly, some faculty will advance the argument that research publications
and external funding contain far more merit than a focus on learning andteaching. Therefore, it bears consideration how, when, and with whom to
introduce new initiatives. Finally, faculty culture, socialization, andself-perceptions are important considerations when considering changing
existing practices.
We can look to other systemic change initiatives such as multiculturalorganization development and the first year student experience as models
for approaches to institutional change in higher education (Marchesani andJackson 2005, Schwartz and Swing 2005). Administrators and faculty willboth benefit from education on how local efforts link to complex social andeconomic issues at the regional, national, and international levels (PCAST
2012). Watts (2002) posits that the adoption of an innovation (e.g.,technologies) is determined by two critical factors: the perceived
usefulness (e.g., increased productivity) of the innovation as weighedagainst barriers to adoption (e.g., cost). Given this well documented
complexity of shepherding change initiatives in higher education(Benvenuto 2002), there are two frameworks that may be particularly
useful: Roger’s Model of Diffusion of Innovation and the work ofHenderson, et al on institutional change and STEM education.
Rogers (2003) offers one of the most widely referenced models on
diffusion of innovation in higher education. This model has been used to
study a range of other types of change initiatives such as instructional
technologies (Sahin 2006). Rogers (2003) defines an innovation as, “… anidea, practice, or project that is perceived as new by an individual or otherunit of adoption” (Rogers 2003: 12). Regardless of how long the idea may
have been around or how widely implemented elsewhere, if members of
the organization perceive it of as “new”, then it counts as innovation.
Roger’s model of innovation diffusion and adoption assumes thatorganization members will demonstrate a range of readiness for andwillingness to persist with change efforts by dividing into two groups:

270

An Institution-wide Approach to Pedagogical Change

early adopters and late adopters (Rogers 2003: 22). Early adopters will
distribute along a continuum of three locations: innovators (innovation“champions” and willing experimenters), early adopters (opinion leaders
who help set the attitude towards the innovation), and early majority
adopters (not the first or the last to adopt innovations). Late adopters arebroken into two groups: late majority (those who wait until most of theirpeers adopt the innovation) and laggards (members who continue to be
skeptical of the innovations and change agents alike) (Rogers 2003: 284).
To be successful, a change effort requires champions and critical mass,
therefore a number of critical factors must work together to motivate
members to persist and adopt new behaviors. Henderson, Beach, andFinkelstein (2011) suggest a four quadrant model with each an essential andequally important location for change efforts: faculty (developing reflective
teachers); local leadership (e.g., the faculty governance body, provost, deans,chairs); creators of a campus wide culture of shared responsibility forstudent learning (shared vision, linking efforts across disciplines, rewarding
excellence in teaching as well as research); and, links to national anddisciplinary initiatives. The first two (curriculum and pedagogy anddeveloping policy) are presented as top down while the development ofreflective teachers and a shared vision as bottom up and innovation asnecessarily including both individual and structural changes (Henderson,
Beach, and Finkelstein 2011).
Borrego and Henderson (2014) suggest that change agents tasked withinstitutional level innovation are often guided, implicitly, by a single change
strategy. They suggest change agents would increase success and design
more robust change efforts by first making transparent their underlying
assumptions about change, and expanding their application of a broader
range of perspectives and strategies (Borrengo and Henderson, 2014).
Creating a climate of institutional change requires complex strategies
that provide multiple points of entry for administrators, faculty, staff andstudents; include the voices of the widest possible range of constituents andopportunities for education, persuasion, and experimentation as a means ofaddressing the range of readiness for change across the faculty, andsuitable reward structures (Borrego and Henderson 2014, Rogers 2003).

271

Additionally, such efforts require conscious leadership development, public
endorsement, and consistent participation of chief academic officers such as
provosts, deans and department chairs (Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein2012).

