Implementing Change in Higher Education: Beliefs and Actions

Change is not a destination but a continuous journey, requiring constant effort and adaptation. In this post, I’ll explore three key ideas for implementing institutional change in higher education. In particular, I want to describe how building upon these ideas has shaped how I intend my project to continue.

When initiating change at an educational institution, the first crucial question is: What should a graduate of this institution be able to do? The answer to this question is a benchmark for assessing the institution's effectiveness in achieving its goals and the extent of change needed. The answer to this question of course changes from institution to institution, depending on the strengths of the institution, the purpose of the institution, the stage of life of the graduates etc. Fundamentally though, each institution is trying to better the students within it. This question allows us to set the paramaters and metrics by which we can measure the current success of the institution and also the success of the initiative we are implementing.

Aligning Key Players with the Strategic Plan

Effective change requires the engagement of all key stakeholders, including students, teachers, parents, councils, government bodies, and the board of governors. Change leaders—those who are inspired and empowered to drive transformation—must initiate compelling conversations with these stakeholders to explain why change is necessary. All parties must recognize the need for change before any plan can be successfully implemented.

For pragmatic change to occur, those in power must first understand the epistemic reasons for the change. Following the models proposed by theorists such as Lewin and Guskey, those implementing change can approach it in two ways:

1. Belief-Driven Change: Change the underlying beliefs first, hoping that behaviour will follow.
2. Behavior-Driven Change: Enforce new behaviours, hoping that belief changes will follow after observing positive results.

It’s important to note that stakeholders cannot be forced into action—they can even block it if they believe it will harm the institution. Therefore, gaining the support of key stakeholders at the highest level is essential. The change must be meaningful to those affected or to those expected to carry it out. Therefore engaging in belief-driven change at the highest level is key, from there behaviour-driven change can be utilised.

Additionally, those responsible for enacting change must communicate their goals and avoid assigning blame for the current state of affairs.

Take, for instance, the implementation of Active-Based Learning (ABL) in tertiary education. One participant in a study rejected the new curriculum approach because the communication surrounding the shift made her feel personally attacked, as though her previous practices were inadequate. Although she supported the initiative in principle, the insensitive approach to its enforcement caused resistance.

This example highlights the importance of considering the personal experiences of stakeholders. Pedagogical beliefs are often shaped by personal and professional experiences, making them difficult to change. When key stakeholders resist change on an epistemic level, overcoming this resistance becomes a significant challenge. This underscores the need for change leaders to possess the vision, dexterity, and persuasive skills to bring powerful stakeholders on board.

For those tasked with carrying out institutional change, such as teachers, the models of Lewis and Guskey can be used in tandem. When change agents are provided with the values, resources, and eventual outcomes of the change, they may adjust their level of engagement, whether through belief or behaviour modification.

The Power of Collaboration

A critical element in implementing sustainable and lasting change is collaboration. Inter-departmental, student-teacher, stakeholder-student, and parent-institution relationships must be nurtured from the outset to truly understand the areas where all invested parties seek change. By engaging in these conversations, a thematic analysis can be conducted to identify the overarching issues affecting the institution.

It’s important to recognize that there is no "silver bullet" for institutional change. Instead, a series of small, interlinked projects working in unison will have the greatest long-term impact. Creating synergy and momentum by connecting different activities with the same broad goal fosters comprehensive change. Additionally, broader collaboration brings more individuals into the fold, generating fresh ideas, methods, and initiatives that contribute to a more efficient collective effort.

Using Data to Drive Development

Finally, using data to continuously refine and improve the initiative itself is crucial. This creates an iterative process that consistently reviews and enhances the intended outcomes. Data can reveal harsh realities about the progress of a project, but having a process for interpreting results and making positive adjustments is essential. Reporting on reliable, relevant metrics keeps the broader community informed and invested, guiding any necessary revisions to the strategies in place.

How does this impact my research?

Very broadly looks at how we consider neurodiversity in secondary schools and more specifically considers what a peer mentoring system specifically designed for neurodiverse students might look like.

When we ask what it is that we want our graduates to achieve typically we put students in a box. Strict quotas for the grades that the school sets out to achieve each year, however when we define success by such a narrow metric we necessarily exclude those whose strengths don’t conform to such tight expectations. The Neurodiversity Paradigm partially covers this idea suggesting that people who don’t necessarily fit into typical ways of thinking are not ‘less good’, but different. Just as a wide array of biodiversity leads nature to thrive, so too does the neurodiversity paradigm suggest a wide variety of brains and ways of thinking allow humanity to thrive.

I have been developing a peer mentoring system that does not ask how its mentees can be more like its mentors, but what they can learn from each other. Through a compassionate, reciprocal scheme; students can thrive as much as possible, learn from one another, and use their skills to get the most out of education. Hopefully, this initiative would combine similar benefits to the self-acceptance that autistic people experience when they feel they no longer have to mask the academic and social benefits that peer mentoring schemes have had success with so far.

To get key players on the side I have been communicating with four local schools regarding implementing this scheme throughout the academic year. Principles, governors, parents, teachers, and students must all be fully considered when considering what successful implementation might look like. Importantly, as the primary communicator for the school, the Headteacher is the first person needing to be convinced of the value of the scheme. I am currently in this process.

While a compassionate, reciprocal peer mentoring scheme aimed at neurodiverse children sounds wonderful in theory, it is just part of the larger picture of understanding and accommodating neurodiversity in schools. This is one of the many small interlinked projects mentioned earlier that would have to be undertaken for comprehensive change. Some other issues include hidden curriculum, teacher training and untraining (combatting previous ‘best practice’ around these issues), class sizes, resourcing, broader population acceptance of the neurodiversity paradigm, etc. Neurodiversity has been in the public and educational zeitgeist for some time, but it is now really coming to the forefront. Through implementing smaller initiatives like these over time and throughout different institutions, momentum will continue to improve and develop how we consider, accommodate, and value neurodiversity.

Finally, the iterative nature of my project comes from gathering data on the efficacy of the scheme, trying not to rely solely on standard metrics of performance, and using the results to tweak and improve the program. Any data that doesn’t support the scheme will be pertinent in providing a yardstick for progress and showing exactly where the idea needs to be tweaked. In this effort, gathering feedback from students and teachers on exam results, social behaviour, interviews, friendships between mentors and mentees, self confidence, and self confidence etc. is important for understanding how effective the initiative has been. Using this feedback, I’ll develop a new and improved programme to be re-implemented the following year.

Through this initiative, I hope to help engender institutional change and attempt to inspire others to also believe in one small change that I think the world needs.

I have referenced a few ideas in this article, all of which can be found in the hyperlinks below

https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub85/strategies/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2021.1881773#d1e776

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001872674700100103

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X015005005

https://sr.ithaka.org/blog/four-strategic-essentials-for-institution-wide-improvement-in-student-success/