3．Building a Departmental Climate to Support Innovation
Departments are arguably the cornerstones of any change effort inhigher education. It is imperative that departments and individual faculty
members are supported to reflect on and discuss excellence in teaching aswell as research, a regular and public part of department life. Moreover, it
is not unusual for champions of innovation to find greater support outsideof their home department (Borrego and Henderson 2014).
Often, there is a dearth of clear and consistent messages from senioracademic administrators (chairs, deans, and provosts) that innovative
teaching is valued and rewarded by the department and institution.
Department chairs and faculty colleagues that drive reward structures(e.g., personnel committees, etc.) often lack appropriate knowledge on how
to evaluate the contributions and challenges confronting innovative
teachers. For example, the work involved in identifying new strategies
that are course appropriate, time required for course redesign, process ofadopting and implementing new pedagogical strategies, and the risk of atemporary dip in student evaluations when innovations are first
implemented are all elements to be considered.
Diminishing fiscal resources present another obstacle to the diffusion of
innovation. Departments often transfer responsibility for large entry- levelcourses to part-time personnel with lower salaries, modest benefits if any
at all, to lower costs to institutions: this presents the real risk of a
two-tiered department with tenured faculty dedicated to researchintensive endeavors and part-timers to teaching-intensive tracks.
A cohort of professors associated with the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute proposes seven initiatives to rebalance the recognition, reward,
and support offered researchers who are also excellent teachers (Anderson
et al. 2011). The initiatives they advocate include: educate faculty about272

An Institution-wide Approach to Pedagogical Change

research on teaching; create awards and named professorships that provide
research support for outstanding teachers; require excellence in teachingfor promotion; create teaching discussion groups; create cross disciplinary
programs in college-level learning; provide ongoing support for effective
science teaching; and, engage chairs, deans and presidents.
Henderson, Beach and Finkelstein (2011) examined a wide range ofarticles on change and found that STEM disciplines each operate more orless independently of one-another and that each has their own distinct
perspectives and strategies about change. Based on their review, they
conclude that two commonly used changes strategies (developing andtesting curricular materials and then making these materials available tootherfacultyand‘‘top-down’’

policy-making

meant

to

influence

instructional practices) do not work. What does appear to work arestrategies that assume the importance of addressing the beliefs ofindividuals involved at the department specific level; involve sustained
dialogue (i.e., a semester, a year, and longer); and strategic efforts that are
institution specific (Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein 2011).
Faculty members often struggle between dual loyalties: to theirdisciplinary and institutional cultures (Manduca 2008). Such challenges toinnovation at the department level encourage concrete linkages toinitiatives that bring together disciplinary and institutional goals such as
discipline-based educational research (DBER) and peer observation.
In 2012, the National Research Council published Discipline-Based

Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Highlighting the importance of DBER
as an investigation of learning and teaching from the discipline’s priorities,
worldview, knowledge, and practices. Further, it links excellence inteaching with excellence in research, likening DBER as complementary toresearch on learning and cognition with a focus on improved learning.
While Physics has been a leader in pioneering discipline-based education
research, Chemistry, Biology, Engineering, Mathematics, Astronomy andGeosciences are quickly gaining ground with similar discipline-based
education research initiatives (MacIsaac and Falconer 2002, Manduca 2008,
National Research Council 2012). Linked with these efforts has been the273emergence of increased scholarship on teaching and learning in STEM
disciplines (Streveler, Borrego, and Smith 2006).
Another initiative to bridge disciplinary and departmental priorities forinnovation and change is the Center for the Integration of Research,
Teaching and Learning Network (CIRTL), a National Science Foundation
Center for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.

CIRTL is anational network of 23 research universities that seek to enhance
excellence in undergraduate education for diverse students through thedevelopment of a faculty committed to the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based teaching methods and practices. The
diversity of the membership (i.e., private/public, large/moderate size,
majority-/minority-serving, and by geographic location) further supports
participation goals and contributions tailored to institution-specific needs(CIRTL 2014).
Research on the influences of pedagogical professional development of
instructional

practicesdemonstrates

theimportanceofchanging

instructors’ teaching conceptions in order to alter behaviors favorably(Ebert-May et al. 2011). Peer observation of teaching offers anotherpromising method for the diffusion of innovation in teaching. Largely
developmental, this involves collegial activities that enable teachingprofessionals to offer mutual support by observing each other’s teaching,provide feedback, and collaboratively reflect on teaching effectiveness(Bell 2005). With such opportunities, departments can positively supportand reward members engaged with new pedagogical strategies, course
redesign, and other learning improvement measures.

4．Building a Course Level Climate to Support Innovation
While many faculty members confirm an interest in improving learning,they face constant obstacles to overcome in the process, including
ever-increasing demands on time, lack of training, and tensions withprofessional identity (Brownell and Tanner 2012). Traditionally, professsional identity may be more closely tied to recognition for research
publications than teaching. In order to be ready for change, instructors274

An Institution-wide Approach to Pedagogical Changemust also resolve widely held misconceptions they have been socialized intosuch as: one can be a great researcher or a great teacher; great teaching isan essential quality (i.e., people are born great teachers); teachers who are
well-regarded by their students amount to entertainers; and, the proper
faculty role is the expert “sage on the stage”.
Faculty ambivalence towards innovation may look like resistance tochange but it can also be a call for innovation champions to substantiate
why their colleagues ought to dedicate effort and time to modestly
rewarded tasks. Research on the influences of pedagogical professional
development on instructional practices has demonstrated the importanceof changing instructors’ teaching conceptions in order to alter behaviors(Henderson and Dancy 2007).
Course level change efforts must also give greater attention to thechanging profile of the undergraduate student. Teaching is essentially asocial experience and student expectations and perceived satisfactionlevels may directly or indirectly influence faculty willingness to risk
innovation. The annual Cooperative Institutional Research Program(CIRP) Freshman Survey indicates the constantly changing profile ofexpectations and pressures experienced by entering first year students
indicating a wide variance in prior learning experience and readiness toengage in a scholarly environment (Eagan, Lozano, Hurtado, and Case2013).
Rogers (2003) offers a useful overview of five key steps individuals
traverse in the process of reflecting on whether or not to adopt
innovations. These steps are: knowledge (becoming educated about theinnovation); persuasion (development of a perspective on the possible
advantages of the innovation including such attributes as compatibility,
complexity, trialability, and observability); initial decision (to adopt/reject
the innovation); implementation (experimentation and application); and,
finally, confirmation (continue with process of adoption or reject it). Such aframework can be helpful in understanding the individual processes
involved in adopting change in addition to the broader aggregate group
stages described above (Sahin 2006).
One strategic benefit of the current press towards a culture of275assessment is the push towards course design, implementation, andassessment that is transparently built on explicit learning outcome goals,
articulated evaluation measures, andlearning activities that areaccessibility-minded (Fink 2013). Such efforts to develop course anddepartment-level learning outcomes creates a common language thatcrosses all departments within a university. Such a focus on learning
allowsinstructors

todemonstrateinobjective,

measurable,

andtransparent ways that learning has occurred in our students, and links to
the university mission and accreditation standards (Anderson and
Krathwohl 2001).
The enduring challenge of course-level change remains the gap between
educational research on effective teaching strategies and faculty practices.
Many faculty members remain unaware of the models and practices now
available collectively referred to as evidence-based teaching methods(EBTMs) (PCAST 2012). EBTMs are pedagogical strategies indicated byresearch to have most impact on student learning (Buskist and Groccia
2011, Holdren and Lander 2012). Such strategies are methods supported byevidence derived from experimental learning research as well as fromlearning assessment in STEM courses (Handelsman et al. 2004). Evidence
based teaching methods have proven effective with a wide range of classsizes and increase learning outcomes even as enhancements of traditional
lectures. While there is no single method of teaching that works for all
students across all subjects, EBTMs have a number of common featuresthat determine what it takes to learn subject matter and acquire skills at
the college level (PCAST 2012: 14). Such strategies include, for example,
small group discussion; peer instruction; one-minute papers; using student
response systems to encourage in class problem solving and assess
students understanding; concept mapping; case studies; and, computer
simulations and games. The PCAST Report (2012) offers a comprehensive list of such strategies annotated with related research studies.

5．Building a Centralized Unit to Support Innovation
A central dedicated unit with the expertise and resources to offer

276

An Institution-wide Approach to Pedagogical Change

centralized support to the entire community of instructors on campus ismost likely to expedite the dissemination and implementation ofevidence-based teaching and learning practices across an institution (Cookand Kaplan 2011, Gillespie and Robertson 2010).
A teaching and faculty development center alleviates the inconsistencyof the interests, time, and resources available for such efforts fromindividual faculty members or department chairs. Such a center can herald
innovative practices, exemplary teachers, and nurture a campus culturethat rewards excellence in teaching. Centers offer a system wide approachand institutional memory that synergistically links campus wide,
departmental, and disciplinary initiatives to institutional goals (Cook,
Sorcinelli, and Sorenson 2003).
Such units offer confidential, developmental services and work with
instructors from across the career span and disciplines because there are
attributes of good teaching that are interdisciplinary as well as discipline
specific. Centers generally avoid participation in faculty review andevaluation to confirm their role as a neutral third party.

With thispromise of confidentiality, centers can offer a full range of individual
consultation and department consultation programs; services that would
be cost and time prohibitive to support in every department. Most
importantly, centers offer multiple developmentally appropriate points ofentry for faculty exploring practices in teaching and learning and facilitate
the kinds of sustained opportunities for dialogue, exploration, andinnovation recommended by Rogers (2003).
Finally, centers link institutions to national and international education
research and evidence-based practices in teaching. In recent years, thecontributions of such centers has become so clear that it has led tosignificant growth in national and international educational and faculty
development organizations. Selected examples include the Professional
andOrganizational

Development

Network/POD(UnitedStates),International Consortium of Educational Developers / ICED (global), The
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia /HERDSA (Australia and Asia), Japan Association for Educational
Development in Higher Education / JAED (Japan), Society for Teaching277

and Learning in Higher Education / STLHE (Canada), Staff and
Educational Development Association / SEDA (United Kingdom), and theAll Ireland Society for Higher Education / AISHE (Ireland).
To create a real and sustainable diffusion of innovations in learning andteaching at the institutional, department and course levels requires acontextualized approach that acknowledges the unique complexity of eachhigher education institution, departments and disciplinary associations asoften equally significant to faculty.

Furthermore, must find adequate

rewards such as funds, awards, collegiality, and appropriate credit inevaluation processes for excellent teaching, that honors and respectindividual change processes. Teaching and faculty development units
leverage centralized resources and pedagogical experts to support
innovation.

Centers can do this by introducing instructors to researchand evidence-based pedagogical strategies and opportunities to adapt andapply these to their course goals and students as appropriate. Centers
facilitate sustained collegial dialogues and faculty learning communities
based on shared interests, offering opportunities to explore essential
issues in how people learn, practice new strategies in a low risk
environment, and support mechanisms to access formative feedback fromstudents and peers (Rogers 2003). Lee (2011) suggests that this embrace ofinternational engagement may be the ultimate expression of educational
development.
REFERENCES
Association of American Universities, 2011, AAU Undergraduate STEM
Education Initiative.
(http://www.aau.edu/policy/article)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2010, Bio 2010:

Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists.
(www.visionandchange.org)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2011, Vision

and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action.
(www.visionandchange.org)
Anderson, W. A., Banerjee, U., Drennan, C. L., Elgin, S. C. R., Epstein, I. R.,

278

An Institution-wide Approach to Pedagogical Change
Handelsman, J., Hatfull, G. F., O’Dowd, D. K., Olivera, B. M., Strobel, S. A.,
Walker, G. C., and Warner, I. M., 2011, Changing the Culture of Science
Education at Research Universities, Science, 331: 152-3.
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., eds., 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives: Complete edition, New York, NY: Longman.
Bell, M., 2005, Peer Observation Partnerships in Higher Education, Australia:
Higher Education Research Development Society of Australasia.
Benvenuto, M., 2002, Educational Reform: Why the Academy doesn’t Change,

Thought & Action, 18 (1/2): 63-74.
Bloom, B. S., 1984, Taxonomy of educational objectives, Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon, Pearson Education.
Borrego, M. and Henderson, C., 2014, Increasing the Use of Evidence: Based
Teaching in STEM Higher Education: A Comparison of Eight Change
Strategies, Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2): 220-52.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University,
1998, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: a Blueprint for America’s

Research Universities, Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Brewer, A. D. and Smith, C. A., eds., 2011, Vision and Change in Undergraduate

Biology Education, a Call to Action, Washington, D. C.: AAAS.
Brownell, S. E. and Tanner, K. E., 2012, Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change:
Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and …Tensions with Professional
Identity?, Cell Biology Education Life Sciences Education, 11: 339-46.
Buskist, W. and Groccia, J. E., eds., 2011, Evidence-Based Teaching: Now and in
the Future, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 128: 105-11.
Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL).
(http://www.cirtl.net, July 7, 2014).
Cook, C. E. and Kaplan, M., 2011, Advancing the Culture of Teaching on Campus,
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Diamond, R. M., 2005, The Institutional Change Agency: the Expanding Role of
Academic Support Centers, To Improve the Academy, 23: 24-37.
Derting, T. L. and Ebert-May, D., 2010, Learner-centered Inquiry in
Undergraduate Biology: Positive Relationships with Long-term Student
Achievement, Cell Biology Education Life Sciences Education, 9: 462-72.
Eaton, J., 2013, The Changing Role of Accreditation: Should It Matter toGoverning Boards?, Trusteeship Magazine, 21(6).
Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., and279

Jardeleza, S. E., 2011, What We Say Is Not What We Do: Effective Evaluationof Faculty Professional Development Programs. Bioscience, 61: 550-8.
Eagan, K., Lozano J. B., Hurtado, S., and Case, M. H., 2013, The American
Freshman: National Norms Fall 2013, Los Angeles, CA: University ofCalifornia Los Angeles.
Fink, D., 2013, Creating Significant Learning Experiences, San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hake, R. R., 1998, Interactive-engagement versus Traditional Methods: A
Six-thousand-student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory
Physics Courses, American Journal of Physics, 66: 64-74.
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R.,
Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., and Wood, W. B., 2004,
Scientific Teaching, Science, 304: 521.
Henderson, C., 2008, Promoting Instructional Change in New Faculty: An
Evaluation of the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop, American

Journal of Physics, 76(2): 179-87.
Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Finkelstein, N. D., 2012, Four Categories of Change

Strategies for Transforming Undergraduate Instruction, P. Tynjälä, M., L.
Stenström and M. Saarnivaara, eds., Transitions and Transformations in
Learning and Education, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Finkelstein, N., 2011, Facilitating Change inUndergraduate STEM Instructional Practices: An Analytic Review of the
Literature, Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 8(48): 952-84.
Henderson, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J., Gilbuena, D., Khatri, R., and Stanford, C., 2014,
Designing for Impact: Recommendations for Curriculum Developers andChange Agents, Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 59.
Henderson, C. and Dancy, M., 2007, Barriers to the Use of Research-Based
Instructional Strategies: The Influence of Both Individual and Situational
Characteristics, Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research,
3: 020102.
Henderson, C., Dancy, M., and Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M., 2012, Use of
Research-based Instructional Strategies in Introductory Physics: Where do
Faculty Leave the Innovation-decision Process?, Physical Review Special

Topics: Physics Education Research, 8(2): 020104.
Hilborn, R. C., ed., 2012, Proceedings from the American Chemical Society andCouncil of Scientific Society Presidents: The Role of Scientific Societies in

STEM Faculty Workshops, Washington, D. C.: The American Chemical
Society.

280

An Institution-wide Approach to Pedagogical Change

Holdren, J. P. and Lander, E., 2012, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million
Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics, Washington, D. C.: President’s Council ofAdvisors on Science and Technology.
Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., and Ciccone, A., 2011, The Scholarship of Teachingand Learning Reconsidered: Institutional Integration and Impact, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jackson, R. S., Davis, J. H., and Jackson F. R., 2010, Redesigning Regional
Accreditation: the Impact on Institutional Planning, Planning for Higher

Education, 38(4): 9-19.
Kaplan, K. Meizlish D. S., Oneal, C. and Wright M. C., 2007, A Research-based
Rubric for Developing Statements of Teaching Philosophy, To Improve theAcademy, 26: 242-61.
Kecskes, K., Spring, A., and Lieberman, D., 2004, The Hesburgh Certificate andPortland State University’s Faculty Development Approach to Supporting
Service Learning and Community-university Partnerships, Instructional andOrganizational Development, 22: 287-97.
Kenny, R., 1998, The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the

Research University, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for
America’s Research Universities, New York, NY: Stony Brook.
Knight, J. K. and Wood, W. B., 2005, Teaching More by Lecturing Less, CBE Life
Science Education, 4: 298-310.
Kuh, G. D., 2008, High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has
Access to Them, and Why They Matter, Washington, D. C.: Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities.
Lee, V. S. and Associates, 2011, Reflections on International Engagement as
Educational Developers in the United States, To Improve the Academy, 29:
302-14.
MacIsaac, D. L. and Falconer, K. A., 2002, Reforming Physics Education via
RTOP, The Physics Teacher, 40: 479-85.
Manduca, C. A., 2008, Working with the Discipline: Developing a Supportive

Environment for Education, Paper presented at the National ResearchCouncil’s Workshop Linking Evidence to Promising practices in STEM
Undergraduate Education, Washington, D. C..
(http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Manduca̲CommissionedPaper.pdf)Marchesani, L. and Jackson, B., 2005, Transforming Higher Education
Institutions Using Multicultural Organizational Development: A Case Study281

of a Large Northeastern University, M. L. Ouellett, ed., Teaching Inclusively:
Resources for Course, Department & Institutional Change in Higher
Education, Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, 241-57.
Mervis, J., 2013, Grand Challenge: Undergraduate Teaching, Transformation Is
Possible If a University Really Cares. Science, 340: 292-6.
National Academies of Science., 2003, Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate

Education for Future Research Biologists, Washington, D. C.: National
Academies Press.
S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, and H. A. Schweingruber, eds., 2012, Proceedings
from the Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions ofDiscipline-Based Education Research Discipline-Based Education Research:

Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science andEngineering. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php)
National Research Council., 2012, Status, Contributions, and Future Direction ofDiscipline-Based Education Research, Washington D. C.: National Academies
Press.
National Science Foundation, 2011, Empowering the Nation Through Discovery

and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2011-2016, Washington, D.
C.: National Science Foundation.
Palmer, P., 1998, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a

Teacher’s life, San Francisco, CA: Jossey -Bass.
Phelps, R. E., 2010, Transforming the Culture of the Academy throughPreparing Future Faculty Programs, American Psychologist, 65(8): 785-92.
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,
D. C.: Office of the President.
Regan A., Gurung, R., and Wilson, J. H., eds., 2013. Advancing Scholarly Researchon Teaching and Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, New
York, NY: Wiley, 136.
Rogers, E. M., 2003, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., New York, NY: Free Press.
Sahin, I., 2006, Detailed Review of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory and
Educational Technology-related Studies Based on Rogers’ Theory, The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(5): Article 3.
Schroeder C. M., ed., 2011, Coming in from the Margins: Faculty Development’s

Emerging Organizational Development Role in Institutional Change, San F
Sterling, VA: Stylus., 179-98.

282

An Institution-wide Approach to Pedagogical ChangeSchӧnwetter C. J., 2008, The Teaching Resource Portfolio: a Tool Kit for Future
Professoriate and a Resource Guide for Current Teachers, To Improve theAcademy, 26: 275-89.
Schwartz, S. W. and Swing, R. L., 2005, Achieving and Sustaining Institutional
Excellence for the First-Year of College, San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., and Schweingruber, H. A., 2012, Discipline-Based

Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, Washington, D. C.: National Academies of
Sciences Press.
Snooks, M. K., Neeley, S. E.. and Williamson, K. M., 2004, From SGID and GIFT
to BBQ: Streamlining Midterm Student Evaluations to Improve Teaching and
Learning, To Improve the Academy, 22: 110-24.
Streveler, R. A., Borrego,, M. and Smith, K. A., 2006, Moving from the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning to Educational Research: an Example
from Engineering, To Improve the Academy, 25: 139-49.
Strohl, J., 2010, Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements
through 2018, Washington, D. C.: Georgetown Center on Education and theWorkforce.
Watts, D., 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America: Simple Model of Global Cascades on Random Networks,
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 9(99): 5766-71.
Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J., 1998, Understanding by Design, Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Wurgler, E., VanHeuvelen, J. S., Rohrman, S., Loehr, A., and Grace M. K., 2013,
The Perceived Benefits of a Preparing Future Faculty Program and its Effecton Job Satisfaction, Confidence and Competence, American Sociological

Association, 42: 50-60.

283

教育改革に向けた全学的アプローチ

マシュー・ローレンス・ウォーレット*＜要旨＞

米国における教育学研究の知見が示す大学教育における効果的な教授法と、実際の教室において実践されている教授法の間に差異が生じていると指摘する研究がある。本稿では教育に対する学内文化を変革していく上で求められるシステム的なアプローチについて論じる。
さらに、エビデンスベーストな大学教授法の実践と普及を進める上で、教育開発部門がどのようにシステム的なアプローチの推進に貢献できるかを論じる。

ウェイン州立大学・筆頭副学長補佐、教育・学習センター長
名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・客員准教授

284